Wow, more utter garbage.
Benefits kept to the max to ensure votes from the unemployed.??

Why was it then, that the Tories have slashed and burned the welfare state and yet, their majority all but disappeared

There is a huge amount of apathy among the voting public, you only have to look at the numbers in both the GE and more recent local elections to see this and apart from Corbyns late attempt to rally the young, with his give away manifesto, ALL parties and the media are guilty for not trying to drive voting numbers upMind you, this suits the Tories as they take the lions share of the "silver" vote and it isnt in their interests to encourage the under 25's to mark an "X"

You mean his fully costed manifesto - as opposed to the Tory one, that contained no sums at all, and has seen several key pledges scrapped?

Like the Palestinians this week perhaps?

Who were then shot in the head by bullets sold by the tories. WHich I suppose, is a cheaper way of reducing immigration.

Regards

King James

You don't still believe that claptrap do you?

Neither manifesto stood up to scrutiny but Labour's was laughable. Not surprising if Diane Abbott was anywhere near it.

Labour offered lots of sums on the back of a massive increase in debt at a time when national debt is already around 90% of national income. A 50% (£25 billion) increase in borrowing each year, in addition to over £250 billion to renationalise various services. That's before we include £10 billion on tuition fees, £8 billion for education, £6 billion for the NHS and £1 billion for social care. They were banking on increasing tax returns but clearly don't understand how they work and massively overestimated returns.

Staggeringly, they were going to funding this in part via increased taxes on high earners...while implementing an Excessive Pay Levy to reduce the number of high earners.

Cronus wrote:You don't still believe that claptrap do you? Neither manifesto stood up to scrutiny but Labour's was laughable. Not surprising if Diane Abbott was anywhere near it. Labour offered lots of sums on the back of a massive increase in debt at a time when national debt is already around 90% of national income. A 50% (£25 billion) increase in borrowing each year, in addition to over £250 billion to renationalise various services. That's before we include £10 billion on tuition fees, £8 billion for education, £6 billion for the NHS and £1 billion for social care. They were banking on increasing tax returns but clearly don't understand how they work and massively overestimated returns. Staggeringly, they were going to funding this in part via increased taxes on high earners...while implementing an Excessive Pay Levy to reduce the number of high earners. Perhaps if the top 1% wealthiest people in this country, who own 24% of its wealth, were deprived of some of it, there'd be more to go around. Thatcher sold the lie that if taxes came down, more people would be willing to pay, and not avoid tax by various means. The taxes were reduced, but they're still trying to avoid paying it, and the Tories are using the same old line again to justify cutting tax for the rich. Much wants more. https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-wealth-1-percent/

Cronus wrote:You don't still believe that claptrap do you? Neither manifesto stood up to scrutiny but Labour's was laughable. Not surprising if Diane Abbott was anywhere near it. Labour offered lots of sums on the back of a massive increase in debt at a time when national debt is already around 90% of national income. A 50% (£25 billion) increase in borrowing each year, in addition to over £250 billion to renationalise various services. That's before we include £10 billion on tuition fees, £8 billion for education, £6 billion for the NHS and £1 billion for social care. They were banking on increasing tax returns but clearly don't understand how they work and massively overestimated returns. Staggeringly, they were going to funding this in part via increased taxes on high earners...while implementing an Excessive Pay Levy to reduce the number of high earners. Perhaps if the top 1% wealthiest people in this country, who own 24% of its wealth, were deprived of some of it, there'd be more to go around. Thatcher sold the lie that if taxes came down, more people would be willing to pay, and not avoid tax by various means. The taxes were reduced, but they're still trying to avoid paying it, and the Tories are using the same old line again to justify cutting tax for the rich. Much wants more. https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-wealth-1-percent/

I wonder what it is about Diane Abbott that has right wingers of the belief that she's such an easy target...?

Anyhow, by way of demonstrating the double standards on display in this regard - the hapless white middle-aged man Chris Grayling said during an interview on national TV yesterday, that their forced adoption of one of Labour's best policies, the nationalisation of train services, was because, and I quote "all involved got their sums wrong." Where is the derision of the right - who appear by their attacks on Diane Abbott to place great stock in being good at sums?

[quote="bren2k"]I wonder what it is about Diane Abbott that has right wingers of the belief that she's such an easy target...?

She's black and she's a woman would be my guess. But then that would be calling the right wingers racists and sexists and we all know they're nothing of the sort.

A passing comment in an interview in which Grayling clearly states Stagecoach got their sums wrong (as he has said repeatedly elsewhere) and submitted a non-viable (in hindsight) bid, is nothing like the bumbling, mumbling, embarrassing mess Diane Abbott, who gets worse every time she speaks.

Procurement on this scale is a highly complex process and there's always an element of trust in any bid, regardless of due diligence and risk checks. In that context, yes the DoT 'got their sums wrong', but a tender that doesn't deliver in hindsight is a fairly common business issue, and a long way from one of Diane Abbott's comedy skits.

I'll deride Abbott all day long. She's anti-UK, highly racist, a hypocrite and a terrorist sympathiser. She's failed to declare earnings, claimed outrageous expenses and she's only in her position thanks to having previously tickled Jeremy's pleasure. Labour supporters should be horrified she's one of your leaders. She's doing a fine job keeping the Tories in power.

Aah look, majorhound with the race card again.

No there isn't.

Offer
Acceptance
Intention
Consideration
Capacity

It's up to the purchaser to satisfy themselves of the integrity of the bid.