Member +
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wolfie

  • Rank
    Neither Strong nor Stable

Season Ticket Holder

  • Season Ticket

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

483 profile views
  1. Sorry but some of that is just factually incorrect: JC admitted himself that they didn't know where some of the money for nationalisation was coming from, blaming only 2 weeks to write the manifesto. Labour have committed to replacing trident. To cancel it would be a U turn of historic proportions. I cant be bothered discussing opinions if you can't be bothered checking the facts.
  2. Not according to the Labour manifesto which quotes both extra taxes and borrowing.
  3. Is that the best you can do?. You've argued that people are biased because they say that "ordinary" people will have to pick up the tab for Labour's spending; Claimed that there are several other viable options and come up with none. Even if the Corporation Tax sums do add up (which the IFS are skeptical about), plenty of us normal folk are going to get clobbered anyway because our pensions have shares in these companies which are going to suffer when the profits get nicked to pay for whatever Len McCluskey demands.
  4. Such as? If companies and the rich aren't going to pay it, who else is there?
  5. Why is everyone anti-Corbyn always biased in your eyes?. That just demonstates your own bias. It is possible to have a balanced view but believe that JC is wrong. If corporations and the top 5% isn't going to yield the income, it's reasonable assumption to think that the shortfall will have to be made up by everyone else.....or our kids.
  6. You sure you're a Labour man? I'd have thought the "told you so" speech from Paul Nuttall today would have appealed.
  7. Never listened to it. Who wants to discuss fortified wine all day, every day?.
  8. Is Oxford Utd replacing Villa this year as our transfer market nemesis?
  9. Aaah, would that it were so simple!
  10. On the Labour vs Tory debt argument: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39999460 The claim: The governments since 2010 have borrowed more than all the Labour governments in history. Reality Check verdict: That's true in cash terms but not when you take into account the growing economy. Among the more eye-catching claims of the campaign so far has been Jeremy Corbyn's repeated assertion that the Conservative-led governments since 2010 have borrowed more money than all Labour governments in history. This can be checked using the Bank of England's handy three centuries of economic data spreadsheet. The simplest way to examine this claim is to compare the amounts in cash terms, add up the amounts borrowed by all Labour governments and compare the total with the amount borrowed since 2010. By this calculation, the combined Labour governments borrowed a little more than £500bn over their 33 years while the governments since 2010 have borrowed a bit more than £670bn. So it's true in cash terms, but is that a fair or useful comparison? During the first Labour government under Ramsay MacDonald in 1924, a loaf of bread cost less than 2d on average. Also, our economy produces very considerably more today than it did in 1924, which means it is not unreasonable for the government to borrow more. So a better comparison to make is government borrowing as a proportion of GDP, which is a measure of everything produced in the economy. By that measure it turns out that all Labour governments borrowed about 70% of GDP while the governments since 2010 borrowed about 40% of GDP, which is a very different picture. Even that is not necessarily a fair comparison. For example, there was a big fall in debt as a proportion of GDP after 1976, despite Jim Callaghan's government going to the International Monetary Fund for a big loan. That happened because the following years of very high inflation reduced the value of the government's debts. I would be interested to see what the comparison would be if you add up the borrowing but on a 1.5 or 2 year delay, since every government will take time to implement their own spending policies. So, for example: Labour in government years 1-5. Tories in power years 6-10. Labour again in years 11+ Labour should be judged on their borrowing in years 3-7, since borrowing in years 6 & 7 will largely be dictated by previous budgets. Likewise, the Tories should be measured on years 8-12
  11. I can understand why all MP's weren't infomed in advance - it'd be too likely for the news to be leaked or overheard in conversation. Surely the inner circle must have been planning policies for such an eventuality. But then I'm crediting them with a degree of intelligence and common sense instead of just been a room full of Tim, Nice-but-dim's.
  12. Somebody at Tory HQ must be for the chop after this weekend's ******* absolute shambles of a Manifesto and key policy launch. I was critical of Labour for being un-prepared but there really is no excuse for such a miscalculation from the Tories, as they would at least have had a lot more warning about the snap election. It smacks of complacency and over-confidence that they thought they could get away with such a half-baked policy. Even after today's "clarification", people are expected to vote not having any clue what the cap might be on care contributions.
  13. I do like that idea but there is no way the Premier League would agree to a potential 4th relegation spot. My other idea was to have Champ playoffs as follows: 6th plays 5th (at 5th's ground). ET & penalties. Winner plays 4th (at 4th's ground) "" Winner plays 3rd at Wembley. That way. the advantage is always with the higher placed team & would make it "fairer" IMO. eg: If you finish 6th, you've got to beat all the other 3 playoff teams to get promoted.
  14. I've only ever lived in safe seats: West Derbyshire - Tory Bassetlaw - Labour Newark - Tory .....so my vote has counted for very little really. I've always voted though along the lines others have said, that if you don't vote, you shouldn't complain afterwards.
  15. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2: Enjoyed it but not as much as the first one. Some very good Baby Groot / Drax stuff. 7.5/10 Alien: Covenant: OK but I wish they hadn't tried to copy loads from the original Alien film though. Looks stunning but that's Ridley Scott for you. Lots of stupid people doing stupid things: "Don't look into that, you idiot!" I actually preferred Prometheus I think. 7/10