Truss surges ahead, wins key backers in U.K. leadership race for prime minister

[Bluespunk]

43 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Your summary of his comments is inaccurate.

 

What he is actually saying is correct. There is not enough money in the pot for everyone to get unlimited funds. People like me warned about the long term damage of lockdowns and now people like you are seeing it for yourself.

No, my summary was correct-though it was mostly quoting what was actually said.

 

The fact is truss is not putting forward any type of solution that allows the NHS and care services proper funding to act as they should.

 

[transam]

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All well and good, but there are essential services to be paid for.

 

Right now, the NHS, Social Care, Social Services, Police, Fore and ambulance services, roads, schools, the environmental agency.

 

All floundering as a direct result of 12 years of underfunding.

Waaaaaaaaay off topic, as you keep reminding me, this not about trashing the Blue Party......

But did I hear a whisper that Rishi actually mentioned a fee to see your doctor....Hmmmmm, not a winner for PM statement, eh.....????

[JonnyF]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You claimed that cutting taxes raises investments. I offered evidence of why that's not the case. 

 

But if it's UK centric evidence you want, here's some:

"Despite cutting the UK corporation tax rate by more than 10% in the past decade, Britain has not seen a significant improvement in growth, says The Wall Street Journal, citing figures from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

“British investment as a share of GDP is actually lower than before 2007 and productivity growth - the ultimate determinant of living standards and where higher investment should leave its mark - averaged 0.6% from 2010 to 2015,” the newspaper reports."

https://www.theweek.co.uk/89848/fact-check-the-truth-about-corporate-tax-cuts

 

If the only thing affecting investment and productivity growth during that decade was the corporation tax rate, that might be conclusive. Of course, there are many factors at play.

 

It is also possible that investment and productivity would have been much worse had the corporation tax not been cut.

[transam]

47 minutes ago, placeholder said:

In the US the republican party has been pushing this nonsense for years. It didn't work for Reagan, not for Bush 2, and not for Trump. No evidence of an increase in economic growth. Just a way if making the wealthy and powerful even more wealthy and powerful. In fact the evidence is clear that too much cash has accummulated in the pockets of 2 few. Not so long ago, some governments were offering bonds with a negative interest rate. They had no problem finding takers. Even now, government bonds lag inflation rates. Yet no problem finding investors. 

What has this to do with Truss & Sunak....?   ????

[JonnyF]

16 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No, my summary was correct-though it was mostly quoting what was actually said.

 

The fact is truss is not putting forward any type of solution that allows the NHS and care services proper funding to act as they should.

 

No - your summary was the last sentence and completely inaccurate based on what was quoted in the rest of your post.

 

Truss has a limited pot of money. She can't just magic it out of nowhere like some kind of Labour manifesto.

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

If the only thing affecting investment and productivity growth during that decade was the corporation tax rate, that might be conclusive. Of course, there are many factors at play.

 

It is also possible that investment and productivity would have been much worse had the corporation tax not been cut.

And yet you confidently assert that cuts in corporate taxes will boost the economy.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, transam said:

What has this to do with Truss & Sunak....?   ????

Truss's  claim that tax cuts will boost the economy

[transam]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Truss's  claim that tax cuts will boost the economy

So, what has the USA got to do with the UK.....?  ????

[Bluespunk]

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No - your summary was the last sentence and completely inaccurate based on what was quoted in the rest of your post.

 

Truss has a limited pot of money. She can't just magic it out of nowhere like some kind of Labour manifesto.

Nothing I said was inaccurate, it was a true reflection of this policy.

 

If truss has a limited amount of money she should quit the tax cut blah blah blah or admit she cannot fund all areas if she doesn't.

[baboon]

25 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No - your summary was the last sentence and completely inaccurate based on what was quoted in the rest of your post.

 

Truss has a limited pot of money. She can't just magic it out of nowhere like some kind of Labour manifesto.

Funny how 37 Billion from this limited pot of money was magiced up to fund a Track and Trace wheeze that didn't work, 'Just like that.'

[JonnyF]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And yet you confidently assert that cuts in corporate taxes will boost the economy.

Correct. 

[Bluespunk]

28 minutes ago, transam said:

Waaaaaaaaay off topic, as you keep reminding me, this not about trashing the Blue Party......

But did I hear a whisper that Rishi actually mentioned a fee to see your doctor....Hmmmmm, not a winner for PM statement, eh.....????

Actually truss called for fees long before sunak.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/18/liz-truss-called-for-patients-to-be-charged-for-gp-visits-2009-document-reveals

[transam]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Nothing I said was inaccurate, it was a true reflection of this policy.

 

If truss has a limited amount of money she should quit the tax cut blah blah blah or admit she cannot fund all areas if she doesn't.

She's not in the big seat yet.........????

[Bluespunk]

Just now, transam said:

She's not in the big seat yet.........????

Where did I say she was?

[transam]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Actually truss called for fees long before sunak.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/18/liz-truss-called-for-patients-to-be-charged-for-gp-visits-2009-document-reveals

I really don't know why on every post it's The Guardian based stuff, I have told you many times I don't read their anti-stuff...

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Nothing I said was inaccurate, it was a true reflection of this policy.

 

If truss has a limited amount of money she should quit the tax cut blah blah blah or admit she cannot fund all areas if she doesn't.

Truss is a conservative. It is unrealistic for you to expect her to adopt some irresponsible lefty socialist 'tax and spend' policy to give 'free' money (collected from hardworking successful people) to any dosser on benefits who claims they need it.

 

If you want that type of government, you must start praying Labour can get their act together, ditch the likes of Abbott and Rayner and make themselves electable again. 

 

 

[transam]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Where did I say she was?

Wait till she has the keys, then go down your route.....????

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Correct. 

Even though according to you the evidence is inadequate.

[transam]

Just now, JonnyF said:

Truss is a conservative. It is unrealistic for you to expect her to adopt some irresponsible lefty socialist 'tax and spend' policy to give 'free' money (collected from hardworking successful people) to any dosser on benefits who claims they need it.

 

If you want that type of government, you must start praying Labour can get their act together, ditch the likes of Abbott and Rayner and make themselves electable again. 

 

 

How true.....

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, transam said:

So, what has the USA got to do with the UK.....?  ????

Both free market economies with relatively low leves of taxation. But I did also cite a report about the UK economy.

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, baboon said:

Funny how 37 Billion from this limited pot of money was magiced up to fund a Track and Trace wheeze that didn't work. 'Just like that.'

37 Billion was the budget, not the amount spent.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Even though according to you the evidence is inadequate.

The evidence you quoted (from 1980's America) to disprove the theory is inadequate.

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Wait till she has the keys, then go down your route.....????

You're rambling again.

[transam]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

You're rambling again.

No I'm not, I am sitting in a chair, now please stay on topic.....????

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Truss is a conservative. It is unrealistic for you to expect her to adopt some irresponsible lefty socialist 'tax and spend' policy to give 'free' money (collected from hardworking successful people) to any dosser on benefits who claims they need it.

 

If you want that type of government, you must start praying Labour can get their act together, ditch the likes of Abbott and Rayner and make themselves electable again. 

 

 

truss is a type of conservative, I'll give you that.

 

If she is going to perform slight of hand politics she should expect to be called on them.

[Chomper Higgot]

38 minutes ago, transam said:

Waaaaaaaaay off topic, as you keep reminding me, this not about trashing the Blue Party......

But did I hear a whisper that Rishi actually mentioned a fee to see your doctor....Hmmmmm, not a winner for PM statement, eh.....????

It seems both Truss and Sunak’s are in agreement on that:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/liz-truss-reform-government-spending-b2148237.html

[Bluespunk]

Just now, transam said:

No I'm not, I am sitting in a chair, now please stay on topic.....????

Ah, the irony.

[Bluespunk]

14 minutes ago, transam said:

I really don't know why on every post it's The Guardian based stuff, I have told you many times I don't read their anti-stuff...

You just don't like to read facts that you can't refute.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, transam said:

I really don't know why on every post it's The Guardian based stuff, I have told you many times I don't read their anti-stuff...

The fact you don’t read a report doesn’t in anyway distract from what the report says.

 

It just demonstrates your eagerness to avoid reading stuff that contradicts your point of view.

[baboon]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

37 Billion was the budget, not the amount spent.

Irrelevant; they still conjured up a budget of 37 Billion out of nowhere. There is plenty of money to be found if that money is to be given to private companies.