No, but this is about lying in a manifesto, not about the right distribution of funds.

I don't have a problem with any of the benefit promises in the labour manifesto, I just have a problem with the implication they can all be funded from the tax increases they promised.

Which labour policies are encouraging long term investment? The increase in corporation tax?

IFS on how much triple lock costs.

Also according to this link, Pensioners per 1000 has actually decreased 2014-2017.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39734078

You were talking about education. I responded.

This tangential shift towards more comfortable ground is common amongst the patholigically deceptive, but it usually doesn't start from an area they themselves chose.

Come on, at least think before you post.

Pensioners per 1000 isn't the relevant number for the total cost of pensions, the total number of pensioners is.

At least we have a reasonable number now, £4-£6bn rather than the £20bn you were shouting from the rooftops before.

Now to prove the Tories were spending that on "buying old votes" you just need to suggest that 2010 Labour would have spent less on pensions than the Tories did.

Both parties were buying votes, the point, that seems to be escaping you entirely, was that no one was protesting so vehemently that there was no money for it.

That is despite the fact that the triple lock is highly unsustainable policy over the long term, in an other act of intergenerational fairness, probably the only way to make it sustainable is to raise pension age to 70.

Right, so you defended 1 policy on the basis that it would promote long term growth (which I dispute anyway), when the overall manifesto is less for long term growth than the Tory one. Nice cherry picking.

If its 6BN then it cost 24BN.

Such as trying to turn a debate on the merits of Ruth Davidson as Tory leader into one about Tory homophobia?

I agree the triple lock is bull****, I don't think pensions should rise faster than earnings - I was objecting to your complete misrepresentation of the facts in this case, i.e. the cost and the implication that Labour would have spent less on pensions.

I suspect no one was protesting about it because the cost of the guarantee is hard to estimate, the costs in the bbc article were backward looking rather than forward looking. Also, I don't remember much (any?) debate on it in 2010, it was hardly likely that Brown was going to tell the Tories they were spending too much on pensioners.

Seperately, while the increases to pensions are too high, the state pension is still tiny.

You weren't saying that, you said it was double the tuition fee cost, you clearly stated it as a 1 year figure.

Nice U-turn by the way, have you ever considered leading the Conservative Party? Although this is more Diane Abbott tbh.

boris finally gave an interview today in which he urged backbenchers to get behind may. very sensible i think from the perspective of the tories. let may stumble through brexit, allow her to take the flak for the negative consequences and boot her out the door in 2020 or so with the lowest approval ratings in recorded history

whether they'll be able to hold a government together for that long, tough to say. if labour can force an election at some point in the next couple of years then its possibly/probably corbyntime

only thing im sure of is that NI is gonna be flooded with cash for all manner of infrastructure projects in the near future. for some reason i dont mind chalking this up to political expediency and shrugging, although i suspect if it were labour doing something similar i'd be outraged. must be my bias showing through

Was in Belfast this weekend and it could do with the cash, even though the city was ****ing awesome.

Excuse me? How is a discussion of the openly gay Tory leader Ruth Davidson disassociated from the longstanding homophobia of the Tory party, especiallywhen she is currently in the news attacking her own leader for siding with the homophobia of the DUP?

Hypocrite much?

I'd say she's one error away from them turning on her, I'd be amazed if that takes until 2020.

Actually following a debate and not projecting a ton of your assumptions onto it is not one of your strong points. Posters who tilt at windmill arguments no one has made are very annoying.

problem is that if they turn on her it further damages the reputation of the party (try saying strong & stable with a straight face if they have a third leader in the space of about 12 months), and it throws brexit negotiations into a wtfshamblesbbq which the tories would take 100% of the blame for. also makes another election in the near future more likely and they'd have a good chance of losing number 10

plus it would saddle the new leader with the looming brexit fallout, so the timing is probably not very appealing for any of the heavy hitters

This is true then? You said that straight after the post where you supposedly got your numbers straight.

Just admit you misrepresented the numbers and we'll move on.

Don't they have full control over whether there's an election though - needs a 2/3 majority to call one? Fair enough, they could be delaying the inevitable, but is Corbyn really standing in 2022, he'll be 73?

If scrapping the cost of tuition fees is 10BN, obviously.

Again this is all based again on the numerous things you assume about other people's posts and arguments.

If we take the yearly cost of triple lock at it highest estimate which is 6BN, its 4BN more a year.

6BN a year totally affordable, no questions raised. 10BN a year omfg it will bankrupt us all, Labour must have a magic money tree.

This is the argument you are desperately trying to move the goalposts from.

It's quite a glorious ****up by the tories. May had an election in her back pocket if she needed a mandate for some deal (or impasse) with the EU. Now, apart from a 'fed up of elections you pathetic pm' backlash, Labour will probably refuse to allow a general election and demand the opportunity to form a government just at the very time the clock is striking midnight.

The fixed term act seemed almost irrelevant because no opposition could credibly refuse a general election - except now they can!

na there's two ways to trigger a gen election according to the fixed term parliaments act, one is the 2/3 majority you mentioned and the other is if the govt loses a simple majority confidence vote then basically the govt has the option of holding another one within 2 weeks, and if they lose that it triggers a general election

also the opposition can try to form a govt in that two week period, if they can get a simple majority vote through which implies confidence in them forming a minority govt then they can take office w/o an election being held

(gjge on that legislation mr clegg)

Are you sure? I doubt that's how it works if queeny can offer someone else the chance to form a government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-...ments_Act_2011

Oh yeah look at the massive growth in the economy over the last six years created by all the vibrant new industries the tories nurtured.

yep see my edit, altho i cant imagine how corbs could get a labour-forms-minority-govt bill vote through given the current arithmetic

maybe if he promises everyone in NI a million quid each