Sir Ralph

I wouldn’t recommend getting into a discussion about socialism being more successful than capitalism, or even close to it Well he hasn’t done much so isn’t sufficiently experienced for this post. Don’t deflect the guys political views and experience isn’t relevant to Trump. Would you say you are a socialist?

Socialism often fails, particularly more extreme versions. There are many examples of this. Have you looked at this guys experience?

Sometimes good ideas on the face of it have consequences. NY is a pro business city until now. This sends the wrong message and I expect that, depending on the tax levels, businesses and the wealthy may move state. State built housing in recent times has often failed and you need to rely on the private sector to deliver it. I suspect the economic environment won’t be conducive to this (eg London now)

Ok I will watch some of them. His ideas seem great in principle and absolutely what people should aspire to but there is the real world scenarios. It seems that he is going to fund all his ideas through increased corporation tax and taxing the wealthy which I don’t buy. The housing stuff I’ve seen in other countries including “Sir” Sadiq in London who has made a huge balls up of it with less affordable housing as a result . I hope it works out but unfortunately I don’t think it will.

No I read about his policies and he’s a 34 year old socialist. He won’t deliver on what he wants.

Socialist loon. The N Yorkers think it’s cool now give it a year…..

.

😂

Oh dear you then added the last para. after I replied. For a moment (the only moment so far in any of our interactions) I respected your balance. I didn’t ask for dossier on the points I disagreed with which was frankly ludicrous (unlike you) but I should have done in hindsight. My responses to a specific question are much more specific than your replies to more general questions.

I agree with some of this but disagree with other parts such as higher rate of tax, wealth tax and the single market would be subject to what deal we could strike (but agree in principle). I think there are government savings before those things I’ve mentioned above (or in addition) that should be considered. Notice I haven’t asked you full blown details or dossier on any of this just understood the principle of it because, like me, you don’t have full access to government figures in the first instance. You can if you want to but I’m respectfully pointing out that your stance is just as qualified as mine. The question posed to me was about cuts which is what I responded to. You’re overall view more balanced than I thought you were.

I just asked your mate anyway. Feel free or dodge it. Again easy to ask but to concede a position is always more difficult. So far I’ve replied to your questions, you haven’t liked my replies and then neither of you have responded to my questions just the “I’m not the government”. Don’t hide behind that give an opinion All you are doing is proving my point that there is no plan to reduce spending only an aspiration to increase taxes which was the point I made originally so thanks

In these latest posts I don’t think you said you explicitly supported them. Whilst not explicit, your suggestion is that the governments approach to not reducing spending is justifiable. Your previous posts said you supported their pro tax position actually, maybe you don’t remember that. Please respond to my question then. Don’t dodge it again

So what’s your opinion? As I’m stupid and you’re really clever you tell me how the government should have run the previous and upcoming budget from a tax and spending cut perspective?

So are you - you support a government stance you can’t justify. Don’t accuse me of not answering a question (when I have) if you completely flunk it.

You just don’t like my responses and you still haven’t responded to my question. This is circular… you: provide me an awnser me: here’s the response you: I don’t agree me: ok answer my question you: ignore You all want to ask questions but never answer them yourselves

So as you’re unable to respond to my question I assume they haven’t looked into it. I assume you think they should have done before taxing people?

I did - so you agree you can’t explain it. So government policy to tax without looking into savings is ok?

Like I said I don’t have a dossier on how to cut spending on each department. Why has the government not cut spending yet as it’s 1.5 years in? Can you help because your mates can’t

Again your avoided my question cause you can’t answer it. Your rigid defence of the government position therefore isn’t justified. In terms of welfare their case was strong enough but they have a strong provision of socialists who are Politically adverse to any cuts regardless of the case - much like some of the posters here. The thing you want a full breakdown of savings from government departments. I’ve given you areas where savings can be made but I don’t have the specific figures cause I’m not a government departments (exactly the same reason you used). Ive responded to all of your gangs questions but you want a dossier which isn’t possible. You have still all failed to respond to my basic question which is why the government hasn’t made savings yet and is therefore prioritises taxes? No response whatsoever other than you don’t know - unsatisfactory because it’s not justifiable. Also not impressed by you throwing figures around. Your table at the rugby was a puny one so they clearly value you

Ok welfare - why can’t that be cut now? The civil service has a number of parts (MOD annd MHCLG to name an couple) are known to be bloated and inefficient - are you telling me that after 1.5 years savings can’t be made here? the same with quangos which I have named. Do you want an efficiency report for each? lastly you haven’t answered my bloody question which is where is the PLAN? You can say you’re tapping out but you are avoiding my questions cause you don’t like them. I’ve told you where changes can be made so unless you’re clear on specifics. The government is 1.5 years in a no savings. It’s funny that whenever I ask you questions you go into a hole and I try and answer yours. Easy to ask less easy to respond to

Let’s take some quangos, parts of the the civil service and welfare. There are obvious targets within these that haven’t been tackled. If the governments priority was minimising. Taxes it would have targeted these elements asap to reduce the tax burden as well as having a longer term strategy. I agree that LA spending would be more complicated. Otherwise you are saying that no immediate savings can be made. As per my previous question wheee is the governments plans for these savings? The government has now been in power for 1.5 years

I agree there will probably be a mix of immediate savings and longer terms savings. So where is the governments plan to make these savings to ensure a balanced budget?

This is covered in my civil service comment which nobody has challenged

@tdmickey3 go on try it will be funny

No I’m not - respond to the question above