The cost of Cameron

[Sprotyrover]

People who live in Glass Houses!....some  points,which Party was behind the Fuel Escalator?,Browns BOTTOM! and the pillaging of the Mineworkers Pension fund? And the 5 billion £ a year raid on private pension funds which helped destabilise our private Pensions sector(you remember those Pension companies that used to invest vast amounts of Money into private business)

[Glyn_Wigley]

People who live in Glass Houses!....some  points,which Party was behind the Fuel Escalator?,Browns BOTTOM! and the pillaging of the Mineworkers Pension fund? And the 5 billion £ a year raid on private pension funds which helped destabilise our private Pensions sector(you remember those Pension companies that used to invest vast amounts of Money into private business)

Well that was the Conservatives.

[IC1967]

Excuse me. I've conclusively proved that rise in the cost of stamps is nothing to do with Dave. May I suggest you look at the title of the thread.

Next

Nothing to do with him??

Which Prime Minister flogged off the Royal Mail?

Pillock.

Flogging off the Royal Mail is good for it. By doing this the cost of stamps is far more likely to fall in future. Again you are way off the mark.

Next.

And here was me thinking you were going to respond to these points with facts as promised instead of opinions.

Silly me, I should have known better.

Next.

You lose every debate  you have with me and always end up making yourself look stupid.

How can anyone debate with you when all they get back when you're shown to be wrong is blather?

I gave hard verifiable facts. Dave does not control the price of stamps. The title of the thread is the cost of Cameron. I have conclusively proved that the cost of stamps is not down to Dave. If that's the best you can do out of a choice of 100 I'd give up now if I were you.

Next.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Excuse me. I've conclusively proved that rise in the cost of stamps is nothing to do with Dave. May I suggest you look at the title of the thread.

Next

Nothing to do with him??

Which Prime Minister flogged off the Royal Mail?

Pillock.

Flogging off the Royal Mail is good for it. By doing this the cost of stamps is far more likely to fall in future. Again you are way off the mark.

Next.

And here was me thinking you were going to respond to these points with facts as promised instead of opinions.

Silly me, I should have known better.

Next.

You lose every debate  you have with me and always end up making yourself look stupid.

How can anyone debate with you when all they get back when you're shown to be wrong is blather?

I gave hard verifiable facts. Dave does not control the price of stamps. The title of the thread is the cost of Cameron. I have conclusively proved that the cost of stamps is not down to Dave. If that's the best you can do out of a choice of 100 I'd give up now if I were you.

Next.

The Royal Mail put up the price of stamps once they were sold to private ownership. Which Prime Minister did that?

[IC1967]

You utter idiot.

Tax! TAX! Not income tax. ALL tax.

Now, bugger off.

It is obvious to anyone that when Balls says there have only been tax cuts for the rich he is referring to income tax. He forgets to mention that the rate of 45% is 5% higher than what Labour had it at apart from the fag end of their time in power.

But anyway I'm prepared to discuss all tax. You have said there have only been tax cuts for the rich. What a load of old cobblers. There have been numerous tax cuts and tax rises during this parliament, that have affected everyone in the country not just the rich. I can't believe you are so stupid as to think just the rich have had tax cuts. Totally unbelievable and a downright lie.

The Coalition Government has raised taxes more than twice as often as it has cut them. In the first analysis of its kind, this Government is shown to have implemented or planned 299 separate tax rises but only 119 separate tax cuts. This means that the Coalition has been responsible for 180 more tax rises than tax cuts since it came to power.

This forensic study of Treasury and HMRC documents looks at how many different tax reliefs, allowances and rates the Government has changed, along with the number of new taxes that have been levied or abolished during its time in office. In 2009-10, the last year of the previous government, £513 billion was paid in taxes (or £549 billion at 2012-13 prices). By 2015-16, the Government plans to increase that amount to £671 billion (£633 billion at 2012-13 prices), a real terms rise of 15 per cent.

The key findings of this research are:

A total of 299 separate tax rises have either already been implemented or are planned before May 2015.

    Of this, 254 separate tax rises have already been implemented since the 2010 General Election.
    A further 45 tax rises are planned before the end of this Parliament.

A total of 119 separate tax cuts have either already been implemented or are planned before May 2015.

    Of this, 109 separate tax cuts have been implemented since the 2010 General Election.
    A further 10 tax cuts are planned before the end of this parliament.

So are you really saying that the 119 tax cuts are only benefiting the rich? Don't be so daft. Get an abject apology sorted and we'll say no more about the matter. In future check the evidence before you make such outlandish claims.

http://old.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2013/01/revealed-coalitions-299-tax-rises.html

[IC1967]

Excuse me. I've conclusively proved that rise in the cost of stamps is nothing to do with Dave. May I suggest you look at the title of the thread.

Next

Nothing to do with him??

Which Prime Minister flogged off the Royal Mail?

Pillock.

Flogging off the Royal Mail is good for it. By doing this the cost of stamps is far more likely to fall in future. Again you are way off the mark.

Next.

And here was me thinking you were going to respond to these points with facts as promised instead of opinions.

Silly me, I should have known better.

Next.

You lose every debate  you have with me and always end up making yourself look stupid.

How can anyone debate with you when all they get back when you're shown to be wrong is blather?

I gave hard verifiable facts. Dave does not control the price of stamps. The title of the thread is the cost of Cameron. I have conclusively proved that the cost of stamps is not down to Dave. If that's the best you can do out of a choice of 100 I'd give up now if I were you.

Next.

The Royal Mail put up the price of stamps once they were sold to private ownership. Which Prime Minister did that?

Look, I know you lefties want the government to run and control every aspect of our lives. The Royal Mail as a private company has to price things up to suit the market and to keep in line with the regulator. Dave does not control the regulator (don't forget the regulator was set up by Labour).

Also Dave was getting the blame for the period from 2010. You've now moved the goal posts to after privatisation and are still looking daft. Get a grip man and have another look at that list of 100 and come up with something a bit more challenging for me.

Next.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Net. The net effect of tax rises and cuts is all that matters. If I give you a £2 income tax cut and increase your VAT payments by £3, you have had a tax rise.

Idiot

But I see the Micktionary has been out this morning.

"Tax". n. In Mick Land, it means precisely what Mick wants it to mean in order for him to display his pig-headed ignorance to the world. (See also: "deficit")

[Glyn_Wigley]

Excuse me. I've conclusively proved that rise in the cost of stamps is nothing to do with Dave. May I suggest you look at the title of the thread.

Next

Nothing to do with him??

Which Prime Minister flogged off the Royal Mail?

Pillock.

Flogging off the Royal Mail is good for it. By doing this the cost of stamps is far more likely to fall in future. Again you are way off the mark.

Next.

And here was me thinking you were going to respond to these points with facts as promised instead of opinions.

Silly me, I should have known better.

Next.

You lose every debate  you have with me and always end up making yourself look stupid.

How can anyone debate with you when all they get back when you're shown to be wrong is blather?

I gave hard verifiable facts. Dave does not control the price of stamps. The title of the thread is the cost of Cameron. I have conclusively proved that the cost of stamps is not down to Dave. If that's the best you can do out of a choice of 100 I'd give up now if I were you.

Next.

The Royal Mail put up the price of stamps once they were sold to private ownership. Which Prime Minister did that?

Look, I know you lefties want the government to run and control every aspect of our lives. The Royal Mail as a private company has to price things up to suit the market and to keep in line with the regulator. Dave does not control the regulator (don't forget the regulator was set up by Labour).

Also Dave was getting the blame for the period from 2010. You've now moved the goal posts to after privatisation and are still looking daft. Get a grip man and have another look at that list of 100 and come up with something a bit more challenging for me.

Next.

Cameron decided to sell privatise RM. He didn't have to, he decided to. The result of that is that stamp prices went up. None of your desperate blethering can twist your way out of that fact.

What's dating it back to 2010 got to do with it not being Dave's fault? All this happened after 2010, ie under Dave's stewardship.

[IC1967]

Excuse me. I've conclusively proved that rise in the cost of stamps is nothing to do with Dave. May I suggest you look at the title of the thread.

Next

Nothing to do with him??

Which Prime Minister flogged off the Royal Mail?

Pillock.

Flogging off the Royal Mail is good for it. By doing this the cost of stamps is far more likely to fall in future. Again you are way off the mark.

Next.

And here was me thinking you were going to respond to these points with facts as promised instead of opinions.

Silly me, I should have known better.

Next.

You lose every debate  you have with me and always end up making yourself look stupid.

How can anyone debate with you when all they get back when you're shown to be wrong is blather?

I gave hard verifiable facts. Dave does not control the price of stamps. The title of the thread is the cost of Cameron. I have conclusively proved that the cost of stamps is not down to Dave. If that's the best you can do out of a choice of 100 I'd give up now if I were you.

Next.

The Royal Mail put up the price of stamps once they were sold to private ownership. Which Prime Minister did that?

Look, I know you lefties want the government to run and control every aspect of our lives. The Royal Mail as a private company has to price things up to suit the market and to keep in line with the regulator. Dave does not control the regulator (don't forget the regulator was set up by Labour).

Also Dave was getting the blame for the period from 2010. You've now moved the goal posts to after privatisation and are still looking daft. Get a grip man and have another look at that list of 100 and come up with something a bit more challenging for me.

Next.

Cameron decided to sell privatise RM. He didn't have to, he decided to. The result of that is that stamp prices went up. None of your desperate blethering can twist your way out of that fact.

What's dating it back to 2010 got to do with it not being Dave's fault? All this happened after 2010, ie under Dave's stewardship.

Look, take a leaf out of Billy's book. He knows when he's more than met his match. He tries his best to refrain from responding to my articulate comments but he just can't help himself. I have ruined his reputation around here by being fearless in exposing his leftie drivel for the nonsense it is. You are suffering the same fate.

As to your question 'what's dating it back to 2010 got to do with it not being dave's fault?' If you actually read item 43 Dave is not just getting blamed for price rises after privatisation, he's getting blamed from 2010. Here's the item so you can read it properly - 43.  Stamp Prices are up 46-56% since May 2010 says the Royal Mail (evidence)

The Royal Mail is now better placed to make a success of it's business. Keeping it state owned and giving the taxpayer a bill to keep it running inefficiently was not the way forward. You and your leftie mates should have worked out by now that when government gets involved in the running of business it spells ultimate disaster.

[IC1967]

Mick

Net. The net effect of tax rises and cuts is all that matters. If I give you a £2 income tax cut and increase your VAT payments by £3, you have had a tax rise.

Idiot

But I see the Micktionary has been out this morning.

"Tax". n. In Mick Land, it means precisely what Mick wants it to mean in order for him to display his pig-headed ignorance to the world. (See also: "deficit")

What a load of cobblers. I've proved that nearly everyone has had numerous tax cuts. More than a hundred to be precise. You and Ed Balls would like us all to believe that only the rich have had a tax cut. Complete and utter rubbish.

Tax rises are another issue. One that I am happy to debate. I've even included them in my response to your fatuous statement that only the rich have had a tax cut. Now get an abject apology sorted and I'll try and forgive your incredible stupidity.

[The Red Baron]

Not sure if this is strictly on topic but I can't help thinking that the  Labour ads which show Cameron in 2010 pose are a bit of an own goal. If it took me a while to figure out they were anti-Tory, I wonder how long it took the average man in the street?