FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Prime ministerial debate
Prime ministerial debate
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rishi just destroyed kier on immigration.... total bloodbath imho" Absolutely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Stricter eligibility for welfare.
Attacks Labour again
********
New question re disability causing out of work and being punished by benefit sanctions...
T:supports all as compassionate. Reform fitnote. Active support for those in need. If person doesn't take job offered, refusal for 12 months then sanctions.
L: sunak out of touch (he keeps interrupting sks).
Employers to support people back to work as they transition with their disability into the market place, for at least 6 months.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Election is about the future"
Sorry Sunak but if you have a crap welfare system , you've had 14 years to sort it, the past is relevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak answering clearly, concisely, passionately and with honesty. Starmer constantly sidesteps questions, deflecting straight back to Sunak. Extremely poor from him yet again. Sunak winning this hands down." But will lose the election no matter what, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak winning this atm. " I used to wonder how people could think Brexit was going well but now I see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak winning this atm. I used to wonder how people could think Brexit was going well but now I see."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak answering clearly, concisely, passionately and with honesty. Starmer constantly sidesteps questions, deflecting straight back to Sunak. Extremely poor from him yet again. Sunak winning this hands down." We're obviously watching different people then tofl | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Next, closing borders? L: govt lost control re small boats. Must smash the gangs. T: stop the boats (I'm sniggering) via Rwanda. Numbers sunak is saying is questionable: yes lowered last year but this year record high. Says woman. L process the refugees T Rwanda (small number) but doesn't state how many" 215,500 current home office asylum claims Rwanda capacity disputed at 200 a year 431 years to send them all, if it is ever legal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is such a broken record. Deluded, contradictory, says one thing and does another constantly. I dread the day when that fool gets into power. Everyone better get saving your pennies, you will be worse off, your children will be worse off and you will be living in a more volatile country. We are about to enter into an extremely sad and problematic period of time in ours / our children’s lives. " You are kidding, every time Sunak opens his mouth all he can talk about the mythical tax rises | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is such a broken record. Deluded, contradictory, says one thing and does another constantly. I dread the day when that fool gets into power. Everyone better get saving your pennies, you will be worse off, your children will be worse off and you will be living in a more volatile country. We are about to enter into an extremely sad and problematic period of time in ours / our children’s lives. " You do realise that you, and everybody else in the country, is currently taxed more than at anytime since WW2, 80 years and no one has the tax burden we currently have, so that sad and problematic period you talk of we are already living through. Sunak is a joke when he talks of high taxes, his party have raised taxes far more than any Labour Party in living memory. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is such a broken record. Deluded, contradictory, says one thing and does another constantly. I dread the day when that fool gets into power. Everyone better get saving your pennies, you will be worse off, your children will be worse off and you will be living in a more volatile country. We are about to enter into an extremely sad and problematic period of time in ours / our children’s lives. You do realise that you, and everybody else in the country, is currently taxed more than at anytime since WW2, 80 years and no one has the tax burden we currently have, so that sad and problematic period you talk of we are already living through. Sunak is a joke when he talks of high taxes, his party have raised taxes far more than any Labour Party in living memory. Mrs x" And trebled the national debt. Equivalent to £100,000 per household, or £40,000 per person | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is such a broken record. Deluded, contradictory, says one thing and does another constantly. I dread the day when that fool gets into power. Everyone better get saving your pennies, you will be worse off, your children will be worse off and you will be living in a more volatile country. We are about to enter into an extremely sad and problematic period of time in ours / our children’s lives. " Have you been living abroad since 2010? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is such a broken record. Deluded, contradictory, says one thing and does another constantly. I dread the day when that fool gets into power. Everyone better get saving your pennies, you will be worse off, your children will be worse off and you will be living in a more volatile country. We are about to enter into an extremely sad and problematic period of time in ours / our children’s lives. You do realise that you, and everybody else in the country, is currently taxed more than at anytime since WW2, 80 years and no one has the tax burden we currently have, so that sad and problematic period you talk of we are already living through. Sunak is a joke when he talks of high taxes, his party have raised taxes far more than any Labour Party in living memory. Mrs x" That's why he has to talk about the future (snigger) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is such a broken record. Deluded, contradictory, says one thing and does another constantly. I dread the day when that fool gets into power. Everyone better get saving your pennies, you will be worse off, your children will be worse off and you will be living in a more volatile country. We are about to enter into an extremely sad and problematic period of time in ours / our children’s lives. You do realise that you, and everybody else in the country, is currently taxed more than at anytime since WW2, 80 years and no one has the tax burden we currently have, so that sad and problematic period you talk of we are already living through. Sunak is a joke when he talks of high taxes, his party have raised taxes far more than any Labour Party in living memory. Mrs x That's why he has to talk about the future (snigger)" That and the fact that the last Labour government administered over the period that same the largest period of economic growth in living memory. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"SKS used to be the head to the CPS, his mother worked in the NHS... kept that as quiet as Rishi's pharmacy background. Nobody gives a toss...just lead the country in a decent fashion " One hasn't though.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s quite simple. Lower taxes, pension protection and financial stability with a Tory government moving forwards. The economy is growing, the path is clear. Sad state of affairs when a lot of people simply disregard anything Rishi says purely because of the party he represents. Starmer relying on Angela Rayner as a pivotal figure within his party sums it all up." Bless | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"90% drop in exports to Europe solely due to Brexit Oh dear, Sunak you have no answer. " I suspect those figures were made up, I sold 10 ... now 1 oh its 90 percent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"SKS used to be the head to the CPS, his mother worked in the NHS... kept that as quiet as Rishi's pharmacy background. Nobody gives a toss...just lead the country in a decent fashion One hasn't though.." I absolutely agree and it's time to kick out the Tories but I very much doubt it'll lead the country to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"SKS used to be the head to the CPS, his mother worked in the NHS... kept that as quiet as Rishi's pharmacy background. Nobody gives a toss...just lead the country in a decent fashion One hasn't though.. I absolutely agree and it's time to kick out the Tories but I very much doubt it'll lead the country to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow " Ditto.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s quite simple. Lower taxes, pension protection and financial stability with a Tory government moving forwards. The economy is growing, the path is clear. Sad state of affairs when a lot of people simply disregard anything Rishi says purely because of the party he represents. Starmer relying on Angela Rayner as a pivotal figure within his party sums it all up." Dont disregard anything Synak says because which parry he leads but rather on his track record. 14 years they've had and everyone is paying MORE tax, waiting longer for treatment, a poor economy, cost of living crisis, it goes on and on. I do know something though, if my hubby cheated, lied and basically mistreated me for the last 14 years he wouldn't be getting another 5 years, but maybe that's just me. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s quite simple. Lower taxes, pension protection and financial stability with a Tory government moving forwards. The economy is growing, the path is clear. Sad state of affairs when a lot of people simply disregard anything Rishi says purely because of the party he represents. Starmer relying on Angela Rayner as a pivotal figure within his party sums it all up. Bless"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"SKS used to be the head to the CPS, his mother worked in the NHS... kept that as quiet as Rishi's pharmacy background. Nobody gives a toss...just lead the country in a decent fashion One hasn't though.. I absolutely agree and it's time to kick out the Tories but I very much doubt it'll lead the country to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow " Just not making it worse would be a pleasant change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s quite simple. Lower taxes, pension protection and financial stability with a Tory government moving forwards. The economy is growing, the path is clear. Sad state of affairs when a lot of people simply disregard anything Rishi says purely because of the party he represents. Starmer relying on Angela Rayner as a pivotal figure within his party sums it all up.Dont disregard anything Synak says because which parry he leads but rather on his track record. 14 years they've had and everyone is paying MORE tax, waiting longer for treatment, a poor economy, cost of living crisis, it goes on and on. I do know something though, if my hubby cheated, lied and basically mistreated me for the last 14 years he wouldn't be getting another 5 years, but maybe that's just me. Mrs x" Sunak has been PM for 18 months, not 14 years. Everyone keeps batting this 14 year time span about, simply forgetting the shocking state of affairs the LABOUR government left this country in with Brown and Blair! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s quite simple. Lower taxes, pension protection and financial stability with a Tory government moving forwards. The economy is growing, the path is clear. Sad state of affairs when a lot of people simply disregard anything Rishi says purely because of the party he represents. Starmer relying on Angela Rayner as a pivotal figure within his party sums it all up.Dont disregard anything Synak says because which parry he leads but rather on his track record. 14 years they've had and everyone is paying MORE tax, waiting longer for treatment, a poor economy, cost of living crisis, it goes on and on. I do know something though, if my hubby cheated, lied and basically mistreated me for the last 14 years he wouldn't be getting another 5 years, but maybe that's just me. Mrs x Sunak has been PM for 18 months, not 14 years. Everyone keeps batting this 14 year time span about, simply forgetting the shocking state of affairs the LABOUR government left this country in with Brown and Blair!" And how the CONSERVATIVES have made it much, much worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"YouGov poll has it 50-50 in terms of who won the debate." Farage not present. He would have had 50% 25% each to Sunak and Starmer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s quite simple. Lower taxes, pension protection and financial stability with a Tory government moving forwards. The economy is growing, the path is clear. Sad state of affairs when a lot of people simply disregard anything Rishi says purely because of the party he represents. Starmer relying on Angela Rayner as a pivotal figure within his party sums it all up.Dont disregard anything Synak says because which parry he leads but rather on his track record. 14 years they've had and everyone is paying MORE tax, waiting longer for treatment, a poor economy, cost of living crisis, it goes on and on. I do know something though, if my hubby cheated, lied and basically mistreated me for the last 14 years he wouldn't be getting another 5 years, but maybe that's just me. Mrs x Sunak has been PM for 18 months, not 14 years. Everyone keeps batting this 14 year time span about, simply forgetting the shocking state of affairs the LABOUR government left this country in with Brown and Blair!" That government had the largest economic growth in living memory, that LABOUR government. It's the Tories being in power for 14 years and presiding over the shit show we are all living through, that's the problem. It's the lies, corruption, scandals and totally lack of respect from Sunak that means he and his party should not be given a further term. All abusive partners promise to stop and change but they don't. This is the case here, they know they've been totally shit but won't be if they get another chance. Unfortunately the population has wised up, can't wait for July 4th. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"YouGov poll has it 50-50 in terms of who won the debate. Farage not present. He would have had 50% 25% each to Sunak and Starmer. " And the title of the thread and programme is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"YouGov poll has it 50-50 in terms of who won the debate. Farage not present. He would have had 50% 25% each to Sunak and Starmer. " I've watched him closely, he is a showman and has alot more charisma then either Stammer or Sunak, but he doesn't stand up to scrutiny and folds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"YouGov poll has it 50-50 in terms of who won the debate. Farage not present. He would have had 50% 25% each to Sunak and Starmer. I've watched him closely, he is a showman and has alot more charisma then either Stammer or Sunak, but he doesn't stand up to scrutiny and folds." He gets even more tetchy than Sunak when he is pressed. Just another public school bully. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mending broken trade relationship T grovel grovel We're doing well globally Cut business rates Cut NI (doesn't answer question) L try get a better deal with EU INC research and development T but... free movement (thought we had that with small boats haha)." And 300,000 Erasmus places gone due to brexit, lost opportunity to study in Europe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
, it's a natural decline after an inflated number. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have to laugh when sunak states he's getting migration numbers down... well obviously when you consider how many visas were provided for healthcare and care staff , it's a natural decline after an inflated number."I don’t know what he or anyone can do The United Nations say 1.2bn migrants will come into Europe by 2060/70 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How to attract uni leavers L good, well paid, skilled jobs, build houses 1.5 million. Deal with high rents. Low mortgage scheme. T "help to buy" loan, abolish stamp duty for first time buyers" Sunak was badly informed on housing He could have reliably told the questioner the tories have built treble the council houses labour have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mending broken trade relationship T grovel grovel We're doing well globally Cut business rates Cut NI (doesn't answer question) L try get a better deal with EU INC research and development T but... free movement (thought we had that with small boats haha). And 300,000 Erasmus places gone due to brexit, lost opportunity to study in Europe. " Didn’t we jack it in in 2020 because it was too expensive and far more students came to the Uk than went to the EU, as per free movement? One doesnt have to be an EU member to participate in Erasmus, but I suppose it still needs to make financial sense. I guess if someone wants to go and study in the EU, or anywhere else for that matter, nobody is going to stop them if they get their debit card out. Maybe Labour will rejoin it, and put our taxes up to pay for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have to laugh when sunak states he's getting migration numbers down... well obviously when you consider how many visas were provided for healthcare and care staff , it's a natural decline after an inflated number.
I don’t know what he or anyone can do
The United Nations say 1.2bn migrants will come into Europe by 2060/70 "I'm expecting grief for this but the international laws that govern this are well out of date, were never intended for migration on the current scale and are not fit for purpose. Cue the abuse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 .
No responsibility taken for the specific things they've done in 14 years, to make things as bad as they are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have to laugh when sunak states he's getting migration numbers down... well obviously when you consider how many visas were provided for healthcare and care staff , it's a natural decline after an inflated number.
I don’t know what he or anyone can do
The United Nations say 1.2bn migrants will come into Europe by 2060/70
I'm expecting grief for this but the international laws that govern this are well out of date, were never intended for migration on the current scale and are not fit for purpose. Cue the abuse
"If that's the case why haven't the Tories changed them, we've only been out of the EU for 8 years now. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Sunak says stuff under a general feeling that any audience is not smart enough to realise what he's saying is all bullshit. Its like when he keeps banging on about voting for Labour means higher taxes, when taxes have never been so high. It's like when he goes on about Starmer having nothing to say and no plans before immediately telling anyone who will listen what Starmer has said and what his plans are. You can't have it both ways lol. Sunak looks tired, worn down and seems to have accepted his fate. The only thong that's keeping him going is to avoid annihilation for his party at this election. Unfortunately there's a chance this could happen.. Mrs x" Absolutely. But also he’s called the GE too early. Could have waited for inflation to drop again and a couple of interest rate cuts to lift the mood. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Sunak says stuff under a general feeling that any audience is not smart enough to realise what he's saying is all bullshit. Its like when he keeps banging on about voting for Labour means higher taxes, when taxes have never been so high. It's like when he goes on about Starmer having nothing to say and no plans before immediately telling anyone who will listen what Starmer has said and what his plans are. You can't have it both ways lol. Sunak looks tired, worn down and seems to have accepted his fate. The only thong that's keeping him going is to avoid annihilation for his party at this election. Unfortunately there's a chance this could happen.. Mrs x Absolutely. But also he’s called the GE too early. Could have waited for inflation to drop again and a couple of interest rate cuts to lift the mood. " Thr rate of inflation is expected to rise slightly over the coming months, so think that may have been taken into consideration. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Sunak says stuff under a general feeling that any audience is not smart enough to realise what he's saying is all bullshit. Its like when he keeps banging on about voting for Labour means higher taxes, when taxes have never been so high. It's like when he goes on about Starmer having nothing to say and no plans before immediately telling anyone who will listen what Starmer has said and what his plans are. You can't have it both ways lol. Sunak looks tired, worn down and seems to have accepted his fate. The only thong that's keeping him going is to avoid annihilation for his party at this election. Unfortunately there's a chance this could happen.. Mrs x Absolutely. But also he’s called the GE too early. Could have waited for inflation to drop again and a couple of interest rate cuts to lift the mood. " Maybe he's been told to do it ... see the thread war in 6 months  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have to laugh when sunak states he's getting migration numbers down... well obviously when you consider how many visas were provided for healthcare and care staff , it's a natural decline after an inflated number.
I don’t know what he or anyone can do
The United Nations say 1.2bn migrants will come into Europe by 2060/70
I'm expecting grief for this but the international laws that govern this are well out of date, were never intended for migration on the current scale and are not fit for purpose. Cue the abuse
If that's the case why haven't the Tories changed them, we've only been out of the EU for 8 years now.
Mrs x"Agree with the sentiment but we only voted to leave in 2016.....the process didn't start until after the protracted negotiations came to some form of conclusion and then Parliament voted to accept the proposals after the December 2019 election. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have to laugh when sunak states he's getting migration numbers down... well obviously when you consider how many visas were provided for healthcare and care staff , it's a natural decline after an inflated number.
I don’t know what he or anyone can do
The United Nations say 1.2bn migrants will come into Europe by 2060/70
I'm expecting grief for this but the international laws that govern this are well out of date, were never intended for migration on the current scale and are not fit for purpose. Cue the abuse
"When we left the EU we weakened ourselves in relation to such things.. Isolation in a world where nations are (and where before 2016) forming trading blocs etc was a mistake.. Not disputing the point, treaties made in the 1950's are probably worth a review in a changing world.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Sunak says stuff under a general feeling that any audience is not smart enough to realise what he's saying is all bullshit. Its like when he keeps banging on about voting for Labour means higher taxes, when taxes have never been so high. It's like when he goes on about Starmer having nothing to say and no plans before immediately telling anyone who will listen what Starmer has said and what his plans are. You can't have it both ways lol. Sunak looks tired, worn down and seems to have accepted his fate. The only thong that's keeping him going is to avoid annihilation for his party at this election. Unfortunately there's a chance this could happen.. Mrs x Absolutely. But also he’s called the GE too early. Could have waited for inflation to drop again and a couple of interest rate cuts to lift the mood. " And the first flight to Rwanda. I have a feeling he wasn't so sure the flight would actually go ahead in July. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Sunak says stuff under a general feeling that any audience is not smart enough to realise what he's saying is all bullshit. Its like when he keeps banging on about voting for Labour means higher taxes, when taxes have never been so high. It's like when he goes on about Starmer having nothing to say and no plans before immediately telling anyone who will listen what Starmer has said and what his plans are. You can't have it both ways lol. Sunak looks tired, worn down and seems to have accepted his fate. The only thong that's keeping him going is to avoid annihilation for his party at this election. Unfortunately there's a chance this could happen.. Mrs x Absolutely. But also he’s called the GE too early. Could have waited for inflation to drop again and a couple of interest rate cuts to lift the mood. Thr rate of inflation is expected to rise slightly over the coming months, so think that may have been taken into consideration. Mrs x" Expected to rise by who, and what’s the rationale for it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have to laugh when sunak states he's getting migration numbers down... well obviously when you consider how many visas were provided for healthcare and care staff , it's a natural decline after an inflated number.
I don’t know what he or anyone can do
The United Nations say 1.2bn migrants will come into Europe by 2060/70
I'm expecting grief for this but the international laws that govern this are well out of date, were never intended for migration on the current scale and are not fit for purpose. Cue the abuse
If that's the case why haven't the Tories changed them, we've only been out of the EU for 8 years now.
Mrs x
Agree with the sentiment but we only voted to leave in 2016.....the process didn't start until after the protracted negotiations came to some form of conclusion and then Parliament voted to accept the proposals after the December 2019 election.
"So still had a full 5 years to sort it then. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Sunak says stuff under a general feeling that any audience is not smart enough to realise what he's saying is all bullshit. Its like when he keeps banging on about voting for Labour means higher taxes, when taxes have never been so high. It's like when he goes on about Starmer having nothing to say and no plans before immediately telling anyone who will listen what Starmer has said and what his plans are. You can't have it both ways lol. Sunak looks tired, worn down and seems to have accepted his fate. The only thong that's keeping him going is to avoid annihilation for his party at this election. Unfortunately there's a chance this could happen.. Mrs x Absolutely. But also he’s called the GE too early. Could have waited for inflation to drop again and a couple of interest rate cuts to lift the mood. Thr rate of inflation is expected to rise slightly over the coming months, so think that may have been taken into consideration. Mrs x" Political instability does that, so calling an election is like a self fulfilling prophecy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is such a broken record. Deluded, contradictory, says one thing and does another constantly. I dread the day when that fool gets into power. Everyone better get saving your pennies, you will be worse off, your children will be worse off and you will be living in a more volatile country. We are about to enter into an extremely sad and problematic period of time in ours / our children’s lives. " Jeez where have you been for the last ten years ? This is happening right now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Sunak says stuff under a general feeling that any audience is not smart enough to realise what he's saying is all bullshit. Its like when he keeps banging on about voting for Labour means higher taxes, when taxes have never been so high. It's like when he goes on about Starmer having nothing to say and no plans before immediately telling anyone who will listen what Starmer has said and what his plans are. You can't have it both ways lol. Sunak looks tired, worn down and seems to have accepted his fate. The only thong that's keeping him going is to avoid annihilation for his party at this election. Unfortunately there's a chance this could happen.. Mrs x Absolutely. But also he’s called the GE too early. Could have waited for inflation to drop again and a couple of interest rate cuts to lift the mood. And the first flight to Rwanda. I have a feeling he wasn't so sure the flight would actually go ahead in July." We will never know Labour are binning the Rwanda scheme and writing off its £400 million cost to date. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Sunak says stuff under a general feeling that any audience is not smart enough to realise what he's saying is all bullshit. Its like when he keeps banging on about voting for Labour means higher taxes, when taxes have never been so high. It's like when he goes on about Starmer having nothing to say and no plans before immediately telling anyone who will listen what Starmer has said and what his plans are. You can't have it both ways lol. Sunak looks tired, worn down and seems to have accepted his fate. The only thong that's keeping him going is to avoid annihilation for his party at this election. Unfortunately there's a chance this could happen.. Mrs x Absolutely. But also he’s called the GE too early. Could have waited for inflation to drop again and a couple of interest rate cuts to lift the mood. And the first flight to Rwanda. I have a feeling he wasn't so sure the flight would actually go ahead in July. We will never know Labour are binning the Rwanda scheme and writing off its £400 million cost to date. " Another example of Tory mismanagement of tax payers money. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s quite simple. Lower taxes, pension protection and financial stability with a Tory government moving forwards. The economy is growing, the path is clear. Sad state of affairs when a lot of people simply disregard anything Rishi says purely because of the party he represents. Starmer relying on Angela Rayner as a pivotal figure within his party sums it all up.Dont disregard anything Synak says because which parry he leads but rather on his track record. 14 years they've had and everyone is paying MORE tax, waiting longer for treatment, a poor economy, cost of living crisis, it goes on and on. I do know something though, if my hubby cheated, lied and basically mistreated me for the last 14 years he wouldn't be getting another 5 years, but maybe that's just me. Mrs x Sunak has been PM for 18 months, not 14 years. Everyone keeps batting this 14 year time span about, simply forgetting the shocking state of affairs the LABOUR government left this country in with Brown and Blair!" You could argue Liz truss did more damage in 44 days…….. Next!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Sunak says stuff under a general feeling that any audience is not smart enough to realise what he's saying is all bullshit. Its like when he keeps banging on about voting for Labour means higher taxes, when taxes have never been so high. It's like when he goes on about Starmer having nothing to say and no plans before immediately telling anyone who will listen what Starmer has said and what his plans are. You can't have it both ways lol. Sunak looks tired, worn down and seems to have accepted his fate. The only thong that's keeping him going is to avoid annihilation for his party at this election. Unfortunately there's a chance this could happen.. Mrs x Absolutely. But also he’s called the GE too early. Could have waited for inflation to drop again and a couple of interest rate cuts to lift the mood. And the first flight to Rwanda. I have a feeling he wasn't so sure the flight would actually go ahead in July. We will never know Labour are binning the Rwanda scheme and writing off its £400 million cost to date. Another example of Tory mismanagement of tax payers money. Mrs x" But Labour will get the blame | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. " So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country." The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. " Really! You think the momentum folks have that power still? I honestly don’t know but I hope not. Although I do have to say that does sound a bit like fearmongering targeted at moderates, centrists and swing voters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Sunak says stuff under a general feeling that any audience is not smart enough to realise what he's saying is all bullshit. Its like when he keeps banging on about voting for Labour means higher taxes, when taxes have never been so high. It's like when he goes on about Starmer having nothing to say and no plans before immediately telling anyone who will listen what Starmer has said and what his plans are. You can't have it both ways lol. Sunak looks tired, worn down and seems to have accepted his fate. The only thong that's keeping him going is to avoid annihilation for his party at this election. Unfortunately there's a chance this could happen.. Mrs x Absolutely. But also he’s called the GE too early. Could have waited for inflation to drop again and a couple of interest rate cuts to lift the mood. And the first flight to Rwanda. I have a feeling he wasn't so sure the flight would actually go ahead in July. We will never know Labour are binning the Rwanda scheme and writing off its £400 million cost to date. " It's a costly and half-baked scheme anyway. But what else to do? Our esteemed neighbours won't cooperate in effective border control, so options are limited. Labour will simply fast-track asylum seekers, thereby legitimising channel crossings and encouraging yet more to attempt the trip. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. Really! You think the momentum folks have that power still? I honestly don’t know but I hope not. Although I do have to say that does sound a bit like fearmongering targeted at moderates, centrists and swing voters." You can’t have failed to see the divisions that appeared just a few weeks ago, Raynor declaring policy that was not in the public domain as an example? The BMA flexing, the rest will follow once they are sure of the support, and this no different to how it unfolded for the tories | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. Really! You think the momentum folks have that power still? I honestly don’t know but I hope not. Although I do have to say that does sound a bit like fearmongering targeted at moderates, centrists and swing voters. You can’t have failed to see the divisions that appeared just a few weeks ago, Raynor declaring policy that was not in the public domain as an example? The BMA flexing, the rest will follow once they are sure of the support, and this no different to how it unfolded for the tories" I hope you are wrong. We need a change to our political system. If the party in Govt have change of leader (ie PM) it needs to trigger a general election. And my vote is completely impotent anyway thanks to FPTP. Almost not worth voting but still need to send a signal and hopefully reduce a safe majority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. Really! You think the momentum folks have that power still? I honestly don’t know but I hope not. Although I do have to say that does sound a bit like fearmongering targeted at moderates, centrists and swing voters. You can’t have failed to see the divisions that appeared just a few weeks ago, Raynor declaring policy that was not in the public domain as an example? The BMA flexing, the rest will follow once they are sure of the support, and this no different to how it unfolded for the tories I hope you are wrong. We need a change to our political system. If the party in Govt have change of leader (ie PM) it needs to trigger a general election. And my vote is completely impotent anyway thanks to FPTP. Almost not worth voting but still need to send a signal and hopefully reduce a safe majority." We need to change the leadership of the country for the pacification of the nation, unfortunately that does not include a magic wand. The issues are still with us, the Labour Party will get approx 12 months before people start to moan again and the leftists will push for what they want. The opposition will be flaccid during this time, which will not help. I hope to be proven wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. Really! You think the momentum folks have that power still? I honestly don’t know but I hope not. Although I do have to say that does sound a bit like fearmongering targeted at moderates, centrists and swing voters. You can’t have failed to see the divisions that appeared just a few weeks ago, Raynor declaring policy that was not in the public domain as an example? The BMA flexing, the rest will follow once they are sure of the support, and this no different to how it unfolded for the tories I hope you are wrong. We need a change to our political system. If the party in Govt have change of leader (ie PM) it needs to trigger a general election. And my vote is completely impotent anyway thanks to FPTP. Almost not worth voting but still need to send a signal and hopefully reduce a safe majority. We need to change the leadership of the country for the pacification of the nation, unfortunately that does not include a magic wand. The issues are still with us, the Labour Party will get approx 12 months before people start to moan again and the leftists will push for what they want. The opposition will be flaccid during this time, which will not help. I hope to be proven wrong "Labour are almost certain to win. They will inherit a public finances positions many times worse than it was in 2010. This time the Chancellor should leave a note saying… “There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. Really! You think the momentum folks have that power still? I honestly don’t know but I hope not. Although I do have to say that does sound a bit like fearmongering targeted at moderates, centrists and swing voters. You can’t have failed to see the divisions that appeared just a few weeks ago, Raynor declaring policy that was not in the public domain as an example? The BMA flexing, the rest will follow once they are sure of the support, and this no different to how it unfolded for the tories I hope you are wrong. We need a change to our political system. If the party in Govt have change of leader (ie PM) it needs to trigger a general election. And my vote is completely impotent anyway thanks to FPTP. Almost not worth voting but still need to send a signal and hopefully reduce a safe majority. We need to change the leadership of the country for the pacification of the nation, unfortunately that does not include a magic wand. The issues are still with us, the Labour Party will get approx 12 months before people start to moan again and the leftists will push for what they want. The opposition will be flaccid during this time, which will not help. I hope to be proven wrong
Labour are almost certain to win. They will inherit a public finances positions many times worse than it was in 2010. This time the Chancellor should leave a note saying…
“There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies”"Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. " How confident are you of that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. How confident are you of that?" Not Corbyn himself. But Labour are a wolf in sheep's clothing, much more inclined to socialism than their GE persona portrays. Highly likely that Starmer will get replaced with somebody more leftist and acceptable to UNISON and Unite unions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. How confident are you of that?" If your so sure stick a bet on it . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. How confident are you of that? Not Corbyn himself. But Labour are a wolf in sheep's clothing, much more inclined to socialism than their GE persona portrays. Highly likely that Starmer will get replaced with somebody more leftist and acceptable to UNISON and Unite unions." Labour are no closer to socialism than the Tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. Really! You think the momentum folks have that power still? I honestly don’t know but I hope not. Although I do have to say that does sound a bit like fearmongering targeted at moderates, centrists and swing voters. You can’t have failed to see the divisions that appeared just a few weeks ago, Raynor declaring policy that was not in the public domain as an example? The BMA flexing, the rest will follow once they are sure of the support, and this no different to how it unfolded for the tories I hope you are wrong. We need a change to our political system. If the party in Govt have change of leader (ie PM) it needs to trigger a general election. And my vote is completely impotent anyway thanks to FPTP. Almost not worth voting but still need to send a signal and hopefully reduce a safe majority. We need to change the leadership of the country for the pacification of the nation, unfortunately that does not include a magic wand. The issues are still with us, the Labour Party will get approx 12 months before people start to moan again and the leftists will push for what they want. The opposition will be flaccid during this time, which will not help. I hope to be proven wrong
Labour are almost certain to win. They will inherit a public finances positions many times worse than it was in 2010. This time the Chancellor should leave a note saying…
“There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies”
Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns? "I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. Really! You think the momentum folks have that power still? I honestly don’t know but I hope not. Although I do have to say that does sound a bit like fearmongering targeted at moderates, centrists and swing voters. You can’t have failed to see the divisions that appeared just a few weeks ago, Raynor declaring policy that was not in the public domain as an example? The BMA flexing, the rest will follow once they are sure of the support, and this no different to how it unfolded for the tories I hope you are wrong. We need a change to our political system. If the party in Govt have change of leader (ie PM) it needs to trigger a general election. And my vote is completely impotent anyway thanks to FPTP. Almost not worth voting but still need to send a signal and hopefully reduce a safe majority. We need to change the leadership of the country for the pacification of the nation, unfortunately that does not include a magic wand. The issues are still with us, the Labour Party will get approx 12 months before people start to moan again and the leftists will push for what they want. The opposition will be flaccid during this time, which will not help. I hope to be proven wrong
Labour are almost certain to win. They will inherit a public finances positions many times worse than it was in 2010. This time the Chancellor should leave a note saying…
“There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies”
Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns?
I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative."How much public expenditure since 2019 has in your estimation ended up in “offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies”? By even your own inflated estimates I doubt whether it’s even 0.0000000000000001% of public expenditure since 2019. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. How confident are you of that? Not Corbyn himself. But Labour are a wolf in sheep's clothing, much more inclined to socialism than their GE persona portrays. Highly likely that Starmer will get replaced with somebody more leftist and acceptable to UNISON and Unite unions. Labour are no closer to socialism than the Tories." Not in their public face for the GE anyway!! But afterwards? Let's see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. Really! You think the momentum folks have that power still? I honestly don’t know but I hope not. Although I do have to say that does sound a bit like fearmongering targeted at moderates, centrists and swing voters. You can’t have failed to see the divisions that appeared just a few weeks ago, Raynor declaring policy that was not in the public domain as an example? The BMA flexing, the rest will follow once they are sure of the support, and this no different to how it unfolded for the tories I hope you are wrong. We need a change to our political system. If the party in Govt have change of leader (ie PM) it needs to trigger a general election. And my vote is completely impotent anyway thanks to FPTP. Almost not worth voting but still need to send a signal and hopefully reduce a safe majority. We need to change the leadership of the country for the pacification of the nation, unfortunately that does not include a magic wand. The issues are still with us, the Labour Party will get approx 12 months before people start to moan again and the leftists will push for what they want. The opposition will be flaccid during this time, which will not help. I hope to be proven wrong
Labour are almost certain to win. They will inherit a public finances positions many times worse than it was in 2010. This time the Chancellor should leave a note saying…
“There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies”
Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns?
I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative.
How much public expenditure since 2019 has in your estimation ended up in “offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies”?
By even your own inflated estimates I doubt whether it’s even 0.0000000000000001% of public expenditure since 2019."If I knew that level of detail I could write an explosive expose! Love the attempt at diminishing the issue though, well done. We can use what is in public domain though like Baroness Mone’s husband Doug Barrowman and his 40% mark up. Then there was Hancocks pub landlord mate getting a £20m+ deal to provide test tubes. Etc etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. Really! You think the momentum folks have that power still? I honestly don’t know but I hope not. Although I do have to say that does sound a bit like fearmongering targeted at moderates, centrists and swing voters. You can’t have failed to see the divisions that appeared just a few weeks ago, Raynor declaring policy that was not in the public domain as an example? The BMA flexing, the rest will follow once they are sure of the support, and this no different to how it unfolded for the tories I hope you are wrong. We need a change to our political system. If the party in Govt have change of leader (ie PM) it needs to trigger a general election. And my vote is completely impotent anyway thanks to FPTP. Almost not worth voting but still need to send a signal and hopefully reduce a safe majority. We need to change the leadership of the country for the pacification of the nation, unfortunately that does not include a magic wand. The issues are still with us, the Labour Party will get approx 12 months before people start to moan again and the leftists will push for what they want. The opposition will be flaccid during this time, which will not help. I hope to be proven wrong
Labour are almost certain to win. They will inherit a public finances positions many times worse than it was in 2010. This time the Chancellor should leave a note saying…
“There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies”
Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns?
I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative.
How much public expenditure since 2019 has in your estimation ended up in “offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies”?
By even your own inflated estimates I doubt whether it’s even 0.0000000000000001% of public expenditure since 2019.
If I knew that level of detail I could write an explosive expose! Love the attempt at diminishing the issue though, well done.
We can use what is in public domain though like Baroness Mone’s husband Doug Barrowman and his 40% mark up. Then there was Hancocks pub landlord mate getting a £20m+ deal to provide test tubes. Etc etc etc"It has been a while since you’ve mentioned Michelle Mone. I’m glad to have provided you with the opportunity to revisit your favourite topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. How confident are you of that? Not Corbyn himself. But Labour are a wolf in sheep's clothing, much more inclined to socialism than their GE persona portrays. Highly likely that Starmer will get replaced with somebody more leftist and acceptable to UNISON and Unite unions. Labour are no closer to socialism than the Tories. Not in their public face for the GE anyway!! But afterwards? Let's see." We'll see. But even if the union boogie men take over. What then, better working conditions? Doesn't sound like socialism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. How confident are you of that? Not Corbyn himself. But Labour are a wolf in sheep's clothing, much more inclined to socialism than their GE persona portrays. Highly likely that Starmer will get replaced with somebody more leftist and acceptable to UNISON and Unite unions. Labour are no closer to socialism than the Tories. Not in their public face for the GE anyway!! But afterwards? Let's see. We'll see. But even if the union boogie men take over. What then, better working conditions? Doesn't sound like socialism." It's not going to happen, it's scare mongering. Same tactics used during Brexit. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. How confident are you of that? Not Corbyn himself. But Labour are a wolf in sheep's clothing, much more inclined to socialism than their GE persona portrays. Highly likely that Starmer will get replaced with somebody more leftist and acceptable to UNISON and Unite unions." You seem to have a real preoccupation with unite and Unison, what is it about these two unions in particular that lodges them so deeply in your brain? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. Really! You think the momentum folks have that power still? I honestly don’t know but I hope not. Although I do have to say that does sound a bit like fearmongering targeted at moderates, centrists and swing voters. You can’t have failed to see the divisions that appeared just a few weeks ago, Raynor declaring policy that was not in the public domain as an example? The BMA flexing, the rest will follow once they are sure of the support, and this no different to how it unfolded for the tories I hope you are wrong. We need a change to our political system. If the party in Govt have change of leader (ie PM) it needs to trigger a general election. And my vote is completely impotent anyway thanks to FPTP. Almost not worth voting but still need to send a signal and hopefully reduce a safe majority. We need to change the leadership of the country for the pacification of the nation, unfortunately that does not include a magic wand. The issues are still with us, the Labour Party will get approx 12 months before people start to moan again and the leftists will push for what they want. The opposition will be flaccid during this time, which will not help. I hope to be proven wrong
Labour are almost certain to win. They will inherit a public finances positions many times worse than it was in 2010. This time the Chancellor should leave a note saying…
“There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies”
Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns?
I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative.
How much public expenditure since 2019 has in your estimation ended up in “offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies”?
By even your own inflated estimates I doubt whether it’s even 0.0000000000000001% of public expenditure since 2019.
If I knew that level of detail I could write an explosive expose! Love the attempt at diminishing the issue though, well done.
We can use what is in public domain though like Baroness Mone’s husband Doug Barrowman and his 40% mark up. Then there was Hancocks pub landlord mate getting a £20m+ deal to provide test tubes. Etc etc etc
It has been a while since you’ve mentioned Michelle Mone.
I’m glad to have provided you with the opportunity to revisit your favourite topic. "It is you isn’t it? The accountant! With gambling sector experience! I am sure we can pull up a huge list of dodgy contracts awarded to Tory party cronies and friends/family. It has been well documented and anyone interested could spend less than 60 seconds on Google finding it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. How confident are you of that? Not Corbyn himself. But Labour are a wolf in sheep's clothing, much more inclined to socialism than their GE persona portrays. Highly likely that Starmer will get replaced with somebody more leftist and acceptable to UNISON and Unite unions. You seem to have a real preoccupation with unite and Unison, what is it about these two unions in particular that lodges them so deeply in your brain?" Their power and influence over the Labour Party. They are the two largest unions in UK by some measure, but I can list them all if you prefer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. How confident are you of that? Not Corbyn himself. But Labour are a wolf in sheep's clothing, much more inclined to socialism than their GE persona portrays. Highly likely that Starmer will get replaced with somebody more leftist and acceptable to UNISON and Unite unions. You seem to have a real preoccupation with unite and Unison, what is it about these two unions in particular that lodges them so deeply in your brain? Their power and influence over the Labour Party. They are the two largest unions in UK by some measure, but I can list them all if you prefer?" And your point is that they are the tail that's wagging the dog, is it? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The anger directed at Unions is IMO more about jealousy. Go back 60 years and the UK was far more blue collar and far more unionised in the private sector. That union membership has been almost eradicated from most areas of the private sector so nobody is fighting for the workers rights, remuneration, or T&Cs for the majority of British workers now. But instead of saying “actually I want a bit of that union protection” most people have gone down the route of “well if I don’t have it, you shouldn’t have it!” And the only ones actually laughing are the Execs and shareholders!" It was more a case of the private sector not being able to survive with the continuing influence of the unions. This is reality. The public sector only survives because it has a bottomless pit of taxed, borrowed and printed money to keep it going. This is fantasy. Sooner or later the population is going to have to confront either massive public sector cuts, or accept that any private wealth that they thought they had (even for people with very modest assets) is going to be have to be taken to keep funding the bloated public sector and delusional policies like Net Zero. Even those assets will run out eventually. In taxation terms we have seen nothing yet. Labour will simply have to massively increase taxes on “wealth” as in non income assets to keep this bubble going. It’s not going to be pretty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. How confident are you of that? Not Corbyn himself. But Labour are a wolf in sheep's clothing, much more inclined to socialism than their GE persona portrays. Highly likely that Starmer will get replaced with somebody more leftist and acceptable to UNISON and Unite unions. You seem to have a real preoccupation with unite and Unison, what is it about these two unions in particular that lodges them so deeply in your brain? Their power and influence over the Labour Party. They are the two largest unions in UK by some measure, but I can list them all if you prefer?" What power and influence over the Labour Party have they been demonstrating over the last 5 years? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should tax non income gains at the same rate of all other income. That's just morally right. Sunak earned over 20 million last year on non income gains and only paid 20% tax on this. That's scandalous. He is taking the piss saying he will look after the nations taxation. What he means is he will look after his mates, the millionaires and billionaires and fuck the rest of us. Currently the highest tax burden ever, yet he pays minimal tax whilst earing millions. So yeah no problem with levelling up the field. Everyone should pay tax, with no benefits just because you earn more, on everything they earn. Mrs x " You’ve gone very rapidly from moaning about Tory tax increases to demanding more. I think we know what to expect from Labour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The anger directed at Unions is IMO more about jealousy. Go back 60 years and the UK was far more blue collar and far more unionised in the private sector. That union membership has been almost eradicated from most areas of the private sector so nobody is fighting for the workers rights, remuneration, or T&Cs for the majority of British workers now. But instead of saying “actually I want a bit of that union protection” most people have gone down the route of “well if I don’t have it, you shouldn’t have it!” And the only ones actually laughing are the Execs and shareholders! It was more a case of the private sector not being able to survive with the continuing influence of the unions. This is reality. The public sector only survives because it has a bottomless pit of taxed, borrowed and printed money to keep it going. This is fantasy. Sooner or later the population is going to have to confront either massive public sector cuts, or accept that any private wealth that they thought they had (even for people with very modest assets) is going to be have to be taken to keep funding the bloated public sector and delusional policies like Net Zero. Even those assets will run out eventually. In taxation terms we have seen nothing yet. Labour will simply have to massively increase taxes on “wealth” as in non income assets to keep this bubble going. It’s not going to be pretty." I wasn’t around but by all accounts the 70s were a shitstorm (but the background was the oil crisis). But I reject the idea that all unions = bad and no unions = good. Most workers rights such as holiday pay, sick pay, workplace pensions, working days and hours, are thanks to unions and collective bargaining. We just take it for granted because none of us were alive in the Victorian or Edwardian era. On your other points yeah. I think I agree. The pot is well and truly empty. While there have been two exogenous events contributing to this, the whole economic situation has been made worse by the impact (and distraction) of Brexit and the mismanagement (and in some places downright dodgy if not fully corrupt) of the economy. I suspect Jeremy Hunt won’t be as stupid as Liam Byrne and write a jokey note, but he could just say “sorry we made it worse, over to you” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" “There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies” Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns? I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative. How much public expenditure since 2019 has in your estimation ended up in “offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies”? By even your own inflated estimates I doubt whether it’s even 0.0000000000000001% of public expenditure since 2019." £57bn paid out by our water companies to off-shore funds. The result is unsustainable debts, our rivers are open sewers and a nice day out at the seaside followed by four days of the shits from E.coli. Billions of Pounds paid out in dividends by the privatised rail companies. Where does Richard Branson live? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should tax non income gains at the same rate of all other income. That's just morally right. Sunak earned over 20 million last year on non income gains and only paid 20% tax on this. That's scandalous. He is taking the piss saying he will look after the nations taxation. What he means is he will look after his mates, the millionaires and billionaires and fuck the rest of us. Currently the highest tax burden ever, yet he pays minimal tax whilst earing millions. So yeah no problem with levelling up the field. Everyone should pay tax, with no benefits just because you earn more, on everything they earn. Mrs x You’ve gone very rapidly from moaning about Tory tax increases to demanding more. I think we know what to expect from Labour." We do but I don’t think shouting in the wind is going to change the outcome of this election. The Tories are toast. They only have themselves to blame. Starting with ERG influence and infighting over Brexit through the Etonian running away when he didn’t get his own way, to a completely ruder-less ineffectual premiership under May, to the absolute scandal ridden shitshow that was Johnson followed by two unelected Prime Ministers who managed to make shit even shittier! Quite an achievement. Time to go. Unless the world economy picks up I can’t see Labour getting a second term but let’s see in 2029! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" “There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies” Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns? I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative. How much public expenditure since 2019 has in your estimation ended up in “offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies”? By even your own inflated estimates I doubt whether it’s even 0.0000000000000001% of public expenditure since 2019. £57bn paid out by our water companies to off-shore funds. The result is unsustainable debts, our rivers are open sewers and a nice day out at the seaside followed by four days of the shits from E.coli. Billions of Pounds paid out in dividends by the privatised rail companies. Where does Richard Branson live?" I don’t know, where does he live? Branson has provided a lot of work for a lot of people over a long period of time. Personally I don’t have much time for the guy, but we need more people like Branson. Good luck to him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should tax non income gains at the same rate of all other income. That's just morally right. Sunak earned over 20 million last year on non income gains and only paid 20% tax on this. That's scandalous. He is taking the piss saying he will look after the nations taxation. What he means is he will look after his mates, the millionaires and billionaires and fuck the rest of us. Currently the highest tax burden ever, yet he pays minimal tax whilst earing millions. So yeah no problem with levelling up the field. Everyone should pay tax, with no benefits just because you earn more, on everything they earn. Mrs x You’ve gone very rapidly from moaning about Tory tax increases to demanding more. I think we know what to expect from Labour." Removing a tax incentive from the uber rich is not going to affect the general public and will not increase their tax burden. Requiring all citizens to pay the same levels of tax is just moral. Or should the 'rich' be treated favourably just because of their wealth. It's just levelling up the system, something Sunak hates apparently, when laughing at the poor with his Tunbridge Wells mates. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should tax non income gains at the same rate of all other income. That's just morally right. Sunak earned over 20 million last year on non income gains and only paid 20% tax on this. That's scandalous. He is taking the piss saying he will look after the nations taxation. What he means is he will look after his mates, the millionaires and billionaires and fuck the rest of us. Currently the highest tax burden ever, yet he pays minimal tax whilst earing millions. So yeah no problem with levelling up the field. Everyone should pay tax, with no benefits just because you earn more, on everything they earn. Mrs x You’ve gone very rapidly from moaning about Tory tax increases to demanding more. I think we know what to expect from Labour.Removing a tax incentive from the uber rich is not going to affect the general public and will not increase their tax burden. Requiring all citizens to pay the same levels of tax is just moral. Or should the 'rich' be treated favourably just because of their wealth. It's just levelling up the system, something Sunak hates apparently, when laughing at the poor with his Tunbridge Wells mates. Mrs x" What’s his connection with Tunbridge Wells? He has property in Yorkshire, London and California but wasn’t aware of any in Kent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" “There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies” Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns? I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative. How much public expenditure since 2019 has in your estimation ended up in “offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies”? By even your own inflated estimates I doubt whether it’s even 0.0000000000000001% of public expenditure since 2019. £57bn paid out by our water companies to off-shore funds. The result is unsustainable debts, our rivers are open sewers and a nice day out at the seaside followed by four days of the shits from E.coli. Billions of Pounds paid out in dividends by the privatised rail companies. Where does Richard Branson live? I don’t know, where does he live? Branson has provided a lot of work for a lot of people over a long period of time. Personally I don’t have much time for the guy, but we need more people like Branson. Good luck to him." My point, in answer to your question is that Branson lives abroad (The Caribbean) and doesn't pay tax in the UK. What has happened in the last 14 years is the Tories have allowed our assets to be stripped and the profits taken abroad. Not even spent here. At least if Labour gets a better deal for British workers the vast majority of any pay increases would be spent in the UK helping restore badly needed growth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Salty rather than constructive. I'm not sure why that surprises me, I think it might be how I can't see how leftist progressives are going to cope waiting for the militants to take out Starmer. So you are predicting the same sort of leadership chaos the Tories have suffered and we could see s change of party leader ergo PM? I really hope note. So much damage has been caused by this. While technically we do not vote for our PM the reality is that IS how much of the electorate thinks. After all, why the TV style debates and such focus on the leaders? It sometimes feels almost presidential. With both Truss and Sunak never having been voted on by the general public has left a bad taste for many. I am no fan of Starmer but we do need a period of stability. I’d actually welcome a few years of quiet boredom with no scandals and a bunch of accountants just getting on with administering our country. The problems do not disappear with a different party in charge. Starmer will be a 12 month stop gap and in that time the unions will, with the help of the left push Starmer out. We will see a rinse a repeat and I predict a return of Corbyn. Really! You think the momentum folks have that power still? I honestly don’t know but I hope not. Although I do have to say that does sound a bit like fearmongering targeted at moderates, centrists and swing voters. You can’t have failed to see the divisions that appeared just a few weeks ago, Raynor declaring policy that was not in the public domain as an example? The BMA flexing, the rest will follow once they are sure of the support, and this no different to how it unfolded for the tories I hope you are wrong. We need a change to our political system. If the party in Govt have change of leader (ie PM) it needs to trigger a general election. And my vote is completely impotent anyway thanks to FPTP. Almost not worth voting but still need to send a signal and hopefully reduce a safe majority. We need to change the leadership of the country for the pacification of the nation, unfortunately that does not include a magic wand. The issues are still with us, the Labour Party will get approx 12 months before people start to moan again and the leftists will push for what they want. The opposition will be flaccid during this time, which will not help. I hope to be proven wrong
Labour are almost certain to win. They will inherit a public finances positions many times worse than it was in 2010. This time the Chancellor should leave a note saying…
“There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies”
Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns?
I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative.
How much public expenditure since 2019 has in your estimation ended up in “offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies”?
By even your own inflated estimates I doubt whether it’s even 0.0000000000000001% of public expenditure since 2019.
If I knew that level of detail I could write an explosive expose! Love the attempt at diminishing the issue though, well done.
We can use what is in public domain though like Baroness Mone’s husband Doug Barrowman and his 40% mark up. Then there was Hancocks pub landlord mate getting a £20m+ deal to provide test tubes. Etc etc etc
It has been a while since you’ve mentioned Michelle Mone.
I’m glad to have provided you with the opportunity to revisit your favourite topic.
It is you isn’t it? The accountant! With gambling sector experience!
I am sure we can pull up a huge list of dodgy contracts awarded to Tory party cronies and friends/family. It has been well documented and anyone interested could spend less than 60 seconds on Google finding it.". I'm glad you're here, with your forensic standards of identification etc.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should tax non income gains at the same rate of all other income. That's just morally right. Sunak earned over 20 million last year on non income gains and only paid 20% tax on this. That's scandalous. He is taking the piss saying he will look after the nations taxation. What he means is he will look after his mates, the millionaires and billionaires and fuck the rest of us. Currently the highest tax burden ever, yet he pays minimal tax whilst earing millions. So yeah no problem with levelling up the field. Everyone should pay tax, with no benefits just because you earn more, on everything they earn. Mrs x You’ve gone very rapidly from moaning about Tory tax increases to demanding more. I think we know what to expect from Labour.Removing a tax incentive from the uber rich is not going to affect the general public and will not increase their tax burden. Requiring all citizens to pay the same levels of tax is just moral. Or should the 'rich' be treated favourably just because of their wealth. It's just levelling up the system, something Sunak hates apparently, when laughing at the poor with his Tunbridge Wells mates. Mrs x" Hi Norty, I am going to be contrary here (joys of being a centrist fence sitter). You said: "Requiring all citizens to pay the same levels of tax is just moral." So why do we have progressive tax bands? Why do some pay 40% and then others pay 45%? Is it arguably not moral that everything is harmonised to the same level? Why should the wealthy pay a higher tax rate? What are the moral grounds for that? How about if everything was taxed at 30%, ie Income and CGT from the first penny after a tax free threshold? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The anger directed at Unions is IMO more about jealousy. Go back 60 years and the UK was far more blue collar and far more unionised in the private sector. That union membership has been almost eradicated from most areas of the private sector so nobody is fighting for the workers rights, remuneration, or T&Cs for the majority of British workers now. But instead of saying “actually I want a bit of that union protection” most people have gone down the route of “well if I don’t have it, you shouldn’t have it!” And the only ones actually laughing are the Execs and shareholders! It was more a case of the private sector not being able to survive with the continuing influence of the unions. This is reality. The public sector only survives because it has a bottomless pit of taxed, borrowed and printed money to keep it going. This is fantasy. Sooner or later the population is going to have to confront either massive public sector cuts, or accept that any private wealth that they thought they had (even for people with very modest assets) is going to be have to be taken to keep funding the bloated public sector and delusional policies like Net Zero. Even those assets will run out eventually. In taxation terms we have seen nothing yet. Labour will simply have to massively increase taxes on “wealth” as in non income assets to keep this bubble going. It’s not going to be pretty." If a private sector organisation cannot make a profit AND have good employment conditions then they are doing it wrong. The problem private sector organisations have is they are sl@ves to shareholder value. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should tax non income gains at the same rate of all other income. That's just morally right. Sunak earned over 20 million last year on non income gains and only paid 20% tax on this. That's scandalous. He is taking the piss saying he will look after the nations taxation. What he means is he will look after his mates, the millionaires and billionaires and fuck the rest of us. Currently the highest tax burden ever, yet he pays minimal tax whilst earing millions. So yeah no problem with levelling up the field. Everyone should pay tax, with no benefits just because you earn more, on everything they earn. Mrs x You’ve gone very rapidly from moaning about Tory tax increases to demanding more. I think we know what to expect from Labour.Removing a tax incentive from the uber rich is not going to affect the general public and will not increase their tax burden. Requiring all citizens to pay the same levels of tax is just moral. Or should the 'rich' be treated favourably just because of their wealth. It's just levelling up the system, something Sunak hates apparently, when laughing at the poor with his Tunbridge Wells mates. Mrs x What’s his connection with Tunbridge Wells? He has property in Yorkshire, London and California but wasn’t aware of any in Kent." When Chancellor, he bragged at a garden party, which was videos, that he had had to 'fix' the 'levelling up' program. This program was design to bring poorer, deprived areas up to par with richer affluent areas. Sunaks 'fix' was to divert the funds from said deprived areas and reallocate the to affluent areas such as Tunbridge Wells. He actually said this, he is a twat. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The anger directed at Unions is IMO more about jealousy. Go back 60 years and the UK was far more blue collar and far more unionised in the private sector. That union membership has been almost eradicated from most areas of the private sector so nobody is fighting for the workers rights, remuneration, or T&Cs for the majority of British workers now. But instead of saying “actually I want a bit of that union protection” most people have gone down the route of “well if I don’t have it, you shouldn’t have it!” And the only ones actually laughing are the Execs and shareholders! It was more a case of the private sector not being able to survive with the continuing influence of the unions. This is reality. The public sector only survives because it has a bottomless pit of taxed, borrowed and printed money to keep it going. This is fantasy. Sooner or later the population is going to have to confront either massive public sector cuts, or accept that any private wealth that they thought they had (even for people with very modest assets) is going to be have to be taken to keep funding the bloated public sector and delusional policies like Net Zero. Even those assets will run out eventually. In taxation terms we have seen nothing yet. Labour will simply have to massively increase taxes on “wealth” as in non income assets to keep this bubble going. It’s not going to be pretty. If a private sector organisation cannot make a profit AND have good employment conditions then they are doing it wrong. The problem private sector organisations have is they are sl@ves to shareholder value. " I’m not in a union. I’m employed in the private sector and my pay and conditions are fine. How did this happen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The anger directed at Unions is IMO more about jealousy. Go back 60 years and the UK was far more blue collar and far more unionised in the private sector. That union membership has been almost eradicated from most areas of the private sector so nobody is fighting for the workers rights, remuneration, or T&Cs for the majority of British workers now. But instead of saying “actually I want a bit of that union protection” most people have gone down the route of “well if I don’t have it, you shouldn’t have it!” And the only ones actually laughing are the Execs and shareholders! It was more a case of the private sector not being able to survive with the continuing influence of the unions. This is reality. The public sector only survives because it has a bottomless pit of taxed, borrowed and printed money to keep it going. This is fantasy. Sooner or later the population is going to have to confront either massive public sector cuts, or accept that any private wealth that they thought they had (even for people with very modest assets) is going to be have to be taken to keep funding the bloated public sector and delusional policies like Net Zero. Even those assets will run out eventually. In taxation terms we have seen nothing yet. Labour will simply have to massively increase taxes on “wealth” as in non income assets to keep this bubble going. It’s not going to be pretty. If a private sector organisation cannot make a profit AND have good employment conditions then they are doing it wrong. The problem private sector organisations have is they are sl@ves to shareholder value. I’m not in a union. I’m employed in the private sector and my pay and conditions are fine. How did this happen? " Is that rhetorical or just trying to be tricksy? All workers have benefitted from early 20th century unionisation because as one sector began enjoying better pay and conditions, so other sectors became obliged to follow suit. Society as a whole was made better for the working classes. Might be worth reading some history books or Dickens | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should tax non income gains at the same rate of all other income. That's just morally right. Sunak earned over 20 million last year on non income gains and only paid 20% tax on this. That's scandalous. He is taking the piss saying he will look after the nations taxation. What he means is he will look after his mates, the millionaires and billionaires and fuck the rest of us. Currently the highest tax burden ever, yet he pays minimal tax whilst earing millions. So yeah no problem with levelling up the field. Everyone should pay tax, with no benefits just because you earn more, on everything they earn. Mrs x You’ve gone very rapidly from moaning about Tory tax increases to demanding more. I think we know what to expect from Labour.Removing a tax incentive from the uber rich is not going to affect the general public and will not increase their tax burden. Requiring all citizens to pay the same levels of tax is just moral. Or should the 'rich' be treated favourably just because of their wealth. It's just levelling up the system, something Sunak hates apparently, when laughing at the poor with his Tunbridge Wells mates. Mrs x Hi Norty, I am going to be contrary here (joys of being a centrist fence sitter). You said: Requiring all citizens to pay the same levels of tax is just moral. So why do we have progressive tax bands? Why do some pay 40% and then others pay 45%? Is it arguably not moral that everything is harmonised to the same level? Why should the wealthy pay a higher tax rate? What are the moral grounds for that? How about if everything was taxed at 30%, ie Income and CGT from the first penny after a tax free threshold?" Well spotted there haha. I should have said that non income assess should be taxed at the relevant level of the income gained. So if it gives you an income above a certain tax bracket it should be taxed at the correct bracket. So Sunaks 20 million should be taxed at the 45% bracket. The scandal is it's only being taxed at 20%. As for progressive tax bands, you are putting me on the spot here I've not given it much thought. However in a decent society I think we owe something back to that society. If society has allowed you to benefit from it then why shouldn't you pay back into it. Now I know what your saying about paying one level of tax is paying back into it and your right. But then I also believe that society, decent societies has a duty to care for its weaker members and as such those citizens who have benefitted more could help a little more with that, hence the progressive bands. Multi millionaires and billionaires being taxed fairly will have very little impact on their lives. Why people get so upset talking about protecting the uber rich is so confusing to me when chances are said individuals are never going to join their ranks. So morally I think it's fair that everyone pays the same tax, within the correct bracket, for their earnings. I think tax incentives should be looked at because they only benefit the rich in the main. Things like avoiding Inheritance Tax, through the use of Trusts is immoral. So hope that clarifies this but I'm sure there's more coming haha, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should tax non income gains at the same rate of all other income. That's just morally right. Sunak earned over 20 million last year on non income gains and only paid 20% tax on this. That's scandalous. He is taking the piss saying he will look after the nations taxation. What he means is he will look after his mates, the millionaires and billionaires and fuck the rest of us. Currently the highest tax burden ever, yet he pays minimal tax whilst earing millions. So yeah no problem with levelling up the field. Everyone should pay tax, with no benefits just because you earn more, on everything they earn. Mrs x You’ve gone very rapidly from moaning about Tory tax increases to demanding more. I think we know what to expect from Labour.Removing a tax incentive from the uber rich is not going to affect the general public and will not increase their tax burden. Requiring all citizens to pay the same levels of tax is just moral. Or should the 'rich' be treated favourably just because of their wealth. It's just levelling up the system, something Sunak hates apparently, when laughing at the poor with his Tunbridge Wells mates. Mrs x Hi Norty, I am going to be contrary here (joys of being a centrist fence sitter). You said: Requiring all citizens to pay the same levels of tax is just moral. So why do we have progressive tax bands? Why do some pay 40% and then others pay 45%? Is it arguably not moral that everything is harmonised to the same level? Why should the wealthy pay a higher tax rate? What are the moral grounds for that? How about if everything was taxed at 30%, ie Income and CGT from the first penny after a tax free threshold?Well spotted there haha. I should have said that non income assess should be taxed at the relevant level of the income gained. So if it gives you an income above a certain tax bracket it should be taxed at the correct bracket. So Sunaks 20 million should be taxed at the 45% bracket. The scandal is it's only being taxed at 20%. As for progressive tax bands, you are putting me on the spot here I've not given it much thought. However in a decent society I think we owe something back to that society. If society has allowed you to benefit from it then why shouldn't you pay back into it. Now I know what your saying about paying one level of tax is paying back into it and your right. But then I also believe that society, decent societies has a duty to care for its weaker members and as such those citizens who have benefitted more could help a little more with that, hence the progressive bands. Multi millionaires and billionaires being taxed fairly will have very little impact on their lives. Why people get so upset talking about protecting the uber rich is so confusing to me when chances are said individuals are never going to join their ranks. So morally I think it's fair that everyone pays the same tax, within the correct bracket, for their earnings. I think tax incentives should be looked at because they only benefit the rich in the main. Things like avoiding Inheritance Tax, through the use of Trusts is immoral. So hope that clarifies this but I'm sure there's more coming haha, Mrs x" You make good points and this topic should really have its own thread. I have equally not given this enough thought to form a cohesive argument but one thing I will say is that I think the tax free threshold should be increased (ironically as Reform say). That lifts more people out of (UK levels of) poverty than anything I believe. Morally from my POV NOBODY should pay more in tax then they retain for their work or their risk taking investments. So the days of 80-90% super tax is for the birds. I would leave the UK if I was pushed over 50% (currently 45%). The world has changed and the internet makes working from different countries far easier (in some sectors). If I moved abroad I would also then offshore my company to reflect my domicile. So the UK would lose my personal taxes and my company taxes. I think the moral thing is that everyone is treated fairly. I am not comfortable with the rhetoric that we should “tax the rich” (not from you) because not all rich people are bad! Not all rich people leech from society without giving back. Many rich people create jobs or even whole sectors. They too deserve to be treated morally. I would stop Non-Domicile if only to make things simple. You live here you pay taxes here. I would stop companies offshoring their HQ and ability to charge huge royalty fees etc that seemingly means UK operations run at a loss (they don’t). Also, and I would say this, I would support harmonising tax levels between income and investments/dividends but only if there was a corresponding reduction in the upper tax rate. So remove 45%. Sure my maths won’t add up though! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" “There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies” Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns? I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative. How much public expenditure since 2019 has in your estimation ended up in “offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies”? By even your own inflated estimates I doubt whether it’s even 0.0000000000000001% of public expenditure since 2019. £57bn paid out by our water companies to off-shore funds. The result is unsustainable debts, our rivers are open sewers and a nice day out at the seaside followed by four days of the shits from E.coli. Billions of Pounds paid out in dividends by the privatised rail companies. Where does Richard Branson live? I don’t know, where does he live? Branson has provided a lot of work for a lot of people over a long period of time. Personally I don’t have much time for the guy, but we need more people like Branson. Good luck to him. My point, in answer to your question is that Branson lives abroad (The Caribbean) and doesn't pay tax in the UK. What has happened in the last 14 years is the Tories have allowed our assets to be stripped and the profits taken abroad. Not even spent here. At least if Labour gets a better deal for British workers the vast majority of any pay increases would be spent in the UK helping restore badly needed growth." If you want to put more money into the economy you put it in the pockets of poor people, because poor people will spend it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" “There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies” Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns? I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative. How much public expenditure since 2019 has in your estimation ended up in “offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies”? By even your own inflated estimates I doubt whether it’s even 0.0000000000000001% of public expenditure since 2019. £57bn paid out by our water companies to off-shore funds. The result is unsustainable debts, our rivers are open sewers and a nice day out at the seaside followed by four days of the shits from E.coli. Billions of Pounds paid out in dividends by the privatised rail companies. Where does Richard Branson live? I don’t know, where does he live? Branson has provided a lot of work for a lot of people over a long period of time. Personally I don’t have much time for the guy, but we need more people like Branson. Good luck to him. My point, in answer to your question is that Branson lives abroad (The Caribbean) and doesn't pay tax in the UK. What has happened in the last 14 years is the Tories have allowed our assets to be stripped and the profits taken abroad. Not even spent here. At least if Labour gets a better deal for British workers the vast majority of any pay increases would be spent in the UK helping restore badly needed growth. If you want to put more money into the economy you put it in the pockets of poor people, because poor people will spend it." On beer, fags, and Sky (sorry Rishi, parents not poor enough) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" “There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies” Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns? I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative. How much public expenditure since 2019 has in your estimation ended up in “offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies”? By even your own inflated estimates I doubt whether it’s even 0.0000000000000001% of public expenditure since 2019. £57bn paid out by our water companies to off-shore funds. The result is unsustainable debts, our rivers are open sewers and a nice day out at the seaside followed by four days of the shits from E.coli. Billions of Pounds paid out in dividends by the privatised rail companies. Where does Richard Branson live? I don’t know, where does he live? Branson has provided a lot of work for a lot of people over a long period of time. Personally I don’t have much time for the guy, but we need more people like Branson. Good luck to him. My point, in answer to your question is that Branson lives abroad (The Caribbean) and doesn't pay tax in the UK. What has happened in the last 14 years is the Tories have allowed our assets to be stripped and the profits taken abroad. Not even spent here. At least if Labour gets a better deal for British workers the vast majority of any pay increases would be spent in the UK helping restore badly needed growth. If you want to put more money into the economy you put it in the pockets of poor people, because poor people will spend it. On beer, fags, and Sky (sorry Rishi, parents not poor enough)" And a massive telly, don’t forget the massive telly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The anger directed at Unions is IMO more about jealousy. Go back 60 years and the UK was far more blue collar and far more unionised in the private sector. That union membership has been almost eradicated from most areas of the private sector so nobody is fighting for the workers rights, remuneration, or T&Cs for the majority of British workers now. But instead of saying “actually I want a bit of that union protection” most people have gone down the route of “well if I don’t have it, you shouldn’t have it!” And the only ones actually laughing are the Execs and shareholders! It was more a case of the private sector not being able to survive with the continuing influence of the unions. This is reality. The public sector only survives because it has a bottomless pit of taxed, borrowed and printed money to keep it going. This is fantasy. Sooner or later the population is going to have to confront either massive public sector cuts, or accept that any private wealth that they thought they had (even for people with very modest assets) is going to be have to be taken to keep funding the bloated public sector and delusional policies like Net Zero. Even those assets will run out eventually. In taxation terms we have seen nothing yet. Labour will simply have to massively increase taxes on “wealth” as in non income assets to keep this bubble going. It’s not going to be pretty. If a private sector organisation cannot make a profit AND have good employment conditions then they are doing it wrong. The problem private sector organisations have is they are sl@ves to shareholder value. I’m not in a union. I’m employed in the private sector and my pay and conditions are fine. How did this happen? Is that rhetorical or just trying to be tricksy? All workers have benefitted from early 20th century unionisation because as one sector began enjoying better pay and conditions, so other sectors became obliged to follow suit. Society as a whole was made better for the working classes. Might be worth reading some history books or Dickens "Oh yes, I forgot, 3rd class degree in the history of the world, from Banbury Institute of Further Education, twenty years ago. Tragic. I’m just preparing my holiday reading, in advance of the forthcoming Labour regime. I’m thinking Gulag Archipelago, Brave New World, and 1984. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They should tax non income gains at the same rate of all other income. That's just morally right. Sunak earned over 20 million last year on non income gains and only paid 20% tax on this. That's scandalous. He is taking the piss saying he will look after the nations taxation. What he means is he will look after his mates, the millionaires and billionaires and fuck the rest of us. Currently the highest tax burden ever, yet he pays minimal tax whilst earing millions. So yeah no problem with levelling up the field. Everyone should pay tax, with no benefits just because you earn more, on everything they earn. Mrs x You’ve gone very rapidly from moaning about Tory tax increases to demanding more. I think we know what to expect from Labour.Removing a tax incentive from the uber rich is not going to affect the general public and will not increase their tax burden. Requiring all citizens to pay the same levels of tax is just moral. Or should the 'rich' be treated favourably just because of their wealth. It's just levelling up the system, something Sunak hates apparently, when laughing at the poor with his Tunbridge Wells mates. Mrs x Hi Norty, I am going to be contrary here (joys of being a centrist fence sitter). You said: Requiring all citizens to pay the same levels of tax is just moral. So why do we have progressive tax bands? Why do some pay 40% and then others pay 45%? Is it arguably not moral that everything is harmonised to the same level? Why should the wealthy pay a higher tax rate? What are the moral grounds for that? How about if everything was taxed at 30%, ie Income and CGT from the first penny after a tax free threshold?" You would have to raise the tax threshold quite a bit. And add that whatever tax is paid, the net income doesn't fall below it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m just preparing my holiday reading, in advance of the forthcoming Labour regime. I’m thinking Gulag Archipelago, Brave New World, and 1984. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" “There really is no money, you’re screwed, but at least we are going to be ok as we skimmed it for years and gave it to our cronies” Which public expenditure since 2019 would you not have spent? The £500 billion spent on lockdowns? I would have ensured all the money went to the places it was supposed to and not dodgy offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies and friends. The disaster capitalists have overseen the greatest transfer of public assets (in this case our taxes) in history. Of course much of the money was needed, but skimming off the top of a huge pile was still very lucrative. How much public expenditure since 2019 has in your estimation ended up in “offshore businesses set up by Tory cronies”? By even your own inflated estimates I doubt whether it’s even 0.0000000000000001% of public expenditure since 2019. £57bn paid out by our water companies to off-shore funds. The result is unsustainable debts, our rivers are open sewers and a nice day out at the seaside followed by four days of the shits from E.coli. Billions of Pounds paid out in dividends by the privatised rail companies. Where does Richard Branson live? I don’t know, where does he live? Branson has provided a lot of work for a lot of people over a long period of time. Personally I don’t have much time for the guy, but we need more people like Branson. Good luck to him. My point, in answer to your question is that Branson lives abroad (The Caribbean) and doesn't pay tax in the UK. What has happened in the last 14 years is the Tories have allowed our assets to be stripped and the profits taken abroad. Not even spent here. At least if Labour gets a better deal for British workers the vast majority of any pay increases would be spent in the UK helping restore badly needed growth. If you want to put more money into the economy you put it in the pockets of poor people, because poor people will spend it. On beer, fags, and Sky (sorry Rishi, parents not poor enough)" But I don't drink much (not even monthly), never smoked but yeah I do have Sky 
I'm the poster girl for poor and perfect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m just preparing my holiday reading, in advance of the forthcoming Labour regime. I’m thinking Gulag Archipelago, Brave New World, and 1984. "He is studying for GCSE English Lit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is a shame these threads stop at 175. I would love to revisit this one in 18 months, will the UK be a better place to be by then or would we have gone further down the hole…. " I'd love to see an improvement in 18 months time but being cynical, it'll be great not to have got worse. GB is a ship in stormy waters. The waters won't calm just cos there's someone new at the helm. It'll take time to settle. I think we have a few years before we start seeing genuine improvement and not govt propaganda like at the present time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m just preparing my holiday reading, in advance of the forthcoming Labour regime. I’m thinking Gulag Archipelago, Brave New World, and 1984.
He is studying for GCSE English Lit."Previous reading includes Logistics Today and Gambling Responsibly. Accountants need to keep on top of their sectors | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The anger directed at Unions is IMO more about jealousy. Go back 60 years and the UK was far more blue collar and far more unionised in the private sector. That union membership has been almost eradicated from most areas of the private sector so nobody is fighting for the workers rights, remuneration, or T&Cs for the majority of British workers now. But instead of saying “actually I want a bit of that union protection” most people have gone down the route of “well if I don’t have it, you shouldn’t have it!” And the only ones actually laughing are the Execs and shareholders! It was more a case of the private sector not being able to survive with the continuing influence of the unions. This is reality. The public sector only survives because it has a bottomless pit of taxed, borrowed and printed money to keep it going. This is fantasy. Sooner or later the population is going to have to confront either massive public sector cuts, or accept that any private wealth that they thought they had (even for people with very modest assets) is going to be have to be taken to keep funding the bloated public sector and delusional policies like Net Zero. Even those assets will run out eventually. In taxation terms we have seen nothing yet. Labour will simply have to massively increase taxes on “wealth” as in non income assets to keep this bubble going. It’s not going to be pretty. If a private sector organisation cannot make a profit AND have good employment conditions then they are doing it wrong. The problem private sector organisations have is they are sl@ves to shareholder value. I’m not in a union. I’m employed in the private sector and my pay and conditions are fine. How did this happen? Is that rhetorical or just trying to be tricksy? All workers have benefitted from early 20th century unionisation because as one sector began enjoying better pay and conditions, so other sectors became obliged to follow suit. Society as a whole was made better for the working classes. Might be worth reading some history books or Dickens
Oh yes, I forgot, 3rd class degree in the history of the world, from Banbury Institute of Further Education, twenty years ago.
Tragic.
I’m just preparing my holiday reading, in advance of the forthcoming Labour regime. I’m thinking Gulag Archipelago, Brave New World, and 1984.
"Ouch! Wrong but ouch! Although Banbury does form a nice triangle. Almost a right angle triangle. I can sort of see what you are trying to imply. Flattered you put so much effort into your replies. You are funny | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is a shame these threads stop at 175. I would love to revisit this one in 18 months, will the UK be a better place to be by then or would we have gone further down the hole…. " Further down the hole is inevitable. We will be 3.5trn in debt within five years, that’s just a modest 10% increase. Last labour managed 100% increase in 13 years. The spending plans will require taxation which will be self defeating for Labour they may be out on 5 years as people get even more taken off them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is a shame these threads stop at 175. I would love to revisit this one in 18 months, will the UK be a better place to be by then or would we have gone further down the hole…. " It'll be the same. Less corruption in government. But otherwise, same old same old. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is a shame these threads stop at 175. I would love to revisit this one in 18 months, will the UK be a better place to be by then or would we have gone further down the hole…. It'll be the same. Less corruption in government. But otherwise, same old same old." Jam tmrw | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is a shame these threads stop at 175. I would love to revisit this one in 18 months, will the UK be a better place to be by then or would we have gone further down the hole…. Further down the hole is inevitable. We will be 3.5trn in debt within five years, that’s just a modest 10% increase. Last labour managed 100% increase in 13 years. The spending plans will require taxation which will be self defeating for Labour they may be out on 5 years as people get even more taken off them. " Last Labour administration oversaw the biggest period of economic growth in over 80 years. Also Labour has borrowed less and repaid more debt than any Tory government in the last 80 years. It's all acare mongering. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is a shame these threads stop at 175. I would love to revisit this one in 18 months, will the UK be a better place to be by then or would we have gone further down the hole…. Further down the hole is inevitable. We will be 3.5trn in debt within five years, that’s just a modest 10% increase. Last labour managed 100% increase in 13 years. The spending plans will require taxation which will be self defeating for Labour they may be out on 5 years as people get even more taken off them. Last Labour administration oversaw the biggest period of economic growth in over 80 years. Also Labour has borrowed less and repaid more debt than any Tory government in the last 80 years. It's all acare mongering. Mrs x" The last Labour government only oversaw a decent period of growth if you ignore the small matter of 2008 to 2010. If you take that into account its growth performance was pretty much on a par with all governments before or after it since 1970. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is a shame these threads stop at 175. I would love to revisit this one in 18 months, will the UK be a better place to be by then or would we have gone further down the hole…. Further down the hole is inevitable. We will be 3.5trn in debt within five years, that’s just a modest 10% increase. Last labour managed 100% increase in 13 years. The spending plans will require taxation which will be self defeating for Labour they may be out on 5 years as people get even more taken off them. Last Labour administration oversaw the biggest period of economic growth in over 80 years. Also Labour has borrowed less and repaid more debt than any Tory government in the last 80 years. It's all acare mongering. Mrs x The last Labour government only oversaw a decent period of growth if you ignore the small matter of 2008 to 2010. If you take that into account its growth performance was pretty much on a par with all governments before or after it since 1970." Do you give the Tories a pass for exogenous events? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is a shame these threads stop at 175. I would love to revisit this one in 18 months, will the UK be a better place to be by then or would we have gone further down the hole…. Further down the hole is inevitable. We will be 3.5trn in debt within five years, that’s just a modest 10% increase. Last labour managed 100% increase in 13 years. The spending plans will require taxation which will be self defeating for Labour they may be out on 5 years as people get even more taken off them. Last Labour administration oversaw the biggest period of economic growth in over 80 years. Also Labour has borrowed less and repaid more debt than any Tory government in the last 80 years. It's all acare mongering. Mrs x The last Labour government only oversaw a decent period of growth if you ignore the small matter of 2008 to 2010. If you take that into account its growth performance was pretty much on a par with all governments before or after it since 1970. Do you give the Tories a pass for exogenous events?" I’m happy to give Labour a pass for negative global events if we also have to give them a pass for any positive periods where UK growth was just reflecting global trends. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is a shame these threads stop at 175. I would love to revisit this one in 18 months, will the UK be a better place to be by then or would we have gone further down the hole…. Further down the hole is inevitable. We will be 3.5trn in debt within five years, that’s just a modest 10% increase. Last labour managed 100% increase in 13 years. The spending plans will require taxation which will be self defeating for Labour they may be out on 5 years as people get even more taken off them. Last Labour administration oversaw the biggest period of economic growth in over 80 years. Also Labour has borrowed less and repaid more debt than any Tory government in the last 80 years. It's all acare mongering. Mrs x The last Labour government only oversaw a decent period of growth if you ignore the small matter of 2008 to 2010. If you take that into account its growth performance was pretty much on a par with all governments before or after it since 1970." So for 11 years huge growth, then you are blaming Labour for the Global crash? Sounds right for a Tory supporter. Don't believe me just Google it. Biggest period of economic growth ever. But don't let facts get in the way of your story. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is a shame these threads stop at 175. I would love to revisit this one in 18 months, will the UK be a better place to be by then or would we have gone further down the hole…. Further down the hole is inevitable. We will be 3.5trn in debt within five years, that’s just a modest 10% increase. Last labour managed 100% increase in 13 years. The spending plans will require taxation which will be self defeating for Labour they may be out on 5 years as people get even more taken off them. Last Labour administration oversaw the biggest period of economic growth in over 80 years. Also Labour has borrowed less and repaid more debt than any Tory government in the last 80 years. It's all acare mongering. Mrs x The last Labour government only oversaw a decent period of growth if you ignore the small matter of 2008 to 2010. If you take that into account its growth performance was pretty much on a par with all governments before or after it since 1970.So for 11 years huge growth, then you are blaming Labour for the Global crash? Sounds right for a Tory supporter. Don't believe me just Google it. Biggest period of economic growth ever. But don't let facts get in the way of your story. Mrs x" Thanks but I’ll rely on the ONS figures rather than some rabid Labour random on the internet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is a shame these threads stop at 175. I would love to revisit this one in 18 months, will the UK be a better place to be by then or would we have gone further down the hole…. Further down the hole is inevitable. We will be 3.5trn in debt within five years, that’s just a modest 10% increase. Last labour managed 100% increase in 13 years. The spending plans will require taxation which will be self defeating for Labour they may be out on 5 years as people get even more taken off them. Last Labour administration oversaw the biggest period of economic growth in over 80 years. Also Labour has borrowed less and repaid more debt than any Tory government in the last 80 years. It's all acare mongering. Mrs x The last Labour government only oversaw a decent period of growth if you ignore the small matter of 2008 to 2010. If you take that into account its growth performance was pretty much on a par with all governments before or after it since 1970.So for 11 years huge growth, then you are blaming Labour for the Global crash? Sounds right for a Tory supporter. Don't believe me just Google it. Biggest period of economic growth ever. But don't let facts get in the way of your story. Mrs x Thanks but I’ll rely on the ONS figures rather than some rabid Labour random on the internet." Not only the largest economic growth in living history, the longest continously period of growth in over 200 years. ONS is a good reputable source but so is the LSE, could you accept that from this randomer? The figures are in the zoNS 1997 to 2008 longest period of continous growth. Like I said don't let the facts ruin your story. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is a shame these threads stop at 175. I would love to revisit this one in 18 months, will the UK be a better place to be by then or would we have gone further down the hole…. Further down the hole is inevitable. We will be 3.5trn in debt within five years, that’s just a modest 10% increase. Last labour managed 100% increase in 13 years. The spending plans will require taxation which will be self defeating for Labour they may be out on 5 years as people get even more taken off them. Last Labour administration oversaw the biggest period of economic growth in over 80 years. Also Labour has borrowed less and repaid more debt than any Tory government in the last 80 years. It's all acare mongering. Mrs x The last Labour government only oversaw a decent period of growth if you ignore the small matter of 2008 to 2010. If you take that into account its growth performance was pretty much on a par with all governments before or after it since 1970.So for 11 years huge growth, then you are blaming Labour for the Global crash? Sounds right for a Tory supporter. Don't believe me just Google it. Biggest period of economic growth ever. But don't let facts get in the way of your story. Mrs x Thanks but I’ll rely on the ONS figures rather than some rabid Labour random on the internet." Oh am I rabid because the figures and I don't agree with you? Don't let yourself down with insults, it's unbecoming. More of a Tory thing.... oh, yeah right, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would reputable findings from Academia be acceptable for you. On the off chance that they may, here is part of a conclusion from a report from Sheffield Hallam, wgich examined the growth of the UK economy under the Conservatives and Labour,which states that of the two '...Labour administrations seem to do better in tackling recessions and show a more consistent performance. Labour’s advantage becomes more pronounced if we discount the effect of the 2008 Financial Crisis.' Mrs x " I’m afraid MisterBuck has a low opinion of academia. The only things he trusts are professional schools. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would reputable findings from Academia be acceptable for you. On the off chance that they may, here is part of a conclusion from a report from Sheffield Hallam, wgich examined the growth of the UK economy under the Conservatives and Labour,which states that of the two '...Labour administrations seem to do better in tackling recessions and show a more consistent performance. Labour’s advantage becomes more pronounced if we discount the effect of the 2008 Financial Crisis.' Mrs x I’m afraid MisterBuck has a low opinion of academia. The only things he trusts are professional schools." Like professional footballers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school "Ah owning an abacus | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school "You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do. I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status."Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend. Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure. BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Also Labour has borrowed less and repaid more debt than any Tory government in the last 80 years. It's all acare mongering. Mrs x" National debt increased from £433bn to £878bn 97-2010, Then add private finance initiative which when fully paid off will have cost £300bn Not sure how that compares to tories | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?"Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Also Labour has borrowed less and repaid more debt than any Tory government in the last 80 years. It's all acare mongering. Mrs x National debt increased from £433bn to £878bn 97-2010, Then add private finance initiative which when fully paid off will have cost £300bn Not sure how that compares to tories" Look it up, you looked up these figures. I'm not making up anything I have posted, it's all easily verified on Google. I never take anything good on face value, I always fact check. But what is true is that Labour have always borrowed less and repayed more than the Tories, going back to WW2. The economy has always been safer in Labours hands than in the Tories, who knew. Look it up. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Also Labour has borrowed less and repaid more debt than any Tory government in the last 80 years. It's all acare mongering. Mrs x National debt increased from £433bn to £878bn 97-2010, Then add private finance initiative which when fully paid off will have cost £300bn Not sure how that compares to tories" checked and in q3 of 2023 national debt stands at 2.65 trillion, so it's gone to a bit. ONS figures. But like I said, Tories have always borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour government since WW2 Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Also Labour has borrowed less and repaid more debt than any Tory government in the last 80 years. It's all acare mongering. Mrs x National debt increased from £433bn to £878bn 97-2010, Then add private finance initiative which when fully paid off will have cost £300bn Not sure how that compares to tories checked and in q3 of 2023 national debt stands at 2.65 trillion, so it's gone to a bit. ONS figures. But like I said, Tories have always borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour government since WW2 Mrs x" In real terms the national debt should be 3.15trn The cost of austerity has been 0.5trn since 2010. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?
Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector."Says who? You? That’s definitive then
And only half the reason? You sure? What’s the other half?
You’d be surprised about political sentiment amongst senior civil servants, it’s far more diverse than that simpleton idea of a “blob” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?
Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector.
Says who? You? That’s definitive then
And only half the reason? You sure? What’s the other half?
You’d be surprised about political sentiment amongst senior civil servants, it’s far more diverse than that simpleton idea of a “blob” "I know loads of senior public sector employees and all of them are left liberals. The idea that there is any kind of diversity in the public sector is laughable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak should really shut up about the Labour Party raising taxes by £2000, especially in light of the fact that The Spectator worked out from Tories pledges and figures that they plan to raise tax by £3000. To make matters worse, they estimate that the Tories, since coming to power, have raised personal taxation by almost 14k. Anyone else think 14k would come in handy right now. Robbing Tory twats, can't wait for their arses to be kicked out on 4th July. Mrs x" Small beer Corporation tax has increased by 32% ( increase in rates from 19% to 25%) Add increased employer Nic contribution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sunak should really shut up about the Labour Party raising taxes by £2000, especially in light of the fact that The Spectator worked out from Tories pledges and figures that they plan to raise tax by £3000. To make matters worse, they estimate that the Tories, since coming to power, have raised personal taxation by almost 14k. Anyone else think 14k would come in handy right now. Robbing Tory twats, can't wait for their arses to be kicked out on 4th July. Mrs x" Re the taxes, shouting about it continuously is mudslinging, sadly some will stick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?
Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector.
Says who? You? That’s definitive then
And only half the reason? You sure? What’s the other half?
You’d be surprised about political sentiment amongst senior civil servants, it’s far more diverse than that simpleton idea of a “blob”
I know loads of senior public sector employees and all of them are left liberals. The idea that there is any kind of diversity in the public sector is laughable."Then I respectfully suggest you need to wide your social circle. You are clearly talking about Council workers right? Or maybe quangos? You’ll note I said Senior Civil Servants. I know loads of them. You can laugh all you want, you’d still be wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?
Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector.
Says who? You? That’s definitive then
And only half the reason? You sure? What’s the other half?
You’d be surprised about political sentiment amongst senior civil servants, it’s far more diverse than that simpleton idea of a “blob”
I know loads of senior public sector employees and all of them are left liberals. The idea that there is any kind of diversity in the public sector is laughable.
Then I respectfully suggest you need to wide your social circle. You are clearly talking about Council workers right? Or maybe quangos? You’ll note I said Senior Civil Servants. I know loads of them. You can laugh all you want, you’d still be wrong "“Council workers”. Spot the giant snob. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?
Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector.
Says who? You? That’s definitive then
And only half the reason? You sure? What’s the other half?
You’d be surprised about political sentiment amongst senior civil servants, it’s far more diverse than that simpleton idea of a “blob”
I know loads of senior public sector employees and all of them are left liberals. The idea that there is any kind of diversity in the public sector is laughable.
Then I respectfully suggest you need to wide your social circle. You are clearly talking about Council workers right? Or maybe quangos? You’ll note I said Senior Civil Servants. I know loads of them. You can laugh all you want, you’d still be wrong
“Council workers”. Spot the giant snob."How so? I used a collective noun to separate local govt employees from central govt employees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?
Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector.
Says who? You? That’s definitive then
And only half the reason? You sure? What’s the other half?
You’d be surprised about political sentiment amongst senior civil servants, it’s far more diverse than that simpleton idea of a “blob”
I know loads of senior public sector employees and all of them are left liberals. The idea that there is any kind of diversity in the public sector is laughable.
Then I respectfully suggest you need to wide your social circle. You are clearly talking about Council workers right? Or maybe quangos? You’ll note I said Senior Civil Servants. I know loads of them. You can laugh all you want, you’d still be wrong
“Council workers”. Spot the giant snob.
How so? I used a collective noun to separate local govt employees from central govt employees. "It’s an interesting point though. As a private sector worker I have no idea what my colleagues’ political opinions are and they don’t know mine. It would be considered divisive to discuss it and nobody does. Yet here you are saying in the civil service you all know each others’ politics, in an environment where one would have thought it should be absolutely verboten to share any personal political opinions and that total impartiality should be maintained at all times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?
Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector.
Says who? You? That’s definitive then
And only half the reason? You sure? What’s the other half?
You’d be surprised about political sentiment amongst senior civil servants, it’s far more diverse than that simpleton idea of a “blob”
I know loads of senior public sector employees and all of them are left liberals. The idea that there is any kind of diversity in the public sector is laughable.
Then I respectfully suggest you need to wide your social circle. You are clearly talking about Council workers right? Or maybe quangos? You’ll note I said Senior Civil Servants. I know loads of them. You can laugh all you want, you’d still be wrong
“Council workers”. Spot the giant snob.
How so? I used a collective noun to separate local govt employees from central govt employees.
It’s an interesting point though.
As a private sector worker I have no idea what my colleagues’ political opinions are and they don’t know mine. It would be considered divisive to discuss it and nobody does.
Yet here you are saying in the civil service you all know each others’ politics, in an environment where one would have thought it should be absolutely verboten to share any personal political opinions and that total impartiality should be maintained at all times."When you say “you all know each other” a reminder I am not a Civil Servant. For someone who labels people quickly it is surprising you are not paying closer attention. Nor did I say my “relationship” was work based or peers/colleagues. Assumptions are not really a good starting point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?
Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector.
Says who? You? That’s definitive then
And only half the reason? You sure? What’s the other half?
You’d be surprised about political sentiment amongst senior civil servants, it’s far more diverse than that simpleton idea of a “blob”
I know loads of senior public sector employees and all of them are left liberals. The idea that there is any kind of diversity in the public sector is laughable.
Then I respectfully suggest you need to wide your social circle. You are clearly talking about Council workers right? Or maybe quangos? You’ll note I said Senior Civil Servants. I know loads of them. You can laugh all you want, you’d still be wrong
“Council workers”. Spot the giant snob.
How so? I used a collective noun to separate local govt employees from central govt employees.
It’s an interesting point though.
As a private sector worker I have no idea what my colleagues’ political opinions are and they don’t know mine. It would be considered divisive to discuss it and nobody does.
Yet here you are saying in the civil service you all know each others’ politics, in an environment where one would have thought it should be absolutely verboten to share any personal political opinions and that total impartiality should be maintained at all times."Why forbidden? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?
Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector.
Says who? You? That’s definitive then
And only half the reason? You sure? What’s the other half?
You’d be surprised about political sentiment amongst senior civil servants, it’s far more diverse than that simpleton idea of a “blob”
I know loads of senior public sector employees and all of them are left liberals. The idea that there is any kind of diversity in the public sector is laughable.
Then I respectfully suggest you need to wide your social circle. You are clearly talking about Council workers right? Or maybe quangos? You’ll note I said Senior Civil Servants. I know loads of them. You can laugh all you want, you’d still be wrong
“Council workers”. Spot the giant snob.
How so? I used a collective noun to separate local govt employees from central govt employees.
It’s an interesting point though.
As a private sector worker I have no idea what my colleagues’ political opinions are and they don’t know mine. It would be considered divisive to discuss it and nobody does.
Yet here you are saying in the civil service you all know each others’ politics, in an environment where one would have thought it should be absolutely verboten to share any personal political opinions and that total impartiality should be maintained at all times.
Why forbidden?"Well picked up on verboten lol Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?
Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector.
Says who? You? That’s definitive then
And only half the reason? You sure? What’s the other half?
You’d be surprised about political sentiment amongst senior civil servants, it’s far more diverse than that simpleton idea of a “blob”
I know loads of senior public sector employees and all of them are left liberals. The idea that there is any kind of diversity in the public sector is laughable.
Then I respectfully suggest you need to wide your social circle. You are clearly talking about Council workers right? Or maybe quangos? You’ll note I said Senior Civil Servants. I know loads of them. You can laugh all you want, you’d still be wrong
“Council workers”. Spot the giant snob.
How so? I used a collective noun to separate local govt employees from central govt employees.
It’s an interesting point though.
As a private sector worker I have no idea what my colleagues’ political opinions are and they don’t know mine. It would be considered divisive to discuss it and nobody does.
Yet here you are saying in the civil service you all know each others’ politics, in an environment where one would have thought it should be absolutely verboten to share any personal political opinions and that total impartiality should be maintained at all times.
When you say “you all know each other” a reminder I am not a Civil Servant. For someone who labels people quickly it is surprising you are not paying closer attention. Nor did I say my “relationship” was work based or peers/colleagues. Assumptions are not really a good starting point."That’s really nit-picking to avoid the substance of what I was saying. My view is that as soon as someone starts talking politics in the workplace it totally changes the dynamic. People feel empowered or threatened, if they think they are in a minority they may choose to keep their opinions to themselves. I would never do a job in the public sector for that reason, I simply wouldn’t want to work in an environment where I felt that I was working in a tiny ideological minority or would have to guard what I say every minute of the day. It must be awful for the handful of conservatives who do work in the public sector. Not even thinking about the impact it must have in the quality of recruitment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?
Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector.
Says who? You? That’s definitive then
And only half the reason? You sure? What’s the other half?
You’d be surprised about political sentiment amongst senior civil servants, it’s far more diverse than that simpleton idea of a “blob”
I know loads of senior public sector employees and all of them are left liberals. The idea that there is any kind of diversity in the public sector is laughable.
Then I respectfully suggest you need to wide your social circle. You are clearly talking about Council workers right? Or maybe quangos? You’ll note I said Senior Civil Servants. I know loads of them. You can laugh all you want, you’d still be wrong
“Council workers”. Spot the giant snob.
How so? I used a collective noun to separate local govt employees from central govt employees.
It’s an interesting point though.
As a private sector worker I have no idea what my colleagues’ political opinions are and they don’t know mine. It would be considered divisive to discuss it and nobody does.
Yet here you are saying in the civil service you all know each others’ politics, in an environment where one would have thought it should be absolutely verboten to share any personal political opinions and that total impartiality should be maintained at all times.
Why forbidden?"Tbh I was thinking on the lines of public sector not civil service. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Accountancy school
You seem very concerned about what jobs other people do.
I’m very surprised that a left liberal should be so concerned about status.
Left Liberal Lol - shift your Overton Window my friend.
Concerned is the wrong word. Curious for sure.
BTW How’s those follower numbers on Twitter/X looking these days?
Left liberals are always obsessed with status. It’s half of the reason why they end up voting the way they do. They’d be too embarrassed to admit anything else to their friends. Plus they’d be unemployable in the public sector.
Says who? You? That’s definitive then
And only half the reason? You sure? What’s the other half?
You’d be surprised about political sentiment amongst senior civil servants, it’s far more diverse than that simpleton idea of a “blob”
I know loads of senior public sector employees and all of them are left liberals. The idea that there is any kind of diversity in the public sector is laughable.
Then I respectfully suggest you need to wide your social circle. You are clearly talking about Council workers right? Or maybe quangos? You’ll note I said Senior Civil Servants. I know loads of them. You can laugh all you want, you’d still be wrong
“Council workers”. Spot the giant snob.
How so? I used a collective noun to separate local govt employees from central govt employees.
It’s an interesting point though.
As a private sector worker I have no idea what my colleagues’ political opinions are and they don’t know mine. It would be considered divisive to discuss it and nobody does.
Yet here you are saying in the civil service you all know each others’ politics, in an environment where one would have thought it should be absolutely verboten to share any personal political opinions and that total impartiality should be maintained at all times."I’ve worked in the public, private and third sectors, known the political views of plenty in all of them. It’s always come up quite naturally in conversation. Your colleagues do talk to you, don’t they? About stuff not directly related to work, I mean. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
