Westminster Politics

Mr Pigeon said:
There's something seriously messed up when the organisation that is apparently set up "to protect consumers by working to deliver a greener, fairer energy system" ends up parroting the same bullshit excuses that the companies make whenever they hike prices.

It's like HR departments at work, who are apparently there to protect workers. Shite; you're all there to protect the business from getting into trouble.
Click to expand...

Tbf the clue is in the name - human resources. It could just be "the employee welfare department" or something if the intention was for them to help you.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
There's something seriously messed up when the organisation that is apparently set up "to protect consumers by working to deliver a greener, fairer energy system" ends up parroting the same bullshit excuses that the companies make whenever they hike prices.

It's like HR departments at work, who are apparently there to protect workers. Shite; you're all there to protect the business from getting into trouble.
Click to expand...

Quite agree.
 
This morning's headlines are a classic reason why this country is fecked.
 
Dan_F said:
Well there is nothing ‘illicit’ about most wealth, but they are taxed higher, that’s how society works. As always for the rich, there are plenty of simple enough ways around it anyway so I’m sure you won’t have an issue avoiding paying your share if that’s what you’re worried about.
Click to expand...
The rhetoric around wealth could lead many people to assume that most of it is gained illicitly however. But I agree with you that the rich should pay the most, it’s just a case of maximising the tax take from the rich and finding the best way of achieving that.

Its hard to resist succumbing to the sloganeering (and intuitive appeal) around taxing the rich, but when you discover that such policies, more often than not, reduce the tax take from that group then you have to be more practical about it.
 
Last edited:
Adisa said:
This morning's headlines are a classic reason why this country is fecked.
Click to expand...
daily-star-083309670.webp
 
justsomebloke said:
Okay, so Mr. Ron English probably has a thing or two to learn about what Rule of Law means.
Click to expand...

Reckon Ron English is just a right wing troll, either partially or fully aware of the issues at hand. But the number of likes he generates is what is worrying, as they'll be people who actually believe what he says.
 
I will not stop saying this - the fairest way of redistributing wealth or closing loopholes for the rich would be to equalise capital gains and dividends tax rates with the rates applied to other forms of non-savings income. Why should passive income be taxed at a more favourable rate than earned income? If anything, if governments truly wanted to incentivise hard work, it would be the other way around. Instead, rich people with investment portfolios and inherited property get a much more favourable tax rate (although admittedly the dividend rate has recently increased but not the whole way to 40 or 45%).
 
Kinsella said:
The rhetoric around wealth could lead many people to assume that most of it is gained illicitly however. But I agree with you that the rich should pay the most, it’s just a case of maximising the tax take from the rich and finding the best way of achieving that.

Its hard to resist succumbing to the sloganeering (and intuitive appeal) around taxing the rich, but when you discover that such policies, more often than not, reduce the tax take from that group then you have to be more practical about it.
Click to expand...

Go on then, find some evidence for this that isn't just a rich person saying it.

End of the day the UK is at the centre of the world's largest network of tax havens, if you're rich and don't want to pay much tax it's already very easy. Perhaps we should work on changing that...

Those who do pay their fair share of taxes will probably still do so if for example capital gains or income tax goes up a few percent.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
There's something seriously messed up when the organisation that is apparently set up "to protect consumers by working to deliver a greener, fairer energy system" ends up parroting the same bullshit excuses that the companies make whenever they hike prices.

It's like HR departments at work, who are apparently there to protect workers. Shite; you're all there to protect the business from getting into trouble.
Click to expand...
I feel attacked. :(
 
Kinsella said:
The rhetoric around wealth could lead many people to assume that most of it is gained illicitly however. But I agree with you that the rich should pay the most, it’s just a case of maximising the tax take from the rich and finding the best way of achieving that.

Its hard to resist succumbing to the sloganeering (and intuitive appeal) around taxing the rich, but when you discover that such policies, more often than not, reduce the tax take from that group then you have to be more practical about it.
Click to expand...
I think there was another thread a while ago about this, so probably not worth debating in here when we clearly have completely opposite views and won’t change each others mind. I’d rather the tax loopholes were closed than just accepting that if we try and take too much tax from the rich, they will just find a way around it.
 
Spark said:
Reckon Ron English is just a right wing troll, either partially or fully aware of the issues at hand. But the number of likes he generates is what is worrying, as they'll be people who actually believe what he says.
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
decent sources in government are saying a very early election. much earlier than expected. brought to you by the Truss/@n@l rumourer.
 
An early election was always inevitable. Leaving it to run until they legally have to call an election is weak. This puts them in control of the date and they will no doubt have a big campaign ready with lots of dirt and misinformation lined up for their client journalists to propagate.
 
Pexbo said:
An early election was always inevitable. Leaving it to run until they legally have to call an election is weak. This puts them in control of the date and they will no doubt have a big campaign ready with lots of dirt and misinformation lined up for their client journalists to propagate.
Click to expand...
"Sir Keir Starmer is a Sir. He thinks he's better than you because you don't have a Sir. Do you really want a posh git telling you what to do? Vote for Rishi Sunak, a man who fills his own petrol tank, and stand up to the elitists. God Save the King. Vote Tory."
 
Mr Pigeon said:
"Sir Keir Starmer is a Sir. He thinks he's better than you because you don't have a Sir. Do you really want a posh git telling you what to do? Vote for Rishi Sunak, a man who fills his own petrol tank, and stand up to the elitists. God Save the King. Vote Tory."
Click to expand...
Plus, the Labour Party have never had a brown leader or a woman, even though they are woke, hypocrites
 
Pexbo said:
An early election was always inevitable. Leaving it to run until they legally have to call an election is weak. This puts them in control of the date and they will no doubt have a big campaign ready with lots of dirt and misinformation lined up for their client journalists to propagate.
Click to expand...
How does an early election make sense when you consider they just brought in Cameron? Why would he come back for a very short stint when it looks like they'll get hammered in the elections?
 
Maagge said:
How does an early election make sense when you consider they just brought in Cameron? Why would he come back for a very short stint when it looks like they'll get hammered in the elections?
Click to expand...
Things can only get worse, I bet.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...082789f67453dd#block-655f56008f082789f67453dd

Starmer calls latest net migration figures 'shockingly high'
Keir Starmer has described today’s net migration figures, showing it at 745,000 in the year to December 2022 (a figure that has been revised upwards) and 672,000 in the year to June 2023, as “shockingly high”. Echoing language used by Yvette Cooper (see 1.07pm), Starmer said:

That figure is shockingly high. It represents a failure, not just of immigration, but also of asylum and of the economy.
Because within that figure there’s a huge increase in work visas, which shows the government hasn’t done what it needs to do on skills.
Within that number there are a rising number of asylum seekers and disclosure that the hotel bills are going up and up.
Click to expand...
Starmer still appealing to the knuckle-draggers.
Asylum seekers, eh?

UK voted for Brexit, told the Europeans they weren't welcome. Wanted a system so that people from all over the world could come.
They're coming.

Make Brexit work, Starmer? Haha. Funny.
 
Maagge said:
How does an early election make sense when you consider they just brought in Cameron? Why would he come back for a very short stint when it looks like they'll get hammered in the elections?
Click to expand...
He’s there to help them win the election. They want a Cameron bounce with traditional Tory voters.
 
Pexbo said:
He’s there to help them win the election. They want a Cameron bounce with traditional Tory voters.
Click to expand...
"David Cameron is a nice man. Think back on how nice he was. Don't Google it, just remember all of the nice things he did. There you go. Nice... Such a nice man. And he clearly loves animals, even ones you'd find on a farm. Vote Tory."
 
MadMike said:
But why? Why not just stay and milk every last penny? There's certainly no way they can avoid the wipeout.
Click to expand...

They were always going to try and win it based on beating inflation and culture wars. Fact is this might be as good as it gets for them.

Early easter election was the expectation wasn't it? Can't see it being much sooner as it takes a couple of month.
 
Smores said:
They were always going to try and win it based on beating inflation and culture wars. Fact is this might be as good as it gets for them.

Early easter election was the expectation wasn't it? Can't see it being much sooner as it takes a couple of month.
Click to expand...
Plus, they need all the OAPs they can get, not so easy in the winter
 
finneh said:
Sorry 24% have a disability. 6.3 million are entitled to disability benefit (just under a sixth of working age adults).
Click to expand...

This is still way, way wrong. 6.3 million were entitled to the disability cost of living payment ( a one off payment of £150). This figure includes the elderly and children. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies 2.2 million working age people were in receipt of disability benefits as of 2020/21. This equates to 6% of the workforce. (PDF, Page 3):

IFS said:
The share of working-age adults reporting a disability, and the fraction of working-age adults in receipt of disability benefits, have both been rising steadily over the last three decades. In 2020–21, 2.2 million working-age people were in receipt of disability benefits, compared with 1.9 million in 2012–13 and 591,000 in 1992–93. The number of working-age people reporting a disability (a long-standing and limiting condition or illness) stood at 7.4 million in 2020–21, up from 6.0 million in 2012–13. This means that less than a third of those who report a disability are in receipt of disability benefits.
Click to expand...
 
hobbers said:
What is the rational for an early election then?
Click to expand...

Inflation as a whole is down which has been spun as one of their accomplishments, regardless of the fine print around that.

Also the Rwanda thing, at the moment they're failing but I would imagine they see using the recent judgement as a call to arms being a vote winner for them, vote for us an we'll feck human rights in the arse sort of thing.

And they're back to vocally beating on the poor, which goes down well with old people I guess.

How much they play in the wider electorate I don't know. But immigration certainly seems like it's a big concern for a lot of people (rightly or wrongly).
 
MadMike said:
But why? Why not just stay and milk every last penny? There's certainly no way they can avoid the wipeout.
Click to expand...


A winter election will be brutal for the tories. I mean, any election would be brutal for them now, but a winter election now would be even more brutal.
 
DavelinaJolie said:
Inflation as a whole is down which has been spun as one of their accomplishments, regardless of the fine print around that.

Also the Rwanda thing, at the moment they're failing but I would imagine they see using the recent judgement as a call to arms being a vote winner for them, vote for us an we'll feck human rights in the arse sort of thing.

And they're back to vocally beating on the poor, which goes down well with old people I guess.

How much they play in the wider electorate I don't know. But immigration certainly seems like it's a big concern for a lot of people (rightly or wrongly).
Click to expand...
If Rwanda is going to be sold as an election winner why did they sack the nasty bitch that was overseeing it?
 
hobbers said:
What is the rational for an early election then?
Click to expand...
Think after sacking Suella, internally there'll be big enough voices not backing him. Right of the party probably threaten votes of no confidence which I don't think anyone believes will get anywhere but you still probably don't want that smoke so close to an election, so calling an election first and giving yourself a fighting chance might be best?


All quite hypothetical, more likely just damage limitation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.