Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good ,bad ,expected ?" Good, honest and balanced, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good ,bad ,expected ? Good, honest and balanced, " I think so. No big shocks or jerky market reactions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thought it was good tbh! Tho I did laugh listening to the Tories saying taxes up when they put taxes up during the pandemic and also highest debt on record! Also glad to see labour are going to try getting back the millions of pounds from the dodgy ppe contracts the the Tories gave their mates!" Yeah that’s good news, hopefully Michelle Mone will have to repay the millions she stole | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to do what Rachel reeves did… you really only get to do it once, and if you are going to do it, then do it in budget 1 and hope everyone forgets about it in 4 years time! It was a smarter budget than I thought it would be…. I still think labour missed a trick in not releasing the OBR figures of what the last government left them in" Any guesses as to why Labour haven't released the figures? People have been asking for months now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good ,bad ,expected ?" Businesses will struggle. It's a brave move to make doing business harder in this climate, while talking about growth. Altogether not as crappy as feared, though. Many were predicting abject disaster. This is just... Unpalatable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? " Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. " Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. " Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive " How do you 'become more competitive' as a... Let's say convenience store. Are you sure you'd prefer the multi nationals to have a monopoly? Or maybe a farmer. The multi nationals actually set their prices. Are you sure you've actually thought your statement through? You've never owned a small business, have you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive How do you 'become more competitive' as a... Let's say convenience store. Are you sure you'd prefer the multi nationals to have a monopoly? Or maybe a farmer. The multi nationals actually set their prices. Are you sure you've actually thought your statement through? You've never owned a small business, have you?" No, but I employ a lot of tradesmen , I stand by my statement , | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive How do you 'become more competitive' as a... Let's say convenience store. Are you sure you'd prefer the multi nationals to have a monopoly? Or maybe a farmer. The multi nationals actually set their prices. Are you sure you've actually thought your statement through? You've never owned a small business, have you? No, but I employ a lot of tradesmen , I stand by my statement , " YOU 'employ' would assert that you own a business. You just said you don't. I asked follow up questions... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive How do you 'become more competitive' as a... Let's say convenience store. Are you sure you'd prefer the multi nationals to have a monopoly? Or maybe a farmer. The multi nationals actually set their prices. Are you sure you've actually thought your statement through? You've never owned a small business, have you?" us small businesses are buggered anyway as its so easy now to price stuff up online without taking into consideration running costs, hopefully people dont mind paying me a slight premium for added benific of been a small local business i make 10% on all materials and most jobs earn just above what i would get as a subcontractor theres no be more competitive about it 🤷 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fairly as unexpected, will put prices up with the extra pressure on business being passed on, too much being spent on benefits as ever though." Too much? What level would you like to see | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fairly as unexpected, will put prices up with the extra pressure on business being passed on, too much being spent on benefits as ever though. Too much? What level would you like to see " A reduction in services provided by the nhs removing elective procedures fertility procedures etc for a start. Spend less and optimise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fairly as unexpected, will put prices up with the extra pressure on business being passed on, too much being spent on benefits as ever though. Too much? What level would you like to see A reduction in services provided by the nhs removing elective procedures fertility procedures etc for a start. Spend less and optimise. " Ah right, you don’t think people who want children should have IVF on the NHS? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive " And then more people on the dole  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive And then more people on the dole "So be it, plenty of jobs out there, fruit pickers are in high demand | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fairly as unexpected, will put prices up with the extra pressure on business being passed on, too much being spent on benefits as ever though. Too much? What level would you like to see A reduction in services provided by the nhs removing elective procedures fertility procedures etc for a start. Spend less and optimise. Ah right, you don’t think people who want children should have IVF on the NHS? " Nope not at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fairly as unexpected, will put prices up with the extra pressure on business being passed on, too much being spent on benefits as ever though. Too much? What level would you like to see A reduction in services provided by the nhs removing elective procedures fertility procedures etc for a start. Spend less and optimise. Ah right, you don’t think people who want children should have IVF on the NHS? " I don’t. It is neither a right or threat to health being unable to have children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to do what Rachel reeves did… you really only get to do it once, and if you are going to do it, then do it in budget 1 and hope everyone forgets about it in 4 years time! It was a smarter budget than I thought it would be…. I still think labour missed a trick in not releasing the OBR figures of what the last government left them in Any guesses as to why Labour haven't released the figures? People have been asking for months now. " The Budget watchdog has confirmed that the last government “did not provide” them with all available information at the last budget but has not repeated the Government’s £22 billion black hole claim. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has uncovered £9.5 billion in spending pressures that it was not made aware of ahead of Jeremy Hunt’s fiscal statement in March, and has said that its judgment on spending would have been “materially different” had it had access to this information. Rachel Reeves’ Budget on Wednesday afternoon sought to address what ministers have called the “£22 billion black hole” in the public finances, however, the OBR’s chairman has said that the Government’s additions to the spending plans this year represent a combination of their own policies and bridging that £9.5 billion gap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ah right, you don’t think people who want children should have IVF on the NHS? " That's the wrong question. It should be: Do you (tax payers) want to pay for people to have children? If someone cannot otherwise afford IVF, will they then need hundreds of thousands more for raising these children? There is a cogent argument to say yes - the UK does need more children, according to many people. There is also an argument that this is not a fair use of taxpayers' money. The point is that it should neither be framed as a question of human rights nor medical necessity. Rather is it in the best interests of the country and taxpayer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive " That argument is specious. You cannot make this free market capitalism argument when imposing socialism on top of it. You are correct: competition and market/sector headwinds make businesses leaner and more competitive. But government imposed taxes don't figure in this calculation, especially where they skew competitiveness, by favouring one sector (in this instance, the public sector, by funding their extra taxe burden). By your logic, tripling taxes on businesses would be a good thing for business overall, ing out the weak. Clearly, that would stall the economy. Moreover, in order to stay competitive, prices would need to rise. The demise of the "weak dogs" would reduce competition and we'd end up with price rises with fewer companies, approaching a monopoly situation. This is not good for consumers, businesses or, ultimately, government. Yes, zombie companies need to be allowed to fail (emphatically so). No, it is not healthy for the government to help this to happen, particularly with tax rises. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to do what Rachel reeves did… you really only get to do it once, and if you are going to do it, then do it in budget 1 and hope everyone forgets about it in 4 years time! It was a smarter budget than I thought it would be…. I still think labour missed a trick in not releasing the OBR figures of what the last government left them in" Not sure that labour “missed a trick” by not releasing the OBR figures . More likely, the OBR figures didn’t back up the “black hole” claims. OBR have said that this budget will have a significant cost per household. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fairly as unexpected, will put prices up with the extra pressure on business being passed on, too much being spent on benefits as ever though." Agreed. No attempt to rein in benefits costs, which are predicted to increase massively in the next few years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to do what Rachel reeves did… you really only get to do it once, and if you are going to do it, then do it in budget 1 and hope everyone forgets about it in 4 years time! It was a smarter budget than I thought it would be…. I still think labour missed a trick in not releasing the OBR figures of what the last government left them in Any guesses as to why Labour haven't released the figures? People have been asking for months now. The Budget watchdog has confirmed that the last government “did not provide” them with all available information at the last budget but has not repeated the Government’s £22 billion black hole claim. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has uncovered £9.5 billion in spending pressures that it was not made aware of ahead of Jeremy Hunt’s fiscal statement in March, and has said that its judgment on spending would have been “materially different” had it had access to this information. Rachel Reeves’ Budget on Wednesday afternoon sought to address what ministers have called the “£22 billion black hole” in the public finances, however, the OBR’s chairman has said that the Government’s additions to the spending plans this year represent a combination of their own policies and bridging that £9.5 billion gap." The 22 billion figure was made up. They have been challenged on this figure for months now, and it is now proven to be fictitious | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to do what Rachel reeves did… you really only get to do it once, and if you are going to do it, then do it in budget 1 and hope everyone forgets about it in 4 years time! It was a smarter budget than I thought it would be…. I still think labour missed a trick in not releasing the OBR figures of what the last government left them in Not sure that labour “missed a trick” by not releasing the OBR figures . More likely, the OBR figures didn’t back up the “black hole” claims. OBR have said that this budget will have a significant cost per household. " 300 pounds per household. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to do what Rachel reeves did… you really only get to do it once, and if you are going to do it, then do it in budget 1 and hope everyone forgets about it in 4 years time! It was a smarter budget than I thought it would be…. I still think labour missed a trick in not releasing the OBR figures of what the last government left them in Not sure that labour “missed a trick” by not releasing the OBR figures . More likely, the OBR figures didn’t back up the “black hole” claims. OBR have said that this budget will have a significant cost per household. 300 pounds per household." Cost to “working people”, if I’m not mistaken! … and growth forecasts were downgraded despite RR saying the budget was all going to be about growth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to do what Rachel reeves did… you really only get to do it once, and if you are going to do it, then do it in budget 1 and hope everyone forgets about it in 4 years time! It was a smarter budget than I thought it would be…. I still think labour missed a trick in not releasing the OBR figures of what the last government left them in Not sure that labour “missed a trick” by not releasing the OBR figures . More likely, the OBR figures didn’t back up the “black hole” claims. OBR have said that this budget will have a significant cost per household. 300 pounds per household." The only surprising thing is how low the figure is. Let's face it, we've had Brexit, Pandemic, Liz Truss Budget, massive benefits packages, asylum seeker hotels, a basket case healthcare system. It's small wonder the country is still functioning at all. Summary : the big bill was always coming and yesterday it fell on the doormat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to do what Rachel reeves did… you really only get to do it once, and if you are going to do it, then do it in budget 1 and hope everyone forgets about it in 4 years time! It was a smarter budget than I thought it would be…. I still think labour missed a trick in not releasing the OBR figures of what the last government left them in Not sure that labour “missed a trick” by not releasing the OBR figures . More likely, the OBR figures didn’t back up the “black hole” claims. OBR have said that this budget will have a significant cost per household. 300 pounds per household. The only surprising thing is how low the figure is. Let's face it, we've had Brexit, Pandemic, Liz Truss Budget, massive benefits packages, asylum seeker hotels, a basket case healthcare system. It's small wonder the country is still functioning at all. Summary : the big bill was always coming and yesterday it fell on the doormat." All of that had already been reflected in the tax increases that the tories had levied. Yesterday was about grandstanding (seriously, how much will the private jet tax bring in?), and spending even more money that we don’t have | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to do what Rachel reeves did… you really only get to do it once, and if you are going to do it, then do it in budget 1 and hope everyone forgets about it in 4 years time! It was a smarter budget than I thought it would be…. I still think labour missed a trick in not releasing the OBR figures of what the last government left them in Not sure that labour “missed a trick” by not releasing the OBR figures . More likely, the OBR figures didn’t back up the “black hole” claims. OBR have said that this budget will have a significant cost per household. 300 pounds per household. Cost to “working people”, if I’m not mistaken! … and growth forecasts were downgraded despite RR saying the budget was all going to be about growth. " Because the previous growth forecast was based on incomplete data by the previous government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good ,bad ,expected ? Good, honest and balanced, I think so. No big shocks or jerky market reactions. " 10 year Gilt rates rising for the 9th consecutive day. Higher now than after the Truss budget. That’s pretty damning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good ,bad ,expected ? Good, honest and balanced, I think so. No big shocks or jerky market reactions. 10 year Gilt rates rising for the 9th consecutive day. Higher now than after the Truss budget. That’s pretty damning." Not necessarily. You need to look at the relative change and any shock, while keeping other geopolitical and economic factors in mind. You cannot purely judge from an absolute rate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good ,bad ,expected ? Good, honest and balanced, I think so. No big shocks or jerky market reactions. 10 year Gilt rates rising for the 9th consecutive day. Higher now than after the Truss budget. That’s pretty damning." Working people don’t care, btw, what happens to Liz Truss | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good ,bad ,expected ? Good, honest and balanced, I think so. No big shocks or jerky market reactions. 10 year Gilt rates rising for the 9th consecutive day. Higher now than after the Truss budget. That’s pretty damning. Working people don’t care, btw, what happens to Liz Truss " There is more to this than you might think if you don’t believe gilts influence working people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good ,bad ,expected ? Good, honest and balanced, I think so. No big shocks or jerky market reactions. 10 year Gilt rates rising for the 9th consecutive day. Higher now than after the Truss budget. That’s pretty damning. Working people don’t care, btw, what happens to Liz Truss There is more to this than you might think if you don’t believe gilts influence working people." I suspect he meant “working people”, ie average people, don’t care about or care to understand about Gilts and Truss rather than how they ultimately have an influence (or knock on effect) over their lives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good ,bad ,expected ? Good, honest and balanced, I think so. No big shocks or jerky market reactions. 10 year Gilt rates rising for the 9th consecutive day. Higher now than after the Truss budget. That’s pretty damning. Not necessarily. You need to look at the relative change and any shock, while keeping other geopolitical and economic factors in mind. You cannot purely judge from an absolute rate." Exactly. People need to look at the level of increase that happened due to Truss/Kwartang, ie the number of percentage points increase. REUTERS: Government borrowing costs measured by 10-year gilt yields touched their highest since May at around 4.38% , but the move was modest in comparison to the surge two years ago. Sterling rose , meanwhile, and the domestically-focused FTSE mid-250 index (.FTMC), opens new tab briefly jumped more than 1.5%. "Investors feared a new Liz Truss moment, but in the end the announcements do not suggest an uncontrolled surge in debt," Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management portfolio manager Nabil Milali said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The FTSE 100 and 250 have been pretty miserable for a month or so, which probably reflects the depressed business and consumer mood. No reason to think that this budget is going to improve UK companies’ financial performance. Sterling is up because traders think interest rates will stay higher for longer. Which is good news if you aren’t a borrower." Great news for me , | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to do what Rachel reeves did… you really only get to do it once, and if you are going to do it, then do it in budget 1 and hope everyone forgets about it in 4 years time! It was a smarter budget than I thought it would be…. I still think labour missed a trick in not releasing the OBR figures of what the last government left them in Not sure that labour “missed a trick” by not releasing the OBR figures . More likely, the OBR figures didn’t back up the “black hole” claims. OBR have said that this budget will have a significant cost per household. 300 pounds per household." Err the OBR issued their report it's on their website. Yes the extra cost per household is £300 but the national debt per household is £100,000 and rising. Frightening isn't it that posters on here moan about £300. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see now they are admitting that the effects of the NI increase will have a negative effect on workers. Less in pay rises and fewer jobs. Both these knock on effects reduce how much the government will get and the financial boffins are saying because of that, the government will not receive anywhere near what they claim. Borrowing costs up and the FTSE 250 back down over 300 points." Reeves showed the usual labour spite them if they are not one of us mentality, when answering question about NI increases to businesses. She said business will need to absorb the cost through profits and pay rises wont be as high for their employees. What was they saying about not impacting workers, looks like it if you're in the public sector, stinks if you are in the private.... Her borrowing is also going to hurt in the next 2 years and how she is hanging her coat on if's but's and maybe's is utterly ridiculous! Finally her smash and grab before the budget to pay off the unions and their members is awful enough to bury the party at the next GE.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to do what Rachel reeves did… you really only get to do it once, and if you are going to do it, then do it in budget 1 and hope everyone forgets about it in 4 years time! It was a smarter budget than I thought it would be…. I still think labour missed a trick in not releasing the OBR figures of what the last government left them in Not sure that labour “missed a trick” by not releasing the OBR figures . More likely, the OBR figures didn’t back up the “black hole” claims. OBR have said that this budget will have a significant cost per household. 300 pounds per household. Err the OBR issued their report it's on their website. Yes the extra cost per household is £300 but the national debt per household is £100,000 and rising. Frightening isn't it that posters on here moan about £300." It’s an extra 300 quid though. And many people don’t have much in terms of spare cash anyway, so 300 quid might seem a trifling amount to you, but on top of everything else it probably hurts a lot of people more than you think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive And then more people on the dole
So be it, plenty of jobs out there, fruit pickers are in high demand "Interesting... there's plenty of jobs out there such as cleaning, care, minimum wage, and other jobs that the 1m who chose to be on benefits don't want or won't do. So why aren't they made to take them up before reliance on hardworking foreign labour? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive And then more people on the dole
So be it, plenty of jobs out there, fruit pickers are in high demand
Interesting... there's plenty of jobs out there such as cleaning, care, minimum wage, and other jobs that the 1m who chose to be on benefits don't want or won't do. So why aren't they made to take them up before reliance on hardworking foreign labour?"Because those who use the services would complain.. service workers already get treated like cramp by the very people paying to use someone else's bed at a hotel someone else's towels that go to a laundry service and someone else's plate and washed fork. Putting time frames and only directly paying for essentials should be the requirement. Sadly we do that for prisoners and those in care home both of which generally have less control of how long they will be there. Yet someone in benefits can get off them and do or be better but why would they when it's not a requirement to do something, sometimes it's even better to stay on benefits... While those who need them temporarily get denied and little support or help.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive And then more people on the dole
So be it, plenty of jobs out there, fruit pickers are in high demand
Interesting... there's plenty of jobs out there such as cleaning, care, minimum wage, and other jobs that the 1m who chose to be on benefits don't want or won't do. So why aren't they made to take them up before reliance on hardworking foreign labour?
Because those who use the services would complain.. service workers already get treated like cramp by the very people paying to use someone else's bed at a hotel someone else's towels that go to a laundry service and someone else's plate and washed fork. Putting time frames and only directly paying for essentials should be the requirement. Sadly we do that for prisoners and those in care home both of which generally have less control of how long they will be there. Yet someone in benefits can get off them and do or be better but why would they when it's not a requirement to do something, sometimes it's even better to stay on benefits... While those who need them temporarily get denied and little support or help.."So we agree there are plenty who are taking the piss because they get more on benefits than they'd get working which is to the detriment of those that actually have a legitimate neec | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive And then more people on the dole
So be it, plenty of jobs out there, fruit pickers are in high demand
Interesting... there's plenty of jobs out there such as cleaning, care, minimum wage, and other jobs that the 1m who chose to be on benefits don't want or won't do. So why aren't they made to take them up before reliance on hardworking foreign labour?
Because those who use the services would complain.. service workers already get treated like cramp by the very people paying to use someone else's bed at a hotel someone else's towels that go to a laundry service and someone else's plate and washed fork. Putting time frames and only directly paying for essentials should be the requirement. Sadly we do that for prisoners and those in care home both of which generally have less control of how long they will be there. Yet someone in benefits can get off them and do or be better but why would they when it's not a requirement to do something, sometimes it's even better to stay on benefits... While those who need them temporarily get denied and little support or help..
So we agree there are plenty who are taking the piss because they get more on benefits than they'd get working which is to the detriment of those that actually have a legitimate neec"FULLY AGREE!! Worked my ass off left my abusive partner slept in a storage container got a zero hour contract job after 2 weeks taking ANYTHING for work..made permanent lost benefits due to 1p pay rise.. council said I didn't notify them..I had emailed and called and put it on my UC notification.. lost my appeal because council email and phone number is generic didn't mean I spoke to benefits...yeah I called to the crematorium .... 4 yes ago repayment ends today... Gotta laugh not to cry Meanwhile if I had just jumped in the sea... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed " People actively vote against their own interests over and over again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed " I am all for peaceful protests , why don’t you organise one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed People actively vote against their own interests over and over again. " People know what their interests are. You don't have to lecture them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed People actively vote against their own interests over and over again. People know what their interests are. You don't have to lecture them." Any chance of staying on topic instead of attacking the poster? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed People actively vote against their own interests over and over again. People know what their interests are. You don't have to lecture them. Any chance of staying on topic instead of attacking the poster?" When did I attack you? This might come as a shock. But saying that you are wrong isn't a personal attack | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed People actively vote against their own interests over and over again. People know what their interests are. You don't have to lecture them. Any chance of staying on topic instead of attacking the poster? When did I attack you? This might come as a shock. But saying that you are wrong isn't a personal attack " You didn't say I was wrong. You told me to stop lecturing people. I wasn't, you focused on the poster instead of the post. Please try to stay on topic and not go for the person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed People actively vote against their own interests over and over again. People know what their interests are. You don't have to lecture them. Any chance of staying on topic instead of attacking the poster? When did I attack you? This might come as a shock. But saying that you are wrong isn't a personal attack You didn't say I was wrong. You told me to stop lecturing people. I wasn't, you focused on the poster instead of the post. Please try to stay on topic and not go for the person. " You said people were voting against "their own interests". I am saying you are wrong to lecture people on what their interests are because you don't know anything about what their interests are. It's not a personal attack. If you can't handle criticism of your views, political debates are probably not for you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed People actively vote against their own interests over and over again. People know what their interests are. You don't have to lecture them. Any chance of staying on topic instead of attacking the poster? When did I attack you? This might come as a shock. But saying that you are wrong isn't a personal attack You didn't say I was wrong. You told me to stop lecturing people. I wasn't, you focused on the poster instead of the post. Please try to stay on topic and not go for the person. You said people were voting against "their own interests". I am saying you are wrong to lecture people on what their interests are because you don't know anything about what their interests are. It's not a personal attack. If you can't handle criticism of your views, political debates are probably not for you." Please try to stay on topic instead of going at the person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed People actively vote against their own interests over and over again. People know what their interests are. You don't have to lecture them. Any chance of staying on topic instead of attacking the poster? When did I attack you? This might come as a shock. But saying that you are wrong isn't a personal attack You didn't say I was wrong. You told me to stop lecturing people. I wasn't, you focused on the poster instead of the post. Please try to stay on topic and not go for the person. You said people were voting against "their own interests". I am saying you are wrong to lecture people on what their interests are because you don't know anything about what their interests are. It's not a personal attack. If you can't handle criticism of your views, political debates are probably not for you. Please try to stay on topic instead of going at the person. " No one is going for you 
If you don't have answers to questions, you can just stop replying instead of playing victim | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes up. Borrowing up. Borrowing costs up. Inflation to stay higher for longer. Interest rates to stay higher for longer. Workers to feel the effects in their wages. Less jobs to be created. Less in pay rises for workers. The promise of increasing the economy over the long term has turned into increase it for a couple of years then drop back. Financial predictions after year two are now worse." Labour pretends like it's "temporary pain" to get things sorted. But none of them know how things are magically going to be sorted out. Their tax rises are going to hit businesses badly and affect employment rates. Their stamp duty hike is going to reduce housing mobility and only increasing house prices. All the tax they collected will go into the pay promises they are making with no improvement in the services. After a couple of years, they will come back for more taxes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed People actively vote against their own interests over and over again. People know what their interests are. You don't have to lecture them. Any chance of staying on topic instead of attacking the poster? When did I attack you? This might come as a shock. But saying that you are wrong isn't a personal attack You didn't say I was wrong. You told me to stop lecturing people. I wasn't, you focused on the poster instead of the post. Please try to stay on topic and not go for the person. You said people were voting against "their own interests". I am saying you are wrong to lecture people on what their interests are because you don't know anything about what their interests are. It's not a personal attack. If you can't handle criticism of your views, political debates are probably not for you. Please try to stay on topic instead of going at the person. No one is going for you
If you don't have answers to questions, you can just stop replying instead of playing victim "Please try to stay on topic instead of going at the person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes up. Borrowing up. Borrowing costs up. Inflation to stay higher for longer. Interest rates to stay higher for longer. Workers to feel the effects in their wages. Less jobs to be created. Less in pay rises for workers. The promise of increasing the economy over the long term has turned into increase it for a couple of years then drop back. Financial predictions after year two are now worse. Labour pretends like it's "temporary pain" to get things sorted. But none of them know how things are magically going to be sorted out. Their tax rises are going to hit businesses badly and affect employment rates. Their stamp duty hike is going to reduce housing mobility and only increasing house prices. All the tax they collected will go into the pay promises they are making with no improvement in the services. After a couple of years, they will come back for more taxes." If the stamp duty is going to dry up the housing market then it becomes a buyers market and prices will drop not go up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes up. Borrowing up. Borrowing costs up. Inflation to stay higher for longer. Interest rates to stay higher for longer. Workers to feel the effects in their wages. Less jobs to be created. Less in pay rises for workers. The promise of increasing the economy over the long term has turned into increase it for a couple of years then drop back. Financial predictions after year two are now worse. Labour pretends like it's "temporary pain" to get things sorted. But none of them know how things are magically going to be sorted out. Their tax rises are going to hit businesses badly and affect employment rates. Their stamp duty hike is going to reduce housing mobility and only increasing house prices. All the tax they collected will go into the pay promises they are making with no improvement in the services. After a couple of years, they will come back for more taxes. If the stamp duty is going to dry up the housing market then it becomes a buyers market and prices will drop not go up." Stamp duty would result in reduced number of houses in the market. It won't become a buyer's market. They have made it more expensive for people to downsize their homes. An old couple living in a huge home that's hard to maintain and not of much use will now have less incentive to sell and downsize. And of course, whoever is buying has to pay more now because of the stamp duty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed People actively vote against their own interests over and over again. People know what their interests are. You don't have to lecture them. Any chance of staying on topic instead of attacking the poster? When did I attack you? This might come as a shock. But saying that you are wrong isn't a personal attack You didn't say I was wrong. You told me to stop lecturing people. I wasn't, you focused on the poster instead of the post. Please try to stay on topic and not go for the person. You said people were voting against "their own interests". I am saying you are wrong to lecture people on what their interests are because you don't know anything about what their interests are. It's not a personal attack. If you can't handle criticism of your views, political debates are probably not for you. Please try to stay on topic instead of going at the person. No one is going for you
If you don't have answers to questions, you can just stop replying instead of playing victim
Please try to stay on topic instead of going at the person."I have seen you telling people that they should follow Reform party or read GB News as a way to insult them. Can you explain how that's totally fine but me asking you not to lecture others is somehow a personal attack? I would seriously like to understand the mental gymnastics behind this thinking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed People actively vote against their own interests over and over again. People know what their interests are. You don't have to lecture them. Any chance of staying on topic instead of attacking the poster? When did I attack you? This might come as a shock. But saying that you are wrong isn't a personal attack You didn't say I was wrong. You told me to stop lecturing people. I wasn't, you focused on the poster instead of the post. Please try to stay on topic and not go for the person. You said people were voting against "their own interests". I am saying you are wrong to lecture people on what their interests are because you don't know anything about what their interests are. It's not a personal attack. If you can't handle criticism of your views, political debates are probably not for you. Please try to stay on topic instead of going at the person. No one is going for you
If you don't have answers to questions, you can just stop replying instead of playing victim
Please try to stay on topic instead of going at the person.
I have seen you telling people that they should follow Reform party or read GB News as a way to insult them. Can you explain how that's totally fine but me asking you not to lecture others is somehow a personal attack?
I would seriously like to understand the mental gymnastics behind this thinking."Please try to stay on topic instead of going at the person. Ta. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face it whatever they do fucks us over, about time people make a stand instead of constantly getting dry bummed People actively vote against their own interests over and over again. People know what their interests are. You don't have to lecture them. Any chance of staying on topic instead of attacking the poster? When did I attack you? This might come as a shock. But saying that you are wrong isn't a personal attack You didn't say I was wrong. You told me to stop lecturing people. I wasn't, you focused on the poster instead of the post. Please try to stay on topic and not go for the person. You said people were voting against "their own interests". I am saying you are wrong to lecture people on what their interests are because you don't know anything about what their interests are. It's not a personal attack. If you can't handle criticism of your views, political debates are probably not for you. Please try to stay on topic instead of going at the person. No one is going for you
If you don't have answers to questions, you can just stop replying instead of playing victim
Please try to stay on topic instead of going at the person.
I have seen you telling people that they should follow Reform party or read GB News as a way to insult them. Can you explain how that's totally fine but me asking you not to lecture others is somehow a personal attack?
I would seriously like to understand the mental gymnastics behind this thinking.
Please try to stay on topic instead of going at the person. Ta."You already said this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes up. Borrowing up. Borrowing costs up. Inflation to stay higher for longer. Interest rates to stay higher for longer. Workers to feel the effects in their wages. Less jobs to be created. Less in pay rises for workers. The promise of increasing the economy over the long term has turned into increase it for a couple of years then drop back. Financial predictions after year two are now worse. Labour pretends like it's "temporary pain" to get things sorted. But none of them know how things are magically going to be sorted out. Their tax rises are going to hit businesses badly and affect employment rates. Their stamp duty hike is going to reduce housing mobility and only increasing house prices. All the tax they collected will go into the pay promises they are making with no improvement in the services. After a couple of years, they will come back for more taxes. If the stamp duty is going to dry up the housing market then it becomes a buyers market and prices will drop not go up. Stamp duty would result in reduced number of houses in the market. It won't become a buyer's market. They have made it more expensive for people to downsize their homes. An old couple living in a huge home that's hard to maintain and not of much use will now have less incentive to sell and downsize. And of course, whoever is buying has to pay more now because of the stamp duty." So if the buyers can’t afford the houses because of the stamp duty how would raising the price of the houses make them more affordable. The market isn’t built around people downsizing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes up. Borrowing up. Borrowing costs up. Inflation to stay higher for longer. Interest rates to stay higher for longer. Workers to feel the effects in their wages. Less jobs to be created. Less in pay rises for workers. The promise of increasing the economy over the long term has turned into increase it for a couple of years then drop back. Financial predictions after year two are now worse. Labour pretends like it's "temporary pain" to get things sorted. But none of them know how things are magically going to be sorted out. Their tax rises are going to hit businesses badly and affect employment rates. Their stamp duty hike is going to reduce housing mobility and only increasing house prices. All the tax they collected will go into the pay promises they are making with no improvement in the services. After a couple of years, they will come back for more taxes. If the stamp duty is going to dry up the housing market then it becomes a buyers market and prices will drop not go up. Stamp duty would result in reduced number of houses in the market. It won't become a buyer's market. They have made it more expensive for people to downsize their homes. An old couple living in a huge home that's hard to maintain and not of much use will now have less incentive to sell and downsize. And of course, whoever is buying has to pay more now because of the stamp duty. So if the buyers can’t afford the houses because of the stamp duty how would raising the price of the houses make them more affordable. The market isn’t built around people downsizing." When did I say that rising the price of houses will make it more affordable? In a market where people are already struggling to buy houses, how is increasing stamp duty going to help? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive How do you 'become more competitive' as a... Let's say convenience store. Are you sure you'd prefer the multi nationals to have a monopoly? Or maybe a farmer. The multi nationals actually set their prices. Are you sure you've actually thought your statement through? You've never owned a small business, have you? No, but I employ a lot of tradesmen , I stand by my statement , " You employ are are they self employed. So if employed will you be paying the NI incress or put up the costs to you customers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If business get extra costs, guess what happens, they pass it on So they either go under or increase in inflation, who benefits from extra pricing? Or they become more competitive, maybe boses or owners take a pay cut rather than go out of business. Not every owner is making millions. Plenty of small business owners just make a living wage. Then they will have to either become more competitive or go under, it’s dog eat dog in business, only the strongest survive How do you 'become more competitive' as a... Let's say convenience store. Are you sure you'd prefer the multi nationals to have a monopoly? Or maybe a farmer. The multi nationals actually set their prices. Are you sure you've actually thought your statement through? You've never owned a small business, have you? No, but I employ a lot of tradesmen , I stand by my statement , You employ are are they self employed. So if employed will you be paying the NI incress or put up the costs to you customers." Just to clarify, I don’t employ them (I got that wrong) I hire them , they are self employed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I had to laugh when Beth Rigby asked did she have a mandate to do this because these tax rises were not in the manifesto. This after Truss and then Sunak brought in tax and spending decisions and neither were elected by the voters." The 2 are unrelated, labour won a GE on their promises, and major policies like significant tax increases should align with what voters understood when the party was elected. That is a legitimate question considering the promises that were made. The people chosen as leaders of parties are never voted for as party leaders by the public. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I had to laugh when Beth Rigby asked did she have a mandate to do this because these tax rises were not in the manifesto. This after Truss and then Sunak brought in tax and spending decisions and neither were elected by the voters. The 2 are unrelated, labour won a GE on their promises, and major policies like significant tax increases should align with what voters understood when the party was elected. That is a legitimate question considering the promises that were made. The people chosen as leaders of parties are never voted for as party leaders by the public. " So it was democratic for Tory party members to bring in Truss who's actions completely upended those pledges of the tory party manifesto that Johnson was elected on ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I had to laugh when Beth Rigby asked did she have a mandate to do this because these tax rises were not in the manifesto. This after Truss and then Sunak brought in tax and spending decisions and neither were elected by the voters. The 2 are unrelated, labour won a GE on their promises, and major policies like significant tax increases should align with what voters understood when the party was elected. That is a legitimate question considering the promises that were made. The people chosen as leaders of parties are never voted for as party leaders by the public. So it was democratic for Tory party members to bring in Truss whose actions completely upended those pledges of the tory party manifesto that Johnson was elected on ?" Yes, it was. You might not like the outcome but that is the process. You’ve changed your own subject along the way, returning to it.. it was a perfectly legitimate question to be asked based on the budget and the manifesto pledges that were used to influence the voting public. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I had to laugh when Beth Rigby asked did she have a mandate to do this because these tax rises were not in the manifesto. This after Truss and then Sunak brought in tax and spending decisions and neither were elected by the voters. The 2 are unrelated, labour won a GE on their promises, and major policies like significant tax increases should align with what voters understood when the party was elected. That is a legitimate question considering the promises that were made. The people chosen as leaders of parties are never voted for as party leaders by the public. So it was democratic for Tory party members to bring in Truss whose actions completely upended those pledges of the tory party manifesto that Johnson was elected on ? Yes, it was. You might not like the outcome but that is the process. You’ve changed your own subject along the way, returning to it.. it was a perfectly legitimate question to be asked based on the budget and the manifesto pledges that were used to influence the voting public. " How have I changed the subject ? Truss changed the pledges of the manifesto the the tories were voted in on. If she had a mandate to do that then so does Reeves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I had to laugh when Beth Rigby asked did she have a mandate to do this because these tax rises were not in the manifesto. This after Truss and then Sunak brought in tax and spending decisions and neither were elected by the voters. The 2 are unrelated, labour won a GE on their promises, and major policies like significant tax increases should align with what voters understood when the party was elected. That is a legitimate question considering the promises that were made. The people chosen as leaders of parties are never voted for as party leaders by the public. So it was democratic for Tory party members to bring in Truss whose actions completely upended those pledges of the tory party manifesto that Johnson was elected on ? Yes, it was. You might not like the outcome but that is the process. You’ve changed your own subject along the way, returning to it.. it was a perfectly legitimate question to be asked based on the budget and the manifesto pledges that were used to influence the voting public. How have I changed the subject ? Truss changed the pledges of the manifesto the the tories were voted in on. If she had a mandate to do that then so does Reeves." The question was asked of Reeves following very recent pledges that would have influenced a GE and were broken. It has nothing to do with a new leader changing the economic direction of the previous leader. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
