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 |
| |||
| 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 |
"Not in a GE. People vote differently then. Most likely scenario is that Labour get immigration under control and thereby starve Reform of oxygen." I agree that some people vote differently in a GE than local. But the Reform in power in councils is almost a non event as it doesn’t give them any power regarding their core policy. Labour have done nothing since getting in power to stem migration and some of their senior figures publicly support an increase in immigration, so I don’t think them getting it under control is even remotely likely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not in a GE. People vote differently then. Most likely scenario is that Labour get immigration under control and thereby starve Reform of oxygen. I agree that some people vote differently in a GE than local. But the Reform in power in councils is almost a non event as it doesn’t give them any power regarding their core policy. Labour have done nothing since getting in power to stem migration and some of their senior figures publicly support an increase in immigration, so I don’t think them getting it under control is even remotely likely. " I’m not convinced Reform holding council leadership is a “non event.” Local authorities where they lead do have powers including setting housing policy, managing homelessness services, shaping the direction of local policing, and influencing social care and education provisions. While they can’t control immigration directly, they absolutely can shape how their local communities respond to the pressures that national immigration policy creates. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not convinced Reform holding council leadership is a “non event.” Local authorities where they lead do have powers including setting housing policy, managing homelessness services, shaping the direction of local policing, and influencing social care and education provisions. While they can’t control immigration directly, they absolutely can shape how their local communities respond to the pressures that national immigration policy creates." Housing policy yes, but the number of homes that will become available or built is gonna be minimal so the leverage on who can have those homes is minimal. The police are pretty much a law unto themselves. They are not held accountable when they abuse people rights and are far more interested in prosecuting hurty words than any actual criminal offences. The vast majority of crimes brought before magistrates have come about from a disagreement rather than a crime. Social care and education I fully agree with but other than looking after immigrants, these departments have nothing really to do with the issue. They certainly can’t stop looking after them as they have a legal obligation to do so | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The results from yesterday’s elections obviously showed massive support for Reform UK, but the LiDems also did significantly better than most people expected. It was a rejection of the two main parties, but not an exclusive swing to the right." Jenkins who yes if course won in the system we have got 42% of the turnout which was 29.2%.. That's not massive but to be honest it doesn't matter as the system works even on such low turnout and votes as we saw last year nationally.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not convinced Reform holding council leadership is a “non event.” Local authorities where they lead do have powers including setting housing policy, managing homelessness services, shaping the direction of local policing, and influencing social care and education provisions. While they can’t control immigration directly, they absolutely can shape how their local communities respond to the pressures that national immigration policy creates. Housing policy yes, but the number of homes that will become available or built is gonna be minimal so the leverage on who can have those homes is minimal. The police are pretty much a law unto themselves. They are not held accountable when they abuse people rights and are far more interested in prosecuting hurty words than any actual criminal offences. The vast majority of crimes brought before magistrates have come about from a disagreement rather than a crime. Social care and education I fully agree with but other than looking after immigrants, these departments have nothing really to do with the issue. They certainly can’t stop looking after them as they have a legal obligation to do so " Let’s see how this unfolds. I suspect local enforcement and policy will be something Farage watches closely, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Reform led councils begin challenging housing allocations and pushing for changes to local priority lists. I also expect to see much firmer oversight of local policing. There’s a misconception that councils are powerless that simply isn’t true, they can’t override national immigration policy, but they do have significant influence over how resources are prioritised and services are delivered locally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There’s a misconception that councils are powerless, that simply isn’t true, they can’t override national immigration policy, but they do have significant influence over how resources are prioritised and services are delivered locally. " True. But within their legal obligations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The results from yesterday’s elections obviously showed massive support for Reform UK, but the LiDems also did significantly better than most people expected. It was a rejection of the two main parties, but not an exclusive swing to the right." Greens also did relatively well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The results from yesterday’s elections obviously showed massive support for Reform UK, but the LiDems also did significantly better than most people expected. It was a rejection of the two main parties, but not an exclusive swing to the right. Greens also did relatively well." Yeah that’s true. Pretty much every party other than Labour and conservative did well. Hence my question  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The results from yesterday’s elections obviously showed massive support for Reform UK, but the LiDems also did significantly better than most people expected. It was a rejection of the two main parties, but not an exclusive swing to the right. Greens also did relatively well. Yeah that’s true. Pretty much every party other than Labour and conservative did well. Hence my question "It's a huge 'What If' but imagine if Reform and Lib Dems had enough MPs next Election to force through electoral reform and introduce PR...🤔 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why isn't voting mandatory? And easier to access - for instance younger people would probably vote if it was online? " Starmer prevented nine local elections yesterday. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 make those gains | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not in a GE. People vote differently then. Most likely scenario is that Labour get immigration under control and thereby starve Reform of oxygen." they wont get it under control, they will use smoke and mirrors and tell you the number of illegal immigrants has gon down when in reality they will give say they are asylum seekers so no illwgals its all about massaging numbers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not in a GE. People vote differently then. Most likely scenario is that Labour get immigration under control and thereby starve Reform of oxygen.they wont get it under control, they will use smoke and mirrors and tell you the number of illegal immigrants has gon down when in reality they will give say they are asylum seekers so no illwgals its all about massaging numbers" They don't have a choice if they want to stand any chance of being re-elected. So they'll have huge focus on this topic. But yes, they'll likely try to massage the numbers by changing definitions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not in a GE. People vote differently then. Most likely scenario is that Labour get immigration under control and thereby starve Reform of oxygen.they wont get it under control, they will use smoke and mirrors and tell you the number of illegal immigrants has gon down when in reality they will give say they are asylum seekers so no illwgals its all about massaging numbers They don't have a choice if they want to stand any chance of being re-elected. So they'll have huge focus on this topic. But yes, they'll likely try to massage the numbers by changing definitions." do you honestly belive starmer is gona be given another win? The guy is hated even a big chunk of his own party detest him let alone the general public, only hope labour will have winning the next GE is if starmer isnt leading them, they guy is a poundshop blair | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not in a GE. People vote differently then. Most likely scenario is that Labour get immigration under control and thereby starve Reform of oxygen.they wont get it under control, they will use smoke and mirrors and tell you the number of illegal immigrants has gon down when in reality they will give say they are asylum seekers so no illwgals its all about massaging numbers" What an utter load of nonsense. Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants. Asylum Seekers are asylum seekers. They can't say someone is an asylum seeker unless they are actually claiming asylum. If they are claiming asylum they aren't illegal immigrants. They can't lie that one is the other. If they could or would do this, don't you think they would already be doing this or hiding numbers crossing rather than sticking daily figures on the gov website slowly a rather concerning trend? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer was the only electable figure labour had, chosen not for vision or charisma, but because his dull, steady persona. It offered a sense of calm in contrast to the chaos of the previous tory leadership. The image served its purpose. But from day one, it’s been clear that the ability to make good decisions and lead the country effectively was never part of the package. " Winter fuel allowance needed reformed. PIP needed reformed. Inheritance Tax will only affect a small number of farmers. If wealthy individuals weren’t using farmland as a loophole to avoid paying IHT, we might not have this problem in the first place. Those loopholes needed fixed. Whilst some of these perhaps haven't been dealt with, fundamentally, what's wrong with this in principle? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer will be replaced in 2 to 3 years. They have to if they want to stand any hope of winning a second term. Let’s hope they keep him " What if, in 2029, the NHS is in a far better place than it was in 2024? What if, in 2029, the economy is showing decent growth? What if, in 2029, illegal immigrants crossing on boats was a thing of the past? Would Labour, under Starmer leadership, get re-elected? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer will be replaced in 2 to 3 years. They have to if they want to stand any hope of winning a second term. Let’s hope they keep him What if, in 2029, the NHS is in a far better place than it was in 2024? What if, in 2029, the economy is showing decent growth? What if, in 2029, illegal immigrants crossing on boats was a thing of the past? Would Labour, under Starmer leadership, get re-elected? " Jam tomorrow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer will be replaced in 2 to 3 years. They have to if they want to stand any hope of winning a second term. Let’s hope they keep him What if, in 2029, the NHS is in a far better place than it was in 2024? What if, in 2029, the economy is showing decent growth? What if, in 2029, illegal immigrants crossing on boats was a thing of the past? Would Labour, under Starmer leadership, get re-elected? " that a lot of ifs, more wishfull thinking than anything | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer was the only electable figure labour had, chosen not for vision or charisma, but because his dull, steady persona. It offered a sense of calm in contrast to the chaos of the previous tory leadership. The image served its purpose. But from day one, it’s been clear that the ability to make good decisions and lead the country effectively was never part of the package. Winter fuel allowance needed reformed. PIP needed reformed. Inheritance Tax will only affect a small number of farmers. If wealthy individuals weren’t using farmland as a loophole to avoid paying IHT, we might not have this problem in the first place. Those loopholes needed fixed. Whilst some of these perhaps haven't been dealt with, fundamentally, what's wrong with this in principle? " Two tier policing Institutional anti white racism within public bodies and the judiciary No gangs smashed Immigration increasing Economy on it’s knees Anti jobs budget More freebies accepted than 14 years of conservatives Using the police as private security in exchange for free concert tickets Claiming millions of new homes but in real terms the number will decrease because of immigration (their forecast) Free speech to be made illegal as part of workers rights bill Business owners screwed over at every turn… the new workers rights bill, ni increases, taxation on overseas assets VAT on private schools with zero extra provision for the extra load on state schools and no thought for the areas where there’s close to zero school places already. Failure to see that the employers NI increase will see less revenue from corporation tax and VAT Massive pay increases for their union buddies putting even more pressure on rail services and the doctors pay rise gobbling up much of the increase in NHS spending Need i go on? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer will be replaced in 2 to 3 years. They have to if they want to stand any hope of winning a second term. Let’s hope they keep him Starmer will be replaced in 2 to 3 years. They have to if they want to stand any hope of winning a second term. Let’s hope they keep him " The wheels are falling off already, can’t blame Labour for all of it, but they’ve done very little about it 40% increase of small boats arrivals since 2024 1.5 million new homes way behind schedule U turn on environmental policies Economic growth forecast halved Slower interest rate falls due to budget Rising homelessness; 38% rise in London street sleepers this year UK tops the global league table with by far the highest rate of homelessness in the developed world with one in 200 households living in emergency temporary housing - exacerbated by government policies on slow house building and housing migrants Rising unemployment, 4.4% increase under Labour Higher business rates More businesses closing than opening | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer will be replaced in 2 to 3 years. They have to if they want to stand any hope of winning a second term. Let’s hope they keep him What if, in 2029, the NHS is in a far better place than it was in 2024? What if, in 2029, the economy is showing decent growth? What if, in 2029, illegal immigrants crossing on boats was a thing of the past? Would Labour, under Starmer leadership, get re-elected? " Yes, he probably would. But on the evidence so far it's more likely that at least two of those situations will get worse rather than better. The economy cannot improve while we have the highest energy prices in the world and Labour is committed to an extreme version of net zero. Illegal migration is increasing with no plan to stop it. It's possible that the NHS will improve with the massive extra funding (paid for by damaging the economy with NI increases) but still overdue structural reform, as Wes Streeting has recognised. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer will be replaced in 2 to 3 years. They have to if they want to stand any hope of winning a second term. Let’s hope they keep him What if, in 2029, the NHS is in a far better place than it was in 2024? What if, in 2029, the economy is showing decent growth? What if, in 2029, illegal immigrants crossing on boats was a thing of the past? Would Labour, under Starmer leadership, get re-elected? that a lot of ifs, more wishfull thinking than anything" Indeed, pass the spliff | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer will be replaced in 2 to 3 years. They have to if they want to stand any hope of winning a second term. Let’s hope they keep him What if, in 2029, the NHS is in a far better place than it was in 2024? What if, in 2029, the economy is showing decent growth? What if, in 2029, illegal immigrants crossing on boats was a thing of the past? Would Labour, under Starmer leadership, get re-elected? that a lot of ifs, more wishfull thinking than anything" But you avoided the answer... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer will be replaced in 2 to 3 years. They have to if they want to stand any hope of winning a second term. Let’s hope they keep him Starmer will be replaced in 2 to 3 years. They have to if they want to stand any hope of winning a second term. Let’s hope they keep him The wheels are falling off already, can’t blame Labour for all of it, but they’ve done very little about it 40% increase of small boats arrivals since 2024 1.5 million new homes way behind schedule U turn on environmental policies Economic growth forecast halved Slower interest rate falls due to budget Rising homelessness; 38% rise in London street sleepers this year UK tops the global league table with by far the highest rate of homelessness in the developed world with one in 200 households living in emergency temporary housing - exacerbated by government policies on slow house building and housing migrants Rising unemployment, 4.4% increase under Labour Higher business rates More businesses closing than opening " some fair points here, and no one expected miracles overnight. But to be fair, many of these issues—like housing shortages, homelessness, and small boats—have been building for years. Labour’s only been in power a short while, and while it’s right to hold them accountable, a lot of what we're seeing is the result of long-term neglect and structural problems. It’s too early to judge them fully yet, but they do need to show clearer progress soon, especially on housing and the economy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer will be replaced in 2 to 3 years. They have to if they want to stand any hope of winning a second term. Let’s hope they keep him What if, in 2029, the NHS is in a far better place than it was in 2024? What if, in 2029, the economy is showing decent growth? What if, in 2029, illegal immigrants crossing on boats was a thing of the past? Would Labour, under Starmer leadership, get re-elected? Yes, he probably would. But on the evidence so far it's more likely that at least two of those situations will get worse rather than better. The economy cannot improve while we have the highest energy prices in the world and Labour is committed to an extreme version of net zero. Illegal migration is increasing with no plan to stop it. It's possible that the NHS will improve with the massive extra funding (paid for by damaging the economy with NI increases) but still overdue structural reform, as Wes Streeting has recognised." I get where you’re coming from, but I’m not sure it’s that simple. Our high energy prices are a global issue, not just down to domestic policy—though Labour’s net zero plans do need to balance ambition with realism. On migration, I agree there’s a long way to go, but let’s be honest: the last government didn’t crack it either. As for the NHS, at least Streeting is talking about reform as well as funding, which is more honest than just throwing money at it. Time will tell if they deliver, but a lot of these challenges aren’t new or easy fixes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour's plan for change means nothing, or it could mean they are going to change the time on the office clock or they are going to wear out pockets with shrapnel. " Oh totally—because fixing the economy, tackling housing, and sorting out the NHS are exactly like changing the office clock. Must have missed the bit where those were trivial tasks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why isn't voting mandatory? And easier to access - for instance younger people would probably vote if it was online? " Great idea! We could have the government's favourite IT contractor, Fujitsu, do the programming | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour's plan for change means nothing, or it could mean they are going to change the time on the office clock or they are going to wear out pockets with shrapnel. Oh totally—because fixing the economy, tackling housing, and sorting out the NHS are exactly like changing the office clock. Must have missed the bit where those were trivial tasks." Fixing the economy, please explain what you mean. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is two party politics over? " I sincerely hope so. Personally, I'd like to see a lot more parties in the UK (whether I agree or not with their policies is irrelevant). It's about having greater representation and greater choice. A new time-tabled subject at schools. Politics. Let's get kids in to politics at an early age and set up the foundation for the future where they are invested, engaged and aware. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour's plan for change means nothing, or it could mean they are going to change the time on the office clock or they are going to wear out pockets with shrapnel. Oh totally—because fixing the economy, tackling housing, and sorting out the NHS are exactly like changing the office clock. Must have missed the bit where those were trivial tasks. Fixing the economy, please explain what you mean." Well, I’d say it’s not rocket science: boost growth by investing in infrastructure and skills, support small businesses with fairer rates, tackle energy costs to ease pressure on households and industry, and create stable conditions for investment. That’d be a start, anyway—bit more ambitious than just swapping the office clock, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer was the only electable figure labour had, chosen not for vision or charisma, but because his dull, steady persona. It offered a sense of calm in contrast to the chaos of the previous tory leadership. The image served its purpose. But from day one, it’s been clear that the ability to make good decisions and lead the country effectively was never part of the package. Winter fuel allowance needed reformed. PIP needed reformed. Inheritance Tax will only affect a small number of farmers. If wealthy individuals weren’t using farmland as a loophole to avoid paying IHT, we might not have this problem in the first place. Those loopholes needed fixed. Whilst some of these perhaps haven't been dealt with, fundamentally, what's wrong with this in principle? " You have inadvertently supported my point. WFA was poorly thought out and the cut off too sharp. The cost to implement the cut was outrageously high as they needed to employ an 500 people to deal with the uptake in benefit claims. I'm not going to argue about PIP as a benefit. The delivery of the change was again poor and it seemed obvious it was an exercise to close the gap on budget mistakes that wiped out Reeves's overheads. IHT on farmers, again poorly thought out. They went all in when the simplest solution would have been to introduce the tax if a farm that was inherited was sold within 5 years of owning it or 10 years if not used as a farm. That would keep the lights on for working farmers and give us a little more food security, and close loopholes. All this is water under the bridge now, if Starmer wants to hold onto his position I truly believe he needs to remove people like Reeves who have been instrumental in the direction and speed of the bad decisions. If this doesn't happen and we get a leftist take over bid, we will be in real economic danger, it will also be the end of the labour party at the next GE for years to come. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer will be replaced in 2 to 3 years. They have to if they want to stand any hope of winning a second term. Let’s hope they keep him What if, in 2029, the NHS is in a far better place than it was in 2024? What if, in 2029, the economy is showing decent growth? What if, in 2029, illegal immigrants crossing on boats was a thing of the past? Would Labour, under Starmer leadership, get re-elected? that a lot of ifs, more wishfull thinking than anything But you avoided the answer..." No I didn't I said that is a lot of ifs,I'd be very surprised if labour achive one of them,they got no chance achieving all of them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour's plan for change means nothing, or it could mean they are going to change the time on the office clock or they are going to wear out pockets with shrapnel. Oh totally—because fixing the economy, tackling housing, and sorting out the NHS are exactly like changing the office clock. Must have missed the bit where those were trivial tasks. Fixing the economy, please explain what you mean. Well, I’d say it’s not rocket science: boost growth by investing in infrastructure and skills, support small businesses with fairer rates, tackle energy costs to ease pressure on households and industry, and create stable conditions for investment. That’d be a start, anyway—bit more ambitious than just swapping the office clock, right?" And that is going to fix the economy skilling up, do you need skilling up.? The conservatives said the same thing when they shut down the coal mining industry, people need to skill up in the north, the new jobs for the new so called skills never materialised. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer was the only electable figure labour had, chosen not for vision or charisma, but because his dull, steady persona. It offered a sense of calm in contrast to the chaos of the previous tory leadership. The image served its purpose. But from day one, it’s been clear that the ability to make good decisions and lead the country effectively was never part of the package. Winter fuel allowance needed reformed. PIP needed reformed. Inheritance Tax will only affect a small number of farmers. If wealthy individuals weren’t using farmland as a loophole to avoid paying IHT, we might not have this problem in the first place. Those loopholes needed fixed. Whilst some of these perhaps haven't been dealt with, fundamentally, what's wrong with this in principle? You have inadvertently supported my point. WFA was poorly thought out and the cut off too sharp. The cost to implement the cut was outrageously high as they needed to employ an 500 people to deal with the uptake in benefit claims. I'm not going to argue about PIP as a benefit. The delivery of the change was again poor and it seemed obvious it was an exercise to close the gap on budget mistakes that wiped out Reeves's overheads. IHT on farmers, again poorly thought out. They went all in when the simplest solution would have been to introduce the tax if a farm that was inherited was sold within 5 years of owning it or 10 years if not used as a farm. That would keep the lights on for working farmers and give us a little more food security, and close loopholes. All this is water under the bridge now, if Starmer wants to hold onto his position I truly believe he needs to remove people like Reeves who have been instrumental in the direction and speed of the bad decisions. If this doesn't happen and we get a leftist take over bid, we will be in real economic danger, it will also be the end of the labour party at the next GE for years to come. " No I haven't. I knew what I was writing. The general consensus seems to be that the whole idea of making these changes were wrong rather than not implemented in the right way. I agree that the cut off was too sharp BUT to counter that, pension has been going up above inflation and, in real terms, the pension is £1k more than it was in 2017. We were told that pensioners would freeze but where are the reports of freezing pensioners? You mentioned that 500 people employed to deal with the uptake of benefits. I assume you are referring to pension credit? So, the poorest pensioners are now claiming something they would otherwise not have been claiming...and you say it like that's a bad thing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour's plan for change means nothing, or it could mean they are going to change the time on the office clock or they are going to wear out pockets with shrapnel. Oh totally—because fixing the economy, tackling housing, and sorting out the NHS are exactly like changing the office clock. Must have missed the bit where those were trivial tasks. Fixing the economy, please explain what you mean. Well, I’d say it’s not rocket science: boost growth by investing in infrastructure and skills, support small businesses with fairer rates, tackle energy costs to ease pressure on households and industry, and create stable conditions for investment. That’d be a start, anyway—bit more ambitious than just swapping the office clock, right? And that is going to fix the economy skilling up, do you need skilling up.? The conservatives said the same thing when they shut down the coal mining industry, people need to skill up in the north, the new jobs for the new so called skills never materialised. " Not really a fair point, to be honest. I didn’t just mention skilling up. I said: 1) investing in infrastructure and skills, 2) supporting small businesses with fairer rates, 3) tackling energy costs to ease pressure on households and industry, and 4) creating stable conditions for investment. Skills are one part of it, but there's a lot more on the table than that. It’s a bit of a stretch to reduce the whole argument down to just one point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer was the only electable figure labour had, chosen not for vision or charisma, but because his dull, steady persona. It offered a sense of calm in contrast to the chaos of the previous tory leadership. The image served its purpose. But from day one, it’s been clear that the ability to make good decisions and lead the country effectively was never part of the package. Winter fuel allowance needed reformed. PIP needed reformed. Inheritance Tax will only affect a small number of farmers. If wealthy individuals weren’t using farmland as a loophole to avoid paying IHT, we might not have this problem in the first place. Those loopholes needed fixed. Whilst some of these perhaps haven't been dealt with, fundamentally, what's wrong with this in principle? You have inadvertently supported my point. WFA was poorly thought out and the cut off too sharp. The cost to implement the cut was outrageously high as they needed to employ an 500 people to deal with the uptake in benefit claims. I'm not going to argue about PIP as a benefit. The delivery of the change was again poor and it seemed obvious it was an exercise to close the gap on budget mistakes that wiped out Reeves's overheads. IHT on farmers, again poorly thought out. They went all in when the simplest solution would have been to introduce the tax if a farm that was inherited was sold within 5 years of owning it or 10 years if not used as a farm. That would keep the lights on for working farmers and give us a little more food security, and close loopholes. All this is water under the bridge now, if Starmer wants to hold onto his position I truly believe he needs to remove people like Reeves who have been instrumental in the direction and speed of the bad decisions. If this doesn't happen and we get a leftist take over bid, we will be in real economic danger, it will also be the end of the labour party at the next GE for years to come. No I haven't. I knew what I was writing. The general consensus seems to be that the whole idea of making these changes were wrong rather than not implemented in the right way. I agree that the cut off was too sharp BUT to counter that, pension has been going up above inflation and, in real terms, the pension is £1k more than it was in 2017. We were told that pensioners would freeze but where are the reports of freezing pensioners? You mentioned that 500 people employed to deal with the uptake of benefits. I assume you are referring to pension credit? So, the poorest pensioners are now claiming something they would otherwise not have been claiming...and you say it like that's a bad thing? " They would not have had a landslide if these cuts were always on the cards, and I would call that misleading, however everything they did appeared badly thought out and knee jerking, not something planned. I'm not convinced the above was planned, even though they had 14 years to draw up a plan. In my opinion Reeves has dropped the ball and Starmer, labour and the country are going to pay the price. The only person benefiting from this is Farage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer was the only electable figure labour had, chosen not for vision or charisma, but because his dull, steady persona. It offered a sense of calm in contrast to the chaos of the previous tory leadership. The image served its purpose. But from day one, it’s been clear that the ability to make good decisions and lead the country effectively was never part of the package. Winter fuel allowance needed reformed. PIP needed reformed. Inheritance Tax will only affect a small number of farmers. If wealthy individuals weren’t using farmland as a loophole to avoid paying IHT, we might not have this problem in the first place. Those loopholes needed fixed. Whilst some of these perhaps haven't been dealt with, fundamentally, what's wrong with this in principle? You have inadvertently supported my point. WFA was poorly thought out and the cut off too sharp. The cost to implement the cut was outrageously high as they needed to employ an 500 people to deal with the uptake in benefit claims. I'm not going to argue about PIP as a benefit. The delivery of the change was again poor and it seemed obvious it was an exercise to close the gap on budget mistakes that wiped out Reeves's overheads. IHT on farmers, again poorly thought out. They went all in when the simplest solution would have been to introduce the tax if a farm that was inherited was sold within 5 years of owning it or 10 years if not used as a farm. That would keep the lights on for working farmers and give us a little more food security, and close loopholes. All this is water under the bridge now, if Starmer wants to hold onto his position I truly believe he needs to remove people like Reeves who have been instrumental in the direction and speed of the bad decisions. If this doesn't happen and we get a leftist take over bid, we will be in real economic danger, it will also be the end of the labour party at the next GE for years to come. No I haven't. I knew what I was writing. The general consensus seems to be that the whole idea of making these changes were wrong rather than not implemented in the right way. I agree that the cut off was too sharp BUT to counter that, pension has been going up above inflation and, in real terms, the pension is £1k more than it was in 2017. We were told that pensioners would freeze but where are the reports of freezing pensioners? You mentioned that 500 people employed to deal with the uptake of benefits. I assume you are referring to pension credit? So, the poorest pensioners are now claiming something they would otherwise not have been claiming...and you say it like that's a bad thing? They would not have had a landslide if these cuts were always on the cards, and I would call that misleading, however everything they did appeared badly thought out and knee jerking, not something planned. I'm not convinced the above was planned, even though they had 14 years to draw up a plan. In my opinion Reeves has dropped the ball and Starmer, labour and the country are going to pay the price. The only person benefiting from this is Farage. " Agreed. All Labour had to do was nurse along what was very slowly improving (and with all the defects) under Sunak. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer was the only electable figure labour had, chosen not for vision or charisma, but because his dull, steady persona. It offered a sense of calm in contrast to the chaos of the previous tory leadership. The image served its purpose. But from day one, it’s been clear that the ability to make good decisions and lead the country effectively was never part of the package. Winter fuel allowance needed reformed. PIP needed reformed. Inheritance Tax will only affect a small number of farmers. If wealthy individuals weren’t using farmland as a loophole to avoid paying IHT, we might not have this problem in the first place. Those loopholes needed fixed. Whilst some of these perhaps haven't been dealt with, fundamentally, what's wrong with this in principle? You have inadvertently supported my point. WFA was poorly thought out and the cut off too sharp. The cost to implement the cut was outrageously high as they needed to employ an 500 people to deal with the uptake in benefit claims. I'm not going to argue about PIP as a benefit. The delivery of the change was again poor and it seemed obvious it was an exercise to close the gap on budget mistakes that wiped out Reeves's overheads. IHT on farmers, again poorly thought out. They went all in when the simplest solution would have been to introduce the tax if a farm that was inherited was sold within 5 years of owning it or 10 years if not used as a farm. That would keep the lights on for working farmers and give us a little more food security, and close loopholes. All this is water under the bridge now, if Starmer wants to hold onto his position I truly believe he needs to remove people like Reeves who have been instrumental in the direction and speed of the bad decisions. If this doesn't happen and we get a leftist take over bid, we will be in real economic danger, it will also be the end of the labour party at the next GE for years to come. No I haven't. I knew what I was writing. The general consensus seems to be that the whole idea of making these changes were wrong rather than not implemented in the right way. I agree that the cut off was too sharp BUT to counter that, pension has been going up above inflation and, in real terms, the pension is £1k more than it was in 2017. We were told that pensioners would freeze but where are the reports of freezing pensioners? You mentioned that 500 people employed to deal with the uptake of benefits. I assume you are referring to pension credit? So, the poorest pensioners are now claiming something they would otherwise not have been claiming...and you say it like that's a bad thing? They would not have had a landslide if these cuts were always on the cards, and I would call that misleading, however everything they did appeared badly thought out and knee jerking, not something planned. I'm not convinced the above was planned, even though they had 14 years to draw up a plan. In my opinion Reeves has dropped the ball and Starmer, labour and the country are going to pay the price. The only person benefiting from this is Farage. Agreed. All Labour had to do was nurse along what was very slowly improving (and with all the defects) under Sunak. " Nothing was improving under Sunak unless you are referring to the post COVID economic ups and downs... Seriously, you going to give him credit for inflation dropping?! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its quite possible there will be four parties polling in the 20-25% range at the next election. " Based | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why isn't voting mandatory? And easier to access - for instance younger people would probably vote if it was online? Starmer prevented nine local elections yesterday. " Why didn't he cancel more? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
