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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Crocodile tears. A farmer aged 78, killed himself because he feared Rachel Reeves' inheritance tax raid, the coroner concluded, as his distraught children urge Labour to ditch hated policy before more deaths " This, that woman should be sacked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are so many things going wrong and nowhere left to go. Reeves changed the definition of national debt in the fiscal rules. Instead of PSND, she moved to PSNFL. The outcome of the new rules subtracts assets such as student loans from the debt total. This basically provided Reeves £50billion in extra headroom she could borrow against, without going against the fiscal targets she placed on herself. Most of that money has gone or has been promised with nothing to show for it. GB energy, national wealth fund, city regional transport, WFA and 2 child cap u-turns, affordable home grants part of the 1.5 million homes, PIP changes. The total repayment on the initial 50billion will be approx 73billion. There is nothing left in the tank and nothing we can really show for the spend to date. The only way out now is to shelve all the spending on growth initiatives such as GB energy, transport, housing etc and raise taxes. On top of that mess the BMA are balloting their members, results expected 7th July. Depending on outcome it could lead us back to square 1 in terms of strike action when the tories were in power. I can't emphasise enough, how much damage Reeves and Starmer have done to the economy now and future. " They’ve had 14 years to plan for government. ‘Vote for us on Thursday and we will hit the ground running on Friday’ This Friday marks the first year, all their fully costed plans busted and no sign of recovery. Smash the gangs, 1.5 million new homes …… Small boats up (another 2022 arrivals this last week) and new home completions down, pass the spliff on 300,000 new council houses. All they’ve achieved is attacks on pensioners, farmers, and tried it on disabled. Even their own core voters know they are on the way out. John McDonald’s piece in the G today…. Will they last to 2029? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are so many things going wrong and nowhere left to go. Reeves changed the definition of national debt in the fiscal rules. Instead of PSND, she moved to PSNFL. The outcome of the new rules subtracts assets such as student loans from the debt total. This basically provided Reeves £50billion in extra headroom she could borrow against, without going against the fiscal targets she placed on herself. Most of that money has gone or has been promised with nothing to show for it. GB energy, national wealth fund, city regional transport, WFA and 2 child cap u-turns, affordable home grants part of the 1.5 million homes, PIP changes. The total repayment on the initial 50billion will be approx 73billion. There is nothing left in the tank and nothing we can really show for the spend to date. The only way out now is to shelve all the spending on growth initiatives such as GB energy, transport, housing etc and raise taxes. On top of that mess the BMA are balloting their members, results expected 7th July. Depending on outcome it could lead us back to square 1 in terms of strike action when the tories were in power. I can't emphasise enough, how much damage Reeves and Starmer have done to the economy now and future. They’ve had 14 years to plan for government. ‘Vote for us on Thursday and we will hit the ground running on Friday’ This Friday marks the first year, all their fully costed plans busted and no sign of recovery. Smash the gangs, 1.5 million new homes …… Small boats up (another 2022 arrivals this last week) and new home completions down, pass the spliff on 300,000 new council houses. All they’ve achieved is attacks on pensioners, farmers, and tried it on disabled. Even their own core voters know they are on the way out. John McDonald’s piece in the G today…. Will they last to 2029?" 2029 im not sure the will make it till two years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Chancellor in tears at PMQ’s. One doesn’t like to see any human being in distress, but it isn’t really normal for someone in one of the highest offices in the land to be sobbing in Parliament. It doesn’t really inspire much confidence. The bond and currency markets have reacted negatively. How long can this go on for? We all know that she and many others in Labour's Cabinet are way out of their depth." Those are very expensive tears. Still understandable given they created a policy that they said would save 5 billion by 2030 and it's now reported that with the changes it could actually cost the country 100 million instead. They could literally done nothing to change it and been 100 million better off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Chancellor in tears at PMQ’s. One doesn’t like to see any human being in distress, but it isn’t really normal for someone in one of the highest offices in the land to be sobbing in Parliament. It doesn’t really inspire much confidence. The bond and currency markets have reacted negatively. How long can this go on for? We all know that she and many others in Labour's Cabinet are way out of their depth. Those are very expensive tears. Still understandable given they created a policy that they said would save 5 billion by 2030 and it's now reported that with the changes it could actually cost the country 100 million instead. They could literally done nothing to change it and been 100 million better off." Labour are spending a lot of money and committing to even more Where will it all come from | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Chancellor in tears at PMQ’s. One doesn’t like to see any human being in distress, but it isn’t really normal for someone in one of the highest offices in the land to be sobbing in Parliament. It doesn’t really inspire much confidence. The bond and currency markets have reacted negatively. How long can this go on for? We all know that she and many others in Labour's Cabinet are way out of their depth. Those are very expensive tears. Still understandable given they created a policy that they said would save 5 billion by 2030 and it's now reported that with the changes it could actually cost the country 100 million instead. They could literally done nothing to change it and been 100 million better off. Labour are spending a lot of money and committing to even more Where will it all come from " That's the problem. They have a habit of predicting a certain amount of savings and committing those savings to other projects before any savings have actually happened. Of course when the amount is not as much as predicted or even worse actually costs extra money then it leaves few options. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the last few months seriously disabled people have been absolutely shitting themselves over the proposed benefits changes. No sympathy at all." This basically. You can argue about the affordability of the status quo but whether you are inclined to ever vote for Labour or not, you do not expect these types of policies from them. Aren’t they supposed to be the party of social justice? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the last few months seriously disabled people have been absolutely shitting themselves over the proposed benefits changes. No sympathy at all. This basically. You can argue about the affordability of the status quo but whether you are inclined to ever vote for Labour or not, you do not expect these types of policies from them. Aren’t they supposed to be the party of social justice? " No, they are the party of two tier justice | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the last few months seriously disabled people have been absolutely shitting themselves over the proposed benefits changes. No sympathy at all. This basically. You can argue about the affordability of the status quo but whether you are inclined to ever vote for Labour or not, you do not expect these types of policies from them. Aren’t they supposed to be the party of social justice? " The only thing I can think of in their defence, is that the backbenchers vetoed the bill - that definitely wouldn't have happened under a Tory government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Read a great article about someone called John Lowe in the 1700's who changed the face of banking. He suggested that banking move away from wealth fixed by gold value to bearer paper and trust. On bank notes we promise to pay the bearer etc What this led to was the government being able to print more money, borrow against future possible rises in value etc etc etc The other interesting thing about John lowe was he killed a man in a duel, went to prison, escaped prison, made friends with a person called Charles Spencer who is the ancestor of Diana Spencer who married Charles and produced the future king of England." He was quite good at darts too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the last few months seriously disabled people have been absolutely shitting themselves over the proposed benefits changes. No sympathy at all. This basically. You can argue about the affordability of the status quo but whether you are inclined to ever vote for Labour or not, you do not expect these types of policies from them. Aren’t they supposed to be the party of social justice? The only thing I can think of in their defence, is that the backbenchers vetoed the bill - that definitely wouldn't have happened under a Tory government." This is about the only thing that can be taken as a minor positive but the whole thing has been poorly handled, badly executed and badly timed.. Whatever the reasons Reeves was upset it's not a good look in the situation and her position.. An own goal which rightly said caused unnecessary anxiety to many less fortunate in society who don't deserve it or need it.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are so many things going wrong and nowhere left to go. Reeves changed the definition of national debt in the fiscal rules. Instead of PSND, she moved to PSNFL. The outcome of the new rules subtracts assets such as student loans from the debt total. This basically provided Reeves £50billion in extra headroom she could borrow against, without going against the fiscal targets she placed on herself. Most of that money has gone or has been promised with nothing to show for it. GB energy, national wealth fund, city regional transport, WFA and 2 child cap u-turns, affordable home grants part of the 1.5 million homes, PIP changes. The total repayment on the initial 50billion will be approx 73billion. There is nothing left in the tank and nothing we can really show for the spend to date. The only way out now is to shelve all the spending on growth initiatives such as GB energy, transport, housing etc and raise taxes. On top of that mess the BMA are balloting their members, results expected 7th July. Depending on outcome it could lead us back to square 1 in terms of strike action when the tories were in power. I can't emphasise enough, how much damage Reeves and Starmer have done to the economy now and future. " This is only the beginning. You ain't seen nothing yet. You rightly mention the BMA but behind them will come the civil service unions, teachers, the train drivers (as usual) will come back for more and pretty much the whole of the public sector will want their share. Jim Callaghan's "winter of discontent" will seem like a minor squabble to what is coming for Starmer and Reeves this coming winter. Fasten your seatbelts it's gonna be a bumpy ride. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer really isn’t helping himself in interviews. When faced with direct questions, he talks too much often over promising in an effort to downplay the question. In his BBC interview, ref Reeves crying, he claimed Reeves is doing an “excellent job” Threw out a vague line about inward investment, which hasn't delivered beyond the £11bn public sector wage hikes. Used super soft phrases like “we created the conditions for…” which is saying nothing. Stated they are “in step” and “work together”, he has tied himself to the poor decision making and u-turns. Finished by saying she would be Chancellor for a “very long time” Who is advising him? Whoever it is should be out the door. He should have declined the interview and issued a short and direct statement a long the lines of, "this is a personal matter and Reeves, like anyone else, deserves privacy". But now, he has said all that publicly, the only clean way out for Reeves is for her to resign." Doing the interview was probably an advisor saying you need to try and settle the markets etc but doing it as quickly looks a bit too eager and too soon after yesterday.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK here's a fun (possible) glimpse into the future. What's the likelihood of the UK needing an IMF bailout before the next election? I reckon very likely." They will need to hike taxes up before that would happen, oh, come to think of it... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK here's a fun (possible) glimpse into the future. What's the likelihood of the UK needing an IMF bailout before the next election? I reckon very likely." Not sure I agree but who knows, before then they might if they need to raise vat or income tax which yes they said they won't but far less damaging than the IMF.. Whatever they do it will have an impact upon borrowing costs.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" OK here's a fun (possible) glimpse into the future. What's the likelihood of the UK needing an IMF bailout before the next election? I reckon very likely. Not sure I agree but who knows, before then they might if they need to raise vat or income tax which yes they said they won't but far less damaging than the IMF.. Whatever they do it will have an impact upon borrowing costs.. " Rachels tears already have. Assuming she keeps her job (50/50 at best) she's got to negotiate the next public sector pay round which will not be pretty. She's got nothing in the kitty, can only go so far on tax (already at record highs) and the Labour back benches have made it very clear that welfare cuts are not an option. She has very few options and more borrowing is about her only way out. But that will almost certainly spook the bond markets leading to higher borrowing costs. She's between a rock and a very hard place of her (and her boss's) own making. Think I'll buy some shares in a tissue company.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" OK here's a fun (possible) glimpse into the future. What's the likelihood of the UK needing an IMF bailout before the next election? I reckon very likely. Not sure I agree but who knows, before then they might if they need to raise vat or income tax which yes they said they won't but far less damaging than the IMF.. Whatever they do it will have an impact upon borrowing costs.. Rachels tears already have. Assuming she keeps her job (50/50 at best) she's got to negotiate the next public sector pay round which will not be pretty. She's got nothing in the kitty, can only go so far on tax (already at record highs) and the Labour back benches have made it very clear that welfare cuts are not an option. She has very few options and more borrowing is about her only way out. But that will almost certainly spook the bond markets leading to higher borrowing costs. She's between a rock and a very hard place of her (and her boss's) own making. Think I'll buy some shares in a tissue company. "VAT is an unfair tax as it's paid equally by the rich and less well off whereas income tax is at least proportional to earnings I'm guessing they'll increase vat to 25%, increase benefits and public sector pay to make up for the burden on poor people, Trump will see it as a tax on US imports and increase tarrifs. Bunch of incompetent fucking cry babies seen for what she is a useless bitch | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
