The Labour Government

[bluethrunthru]

Nothing to do with approx 5 million women entering the workplace since the 70s and the rise in part time opportunities ?

which means more of the population in work since then ..... sorry I genuinely am struggling to see your point. Are part time jobs and women in work not real actual jobs?

 

[Vic]

Ah , please help me understand Vic.

Can you please clarify who are " working people"
In the past ( I think it might have been Nandy) has said people on £100k could be working people, Starmer has said it could perhaps be only those who couldn't afford to repair their own washing machine and the vibe now is that it could only be those on "modest" incomes.
Help us all please .

People who get paid to work?

 

[Hertzblue]

People who get paid to work?

So the pledge is that Labour will not raise taxes for anyone who is in paid employment , is that right ?

 

[Hertzblue]

which means more of the population in work since then ..... sorry I genuinely am struggling to see your point. Are part time jobs and women in work not real actual jobs?

Do Labour fan boys actually stop to have a look at something before re-posting a glib tweet from a member of the government.
Have a look at the Times article ffs

 

[bluethrunthru]

Do Labour fan boys actually stop to have a look at something before re-posting a glib tweet from a member of the government.
Have a look at the Times article ffs

do people like you even answer a valid question? Are they real jobs? You display an ignorance of the jobs market in the 21st century

 

[Hertzblue]

do people like you even answer a valid question? Are they real jobs? You display an ignorance of the jobs market in the 21st century

What is the Times article about ?

 

[bluethrunthru]

What is the Times article about ?

forget the Times article I am interested in YOUR view

 

[bluethrunthru]

What is the Times article about ?

Bear in mind that old hack is banging on about the 70's that were strike laden, piss poor productivity as a result and a lot of unemployment.
For contrast in 2025 most employers in retail these days offer ltd hour contracts in 4 hour blocks - they do this with FTE because if you are full time your paid holidays and paid sick leave are pro-rata and thats the employers decision so the idea that people don't have the work ethic today is bollocks - employers are gaming the system of in work benefits, limited hours and fewer benefits - if you want the 70's back lets employ everyone 40hrs per week and enjoy strikes because that what it was like - I was there.

 

[Hertzblue]

forget the Times article I am interested in YOUR view

Thats it, you haven't even fucking read it have you !
You have chosen to re-post a tweet from a junior minister without even any idea of the context from the article itself.
You have been called out on it and now you're just hoping to gaslight / deflect your way out of it.
Just utter bollocks as usual.
Unless you want to subscribe to The Times now so you can actually understand what you are supposed to be posting about?

 

[bluethrunthru]

Thats it, you haven't even fucking read it have you !
You have chosen to re-post a tweet from a junior minister without even any idea of the context from the article itself.
You have been called out on it and now you're just hoping to gaslight / deflect your way out of it.
Just utter bollocks as usual.
Unless you want to subscribe to The Times now so you can actually understand what you are supposed to be posting about?

you responded without reading my subsequent post - how embarrassing for you - oh I guess not because you will just plough on

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

you responded without reading my subsequent post - how embarrassing for you - oh I guess not because you will just plough on

It’s not about debating. It’s about keeping people outraged. Faragism in action.

Don’t rise to them and they lose their superpower.

 

[NPBlue]

Thats it, you haven't even fucking read it have you !
You have chosen to re-post a tweet from a junior minister without even any idea of the context from the article itself.
You have been called out on it and now you're just hoping to gaslight / deflect your way out of it.
Just utter bollocks as usual.
Unless you want to subscribe to The Times now so you can actually understand what you are supposed to be posting about?

The Times?

Do you honestly believe that rag is a bastion of truth and balanced reporting?

Please, don't tell me you actually pay to read their billionaire sponsored diatribes.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Starting a quote in the middle of a sentence sounds like selective quoting.

Chippy is an idiot.

Edited from "If you didn't know him, you'd think Chippy is an idiot".

You can try to twist it all you like mate

But the manifesto says no increase to NI. That's it. Selective quote or no selective quote, that's what it says.

You can argue they didn't mean it and they were merely incompetent in the authorung of their own document.

But this was not some schoolboy homework assignment penned in 20 minutes. It will have been through thorough legal review. No lawyers would let such a howler slip through were the intention to only cover Employee NI and not Employer.

All they had to do was write tye word "Employee's" there, but they did not. So such an argument has zero credibility.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's not offensive, just nonsensical.

East Coast trains, failed twice as private companies, taken over by government directly so suddenly public sector and making a profit.

Did private road hauliers in the 50s and 60s contribute to wealth but not the nationalised BRS?

And not quite the same thing, but I'll tell it anyway. The nationalised British Rail in the 70s ran special day trips at weekends that made money, using older coaches, so only cost was train crew wages and fuel. That would include maybe 20 trains to a Wembley cup final. That generated wealth. Thatcher sent in the accountants who said using the coaches only at weekends was poor stock utilisation so that marginal profit was lost. They also priced freight at marginal rates to get timber companies in Scotland on the West Highland line to send logs south by train, until the accountants said all freight had to bear its full share of fixed costs; the price went up, the timber went back on the roads, and the loss-making passenger trains still had to bear all the fixed costs.

Of course you can find exceptions if you wish. You forgot BBC book sales.

But the point stands. The private sector generates (pedant mode: ON, the vast majority of) the weath, which pays for the public sector.

 

[Hertzblue]

you responded without reading my subsequent post - how embarrassing for you - oh I guess not because you will just plough on

Again, that post is not what the article was about .
Just admit it , you hadn’t even read the article , just reposted Bells tweet without a thought , just utter nonsense .

 

[Hertzblue]

It’s not about debating. It’s about keeping people outraged. Faragism in action.

Don’t rise to them and they lose their superpower.

Al , you forget to mention it’s all pointless , waste of time etc etc

 

[law74]

Yes , it sounds bleak and grim because the outlook is bleak and grim. Part of the reason we are unable to tackle the issues is because we cannot face that fact . The future can be but only if take our medicine , that is the positive, the same message that Thatcher successfully argued , that there is no alternative. 30 years of Centrism got is here - it’s over Bob.

You mean 45 years of Thatcherite economic lunacy got us here.

 

[hampshireblue]

You can try to twist it all you like mate

But the manifesto says no increase to NI. That's it. Selective quote or no selective quote, that's what it says.

You can argue they didn't mean it and they were merely incompetent in the authorung of their own document.

But this was not some schoolboy homework assignment penned in 20 minutes. It will have been through thorough legal review. No lawyers would let such a howler slip through were the intention to only cover Employee NI and not Employer.

All they had to do was write tye word "Employee's" there, but they did not. So such an argument has zero credibility.

Without wanting to butt in, but, the sentence does start with a statement and a specific reference to "working people". It is inconceivable that the rest of the sentence, interspersed with commas, referred to anything other than working people. It's semantics, but now and again Chippy, you are wrong!

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Out of interest, how do people think the £25billion in fuel duty revenue that the government currently gets from ICE cars every year is going to be replaced when more people move to EVs. I appreciate that this won't just be this governments issue , but the next and likely the one after and so on. But this one will probably end up setting the agenda. Currently they are taxing ev vehicles less to incentivise people to buy them. But that will surely have to change drastically in some form in the future.

Is this going to be further general taxation, road charging ? Or a much higher levy road tax duty on ev vehicles. Bearing in mind that there will also be £7billion gap on road tax currently paid by ICE cars that will also need to be replaced.

I believe costs to drive an EV are going to sky rocket in the very near future, but Milleband and the Government are deliberately avoiding telling people this

 

[Brewster's millions]

Al , you forget to mention it’s all pointless , waste of time etc etc

All this from somebody who was absolutely outraged by an obviously photoshopped image of an ambulance being obstructed by farmers protesting in Whitehall.

And now he’s telling people not to rise to it. Great self awareness.