The Labour Government

And let's not forget the group of people who are 55+/80 are the very group that have had things so good for so long. Final salary pensions were the norm, no tuition fees, still plenty of jobs that were long term, affordable housing etc.
80? Arguably. 90 yes.

55? No chance. I am 64 and have benefitted from none of the things you mention. Bought my first house, and sold it for less than I paid for it - something that NEVER happened in prior years. Bought it on an endowment mortgage that was supposed to cover the £57,000 I borrowed (in 1988) and which paid our £32k, leaving me knackered etc etc. My generation has certainly not had it remotely "cushy", and like I say, I am 64 not 55.
 
I'd heard a rumour yes. Can't remember where - I'll see if I can find it. No, didn't read Johnson's comments yet. He was a buffoon, so tbh I'm not too interested in what he had to say one way or another.

Something people don't seem to get about me is that I am a hugely strong believer in conservative principles and politics but NOT of the Tory party itself, which at times behaved like a bunch of idiots at best, ****s at worst. Rather ironic that the haters used to call me "Tory boy". I was and remain far from that.

Back to the enquiries bit, the slightly concerning bit is the "coordinated set of local enquiries", which explicitly says it will be looking at things locally. Maybe I am being paranoid but I have a sneaking suspicion they will try to exclude central government officials. Hopefully not, we'll see. Also need to ensure we don't have local police forces marking their own homework!

For me, this is the biggest scandal in the history of the United Kingdom. It's hard to imagine anything worse - the systematic rape of children as young as 10. And hundreds if not thousands of them. And then, branding some of the kids as prostitutes, and failing entirely to protect them. It's so bad it's absolutely beyond belief.
We’ll have to wait and see. I’d like to see a warts and all investigation - as I’m sure we all do - because this is something that transcends political tribalism. Not that I’m particularly entrenched in one political camp anyway. Sure, I voted Labour at last years GE but that was the first time I’d voted for them since 2001.
 
What a childish post.

You clearly don't understand what the average non-dom is like. These are not Anglophiles who will stay in the UK because it's all jolly nice here. They are uber-rich and extremely mobile. They will go and live wherever in the world they fancy. If they like London and don't get fleeced for the privilege of staying here, they may stay for a while, buying a Rolls-Royce from HR Owen in Berkley Square perhaps? Buying expensive suits from Saville Row. But more generally, spending their money, paying tax on their UK income, paying VAT, employing people. This is MASSIVELY beneficial to the UK economy.

Now, question: Do you want more of these people in the UK or fewer? If the answer is fewer, there is no hope for you and the debate is finished.

Hopefully you will recognise that we want more of them. You will recognise that their contribution to the UK economy is significant. Now, how much more likely do you think is that these uber rich people will choose the UK after the changes to apply tax all of their global income and take 40% of their global wealth off them in IHT?

I don't have the stats to hand - I can look them up as you can. But it stands to reason they will fuck off in droves. There's endless stories of financial advisers who had many wealthy non-doms on the books, but that they are losing their customers at an alarming rate.

This is just another example of flawed Labour thinking driven by bitterness and resentment. They'd rather see everyone worse off them some continuing to be extremely rich. And the policy will not work. Just like a wealth tax and other such tripe won't work. It doesn't raise any money, actually less, and will make everyone in the UK, poorer.
Get some facts instead of spouting propaganda and get back to me. You said you can look up the facts then do it.
 
I don't buy the " you haven’t saved enough so we’re going to make you work longer" line , they are trying to make it sound that it is for your own good.
More like they have failed to save anything from the Welfare bill - forget all that "it's a moral imperative" , "those that can work must work" stuff. They have done nothing ! Those that can work but choose not to will be also be allowed to do nothing !
So they need to cover that.
Plus of course ..
Smash those gangs - Not happened
All that extra cash from Non - Doms -Not happened
Grow the economy = Additional Tax - Not happened
etc etc
Delaying pensionable age by 1 year saves £8 - £10 Billion - that should cover a big chunk of it, that the reason.
Reality is that what Kendall says about the pension age etc is correct but expediency is the reason for her actions.

She’s pissed through the extra £18bn she got from the £40bn NI hike. Another £8-10bn won’t last long and she’ll be back next year saying work just one more year.

Labour didn’t have, and doesn’t have, a plan.
 
She’s pissed through the extra £18bn she got from the £40bn NI hike. Another £8-10bn she’ll be back next year saying work just one more year.

Labour didn’t have, and doesn’t have, a plan.
They have a plan.

Just one that doesn't benefit the electorate.
 
Do you have any substantial evidence on the cost in GDP for this mythical mass exodus of extremely rich people? Maybe we can do bit of crowd funding to help them? I do know Brexit is costing over £100Billion a year in lost GDP, Starmer and his gang should zeroing in on this, not doing the Tories dirty work for them by attacking working poor.


Can you please post some evidence of this 3.5% GDP cost caused by Brexit ?
Thanks
 
Get some facts instead of spouting propaganda and get back to me. You said you can look up the facts then do it.
Do it yourself you lazy sod. I said YOU can look up the fact as well as I can.

I'm quite happy with my understanding of reality. You don't want to believe it, fine, fuck off and look it up for yourself. Or not. I don't care.
 
Last edited:
Its not enough tho is it? How about some sanctions on Israel to pressure on them to stop killing innocent people and to stop them carrying out what looks like ethnic cleansing.

Next logical step hopefully? It’s better than just trotting out “Israel has right to defend itself” shite or just saying nowt. I suspect the tories wouldn’t have said owt.

This country once had a reputation for sticking up for people.
 
Can you please post some evidence of this 3.5% GDP cost caused by Brexit ?
Thanks

Lots of stuff in here, the figure quoted by the OBR is 4% of GDP.
 
Do it yourself you lazy sod. I said YOU can look up the fact as well as I can.

I'm quite happy with my understanding of reality. You don't want to believe it, fine, fuck off and look it up for yourself. Or not. I don't care.
Ha ha bingo, you’re a fucking grade A bluffer. Btw I looked up the OBR link for your fellow traveller. Another btw are you a bot ?
 
They opted for the John McDonnell method, which involved a strongly worded letter. That'll do the trick. Not a dig at you btw, but it's completely pointless.

The language is at least ramping up. Lammy “utterly condemns” killing of civilians at aid sites and “war must end now”.

Of course we know Israel only listens to the US (if that’s even the case now) but we have to do whatever we can mate. However futile. The alternative is to be complicit. This should have happened a long time ago.
 

Lots of stuff in here, the figure quoted by the OBR is 4% of GDP.

That link says 2/5ths of 4% (1.6%) is estimated to have occurred. To put it another way it’s estimated the economy is currently £57bn smaller as a result of Brexit.

So, in fairness, your assertion of 3.6% / £100bn isn’t the case. You may eventually be proven right however (or possibly conservative in your estimates).

Trouble is it’s hard to really extract the impact of covid, Ukraine and now Trump. The UK may well easily reverse the Brexit impacts simply by stint of being able to agree a deal with the US. Obviously that’ll almost certainly be a short term “correction”.
 
80? Arguably. 90 yes.

55? No chance. I am 64 and have benefitted from none of the things you mention. Bought my first house, and sold it for less than I paid for it - something that NEVER happened in prior years. Bought it on an endowment mortgage that was supposed to cover the £57,000 I borrowed (in 1988) and which paid our £32k, leaving me knackered etc etc. My generation has certainly not had it remotely "cushy", and like I say, I am 64 not 55.
I too am 64. Maybe you were unlucky. I have never lost money on a house purchase and one move for work involved tripling the mortgage(also in 1988) moving from Manchester to Berkshire. Even during that time and the next few years, I continued to pay 8-10% into the company pension, often going without but knowing it was the right thing to do long term. Oh, chuck a divorce in there as well. No, my endowment didn't pay out fully either, but when it was clear there would be a shortfall, any pay rises went towards overpaying the mortgage which I immediately changed to a flexible "option" mortgage. I didn't go to uni but had I/we done so would have had no tuition fees(so you would have ordid benefit from that). Housing was significantly more affordable so you and I have benefitted from that too.

My point is that "our generation" had ample opportunity to insure our future. My wife is 56 and despite bringing up 2 kids on her own was never out of work(even in South Wales) and has a reasonable personal pension because she took the hit then knowing it was sensible to do so. She was able to afford to buy her own small house but did once spend 24 hours on a coach to the Costa Brava with her 2 young kids because flights were too expensive.

I'm sorry it didn't work out for you, but the opportunity was there, but maybe you didn't recognise it at the time. Your assertions that we didn't have it relatively easy is highly questionable.
 
That link says 2/5ths of 4% (1.6%) is estimated to have occurred. To put it another way it’s estimated the economy is currently £57bn smaller as a result of Brexit.

So, in fairness, your assertion of 3.6% / £100bn isn’t the case. You may eventually be proven right however (or possibly conservative in your estimates).

Trouble is it’s hard to really extract the impact of covid, Ukraine and now Trump. The UK may well easily reverse the Brexit impacts simply by stint of being able to agree a deal with the US. Obviously that’ll almost certainly be a short term “correction”.
Also due to Brexit, or just some random other reason?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top