The Labour Government

Johnny Mars Bar said:
Just reading this on BBC News now.

I know it's only 500 quid but the optics of handing an illegal migrant nonce who the government let escape a wad of cash is fucking shocking.

I know there's a lot of admin and bureaucratic reasons why that was probably the quickest and cheapest way of dealing with the **** but the headlines write themselves.
Click to expand...
Terrible look isn’t it.

Comes here illegally.
Gets put up in a hotel
Fed and Watered
Bit of pocket money
Allowed to wonder around freely
Commits a sex office
Get locked up and continues to be fed and watered only losing his freedom to move around.
Gets let out by mistake
Takes 2 days to find him
Get deported
Given £500 to get rid of him quietly
Gets back to Ethiopia and is a free man so doesn’t even serve any time of note for the crime.

Welcome to 2025 UK!
 
Vic said:
Never had a penny off the state? Never went to school? Free health checks? Free medical treatment? Never been on a road? Lived on a dark street with no lighting? Never used subsidised public transport? You wouldn't have sent the Task Force to the Falklands? No state-funded flood defences? I won't mention the aqueducts...
Click to expand...
I meant personally ie benefits.
 
Vic said:
I've no idea how a view on what people need in retirement should lead to a view that people's pensions should be capped, or how a built-up pension pot should be spent, or that there should be an "additional tax" just for pensions. Total non-sequiturs.
Click to expand...

So you've no idea what people need in retirement, you are purely measuring it from your own single data point as to what is enough. I answered your question honestly and openly giving reasons why it wasnt unreasonable to try to have a 40k income in retirement after your insinuation that such a sum was unnecessary.

I then asked a very simple question, if 40k is too much what should be done if that figure is exceeded which is likely to occur not just for people in the private sector but many in the public sector. Its a perfectly logical extrapolation from your statement.

Maybe you have no issue with people having whatever they like in retirement but thats not how you phrased your original response to my post.

What I will say Vic is that most others on here are open to reasoned discussion where people can see different sides of a debate but you obviously aren't, so why engage at all. If you opened your eyes and weren't so blinded by your ideological political doctrine, you might just have a more balanced view of the world.
 
Johnny Mars Bar said:
To be fair to them, Starmer and Sunak both basically said the country is fucked but vote for me and I'll do my best to try and sort it out.

It's not what people wanted to hear, and they still don't, hence people are choosing to ignore reality and run into Reform's arms of delusion, but it was true then and it's true now.

I'm of the opinion that we'd be in exactly the same place no matter which of them won the election.

The bigger problem now is the collapse of the Conservatives has led to a vacuum on the right that Reform are more than happy to fill. The Tories urgently need a change of leadership - a popular and electable Cameron figure.

In a roundabout way that'll actually do Labour a favour too as a viable Conservative Party will collapse the Reform vote.
Click to expand...

Think Labour need reform to stay polling strong to have any chance at the next election tbh, unless reform implode in the interim.
 
Kompany Car said:
So you've no idea what people need in retirement, you are purely measuring it from your own single data point as to what is enough. I answered your question honestly and openly giving reasons why it wasnt unreasonable to try to have a 40k income in retirement after your insinuation that such a sum was unnecessary.

I then asked a very simple question, if 40k is too much what should be done if that figure is exceeded which is likely to occur not just for people in the private sector but many in the public sector. Its a perfectly logical extrapolation from your statement.

Maybe you have no issue with people having whatever they like in retirement but thats not how you phrased your original response to my post.

What I will say Vic is that most others on here are open to reasoned discussion where people can see different sides of a debate but you obviously aren't, so why engage at all. If you opened your eyes and weren't so blinded by your ideological political doctrine, you might just have a more balanced view of the world.
Click to expand...
I really have no idea what you're blethering about. It's your contention that someone (everyone?) needs a big enough of a pension pot to give an income of £40k a year. Given that the average wage is less than that and has to cover mortgage or rent (and feed a family), I say the £40k a year (more than three times the state pension) is plainly more than enough for a good life. I'm not getting into an argument about what else you think that means.
 
stan bowles said:
Rachel from accounts illegally renting out her home without the proper licence. Another poor look from this so called Government of change.
Click to expand...
It's an odd bit of legislation. The local authority can designate property in particular parts of the borough for a limited list of reasons, but there are exemptions. Presumably where Reeves is letting her own home is one of those areas, but the formal designation says it doesn't apply in various cases including where "the house is occupied under a tenancy or licence which is exempt under the Act [Housing Act 2004] or the occupation is of a building or part of a building so exempt as defined in Paragraph 5(f): Exempted tenancies or licences, Selective Licensing of Houses (Specified Exemptions) (England) Order 2006".

There is no paragraph 5(f) in the Order.
 
blueinsa said:
It’s the line of we either paid it or faced an expensive law bill.

How about throw his fucking arse back into jail to finish his 12 month sentence (remember his not guilty, no remorse shown) and when he has done his time just deport the **** end of!

It’s been a disgraceful few weeks that will do nothing more than confirm to many what they are currently thinking and feeling and that is the system and politicians running it are a fucking joke.
Click to expand...

Prisons are full to the brim and we don’t want him in our country , deport him and if chucking £500 makes the whole legal process and extra cost go away and him delaying deportation then so be it.
 
stan bowles said:
Rachel from accounts illegally renting out her home without the proper licence. Another poor look from this so called Government of change.
Click to expand...
Why would the Chancellor have a house in an area that needs an SLA? She got an agency to rent it out for her, so hardly her fault or even negligence when you pay someone else to do everything for you.

It is parking ticket type stuff the far left and far right snowflakes lap it up though.
 
Vic said:
It's an odd bit of legislation. The local authority can designate property in particular parts of the borough for a limited list of reasons, but there are exemptions. Presumably where Reeves is letting her own home is one of those areas, but the formal designation says it doesn't apply in various cases including where "the house is occupied under a tenancy or licence which is exempt under the Act [Housing Act 2004] or the occupation is of a building or part of a building so exempt as defined in Paragraph 5(f): Exempted tenancies or licences, Selective Licensing of Houses (Specified Exemptions) (England) Order 2006".

There is no paragraph 5(f) in the Order.
Click to expand...
The key question is surely whether Reeves actually needs this money, wouldn’t you say?

She already has enough money to survive and she won’t actually need 95% of the stuff that she buys anyway.

It’s quite disgusting how the idle rich receive this unearned income and something needs to be done about it.
 
Brewster's millions said:
The key question is surely whether Reeves actually needs this money, wouldn’t you say?

She already has enough money to survive and she won’t actually need 95% of the stuff that she buys anyway.

It’s quite disgusting how the idle rich receive this unearned income and something needs to be done about it.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting she should have two homes and leave one empty and add to the vacant properties in London in a time of housing shortage?
 
The groundswell of a variety of papers really going for immigrants I’m sure will be ensuring this is the main talking point going into the local elections and beyond.

The Times had a big piece yesterday as to the hotels costing 145 a night for immigrants which I’m sure naturally has caused some resentment.

The Sun is hyping up the death of the poor chap walking his dog stabbed by the Afghan who was granted asylum in 2020.

Im fairly liberal but clearly things can’t carry on like this, on X the far right calling for Patriots to stand up etc which is crazy talk and probably just talk. But for many in the middle things need to change.

With regards to the economy. The working middle and lower class do as usual seem to be the ones who will take all these financial hits, I’ve got my own company and work a huge amount of hours and get taxed to high heaven. The government ensure people on benefits apply for a certain number of jobs a month. I’d say a third of the cvs we get are from people whose CVs clearly don’t want a job, some who explicitly say so but they can say they’ve applied etc.

If you’re a working immigrant or a working British person I truly respect that, but for people feeding off the taxes off others without showing any inclination or pride to work are the real issue. So hopefully labour get tough on this (they won’t as labour has too big a far left element who would block).
 
Brewster's millions said:
The key question is surely whether Reeves actually needs this money, wouldn’t you say?

She already has enough money to survive and she won’t actually need 95% of the stuff that she buys anyway.

It’s quite disgusting how the idle rich receive this unearned income and something needs to be done about it.
Click to expand...

Those damn letting agents who don’t know their jobs and failed to tell her she needed the license are to blame.

Always happy to hear that the PM accepts her apology and that she retains his full confidence.

Very forgiving man is our PM.
 
Vic said:
Are you suggesting she should have two homes and leave one empty and add to the vacant properties in London in a time of housing shortage?
Click to expand...
I’m just interested on your opinion on the matter, because you appear to hold strong views on how much money people should have, as well as unearned income and the ‘idle rich’. Or did yesterday in any case, before this story broke.

If the rental income covers her mortgage on the property, and given the other properties that she has available to her for free, then surely a good compromise would be to cap her other income at say £40k a year.

I mean, how does anyone with no housing costs need an income of £40k?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top