The Labour Government

No, because i was commenting from my own perspective.
I don't proof read the forum before posting my own opinions.

If the council has allowed itself to get into such a position due to misspending, it's further proof the members need removing, and we do this by a democratic election.

Or does democracy come down to simply to money in your eyes? We've held elections even in wartime; 'oopsies, we've no moneez' doesn't cut it, sunshine.
Nothing like sharing ignorance.

Local elections were postponed in WW2 and during Covid, and by the last government when new unitary councils were being created. It's not about money either - it's other resources, when legal and other staff are busy sorting out who does what in the reorganisations.
 
No, because i was commenting from my own perspective.
I don't proof read the forum before posting my own opinions.

If the council has allowed itself to get into such a position due to misspending, it's further proof the members need removing, and we do this by a democratic election.

Or does democracy come down to simply to money in your eyes? We've held elections even in wartime; 'oopsies, we've no moneez' doesn't cut it, sunshine.
It’s not about proof reading it’s the context and reading a comment directly above do you really think it makes sense to have an election for a council that won’t exist in 12 months I think does not ? Or fair to blame labour when the councils are choosing to do this and 7 of the 9 are Tory ?

Elections in war you say


Whilst there is a precedent for cancelling elections to councils that are about to be replaced,


Due to the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, the next general election was not held until 1945.

 
Which part do you disagree with and, why?
This isn't just to protect against employees being verbally abused by customers.
How will publicans be expected to protect their employees from overhearing conversations in pubs by customers that they may find offensive or upsetting in virtue of their protected characteristics?

People getting sued when they have no control of what another person says.
 
Last edited:
This isn't just to protect against employees being verbally abused by customers.
How will publicans be expected to protect their employees from overhearing conversations in pubs by customers that they may find offensive or upsetting in virtue of their protected characteristics?

People getting sued when they have no control of what another person says.
If that’s your interpretation, we’ll leave it there
 
Boris Johnson delayed local elections in 2021 because their were practical reasons

Also Boris Johnsons paid for views

 
https://conservativehome.com/2025/0...ban-marks-the-death-of-the-great-british-pub/

This week, Liberal Democrat peers voted with Labour to put a banter bouncer in every pub from October 2026.
Hahahaha love it!!
You couldn't make it up.
The Tories did just make it up. The banter bouncer is made up. As for the "death of the pub" look no further than the height of Tory austerity when pubs were closing at the rate of six a day rather than less than one a day now.
 
Can't hold elections next year because councils complain they don't have the means to hold them.

All the more reason to HAVE the elections and remove the useless, wasteful spending twats. That is an unforgivable stance to have. What's next; "Hmm, sorry, General Election is cancelled, the nation is still losing money and it's best we stay in power to correct it"
Always good to hear from an expert on "councils" despite there being at least one in every pub!
 
There's a council in every pub?

No wonder they're all so shit.
Not as shit as the Teesside mayor...

https://northeastbylines.co.uk/busi...-leaving-middlesbrough-to-pick-up-the-pieces/

Looking forward to the usual Labour haters ignoring Tory incompetence

And more seriously - there must be recall provision, or provision for government intervention, for mayors who are corrupt, go mad, or just incompetent. Think what damage a Trumpian mayor could do in a four year term of office.
 
Can we remove the word government from this thread title? I don’t know what this shit is but it can’t be described as governing.

Why on gods green earth wasn’t the u turn on farmers IHT included in the budget? Why was it sent out as a press release rather than a minister doing the rounds explaining it after it was backed by all and sundry including Starmer? How does it change the fiscal projections? As a government you can’t keep changing policy like this, this isn’t a one off and even the die hard Starmer fans have got to now be questioning his judgement.

Anyroad merry Christmas blues, hope you have a good time as possible and I know that won’t be easy for everyone for a variety of reasons.
 
Can we remove the word government from this thread title? I don’t know what this shit is but it can’t be described as governing.

Why on gods green earth wasn’t the u turn on farmers IHT included in the budget? Why was it sent out as a press release rather than a minister doing the rounds explaining it after it was backed by all and sundry including Starmer? How does it change the fiscal projections? As a government you can’t keep changing policy like this, this isn’t a one off and even the die hard Starmer fans have got to now be questioning his judgement.

Anyroad merry Christmas blues, hope you have a good time as possible and I know that won’t be easy for everyone for a variety of reasons.
Fiscally, it means Labour has restored IHT to farming businesses and will still bring in more money than if they hadn't done it at all.

Politically, it's been disastrous. Having got umpteen MPs elected in rural areas, they've consigned most of them to one term. Any wider benefits for farming (particularly from resetting EU deals) will look secondary, even if in the long run they are more important to the rural economy than who gets what from a family farm (Brexit has been much more of a disaster for the "family farm" than IHT).

If you ask the non-farming community whether it's right that farmers should have special treatment on inheritance tax, it's not that much of an issue. If you asked anyone, including farmers, whether government should target people who buy up family farms as a tax dodge, you might get another answer. Call it the Clarkson tax.
 
Fiscally, it means Labour has restored IHT to farming businesses and will still bring in more money than if they hadn't done it at all.

Politically, it's been disastrous. Having got umpteen MPs elected in rural areas, they've consigned most of them to one term. Any wider benefits for farming (particularly from resetting EU deals) will look secondary, even if in the long run they are more important to the rural economy than who gets what from a family farm (Brexit has been much more of a disaster for the "family farm" than IHT).

If you ask the non-farming community whether it's right that farmers should have special treatment on inheritance tax, it's not that much of an issue. If you asked anyone, including farmers, whether government should target people who buy up family farms as a tax dodge, you might get another answer. Call it the Clarkson tax.

I read an idea of a certain percentage of your income had to come from farming to allow you to benefit from the farmer IHT rate - ie you had to be an actual farmer which seemed sensible to me. It was quite high at 90%. As you say people want to see farmers supported but not people fiddling the tax loop holes benefitting.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top