Keir Starmer

TinFoilHat said:
What concerned me was the enthusiastic clapping at stopping the boats.
Click to expand...
That proves how well Sunak and Braverman has persuaded parts of the electorate those boats are responsible for all the NHS waiting lists and why there’s no money for anything anymore.
People believe it aided and abetted by the sun and the mail
 
TinFoilHat said:
Yep. I think Beth mentioned 70% voted for Brexit?
Click to expand...
A colleague of mine used to work as a fisherman as a kid and said his family had turned to the Tories (latterly Johnson) because of pledge to the UK fishing industry. They are all now furious with what transpired and have now reconsidered their original position to trust anything they could achieve for them.

TBF, he said that the region had been decimated by cuts and a lot of them didn’t realise it was the central funding, not local, that had brought them to where they were. Others just wanted levelling up to work, thus sucking up to the Tories.

We live and learn.
 
It's a fair point. Not saying they would have won but this was the we must destroy the village to save it moment. Dennis knew.

 
bluethrunthru said:
The bigger question is that over the last decade fees have gone up @30% with no mass exodus and most of those parents still go skiing and to the Maldives so why would this change cause a meltdown? The parents can make sacrifices, work harder, work 2 jobs or get a paying job. Thats what they tell you to do if you can't afford premium label baked beans.
Click to expand...

Something going up ~30% in a decade is hardly surprising if you want inflation around 2.5% which acts cumulatively.

Going up 20% overnight is entirely different.

Anyway let’s look at the rationale being provided for increasing fees - it’s to raise funds to improve state schools. Ok let’s take that at face value and assume this is going to pay for all these things Labour want to do - none of which anyone would disagree with. Is it fair that a small section of society who do not use that facility should pay for these improvements? Would it not be fairer to share that investment across a wider group of tax payers through a simple increase in taxation? Those with the broadest shoulders bearing the burden of a small amount each versus a small group bearing a much larger burden? The former approach would likely raise more money (the numbers being muted as this raising are questionable), not tax education as a principle, and which would be better for all concerned - no?
 
Grimsby, like many other towns, has lost its purpose, and not yet found another. It was, at one time, possibly the premier fishing port of the entire world.

There used to be trains, whole trains, carrying fish from Grimsby to various parts of the country. That has almost all gone - what remains goes by road - because we lost our fishing grounds around Iceland donkey's years ago.

Why anyone, even of the meanest intellect, would think that leaving the EU would move all the cod and haddock* into British waters I cannot conceive.

It's rather like Radcliffe (for example) thinking that a vote could bring back the cotton mills.

* We eat little else, and what we do eat is far less than 50 or 100 years ago.
 
metalblue said:
Something going up ~30% in a decade is hardly surprising if you want inflation around 2.5% which acts cumulatively.

Going up 20% overnight is entirely different.

Anyway let’s look at the rationale being provided for increasing fees - it’s to raise funds to improve state schools. Ok let’s take that at face value and assume this is going to pay for all these things Labour want to do - none of which anyone would disagree with. Is it fair that a small section of society who do not use that facility should pay for these improvements? Would it not be fairer to share that investment across a wider group of tax payers through a simple increase in taxation? Those with the broadest shoulders bearing the burden of a small amount each versus a small group bearing a much larger burden? The former approach would likely raise more money (the numbers being muted as this raising are questionable), not tax education as a principle, and which would be better for all concerned - no?
Click to expand...
Why not do both if it helped rectify public services that need urgent investment.

As a lot of popes have suggested, it’s about your taxes seemingly not doing anything that frustrates people most.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.