The Labour Government

[dobingsdobber]

Agreed. Partygate is not comparable to this

These gifts though, like second jobs that MPs take, need stamping out.

Doesn't the Nolan Directive,(aka."The Seven Principles of Public Life"),cover this gubbins?

 

[law74]

I've really never got my head around why anyone would think that, other than that they are just horrible bitter individuals, resentful of anyone doing better than them. I hope that is not you.

The vast majority of people sending their kids to private school are not multi-millionaires, they are normal people, often 2 working parents who are making big personal sacrifices for the good of their children. And now thousands upon thousands just won't be able to afford it.

Is that really something to be proud of? Every kid NOT in state education is 1 less person for the state to fund educating. 1 less person in a crowded classroom. Sometimes 1 less kid with special needs that needs to be accommodated. More money per pupil for those in state schools, so they can have smaller classes and better education.

Other than bitter resentment, I can think of no reason why anyone would want to discourage this, with the aim of raising a few quid. Labour's own figures suggest that 65% of the VAT revenue will be lost on increased state education costs. The Treasury's own figures suggest it will actually COST more money than it saves.

BTW, I went to a state school, just for the record.

John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said:

“VAT on private schools is a clear cut case of a policy gimmick that will do grievous harm to families with potentially pathetic results for revenues.

“Politicians may talk of a level-playing field, but taxpayers won’t be fooled by proposals that simply punish ambition without even achieving its own objectives.

“Labour should abandon this disastrous policy.”

You quote the Tax Dodgers Alliance or any of the other Tufton Street scum and you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[stonerblue]

Ha true. I was in house “xyz” at my last school, what houses do you have here? Mate we don’t have houses, we have gangs.

I was 12 when i moved to a new school and on the first day the PE teacher asked me, 'What house are you in?' Three oh five bostocks lane sir.''
The other kids rolled around laughing and I didn't have a clue why.

 

[law74]

Having their party conference in Liverpool; a smart move. 100% rock solid labour territory. Though I see there were some dissenters there, who were "persuaded" to leave the hall.

Far from being 100% Labour, much of Merseyside have been disenfranchised or kicked out of the Labour Party for being left wing in ideology

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Doesn't the Nolan Directive,(aka."The Seven Principles of Public Life"),cover this gubbins?

Sounds very much like the LotG as applied by PiGMOL's finest!

 

[west didsblue]

No it doesn’t. You’ve got to ask yourself is Starmer being badly advised or is he ignoring advice. Both are fixable so I do expect it to get better.

I’d like to think if Starmer to could turn back the clock he’d do a couple of things differently. In that respect someone who (privately) can admit they got it wrong is better than someone who can’t. It tends to make you more considered and cautious going forward. We’ve all worked with people who know it all and don’t listen. They tend to be an accident waiting to happen.

He will know exactly where he’s gone wrong and he will also know that doing a U turn on pretty much anything is worse than just letting the story die a death. Fairly sure he will get better at politics as time goes on. If he’s going to look bad he might as well do it in his first year in the job. In 2029 even those that give a shit now will have forgotten.

 

[metalblue]

He will know exactly where he’s gone wrong and he will also know that doing a U turn on pretty much anything is worse than just letting the story die a death. Fairly sure he will get better at politics as time goes on. If he’s going to look bad he might as well do it in his first year in the job. In 2029 even those that give a shit now will have forgotten.

I’m sure they’d all love to reverse the decision on WFA but it’ll make them look weak so they’re going to have to front it out. I’d not be surprised if there is a little something in the budget to help soften the impacts on the most affected.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I’m sure they’d all love to reverse the decision on WFA but it’ll make them look weak so they’re going to have to front it out. I’d not be surprised if there is a little something in the budget to help soften the impacts on the most affected.

I agree. I think they will have to find a way to effectively reverse it, without reversing it. It's so patently obviously a diabolically bad policy decision, economically, morally and politically. I'd like to think that no future decisions can possibly be as terribly wrong as that one. But I am not convinced.

 

[Vic]

That's only because it's not good form to say it out loud.

If you look at the last 15 years or even the last week then you really can't come to any other conclusion.

So how would cutting the WFA be seen as appeasing the peasant scum? (Unless the peasant scum is "the market")

 

[Vic]

And 100% hypocrisy.

You will have seen all the Starmer fanboys jumping up and down with indignation about my comment. Now I'm sure you and I and anyone sensible couldn't really give a rats arse about what song she sang but imagine the reaction from same posters had it been a Tory who had done it.

Thankfully, we may never know again what would happen if a Tory sang a song that some people (including you) assumed wrongly was about domestic abuse.

 

[BlueMoonday]

 

[inbetween]

So how would cutting the WFA be seen as appeasing the peasant scum? (Unless the peasant scum is "the market")

Didn't they just give hundreds of thousands of people a payrise? There's always small print though, that wasn't a payrise for anyone except their union mates who surprise are some of the biggest donators to the Labour Party.

I'm not against that payrise btw, but it's absolutely the peak of selective appeasement. Maybe pensioners should start voting Labour and as with the Tories they might get thrown the odd bone?

Of course the Tories allowed them to keep their £300 but then took away their social and health care... £300 is £300 though I guess....

 

[Vic]

I’m sure they’d all love to reverse the decision on WFA but it’ll make them look weak so they’re going to have to front it out. I’d not be surprised if there is a little something in the budget to help soften the impacts on the most affected.

The most obvious thing would be to avoid the daft thing whereby someone eligible for pension credit ends up with a lot more than someone who doesn't quite qualify. Though I'm not sure even that is as clear-cut, as it seems you can get pension credit even if somewhat over the nominal threshold.

The BBC's stats-buster prog has an interesting item (first up) on some of this (and dismisses the idea that it could cost more than it saves by higher take-up on pension credit).

More or Less - Could the winter fuel cut cost more than it saves? - BBC Sounds

Plus, ONS transgender stats, early-onset cancer, and puzzles you’re meant to get wrong.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Chippy_boy]

I can't believe that anybody is surprised about any of this in either party.

I was in London yesterday and had a few hours spare so went for a walk and ended up walking around Mayfair. The wealth on show is just unbelievable. I walked past the Cipriani and there were lines and lines of chauffered cars waiting in the street. I can imagine that at least one MP could of been in there talking to who knows who!

It's a completely different world and just walking around there you realise that nothing in the UK is built around anything except this world of finance, lawyers etc, it all just stinks.

I think the politicians see the worse part of their job as having to occasionally appease the peasant scum that vote for them.

Funnily enough, I was in London, in Mayfair yesterday also. Thought we'd have a quiet pint in The Audley and the place was absolutely jam cram packed with "city types" - which I thought really odd considering Mayfair isn't in "the City". Everyone wearing dark blue suits and blue shirts. And Ferrari after Ferrari circling. I commented that it was like being in Puerto Banus, watching the posers driving around the circuit, posing in their Ferraris.

It does seem like we live in different countries, doesn't it. Parts of London are so far removed for the norm of most peoples' lives, I do wonder just how out of touch those in the Westminster bubble have become. Although I do not wonder how out of touch the one in No.10 has become.

 

[maxwellblue]

Thankfully, we may never know again what would happen if a Tory sang a song that some people (including you) assumed wrongly was about domestic abuse.

I didn't assume it was about domestic abuse.

 

[inbetween]

Funnily enough, I was in London, in Mayfair yesterday also. Thought we'd have a quiet pint in The Audley and the place was absolutely jam cram packed with "city types" - which I thought really odd considering Mayfair isn't in "the City". Everyone wearing dark blue suits and blue shirts. And Ferrari after Ferrari circling. I commented that it was like being in Puerto Banus, watching the posers driving around the circuit, posing in their Ferraris.

It does seem like we live in different countries, doesn't it. Parts of London are so far removed for the norm of most peoples' lives, I do wonder just how out of touch those in the Westminster bubble have become. Although I do not wonder how out of touch the one in No.10 has become.

It's definitely a parallel world, a million miles away from the world that I live in.

I walked past the Mayfair chippy too and that looked posher than the best restaurants anywhere near me!

£25 for fish and chips and what kind of chippy does oysters and lobster ffs??

 

[Chippy_boy]

The BBC's stats-buster prog ... dismisses the idea that it could cost more than it saves by higher take-up on pension credit).

More or Less - Could the winter fuel cut cost more than it saves? - BBC Sounds

Plus, ONS transgender stats, early-onset cancer, and puzzles you’re meant to get wrong.

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't have time to listen to it, but I imagine the person saying it is an idiot then.

There are - according to Martin Lewis - about 800,000 people eligible for pension credit who don't claim it. The average amount given to people who do claim is £3,900 per year (Martin Lewis again).

So schoolboy maths, if the 800,000 claimed it that would cost 800,000 x £3,900 = £3.12bn per year, i.e. way more than the amount of WFA saved.

QED

 

[mancityvstoke]

I don't have time to listen to it, but I imagine the person saying it is an idiot then.

There are - according to Martin Lewis - about 800,000 people eligible for pension credit who don't claim it. The average amount given to people who do claim is £3,900 per year (Martin Lewis again).

So schoolboy maths, if the 800,000 claimed it that would cost 800,000 x £3,900 = £3.12bn per year, i.e. way more than the amount of WFA saved.

QED

totally wasting your time on here mate......they're just winding you up.

 

[bluenova]

Didn't they just give hundreds of thousands of people a payrise? There's always small print though, that wasn't a payrise for anyone except their union mates who surprise are some of the biggest donators to the Labour Party.

I'm not against that payrise btw, but it's absolutely the peak of selective appeasement. Maybe pensioners should start voting Labour and as with the Tories they might get thrown the odd bone?

Of course the Tories allowed them to keep their £300 but then took away their social and health care... £300 is £300 though I guess....

Public sector pay has fallen well behind private sector pay in the last 14 years, which is a major reason why the Tories were facing ongoing strikes across the sector.

The Government are also unsurprisingly, only going to be negotiating pay with employees in the public sector, so it's a bit of a red herring to say that it's "union mates". If you have a look at what they're planning on employment, it will give workers a lot more rights, more power to join a union, and there are even plans to look at collective bargaining across private sector industries, particularly in areas where employees are low paid and have little power.

 

[Chippy_boy]

totally wasting your time on here mate......they're just winding you up.

I wouldn't miss it for the world mate. We've had donkeys years on the Tory thread with the same Labour luvvies slagging off every conservative for breathing. It's lovely having a few months of fun at their expense, and I look forward to the next 5 years of same... if the government lasts that long, which it may not.

Unrelated,

Public sector pay has fallen well behind private sector pay in the last 14 years, which is a major reason why the Tories were facing ongoing strikes across the sector.

I don't doubt that, and I also don't doubt that those working in the public sector would like more money - who wouldn't? But I do wonder whether we should question whether those in the public sector *should* have comparable pay? Maybe it should be higher than the private sector because it's a terrible career and awful working conditions? Or maybe it should be lower because of better conditions and benefits other than salary? I don't know.

It's not like people are press-ganged into working the in public sector is it. I mean they CHOOSE to go into the public sector and they can leave it and get a better paid job elsewhere if they think their skills are worth it. I think the two career paths are entirely different with a different set of benefits and values, and it's far more complicated than saying public sector pays X, private pays Y and therefore public must get Y. There's pension contributions, retirement age, holiday entitlement, the free electric bike (for example), gym membership, sick pay, life assurance, flexible working, god knows what else.

My point is there is much more to it than pay.