The Labour Government

Vic said:
That's a bit odd. To get to a majority you usually have to start with a minority and persuade others, and that usually involves saying their existing view is wrong.

For a start, what's the majority view on immigration? Ask whether immigration to the UK is too high you'd likely get a majority saying yes, but ask whether on the whole immigration is a good thing for Britain and you'd get an even split between good, bad, and "neither good nor bad". And I'm guessing that somehow you think a majority of people are in favour of genocide against the Palestinians.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't disagree, that would likely be the response to the questions you have phrased on immigration, but one is concerned in the present and that is what a clear majority want to see some decisive policy on , the other is a reflection over time. But you know that and make my point in that despite knowing that you are prepared to disregard that majority opinion in the here and now and obfuscate the issue with more nuanced questions to obviate the need to do anything.
 
mosssideblue said:
Just watching PMQs. Crikey, chancellor is looking haggard
Click to expand...
Well..... if you're gonna give commitments that you cannot keep, what do you expect?

Then you get posters on here asking those of us who could see this was going to be the case, to make provision about we would cover the costs that she created.... bloody marvelous.

It really isn't down to me to say what personal taxes I'd increase to deliver something I never created or to cover a commitment I had never made.
 
Hertzblue said:
I wouldn't disagree, that would likely be the response to the questions you have phrased on immigration, but one is concerned in the present and that is what a clear majority want to see some decisive policy on , the other is a reflection over time. But you know that and make my point in that despite knowing that you are prepared to disregard that majority opinion in the here and now and obfuscate the issue with more nuanced questions to obviate the need to do anything.
Click to expand...
So it's cult-like behaviour, nay "a chat room zombie apocalypse scenario", to ask nuanced questions....
 
Postman Pep said:
I mean you could level that at Corbyn era Labour but it wouldn't be true. The dissenters were hardly silenced they were never off the fucking telly and how is conducting a 5 year wrecking campaign not undermining the democratic choice of the Labour membership?

The right wing of the PLP are utter cunts.




Click to expand...

You forgot to add in your opinion. Do you honestly think if Corbyn had won a General Election that he would've welcomed the views of all those who were further to the right than him? And even though he didn't win a GE, there were plenty of stories flying around about Momentum's dubious tactics while he was leader. Maybe you were living on a different planet at the time and weren't aware of it:

www.theguardian.com

Corbyn urged to disband Momentum after Labour MPs report bullying and abuse

MPs raise fresh questions about grassroots movement, which is separate from Labour, in wake of vote on Syria airstrikes
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Further to your point about dissenters, well no dissenters were silenced yesterday were they? In fact, they gained plenty of concessions ahead of the vote.
 
Last edited:
Nuanced questions incoming.

Of the MPs who voted against the bill I know why some "rebel" Labour MPs voted against, but why did the other parties vote against? Was it because they did want to cut disability benefits, or didn't? And why did Badenoch attack other parties for doing what her party had done, voting against?
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Well..... if you're gonna give commitments that you cannot keep, what do you expect?

Then you get posters on here asking those of us who could see this was going to be the case, to make provision about we would cover the costs that she created.... bloody marvelous.

It really isn't down to me to say what personal taxes I'd increase to deliver something I never created or to cover a commitment I had never made.
Click to expand...
Well stop bloody moaning when there is not enough money to go around to pay for the things we all may need at some stage. My point about potential tax rises is that there groups that are "untouchable" and so there has to be a debate about where those rises, if they are needed, should come from.

I've just done a quick calculation about how much my recent stay in hospital cost the NHS. It's around £33000 including the procedures they carried out. That pretty much wipes out a whole year of my income tax.

We know you hate Labour and think your mates Nigel and Tice will be the saviours ( £80bn of unfunded tax cuts to come from them). But you still defend rich pensioners, free prescriptions, rich farmers, low council taxes, no reforms to the welfare system etc. it would appear as long as you're not personally any worse off.

Maybe some of the effects of Brexit and the associated decline in GDP and tax receipts are really coming home to roost.

Something/someone has to give, and I suspect it needs to be us being pragmatic and realistic and us all giving a bit more.
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
Nuanced questions incoming.

Of the MPs who voted against the bill I know why some "rebel" Labour MPs voted against, but why did the other parties vote against? Was it because they did want to cut disability benefits, or didn't? And why did Badenoch attack other parties for doing what her party had done, voting against?
Click to expand...
The Tories wanted bigger cuts and that's why they voted against.
 
I think the majority would like to see less immigration.

However, if, for example, you said the price of that is higher taxes to pay for more of our own people to be trained in shortage skills, with retirement age up to at least 70, or maybe 75, plus 5-7 years to accomplish the transition, you would get outrage. And you'd be told that the immigrants they mean are all sitting at home on the dole.

The bottom line is it's impossible to have a sensible debate about immigration as some will never accept that at least some of it is necessary to enable us to live as we do today and believe that there would be no negative consequences if it all stopped tomorrow.

I leave aside the question of asylum seekers. There's no unilateral way to solve that; it needs international cooperation, especially with the EU (horror!) and an acceptance that we will still need to take our share. Unless you fancy being like North Korea.
 
Vic said:
Nuanced questions incoming.

Of the MPs who voted against the bill I know why some "rebel" Labour MPs voted against, but why did the other parties vote against? Was it because they did want to cut disability benefits, or didn't? And why did Badenoch attack other parties for doing what her party had done, voting against?
Click to expand...
Badenoch opted to play politics with it. The Tories ideologically should have supported the original bill, even if there view was that it didn't go far enough. Once it became clear that the Labour revolt was serious she needed an excuse to vote with them to hopefully defeat the government. So she stipulated that they would only vote with the government if they pledged further welfare cuts in the future and ruled out further tax rises in the future. Obviously impossible for the government to do and she had her excuse to vote against the bill while still looking tough on welfare reform. She attacked the other parties because their reasons for voting against were different from hers i.e they didn't want to reduce benefits.
Hop that answer is sufficiently nuanced for you.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Well..... if you're gonna give commitments that you cannot keep, what do you expect?

Then you get posters on here asking those of us who could see this was going to be the case, to make provision about we would cover the costs that she created.... bloody marvelous.

It really isn't down to me to say what personal taxes I'd increase to deliver something I never created or to cover a commitment I had never made.
Click to expand...
You're all heart. Nothing like a bit of slack for a clearly distressed fellow human being whatever their political persuasion.
 
blueinsa said:
Reeves is a human being and I sincerely hope she is ok as that was not nice to watch.
Click to expand...
I'm not a nasty person but I will say I have zero sympathy for her.

Where was her empathy when she was trying to take money away from disabled people. Some of those people will have been tortured mentally about the thought of not being able to make end's meet and pushed into poverty.
 
Last edited:
Cannot understand why Reeves is having to increase taxes....?

Labour entered Government on a clear mandate that they had a fully costed manifesto and there would be no furher tax increases...

Then they try and snatch back the WFA from ALL pensioners, not just the wealthy ones. Why the fuck didn't they just pay the WFA to pensioners who were on basic rate tax or lower, that'd be easy enough to do. Anyway they failed there and have had to U turn.

Then they increase Employers NI which anyone can see is going to have a huge effect across society, price increases because believe it or not, the employers were neve going to stand the full impact of that.

Then we come to Council tax.... 8% here...

All the above under the banner of no tax increases and a fully costed budget... yeah right.

So why do they need to increase taxes? Oh yeah to cut the benefits of the sick and disabled.... really?

... and you want people to feel sorry for a Chancellor who is in a job she cannot do? If she's that bothered then she should resign in the interests of the people she's lied to and the Labour party.
 
BrianW said:
I think the majority would like to see less immigration.

However, if, for example, you said the price of that is higher taxes to pay for more of our own people to be trained in shortage skills, with retirement age up to at least 70, or maybe 75, plus 5-7 years to accomplish the transition, you would get outrage. And you'd be told that the immigrants they mean are all sitting at home on the dole.

The bottom line is it's impossible to have a sensible debate about immigration as some will never accept that at least some of it is necessary to enable us to live as we do today and believe that there would be no negative consequences if it all stopped tomorrow.

I leave aside the question of asylum seekers. There's no unilateral way to solve that; it needs international cooperation, especially with the EU (horror!) and an acceptance that we will still need to take our share. Unless you fancy being like North Korea.
Click to expand...
There is a very simple difference between legal (visa) migration and people who enter the country illegally on boats.

I think you'd find that the majority of the British public have no problem with legal migration but they do want to stop people crossing on boats because they are a massive drain on resources.... still we need not worry as Keir is on the case to smash the gangs isn't he?

The migrant issues should not be conflated, that is of course, to do so helps some cause or campaign.

Have a friendly word with Keir and tell him how he save money by not housing and providing for the people who are entering the country illegally without documents.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Cannot understand why Reeves is having to increase taxes....?

Labour entered Government on a clear mandate that they had a fully costed manifesto and there would be no furher tax increases...

Then they try and snatch back the WFA from ALL pensioners, not just the wealthy ones. Why the fuck didn't they just pay the WFA to pensioners who were on basic rate tax or lower, that'd be easy enough to do. Anyway they failed there and have had to U turn.

Then they increase Employers NI which anyone can see is going to have a huge effect across society, price increases because believe it or not, the employers were neve going to stand the full impact of that.

Then we come to Council tax.... 8% here...

All the above under the banner of no tax increases and a fully costed budget... yeah right.

So why do they need to increase taxes? Oh yeah to cut the benefits of the sick and disabled.... really?

... and you want people to feel sorry for a Chancellor who is in a job she cannot do? If she's that bothered then she should resign in the interests of the people she's lied to and the Labour party.
Click to expand...
You raise a very fair point. The £20bn black hole horse has been truly flogged enough already, and the last budget was suipposed to have been so dire, in order to fix that and fund other things. We're now done with blaming the Tories, and yet we are being told more tax rises are inevitable. I think they are. I also think that Labour need to man up and own them "these one are on us", rather than blaming the Tories, Donald Trump, the Palestinians, Putin or anyone else.

People need to understand that voting Labour means more unemployment and higher taxes. It always does. Sure then get to brag about spending more on X or Y or A or B and that's a choice. But it comes at a cost and people need to vote for that. Not be conned into thinking Labour have a magic wand.
 
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