The Labour Government

BigJoe#1 said:
I strongly believe the impact of her direct policies will begin to have a detrimental effect on the country by the end of the first quarter 25/26.

This huge majority could begin to crumble in the second quarter.... not entirely but cracks will begin appearing. IMO
Click to expand...
So, the next 3 months, and 3 months after that.

Looks like Starmer’s gonna do a Truss.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
So, the next 3 months, and 3 months after that.

Looks like Starmer’s gonna do a Truss.
Click to expand...
Will see the effects between april and June and then Labour MP's will begin to start voicing their concerns... again IMO.

I think to say Starmer is going to do a Truss is a little ambitious.... I mean even GM Lettuces would struggle to last 14 months.

I am not saying Starmer will be thrown out after 14 months buth there will definitel be cracks in the unity.... IMO
 
Labour party love a good internal scrap. Real labour MPs will do it openly whilst the Blarites will work from the shadows as the forde report proved. which Starmer still hasn't released officially.
BigJoe#1 said:
Will see the effects between april and June and then Labour MP's will begin to start voicing their concerns... again IMO.

I think to say Starmer is going to do a Truss is a little ambitious.... I mean even GM Lettuces would struggle to last 14 months.

I am not saying Starmer will be thrown out after 14 months buth there will definitel be cracks in the unity.... IMO
Click to expand...
 
bluenova said:
I'll have a read later, but the "spectacularly under qualified for the job" I always find a little odd. I'm not surprised she's getting criticism, and in her position it's part and parcel of the role, however the narrative around her being under qualified and all the "Rachel from Accounts" stuff has more than a whiff of sexism (not suggesting you are sexist).

Brown was a journalist when he entered Parliament, and had previously been a lecturer. Osborne was also a journalist for a very short time, but spent almost all his career in politics. In comparison she's arguably the most qualified Chancellor we've had in the last few decades.

Here's a list of the last 10 chancellors and their background:
www.accountingcpd.net

Is Rachel Reeves an Economist?

Alan Nelson answers one of the most frequently searched terms that lead people to accountingcpd. Is Rachel Reeves an economist?
www.accountingcpd.net www.accountingcpd.net
Click to expand...
She got bombed out of the BoE for being useless - quite an achievement given how accepting of mediocrity that institution is - did a bit of a non-job in Washington for a while and then ended in customer complaints at HBoS.
 
Brewster's millions said:
She got bombed out of the BoE for being useless - quite an achievement given how accepting of mediocrity that institution is - did a bit of a non-job in Washington for a while and then ended in customer complaints at HBoS.
Click to expand...

Have you seen some of the others CVs?

Osborne was the third longest serving Chancellor in the past 100 years, and his pre-politics journalism career was a few failed interviews for training positions, and a bit of freelance work for a family friend on a diary column. He's biggest achievement in politics was probably that period where he would stand with his legs apart and thrusting his groin out to show us how powerful he was.
 
Listening to the press preview on Sky, all of them in favour of means testing pensioners and cutting the triple lock on pensions.
The chancellor will be scrapping the state pension if this news media keep promoting “rich” pensioners who don’t need what they worked hard all their lives for, Labour will be finished if they even try it.
 
inchy14 said:
If we taxed the cunts at the top fleecing the system we’d not even notice the odd benefit claimed unjustly. But we won’t, we’ll just point downwards and demonise those at the bottom.

Regardless of who’s in power by the looks of it.

Labour my arse, still not in touch with the ‘working man’.
Click to expand...

I’d like to see them tax the rich a lot more but given their manifesto pledges, I’m not sure what else people were expecting aside from what they have done so far.

The exemption for private schools VAT, the NI increases on businesses, the farmers IHT changes and even the WFA, despite how appallingly it was done, are all ultimately at their core more a tax on the rich than the poor.

It’s nowhere near as radical as I’d have gone, which is why I didn’t vote for them, but I do think some of the attack lines against them, by people that are aligned to other parties already, extremely odd and nonsensical.
 
meltonblue said:
I’d like to see them tax the rich a lot more but given their manifesto pledges, I’m not sure what else people were expecting aside from what they have done so far.

The exemption for private schools VAT, the NI increases on businesses, the farmers IHT changes and even the WFA, despite how appallingly it was done, are all ultimately at their core more a tax on the rich than the poor.

It’s nowhere near as radical as I’d have gone, which is why I didn’t vote for them, but I do think some of the attack lines against them, by people that are aligned to other parties already, extremely odd and nonsensical.
Click to expand...

WFA taxing the rich? Fuck me if a pensioner getting £218.50 a week is rich I’m fucking minted.
 
bluenova said:
I think you "avoided" the bit that said, 'more a tax on the rich than the poor'.

Of course it's entirely legal to do so ;)
Click to expand...

How is someone on £218.50 a week more rich than poor? There are 1m pensioners IIRC getting less than £289 a week who lost out on the WFA.

Absolute nonsense to suggest it’s more aimed at the rich. It wasn’t aimed at all.
 
metalblue said:
How is someone on £218.50 a week more rich than poor? There are 1m pensioners IIRC getting less than £289 a week who lost out on the WFA.

Absolute nonsense to suggest it’s more aimed at the rich. It wasn’t aimed at all.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. We both know the OP didn't suggest people on £218.50 a week were poor.

I wouldn't have phrased it quite the same way, but it's now a means tested benefit, so the poorest (not everyone I would consider poor, but factually the poorest) didn't lose it, while those who are wealthier did. 100% of the rich won't get it, but most pensioners in poverty will get it. Therefore it was aimed "more" at those with "more" money.

To suggest that the poster was implying those on £218.50 a week were rich is frankly poor.
 
bluenova said:
Hmmm. We both know the OP didn't suggest people on £218.50 a week were poor.

I wouldn't have phrased it quite the same way, but it's now a means tested benefit, so the poorest (not everyone I would consider poor, but factually the poorest) didn't lose it, while those who are wealthier did. 100% of the rich won't get it, but most pensioners in poverty will get it. Therefore it was aimed "more" at those with "more" money.

To suggest that the poster was implying those on £218.50 a week were rich is frankly poor.
Click to expand...

I was going to reply but you’ve got my position on it spot on there already! I said it was more an attack on the rich, not that everyone impacted by it was rich. I was also talking about the principle of it rather than the implementation, which is why I said it was appallingly done.
 
bluenova said:
Hmmm. We both know the OP didn't suggest people on £218.50 a week were poor.

I wouldn't have phrased it quite the same way, but it's now a means tested benefit, so the poorest (not everyone I would consider poor, but factually the poorest) didn't lose it, while those who are wealthier did. 100% of the rich won't get it, but most pensioners in poverty will get it. Therefore it was aimed "more" at those with "more" money.

To suggest that the poster was implying those on £218.50 a week were rich is frankly poor.
Click to expand...
This is a common problem on any threads which mention money. They literally become a "poor" vs "rich" debate but in reality everything is relative. One persons rich is anothers doing ok and the same with the definition of poor.

All it does is divide the 99% who sit and argue about who should pay a particular tax or get a particular benefit. Meanwhile the top 1% let them crack on with fighting over the scraps as it deliberately prevents them focusing on their wealth.

Its just a different version of this meme...
1742901210479.jpeg
 
Kompany Car said:
This is a common problem on any threads which mention money. They literally become a "poor" vs "rich" debate but in reality everything is relative. One persons rich is anothers doing ok and the same with the definition of poor.

All it does is divide the 99% who sit and argue about who should pay a particular tax or get a particular benefit. Meanwhile the top 1% let them crack on with fighting over the scraps as it deliberately prevents them focusing on their wealth.

Its just a different version of this meme...
View attachment 150884
Click to expand...

I disagree about the meme in this case. The person I replied to (someone who's opinions I respect, and is generally fair), I felt had unfairly misrepresented the OP, by cherry picking one tax from a list, and then arguing against it with a strawman.

Targeting the top 1% is ridiculously difficult, but most of Labour's tax changes were aimed at businesses or unearned income. Only the top few % pay IHT, or are regularly selling shares at levels above the ISA/CGT allowances. So a good chunk of the budget would hit the man in the middle.
 
Last edited:
bluenova said:
I disagree about the meme in this case. The person I replied to (someone who's opinions I respect, and is generally fair), I felt had unfairly misrepresented the OP, by cherry picking one tax from a list, and then arguing against it with a strawman.

Targeting the top 1% is ridiculously difficult, but most of Labour's tax changes were aimed at businesses or unearned income. Only the top few % pay IHT, or are regularly selling shares at levels above the ISA/CGT allowances. So a good chunk of the budget would hit the man in the middle.
Click to expand...

I only picked the WFA because the others cited as targeting the rich (or at least what we would agree aren’t on their bare bones) were fair.
 
metalblue said:
I only picked the WFA because the others cited as targeting the rich (or at least what we would agree aren’t on their bare bones) were fair.
Click to expand...

I did say targeting more the rich though, which I think is applicable to all of them.

None of them are specifically targeting the poor. That may well change after tomorrow…
 
meltonblue said:
I did say targeting more the rich though, which I think is applicable to all of them.

None of them are specifically targeting the poor. That may well change after tomorrow…
Click to expand...

The WFA wasn’t really targeted at all though - it should have been but that’s been discussed to death on here in the past and IIRC most (all?) people agree with that premise, it does obviously impact the wealthiest however.

Tomorrow is when we find out how much of the leaks and rumours have made it to the final version.
 
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