The Labour Government

[Hertzblue]

Emergencee housing isnt just for asilum seekers

I believe that Landlords have been clearly advised that this deal is for asylum seekers. Hence quid pro quo the lucrative deal is a trade off against any issues that might bring.

 

[BigJoe#1]

And? voters do this all the time to all parties. fair play she's going Green though and not using her protest vote for a bunch of racist Reform bellends.

You are clearly not clever enough to understand what a protest vote means, so you just carry on supporting the party you do. I and millions of others will use our protest votes under the current FPTP system to best effect.

Don't you ever feel a little bit daft forever calling people you don't know silly names, but I suppose that if that is the limit of your vocabulary and writing ability, I am probably equally as guilty for calling you out on it - so sorry.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

I believe that Landlords have been clearly advised that this deal is for asylum seekers. Hence quid pro quo the lucrative deal is a trade off against any issues that might bring.

The question that should be being asked is how come SERCO were allowed to purchase so many properties in a time of a housing shortage (Perhaps his brother Arthur Nicholas Winston Soames MP could provide an answer? )

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

And? voters do this all the time to all parties. fair play she's going Green though and not using her protest vote for a bunch of racist Reform bellends.

I voted green last time. A 'safe' protest vote because we can be confident the tree hugging bell ends won't ever actually get near downing street.

 

[Kompany Car]

Hmm so Rachel would like all those paying into private pensions to start putting more money in UK shares. Initially as a voluntary scheme but with a warning of making it mandatory if its not the case, citing what happens in Canada as an example. So not only do those with private pensions have to take the market risks as there are literally no CARE or final salary schemes, but they also are being told where they need to put their money.

Strangely the thing missing as regards "what happens in Canada" is that public sector pensions buy shares in Canadian companies. One of the best funded pension schemes is the Canadian Teachers Pension fund.

Now if she is proposing that the public sector pensions are invested in the same manner as in Canada then Im all ears, as the huge sums of money required to support the public sector pensions would indeed drive growth and make it viable for private sector pensions to follow the investment. But somehow I cant see that happening.

Just to be clear in Canada they still have final salary pensions for public sector, its more about what they do with the money when the workers pay it in.

 

[bluenova]

Hmm so Rachel would like all those paying into private pensions to start putting more money in UK shares. Initially as a voluntary scheme but with a warning of making it mandatory if its not the case, citing what happens in Canada as an example. So not only do those with private pensions have to take the market risks as there are literally no CARE or final salary schemes, but they also are being told where they need to put their money.

Strangely the thing missing as regards "what happens in Canada" is that public sector pensions buy shares in Canadian companies. One of the best funded pension schemes is the Canadian Teachers Pension fund.

Now if she is proposing that the public sector pensions are invested in the same manner as in Canada then Im all ears, as the huge sums of money required to support the public sector pensions would indeed drive growth and make it viable for private sector pensions to follow the investment. But somehow I cant see that happening.

Just to be clear in Canada they still have final salary pensions for public sector, its more about what they do with the money when the workers pay it in.

As far as I can see, public sector pension schemes already invest more in UK shares than the targets that the private sector will be asked to meet.

It's still well below Canada and Australia, and until the full plans come out, it's mostly speculation - but the impression I got was that there would be a lot more changes to public sector pension investment, and they would be aiming to push the public sector pension schemes closer to the Canadian levels.

 

[threespires]

I can really understand people wanting to protest vote against the two main political parties at the moment. But people need to be careful what they wish for and own the consequences to themselves and their families. Seeking national policy change via local elections can backfire at the best of times but at the moment it's particularly risky.

Imo our single biggest issue in this country (and many others) is the political culture that accepts rampant inequality and wealth hoarding as inevitable or too hard to fix. Economically and politically everything else pales into insignificance, including immigration whichever side of the debate you are on.

I would respectfully suggest that voting for a party led by a man who likes and actively courts oligarchs is not the way to fix a world where the super rich are taking the piss out of everyone else.

If you are genuinely convinced your Reform candidate has the skills, knowledge and character to be a better local councillor etc than the alternatives then maybe vote for them accepting there may be unintended consequences down the line. Otherwise spoil your ballot paper, or go and moon at the returning officer, start a local pressure group or vote for a candidate from another smaller party.

From what I can see the problem with using Reform to stick two fingers up at the current and recent governments is you are also simultaneously poking yourself in both eyes.

 

[blueinsa]

I can really understand people wanting to protest vote against the two main political parties at the moment. But people need to be careful what they wish for and own the consequences to themselves and their families. Seeking national policy change via local elections can backfire at the best of times but at the moment it's particularly risky.

Imo our single biggest issue in this (and many other countries) is the political culture that accepts rampant inequality and wealth hoarding as inevitable or too hard to fix. Economically and politically everything else pales into insignificance, including immigration whichever side of the debate you are on.

I would respectfully suggest that voting for a party led by a man who likes and actively courts oligarchs is not the way to fix a world where the super rich are taking the piss out of everyone else.

If you are genuinely convinced your Reform candidate has the skills, knowledge and character to be a better local councillor etc than the alternatives then maybe vote for them accepting there may be unintended consequences down the line. Otherwise spoil your ballot paper, or go and moon at the returning officer, start a local pressure group or vote for a candidate from another smaller party.

From what I can see the problem with using Reform to stick two fingers up at the current and recent governments is you are also simultaneously poking yourself in both eyes.

A good reasoned post.

Protest by voting Green because the big 2 need a kick up the arse!

 

[Kompany Car]

I can really understand people wanting to protest vote against the two main political parties at the moment. But people need to be careful what they wish for and own the consequences to themselves and their families. Seeking national policy change via local elections can backfire at the best of times but at the moment it's particularly risky.

Imo our single biggest issue in this (and many other countries) is the political culture that accepts rampant inequality and wealth hoarding as inevitable or too hard to fix. Economically and politically everything else pales into insignificance, including immigration whichever side of the debate you are on.

I would respectfully suggest that voting for a party led by a man who likes and actively courts oligarchs is not the way to fix a world where the super rich are taking the piss out of everyone else.

If you are genuinely convinced your Reform candidate has the skills, knowledge and character to be a better local councillor etc than the alternatives then maybe vote for them accepting there may be unintended consequences down the line. Otherwise spoil your ballot paper, or go and moon at the returning officer, start a local pressure group or vote for a candidate from another smaller party.

From what I can see the problem with using Reform to stick two fingers up at the current and recent governments is you are also simultaneously poking yourself in both eyes.

When it comes to local government elections, people (well certainly myself) tend to vote on local rather than national issues. Whilst I do notice which party the candidate is affiliated with, it’s more about if I think the individual is working in the best interests of the local community and how they are addressing issues raised by the parish. National politics don’t come into it.

That said at a local level I tend to find myself voting for independent candidates as they seem more in touch, particularly when it comes to rural communities.

 

[threespires]

When it comes to local government elections, people (well certainly myself) tend to vote on local rather than national issues. Whilst I do notice which party the candidate is affiliated with, it’s more about if I think the individual is working in the best interests of the local community and how they are addressing issues raised by the parish. National politics don’t come into it.

That said at a local level I tend to find myself voting for independent candidates as they seem more in touch, particularly when it comes to rural communities.

Whilst I agree that's how it should be I think studies show that a significant proportion of people, about a third, do conflate local elections with national issues and government and this number can go up depending on the unpopularity of a government.

The advantage of following your local politics closely, especially in smaller locations, is it's often relatively easy to work out who is competent and who isn't including who tows party lines and who does the right thing for their community.

 

[meltonblue]

When it comes to local government elections, people (well certainly myself) tend to vote on local rather than national issues. Whilst I do notice which party the candidate is affiliated with, it’s more about if I think the individual is working in the best interests of the local community and how they are addressing issues raised by the parish. National politics don’t come into it.

That said at a local level I tend to find myself voting for independent candidates as they seem more in touch, particularly when it comes to rural communities.

The independents in rural areas can be batshit crazy at times too!

 

[hampshireblue]

I can really understand people wanting to protest vote against the two main political parties at the moment. But people need to be careful what they wish for and own the consequences to themselves and their families. Seeking national policy change via local elections can backfire at the best of times but at the moment it's particularly risky.

Imo our single biggest issue in this country (and many others) is the political culture that accepts rampant inequality and wealth hoarding as inevitable or too hard to fix. Economically and politically everything else pales into insignificance, including immigration whichever side of the debate you are on.

I would respectfully suggest that voting for a party led by a man who likes and actively courts oligarchs is not the way to fix a world where the super rich are taking the piss out of everyone else.

If you are genuinely convinced your Reform candidate has the skills, knowledge and character to be a better local councillor etc than the alternatives then maybe vote for them accepting there may be unintended consequences down the line. Otherwise spoil your ballot paper, or go and moon at the returning officer, start a local pressure group or vote for a candidate from another smaller party.

From what I can see the problem with using Reform to stick two fingers up at the current and recent governments is you are also simultaneously poking yourself in both eyes.

This is absolutely spot on. Well said.

 

[BigJoe#1]

This is absolutely spot on. Well said.

so what is your reasoning behind understanding why people might not want to vote for Labour? The Tories it's obvious. Genuinely interested

 

[mancityvstoke]

so what is your reasoning behind understanding why people might not want to vote for Labour? The Tories it's obvious. Genuinely interested

I'll not vote for Labour again ...never voted Tory. .
(Certainly wouldn't vote Reform !)

This isn't the Labour I once knew and a huge mistake was made by shitting on the likes of me. They also said loads of things before the election then went back on a lot of what I heard. Not taxing the rich and then slamming increases in NI on business for example.

 

[hampshireblue]

so what is your reasoning behind understanding why people might not want to vote for Labour? The Tories it's obvious. Genuinely interested

You really don't get it do you? It's not about Labour or Reform, or Tories or Reform. It's about why any one, apart from far RW, racists or those happy to take a punt( as they did in 2016) would go anywhere near the likes of Farage,Tice and Anderson and actually embolden them. But anyway YOU don't have a vote till next year so plenty of time for you to prepare yourself. I have, over the years voted for all 3 major parties, and have never not voted, but would do so if Reform were the only candidate.

 

[BigJoe#1]

You really don't get it do you? It's not about Labour or Reform, or Tories or Reform. It's about why any one, apart from far RW, racists or those happy to take a punt( as they did in 2016) would go anywhere near the likes of Farage,Tice and Anderson and actually embolden them. But anyway YOU don't have a vote till next year so plenty of time for you to prepare yourself. I have, over the years voted for all 3 major parties, and have never not voted, but would do so if Reform were the only candidate.

And you clearly don't read my posts. I'm fed up of explaining so if it's okay with you I'll leave how I am choosing to vote there.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Free breakfast clubs rolling out in every primary school.
3.5 million workers got a pay rise with the minimum wage increase this month, pensions rising thanks to Labour’s commitment to the triple lock.

Meanwhile it’s all so awful so let’s rush to the polls to vote for a bunch of racist fuckwits. Embarrassing nation.

 

[meltonblue]

I'll not vote for Labour again ...never voted Tory. .
(Certainly wouldn't vote Reform !)

This isn't the Labour I once knew and a huge mistake was made by shitting on the likes of me. They also said loads of things before the election then went back on a lot of what I heard. Not taxing the rich and then slamming increases in NI on business for example.

I didn’t vote Labour but how was that going back on anything? They said they wouldn’t raise personal taxes, it was obvious they were going to do it on businesses. VAT on private schools is a tax on the rich.

 

[Kompany Car]

The independents in rural areas can be batshit crazy at times too!

There are plenty of swivel eyed loons across the major parties to be fair, politics seems to be a magnet for them.

 

[meltonblue]

There are plenty of swivel eyed loons across the major parties to be fair, politics seems to be a magnet for them.

Very true. Think when it comes to the local elections in particular it’s check the candidate individually and don’t rely on the party they’re representing.