Don Karleone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 25,166
- Team supported
- Vampire Squid FC
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
And no, it cant be compared to the furlough scheme as many people benefitted in no way at all, and plenty who shouldn't have done, did.
Facts.
1. Brown was obliged (compelled) to bail out the banks, costing huge sums of money the government did not have, or risk millions of people losing their life savings and the total collapse of the UK economy. He had no choice.
2. Johnson and Sunak were obliged (compelled) to bail out millions of UK citizens with a furlough scheme costing billions we did not have, or else see the collapse of thousands of businesses, millions losing their jobs and their homes. They had no choice.
Anyone who refuses to admit there is a parallel, must be truly up Labour's arse.
Last edited:
The Future’s Blue!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 13,358
- Team supported
- City
1. Truss was compelled to cut taxes for the rich, costing huge sums of money for the average UK citizen.Facts.
1. Brown was obliged (compelled) to bail out the banks, costing huge sums of money the government did not have, or risk millions of people losing their life savings and the total collapse of the UK economy. He had no choice.
2. Johnson and Sunak were obliged (compelled) to bail out millions of UK citizens with a furlough scheme costing billions we did not have, or else see the collapse of thousands of businesses, millions losing their jobs and their homes. They had no choice.
Anyone who refuses to admit there is a parallel, must be truly up Labour's arse.
2. Sunak was obliged as Chancellor to give out huge loans to companies that were struggling, including his own families, but when it was found that a percentage of those had corrupted our national funds, he failed to prosecute and allowed them to keep the stolen funds.
Anybody who refuses to admit there is a parallel, must be truly up their own arse.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
1. Truss was compelled to cut taxes for the rich, costing huge sums of money for the average UK citizen.
2. Sunak was obliged as Chancellor to give out huge loans to companies that were struggling, including his own families, but when it was found that a percentage of those had corrupted our national funds, he failed to prosecute and allowed them to keep the stolen funds.
Anybody who refuses to admit there is a parallel, must be truly up their own arse.
You missed the bit about being obliged to provide £millions to their mates for faulty PPE and then failed to prosecute / recover the money
No idea who that might be but the last 20 years or more would cover Disraeli, Gladstone, Churchill, Foot, and Tony Benn.Worth remembering the finest orator the place has seen for 20 years or more came from the slums of Dundee.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
We spent £380bn on the furlough and COVID related costs. Of that, £12bn on PPE, and of that, £630m is subject to potential fraud or error.You missed the bit about being obliged to provide £millions to their mates for faulty PPE and then failed to prosecute / recover the money
So less than 0.2%. Almost certainly less than 0.1%. And the £200 million PPE Medpro deal has drawn the most scrutiny, with ongoing legal actions.
Also, don't you remember the desperate situation with PPE and respirators and we had to buy whatever we could from wherever we could? It's not like we had 6 months or a year at the time to launch some ponerderous and expensive government tendering process was it. We needed all the kit we could get and we needed it NOW.
I don't remember anyone saying we should slow down and not give the doctors and nurses PPE until we'd done proper tendering processes.
Frankly I think it's pretty (typically) pathetic for you to even bring this up. We were discussing the hundreds of billions being spent by Labour and then by the Tories on respective bailouts and the financial consequences. It's like me saying Brown spent billions on bailing out the banks... And Starmer got free glasses.
Last edited:
They're lying, again. She lied in the house today, saying that PIP isn't an in-work benefit. They're also rushing it through, again. She's an evil bitch!
I wasn't going to use that word, but it's appropriate for her.
This is where she said it
She's right. You don't lose PIP if you take a job. You get it whether you're in work or out of work so the situation of getting a job, losing PIP and having to reapply if you lose your job, doesn't apply.
It might be an issue for other benefits.
Don Karleone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 25,166
- Team supported
- Vampire Squid FC
She's right. You don't lose PIP if you take a job. You get it whether you're in work or out of work so the situation of getting a job, losing PIP and having to reapply if you lose your job, doesn't apply.
It might be an issue for other benefits.
You are eligible whether you are working or not. But the govt has tried to create a narrative of it being an "out of work" benefit that somehow de-incentivises people from working.
She knows what she's doing, and it's sick.
Have they? I think Nandy might have "misspoken" a couple of weeks ago but you were calling Kendall a "evil bitch" for telling the truth!You are eligible whether you are working or not. But the govt has tried to create a narrative of it being an "out of work" benefit that somehow de-incentivises people from working.
She knows what she's doing, and it's sick.
Even AI knows it's not an "in-work benefit". "Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is not considered an in-work benefit, though it can be received while working."
It's a bad situation for the government but there's no need to dig a misogynist hole for yourself.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Is that the best you've got? FFS. I even said at the time that Truss cutting the top rate of tax was a mistake. And it wasn't going to cost "huge sums of money", quite the opposite, it may well have actually generated revenue as lower rates encourage more rich people to pay it. The previous time the rate was cut, receipts went up.1. Truss was compelled to cut taxes for the rich, costing huge sums of money for the average UK citizen.
2. Sunak was obliged as Chancellor to give out huge loans to companies that were struggling, including his own families, but when it was found that a percentage of those had corrupted our national funds, he failed to prosecute and allowed them to keep the stolen funds.
Anybody who refuses to admit there is a parallel, must be truly up their own arse.
It’s true that Sunak’s loan schemes were exploited: billions may have been lost to fraud, and the state still struggles to claw it back.
But the claim that he protected his family’s firms or intentionally allowed criminal gains is false — there is no sign of that in any official or investigative source.
Last edited:
Truss showed how easy it is to crash the economy. i.e it may not matter to the idealists whether those spreadsheet columns add up but in the real world that is all that matters. Starmer and Reeves have the same problem, how to enact meaningful change whilst keeping those spreadsheet columns adding up. If they do not add up then the market crashes and everyone suffers. There are no easy choices or easy solutions for any government.1. Truss was compelled to cut taxes for the rich, costing huge sums of money for the average UK citizen.
2. Sunak was obliged as Chancellor to give out huge loans to companies that were struggling, including his own families, but when it was found that a percentage of those had corrupted our national funds, he failed to prosecute and allowed them to keep the stolen funds.
Anybody who refuses to admit there is a parallel, must be truly up their own arse.
On Sunak, I was working from home at the time (retired now) and had the radio on whilst working. There were grown men and women coming on and crying live on air. Sunak, a spreadsheet type if ever there was one, to his eternal credit, stepped up to the plate and provided the much needed help. Remember the poll tax, virtually all those that did not pay their fair share got away with it. It was too expensive and time consuming to pursue the culprits. That, I think, is the reason the fucking traitors (the country was in great need and we should have all pulled together) who abused the various Covid schemes are allowed to get away with it. The people to blame are those who did the stealing not the government who, if it was that simple, would surely just call all the robbed money back at the time/today/tommorrow?
Re the poll tax I'm guessing that by "those that did not pay their fair share got away with it" you mean either the can't pay won't pay campaign or poor people who couldn't pay. And didn't mean the landed gentry who saved and still are saving millions each year from abolition of rates on their vast houses and estates.Truss showed how easy it is to crash the economy. i.e it may not matter to the idealists whether those spreadsheet columns add up but in the real world that is all that matters. Starmer and Reeves have the same problem, how to enact meaningful change whilst keeping those spreadsheet columns adding up. If they do not add up then the market crashes and everyone suffers. There are no easy choices or easy solutions for any government.
On Sunak, I was working from home at the time (retired now) and had the radio on whilst working. There were grown men and women coming on and crying live on air. Sunak, a spreadsheet type if ever there was one, to his eternal credit, stepped up to the plate and provided the much needed help. Remember the poll tax, virtually all those that did not pay their fair share got away with it. It was too expensive and time consuming to pursue the culprits. That, I think, is the reason the fucking traitors (the country was in great need and we should have all pulled together) who abused the various Covid schemes are allowed to get away with it. The people to blame are those who did the stealing not the government who, if it was that simple, would surely just call all the robbed money back at the time/today/tommorrow?
Its replacement is almost as bad. Council Tax rises hit the lowest earners hardest because they are forced to pay a higher proportion of their income towards local public services than the wealthy.
Last edited:
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
I suspect he also includes the millions of people who could pay it but chose not to. The criminal lefty group you conveniently ignore.Re the poll tax I'm guessing that by "those that did not pay their fair share got away with it" you mean either the can't pay won't pay campaign or poor people who couldn't pay. And didn't mean the landed gentry who saved and still are saving millions each year from abolition of rates on their vast houses and estates.
Its replacement is almost as bad. Council Tax rises hit the lowest earners hardest because they are forced to pay a higher proportion of their income towards local public services than the wealthy.
But I agree with you that Council Tax is a terrible idea, with only a weak - at best - correlation between wealth, services consumed and charge payable. In that regard, the Poll Tax was fairer. At least it correlated with services used!
Better if it was scrapped altogether and basic rate of income tax increased to raise the funds, IMO.
Brewster's millions
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 5,242
I suspect they’ll muddle through the next couple of weeks before things turn really nasty just ahead of the Budget.Very big day politically.
The clock is ticking on Starmer and Reeves regardless imo. Labour MPs will move against them pretty soon I think.
People will be out on manoeuvres during the recess and September will see an avalanche of commentary (mostly from the left) of how Reeves should raise the £10-15bn they’ll likely need to keep the OBR onside.
To a degree that already started with Rayner’s sudden interest in fiscal policy a few weeks ago, and of course Starmer has already undermined Reeves by u-turning on the WFA, so it will be open season. It could all blow up early next year I think.
How do lefties avoid Council Tax?I suspect he also includes the thousands of people who could pay it but chose not to. The criminal lefty group you conveniently ignore.
But I agree with you that Council Tax is a terrible idea, with only a weak - at best - correlation between wealth, services consumed and charge payable. In that regard, the Poll Tax was faire. At least it correlated with services used.
Poll tax had NO correlation with wealth, or the amount of land consumed by the wealthy. Probably why you liked it.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
I never said either of the above. Merely that whilst Council Tax is not strongly correlated with wealth or usage, at least Poll Tax was correlated with usage.How do lefties avoid Council Tax?
Poll tax had NO correlation with wealth, or the amount of land consumed by the wealthy. Probably why you liked it.
And what is this “land consumed” nonsense??? You mean owned.
I've lost the will to try and decipher what you mean, or bother with pedantry. Consume from the Latin consumere, emere from the same root as emptor = buyer. (And a lot of the land was stolen.)I never said either of the above. Merely that whilst Council Tax is not strongly correlated with wealth or usage, at least Poll Tax was correlated with usage.
And what is this “land consumed” nonsense??? You mean owned.
There's that idealism again.Re the poll tax I'm guessing that by "those that did not pay their fair share got away with it" you mean either the can't pay won't pay campaign or poor people who couldn't pay. And didn't mean the landed gentry who saved and still are saving millions each year from abolition of rates on their vast houses and estates.
Its replacement is almost as bad. Council Tax rises hit the lowest earners hardest because they are forced to pay a higher proportion of their income towards local public services than the wealthy.
I live near Harpurhey, one of the poorest parts of the country, I knew/know loads of people, absolutely loads who could pay the poll tax but because they could get away with it did not pay. I went to a house party and my wife and myself were mickey taked (in a good natured way) because we were the only ones there paying the poll tax! Now the ones that didn't pay their fair share (who could) literally stole that money from the vital services that Manchester Council provide for the poor and needy. They were not some innocent poor victims living in destitution they were using the money that should have been spent on children, social care etc to go on holiday and upgrade their cars. That is the reality.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Well if you actually read it, it would help.I've lost the will to try and decipher what you mean, or bother with pedantry. Consume from the Latin consumere, emere from the same root as emptor = buyer. (And a lot of the land was stolen.)
Me:
“But I agree with you that Council Tax is a terrible idea, with only a weak - at best - correlation between wealth, services consumed and charge payable. In that regard, the Poll Tax was fairer. At least it correlated with services used.”
Your reply:
“Poll tax had NO correlation with wealth, or the amount of land consumed by the wealthy. Probably why you liked it.”