You are thinking in line with current thinking. The point is that no credible trustworthy government would ever say we won’t put up taxes to win votes (when you I and they know that’s a promise which is unkeepable), and if they do, they are held to account.Pandemic, financial crash, interest rates going up because arbitrary credit ratings agencies reduce your ratings, a madman taking over the White House imposing tariffs and thus reducing profits and, of course, the electorate voting for something like Brexit, resulting in a reduction in GDP, whilst putting up the cost of living for everyone, or war(s).
Would any of those count if manifesto promises were subsequently broken or is it a zero sum game and it's off with their heads?
My point is simply, you cannot get Governments to be legally accountable for Manifesto content as one poster was advocating.Many in here complained it didn’t go far enough at the time despite the eye watering costs to us as a nation so you can only imagine the black hole had they done at the time.
I’m watching the news now and we are being briefed that tax is going to rise and at the same time told that WASPI women might be getting £Billions, the 2 child cap will probably be lifted costing £Billions and frankly it smacks of desperation from a cabinet who will do anything to keep the PLP on board over the coming months.
Nothing makes sense right now.
Held to account in what way exactly?You are thinking in line with current thinking. The point is that no credible trustworthy government would ever say we won’t put up taxes to win votes (when you I and they know that’s a promise which is unkeepable), and if they do, they are held to account.
My point is simply, you cannot get Governments to be legally accountable for Manifesto content as one poster was advocating.
My point wasn’t directly aimed at you but the penguinI never said you could.
They’re accountable at the ballot box.
I work in engineering consultancy. We typically take on around 100 grads a year. This year it’s less than 50 across a business which employs over 7000 people in the UK. Many similar large private businesses are reassessing their complete recruitment strategy for junior
1) I would cut the house of commons by about 30 or 40%. Far too many MPs many of whom are shite.How are we going to select these paragons of business virtue to look after our interests?
Those earning above £30,000(yes I am one:-)) with increments increasing the more you earn, the self employed, large corporations.After 100s of pages about tax rises or not, I've yet to have an answer ( and I've asked it a few times in different ways) on which groups if any, should pay a bit more, and if the answer is none, which groups should suffer as a result of the inevitable cuts to public services and benefits.
For the record, I'm happy to pay a couple of p extra on income tax ( well, not happy but you know what I mean), VAT on private medical insurance, prescriptions till I reach state retirement age(presently free at 60-why?).
Fuck paying em more.1) I would cut the house of commons by about 30 or 40%. Far too many MPs many of whom are shite.
2) Increase MP pay 200k a year. But your staff is chosen for you. No hiring your son or Mistress.
3) A supra-majority of both parties lab/con are made at the start of parliament identify 3-4 major projects. 10 year plan in the national interest. No one is allowed to break it, reverse it their responsibility is to oversee. Projects would be ambitious, lowest energy cost in Europe, lowest child poverty rate, lower food cost etc.
4) house of Lords reduce that by 50%
5) Greater transparency of the civil service. Followed by the recognition of those with real expertise. That stops fuck ups like sacking Tom Scholar.
6) Post career consultancy career allowed, encouraged but above X amount state takes 50%. Also that needs greater transparency and monitoring.
Yet some on here would have trusted a party saying they'd cut tax with no means of paying for tax cuts. (And have already "broken" that unrealistic promise - so presumably lied to the electorate about doing it...)You are thinking in line with current thinking. The point is that no credible trustworthy government would ever say we won’t put up taxes to win votes (when you I and they know that’s a promise which is unkeepable), and if they do, they are held to account.
Forget about yesterday, where are we today and what do we have to pay.Yet some on here would have trusted a party saying they'd cut tax with no means of paying for tax cuts. (And have already "broken" that unrealistic promise - so presumably lied to the electorate about doing it...)
Tonight a plot to replace Starmer with Wes Streeting is this another sources said or a slow news day.
Keir is swapping positions with Pep.Tonight a plot to replace Starmer with Wes Streeting is this another sources said or a slow news day.
Course it willIt's happened earlier than I thought, but it'll definitely be true.
Neoliberalism hasn't worked. It's been 45 years of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.After 100s of pages about tax rises or not, I've yet to have an answer ( and I've asked it a few times in different ways) on which groups if any, should pay a bit more, and if the answer is none, which groups should suffer as a result of the inevitable cuts to public services and benefits.
For the record, I'm happy to pay a couple of p extra on income tax ( well, not happy but you know what I mean), VAT on private medical insurance, prescriptions till I reach state retirement age(presently free at 60-why?).
No. Just speculation would be my guessYou don't think that it's true?