Well this explains the russian sanction flipflop
Keir Starmer's spokesman does not deny reports that Morgan McSweeney is now advising the Prime Minister again
Not sure it explains the oil stuff... but it might as well be a resignation letter being handed to the PLP if true.
my guess is that McSweeney has advised 'do everything you can to keep fuel prices low, we cant have peoples holidays disrupted'
read scotrotes link to my previous posting of some of his comments a few posts above.
its a clear dogwhistle done deliberately
this is just one of a series of statement he made
"The free movement of people within the European Union has made British streets unsafe, a senior Labour MP suggested on Wednesday.
Former Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham, said a failure to deal with people’s concerns about immigration was risking public safety.
“It is time for many of us on this side of the House to confront a hard truth,” he told the Commons, during an opposition debate on Brexit.
“Our reluctance in confronting this [immigration] debate is undermining the cohesion of our communities and the safety of our streets."
“I am no longer prepared to be complit in this His speech did not make clear why public safety had been put on risk.
Burnham said that immigration numbers needed to fall because “there is nothing socialist about open borders.” The free movement of people within the EU had been “defeated at the ballot box and is no longer an option,” he said.
Burnham claimed that the large influx of EU migrants was “not working for the most deprived areas of our country” and suggested that it had “made life more difficult where it is already hardest”."
I have and imho it’s the same tactic as Israel uses to shut down legitimate debate. In this case anyone wanting to legitimately talk about immigration is labelled racist in the same way anyone who wants to legitimately discuss Israel is labelled anti semitic. It’s just a throw away phrase to try and shut down legitimate debate on difficult and complex topics
Reform don't have the balls to hold up Brexit as anything other than something to be brushed off as old news.
They dont but the right wing rags will do their normal approach of shouting loudly about brexit and Burnham and then announcing its not time to retread old ground when Farage is asked why exactly we should trust him that he is the right cure to the right symptoms this time round.
It’s just a throw away phrase to try and shut down legitimate debate on difficult and complex topics
Well, that’s what the racists always say. Although there are plenty of cases where that is exactly what happens.
The worst that you can say about Burnham is that, like many Labour politicians, including the current PM, he has walked the line of making it clear that he abhors racism, while seeking to court voters who are “worried” about people with different skin colour, follow non Christian religions, have accents, speak more than one language, or were just born elsewhere… (how you label people with these concerns is up to you, I’m perfectly happy to call them racists… but also hopeful that is possible for people to see past these concerns to see the people behind the differences… to stop being racist… or whatever you want to call it).
Accusations of racism is so 2018, calling people fascists is where it’s at these days.
I’m perfectly happy to call them racists
That approach worked really well for Gordon Brown I seem to remember.
I’m not asking for anyone’s votes, personally. Politicians have to dance around the use of words. He was just speaking the truth (off the record), and I agree that cost him politically… and probably, as a result, cost all of us in many ways. I didn’t vote for Labour under him, as it happens. I probably should have.
Accusations of racism is so 2018, calling people fascists is where it’s at these days.
oh , don't worry, you can be both at once
Could they not move right culturally but left economically?
At the very least they'd be able to move farage away from debating immgration onto his positions on nhs, workers rights etc.
That approach worked really well for Gordon Brown I seem to remember.
Thats a messy example because when you see the various people involved comments its...confusing about what she actually said and how he responded. He seems to have been knackered and he, like many people including me, aint the best at gladhandling people and came out with a halfarsed remark.
Did he really mean it? Who knows but what I do know would be if someone like Johnson or Farage had spewed it out then it would have been buried faster than the speed of light. Just like how Corbyn and Foot are held to imaginary standards at memorial day and yet Johnson turns up looking like a sack of shit and hung over as **** and it is buried.
However in general if you are dealing with a bigot then maybe its best to call them out.
Choose a ****ing side otherwise everyone hates you.
Bonus hates if you take one side and fervently defend it for a few months to ensure the other side really ****ing hate you before switching.
At which point your former side hate you and your old side really hates you and your mps who were having to defend your old stance, possibly on the same day you switch, really, really, really ****ing hate you.
Burn ham is desperate to be liked, personally I think he wears what ever coat fits him depending on who he courts, and he’s a bit of a dick (imho)
and he’s a bit of a dick (imho)
I think it was the newsagents podcast where someone commented that Burnham veered further to the right as the election he was in progressed.
I think it is rather too much to hope though he might have noticed that and instead as a true labour centrist decided that the beatings should continue until everyone agreed that Thatcher, not wanting to privatise the royal mail and some other really ****ing strategic companies (even by her loose standards) was a bit of a leftie.
So… if he becomes PM… the government is going to carry on much the same as before, but with a great soundtrack of Manchester music playing over its campaign videos?
Politicians are all the same - they will say whatever they need to get them into power. It is sick that none have any values whatsoever. I say they are all the same however labour have proved themselves far worse:
No tax rises - 50+ so far
Smash the gangs - worst illegal migration ever
More U-turns than a learner driver.
Ed Millibrain ban of North Sea oil for his own personal believes, not what is right for the country
To name a few......
It is sick that none have any values whatsoever.
for his own personal believes
Which is it?
Politicians are all the same - they will say whatever they need to get them into power. It is sick that none have any values whatsoever.
This isnt true, there are plenty who stick to their unelectable guns. You dont hear about them so much, as they never get into power. Saying what you need to get into power is literally the game. If you dont say the 'right' things, you dont get elected.
So… if he becomes PM… the government is going to carry on much the same as before, but with a great soundtrack of Manchester music playing over its campaign videos?
Yep, "I am the Resurrection" will be piped in the background.
No tax rises - 50+ so far
You're not going to like what Streeting is proposing then... raising CGT to match taxes on workers.
Ed Millibrain ban of North Sea oil for his own personal believes, not what is right for the country
a presumably deliberate misspelling undermined by an accidental one... Anyway how would multinational companies pumping a bit more oil out of the north sea some time in the next ten years lower the price of oil per barrel on international markets right now?
Also, the planet heating up is a matter of evidence, not personal belief but whatever...
@steve hegarty
yeah not sure where you are getting your info from... Facebook, gbnews?
Highest level of illegal immigration was 2022 under Johnson
in fact new figures out today show largest drop ever
ban on north sea oil changes very little, we are still pumping existing fields, any licenses granted now would take a decade to produce anything, even then its not ours, its owned by the private companies and sold at market rates and the fact is the north sea is coming ti the end of its lifetime, over the 14 years of Tory government ~500 licenses were granted, only 20 found anything and they were mostly gas, none were of any significance
tax rises were caveated on working people so technically they didnt promise no tax rises (was always a daft thing after a decade of austerity, covid & Brexit hammering the country)
lots of u-turns tho!
They'll be looking at small boat crossings, rather than any headline immigration figures.... because that's what Farage has got the country watching closely now... [ break something... repeatedly point at the broken thing, asking who's going to fix it... ]
You're not going to like what Streeting is proposing then... raising CGT to match taxes on workers.
Very good to hear. The labour party is finally heading left and about time too.
Also talking about the allowances being aligned... so those with lower gains from capital will actually pay a bit less then they currently do... the increases will fall on those with the bigger gains. Good to have some actual (more progressive) policy changes being discussed...
They'll be looking at small boat crossings,
they also peaked under Johnson
Also talking about the allowances being aligned... so those with lower gains from capital will actually pay a bit less then they currently do..
Very good to hear. The labour party is finally heading left and about time too.
Because of changes to CGT? the CGT rate was also increased recently by reeves. and wasn't it hunt who significantly lowered the CGT threshold during his time as chancellor (albeit also cutting the rate but most people would pay more due to threshold changes).
edit: I didn't find any mention of changes to the allowances but posts above suggest there is something I'm missing
Reeves’ changes were progressive, Hunt’s were regressive.
But yes, Streeting is only really talking about accelerating the shift towards equalisation started by this government… but perhaps that’s exactly what’s needed… and not just on this policy… a wake up call that things need to happen now… not by steady increments (as the current PM has also said, but so far not acted on).
but perhaps that’s exactly what’s needed… and not just on this policy… a wake up call that things need to happen now…
Indeed. Equalising the tax burden between income and capital gains has been talked about for years with not a lot of action. It's such an obvious way for Labour to demonstrate they're on the side of working people I don't really know why they haven't done it already (well, I do!). It's also an excellent way to differentiate themselves from Reform.
It's also an excellent way to differentiate themselves from Reform.
totally. The Reform psychology is "no one's talking this away from me..." even if they've not got very much. This is v powerful and deep in human nature but Labour can't fight on that territory.
I, personally, think that equalising capital gains and income tax would be a mistake. It would remove the incentive to invest outside of tax shelters and discourage people from establishing limited companies.
discourage people from establishing limited companies.
tax shelters can be adjusted and incentives likewise. It's the Idea that unearned income (most of mine fwiw) should be taxed less than wages that is accelerating inequality and all attendant negative correlates back to the 18th century where a few people own most stuff.
Regarding limited companies I think there should be dividend incentives in the earlier years of setting up a company but they should equalise after a period, possibly five years. We then get into the need for mechanisms to prevent shifting directorships and starting fresh companies in name only.
This would be in addition to CGT changes.
Capital gains only kick in when assets are liquidated so something else is needed for people with hundreds of millions in assets which are never sold.
Unsold assets aren't 'real' wealth. What are you going to do with an asset that was bought for £10M and then is valued at £2M because of movements in market value? If you're going to force people to sell things to pay off tax, all you'll do is unintentionally force more assets into fewer and fewer wealthier people who can afford the tax. How're you going to value them, who's going to do that? HMRC haven't got the staff or the expertise, and are you going to value art, houses, race horses, private businesses every year? How much is that going to cost and how much tax is it going to generate?
If you're create a new law that on its face is just vindictively aimed at taking unearned assets away from people, all that's going to happen is that it'll end up in a very expensive legal fight that you'll probably loose, how does that help working people?
You need to tax things like asset backed loans, or tax inheritance at the original price rather than value at death, or just do all the things that the current Labour govt have done. VAT on private school fees, doubling private plane tax, land value tax (went down a storm that one), abolishing Non-Dom status, Dividend taxes, investment and property taxes, inherited pensions coming into the IHT rules. All targetting the stuff that the wealthy use to hide their wealth.
But none of them are quite as snappy as shouting "Tax the rich" on X or Threads, so y'know, haven't happened I guess.
Unsold assets aren't 'real' wealth. What are you going to do with an asset that was bought for £10M and then is valued at £2M because of movements in market value? If you're going to force people to sell things to pay off tax, all you'll do is unintentionally force more assets into fewer and fewer wealthier people who can afford the tax. How're you going to value them, who's going to do that? HMRC haven't got the staff or the expertise, and are you going to value art, houses, race horses, private businesses every year? How much is that going to cost and how much tax is it going to generate?
The reality is that the assets arent sold and so you dont pay tax on them for those who are asset rich, cash poor and extremely wealthy. The simple version is they borrow money against those assets at say 5% interest from the bank. That is then cash they can spend and is a debt not income so no taxes to pay.
The reality is that the assets arent sold and so you dont pay tax on them for those who are asset rich, cash poor and extremely wealthy. The simple version is they borrow money against those assets at say 5% interest from the bank. That is then cash they can spend and is a debt not income so no taxes to pay.
How would you tax my crypto then!?
One week it's worth £3k - the next week it's worth £15.80 and a bag of Haribos! 🤣
The reality is that the assets arent sold and so you dont pay tax on them for those who are asset rich, cash poor and extremely wealthy. The simple version is they borrow money against those assets at say 5% interest from the bank. That is then cash they can spend and is a debt not income so no taxes to pay.
How would you tax my crypto then!?
One week it's worth £3k - the next week it's worth £15.80 and a bag of Haribos! 🤣
Hopefully it drops down to a Freddo valuation overnight and disappears up its own arse along with the crypto-bros
Unsold assets aren't 'real' wealth.
Of course I know that, but I’m talking about people who have tens of millions or more not people like me with a few hundred grand of equity in my house. We need to find a way of unlocking the billions/trillions locked in property and investments. The reality is that money doesn’t serve any useful purpose. Inheritance tax is the traditional method but there are mechanisms where we could unlock the money earlier rather than waiting for people to die.
