I'm no economist (trust me) but considering that those facing the cost of living crisis for the most part pay little or no tax, surely giving those who aren't struggling a tax break means that they will spend more and cause inflation to rise even higher, thus hitting the poor even harder?
There's a phrase we associate with the American war of independence: 'No taxation without representation'
It also works the other way as well, "No representation without taxation." One of the major ways in which wages have been surpressed is by lowering tax thresholds, (though not consumptive taxes, which always hit the poor hardest).
This creates a divided society, where the affluent see themselves as 1st class citizens because they pay more tax, whilst they look upon the low paid, who pay little income tax and see them as 2nd class citizens, even though the poor are working every hour that God sends to both try and make ends meet and keep the country running.
Who knew that History Today would prove to be so prescient.
I very much enjoyed this reference
Liz off to a dreadful start. Maybot 2.0
Current Labour would struggle to win a ‘who’s got the knobbliest knees’ competition! 😀
I suspect under Corbyn they'd have won that easily. I've never seen his knees but instinctively I know they're knobbly
20 seconds is all I could stomach.
Truss just said she'd take from pensions to build business by having variable tax regions.
Is Truss capable of speaking without continually doing the whole "hands emphasising and punctating every single point" thing? My word it's annoying.
variable tax regions
Another race to the bottom, as regions compete against each other to offer business tax cuts, great for the shareholders though.
Truss just said
She's fighting Putin. That was the 20 seconds. Sociopath
None of them came out of that looking good IMO. Multiple contrasting statements from each of them and they all found it very hard to not drop to slagging each other off.
I don't care which of them wins the title of PM, they're all completely useless.
I was hoping that after tonight's debate that I might discover why Mordaunt is apparently the Tory membership's runaway favourite candidate, however I'm none the wiser - she came across as both boring and uninspiring imo. She has never had much media coverage so I wonder if tonight's performance will have a negative impact on her appeal among Tory activists.
I was surprised that Truss preformed better than I had expected, I can understand why she has reasonable level of support among Tory MPs now - she has a script and appears to stick rigidly to it.
The most cringe inducing performance imo came from Badenoch - why ffs would you trust someone to sort out the country who on TV claims that she wasn't able to sort out her own cracked tooth??
If I was a floating voter with no idealogical committment I think I would have been most impressed with Sunak. Although only about 10 audience members said that the debate had made them more likely to vote Tory. I certainly wasn't impressed with Sunak's Tory priorities.
What an exhibition of mediocrity.
It's simple, the typical Tory member is old, white and male. If they play snog, marry, avoid Penny wins
So what was Boris Johnson's appeal?
Snog I presume, as I can't imagine it was marry.
Dammit, I'm a Penny fanboi but she's not done well there.
Rishi's 'I trust all of these people' was a smooooothe move.
I am impressed that Dr Andrew Gunn can remember what Margaret Thatcher was wearing in an election broadcast in 1979. Especially as judging from his photo he's only about 15 years old.
ernie - thatcher was well known for wearing pussy-bows; andrew gunn's age is irrelevant - he was clearly referring to truss's attempt to make a subliminal connection with thatcher.
An ubsubtle appeal to the pale, male and stale who comprise the vast majority of tory party members.
thatcher was well known for wearing pussy-bows
I had no idea. I didn't even know they were called "pussy-bows".
I need to pay more attention.
I'm still impressed that someone who looks so young was able to quickly identify a 1979 photo though.
I’m just glad that Suella Braverman is out, after reading about various quotes from her, which tended to indicate that she’d be our version of a female Trump. Not sure how true that actually is, because I’d never heard of her before this whole thing kicked off, but she appears to be an unpleasant piece of work.
but she appears to be an unpleasant piece of work.
They are all unpleasant pieces of work (they are going for leader of current tory party after all) they just try to hide it.
None of them believe in a fairer society and none of them actually gives a shit about anyone but themselves and their mates.
Tax cuts but only for business and top earners in the hope they will pay more overall if the %is lower.
Tax cuts but only for business and top earners
‘Twas ever thus.
Tom Tugendhat came across well last night. He was my pick from the outset. Rishi Sunak also came across well.
Tugendhat came across as honest and different. Sunak as details orientated. Two things we could really do with in Government leadership at the moment.
Agree, Tugendhat would be my pick but once in power it will be more tories gotta tory
Agree, Tugendhat would be my pick but once in power it will be more tories gotta tory
Pretty much. But given that TT would be the pick to suit the country you know full well that he isn't going to appeal to the tory membership whose sense of social responsibility ends about where their skin does.
In reality the rest of us are just hypothesising about how much lube each candidate would put on the rusty scaffold pole before it gets shoved up our collective backsides.
Maybe if the mps think that TT is a winner they will reform around him to have him up against Badenoch in the final 2 but that seems very high risk.
They are all unpleasant pieces of work (they are going for leader of current tory party after all) they just try to hide it.
You could argue that they're flaunting it because they know that's what Tory grassroots members want. Sure, there's a fine line where they're trying hard not to antagonise the wider public, but when the excrement collides with the air-moving machine, the MPs and the membership are what matters.
They'll be furious when they find out who's left the country in the terrible state it's in.
They’ll be furious when they find out who’s left the country in the terrible state it’s in.
That was Corbyn wasn't it?
I found that I was constantly distracted by Sunak's hugely impressive ears. I couldn't stop focusing on them. Both their size and their ability to so keenly face forward filled me with wonderment. Proper ears which no doubt do an excellent job.
Useful in hot weather too I would have thought.
none of them actually gives a shit about anyone but themselves and their mates.
It's worse than that, they don't think anyone else should give a shit about anyone else.
I’m a Penny fanbo
Curious why. Does she have some appealing policies? Or is it just because she's a woman?
Curious why. Does she have some appealing policies? Or is it just because she’s a woman?
Nope, it's because out of all the candidates, I fancy her the most. And she has nice hair. I don't actually know who she is.
Lets face it. I wouldn't actually vote for any of them so may as well have some fun with it. Ernie likes Rishi because of his impressive ears for example. Which is entirely valid.
Ernie likes Rishi
Well if the aim of the exercise was to choose the person with most impressive ears Sunak would definitely be my man.
However I did point out that I found Sunak's ears to be a distraction.
Based on the somewhat different criteria of who is the candidate most likely to shaft working people the least Tagnut Hatstand would be my choice.
He appears to be the least right-wing of the candidates although he does have imo a worrying obsession about running the country as you would a military operation. To add to my concern he has a fairly relaxed attitude concerning "the good guys" committing war crimes.
He won't win the leadership contest mind.
The Tories are not in control of anything. A continuation of failed slimly thought out ideas. Throwing a die on taxation. This failed and false idea of small state.
Why on earth dumbo Starmer is following their lead I will never know. All it does is doom us to Tory snakes and ladders.
Somebody needs to stand up and properly press the reset button.
TT would be any sane persons choice. But he’s a Lib Dem. Liz was a Lib Dem and her flexible principles and meaty communication skills will see her fade. Bad-enough is a nut job, lacking core appeal. So it’s Rishi vs Penny. Penny will walk it with the core party members. Like Boris - Once she’s on the ballot.
Yesterday she made it onto Dead Ringers. I recommend a listen. I’m not normally a huge fan, but it worked for me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00194cj
Why on earth dumbo Starmer is following their lead I will never know.
It's really not that difficult to understand - Starmer feels that the Tories have won the arguments.
And to be fair they have - whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant in the context of winning the argument.
There was an attempt recently to challenge the Tory narrative, and there was indeed initially some success with the Tories being forced to abandon the austerity argument.
But that radical alternative agenda ended being challenged not only by the Tories and their tabloid backers but also by the PLP itself.
The general consensus now is that the Tories have got everything largely right and the only question which remains to be answered is who is the most honest and trustworthy?
Some say it is the man who has broken every single one of the 10 pledges he made to become leader. Personally I can't really tell the difference.
Tax cuts for business means more cash to hire and pay people.
Likewise, raising tax on business just results in less investment / business growth so more of the same.
Tax cuts for business means more profit and increased dividends; companies could, of course, hire more and increase staff pay - but they don't.
Tax cuts for business means more cash to hire and pay people.
cheddarchallenged
Full MemberTax cuts for business means more cash to hire and pay people.
Or, y'know, send William Shatner into space
Tax cuts for business means more cash to hire and pay people.
Sorry; I lol’d. naivety in the extreme.
Tax cuts for business means more cash to hire and pay people.
Hire what people? It is claimed that UK unemployment is currently at its lowest level for almost 50 years. There are apparently more job vacancies than they are people available to fill them.
Job creation doesn't seem to be a necessary priority right now. But the cost of living crises and low wages clearly are.
Perhaps you would like to suggest that tax cuts for businesses as being suggested by the Tory leadership candidates are a great way to increase wages?
Is that the new Tory strategy - to support higher wages to tackle the cost of living crises?
If so the Tory candidates should surely be queuing up to publicly express their support for the RMT? They don't seem to be doing that.
Why on earth dumbo Starmer is following their lead I will never know.
Because under blair the party started using focus gruops to gauge public opinion. Trouble is this left them following public opinion which is set by the rightwing press.
For the current plp to admit this is the wrong approach and they should be leading with inspirational ideas means admitting that the last 20 years of their careers have been wasted doing the wrong things.
It all goes back to blair and the myths around him
Blair was always a tory in the wrong party