Forum menu
goes against the wishes of a clear majority of the electorate?
Does it though? I guess we'll know for sure when folk get a chance to actually vote.
I think that one depends on how the question is asked Scotroutes. Also elections are not generally about single issues. ask if they want to help prevent global warming get a yes, Ask if they will accept lifestyle change to do so get a no
However I very much doubt a majority of the electorate are prepared to reduce their standard of living and I am certain that very few actually care about the extraction of what is in global terms a small amount of oil
IIRC SNP are in favour of extracting and are expected to get 30+ % of the vote. Greens are against it and expected to get 15% of the vote ( holyrood election)
Badenoch is trying to keep her job - that's it, any thoughts about general elections four year away are a long way down the list.
If she doesn't perform over the next few weeks and have a good conference she is toast.
Bad Enoch would be out of her depth in a puddle.
It's going to take a miracle for Starmer to stay at #10 after the next General Election likely in 2029 under FPTP, as things look now.
Labour would have to do something radical and go whole hog, such as scrap Brexit and see rewards for doing so before 2029.
Absolutely. But McSweeney won't let him.
McSweeney has managed to position himself to Starmer as his gammon-whisperer. Whereas anyone objective knows that Labour winning GE 2024 was simply a case of anyone but the Tories.
Starmer has zero interest in fixing anything useful for his voters.
Anyone with half a brain can see that there's so many possible options he could take that would be a positive , real-world change to our country.
But let's push on with this terrible reactive nonsense.
I mean it's not as if climate change, lack of housing, energy cost, crime and decimated infrastructure are at all an issue.
It's amazing how's he's united the left and right on despising the government - that's some incredible achievement.
The right believe he's a socialist and he's blowing all the money and creating a debt implosion 🤪and soft on migration.
The left have hated him from pretty much they start for his inability to do anything resembling a plan.
The 'mission-led government.'
Has GB Energy lowered my bill yet?
https://twitter.com/ZoeJardiniere/status/1962166212814655854?t=5GhQxfH9dl839Iq2Ujywvw&s=19
According to research by Merlin Strategy for 5654 & Company, the cost of living is still the overwhelming priority for 66 per cent of British voters.
That’s followed by the economy (46%), healthcare (45%), immigration (44%), and housing (18%).
but yet ...
The Chancellor’s rumoured to be looking at a string of policies to try and fill a black hole that some economists say is up to £40billion.
so so stupid. We really didn't need this self-imposed line of logic - it will always sink choices for public purpose. And deliver a dying economy.
Ask if they will accept lifestyle change to do so get a no
Yeah, I guess that's my point. Taking the deniers aside, climate change provokes a range of responses. As you say, most folk just don't care enough. Quite apart from voting, I see it in the amount, and speed, of car travel, and that most folk are still flying regularly. Leaving resources untapped isn't really compatible with this so folk aren't going to vote for that sort of change. Throw up a few headlines about the cost of electricity produced by wind turbines and that's that.
There's a whole bunch of people who would actually say 'yes', but then start backtracking when any detail came out.
"What? You want to make MY four litre SUV illegal?"...
There has been a complete denial from successive governments about the action needed to tackle climate change (throughout the western world).
Energy needs nationalising, that is the only way we can start to tackle it without it just being an excuse for corporate subsidies and higher energy bills (which is what the GBenergy farce is).
Urban planning needs to tackle the needs for journeys, with business and residential districts being integrated and smaller local centres and less out of town shopping and malls.
Massive investment in public transport to give real options to use it as an alternative to cars.
Instead all we get it punishing the consumer who mostly don't have many real choices, congestion charges, fuel duty escalators etc should come after the above, not as the only policy.
As well as taking steps to reduce carbon emmissions as above western particularly european governments need to start real planning for what is to come. We are at the tipping point, southern europe is starting to really feel the effects of drought, harvests are down and if you think the migrant issue is big now its going to increase exponentially with many many millions arriving on europes shores each year due to water shortages and crop failures elsewhere as well as people migrating north within europe.
What are the europ0ean governments going to do? Barbed wire and machine guns at the border?
you think the migrant issue is big now its going to increase exponentially with many many millions arriving on europes shores each year due to water shortages and crop failures elsewhere
This is a definite.
What are the europ0ean governments going to do? Barbed wire and machine guns at the border?
Develop a new breed of super midge.
https://twitter.com/labourpress/status/1962824250076569646
Labour: making bigger tits of themselves than Zack Polanski ever will.
Just heard Tory in a red tie Streeting on R4. He's got his little soundbite for the Graham Linehan situation already sorted.
"We want them [the police] to police streets, not tweets".
What a ****.
I don't actually disagree totally with that, but the mere fact he's got a little gobbet worked out just makes me despise him a little bit more. You just know the inward (and probably outward) smirk he will have had trotting that one out.
🤮
It's just another adoption of far right US principles, freedom of speech as long as you align with our right wing hate doctrine. They don't want to police incitement to violently attack trans, but speak out against genocide and you are a terrorist.
Labour have attacked ZP more in the last 24hrs than they ever have Farage.
Good luck with that one.
BBC Have Your Say sections are depressing this morning. Thousands of people clamouring for "trim the welfare state". Considering that they're all decrepit racist pensioners and that by the far biggest / quickest / easiest way to do this is to scrap the pensions triple-lock, I hope it turns around and bites them in October.
"We want them [the police] to police streets, not tweets".
Politicians the world over need to get to grips with the fact that social media IS the streets.
PMQs the usual circus from what I heard.
The Tory MP Sir John Hayes tried to score a cheap point about the flagging craze but, unfortunately, the silly old **** said the cross of St Patrick should be flown in Wales.
At least panto tends to be restricted to a 5-6 week period.
Raynor caught avoiding tax on a second home purchase. ~Tried to hide it in a trust, didn't even do that properly.
Why are politicians such absolute fools. Did it not occur to that bonehead that she might come under a little scrutiny for buying an £800k house at the other end of the country from her constituency, you know what with her being HOUSING SECRETARY as well as deputy PM!!! I mean the optics of her doing it at all whilst in office, what with her having 2 homes to go to already seems a little stupid given the party she represents and the state of the economy but to then blatantly underpay tax.....I mean FFS labour, you really are doing your best to ensure nobody votes labour again for the foreseeable future aren't you.
Idiots.
Not quite right what I said above - the trust is for the other home she shares with an ex and her children
She is just turning out to be an utter venal money grubber
Oh and she’s a woman?
I can't see this going away so I suspect it will end up being a resignation level issue despite what the govt are saying at the moment - which makes her even more stupid.
She is just turning out to be an utter venal money grubber
Maybe, or perhaps trying to ensure a suitable long term home for her kids (especially the one with care needs) while giving up her own financial claim to the home after the breakdown of her relationship with their father. That she kept it registered as her main residence looks very much like "cake and eat it", so it does all end up looking dodgy.
Took legal advice. Followed it. Turns out legal advice was wrong. Could not clarify until now because of a court order, now has.
Jesus - Labour are not capable of looking after anything other than themselves are they?
(Sounds just like an excuse a Tory would make.)
Took legal advice. Followed it. Turns out legal advice was wrong. Could not clarify until now because of a court order, now has.
That is pretty much my take. There's a lot of reasons to not like the current Labour party but this isn't one of them IMO. Not great optics (again) but not a big issue
She was still ( for the second time) attempting to avoid tax on a house purchase. Its a huge issue because it goes to trust and competence
No, she paid tax on a house purchase, at the rate she was advised appropriate.
Its not a huge issue but it does question the trust and competence of the legal advisor that provided the incorrect advice.
FTFY
It's another mis-step. End of Story.
No one really cares if she's did it correctly. What we care about is government staffers enjoying the benefits of the rentier economy that is ****ing stuff up for everyone else
It's the same defense when the Labour lot had their hands in the honey pot near the beginning. This won't age well with an already busted government.
They really cannot go quick enough this disgraceful bunch of chancers.
Its the second time she has been caught avoiding tax on a house. Its not her legal advisors fault she was attempting to avoid tax by using the trust. I also simply doubt her story - throwing her lawyer under a bus is a bad look. Being caught for the second time avoiding tax on a house is not a good look particularly for the housing minister.
It's another mis-step. End of Story.
No one really cares if she's did it correctly. What we care about is government staffers enjoying the benefits of the rentier economy that is ****ing stuff up for everyone else
It's the same defense when the Labour lot had their hands in the honey pot near the beginning. This won't age well with an already busted government.
They really cannot go quick enough this disgraceful bunch of chancers.
Rayner has been a massive let down. This just seals it. She's had bad as the rest.
Taking legal advice that a tax avoidance loophole only available to the wealthy is legal, still isn't a good look.
This is the labour party, they should be closing these loopholes when they discover them not rubbing their hands and taking advantage.
It is just another example of how distant they are from the financial struggles that are being suffered by many, a younger generation where home ownership is becoming a much harder dream.
I'm sure a prominent Tory or Reform MP would be given a similarly fair hearing here.
The 'average working person' doesn't have the benefit of complex financial legal advice on trusts, 2nd and 3rd home ownership rules and regs - and then the housing minister still mucks it up.
I'm sure a prominent Tory or Reform MP would be given a similarly fair hearing here.
Exactly.
Red team good blue team bad.
The 'average working person' doesn't have the benefit of complex financial legal advice on trusts, 2nd and 3rd home ownership rules and regs - and then the housing minister still mucks it up.
And to then say 'I'll just pay the tax due' makes a mockery of things even further - to have a spare £40k available further laughs in peoples faces.
I'm sure a prominent Tory or Reform MP would be given a similarly fair hearing here.
Did you see the politics threads before the election - we wanted and expected better from Labour.
Stamp duty, especially when trusts are involved, can be a complex area of law, so unless you are an estates planning solicitor I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt here... you kind of have to trust what your solicitor says.
When I bought my current house my conveyance solicitor said I had X to pay, then they retired during the process and their coleague took over the job... they figured out they got it wrong and there was quite a bit less for me to pay... and that's without the complications of a trust involved.
I am about to pay around £10 000 capital gains tax on my second house sale. could I do some arcane trickery to avoid this? Yes. I even know how. will I? No because its morally wrong
Stamp duty, especially when trusts are involved, can be a complex area of law, so unless you are an estates planning solicitor I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt here.
The trust exists to deliberately complicate the tax for avoidance purposes, it doesn't make it better it is the core problem.
All these tax loopholes used and abused by the rich, who have far more disposable income than those on minimum wage, it's no wonder this country has declined so much in recent decades.