MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
He doesn't back taxing wealth -> his knuckle-dragging would-be voters (if they can be persuaded to notice) splutter their Carling over the wipe-clean floor in Spoons.
Farage will misrepresent it as the govt taking away your kids inheritance, and many reform voters will agree even though they aren't liable for inheritance tax. That's where Labour need to make the argument.
@stumpyjon My comment was meaningfully paid, not highly paid. The two terms are not synonymous.
Worthwhile is a job that:
a benefits society
b appeals to the worker
c has the potential to engage the worker
just idealistic nonsense
There's no need to be rude and many of todays benefits started as someone's ideal.
Farage will misrepresent it as the govt taking away your kids inheritance, and many reform voters will agree even though they aren't liable for inheritance tax. That's where Labour need to make the argument.
I feel a sloganed bus coming on.
It worked last time...
The home secretary has welcomed guidance for the police that has told them to share suspects’ ethnicity and nationality with the public, reports the PA news agency.
Yvette Cooper said the government had been clearer for the need for more openness. It comes after authorities were accused of covering up offences carried out by asylum seekers, and in the wake of riots after the Southport murders which were partly fuelled by social media disinformation.
Why do we continue with this charade? Just install Farage in No 10 now and have done with it.
The Labour Home Secretary Yvette Cooper obviously believes that potential rioters should have the full and correct facts before them.
Plus how are Daily Mail columnists supposed to go into rants about foreign criminals if they are not supplied the information concerning the ethnicity of "suspects"?
The Labour Party leader recently made an important speech in which he claimed that recent immigration had done, quote, "incalcable damage" to the UK, presumably this vital information of the ethnicity of "suspects" will help to calculate the damage immigrants have caused the UK recently.
What do they do though? Retain the old opacity and feed the lie of a cover up and two tier policing?
David Lammy has referred himself to the environment watchdog because he did not have a rod licence to go fishing with JD Vance.
David Lammy - what an absolute waste of space. He should report himself to somebody for not beating Vance to death with a priest.
What do they do though? Retain the old opacity and feed the lie of a cover up and two tier policing?
Precisely, now baying mobs can get pitchforks out when it has been clearly established what the ethnicity and/or nationality of a "suspect" is.
I mean it must be really embarrassing to start rioting based on misinformation or straightforward lies!
Last summer's rioting and attacks on mosques was based on the lie that the suspect was Muslim, hopefully rioters will now feel more confident and less hesitant when they decide to take to the streets to display their bigotry.
Well done Labour!
I am getting very tired of those excusing labours racist rhetoric because "peer pressure made them do it". They are in charge, they have autonomy to take their own path and they should be fighting racism not encouraging it.
The old excuse used to be they couldn't do anything in opposition, the new excuse seems to be they can do nothing because they are in government, the far right are pulling Starmer’s strings and he seems quite comfortable with that.
Easier to take the oligarchs money and attack the left than actually deal with the problems.
A big problem with releasing ethnicity, refugee status, nationality is that the right wing press and social media grifters will just report and amplify those cases which fit their narrative.
Just reporting those cases where the accused was an asylum seeker, refugee, immigrant more widely etc will create a disproportionate sense that they are committing all the crime. The majority of the dozens/hundreds (?) of eg sexual assaults committed everyday by British nationals will carry on not being reported
I really worry where this is leading us
The old excuse used to be they couldn't do anything in opposition, the new excuse seems to be they can do nothing because they are in government, the far right are pulling Starmer’s strings and he seems quite comfortable with that.
This.
All along this has been one of Centrism's great failings. There is no plan. There is only what the far-right 'do' and how Labour react to that.
Then a host of people queue up behind Starmer and jump through hoops to support the very things that 12 months ago they despised.
It's ridiculous and lacks any sort of critical thought process by constant excuse making and as proving is not delivering good results.
Just doesn't get any better. They will be all up in arms when Farage gets on the lecturn. And it will be down to them.
Don't make excuses for Starmer and co being awful. There's too much at stake.
The majority of the dozens/hundreds (?) of eg sexual assaults committed everyday by British nationals will carry on not being reported
Well if the media doesn't report the ethnicity and nationality of all suspects then I would assume that would fall foul of anti-discrimination laws.
I can't see how they can pick and choose when to mention the ethnicity and nationality of suspects. I would expect the media to report the arrest of all white British born suspects in exactly the same way.
I can't see how they can pick and choose when to mention the ethnicity and nationality of suspects. I would expect the media to report the arrest of all white British born suspects in exactly the same way.
My thoughts on that too. Unfortunately Trump is blazing the path for blatant dismissal of stats which don't follow the desired narrative.
It should be remembered that a year ago, whilst others did, Keir Starmer steadfastly refused to publicly criticised Nigel Farage for suggesting conspiracy theories and misinformation which were so important in fueling the riots and attacks on mosques throughout the country.
Ignoring Nigel Farage does not work, today Reform UK are far more popular than they were a year and Labour much less so.
Starmer and Farage are currently both singing from the same hymn sheet because neither have any solutions to offer and both are desperate for easy votes that rely on blaming others.
Also straight back on to Farage about small boat crossings being almost totally driven by Brexit.
2018-2020: 10,604 arrivals avg 3,535 per year.
2021-2024: 140,534 arrivals avg 35,134 per year.
That's a tenfold increase post Brexit. Labour also need to counter the argument that Johnson's Trump-esque rush to 'Get Brexit Done' resulted in it not being 'delivered properly'. Farage will inevitably go to leaving the ECHR as a double-down. Have the facts ready to combat this. Back the mother****er into a corner and keep at him. If it can be done in a live setting, try to panic him into looking stupid. If he remains calm, splice all his lies into a tiktok and caption each one with 'Lie'.
It's not sophisticated. It is what the electorate seem to respond to, though.
The majority of the dozens/hundreds (?) of eg sexual assaults committed everyday by British nationals will carry on not being reported
Well if the media doesn't report the ethnicity and nationality of all suspects then I would assume that would fall foul of anti-discrimination laws.
I can't see how they can pick and choose when to mention the ethnicity and nationality of suspects. I would expect the media to report the arrest of all white British born suspects in exactly the same way.
Sorry if I'm repeating a point already made
There have been criteria for a while, usually to counteract misinformation or disinformation leading to community tension.
It's sometimes necessary but you wouldn't want to stoke community tension by releasing information on every occasion, especially as a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Arrests and charges prove nothing
It kind of makes me a bit nostalgic for someone like John Prescott, TBH. He was no master politician, but against Starmer and his fellow scaredy-cats he looks like a colossus. Obviously being in government pulled his horns in on plenty of occasions, but I would have liked to see peak Prezza going toe-to-toe with Farage.
This current mob haven't got the balls to confront Farage head-on. So they do his job for him. At least if they stood and fought they could say to the electorate "well we exposed to you over and over again what this would be like" if Reform are elected in 2029.
🤬
It's sometimes necessary but you wouldn't want to stoke community tension by releasing information on every occasion, especially as a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Arrests and charges prove nothing
You will have noticed that I have repeatedly placed the term "suspect" in quotation marks precisely to emphasis the innocence of the individual. Or perhaps you haven't 😉
And no, you wouldn't want to stoke community tension by releasing information on every occasion but if the Labour Home Secretary is applying pressure to release the ethnicity, nationality, and immigration status of suspects, then I think it is probably morally correct (and probably also legally required) to apply it to British-born white Brits suspects as much as anyone else.
We will have to deal with any anti-white riots this information might trigger when we come to it 💡
It's sometimes necessary but you wouldn't want to stoke community tension by releasing information on every occasion, especially as a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Arrests and charges prove nothing
You will have noticed that I have repeatedly placed the term "suspect" in quotation marks precisely to emphasis the innocence of the individual. Or perhaps you haven't 😉
And no, you wouldn't want to stoke community tension by releasing information on every occasion but if the Labour Home Secretary is applying pressure to release the ethnicity, nationality, and immigration status of suspects, then I think it is probably morally correct (and probably also legally required) to apply it to British-born white Brits suspects as much as anyone else.
We will have to deal with any anti-white riots this information might trigger when we come to it 💡
I'm expanding the point, not taking a cheap shot
The most read occurrences in the last year are possibly Southport where the Chief Constable wanted to include "Christian" to counter anti-Islamist feeling but was advised not to by the CPS https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d491mqqq5o
The other was the "white British" driver of the car in Liverpool in May.
The latest guidance is out on the College of Policing website and is IMHO rightly limited https://www.college.police.uk/article/forces-encouraged-disclose-ethnicity-and-nationality-specific-cases
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1955693980835852573?t=449oEG3IRUKUZEUWTYiF6A&s=19
Clearly if Starmer can make a good job out of lying then Reeves has decided that path exists too.
To claim they've fixed the foundations is utterly delusional.
Specifically citing variable rate mortgages are lower now than when she came to power as a product of the Labour party is totally ridiculous when she has simply let the BoE do whatever it wants. (The BoE have created their own chaos too.)
This is mind-blowing. She dare not mention the reality of growth either or unemployment moving upwards.
No mention of crippling utility bills in the mix either.
Her fiscal rules and legacy will have now saddled the UK with a bizarre interpretation of what a deficit is. As back to front and self-defeating as an economic concept could be.
Not to mention the pain of the WFA and 2CBC.
No one was expecting them to do miracles in the first year but this article is celebrating nothing.
What is apparent is no one believes anything she says because they squandered goodwill and made so many stupid Tory mistakes, confusing the hell out of the public for what a Labour party should be about.
Useful piece from a member of the HoL
Her fiscal rules and legacy will have now saddled the UK with a bizarre interpretation of what a deficit is. As back to front and self-defeating as an economic concept could be.
I haven't heard talk of a "Tory financial black hole" for a while. I wonder why? 🙂
So Northern rail, maybe even extra leg of HS2 back on?
2 analyses out today show that the IHT reforms protect smaller family farms and that non-doms havent fled the country
so just like with VAT on schools the right wing press were talking bobbins
https://www.ft.com/content/918e0ce3-0dc7-470b-968d-94d6982dabdd
https://bsky.app/profile/jamesfitzjourno.bsky.social/post/3lwdv7g4pu22b
Now lets see what happens with IHT reforms in the budget, unlocking a lot of the assets hoarded by the boomers would be very welcome
so just like with VAT on schools the right wing press were talking bobbins
And yet the right wing press still set the agenda for this supposed Labour government...
🤔
Now lets see what happens with IHT reforms in the budget, unlocking a lot of the assets hoarded by the boomers would be very welcome
Yeah, we've cleaned out the working class; now let's get to work on the middle class.
I stand behind the idea there is no real political appetite for shifting taxation in any meaningful way.
The emphasis will be on cuts. Absolutely nothing of real benefit will happen until she reverses her logic on the economy about growth appearing to fund government spending.
Reeves will be entirely focussed on creating her bloody black-holes and then jumping around until she *fixes* (drain money out the economy) them from a balance sheet perspective. She has created a no-win situation, for us at least.
Labour are creating shrinking bit of pie for eveyrone.
Yeah, we've cleaned out the working class; now let's get to work on the middle class.
so you think the present asset distribution is fair?
1 in 5 boomers are millionaires
(this graph is nearly a decade old as well , the value of mostly property has only increased massively since since then-
In total, the housing stock owned by over-65s is valued at £2.735 trillion, £2.038 trillion of which is mortgage free. The last 10 years have been especially profitable for this age group and their housing wealth has risen by over £1.111 trillion, according to the data.
Redistribution has to start with putting money into people's pockets / public investment(s) that need it in the first place.
Sure tax plays a part but just because she taxes a boomer - simply she's taking money out of one part of the economy. How does taking money out of the economy give the people support at the other end?
All they will do is claim the black-hole as shrunk. That's no extra help for anyone right there.
They need investment programmes to add money back to the economy. They can do that now!
We're talking about a chancellor who thought saving 1.5b - 1/9bn in a 1trillion budget was a worthwhile endeavour. That 1.5bn was not going to anyone. It was deleting money.
Yeah, we've cleaned out the working class; now let's get to work on the middle class.
Nonsense. The middle class, or more specifically boomer property owners have benefited from an unearned windfall on the scale of hundreds of thousands or low millions. People who bought a non-descript average family home in the south east 40 years ago are now sitting on property assets worth millions, and are now using that unearned wealth to generate rental income and grow their assets. Scale that up by however many millions of people who have benefitted and you have billions* in unearned and under-taxed assets while tax from incomes on working people shrinks due to the shrinking labour force and stagnation of wages.
*correction: make that trillions as Kimbers post above illustrates
The point is the investment projects the country does need (see HS2 and northern rail) will need to be balanced by tax raised (otherwise markets get spooked, interest rates & inflation rocket and everyone suffers- ask Truss)
and crucially , if its done right could help with the housing crisis too, not to mention having all this wealth locked up in property punishes those at the bottom who are excluded from getting a toehold
with people living longer than ever having all this wealth tied up in property is not good for the country
and I would like to see this done alongside putting money directly back in the pockets of the poorest
good article here on how IHT could be reformed, but its never that easy
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/inequalities/2024/02/14/too-little-too-late-inheritance-tax/
so you think the present asset distribution is fair?
Do I think it fair that young people have seen their wealth barely increase at all while others have prospered? No. But that is not a sensible motivation for impoverishing older people.
People who bought a non-descript average family home in the south east 40 years ago are now sitting on property assets worth millions, and are now using that unearned wealth to generate rental income and grow their assets
So tax those people, and that income, but talking about "boomers" just makes you look vindictive.
WFA original form 1.5bn revenue
VAT Private Schools 1.5bn revenue
NI 25bn revenue
Farm Tax 115mn revenue
(that was previous plugging.)
We have a 1tn budget.
If anyone believes Labour are going to raise any amount of tax that would make a substanial difference to their 'blackhole' (let alone investment) at 50bn.
Good luck with those maths. There is no appetite for taxation politically to make any sort of real difference.
As an aside it's incredibly difficult to administor a wealth tax. The downsides of adjusting taxation is it can lead to unemployment because someone further down the chain pays for it or the private sector doesn't hire. (But it will free up resources.)
I'm not against any of this necessarily but no point thinking it's going to fix much of anything in isolation.
Also constantly pretending we need to go to get money from the wealthy is more than half of the problem with the narrative here.
If anyone believes Labour are going to raise any amount of tax that would make a substanial difference to their 'blackhole' (let alone investment) at 50bn.
so much of the markets is about 'vibes' - spooked is the right term for the markets when they get startled , its no way to run a financial system but Ive no idea how we break our relationship with them
Sorry but who is saying that?
indeed!
from the article I linked to above
While inheritance tax does take more from larger estates, under the current system, its role in redistributing wealth is modest. The reason for this is the same reason that inheritance tax doesn’t raise much revenue: only a few pay it. Currently, most couples can leave up to £1 million before paying any inheritance tax at all. Consequently, only around 5½ per cent of those who die have any inheritance tax paid on their estate. And while the tax rate for inheritances above this tax-free threshold is 40 per cent, numerous exemptions and reliefs – including for agricultural land, business assets, some types of shares, gifts and pensions, to name a few – mean that even among those who do pay, the actual rate is far lower than this headline rate
IHT dodging is the reason clarkson bought his farm (its also part of the reason farmland has shot up so much in value)
you can see how much IHT actually manages to catch (child wealth does mean little kids btw!)
Its pretty obvious how the current system leads to more wealth being hoarded by the richest
but talking about "boomers" just makes you look vindictive.
No need to take offence. I couldn't care less about what generation people are from, I'm only bothered about the tax burden being fairly distributed. Currently that burden is focused too much on working people and taxing work, and not much of it is falling on those who don't work who have huge wealth, and those who have unearned wealth on which they've never been taxed.
As an aside it's incredibly difficult to administor a wealth tax.
We need to be quite specific when talking about a wealth tax. In my head this wouldn't be a brand new tax which is levied periodically on an individual's assets, because yes this would be very complex to implement and will have huge unintended consequences (I've recently been persuaded on this!). There are other way though like reforming IHT, property taxes, CGT, restricting gifts etc.
As a random idea how about encouraging people to pay IHT early by offering tax breaks? 40% on the estate at death, 20% on any amount paid early? That could unlock billions currently sat in savings and assets while giving a legal route to minimise the IHT on an estate.
Will be interesting to see where Labour go with this in the budget, some good points/suggestions from Daz there
whether it will lead to the kind of growth Labour wants by the next GE I dont know, but its reform thats long overdue and could hopefully lead to a more even redistribution of wealth
, ironically you can bet 1Btc that a Farage led government would be doing the very opposite
Will be interesting to see where Labour go with this in the budget
Not holding my breath. As always with Starmer/Reeves it will be the bare minimum, the rich will be protected and those at the bottom end of the spectrum will be hit hardest. It is at least though a recognition that the balance between tax on income and wealth needs addressing, and hopefully that will become a narrative which embeds itself in the thinking of the electorate at large to make further reforms in future more palatable.
Also constantly pretending we need to go to get money from the wealthy is more than half of the problem with the narrative here.
We do need to get money from the wealthy, otherwise increased gov spending just ends up inflating their wealth without any rebalancing towards those who are struggling.
We do need to get money from the wealthy, otherwise increased gov spending just ends up inflating their wealth without any rebalancing towards those who are struggling.
I thought we could just create more money out of thin air and everything would be fine?
A very constructive comment Danny, give yourself a gold star.
It is surprising that this story doesn't appear to be carried by the British media, despite the fact that it involves British MPs
In the letter, signed by more than a dozen MPs from Labour, the Greens, the SNP, and Plaid Cymru, the signatories said they were “horrified” by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s stated intention to carry out a full military occupation of the Gaza Strip.
BREAKING | Labour drop below 20%
I am afraid that no one is interested because Jeremy Corbyn isn't the Labour leader these days.
When the centrists tried to mount a very public coup against Jeremy Corbyn in September 2016 Labour were polling somewhere in the region of 27-34%.
The centrists claimed the only thing that mattered was winning the next general election. Now that the centrists are very firmly in control of the Labour Party "winning the next general election" apparently no longer matters very much.
I don't think that Labour ever dipped below 20% in any opinion poll whilst Corbyn was Labour leader, but you wouldn't think that by the complete lack of concern with regards to the crisis that Starmer is responsible for. Crisis? What crisis?
But maybe the centrists are less concerned now than they were when Jeremy Corbyn was leader because back in the day the alternative to Corbyn was Theresa May or Boris Johnson, now the alternative to Keir Starmer is Nigel Farage, and we know that the centrists share so much in common with Nigel Farage.... cutting foreign aid, boosting spending on the military, restricted the right of citizenship to asylum seekers, racist rhetoric, chummy with the orange buffoon stateside, strong support for a genocidal regime, clamping down on lefty demonstrators and curtailing freedom of speech, etc, etc
Are they most hypocritical breed of voters?
This forum was explicitly built up of people losing their shit minute by minute at the Tories and Farage doing right-wingy nasty things (in fact they still do) but everything is now not so bad with Starmer simply having no choice but to try and be the most competent right-winger out there and do all of these things too.
Thing is - turns out Starmer is useless, as is most of his cabinet so it's not really worked out.
Centrist's only aim has ever been is stop the left and create a pathway for the right.
There are no other objectives. Imagine putting a gun to your head because Farage told you to.
Not really the UK Government any more, but here's a reminder of what we had prior to last summer.
It's good old Grant Shapps (aka Michael Green / aka Sebastian Fox / aka Corinne Stockheath) back on the make again.
And bravo to the journo who wrote this opening paragraph. Peter Sellers or Franz Kafka could not have done better.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The parliamentary standards body has been criticised for clearing Grant Shapps, a former Conservative defence secretary, to join a defence startup as long as he promises not to work on defence matters.
This centrist who normally votes green or left has occasionally voted right of centre. Both extreme left and extreme right I find equally destructive. Bardella and Melonchon are just different shades of toxic. Farage and Corbyn likewise.
Not really the UK Government any more, but here's a reminder of what we had prior to last summer.
Yes as you say it's not about the UK government but no it is not "a reminder of what we had prior to last summer".
It is just a reminder of the "revolving doors" post-ministerial careers of self-serving politicians. Your apparent suggestion that it only affects Tory politicians is nonsense.
"Hewitt took a consultancy with Alliance Boots seven months after leaving her role as Labour health secretary in 2007. She also took a £55,000 role with Cinven, which bought 25 private hospitals from Bupa. Other politicians from the New Labour era who subsequently took paid roles in fields closely related to their government work include: David Blunkett, Alan Milburn, John Hutton and John Reid"
And you could also look into how the current leader of the LibDems, Ed Davy, landed himself some nice little earners in the healthcare sector after his stint as Secretary of State for Health.
Anyway getting back to the issue of the current UK government....... what's the fundamental difference between it and the previous UK government?
It all seems to have gone very blurred !
Farage and Corbyn likewise.
Which of Corbyn's policies do you actually find 'toxic' ?
I believe the general consensus from his detractors is that Jeremy Corbyn's policy towards the rights of Palestinians to have freedom, justice, and peace, was toxic.
They called it anti-semitism.
Despite the irony of Palestinians being as semitic as a people could possibly be.
His decades of anti-EU for a start. If he'd been consistent and honest and campaigned for leave I think a lot more people would have been inspired to vote and voted remain. Then we have all his "comrade" 60s Marxist nonsense, people won't vote for him. His policies are are irrelevant because people know what he has always stood for and don't like it.
Corbyn "campaigned" for remain when we all knew he was anti then on seeing the result rejoiced and called for immediate use of Article 50. He's a 60s Marxist student and always will be. Hes' been toxic in the Labour party trying to drive it left which has had the opposite result.
He campaigns for a low retirement age and promises to work to the grave.Go away you deluded old toxic fool.
His policies are are irrelevant because people know what he has always stood for and don't like it.
I reckon the current government is going to discover over the next four years what an unreliable premise that is.
Especially now that voters have finally discovered what Sir Keir Starmer actually stands for.
We have had an oligarchy driven far right takeover of western governments, a 40+ year march to right wing politics, and still the people who believe they reject the extreme of politics accept this current "baseline" as the normal and readily attack the left* as extreme. The austerity that was once railed against is now accepted as needed, the ripping up of "bureaucracy" for growth and trickle down is now the plan that has always failed to deliver for the masses etc
*the left they are attacking is the post war consensus, the move to economic and social equality that is now being reversed at an alarming pace.
If you look at the rare goverments that have improved economic and social equality they haven't been far left, they've been centre left, the kind of "centrists" disapproved of on this thread. Marxists didn't give the UK the NHS, Labour did along with properly progressive taxes for a short time.
It wasn't French or German communists that delivered for the people it was the centre left socialist parties.
The kind of parties that no longer have an equivalent in the UK where the space filled by Labour post war is vacant. Corbyn and his mates don't have a cat in hells chance of getting elected. They lost the ideological fight within the Labour party so now they've split it. Destructive, toxic.
If you look at the rare goverments that have improved economic and social equality they haven't been far left, they've been centre left, the kind of "centrists" disapproved of on this thread. Marxists didn't give the UK the NHS, Labour did along with properly progressive taxes for a short time.
It wasn't French or German communists that delivered for the people it was the centre left socialist parties.
Exactly, the post war consensus left of centre parties, that implemented policies for the people that are now fought against as extreme by the self proclaimed centrists. Those are not the positions offered by Starmer, Macron, Mertz and Scholz et al, they are offering policies that would have been extreme right for those old "left of centre" parties.
Centrists aren't delivering anything currently though. Because they've adopted the narratives of Neolibralism - as there is no alternative according to them.
You can label it however you want but when a Centrist administration decides to add an asset to society it doing so with the power of the state and its central bank.(Nothing to do with the nonsense of Centrism). And more to the point they're only going to do that with pressure from the left. Which is why Starmer basically told the left to leave if it didn't like what it saw creating his own issues.
Corbyn might not get elected but it's good that there is a push back against this authoritarian, destruction and incompetence version of Labour.
I welcome every bit of pushback.
Who, in this day and age can really believe that after a decade and a bit Tory rule and disasters - we need more of that but from a Labour government.
Anyone who believes that is frankly being ridiculous and only doing so in support of Labour because it's their 'team' rather than rational thinking.
As one fanboy on here is happy to call Reform voters morons (unchallenged) should also accept that Labour are designed to attract the same morons.
Marxists didn't give the UK the NHS, Labour did along with properly progressive taxes for a short time.
LOL! Of course they did ! Every great reform which has benefited ordinary working people hasn't spontaneously come from a Labour government. They have all started life from very small beginnings within the trade union movement before the long haul to eventual legislature, often facing very stiff opposition from centrists**.
Since you brought up the NHS I will remind you the Guardian, a newspaper specifically founded to de-radicalise left-wing politics, was opposed to the creation of the NHS. Why? Well in part no doubt because it was a demand by communists within the trade union movement and it was so strongly associated with communism. When the NHS was created the UK was the only country outside the Soviet Union which had free universal healthcare.
Edit ** It is precisely because of the rapture of the relationship between the trade unions and the Labour Party that the current "Labour" government is likely to be the first Labour government in history not to carry out any great reform which benefits ordinary working people.
Today the likes of Morgan McSweeney decide Labour Party policies and the trade union have little if any influence at all.
His pushback sounds like he's shooting the breeze to me.
It's easy to say billionaires shouln't own social media platforms - well don't support the worst of them then.
Then there's a whole series of hypocritical gaffs around the car. Ban petrol cars he said yezrs back which gave the Daily Mail a field day with his big diesels. Buy an EV and be seen in it you hypocrit because camera calls when you take the bus just make people laugh. And have a word with that brother of yours.
And if you're going to preach ecology sort out those multiple energy pits you own.
Born in a manor to preach equality so long as it doesn't concern him and he can continue to revel in highly polluting luxury.
You may have noticed I detest the man and so should any other ecologically orietated socialist .
His pushback sounds like he's shooting the breeze to me.
What on earth are you talking about? I don't think that idiom means what you think it means.
You may have noticed I detest the man and so should any other ecologically orietated socialist .
On the evidence you present, it seems a little strange that you put him in the same basket as Farage who has promised to re-open coal mines and cease efforts to reach net zero. It suggests to me that your opinion is swayed by other considerations.
This centrist who normally votes green or left has occasionally voted right of centre.
You may have noticed I detest the man and so should any other ecologically orietated socialist .
So you have managed to call yourself both a centrist AND a socialist on the same page and on the same day...that's quite an achievement !
You are Sir Keir Starmer and I claim my fiver's worth of broken pledges and vacillating principles to suit all eventualities.
Labour did along with properly progressive taxes for a short time.
And today they'd be called loony sixth form lefties by all the supposedly 'left of centre' centrists. Binners would be on here with a zillion monty python and citizen smith pictures.
Some big changes being considered by Labour on council funding and stamp duty
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/aug/18/rachel-reeves-stamp-duty-property-tax-council-tax
Binners would be on here with a zillion monty python and citizen smith pictures.
No he won't ! He has a whole range of very strong political opinions covering politicians such as Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Donald Trump, Kemi Badenoch, Robert Jenrick, Liz Truss, and very strong opinions on 14 years of Tory governments, but absolutely no opinions at all on the current UK Prime Minister and the current UK government.
Don't expect him to make an appearance on this thread ....... Sir Keir Starmer is simply too much of an embarrassment for him !.😂
centrist AND a socialist
Absolutely. I consider the French socialist party to be center left. That's how I voted in the first round of the last election. Then in the presidential Macron because well, it was either that or Le Pen. It the UK I voted Green, again a lot of fairly socialist policy and centrist.
"Shooting the breeze" I meant to mean rambling about things he has no say in or control over and that have little impact on the British voting population. When did he last make the news on things that are important to you, that will directly impact you and that if elected he would have any control over? I can chat idly about Putin, Palestine or billionaires too and do so on this very forum where we're all just shooting the breeze in my understanding of the expression.
centrist AND a socialist
Absolutely. I consider the French socialist party to be center left.
"centre left" is not the definition of centrist, it is the definition of being to the left of the centre.
It is interesting how just like Starmer has in the past you use centrist and socialist as completely interchangeable terms to mean whatever point you are trying to make.
They are no more interchangeable than terms centrist and conservative are.
Btw despite the fact that it is pronounced "center" we spell it "centre" in the UK. It's a quirky thing that we share with the French, although they do actually pronounce the "R"
Some big changes being considered by Labour on council funding and stamp duty
I am a bit concerned about the "owner occupier" rather than just owner in that description of what they are looking at, landlords both large and small are a large part of the problem and should not be excluded from such taxation.
It also risks that wealthy areas with more expensive property's get the highest tax take, while poorer areas that need greater income to provide services get less.
It really just smells like another sham policy that pretends to make changes without providing any real benefit to where it is needed.
When did he last make the news on things that are important to you, that will directly impact you and that if elected he would have any control over?
It beggars belief that you can ask such a question with a straight face. Rather than write an essay, I just suggest you Google e.g. "Jeremy Corbyn poverty" and follow where that takes you. Just because your favourite organ only covers what he says about Gaza, that doesn't mean that's all he says.
we spell it "centre" in the UK
And there's me concientiously turning around r and e, dropping th e before ment in gouvernement etc. spelling adresse the English way and still I get it wrong. 🙁 😉
We have three types of property tax in France:
1: Taxe d'habitation which is tax to pay for local services. It's paid by the occupant but not on your main residence so it's effectively a tax on second homes. It can be (and is) increased in some towns to dissuade Airb&b type buyers
2/ Taxe foncière. The owner of the property pays it, again it funds local services.
3/Impôt sur la fortune immobilières which is a progressive taxe on the total value of you property over 1 300 000e paid to the state
The last is a proper welth tax and something of a French exception.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1956989437998420209
How about some policies you low-ballers?
What an absolute waste of governance, ideas and time this party are.
Also if true:
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1956838494619234351
Delusional.
FIX THE BLOODY COUNTRY!
It can't be said enough - you own the BoE - you can buy whatever is for sale.
Jeremy Corbyn poverty
That's unlikely to get any relevant results, he's stinking rich, always has been, always will be.
For as long as I can remember he's been the hypocritically unelectable face of the party for people that aren't born in manor houses with a silver spoon in their gobs. He should have followed his convictions in the late 60s, buggered off to the URSS and stayed their till the wall came down and then moved to China, Cuba or somewhere else in line with his views. 🙂
Being rich or wealthy doesn't mean you can't do good things for other people (especially if you happened to have house that inflated through no fault of your own.) This logic is not a win in any way shape or form.
I'd focus on the absolute mess that Starmer has actually bought to this country. Centrism is utterly ****ing what might have been.
For as long as I can remember he's been the hypocritically unelectable face of the party for people that aren't born in manor houses with a silver spoon in their gobs. He should have followed his convictions in the late 60s, buggered off to the URSS and stayed their till the wall came down and then moved to China, Cuba or somewhere else in line with his views.
Well the Daily Mail style rants castigating Jeremy Corbyn have been missing from this thread for a while so it's good to see you step up and grab the challenge Ed.
I will give you a generous 8/10 but that's mostly for effort. Plenty of good references about communism but to up your game you really need to throw in a few references to Corbyn being a terrorist sympathiser, and perhaps also weave in some comments about allotments just for the ridicule value 💡
True, Rone, some rich people do good things. I don't include Corbyn among them. If I were a Conservative voter my opinion would no doubt be different given the damage he's done to the Labour party and its electoral chances over the years.
Like Scargill his personal ideology gets in the way of acting in the interests he is there to serve.
Read through this and tell me he has the interests of the British population at heart:
https://www.markpack.org.uk/153744/jeremy-corbyn-brexit/
Read through this and tell me he has the interests of the British population at heart:
Wow, a LibDem politician who supported austerity and propping up a Tory prime minister for five years, thereby making the LibDems unelectable for years if not decades, has a negative view of Jeremy Corbyn, so it must be true!
You can't expect a Party to not address the opposition while in government. That anti-Farage post is a Labour Party message, not an official government one (which is good to say, after "we" paid for so much political campaigning under the guise of "preparing for Brexit" for 4 years... that was a cunning stunt). Where Farage has actually committed to a policy... you can be sure the Labour (and other parties) will try and hold him up to public scrutiny... leaving it to the media/press isn't something they can rely on.
I won't address Rone's over simplified claims that the government can buy anything and everything without negative currency and inflation effects. It's been done to death now.
As for Corbyn... again... what's the point... he's a professional politician who's never had to do a "real job" in his life... he doesn't have to retire if he doesn't want to... it's understandable that he doesn't feel that he's finished his life's work yet.
Talking of unelectable....... Starmer is doing a good job, he's made Nigel Farage electable!
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/voting-intention-13th-14th-august-2025/
In a vain attempt to get back on topic (are we still arguing about corbyn!)
It really just smells like another sham policy that pretends to make changes without providing any real benefit to where it is needed.
Im not sure thats true, the article points out that its part of a large tranche of proposals being brought in
And council tax is a very unequal and outdated tax, it would be a huge change to how people are taxed for the services they receive at the local level
There are no easy fixes to our current economic system, inequality is entrenched and the gaps are widening, it will take more than one term to lay down some proper improvements and Im moderately hopeful to see what comes out in the budget, certainly these are questions that havent been answered in the last decade plus (remember johnsons plan for social care etc)