Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,398
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Mar 13, 2024 17:04:50 GMT
I really wish Starmer would just restore the whip. On the balance of things. I *think* his hands are tied in that she’s in the middle of an investigation that they very deliberately can’t interfere with because they tried to ensure impartiality. One of those unfortunate confluence of circumstances.
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by zephro on Mar 13, 2024 17:17:39 GMT
I really wish Starmer would just restore the whip. On the balance of things. I *think* his hands are tied in that she’s in the middle of an investigation that they very deliberately can’t interfere with because they tried to ensure impartiality. One of those unfortunate confluence of circumstances. Yeah but I suspect just how fucking stupidly long it's taking is not a thing his hands are tied about. E.g. it's probably taking so long because they kind of want it to not report back before the selection in Hackney North has to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Vandelay on Mar 13, 2024 19:59:39 GMT
I saw it from Owen Jones, so may need to be taken with a pinch of salt, but supposedly the conversation between Starmer and Abbott was overhead in the Commons after PMQs. He said "if there is anything I can do, just let me know" to which she responded "you could restore the whip". Stamer just responded "I understand, but if there is anything I can do...". When she again said restore the whip, he just said "I understand" and that was that.
I don't think he should restore the whip just like that. There is a process to go through and the investigation needs to be completed. Of course, he could see if the investigation could be hurried along a bit, although I wouldn't be surprised if Zephro is correct about the delays to the investigation.
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Mar 13, 2024 20:10:35 GMT
I saw it from Owen Jones, so may need to be taken with a pinch of salt, but supposedly the conversation between Starmer and Abbott was overhead in the Commons after PMQs. He said "if there is anything I can do, just let me know" to which she responded "you could restore the whip". Stamer just responded "I understand, but if there is anything I can do...". When she again said restore the whip, he just said "I understand" and that was that. I don't think he should restore the whip just like that. There is a process to go through and the investigation needs to be completed. Of course, he could see if the investigation could be hurried along a bit, although I wouldn't be surprised if Zephro is correct about the delays to the investigation. If it weren't for the fact that other Labour MP's have made certain remarks, apologised and had the whip restored much sooner, I could buy that. I have no love for her, I disagree with her on a lot things, but the way she has been treated is disgusting.
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by zephro on Mar 13, 2024 20:16:07 GMT
I've generally been quite low tolerance of this shit. Corbyn is my MP and he should never have the whip restored; not only did he preside over the fucking mess, he refused to apologise or admit culpability and then afterwards he's done a fully Corbyn and really gone in for the Putin only invaded because of NATO, just have peace now and stop arming Ukraine bullshit. The whole thing revealed his full colours. But also he's not actually done anything for the country ever other than lumber us with this last 5 years of Tories.
What Diane said was stupid, but she apologised right away. But also she's the first black woman MP and has gone through agonising amounts of shit like has been talked about here. So her having a difficult opinion on racism just isn't the same as a white posh boy like Corbyn lecturing people. I don't agree and she was right to apologise but I can see how it happened so much more obviously.
|
|
Rich
Junior Member
Posts: 1,962
|
Post by Rich on Mar 13, 2024 20:49:23 GMT
At the time she seemed to be actively trying to goad Starmer into withdrawing the whip. She was a constant pain in his arse. The stupid article was just the action that achieved it.
What's happened around this racist twat is awful, but in terms of her and the whip; she made her bed...
|
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,398
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Mar 13, 2024 20:56:19 GMT
It is a difficult position. She had a hard line taken against her for exactly this reason; so he can go in hard without them playing the antisemitism reverse card (and, you would hope, a genuine desire for change).
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Mar 13, 2024 22:17:44 GMT
It was a "fuck around and find out" moment. She viewed herself as unassailable as a grandee of the part from the left. Starmer wanted to show how serious he was about a specific issue.
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Mar 13, 2024 22:20:39 GMT
From today's Politico Playbook it was disappointing to hear that Labour, the party of working people, are supporting a tax regime that disadvantage them. Their attack on Hunt's (imho) entirely sensible plan to phase out NI as a tax on jobs because won't something think of the pensioners. Yeah I know they need the votes, but still...
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by zephro on Mar 13, 2024 22:27:13 GMT
It only makes sense as part of a package where you meld it into income tax, re-evaluate that. Merge in capital gains and then fix council tax.
Basically start over with a way simpler more distributive system.
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Mar 13, 2024 22:35:06 GMT
From today's Politico Playbook it was disappointing to hear that Labour, the party of working people, are supporting a tax regime that disadvantage them. Their attack on Hunt's (imho) entirely sensible plan to phase out NI as a tax on jobs because won't something think of the pensioners. Yeah I know they need the votes, but still... Biggest attack line the Tories can take is that 'Labour will increase taxes.' So it boxes them into a corner where they have to say they won't increase taxes. There's shitloads Labour could do, about equalising taxes, raising taxes from wealth, having a completely different conversation around tax, maybe doing something Keynesian on investment, but they won't because they will be slaughtered. Agreed on the tugging of the heartstrings of the plight of pensioners and the NHS though, they were never funded through NI. Though a conversation about how that shortfall is paid for does need to happen.
|
|
|
Post by peekconfusion on Mar 13, 2024 22:46:59 GMT
TBF, what politician is going to want to touch that with a bargepole?
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by zephro on Mar 13, 2024 22:49:51 GMT
I still feel like you could put something in the manifesto that working people will generally pay less to avoid the Lords blocking it. The truthfully raise more tax revenue but largely leave working people be. Fuel Duty etc excluded.
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Mar 13, 2024 22:51:24 GMT
Stating the obvious but if you commit to abolishing NI without addressing the taxation imbalance between earned and unearned income and also looking at a wealth tax, then it's for the birds.
Addressing the taxation imbalance between earned and unearned income and looking at a wealth tax, is also, at the moment, for the birds. Starmer is in full on disarmament mode, he won't do anything that gives the rags and Facebook any (or much) ammunition to try to swing it back to those other cunts right now I don't like it, I'd prefer a bolder approach, but we've already seen JCunt nick the non-dom policy for headlines, Sunak resorting to pre-Starmer scandals every week at PMQs and the attacks on his lawyering being paraded about, so I understand the caution
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by zephro on Mar 13, 2024 22:55:59 GMT
Stating the obvious but if you commit to abolishing NI without addressing the taxation imbalance between earned and unearned income and also looking at a wealth tax, then it's for the birds. Addressing the taxation imbalance between earned and unearned income and looking at a wealth tax, is also, at the moment, for the birds. Starmer is in full on disarmament mode, he won't do anything that gives the rags and Facebook any (or much) ammunition to try to swing it back to those other cunts right now I don't like it, I'd prefer a bolder approach, but we've already seen JCunt nick the non-dom policy for headlines, Sunak resorting to pre-Starmer scandals every week at PMQs and the attacks on his lawyering being paraded about, so I understand the caution Politically true. But his highest growth in the whatever plans are dead on arrival without this stuff.
|
|
geefe
Full Member
Short for Zangief
Posts: 8,323
|
Post by geefe on Mar 13, 2024 23:00:10 GMT
A lot of it is probably down to trust that he WILL put things through, once in power but he'll need every fucking MP he can get.
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Mar 13, 2024 23:02:05 GMT
Stating the obvious but if you commit to abolishing NI without addressing the taxation imbalance between earned and unearned income and also looking at a wealth tax, then it's for the birds. Addressing the taxation imbalance between earned and unearned income and looking at a wealth tax, is also, at the moment, for the birds. Starmer is in full on disarmament mode, he won't do anything that gives the rags and Facebook any (or much) ammunition to try to swing it back to those other cunts right now I don't like it, I'd prefer a bolder approach, but we've already seen JCunt nick the non-dom policy for headlines, Sunak resorting to pre-Starmer scandals every week at PMQs and the attacks on his lawyering being paraded about, so I understand the caution Politically true. But his highest growth in the whatever plans are dead on arrival without this stuff. Yep. I'm holding out a lot of hope for the actual manifesto and a swing to Labour from the rags (once they finally realise the tories are done) so that it gets some positive coverage
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Mar 13, 2024 23:03:18 GMT
I mean, Starmer can say nothing and get elected because the Tories are probably doing more comms than necessary and fucking it up.
Regarding tax regime, Right now, what's being proposed is a lowering of taxation from PAYE at the expense of public services that are not ring fenced (healthcare and education). What that means in practice is probably more council tax, to pay for the vital services people rely on.
Saying we (it's not us, honest guv) that won't raise taxes is fine. But if it means that council tax has to rise to compensate, as every other service starts to fail, then it's ignorance at best. Dishonesty and negligence at worst.
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Mar 13, 2024 23:13:24 GMT
Abolishing NI and merging in to income/dividend tax *is* effectively implementing a wealth tax. NI is a tax on jobs, and all other sources of income, including unearned passive income from wealth.
Taxing unrealised wealth would be trivial to avoid. You'd just undervalue them for HMRC. Or just stick it a trust and say it's not yours.
The wealth only really matters when you sell it or use it to earn an income.
The only aspect of a wealth tax that doesn't get captured, and should be, is when people take a loan out secured against assets instead of selling.
Abolish trusts. Increase CGT. Combine NI and other forms of income tax. Introduce a "stamp duty" on loans which are secured against personal assets.
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Mar 13, 2024 23:13:40 GMT
TBF, what politician is going to want to touch that with a bargepole? This is the point I always make. The boom is the time for austerity, not the slump. In the slump, you should borrow to invest to stimulate the economy and crowd in private investment. Why should private investors, invest, if the government isn't investing in it's own people? Equally, when the economy is booming, you should probably try to balance the budget at that point. But no politician has the guts to raise taxes when the economy is booming.
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by zephro on Mar 13, 2024 23:19:35 GMT
Council tax won't cover the NHS or education which are both collapsing despite ring fencing. So stealth council tax won't touch it.
They're going to need to reform a lot. The constitution, devolution, tax, service delivery.
There needs to be so much investment across the board. Even UK pension schemes being an international outlier for not investing in UK companies while our fucking water supply is owned by Canadian/Australian pensions is farcical.
It's not even like the exchequer needs to take in huge amounts more or borrow that much more. The system needs fundamental rebalancing though, then it'll grow of it's own accord.
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Mar 13, 2024 23:22:42 GMT
Abolishing NI and merging in to income/dividend tax *is* effectively implementing a wealth tax. NI is a tax on jobs, and all other sources of income, including unearned passive income from wealth. Taxing unrealised wealth would be trivial to avoid. You'd just undervalue them for HMRC. Or just stick it a trust and say it's not yours. The wealth only really matters when you sell it or use it to earn an income. The only aspect of a wealth tax that doesn't get captured, and should be, is when people take a loan out secured against assets instead of selling. Abolish trusts. Increase CGT. Combine NI and other forms of income tax. Introduce a "stamp duty" on loans which are secured against personal assets. The loan against assets is a great one. It's how the water companies operated. It's not about overall balance sheet, profit/loss etc... As long as you could service the loans, it was about the revenue generated, if that happened (and government ensured it did) it could pay out dividends. As for combining Income tax and NI, I would largely be in favour. But I think on income over £50k (hasn't affected me yet) that caps down to 2% There could be a balance to be struck.
|
|
zephro
Junior Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by zephro on Mar 13, 2024 23:29:10 GMT
Rees-Mogg paid himself in loans from his investment fund that were paid back with no interest somehow. That and landlords/Sunak paying fuck all due to capital gains is the macro problem. It encourages rentierism, in a Adams Smith sense.
Also in general more of the reforms to stop making it so easy to hide who owns basic things like flats/homes. You can't tax it on sanction oligarchs properly either.
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Mar 13, 2024 23:32:30 GMT
Council tax won't cover the NHS or education which are both collapsing despite ring fencing. So stealth council tax won't touch it. They're going to need to reform a lot. The constitution, devolution, tax, service delivery. There needs to be so much investment across the board. Even UK pension schemes being an international outlier for not investing in UK companies while our fucking water supply is owned by Canadian/Australian pensions is farcical. It's not even like the exchequer needs to take in huge amounts more or borrow that much more. The system needs fundamental rebalancing though, then it'll grow of it's own accord. Apologies, I worded that wrong, the NHS and the education system are the only departments that are ringfenced. Every other service is not and largely provided for by local councils so that is why council tax would go up. It doesn't need to of course, we can fund anything we actually need to do. The GFC and the pandemic proved that. Inflation has been caused by supply side shocks, not an increase in money supply.
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Mar 13, 2024 23:42:39 GMT
Taxing unrealised wealth would be trivial to avoid. You'd just undervalue them for HMRC. Or just stick it a trust and say it's not yours. Fund HMRC so they can employ cunts like me to sniff shit out, and make trusts unviable unless they're legally required such as putting your assets beyond your own reach in the public interest (which should be the case for at least every minister, but really down to councillors) Welcome to my pamphlet on governance. Please expect the little green book soon We're one of the only "legitimate"* countries in the world where trust law is still a massive thing - barring the situation where divesting yourself of your assets is necessary to prevent corruption (obviously ignoring the offshores that exist to facilitate said corruption). It's nuts *tired, can't think of a better word.
|
|
|
Post by JuniorFE on Mar 14, 2024 0:44:29 GMT
Putin : my bad about blowing up that Malaysia Airlines MH17 and all the other Ukraine business, we cool now? I think once you're that powerful, you don't even need to apologise. In fact, everyone has to apologise to you regardless of blame. "When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."?
|
|
Rich
Junior Member
Posts: 1,962
|
Post by Rich on Mar 14, 2024 6:31:28 GMT
30p Lee taking no shit. ❄️
|
|
|
Post by manfromdelmonte on Mar 14, 2024 7:14:17 GMT
Leenoch Fowl really is a genius. Scientists have been trying to get layers of carbon thin enough to make graphene and he's grown a skin even thinner.
|
|
|
Post by Whizzo on Mar 14, 2024 7:51:25 GMT
Cold War Steve must be bricking it if that cover is worthy of legal action.
30p Lee, who changed his vote on Rwanda because some Labour MPs allegedly laughed at him in the lobby after he resigned from his post because the policy was too weak for him, is now so thin skinned about a caricature he threatens legal action?
He's not the Northern hard man he thinks he is but a feeble prick.
|
|
geefe
Full Member
Short for Zangief
Posts: 8,323
|
Post by geefe on Mar 14, 2024 8:02:41 GMT
The replies he's getting are probably not the ones he hoped for
|
|