Off Topic Politics Thread

[SaintStu]

I think there are several reasons why the Labour leadership has failed to deliver a killing blow against Boris:
1. The 80 seat majority means any paper in Parliament they raise can be squashed or amended.
2. The media and public are both in the majority in believing 'at least he got Brexit done', 'it was only a party', 'Ukraine/cost of living too important to change leadership now'
3. The ministerial code is being treated as a voluntary set of rules and there is no way of policing it.
4. Keir Starmer acts as a lawyer still - i.e. he tries and act in this thought out and legal manner - this does not come across to the public as strong enough.

I think the tide has turned because BJ is losing the moral argument and his own backbench are twitching because of it - the Rwanda/Archbishop thing did not go well with them.

 

[Gregm1988]

I think there are several reasons why the Labour leadership has failed to deliver a killing blow against Boris:
1. The 80 seat majority means any paper in Parliament they raise can be squashed or amended.
2. The media and public are both in the majority in believing 'at least he got Brexit done', 'it was only a party', 'Ukraine/cost of living too important to change leadership now'
3. The ministerial code is being treated as a voluntary set of rules and there is no way of policing it.
4. Keir Starmer acts as a lawyer still - i.e. he tries and act in this thought out and legal manner - this does not come across to the public as strong enough.

I think the tide has turned because BJ is losing the moral argument and his own backbench are twitching because of it - the Rwanda/Archbishop thing did not go well with them.

The notion that people think the cost of living crisis meaning we shouldn’t change is amusing to me. Boris and Rishi seem to have very little interesting in actually doing anything about this crisis. A new leader could pick up a lot of goodwill on day 1 by actually making changes in this area. Now how they would do it whilst keeping most of the credit over the new chancellor (or at least sharing it) is down to politics really

 

[Osvaldorama]

The notion that people think the cost of living crisis meaning we shouldn’t change is amusing to me. Boris and Rishi seem to have very little interesting in actually doing anything about this crisis. A new leader could pick up a lot of goodwill on day 1 by actually making changes in this area. Now how they would do it whilst keeping most of the credit over the new chancellor (or at least sharing it) is down to politics really

No politician in any party is doing anything about the rising cost of living.

The biggest reason for the rise in the cost of living is the creation of money causing huge inflation. It is theft. Not even one politician wants to tackle this fundamental issue in our society.
Until they truly try to fix inflation caused by ridiculous monetary and fiscal policies, politics is basically just a publicity stunt. The problems have been created over many years and will take a lot of hard work and systemic change to resolve.

In actual fact most politicians actively want to make things worse by backing stupid policies and believing that money grows on trees.

 

[Gregm1988]

No politician in any party is doing anything about the rising cost of living.

The biggest reason for the rise in the cost of living is the creation of money causing huge inflation. It is theft. Not even one politician wants to tackle this fundamental issue in our society.
Until they truly try to fix inflation caused by ridiculous monetary and fiscal policies, politics is basically just a publicity stunt. The problems have been created over many years and will take a lot of hard work and systemic change to resolve.

In actual fact most politicians actively want to make things worse by backing stupid policies and believing that money grows on trees.

I wasn’t aware we recently printed more money. I will take you word for it

I’m prepared to give the party that hasn’t been in power for over a decade a pass on this though. It isn’t up to them to do anything right now. Nothing they suggest would agreed anyway

 

[Osvaldorama]

I wasn’t aware we recently printed more money. I will take you word for it

I’m prepared to give the party that hasn’t been in power for over a decade a pass on this though. It isn’t up to them to do anything right now. Nothing they suggest would agreed anyway

They give it the fancy title of “quantitative easing” so people don’t understand what they are doing. But they have printed an insane amount the last few years. And an increase in the money supply = higher prices & greater wealth disparity between those who hold assets and those who live pay cheque to pay cheque.

This is one reason why we see house prices going up in value so much. It’s actually as much the £ going down as properties going up.

I agree with you about giving a Labour pass for now. Unfortunately even if they got in to power I have zero hopes of them fixing the root cause of the issues. However I do believe that they would at least try to address wealth inequality.

 

[Archers Road]

They give it the fancy title of “quantitative easing” so people don’t understand what they are doing. But they have printed an insane amount the last few years. And an increase in the money supply = higher prices & greater wealth disparity between those who hold assets and those who live pay cheque to pay cheque.

This is one reason why we see house prices going up in value so much. It’s actually as much the £ going down as properties going up.

I agree with you about giving a Labour pass for now. Unfortunately even if they got in to power I have zero hopes of them fixing the root cause of the issues. However I do believe that they would at least try to address wealth inequality.

Quantative easing actually saw the world's economies through the banking crash of 2008 and the long period of stagnation afterwards. The consensus among economists worldwide (forget politicians for the moment) was that this was the right thing to do. Steering advanced economies through Covid only exacerbated a difficult situation; there was always going to come a day of reckoning, and now it's here; the bill has come due, and the question for politicians to resolve is, Who pays? All the indications from the UK's rotten government so far, are that the greatest burden will fall, as ever when the Tories are in power, on the poor. That absolutely includes that growing body of people, the working poor.

 

[Osvaldorama]

Quantative easing actually saw the world's economies through the banking crash of 2008 and the long period of stagnation afterwards. The consensus among economists worldwide (forget politicians for the moment) was that this was the right thing to do. Steering advanced economies through Covid only exacerbated a difficult situation; there was always going to come a day of reckoning, and now it's here; the bill has come due, and the question for politicians to resolve is, Who pays? All the indications from the UK's rotten government so far, are that the greatest burden will fall, as ever when the Tories are in power, on the poor. That absolutely includes that growing body of people, the working poor.

"The consensus among economists" isnt strictly true. It was only the consensus amongst the economists that they wanted you to hear.

There were (and still are) many, many economists who thought it was the death of the capitalist financial system.

 

[SR get out of my club]

Quantative easing actually saw the world's economies through the banking crash of 2008 and the long period of stagnation afterwards. The consensus among economists worldwide (forget politicians for the moment) was that this was the right thing to do. Steering advanced economies through Covid only exacerbated a difficult situation; there was always going to come a day of reckoning, and now it's here; the bill has come due, and the question for politicians to resolve is, Who pays? All the indications from the UK's rotten government so far, are that the greatest burden will fall, as ever when the Tories are in power, on the poor. That absolutely includes that growing body of people, the working poor.

See not doubting you hear, and interested to understand how it is the poor where the greatest burden falls.

So, what is it you class as poor? Asking for a friend, who is doing ok, but they tell me with the new tax cuts etc, they are pretty affected by the cost of living rises and are at least a few hundreds £ down each month.

So, are you saying that as a % of available income etc, just not clear on the metrics, as i dont just see this affecting the poor.

 

[Archers Road]

See not doubting you hear, and interested to understand how it is the poor where the greatest burden falls.

So, what is it you class as poor? Asking for a friend, who is doing ok, but they tell me with the new tax cuts etc, they are pretty affected by the cost of living rises and are at least a few hundreds £ down each month.

So, are you saying that as a % of available income etc, just not clear on the metrics, as i dont just see this affecting the poor.

1) The increase in NI contributions has the greatest net impact on low to middle earners. A decision could easily have been made to keep the basic rate the same, but raise or abolish the upper earnings threshold, ensuring the increase was directly proportional to income.
2) There is a body of evidence showing lower earners are the least likely group of workers to be offered a pay rise this year
3) The government's own public sector pay freeze impacts disproportionately on low to middle earners.
4) The removal of the price cap affecting energy companies impacts more significantly on lower earners, as the greater proportion of an individual or a family's income is taken up by fuel bills, the greater the impact on their finances
5) The abolition of the £20 Universal Credit supplement will directly impact those on low income.
6) The exponential increase in the use of foodbanks, particularly by working people, is clear evidence of the struggles already faced by low income families.

 

[SR get out of my club]

1) The increase in NI contributions has the greatest net impact on low to middle earners. A decision could easily have been made to keep the basic rate the same, but raise or abolish the upper earnings threshold, ensuring the increase was directly proportional to income.
2) There is a body of evidence showing lower earners are the least likely group of workers to be offered a pay rise this year
3) The government's own public sector pay freeze impacts disproportionately on low to middle earners.
4) The removal of the price cap affecting energy companies impacts more significantly on lower earners, as the greater proportion of an individual or a family's income is taken up by fuel bills, the greater the impact on their finances
5) The abolition of the £20 Universal Credit supplement will directly impact those on low income.
6) The exponential increase in the use of foodbanks, particularly by working people, is clear evidence of the struggles already faced by low income families.

Thanks for replying Archers. btw - I’m honestly not looking for confrontation or argument over this, just interested in how it affects people so I can understand more

So this is more about %s from what i can tell, but happy to be proven wrong on that.

It’s interesting in so much as no one, no matter where one falls on the scale, wants to pay anymore than they already are.

Im not sure that all points are valid in their entirety, take 4 - people earning more are likely to also be affected also badly as they have properties that by and large are bigger, and cost more to run - they by nature will use more energy.

2 i think is fair, and I haven’t ever worked in public sector so hard for me to say either way, but yes can understand that. Saying that, I work in private sector and haven’t had a rise in years, and work far greater than my contracted hours state. Dont get overtime which I imagine public sector workers are more likely to get.

No.5 i get - people on low incomes do genuinely seem to need the £20 UC and i can understand the anguish that will cause to many.

No. 6 I’m not sure about, but id argue many new members to food banks still enjoy Sky subscriptions etc, i wonder how many of them prioritise correctly. Im sure that will go down with the unionists on here but there you go!

We’ve really changed our buying habits lately due to all this lately, i guess my point is it affects everyone and no one is happy, but if i came on here with 1st world problems no one gives a ****, but they do when it affects others in this way.

That said, when there are binary choices of heating or eating, and there will be many examples of this, it pales into insignificance.

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

Thanks for replying Archers. btw - I’m honestly not looking for confrontation or argument over this, just interested in how it affects people so I can understand more

So this is more about %s from what i can tell, but happy to be proven wrong on that.

It’s interesting in so much as no one, no matter where one falls on the scale, wants to pay anymore than they already are.

Im not sure that all points are valid in their entirety, take 4 - people earning more are likely to also be affected also badly as they have properties that by and large are bigger, and cost more to run - they by nature will use more energy.

2 i think is fair, and I haven’t ever worked in public sector so hard for me to say either way, but yes can understand that. Saying that, I work in private sector and haven’t had a rise in years, and work far greater than my contracted hours state. Dont get overtime which I imagine public sector workers are more likely to get.

No.5 i get - people on low incomes do genuinely seem to need the £20 UC and i can understand the anguish that will cause to many.

No. 6 I’m not sure about, but id argue many new members to food banks still enjoy Sky subscriptions etc, i wonder how many of them prioritise correctly. Im sure that will go down with the unionists on here but there you go!

We’ve really changed our buying habits lately due to all this lately, i guess my point is it affects everyone and no one is happy, but if i came on here with 1st world problems no one gives a ****, but they do when it affects others in this way.

That said, when there are binary choices of heating or eating, and there will be many examples of this, it pales into insignificance.

I agree with all of what you are saying.

Whatever part of the financial income scale you are on, you do not want to pay more.

The way I see it is that the left make you feel bad and like it is a crime for earning well and the right look down on those that don't. Very binary view maybe but that is why there is so much conflict. Unfortunately, the current Tories epitomise the view that if you aren't earning you aren't worthy and the Labour party are (wrongly) seen as the party of high tax and high spending. There will never be a solution to it.

I earn fairly well and am 'happy' to pay more as it means cutbacks on luxuries not necessities. I really don't know what I would do if it was the other way round.

I cannot believe that in 2022 we still have homeless people on the streets and working families starving though. It happens whatever government is in, so I do wonder what the solution is.

 

[SR get out of my club]

I agree with all of what you are saying.

Whatever part of the financial income scale you are on, you do not want to pay more.

The way I see it is that the left make you feel bad and like it is a crime for earning well and the right look down on those that don't. Very binary view maybe but that is why there is so much conflict. Unfortunately, the current Tories epitomise the view that if you aren't earning you aren't worthy and the Labour party are (wrongly) seen as the party of high tax and high spending. There will never be a solution to it.

I earn fairly well and am 'happy' to pay more as it means cutbacks on luxuries not necessities. I really don't know what I would do if it was the other way round.

I cannot believe that in 2022 we still have homeless people on the streets and working families starving though. It happens whatever government is in, so I do wonder what the solution is.

I came back on here to delete my post, thought i may be open to a torrent of abuse - thanks for replying and Archer for the ‘Like’.

 

[StJabbo1]

Percentages and how they relate to income and expenditure are the killer. A 5% across the board pay rise increases income inequality a 5% increase in the cost of living means the the choice of heating and eating not forgetting clothing and general quality of life.

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

Percentages and how they relate to income and expenditure are the killer. A 5% across the board pay rise increases income inequality a 5% increase in the cost of living means the the choice of heating and eating not forgetting clothing and general quality of life.

Exactly. I'll never forget about 20 years ago when I joined a job at lower than normal pay (as It was a great opportunity for experience and to get where I wanted to be) and a year later my boss excitedly said you are getting a 10% pay rise, to which I replied, "It's nice, but 10% of **** all is still **** all"

 

[St. Luigi Scrosoppi]

A short video to help you to understand Spaffer Johnson's behave.

What happens when the Narcissist Loses control over you? - YouTube

 

[Osvaldorama]

I agree with all of what you are saying.

Whatever part of the financial income scale you are on, you do not want to pay more.

The way I see it is that the left make you feel bad and like it is a crime for earning well and the right look down on those that don't. Very binary view maybe but that is why there is so much conflict. Unfortunately, the current Tories epitomise the view that if you aren't earning you aren't worthy and the Labour party are (wrongly) seen as the party of high tax and high spending. There will never be a solution to it.

I earn fairly well and am 'happy' to pay more as it means cutbacks on luxuries not necessities. I really don't know what I would do if it was the other way round.

I cannot believe that in 2022 we still have homeless people on the streets and working families starving though. It happens whatever government is in, so I do wonder what the solution is.

There is something in economics known as ‘Maslow’s hierarchy of needs’. It basically evaluates what people actually need in order to feel happy/safe. Essentially food, shelter etc is at the base and luxuries are at the top.

Inflation disproportionately impacts those that are closer to the bottom of the Maslow pyramid in the current system.

For me there is a very simple solution which would drastically help. A complete overhaul of the financial system from fiat currencies which are being debased, to currencies which are backed by something tangible.

Money printing debases the currency, which forces prices up, which hurts the vulnerable, and the cycle continues.

When you combine this debasement problem with a government that is determined to tax the **** out of the middle & working classes whilst simultaneously cutting aid & benefits you have a recipe for a disaster

 

[San Tejón]

I agree with all of what you are saying.

Whatever part of the financial income scale you are on, you do not want to pay more.

The way I see it is that the left make you feel bad and like it is a crime for earning well and the right look down on those that don't. Very binary view maybe but that is why there is so much conflict. Unfortunately, the current Tories epitomise the view that if you aren't earning you aren't worthy and the Labour party are (wrongly) seen as the party of high tax and high spending. There will never be a solution to it.

I earn fairly well and am 'happy' to pay more as it means cutbacks on luxuries not necessities. I really don't know what I would do if it was the other way round.

I cannot believe that in 2022 we still have homeless people on the streets and working families starving though. It happens whatever government is in, so I do wonder what the solution is.

I can’t agree with this sentence, from your comment. “The way I see it is that the left make you feel bad and like it is a crime for earning well”
I don’t think the lower earners think it is a crime for earning well. They think it is a crime to earn well and then use their earnings to pay for an accountant who then helps them to pay less than they could pay in taxes.
Not saying that they are doing anything illegal, but when the system allows for businesses to reduce their tax burden by claiming tax relief on anything and everything, there is something wrong.
I have a brother-in-law who claims tax relief on purchasing the Daily Mail, because it might at some point have something relevant to his business.
He also uses receipts from family meals etc and puts them through as “business dinners” and so on.
I think it’s this unscrupulous behaviour, of this kind, that the left, and the lower earners, resent.
The entire system is lopsided.

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

I can’t agree with this sentence, from your comment. “The way I see it is that the left make you feel bad and like it is a crime for earning well”
I don’t think the lower earners think it is a crime for earning well. They think it is a crime to earn well and then use their earnings to pay for an accountant who then helps them to pay less than they could pay in taxes.
Not saying that they are doing anything illegal, but when the system allows for businesses to reduce their tax burden by claiming tax relief on anything and everything, there is something wrong.
I have a brother-in-law who claims tax relief on purchasing the Daily Mail, because it might at some point have something relevant to his business.
He also uses receipts from family meals etc and puts them through as “business dinners” and so on.
I think it’s this unscrupulous behaviour, of this kind, that the left, and the lower earners, resent.
The entire system is lopsided.

Until recently I was being paid in $$$ by a US company. This meant that I converted the money, paid it into a Limited company, had an accountant that did payroll and paid me PAYE up to the lower tax threshold (so I didn't pay tax) and then paid dividends every month on the profit. I only paid 7.5% tax at the end of the year on those and 20% on the limited company profit. Was this wrong? I could have paid the full amount in PAYE and then my limited company (employees 1) would have a NI burden, tax burden and I would be paying a proportion at 40%. I would have taken substantially less home than I did.

The Limited company also made less profit (so less corporation tax paid) as I could claim legitimate business expenses such as the MacBook I am typing on and my broadband connection that I already had.

None of this was illegal. IMO none of it was morally wrong.

As an aside when the company I worked for got bought out by a large US corporation they have now put me on a UK contact with this company on PAYE. Yes I now get all the benefits of working for a corporate like holiday and sick pay and health benefits, but although they gave me a 35% increase on my salary against my previous payments, I am only £100 a month better off (albeit without the stupid currency fluctuations), due to the tax I now pay.

Do I feel I did anything morally wrong before? No. There are tax rules for a reason and I did nothing wrong. I didn't even bend the rules.

Claiming for the Daily Mail is pushing it though and should be a crime in itself.

EDIT: If anyone should feel aggrieved it it the US people as that money was paid out of the US (as a business expense to my old company) so reduced their tax burden and into the UK where I spent it in the UK and gave our government some tax.

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

My edit also brings another thing into the equation. If a middle to high earner reduces his/her tax burden legitimately, then they have even more money to spend in the economy. Trust me they do too. More coffees, more luxury items etc. All these things in turn help out the UK.

I am not talking about the Amazons and Starbucks that IMO morally do not pay nearly enough tax, but the normal working businessman who will spend more if they have it. The more you earn the more you spend. Very few people earn it to look at it in a bank statement. People shouldn't be shamed into paying more tax "because they can afford it" or where is the incentive to earn more and better your life and your family's?

EDIT: I know I will probably get slated for the above on here as it does go against the left leaning principles of this board. I am not a raving Tory though (honest), and just believe that fair pay and taxes for all. IMO it is fair that higher earners pay more ££ in tax than lower earners, but the same % of their income and same % fall in their standard of living will never happen. Nor should it as it takes away any incentive to earn more.

 

[Bob's mate]

So it`s all in the press, so it must be correct and unbiased, right ?

You have sources you can point me to? In the mean time, avert your eyes because the bloody BBC are reporting on the Cal Mac scandal.

Scotland's auditor general has called for a fuller review of the building of two new controversial ferries on the Clyde. Stephen Boyle told a Holyrood committee that it would be too "glib" to say that lessons could be learned over failings which emerged over their construction.

Mr Boyle also expressed frustration at a lack of [Scottish] government documentation surrounding the contracts. Last month an Audit Scotland investigation found that the contract for the CalMac ferries was approved by ministers without normal financial safeguards and that there was “insufficient documentary evidence” to explain why the contract was awarded to Ferguson.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-61150027


Rather fortunately, the Scottish Government seems to have lost all the paperwork.

You must log in or register to see media