fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It does because the 'borrowing' is just a pretty safe and steady private sector investment in things like pensions, a good thing.
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (238 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
It does because the 'borrowing' is just a pretty safe and steady private sector investment in things like pensions, a good thing.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I’m not trying to be pedantic here but where exactly are these policies?
The point I am making here is that if they are there they aren’t obvious and they aren’t clear. I suppose you could argue the one off rebate by a windfall tax on energy companies is one, but even you must admit that it’s actually a really inadequate response.
Arguing you are more ‘fiscally responsible’ might be fine for those not needing to worry but it’s not doing the business for those that are in dire straits.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Gove has been on the wallop again
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
I reckon its the start of a secret tory cabinet bet..... try & get a Harry Enfield catchphrase into every TV interview....
So watch this space...for "loadsa money", "only me", "suits you sir" etc.
The outright winner would be if Sunak goes with "I'm considerably richer than yow" or "running the economy is very much like making love to a beautiful woman"...
So watch this space...for "loadsa money", "only me", "suits you sir" etc.
The outright winner would be if Sunak goes with "I'm considerably richer than yow" or "running the economy is very much like making love to a beautiful woman"...
This week I 'ave been mostly eating... Foie Gras
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
What a patronising c**t.
Oh we're back to the DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON? stage of the cycle. Shameless pricks.
Amazing how Starmer shut the whole thing down with one very simple and obvious move and they have no retort whatsoever.
"Johnson ducks question on Starmer's offer to resign if fined over lockdown breaches, saying he wants to 'move beyond' that
At his press conference Boris Johnson was asked, for the first time in public, about Keir Starmer’s decision to say he will resign if fined by the police for breaking lockdown rules. Asked if that was the right thing to do, and if he was acting dishonourably by not resigning himself, Johnson just claimed he had move on from that. He replied:
We’ve moved, we’re trying to move beyond all that, we’re trying to focus on the issues that really, not least the war in Ukraine."
Amazing how Starmer shut the whole thing down with one very simple and obvious move and they have no retort whatsoever.
"Johnson ducks question on Starmer's offer to resign if fined over lockdown breaches, saying he wants to 'move beyond' that
At his press conference Boris Johnson was asked, for the first time in public, about Keir Starmer’s decision to say he will resign if fined by the police for breaking lockdown rules. Asked if that was the right thing to do, and if he was acting dishonourably by not resigning himself, Johnson just claimed he had move on from that. He replied:
We’ve moved, we’re trying to move beyond all that, we’re trying to focus on the issues that really, not least the war in Ukraine."
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The arguments for dumping the NI protocol seems to be an ideological minority want it. It’s certainly isn’t economic reasoning
www.politico.eu
Maybe the UK as a whole should adopt the NI protocol as a tool for growing the economy to help with the cost of living.
Northern Irish economy outperforming UK thanks to Brexit protocol: Experts
National Institute of Economic and Social Research says freedom to trade barrier-free with EU has ‘benefitted Northern Ireland post-Brexit.’
www.politico.eu
Maybe the UK as a whole should adopt the NI protocol as a tool for growing the economy to help with the cost of living.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
he could head hunt Rachel reeves and no one would know the difference
Northants Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Cummings casually dropping bombs on PM this afternoon. If he has evidence or swears to this...
Last edited:
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
There is no difference from any MP from any Party.
They all only have two concerns. The rest is just window dressing.
1.) How to get power.
2.) How to keep power.
When someone gets too powerful that threatens your reign, then it's time to unleash the dogs.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If Mo Mowlam was still with us she’d probably agree with that 100%. Although she was a resounding success in her brief, I kind of think Sunak deserves fucking off.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
It's from the first early modern political theory book, and it is unfortunately probably the last political theory book that most MPs from all sides have read.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yes there is no difference between Keynesian and Thatcherite economics. Iamverysmart
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Ha ha ha ha. Classic
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Spies of course being well known for their openness, sure they will all willingly sign up to this.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
I wonder what that bill says about SoS for International Development running back channel talks with Foreign Governments?
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
You've got to begrudgingly admire the brass neck of these people.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
They’re in such a mess over this and it’s all of their own making
AOM
Well-Known Member
The new James Bond script sounds rubbish
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Let Them Be Ambushed With Cake
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
While I agree about having to govern for the world we actually live in rather than the one we want to, there has to be a plan for change otherwise what's the point? If you just go with the way things are rather than should be we'd still have serfdoms and slavery. There has to be a plan to move onto.
And this is the problem. Massive change too quickly and society will struggle to cope with it all (especially as those with power and influence deliberatly try to prevent it's success), so incremental change is needed. But often incremental change doesn't go as fast as people want so they become dissillusioned and go back to the status quo. You can't win.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Slight tangent here, but why don't we make corporation tax and income tax equivalent? Both exist legally, but only one is for living, sentient beings and the others is for the benefit of a select few of those beings, allowing them to have all the benefits of risk taking while removing much of the consequences (which instead will be felt more sharply by those with less as they bear the brunt with job losses and service cuts.
Yet the non-living entity has much more favourable taxation. It has higher allowances and tax bands. it only pays tax on it's income after expenses rather than it's gross income. If it makes losses it can carry these forward or back against future/past profits. People do not get these same benefits despite the fact that actually exist beyond a piece of paper and have feelings.
So let's make it that both people and companies pay tax at the same rate. Rather than having 20%+ tax, if both were taxed on gross income you could probably get that down to 5% basic as the increased take from companies would allow an offset against individual tax, and those people actually exist in more than just a legal sense.
Yet the non-living entity has much more favourable taxation. It has higher allowances and tax bands. it only pays tax on it's income after expenses rather than it's gross income. If it makes losses it can carry these forward or back against future/past profits. People do not get these same benefits despite the fact that actually exist beyond a piece of paper and have feelings.
So let's make it that both people and companies pay tax at the same rate. Rather than having 20%+ tax, if both were taxed on gross income you could probably get that down to 5% basic as the increased take from companies would allow an offset against individual tax, and those people actually exist in more than just a legal sense.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Massive change doesn’t happen in Parliament. It happens in the public. Parliament is always a step behind. Look at gay marriage, long hard campaign to change peoples minds at which point laws had to be changed.
Lot harder to do that with economics though. So you generally have to get elected on some broad strokes then make incremental steps. Thatcher is probably the best mode for large scale economic change, but it’s a lot easier to rip things down than build them up.