Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Barely a third think they’ll get timely treatment from the NHS – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,354
    edited August 2022
    Phil said:

    Liz Truss considers ‘nuclear’ option of five per cent VAT cut
    Largest ever reduction could save families £1,300 a year in £38bn boost to economy

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/liz-truss-considers-nuclear-option-five-per-cent-vat-cut/ (£££)

    “Nuclear Option”.

    Jesus wept. Energy prices have tripled (& then doubled again for commercial customers) & Truss thinks a 5% discount is going to fix everything?
    The article is more expansive than the headline including consideration on increasing personal allowances, reducing the rate of tax and targeted relief to millions

    This is the danger that Truss has avoided so far of putting out a headline which is instantly attacked

    Apparently the vat reduction is supported by Gordon Brown and it has an annual cost of 38 billion
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,348

    Maybe Scottish nationalists should be open to doing a deal with the Tories. Because at the moment Starmer seems to have called their bluff.
    P.s. I think Salmond would take the risk of doing a deal with the Tories. Nicole won't.

    Do that and Labour would see a surge in Scotland as well as England not that the Tories would touch it
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,505
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    @hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.

    As most of those I argue with are secular social liberals on here whether you are here included in them or not. Whereas I am a religious social conservative, certainly in UK terms. There is if course always time to repent and see the light
    I myself am a devout Christian and a devotee of Our Lord's principal interests of wine, psilocybin mushrooms and buggery.

    I also understand what he meant when he said Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε· Seems to be beyond you.
    I had no idea he even liked moussaka.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,866

    Maybe Scottish nationalists should be open to doing a deal with the Tories. Because at the moment Starmer seems to have called their bluff.

    Lol.

    Yep, the last X years has been a relentless susurration of SNP appeals for a coalition with Labour.
    In wee Labour noggins anyway.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    The crown prince will have his name printed on the next issue of Voice, the black newspaper, as its "guest editor". His publicists describe him as "proud" to be asked.

    Perhaps Lester Holloway, the actual editor, will be up for a knighthood?

    Meanwhile, some believe that the crown prince's son Harry will reveal the name of the member of the royal family who made racist remarks about his own son, who has a black grandmother.

    I wonder who that might be.

    Sceptics might also wish to look at the circulation of the idea that the crown prince was strongly opposed to Boris Johnson's "send the boat people to Rwanda" plan.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    Phil said:

    Liz Truss considers ‘nuclear’ option of five per cent VAT cut
    Largest ever reduction could save families £1,300 a year in £38bn boost to economy

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/liz-truss-considers-nuclear-option-five-per-cent-vat-cut/ (£££)

    “Nuclear Option”.

    Jesus wept. Energy prices have tripled (& then doubled again for commercial customers) & Truss thinks a 5% discount is going to fix everything?
    The article is more expansive than the headline including consideration on increasing personal allowances, reducing the rate of tax and targeted relief to millions

    This is the danger that Truss has avoided so far of putting out a headline which is instantly attacked

    Apparently the vat reduction is supported by Gordon Brown and it has an annual cost of 38 billion
    "Ms Truss insists no decisions on financial support will be taken until after the end of the Conservative leadership contest, she is understood to have discussed a VAT cut with her top advisers, thought to include Jacob Rees-Mogg , and has not ruled one out."


    Be afraid my friends. One of her key economic advisors now seems to be Mogg.

    God save us all.

  • Indyref2 looks dead. No prospective UK government wants to do it.
  • What is a 5% cut going to do? Brown tried that in 2008 and it achieved sod all. Out of ideas
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    @hyufd. So no postings by me tonight, nor the other night so you can't blame me, like you normally do, for the mess you get into nearly every night with the hate filled bigoted irrational crap you post. Why do you bother arguing with all of us if you think we are all doomed to hell.

    As most of those I argue with are secular social liberals on here whether you are here included in them or not. Whereas I am a religious social conservative, certainly in UK terms. There is if course always time to repent and see the light
    Yes but the other night you claimed it was all me focusing on you in some wierd way. Clearly that can't be true can it after the last few nights.

    You also claim it is us liberals and the lack of true Tories on here but in recent times both SeanF and MarqueeMark have made it abundantly clear what they think of your posts in no uncertain terms

    Does it ever cross your tiny mind there is something seriously wrong with you, because believe me there really is?

    For instance many people often post sad or happy personal stories here. They always get a huge reaction from other posters. I have never once seen you comment on or like one of these. Why not?
    First you are the only person on here who rehashed old thread arguments tediously onto new threads with me, hopefully you have stopped that.

    Neither SeanF or Marquee Mark like Boris unlike me and as polls show still most Tory voters and members who would have him back as leader and MM has also made clear his loathing of Truss the likely next Tory leader. So neither really represent today's Conservative Party even if I too have some reservations about Truss.

    Thirdly, I have on occasion commented on personal posts or liked them but at the end of the day this is PB not Facebook or Instagram. I come here for politics not peoples' personal or social lives
    You never rehash. Oh the irony. If you reply to me at the end of a thread I will reply in the next thread. I also, unlike you, do not spend my entire life here, because unlike you, I actually have a life, so naturally I may reply many hours later. Sorry for being human. Does your employer know you spend all this time here?

    SeanF and MM comments about you had nothing to do with Boris but about your general obnoxious postings.

    Never seen a single reaction to a personal post by you. Go on identify one. And just because it is a politics site does not mean you don't show empathy to fellow posters. Do you do the same to your work colleagues after all that is work not social? I think you have demonstrated you have real problems. Really big ones.
    I don't post during work meetings and I mainly work at home now anyway so work the hours I need in the day to get the jobs I need to do done. However I still unlike you avoid rehashing threads over and over again which is evidence yet again of your vendetta against me.

    SeanF and MM are both relative social liberals to me but neither have the personal vendetta and obsession with me you do. It isn't about issues with you, it is about me personally because half your posts on here are obsessed with me. Clearly it gives you something to do in your final years.

    At work I talk primarily about work, including to those I manage not surprisingly beyond the basic niceties about weekends etc or any personal problems raised as that is what we are employed for. Justvas this is primarily a politics site
    Paranoid. Most of my posts have nothing to do with you.

    You rehash all the time. The same arguments over and over and over again.

    So if it is just me who the hell were you arguing with the last few nights?

    Re my final years. As commented before I clearly live a far more active andd fulfilling life than you have ever done or are likely to do even though I am nearly 30 years older than you. Hence I'm not here all the time, which is rather proved by the number of posts. I have been here since the beginning and you haven't. In its latest incarnation I have made about 7,000 posts you have made 100,000, yet being retired I should have more time. So who is wasting their time here? It rather looks like you.

    Final years, what a laugh.

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    Labour competing with the Conservatives to see who can be the most anti-Scottish. Might play well in England, but not in Scotland.

    As John Curtice says, if they really want to save the Union they must start converting hearts and minds. Arguing about process is simply digging a deeper hole.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Phil said:

    Liz Truss considers ‘nuclear’ option of five per cent VAT cut
    Largest ever reduction could save families £1,300 a year in £38bn boost to economy

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/liz-truss-considers-nuclear-option-five-per-cent-vat-cut/ (£££)

    “Nuclear Option”.

    Jesus wept. Energy prices have tripled (& then doubled again for commercial customers) & Truss thinks a 5% discount is going to fix everything?
    Good luck Tories.


    Even if, and it's a massive if, a VAT cut could deliver the same £ pound equivalent that energy nightmare is about to tear from bank accounts, voters wont notice at first.

    Labour about to go massive on poll lead.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651

    Liz Truss considers ‘nuclear’ option of five per cent VAT cut
    Largest ever reduction could save families £1,300 a year in £38bn boost to economy

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/liz-truss-considers-nuclear-option-five-per-cent-vat-cut/ (£££)

    A reduction of 5% from 20% would take it to 19%. Perhaps they mean a reduction of 5 percentage points (pp)?
  • Maybe Scottish nationalists should be open to doing a deal with the Tories. Because at the moment Starmer seems to have called their bluff.

    Lol.

    Yep, the last X years has been a relentless susurration of SNP appeals for a coalition with Labour.
    In wee Labour noggins anyway.
    Good luck trying to get indyref2.
  • Labour competing with the Conservatives to see who can be the most anti-Scottish. Might play well in England, but not in Scotland.

    As John Curtice says, if they really want to save the Union they must start converting hearts and minds. Arguing about process is simply digging a deeper hole.

    "Vote SNP, get Truss!"

    OR

    "Vote SNP, get Starmer!"
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,866
    edited August 2022
    We must talk ourselves out of hypothermia, penury and inadequate diet! Believe harder!


  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    Dynamo said:

    Liz Truss considers ‘nuclear’ option of five per cent VAT cut
    Largest ever reduction could save families £1,300 a year in £38bn boost to economy

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/liz-truss-considers-nuclear-option-five-per-cent-vat-cut/ (£££)

    A reduction of 5% from 20% would take it to 19%. Perhaps they mean a reduction of 5 percentage points (pp)?
    In common parlance a 5% reduction means a 5 percentage point reduction.
  • Labour competing with the Conservatives to see who can be the most anti-Scottish. Might play well in England, but not in Scotland.

    As John Curtice says, if they really want to save the Union they must start converting hearts and minds. Arguing about process is simply digging a deeper hole.

    If you want to win elections literally do the opposite of whatever Stuart suggests. He is dreading a Labour victory as it will kill independence
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    Maybe Scottish nationalists should be open to doing a deal with the Tories. Because at the moment Starmer seems to have called their bluff.

    Lol.

    Yep, the last X years has been a relentless susurration of SNP appeals for a coalition with Labour.
    In wee Labour noggins anyway.
    Good luck trying to get indyref2.
    Democracy did not stop in Scotland in September 2014.

    If the Labour Party declares war on Scottish voters, there is only going to be one winner.

  • MangoMango Posts: 1,005
    MaxPB said:

    pigeon said:

    https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1563572047048912897

    Efficiency minister Jacob Rees-Mogg spent £1,300 of public money travelling to Wales by car.

    A return train ticket would have cost £98.


    I have to confess to mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, Rees-Mogg is clearly behaving here like an entitled, hypocritical, fantastically rich prick. As per usual.

    On the other hand, if you tried to get from London to Wrexham and back by train it would probably take about a week. Combination of knackered tracks, digging up and replacing knackered tracks, broken down trains, industrial action, connecting services that are deliberately planned so you have to wait as long for the connections to arrive as humanly possible, and about 50,000 other duff excuses for late notice delays and cancellations ("unavailability of train crew" is the favourite at the moment, but anything else, up to and including swans trespassing on the line and signalling equipment being struck by lightning, is also possible.)

    Anyone who needs to rely on trains to get around knows how abject they can be, and frequently are.

    Maybe if the government's efficiency minister experienced this inefficiency first hand he might actually try and fix it.
    I think just keeping him the fuck out of the way for a week will be a lot more constructive than any solution he might proffer.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,866
    edited August 2022

    Maybe Scottish nationalists should be open to doing a deal with the Tories. Because at the moment Starmer seems to have called their bluff.

    Lol.

    Yep, the last X years has been a relentless susurration of SNP appeals for a coalition with Labour.
    In wee Labour noggins anyway.
    Good luck trying to get indyref2.
    HYUFDism crosses the floor. Every blue or very mildly red tinted Unionist always eventually defaults to thwarting the SNP as their main aim north of Gretna.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522

    What is a 5% cut going to do? Brown tried that in 2008 and it achieved sod all. Out of ideas

    It'll make it slightly cheaper when you buy stuff? The government can't do much: Fundamentally there's not enough stuff to go around because of the war and covid in China. If everyone tries to buy the same amount of stuff then prices will go up, and if the government tries to compensate for that by borrowing money and giving it to you that'll just make the prices go up more.

    At least a VAT cut wouldn't actively prevent people from doing what they can to solve the problem like energy subsidies would.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    Labour competing with the Conservatives to see who can be the most anti-Scottish. Might play well in England, but not in Scotland.

    As John Curtice says, if they really want to save the Union they must start converting hearts and minds. Arguing about process is simply digging a deeper hole.

    If you want to win elections literally do the opposite of whatever Stuart suggests. He is dreading a Labour victory as it will kill independence
    Why? Is Keir Starmer going to declare martial law north of the border? Lock up independence supporters?

    “Killing independence” has been the dream of fascists down the ages.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,448

    dixiedean said:

    <

    Paul and Ringo spitroasted me.

    He’s not called Ringo for nothing you know.
    If you've not watched Bullet Train one of the joys of that film is that Thomas the Tank Engine features heavily in that film.

    God bless Ringo Starr.
    Your last sentence made me think that he had died. It quite gave me a heart attack.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682

    What is a 5% cut going to do? Brown tried that in 2008 and it achieved sod all. Out of ideas

    It'll make it slightly cheaper when you buy stuff? The government can't do much: Fundamentally there's not enough stuff to go around because of the war and covid in China. If everyone tries to buy the same amount of stuff then prices will go up, and if the government tries to compensate for that by borrowing money and giving it to you that'll just make the prices go up more.

    At least a VAT cut wouldn't actively prevent people from doing what they can to solve the problem like energy subsidies would.
    Would also reduce inflation by a few % at a stroke.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,505
    Dynamo said:

    The crown prince will have his name printed on the next issue of Voice, the black newspaper, as its "guest editor". His publicists describe him as "proud" to be asked.

    Perhaps Lester Holloway, the actual editor, will be up for a knighthood?

    Meanwhile, some believe that the crown prince's son Harry will reveal the name of the member of the royal family who made racist remarks about his own son, who has a black grandmother.

    I wonder who that might be.

    Sceptics might also wish to look at the circulation of the idea that the crown prince was strongly opposed to Boris Johnson's "send the boat people to Rwanda" plan.

    You'd think Harry would be grateful; the alleged conversation has been jump-starting his 15 minutes of fame for years. What was said, what was denied, who cried, now the culprit revealed. Next year, what everyone was wearing when it was said, and how you can steal their style.
  • Labour competing with the Conservatives to see who can be the most anti-Scottish. Might play well in England, but not in Scotland.

    As John Curtice says, if they really want to save the Union they must start converting hearts and minds. Arguing about process is simply digging a deeper hole.

    If you want to win elections literally do the opposite of whatever Stuart suggests. He is dreading a Labour victory as it will kill independence
    Why? Is Keir Starmer going to declare martial law north of the border? Lock up independence supporters?

    “Killing independence” has been the dream of fascists down the ages.
    Because Labour will deliver for Scotland in a way the Tories have not.

    Polling basically backs this up, Independence is going backwards.

    I know you really like Tory Governments but I’m a social democrat who wants a proper UK. The SNP aren’t anything close
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859

    Liz Truss considers ‘nuclear’ option of five per cent VAT cut
    Largest ever reduction could save families £1,300 a year in £38bn boost to economy

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/liz-truss-considers-nuclear-option-five-per-cent-vat-cut/ (£££)

    Perhaps the cap is going to £26,000 after all.
  • 5% when energy is going up 80% is not going to touch the sides.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,866

    Maybe Scottish nationalists should be open to doing a deal with the Tories. Because at the moment Starmer seems to have called their bluff.

    Lol.

    Yep, the last X years has been a relentless susurration of SNP appeals for a coalition with Labour.
    In wee Labour noggins anyway.
    Good luck trying to get indyref2.
    Democracy did not stop in Scotland in September 2014.

    If the Labour Party declares war on Scottish voters, there is only going to be one winner.

    People:

    We must listen to the voices of those too long ignored voters who backed Brexit, have concerns about immigration and voted for Boris.

    Same people:

    Shut up you brainwashed Jocks and get to the back of the bus.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,640
    I would think the 5% cut means taking it from 20% to 15% . Although strictly speaking that should be a 25% cut in the VAT rate . The nuclear option certainly wouldn’t be a reduction from 20% to 19% .

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    Labour competing with the Conservatives to see who can be the most anti-Scottish. Might play well in England, but not in Scotland.

    As John Curtice says, if they really want to save the Union they must start converting hearts and minds. Arguing about process is simply digging a deeper hole.

    If you want to win elections literally do the opposite of whatever Stuart suggests. He is dreading a Labour victory as it will kill independence
    Why? Is Keir Starmer going to declare martial law north of the border? Lock up independence supporters?

    “Killing independence” has been the dream of fascists down the ages.
    Because Labour will deliver for Scotland in a way the Tories have not.

    Polling basically backs this up, Independence is going backwards.

    I know you really like Tory Governments but I’m a social democrat who wants a proper UK. The SNP aren’t anything close
    Labour cannot deliver for Scotland because Labour manifestos have been defeated in the last 11 elections in the country. Soon to be 12. The Scottish electorate repeatedly reject what the Labour Party offers.
  • Jacob Rees-Mogg to sell off Civil Service offices as staff refuse to stop working from home
    Taxpayers should not have to ‘fork out for half-empty buildings’, says minister for Brexit opportunities and government efficiency

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/jacob-rees-mogg-sell-civil-service-offices-staff-refuse-stop/ (£££)
  • Labour competing with the Conservatives to see who can be the most anti-Scottish. Might play well in England, but not in Scotland.

    As John Curtice says, if they really want to save the Union they must start converting hearts and minds. Arguing about process is simply digging a deeper hole.

    If you want to win elections literally do the opposite of whatever Stuart suggests. He is dreading a Labour victory as it will kill independence
    Why? Is Keir Starmer going to declare martial law north of the border? Lock up independence supporters?

    “Killing independence” has been the dream of fascists down the ages.
    Because Labour will deliver for Scotland in a way the Tories have not.

    Polling basically backs this up, Independence is going backwards.

    I know you really like Tory Governments but I’m a social democrat who wants a proper UK. The SNP aren’t anything close
    Labour cannot deliver for Scotland because Labour manifestos have been defeated in the last 11 elections in the country. Soon to be 12. The Scottish electorate repeatedly reject what the Labour Party offers.
    Independence is not happening and you are gutted
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    edited August 2022
    nico679 said:

    I would think the 5% cut means taking it from 20% to 15% . Although strictly speaking that should be a 25% cut in the VAT rate . The nuclear option certainly wouldn’t be a reduction from 20% to 19% .

    VAT on domestic fuel is currently 5%.
  • Labour competing with the Conservatives to see who can be the most anti-Scottish. Might play well in England, but not in Scotland.

    As John Curtice says, if they really want to save the Union they must start converting hearts and minds. Arguing about process is simply digging a deeper hole.

    If you want to win elections literally do the opposite of whatever Stuart suggests. He is dreading a Labour victory as it will kill independence
    Why? Is Keir Starmer going to declare martial law north of the border? Lock up independence supporters?

    “Killing independence” has been the dream of fascists down the ages.
    Because Labour will deliver for Scotland in a way the Tories have not.

    Polling basically backs this up, Independence is going backwards.

    I know you really like Tory Governments but I’m a social democrat who wants a proper UK. The SNP aren’t anything close
    Labour cannot deliver for Scotland because Labour manifestos have been defeated in the last 11 elections in the country. Soon to be 12. The Scottish electorate repeatedly reject what the Labour Party offers.
    "Vote SNP, get Truss!"
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,505
    nico679 said:

    I would think the 5% cut means taking it from 20% to 15% . Although strictly speaking that should be a 25% cut in the VAT rate . The nuclear option certainly wouldn’t be a reduction from 20% to 19% .

    Me too. An interesting suggestion being floated.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,343
    eristdoof said:

    dixiedean said:

    <

    Paul and Ringo spitroasted me.

    He’s not called Ringo for nothing you know.
    If you've not watched Bullet Train one of the joys of that film is that Thomas the Tank Engine features heavily in that film.

    God bless Ringo Starr.
    Your last sentence made me think that he had died. It quite gave me a heart attack.
    I watched 'That'll be the day' the other day. A very depressing film, but Ringo was surprisingly very good.
  • Maybe Scottish nationalists should be open to doing a deal with the Tories. Because at the moment Starmer seems to have called their bluff.

    Lol.

    Yep, the last X years has been a relentless susurration of SNP appeals for a coalition with Labour.
    In wee Labour noggins anyway.
    Good luck trying to get indyref2.
    HYUFDism crosses the floor. Every blue or very mildly red tinted Unionist always eventually defaults to thwarting the SNP as their main aim north of Gretna.
    You want indyref2? Say you're prepared to negotiate with either party. You need to take the gamble. Saying you'll never support a Tory government but Labour will still give us stuff is not working out for you.
    Do it. Alex would.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859

    nico679 said:

    I would think the 5% cut means taking it from 20% to 15% . Although strictly speaking that should be a 25% cut in the VAT rate . The nuclear option certainly wouldn’t be a reduction from 20% to 19% .

    Me too. An interesting suggestion being floated.
    VAT on fuel is currently 5% though.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,505

    Maybe Scottish nationalists should be open to doing a deal with the Tories. Because at the moment Starmer seems to have called their bluff.

    Lol.

    Yep, the last X years has been a relentless susurration of SNP appeals for a coalition with Labour.
    In wee Labour noggins anyway.
    Good luck trying to get indyref2.
    Democracy did not stop in Scotland in September 2014.

    If the Labour Party declares war on Scottish voters, there is only going to be one winner.

    People:

    We must listen to the voices of those too long ignored voters who backed Brexit, have concerns about immigration and voted for Boris.

    Same people:

    Shut up you brainwashed Jocks and get to the back of the bus.
    The back of the bus? Deary me. Next episode in TUDs imagined Scotland, Unionists to force Scots to bear a saltire arm patch.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    Labour competing with the Conservatives to see who can be the most anti-Scottish. Might play well in England, but not in Scotland.

    As John Curtice says, if they really want to save the Union they must start converting hearts and minds. Arguing about process is simply digging a deeper hole.

    If you want to win elections literally do the opposite of whatever Stuart suggests. He is dreading a Labour victory as it will kill independence
    Why? Is Keir Starmer going to declare martial law north of the border? Lock up independence supporters?

    “Killing independence” has been the dream of fascists down the ages.
    Because Labour will deliver for Scotland in a way the Tories have not.

    Polling basically backs this up, Independence is going backwards.

    I know you really like Tory Governments but I’m a social democrat who wants a proper UK. The SNP aren’t anything close
    Labour cannot deliver for Scotland because Labour manifestos have been defeated in the last 11 elections in the country. Soon to be 12. The Scottish electorate repeatedly reject what the Labour Party offers.
    Independence is not happening and you are gutted
    If I was you I’d not bother my pretty little head about an inconsequential Swede on an obscure blog. I’d be knocking doors in Kirkcaldy, Prestonpans or Airdrie and speaking to actual voters.

    Just a piece of advice from someone who learnt the long, hard way how elections are won.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

    Be ironic if they do that.
    Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
    No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
    If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

    It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

    Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
    Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

    Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

    Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

    Quite so.

    On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
    Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
    It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
    It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

    Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
    I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
    No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
    Wouldn't work. The monarch would be arrested for subversion, as with Charles Stuart.
    No they wouldn't, the armed forces take an oath of loyalty to the Monarch not Parliament. If Parliament refuses to dissolve for a general election it would be forced to by the army or a civil war again if Parliament raised its own army as in Stuart times
    The point is, unlike you, most people in the UK aren't stuck in 1513 or 1638, and Parliament could legislate for whatever they want.
    Not unless the Monarch also signs it.

    If Parliament voted to legislate to legalise murder for example and that was not a manifesto commitment then the Monarch could and should veto that legislation
    Do you think this is a very likely scenario?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 28,187
    edited August 2022

    Phil said:

    Liz Truss considers ‘nuclear’ option of five per cent VAT cut
    Largest ever reduction could save families £1,300 a year in £38bn boost to economy

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/liz-truss-considers-nuclear-option-five-per-cent-vat-cut/ (£££)

    “Nuclear Option”.

    Jesus wept. Energy prices have tripled (& then doubled again for commercial customers) & Truss thinks a 5% discount is going to fix everything?
    Good luck Tories.


    Even if, and it's a massive if, a VAT cut could deliver the same £ pound equivalent that energy nightmare is about to tear from bank accounts, voters wont notice at first.

    Labour about to go massive on poll lead.
    Apologies as others may already have mentioned this and I am too tired to read back through the whole thread...

    The trouble with the 5% cut in VAT is that it only applies to those things on which VAT is paid. So food - which for many of the poorest, along with heating, is their biggest worry - will not be affected at all. Yes I recognise that getting rid of the 5% on home energy will help a very small amount but if the aim is ti help those most in need then this really isn't the way to do it.

    And a £38 billion boost to the economy is bugger all compared to the £100 billion is is taking from energy costs.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    Labour competing with the Conservatives to see who can be the most anti-Scottish. Might play well in England, but not in Scotland.

    As John Curtice says, if they really want to save the Union they must start converting hearts and minds. Arguing about process is simply digging a deeper hole.

    If you want to win elections literally do the opposite of whatever Stuart suggests. He is dreading a Labour victory as it will kill independence
    Why? Is Keir Starmer going to declare martial law north of the border? Lock up independence supporters?

    “Killing independence” has been the dream of fascists down the ages.
    Because Labour will deliver for Scotland in a way the Tories have not.

    Polling basically backs this up, Independence is going backwards.

    I know you really like Tory Governments but I’m a social democrat who wants a proper UK. The SNP aren’t anything close
    Labour cannot deliver for Scotland because Labour manifestos have been defeated in the last 11 elections in the country. Soon to be 12. The Scottish electorate repeatedly reject what the Labour Party offers.
    "Vote SNP, get Truss!"
    Yes, we did see the one with attention deficit disorder at the back. Yes, you are very clever no doubt.

    Have you ever been seen in the same room as Jim Murphy?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    It looks like the famed "green levys" are a flat £153. So with the new cap[1] of £3549 killing the green levy AND VAT would take it to £3,227.

    1. Yes I know it's not a cap.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423

    Jacob Rees-Mogg to sell off Civil Service offices as staff refuse to stop working from home
    Taxpayers should not have to ‘fork out for half-empty buildings’, says minister for Brexit opportunities and government efficiency

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/jacob-rees-mogg-sell-civil-service-offices-staff-refuse-stop/ (£££)

    Something everyone can agree on, maybe.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    edited August 2022
    Ah ok think I've been slightly at cross purposes - A VAT cut of 5% generally seems a crazy way to tackle this. I mean who does it help most ? People buying a new 60 grand Beemer ?!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    It seems John Redwood is looking for answers to the Winter crisis from his blog commentors - perhaps if he joins the Government they may filter through!

    'The immediate need is a further package of measures to cut the cost of energy by reducing energy taxes, and to provide some offset to the loss of spending power from the increase in gas and electricity prices. It needs to ensure those on low incomes are looked after. What would you like to see in that announcement?'
    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/08/27/paying-for-energy/#comments

    This is Reform UK's Winter policy, and I think it's probably the nearest to my own thoughts for now:



    Full policy deck here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/08/25/the-reform-partys-emergency-energy-plan/
    If you want to minimize future UK oil and gas production, that is definitely the way to go.
    I don't want to do that. But the effect of prices at the projected level is that many will not be able to pay. That means no money for these companies. They are expecting the Government to step in and prevent that with a subsidy - that isn't the free market in operation is it?

    Can you also tell me why renewable electricity providers, whose raw material has not increased in price, should be riding the gas price and charging consumers such excessive prices, and again, expecting the Government to make up the shortfall.
    So, renewable energy providers - by and large - are not benefitting from the bonanza. Most commercial wind and solar in the UK is sold on long-term fixed price contracts (via contracts-for-difference). Her Majesty's Government expected to lose out on this arrangement, which is why there is a renwables levy on peoples' bills. Given HMG is currently making out like a bandito on these arrangements (effectively buying wind and solar at £60/MWh and selling it at £250+ (and more than £500 of late). The government should immediately scrap this levy, which would cut bills 15%.

    Ultimately, though, energy consumption has to decline meaningfully in the UK. The price of coal has gone through the roof. The price of natural gas has gone through the roof. Our nuclear plants are managing less uptime than was expected.

    We need to reduce our demand. All the subsidies in the world don't change the fact that there is a limited amount of coal and gas in the world, and the reduction in supplies from Russia needs to be met with reduced demand.

    I would suggest - as I mentioned before - scrapping the renewable levy. I would also suggest that the government looks to make direct grants to the most vulnerable households to enable them to pay their energy bills.

    People used to worry about the cost of energy. They used to turn off lights when they left the room. They would never just leave the central heating on when they left the house.

    It's hard, but world gas supply has fallen, and therefore demand has to fall too. We - all of us - need to be much more energy efficient.
    I don't agree. Use of energy = a growing and thriving economy. Why should people be made to switch their lights off when they leave a room - why should that be anyone else's business? Why should they not have the house like a sauna and prance around in their smalls if they so wish? Why is it acceptable, when technology improves every year, and new sources of energy come on stream all the time, to ask people to contemplate a life of less comfort than their parents enjoyed? And why should this dark ages-recalling reversion of society be sold to people for such an absurd reason as a wish to alter the course of relations between Ukraine and Russia - two of the most corrupt and backward nations in Europe. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.
    The dictionary definition of economics (or so I was told) is "a study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources." There is nothing inherently good or bad about energy usage. It is an enabler.

    If I buy a more efficient air conditioning unit that uses less power to cool a room..., then my lower usage of energy does not somehow make the country a worse place to be.

    The world currently has a shortage of energy, because the world's largest gas exporter is sending 80% less abroad than it was.

    In the short term, we have two options.

    We could give in, stop arming the Ukrainians, and I'm sure the Russians would be happy to turn the taps back on (as well as to see sanctions removed).

    Or we could be a little more efficient in our usage of energy, because there is less available than there was.

    Those are really the only two short-term options.

    In the medium term, we can enter into long-term energy supply contracts with politically stable countries. We can also build more solar, wind and nuclear. Storage - gas and coal - would probably also be a good idea. Having six months of gas imports lined up would have made a massive difference.

    In the long term, we can also incentivize oil & gas exploration companies to drill more wells in the UK (albeit probably mostly off-shore), and also to look into unconventional sources of energy, such as coal seam methane and shale gas.
    My views on the involvement of the UK in the Ukraine conflict are well known. However, even if the UK Government had a complete about turn, it would make no difference, as Russian gas cannot get to us very easily anyway.

    The fracking moratorium should end. It surely doesn't need looking into; that's already been done. If people think they can find gas and make money, have at it. The most optimistic comment I have read said they think they could be pumping gas by January.

    Can the renewables contracts be renegotiated so that windmill operators don't get paid for switching off? If that were not the case, would those providers not scramble to maximise their income by providing adequate power storage?

    Russia has a number of LNG export terminals, so yes we could get Russian gas if we wanted.
  • Labour competing with the Conservatives to see who can be the most anti-Scottish. Might play well in England, but not in Scotland.

    As John Curtice says, if they really want to save the Union they must start converting hearts and minds. Arguing about process is simply digging a deeper hole.

    If you want to win elections literally do the opposite of whatever Stuart suggests. He is dreading a Labour victory as it will kill independence
    Why? Is Keir Starmer going to declare martial law north of the border? Lock up independence supporters?

    “Killing independence” has been the dream of fascists down the ages.
    Because Labour will deliver for Scotland in a way the Tories have not.

    Polling basically backs this up, Independence is going backwards.

    I know you really like Tory Governments but I’m a social democrat who wants a proper UK. The SNP aren’t anything close
    Labour cannot deliver for Scotland because Labour manifestos have been defeated in the last 11 elections in the country. Soon to be 12. The Scottish electorate repeatedly reject what the Labour Party offers.
    "Vote SNP, get Truss!"
    Yes, we did see the one with attention deficit disorder at the back. Yes, you are very clever no doubt.

    Have you ever been seen in the same room as Jim Murphy?
    As a centre-right voter, you should be pleased we have a Tory government at UK level.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    It seems John Redwood is looking for answers to the Winter crisis from his blog commentors - perhaps if he joins the Government they may filter through!

    'The immediate need is a further package of measures to cut the cost of energy by reducing energy taxes, and to provide some offset to the loss of spending power from the increase in gas and electricity prices. It needs to ensure those on low incomes are looked after. What would you like to see in that announcement?'
    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/08/27/paying-for-energy/#comments

    This is Reform UK's Winter policy, and I think it's probably the nearest to my own thoughts for now:



    Full policy deck here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/08/25/the-reform-partys-emergency-energy-plan/
    If you want to minimize future UK oil and gas production, that is definitely the way to go.
    I don't want to do that. But the effect of prices at the projected level is that many will not be able to pay. That means no money for these companies. They are expecting the Government to step in and prevent that with a subsidy - that isn't the free market in operation is it?

    Can you also tell me why renewable electricity providers, whose raw material has not increased in price, should be riding the gas price and charging consumers such excessive prices, and again, expecting the Government to make up the shortfall.
    So, renewable energy providers - by and large - are not benefitting from the bonanza. Most commercial wind and solar in the UK is sold on long-term fixed price contracts (via contracts-for-difference). Her Majesty's Government expected to lose out on this arrangement, which is why there is a renwables levy on peoples' bills. Given HMG is currently making out like a bandito on these arrangements (effectively buying wind and solar at £60/MWh and selling it at £250+ (and more than £500 of late). The government should immediately scrap this levy, which would cut bills 15%.

    Ultimately, though, energy consumption has to decline meaningfully in the UK. The price of coal has gone through the roof. The price of natural gas has gone through the roof. Our nuclear plants are managing less uptime than was expected.

    We need to reduce our demand. All the subsidies in the world don't change the fact that there is a limited amount of coal and gas in the world, and the reduction in supplies from Russia needs to be met with reduced demand.

    I would suggest - as I mentioned before - scrapping the renewable levy. I would also suggest that the government looks to make direct grants to the most vulnerable households to enable them to pay their energy bills.

    People used to worry about the cost of energy. They used to turn off lights when they left the room. They would never just leave the central heating on when they left the house.

    It's hard, but world gas supply has fallen, and therefore demand has to fall too. We - all of us - need to be much more energy efficient.
    I don't agree. Use of energy = a growing and thriving economy. Why should people be made to switch their lights off when they leave a room - why should that be anyone else's business? Why should they not have the house like a sauna and prance around in their smalls if they so wish? Why is it acceptable, when technology improves every year, and new sources of energy come on stream all the time, to ask people to contemplate a life of less comfort than their parents enjoyed? And why should this dark ages-recalling reversion of society be sold to people for such an absurd reason as a wish to alter the course of relations between Ukraine and Russia - two of the most corrupt and backward nations in Europe. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.
    The dictionary definition of economics (or so I was told) is "a study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources." There is nothing inherently good or bad about energy usage. It is an enabler.

    If I buy a more efficient air conditioning unit that uses less power to cool a room..., then my lower usage of energy does not somehow make the country a worse place to be.

    The world currently has a shortage of energy, because the world's largest gas exporter is sending 80% less abroad than it was.

    In the short term, we have two options.

    We could give in, stop arming the Ukrainians, and I'm sure the Russians would be happy to turn the taps back on (as well as to see sanctions removed).

    Or we could be a little more efficient in our usage of energy, because there is less available than there was.

    Those are really the only two short-term options.

    In the medium term, we can enter into long-term energy supply contracts with politically stable countries. We can also build more solar, wind and nuclear. Storage - gas and coal - would probably also be a good idea. Having six months of gas imports lined up would have made a massive difference.

    In the long term, we can also incentivize oil & gas exploration companies to drill more wells in the UK (albeit probably mostly off-shore), and also to look into unconventional sources of energy, such as coal seam methane and shale gas.
    My views on the involvement of the UK in the Ukraine conflict are well known. However, even if the UK Government had a complete about turn, it would make no difference, as Russian gas cannot get to us very easily anyway.

    The fracking moratorium should end. It surely doesn't need looking into; that's already been done. If people think they can find gas and make money, have at it. The most optimistic comment I have read said they think they could be pumping gas by January.

    Can the renewables contracts be renegotiated so that windmill operators don't get paid for switching off? If that were not the case, would those providers not scramble to maximise their income by providing adequate power storage?

    Russia has a number of LNG export terminals, so yes we could get Russian gas if we wanted.
    Noone seems to be leaping up and down at Japan for doing precisely this.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    Woodstock 99 is well worth watching. Despite the odious Woke moralising at the end
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,696
    Pulpstar said:

    Ah ok think I've been slightly at cross purposes - A VAT cut of 5% generally seems a crazy way to tackle this. I mean who does it help most ? People buying a new 60 grand Beemer ?!

    I wonder how many businesses will just keep prices the same and pocket the VAT reduction?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    Wouldn't it be cheaper (And more targetted) for the Gov't to reduce VAT by 25% on domestic fuel ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions

    Enough of this crap

    At the moment, I think that it would look like a massive evasion of the main issue, even to those who really care about it.
    Can't you begin to see how this might become an issue? The Dinghy Albanians are doubling in number roughly every year. If that continues, in a year we will have 80,000, then 160,000. And this ain't gonna stop, because climate change. We can hope that the EU will secure ITS borders (which might happen), but that is relying on the kindness of strangers

    I recall when you used to scoff at people who fretted about about the EU. "No one cares"

    Oops
    And yet there are countries much richer than us, that have open borders in Europe, that have no issues with refugees and asylum seekers whatsoever.

  • Stuart doesn’t seem to understand that on current projections Labour will win without Scotland. He seems to think Scotland is essential to winning when it isn’t.

    When Labour get in and deliver for Scotland the SNP will go down fast
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631

    Maybe Scottish nationalists should be open to doing a deal with the Tories. Because at the moment Starmer seems to have called their bluff.

    Lol.

    Yep, the last X years has been a relentless susurration of SNP appeals for a coalition with Labour.
    In wee Labour noggins anyway.
    The Tories won't give you indyref2, nor will Labour. That's it, really, isn't it? Unless you start throwing petrol bombs
  • Pulpstar said:

    Ah ok think I've been slightly at cross purposes - A VAT cut of 5% generally seems a crazy way to tackle this. I mean who does it help most ? People buying a new 60 grand Beemer ?!

    It will achieve sod all
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions

    Enough of this crap

    At the moment, I think that it would look like a massive evasion of the main issue, even to those who really care about it.
    Can't you begin to see how this might become an issue? The Dinghy Albanians are doubling in number roughly every year. If that continues, in a year we will have 80,000, then 160,000. And this ain't gonna stop, because climate change. We can hope that the EU will secure ITS borders (which might happen), but that is relying on the kindness of strangers

    I recall when you used to scoff at people who fretted about about the EU. "No one cares"

    Oops
    And yet there are countries much richer than us, that have open borders in Europe, that have no issues with refugees and asylum seekers whatsoever.

    THEY DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, THEY HAVE ID CARDS, THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTORY WELFARE SYSTEMS
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859

    Pulpstar said:

    Ah ok think I've been slightly at cross purposes - A VAT cut of 5% generally seems a crazy way to tackle this. I mean who does it help most ? People buying a new 60 grand Beemer ?!

    It will achieve sod all
    But cost a fortune at the same time.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    MrEd said:


    Now, while everyone knows James Vi / I was "ambiguous" and everyone did at the time, you know as well as I do that James was not publicly referring to his relationship with Buckingham in a sexual sense, more platonic love. Yes, he might have been buggered / buggering senseless in reality but he would never have said that publicly.


    IshmaelZ said:

    MrEd said:


    I never remember the Pope saying that.

    As for the Queen, did she co-opt in Jesus as a fellow queen?


    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

    Be ironic if they do that.
    Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
    No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
    If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

    It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

    Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
    Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

    Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

    Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

    Quite so.

    On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
    Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
    It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
    It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

    Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
    I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
    No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
    To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
    Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
    I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.

    And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
    Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289504.stm

    As for hell I suggest you get your ticket ready
    That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
    Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
    My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
    Tough he started it
    But back to the main point

    The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
    James VI and I.

    "You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
    A woman for babies,
    A boy for love, and
    A goat for pleasure
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    Labour competing with the Conservatives to see who can be the most anti-Scottish. Might play well in England, but not in Scotland.

    As John Curtice says, if they really want to save the Union they must start converting hearts and minds. Arguing about process is simply digging a deeper hole.

    If you want to win elections literally do the opposite of whatever Stuart suggests. He is dreading a Labour victory as it will kill independence
    Why? Is Keir Starmer going to declare martial law north of the border? Lock up independence supporters?

    “Killing independence” has been the dream of fascists down the ages.
    Because Labour will deliver for Scotland in a way the Tories have not.

    Polling basically backs this up, Independence is going backwards.

    I know you really like Tory Governments but I’m a social democrat who wants a proper UK. The SNP aren’t anything close
    Labour cannot deliver for Scotland because Labour manifestos have been defeated in the last 11 elections in the country. Soon to be 12. The Scottish electorate repeatedly reject what the Labour Party offers.
    "Vote SNP, get Truss!"
    Yes, we did see the one with attention deficit disorder at the back. Yes, you are very clever no doubt.

    Have you ever been seen in the same room as Jim Murphy?
    As a centre-right voter, you should be pleased we have a Tory government at UK level.
    I am a human being first, a father, a husband, a Scot, a European, and a hundred other things. Being “a centre-right voter” is not even in the top hundred of my core qualities, and is probably only a temporary and not terribly deep tendency. Being a Scot comes miles ahead of my attitude towards different economic theories.

    Secondly, the current Conservative Party are not centre-right. They are proto-fascist.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,866

    Maybe Scottish nationalists should be open to doing a deal with the Tories. Because at the moment Starmer seems to have called their bluff.

    Lol.

    Yep, the last X years has been a relentless susurration of SNP appeals for a coalition with Labour.
    In wee Labour noggins anyway.
    Good luck trying to get indyref2.
    Democracy did not stop in Scotland in September 2014.

    If the Labour Party declares war on Scottish voters, there is only going to be one winner.

    People:

    We must listen to the voices of those too long ignored voters who backed Brexit, have concerns about immigration and voted for Boris.

    Same people:

    Shut up you brainwashed Jocks and get to the back of the bus.
    The back of the bus? Deary me. Next episode in TUDs imagined Scotland, Unionists to force Scots to bear a saltire arm patch.
    Istr you moaning piteously about how the wishes of the minority of Scottish voters who voted for Brexit were being cruelly ignored though I can't recall quite how you thought that tyranny was expressing itself. Evidently there's more than one kind of imagined Scotland.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631

    Maybe Scottish nationalists should be open to doing a deal with the Tories. Because at the moment Starmer seems to have called their bluff.

    Lol.

    Yep, the last X years has been a relentless susurration of SNP appeals for a coalition with Labour.
    In wee Labour noggins anyway.
    Good luck trying to get indyref2.
    Democracy did not stop in Scotland in September 2014.

    If the Labour Party declares war on Scottish voters, there is only going to be one winner.

    People:

    We must listen to the voices of those too long ignored voters who backed Brexit, have concerns about immigration and voted for Boris.

    Same people:

    Shut up you brainwashed Jocks and get to the back of the bus.
    You were given a referendum (unlike most places on earth). You said NO to independence. You now have to wait for a generation = 15 or 20 years

    That's it
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    I think the PB Scot Nits are coming to the painful realisation that Sir Beer Korma is not going to give them a referendum, either, whatever the result in 2024

    And: that's it. For roughly a decade, I'd say

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    Stuart doesn’t seem to understand that on current projections Labour will win without Scotland. He seems to think Scotland is essential to winning when it isn’t.

    When Labour get in and deliver for Scotland the SNP will go down fast

    There is nothing I would like more than to see English political parties winning English elections without interference from Scotland or anywhere else. I support English independence as much as I support Scottish independence.

    My party already wins in my country. What that means for your country is of zero relevance to me.

    Labour cannot “deliver for Scotland” because what they consistently offer is consistently defeated at the ballot box.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions

    Enough of this crap

    At the moment, I think that it would look like a massive evasion of the main issue, even to those who really care about it.
    Can't you begin to see how this might become an issue? The Dinghy Albanians are doubling in number roughly every year. If that continues, in a year we will have 80,000, then 160,000. And this ain't gonna stop, because climate change. We can hope that the EU will secure ITS borders (which might happen), but that is relying on the kindness of strangers

    I recall when you used to scoff at people who fretted about about the EU. "No one cares"

    Oops
    And yet there are countries much richer than us, that have open borders in Europe, that have no issues with refugees and asylum seekers whatsoever.

    THEY DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, THEY HAVE ID CARDS, THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTORY WELFARE SYSTEMS
    Sweden has a terrible problem.
    Norway has none.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions

    Enough of this crap

    At the moment, I think that it would look like a massive evasion of the main issue, even to those who really care about it.
    Can't you begin to see how this might become an issue? The Dinghy Albanians are doubling in number roughly every year. If that continues, in a year we will have 80,000, then 160,000. And this ain't gonna stop, because climate change. We can hope that the EU will secure ITS borders (which might happen), but that is relying on the kindness of strangers

    I recall when you used to scoff at people who fretted about about the EU. "No one cares"

    Oops
    And yet there are countries much richer than us, that have open borders in Europe, that have no issues with refugees and asylum seekers whatsoever.

    THEY DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, THEY HAVE ID CARDS, THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTORY WELFARE SYSTEMS
    Sweden has a terrible problem.
    Norway has none.

    Citations required. Also: basic coherence
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    edited August 2022
    Leon said:

    I think the PB Scot Nits are coming to the painful realisation that Sir Beer Korma is not going to give them a referendum, either, whatever the result in 2024

    And: that's it. For roughly a decade, I'd say

    We don’t need anybody to “give” us anything. We are a sovereign nation.

    Unionists behaving like arseholes is not as endearing as you seem to think it is. Long may you continue!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    From my flat I can hear and see the busy work of the navvies constructing HS2. They are doing it 24/7, with arc lights and everything. It is quite monumental and impressive, like all grandiose civil engineering

    No one is going to stop this now. It is underway. Let's crack on and extend it to the north and then Scotland, and then Wales and the West. It is daft that the UK has a less extensive high speed train network than Italy

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    nico679 said:

    I would think the 5% cut means taking it from 20% to 15% . Although strictly speaking that should be a 25% cut in the VAT rate . The nuclear option certainly wouldn’t be a reduction from 20% to 19% .

    Me too. An interesting suggestion being floated.
    What?

    VAT on fuel is 5%. How can you not know this, and pretend to be a serious player?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631

    Leon said:

    I think the PB Scot Nits are coming to the painful realisation that Sir Beer Korma is not going to give them a referendum, either, whatever the result in 2024

    And: that's it. For roughly a decade, I'd say

    We don’t need anybody to “give” us anything. We are a sovereign nation.

    Unionists behaving like arseholes is not as endearing as you seem to think it is. Long may you continue!
    lol. What the fuck are you gonna do then? Hurl imprecations at us from Malmo? Come over and start a terror campaign?

    The UK government (including Scotland) is going to say No to indyref 2 for the next decade. It is now clear
  • Leon said:

    I think the PB Scot Nits are coming to the painful realisation that Sir Beer Korma is not going to give them a referendum, either, whatever the result in 2024

    And: that's it. For roughly a decade, I'd say

    As I said before, they should have been nicer to Magic Grandpa. He'd have actually given them what they wanted.
    "We despise the Labour Party, give us Indyref2" - LOL, what a tactic.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    Leon said:

    From my flat I can hear and see the busy work of the navvies constructing HS2. They are doing it 24/7, with arc lights and everything. It is quite monumental and impressive, like all grandiose civil engineering

    No one is going to stop this now. It is underway. Let's crack on and extend it to the north and then Scotland, and then Wales and the West. It is daft that the UK has a less extensive high speed train network than Italy

    Shouldn't we be spending that capex cash on energy generation ?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I think the PB Scot Nits are coming to the painful realisation that Sir Beer Korma is not going to give them a referendum, either, whatever the result in 2024

    And: that's it. For roughly a decade, I'd say

    We don’t need anybody to “give” us anything. We are a sovereign nation.

    Unionists behaving like arseholes is not as endearing as you seem to think it is. Long may you continue!
    lol. What the fuck are you gonna do then? Hurl imprecations at us from Malmo? Come over and start a terror campaign?

    The UK government (including Scotland) is going to say No to indyref 2 for the next decade. It is now clear
    Excellent. That message needs to be expressed very loudly and very clearly every single day. Good work boy!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I think the PB Scot Nits are coming to the painful realisation that Sir Beer Korma is not going to give them a referendum, either, whatever the result in 2024

    And: that's it. For roughly a decade, I'd say

    We don’t need anybody to “give” us anything. We are a sovereign nation.

    Unionists behaving like arseholes is not as endearing as you seem to think it is. Long may you continue!
    lol. What the fuck are you gonna do then? Hurl imprecations at us from Malmo? Come over and start a terror campaign?

    The UK government (including Scotland) is going to say No to indyref 2 for the next decade. It is now clear
    Excellent. That message needs to be expressed very loudly and very clearly every single day. Good work boy!
    lol
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I think the PB Scot Nits are coming to the painful realisation that Sir Beer Korma is not going to give them a referendum, either, whatever the result in 2024

    And: that's it. For roughly a decade, I'd say

    We don’t need anybody to “give” us anything. We are a sovereign nation.

    Unionists behaving like arseholes is not as endearing as you seem to think it is. Long may you continue!
    lol. What the fuck are you gonna do then? Hurl imprecations at us from Malmo? Come over and start a terror campaign?

    The UK government (including Scotland) is going to say No to indyref 2 for the next decade. It is now clear
    As I keep saying... if Alex Salmond were leading the SNP, he'd realise he needed to actually take the risk of saying he'd prepared to negotiate with the Tories if Labour aren't prepared to come to the table.
    Starmer realises Sturgeon won't do this and thus can just laugh at her.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I think the PB Scot Nits are coming to the painful realisation that Sir Beer Korma is not going to give them a referendum, either, whatever the result in 2024

    And: that's it. For roughly a decade, I'd say

    We don’t need anybody to “give” us anything. We are a sovereign nation.

    Unionists behaving like arseholes is not as endearing as you seem to think it is. Long may you continue!
    lol. What the fuck are you gonna do then? Hurl imprecations at us from Malmo? Come over and start a terror campaign?

    The UK government (including Scotland) is going to say No to indyref 2 for the next decade. It is now clear
    As I keep saying... if Alex Salmond were leading the SNP, he'd realise he needed to actually take the risk of saying he'd prepared to negotiate with the Tories if Labour aren't prepared to come to the table.
    Starmer realises Sturgeon won't do this and thus can just laugh at her.
    You really must learn to differentiate between things you just made up in your head and the real world.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631

    Leon said:

    I think the PB Scot Nits are coming to the painful realisation that Sir Beer Korma is not going to give them a referendum, either, whatever the result in 2024

    And: that's it. For roughly a decade, I'd say

    As I said before, they should have been nicer to Magic Grandpa. He'd have actually given them what they wanted.
    "We despise the Labour Party, give us Indyref2" - LOL, what a tactic.
    Yes indeed. Corbyn, who hates Britain, would have granted indyref2 without a problem. He was the best hope for the Nits

    Starmer is a boring twat but he is not an idiot, nor a traitor. He won't grant it because 1. the Nits might win, screwing Labour forever, and 2. he is not keen on being the UK PM who sees the UK broken up on his watch

    This will apply to every UK PM for many years. They have all seen what happened to Cameron, who lost the Brexit vote, and will now be known only for that. Who wants to risk indyref2, thereby allowing a GB destroying YES vote to be their epitaph?

    The SNP really need to win that SCOTUK case this autumn. Apart from that, I do not see how they advance the cause, for 10-15 years at least
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522
    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    I would think the 5% cut means taking it from 20% to 15% . Although strictly speaking that should be a 25% cut in the VAT rate . The nuclear option certainly wouldn’t be a reduction from 20% to 19% .

    Me too. An interesting suggestion being floated.
    What?

    VAT on fuel is 5%. How can you not know this, and pretend to be a serious player?
    I think the idea is to cut VAT on everything, not just fuel. That's much better policy because we need people to cut back on fuel.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited August 2022

    Leon said:

    I think the PB Scot Nits are coming to the painful realisation that Sir Beer Korma is not going to give them a referendum, either, whatever the result in 2024

    And: that's it. For roughly a decade, I'd say

    We don’t need anybody to “give” us anything. We are a sovereign nation.
    I thought the "them" being referred to were the PB SNPers and by implication the SNP in general.
    How on earth did you read the reference as being to Scotland?
    The SNP aren't a sovereign anything.
    Partei ≠ volk.

    Whatever happens in 2024 is unlikely to settle the issue for a decade. There will probably be a SGE in 2026. In any case, the SNP could call a SGE before then (with help from their revolting Green bumsniffers, who are "oppositional" only when their tongues are hanging out for Short money), but they haven't got the guts.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    edited August 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    I would think the 5% cut means taking it from 20% to 15% . Although strictly speaking that should be a 25% cut in the VAT rate . The nuclear option certainly wouldn’t be a reduction from 20% to 19% .

    Me too. An interesting suggestion being floated.
    What?

    VAT on fuel is 5%. How can you not know this, and pretend to be a serious player?
    I assume the VAT cut is a general cut though, not just on fuel. I think a VAT change should be targetted to fuel alone,but be much bigger than -5% personally.
    As we're outside the EU's VAT orbit we could do that...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    I would think the 5% cut means taking it from 20% to 15% . Although strictly speaking that should be a 25% cut in the VAT rate . The nuclear option certainly wouldn’t be a reduction from 20% to 19% .

    Me too. An interesting suggestion being floated.
    What?

    VAT on fuel is 5%. How can you not know this, and pretend to be a serious player?
    I think the idea is to cut VAT on everything, not just fuel. That's much better policy because we need people to cut back on fuel.
    All very well for you to say enjoying Russian gas and all. People would still cut back with say a 30% VAT cut on domestic fuel.
  • Vat on domestic fuel is only 5%. Are you proposing a negative Vat rate?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859
    edited August 2022

    Vat on domestic fuel is only 5%. Are you proposing a negative Vat rate?

    Yes, that's part of the toolbox I'd use. Up to a certain amount of units per meter.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522
    Pulpstar said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    I would think the 5% cut means taking it from 20% to 15% . Although strictly speaking that should be a 25% cut in the VAT rate . The nuclear option certainly wouldn’t be a reduction from 20% to 19% .

    Me too. An interesting suggestion being floated.
    What?

    VAT on fuel is 5%. How can you not know this, and pretend to be a serious player?
    I think the idea is to cut VAT on everything, not just fuel. That's much better policy because we need people to cut back on fuel.
    All very well for you to say enjoying Russian gas and all. People would still cut back with say a 30% VAT cut on domestic fuel.
    They'll cut back either way but not to the same degree. If you've got a shortage and you dampen the price signals you make the shortage worse than if you'd done nothing.

    If the government's giving a household the same $1000, it's better if they have the freedom to use it in a way that will improve the situation for everyone.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522
    MikeL said:

    Most people who are really hard up are spending most of their money on food (no VAT), rent / mortgage (no VAT) and energy (5% VAT).

    So a 5% cut in VAT will hardly help them at all.

    It's hard to imagine a more inappropriate response to the problem.

    The suggestion in the article is that there's also more targeted help, the VAT cut isn't the entire policy response. Obviously you'd have to see the details of that to know whether it'll reach the neediest people.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859

    Pulpstar said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    I would think the 5% cut means taking it from 20% to 15% . Although strictly speaking that should be a 25% cut in the VAT rate . The nuclear option certainly wouldn’t be a reduction from 20% to 19% .

    Me too. An interesting suggestion being floated.
    What?

    VAT on fuel is 5%. How can you not know this, and pretend to be a serious player?
    I think the idea is to cut VAT on everything, not just fuel. That's much better policy because we need people to cut back on fuel.
    All very well for you to say enjoying Russian gas and all. People would still cut back with say a 30% VAT cut on domestic fuel.
    They'll cut back either way but not to the same degree. If you've got a shortage and you dampen the price signals you make the shortage worse than if you'd done nothing.

    If the government's giving a household the same $1000, it's better if they have the freedom to use it in a way that will improve the situation for everyone.
    People need a certain amount of energy though. People don't need valuable goods to live. You're acting like this is people's discretionary spend. It's not its literally stuff you need to exist.
    I'd go -30% Vat on the first 2000 kwh for each household, vat free 2000 to 3000 and 20% after that. More if you don't have a gas supply or are disabled.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    I would think the 5% cut means taking it from 20% to 15% . Although strictly speaking that should be a 25% cut in the VAT rate . The nuclear option certainly wouldn’t be a reduction from 20% to 19% .

    Me too. An interesting suggestion being floated.
    What?

    VAT on fuel is 5%. How can you not know this, and pretend to be a serious player?
    I think the idea is to cut VAT on everything, not just fuel. That's much better policy because we need people to cut back on fuel.
    All very well for you to say enjoying Russian gas and all. People would still cut back with say a 30% VAT cut on domestic fuel.
    They'll cut back either way but not to the same degree. If you've got a shortage and you dampen the price signals you make the shortage worse than if you'd done nothing.

    If the government's giving a household the same $1000, it's better if they have the freedom to use it in a way that will improve the situation for everyone.
    People need a certain amount of energy though. People don't need valuable goods to live. You're acting like this is people's discretionary spend. It's not its literally stuff you need to exist.
    I'd go -30% Vat on the first 2000 kwh for each household, vat free 2000 to 3000 and 20% after that. More if you don't have a gas supply or are disabled.
    This is not a stupid idea - albeit it is administratively complex.

    Better to have three tiers of electricity pricing. The first x KWh are 20p, the second are 2x, the third 3x, and any thing in addition is 6x.

    In that way you can really amplify those price signals.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    Rishi Sunak was going to propose raising the national speed limit to 80 mph but cancelled the idea at the last minute according to this article.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/moment-rishi-sunaks-team-knew-leadership-dream/
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,415
    Andy_JS said:

    Rishi Sunak was going to propose raising the national speed limit to 80 mph but cancelled the idea at the last minute according to this article.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/moment-rishi-sunaks-team-knew-leadership-dream/

    To be rolled out with a new campaign slogan - "Going nowhere... fast."
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522
    rcs1000 said:


    In Japan, after the earthquake, Japan reduced its electricity consumption an enormous amount. And by doing that, it got through a very difficult period, mostly unscathed. We can do the same.

    My "I'm doing my part" for that (after a week consolidating servers and hiding under the kotatsu a lot) was to fuck off to Essex. People will no doubt mock this for out-of-touch citizen-of-nowhere digital nomad vibes but the predicted prices are getting to the point where British pensioners should consider getting on a train and spending the coldest months in Marrakesh.
  • Betfair next prime minister
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    19.5 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    20 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    21 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    19.5 Rishi Sunak 5%
  • Betfair next prime minister
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    19.5 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    20 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    21 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    19.5 Rishi Sunak 5%
    Betfair next prime minister
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    22 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    19.5 Rishi Sunak 5%
  • New thread.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    IshmaelZ said:

    MrEd said:


    Now, while everyone knows James Vi / I was "ambiguous" and everyone did at the time, you know as well as I do that James was not publicly referring to his relationship with Buckingham in a sexual sense, more platonic love. Yes, he might have been buggered / buggering senseless in reality but he would never have said that publicly.


    IshmaelZ said:

    MrEd said:


    I never remember the Pope saying that.

    As for the Queen, did she co-opt in Jesus as a fellow queen?


    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

    Be ironic if they do that.
    Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
    No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
    If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

    It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

    Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
    Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

    Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

    Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

    Quite so.

    On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
    Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
    It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
    It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

    Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
    I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
    No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
    To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
    Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war
    I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.

    And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.
    Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289504.stm

    As for hell I suggest you get your ticket ready
    That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.
    Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.
    My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
    Tough he started it
    But back to the main point

    The Head of your Church has unambiguously stated that Our Lord took it up the. Why do you heretically disagree?
    James VI and I.

    "You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
    Disagree. I mean Jesus loved everyone. He certainly loved all the disciples. So if he loved one in particular it means something special.
    That’s just your interpretation of something said 400 years ago. Tenuous at best. You write as if the current Archbishop of Canterbury had proclaimed that Jesus was homosexual.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,355
    Phil said:

    Liz Truss considers ‘nuclear’ option of five per cent VAT cut
    Largest ever reduction could save families £1,300 a year in £38bn boost to economy

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/liz-truss-considers-nuclear-option-five-per-cent-vat-cut/ (£££)

    “Nuclear Option”.

    Jesus wept. Energy prices have tripled (& then doubled again for commercial customers) & Truss thinks a 5% discount is going to fix everything?
    Even assuming it is passed on.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,505
    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    I would think the 5% cut means taking it from 20% to 15% . Although strictly speaking that should be a 25% cut in the VAT rate . The nuclear option certainly wouldn’t be a reduction from 20% to 19% .

    Me too. An interesting suggestion being floated.
    What?

    VAT on fuel is 5%. How can you not know this, and pretend to be a serious player?
    I didn't know that, I don't pretend to be 'a serious player' - I can't imagine anything worse, and my assumption was that this was a general VAT cut, which I think IS an interesting suggestion, because I have always said that any Government provision should not necessarily be given directly to power bills, so that people have the choice to buy other things if they so desire.
This discussion has been closed.