Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears
I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.
Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.
What a £200 fine to her....
It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
How do you achieve that?
🤷♂️
I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
Starmer just needs a better slogan, "tax wealth not workers".
Blair would not be sitting here writing out the Labour plan for social care
You seem to think that is a massive winner....I would suggest that a) scares a lot of people, asset rich, cash poor...and b) also aspirational types.
I don't know if it's a good slogan or not, my point is that it's better than no slogan. If he's got a better one use that.
But the idea he's going to sit and describe the idea for Labour social care is for the birds, the majority of the public neither no nor care what the plan is, they will listen when they need to, i.e. during an election.
He's literally following the Blair strategy, it's obvious Blair is advising him
The most concerning thing I hear Starmer talk about is "those who earn money from means that is not work".....now what is work....he seems to claim those that own buy to let aren't doing work....when I rented, my landlord made numerous visits to sort out problems, was always available to us, he had to do loads of paper work to ensure he was legal, came and did loads of the maintenance work himself, etc....The number of hours he put into his properties was significant.
How about investors in companies?....are they "working"?...I have set up businesses, I would suggest I did a hell of a lot more hours "work" for many years (and still do), than those than a normal employee ever does in a week.
How ever much you try to spin it buy-to-let and stocks and shares income is not 'earned income'; it's people with wealth getting a return. I have an investment portolio which I manage myself. I do not work.
Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.
Starmer just needs a better slogan, "tax wealth not workers".
Blair would not be sitting here writing out the Labour plan for social care
You seem to think that is a massive winner....I would suggest that a) scares a lot of people, asset rich, cash poor...and b) also aspirational types.
I don't know if it's a good slogan or not, my point is that it's better than no slogan. If he's got a better one use that.
But the idea he's going to sit and describe the idea for Labour social care is for the birds, the majority of the public neither no nor care what the plan is, they will listen when they need to, i.e. during an election.
He's literally following the Blair strategy, it's obvious Blair is advising him
Your slogan is too negative. You're leading with what you are taxing, not what you aren't.
Starmer just needs a better slogan, "tax wealth not workers".
Blair would not be sitting here writing out the Labour plan for social care
You seem to think that is a massive winner....I would suggest that a) scares a lot of people, asset rich, cash poor...and b) also aspirational types.
I don't know if it's a good slogan or not, my point is that it's better than no slogan. If he's got a better one use that.
But the idea he's going to sit and describe the idea for Labour social care is for the birds, the majority of the public neither no nor care what the plan is, they will listen when they need to, i.e. during an election.
He's literally following the Blair strategy, it's obvious Blair is advising him
Your slogan is too negative. You're leading with what you are taxing, not what you aren't.
Good slogans are inspirational.
I'm not in the business of making slogans. I only presented an idea.
"Get Britain working", I don't know, I don't have a clue
The criticism of Starmer is that he doesn't have a plan.
But he will present a plan at some point - I believe - and then this criticism will be ineffective.
If he presented a plan, he'd get slaughtered.
I absolutely despise evasive politicians but it is clear to me that this is what any opposition leader would be doing right now
A smart effective politician knows when to let other criticise.....he has done this a number of times, where he pops up, goes all the government absolute shit they are, he must know somebody is going to ask and so what do you suggest....errh, well, erhhh, hmmm.
He did it so many times during COVID, claiming the government were absolutely f##king it all up with their crazy policies, but when push came to shove, he basically always ended saying well I would do the same as them, just better, sort of, maybe. The classic being vaccine passports.
The criticism of Starmer is that he doesn't have a plan.
But he will present a plan at some point - I believe - and then this criticism will be ineffective.
If he presented a plan, he'd get slaughtered.
I absolutely despise evasive politicians but it is clear to me that this is what any opposition leader would be doing right now
A smart effective politician knows when to let other criticise.....he has done this a number of times, where he pops up, goes all the government absolute shit they are, he must know somebody is going to ask and so what do you suggest....errh, well, erhhh, hmmm.
He did it so many times during COVID, claiming the government were absolutely f##king it all up with their crazy policies, but when push came to shove, he basically always ended saying well I would do the same as them, just better, sort of, maybe.
Blair spent most of the 1994-1997 period telling everyone how feckless and useless the Tories were, he presented plans very late in the day.
I agree opposition can be smart - but I disagree that he's taking the wrong approach by not setting out Labour's plans
I also understand discussions ongoing now about the PM visiting Joe Biden in the White House, when he is expected to be in the US for the UN General Assembly in two weeks time. Will be Johnson's first visit there as PM. A bid to put on a joint front after the Afghan debacle.
Starmer just needs a better slogan, "tax wealth not workers".
Blair would not be sitting here writing out the Labour plan for social care
You seem to think that is a massive winner....I would suggest that a) scares a lot of people, asset rich, cash poor...and b) also aspirational types.
I don't know if it's a good slogan or not, my point is that it's better than no slogan. If he's got a better one use that.
But the idea he's going to sit and describe the idea for Labour social care is for the birds, the majority of the public neither no nor care what the plan is, they will listen when they need to, i.e. during an election.
He's literally following the Blair strategy, it's obvious Blair is advising him
Your slogan is too negative. You're leading with what you are taxing, not what you aren't.
The criticism of Starmer is that he doesn't have a plan.
But he will present a plan at some point - I believe - and then this criticism will be ineffective.
If he presented a plan, he'd get slaughtered.
I absolutely despise evasive politicians but it is clear to me that this is what any opposition leader would be doing right now
A smart effective politician knows when to let other criticise.....he has done this a number of times, where he pops up, goes all the government absolute shit they are, he must know somebody is going to ask and so what do you suggest....errh, well, erhhh, hmmm.
He did it so many times during COVID, claiming the government were absolutely f##king it all up with their crazy policies, but when push came to shove, he basically always ended saying well I would do the same as them, just better, sort of, maybe.
Blair spent most of the 1994-1997 period telling everyone how feckless and useless the Tories were, he presented plans very late in the day.
I agree opposition can be smart - but I disagree that he's taking the wrong approach by not setting out Labour's plans
If I remember correctly, Blair cut this off with loads of the obvious, by having set up reviews with think tanks like IPPR. So if anybody said well whats your plan mr smart arse, he was able to say, well we already have the well respected IPPR conducting a detailed analysis of this particular issue, and we will be driven by their data driven findings.
Even Ed Miliband worked this one out.
You don't have to set out in detail your policy, but if you decide to go big on criticism, you need to at very least say that we have already got the wheels in motion to provide us with detailed alternative plans.
Why does the car have "911 GT" written on the back of it? Is it an insider joke?
“911” as a brand, has existed since the ‘60s, across several different evolutions of the car.
The ‘automotive community’ refers to the different models by their internal model numbers, so the current 911 is a 992, the previous one a 991. Then it gets confusing, because the next two are 997 and 996, and the ones before that were 993, 964 and 930, before we actually get back to 911.
This nomenclature is actually quite common. So i just bought an E-Class Mercedes. The one I have is a W211, as opposed to the preceding W210, or the successor W212 and W213 models. At least Mercedes keep the numbers in order!
Thanks. A bit like the Glock numbering where No.8 is a frying pan or something.
Yes. The “911 GT” was actually an homologation special - that is a car that’s made purely to go racing, but the rules of the racing series require a certain number of identical road cars to be produced. The 911 GT competed in the “GT2” category at Le Mans, so became known as the 993 GT2, based on the internal model number and the racing class entered. It’s not a road car with spoilers and wings, it’s a race car with number plates - because they had to make them and sell them.
There were seven right-hand-drive models delivered to the UK, and I have a feeling from previous comments that Mr @Dura_Ace had one of them. They’re now worth a fortune, close to a million.
The criticism of Starmer is that he doesn't have a plan.
But he will present a plan at some point - I believe - and then this criticism will be ineffective.
If he presented a plan, he'd get slaughtered.
I absolutely despise evasive politicians but it is clear to me that this is what any opposition leader would be doing right now
A smart effective politician knows when to let other criticise.....he has done this a number of times, where he pops up, goes all the government absolute shit they are, he must know somebody is going to ask and so what do you suggest....errh, well, erhhh, hmmm.
He did it so many times during COVID, claiming the government were absolutely f##king it all up with their crazy policies, but when push came to shove, he basically always ended saying well I would do the same as them, just better, sort of, maybe.
Blair spent most of the 1994-1997 period telling everyone how feckless and useless the Tories were, he presented plans very late in the day.
I agree opposition can be smart - but I disagree that he's taking the wrong approach by not setting out Labour's plans
If I remember correctly, Blair cut this off with loads of stuff about having set up reviews and think tanks working on these problems.
I believe you are right and he did that with PR as well.
Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears
I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.
Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.
What a £200 fine to her....
It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
How do you achieve that?
🤷♂️
I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
The only tax that is preferred to NI is capital gains tax according to yesterdays poll
All the other taxes are not favoured, including income tax
The most concerning thing I hear Starmer talk about is "those who earn money from means that is not work".....now what is work....he seems to claim those that own buy to let aren't doing work....when I rented, my landlord made numerous visits to sort out problems, was always available to us, he had to do loads of paper work to ensure he was legal, came and did loads of the maintenance work himself, etc....The number of hours he put into his properties was significant.
How about investors in companies?....are they "working"?...I have set up businesses, I would suggest I did a hell of a lot more hours "work" for many years (and still do), than those than a normal employee ever does in a week.
He should have said “Employment”, instead of “Work”.
Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears
I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.
Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.
What a £200 fine to her....
It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
How do you achieve that?
🤷♂️
I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
The only tax that is preferred to NI is capital gains tax according to yesterdays poll
All the other taxes are not favoured, including income tax
Was a wealth tax on the list? It generally polls very well.
Health Secretary Sajid Javid says he is "confident" the vaccine booster programme will start later in September.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has said the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs are safe to use as boosters, but the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has yet to give its advice to ministers.
"We are heading towards our booster programme, so the news from the MHRA today is welcome," Javid says during a visit to Moorfields Eye Hospital in London.
"But also I want to wait for the final opinion of the JCVI, it's important that we do and we listen to what they have got to say.
"I'm confident that our booster programme will start later this month but I'm still awaiting the final advice."
GET ON WITH IT!!!
Seriously - Israel, UAE and USA are all doing booster shots. It might make the difference between restrictions in winter and not, especially among the more vulnerable groups.
This is actually rocket science, and the world is learning it as we go along. UK gov has done really well on vaccines and shouldn’t hesitate now, when looking at what’s happening elsewhere.
Somewhat bizarrely the most recent UK data released today suggests that for age 40 and up the vaccinated and more likely to catch covid than the unvaccinated. They're an awful lot less likely to die from it, so perhaps just reflects unvaccinated also checking out of the testing bonanza, but an odd quirk nontheless.
The most concerning thing I hear Starmer talk about is "those who earn money from means that is not work".....now what is work....he seems to claim those that own buy to let aren't doing work....when I rented, my landlord made numerous visits to sort out problems, was always available to us, he had to do loads of paper work to ensure he was legal, came and did loads of the maintenance work himself, etc....The number of hours he put into his properties was significant.
How about investors in companies?....are they "working"?...I have set up businesses, I would suggest I did a hell of a lot more hours "work" for many years (and still do), than those than a normal employee ever does in a week.
Is "we should look at a range of options" heading towards Ed M's "a full judge-led inquiry" status?
Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears
I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.
Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.
What a £200 fine to her....
It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
How do you achieve that?
🤷♂️
I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
The only tax that is preferred to NI is capital gains tax according to yesterdays poll
All the other taxes are not favoured, including income tax
Was a wealth tax on the list? It generally polls very well.
Capital gains tax was the only actual wealth tax on the list
Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears
I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.
Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.
What a £200 fine to her....
It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
How do you achieve that?
🤷♂️
I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
That's me. Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
They don't know what they are, how much they'll cost business (it's more than just "a free APP") - or where they'll be used - but they're going to have them anyway:
MSPs have approved plans for vaccine passports in Scotland by a vote of 68 to 55 - split along party lines between government and opposition
SNP obviously know what is coming with their GRA bill and copying Belarus tactics.
Scottish Parliament bosses have asked the Home Office to designate the building and its grounds as a “protected site” in the interests of national security. Legislation has now been laid in Westminster under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which is due to come into force on October 1. At present, the police have limited powers to intervene if there is no substantive offence taking place, such as protesters making a prolonged noise outside the entrances. But from next month it will be a criminal offence to remain on the parliamentary estate “without lawful authority” punishable by a £5000 fine or a year in jail after a conviction.
The criticism of Starmer is that he doesn't have a plan.
But he will present a plan at some point - I believe - and then this criticism will be ineffective.
If he presented a plan, he'd get slaughtered.
I absolutely despise evasive politicians but it is clear to me that this is what any opposition leader would be doing right now
I'll never vote Labour. I want to eviscerate them.
Politically Betting thinking though; Starmer is fine. He's doing ok as we see it and given the lack of noise, very well in the party. He will face a big challenge at the Labour conference, but I can't work out what that'll be. Clearly my Labour contacts are limited, and my union contacts zero.
Assuming he's around in three weeks time, then he'll undoubtedly say something.
Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears
I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.
Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.
What a £200 fine to her....
It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
How do you achieve that?
🤷♂️
I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
The only tax that is preferred to NI is capital gains tax according to yesterdays poll
All the other taxes are not favoured, including income tax
Was a wealth tax on the list? It generally polls very well.
Capital gains tax was the only actual wealth tax on the list
That is different to a wealth tax, which is what Labour should propose, and target it at the elite. No-one likes the elite, even the likes of JRM....
Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.
Barnier’s Brexitifcation continues. This time he wants to take back control of France’s ‘legal sovereignty’ from the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights - two things he was so keen to keep Britain tied to.
He couldn't have kept Britain in the ECHR (even if he'd cared to), as that's nothing to do with the EU.
I do believe that early drafts of the withdrawal agreement included bits about the UK having to stay under the ECHR and then they tried to jam it into the TCA after that gambit failed.
Really?
I mean I don't see how that would work, because the ECHR has nothing to do with UK-EU relations. Even if we'd agreed we were still in the ECHR when we Brexited, it wouldn't be possible to require us to remain in the ECHR.
I believe they made various benefits conditional on it
Starmer just needs a better slogan, "tax wealth not workers".
Blair would not be sitting here writing out the Labour plan for social care
You seem to think that is a massive winner....I would suggest that a) scares a lot of people, asset rich, cash poor...and b) also aspirational types.
I don't know if it's a good slogan or not, my point is that it's better than no slogan. If he's got a better one use that.
But the idea he's going to sit and describe the idea for Labour social care is for the birds, the majority of the public neither no nor care what the plan is, they will listen when they need to, i.e. during an election.
He's literally following the Blair strategy, it's obvious Blair is advising him
Starmer has just been given the sort of solid gold diamond encrusted gift, neatly wrapped with a ribbon and bow of which most opposition leaders could only dream.
The government is planning to raise taxes predominantly on the sorts of people who are potential swing voters who've just been enticed away from his party over Brexit. They aren't even planning to use it in a way which properly fixes the issue it's supposedly all about.
All he has to do is talk a lot about it being a tax on workers, and manage a halfway credible answer to the question "well what would you do instead?"
That's not even a particularly hard question for which to think of a good answer - mandatory insurance for over 60s would be an obvious option with lots of flexibility available on the detail of what exactly what you were proposing, or who would pay when.
But no, the man is too stupid or incompetent (or possibly worried about upsetting the "if it moves tax it" elements of his party) to do this, so remains a sort of joke also-ran, whilst the only serious voices voices in opposition are the sorts of Tory elder statesman types who can see just how distructive this sort of cash grab on workers will be.
Starmer just needs a better slogan, "tax wealth not workers".
Blair would not be sitting here writing out the Labour plan for social care
You seem to think that is a massive winner....I would suggest that a) scares a lot of people, asset rich, cash poor...and b) also aspirational types.
I don't know if it's a good slogan or not, my point is that it's better than no slogan. If he's got a better one use that.
But the idea he's going to sit and describe the idea for Labour social care is for the birds, the majority of the public neither no nor care what the plan is, they will listen when they need to, i.e. during an election.
He's literally following the Blair strategy, it's obvious Blair is advising him
The difference is that Blair had established his credibility and had a strong team that represented an alternative government. Starmer has yet do that so a void is a vacancy
One might be called churlish for suggesting that PNG might not be quite at the top of world cricket. I assume it counts as list A, but it’s a stretch.
Qualified for the T20 WC...
Just seen the footage, the lad getting tonked, he is has a nice action, bowling decent pace. Definitely not Sunday League.
I remember going past a sunday village match on a walk and sitting down for a bit (as you do). There were quite a few spectators so obviously it wasn't the 3rd XI.
The batsman (who looked about 60 odd) blocked a couple and then launched the next ball right over the pavilion and straight through the back window of an unfortunate BMW.
The article's headline is a bit sensationalist and simplistic. isn't the truth more like this.
Traditionally Tories have been the 'party of low tax' meaning essentially that the tax system is not an instrument of punitive attack on particular groups. Most Tories have been in favour of tax being as low as possible. But Tories have for decades been largely made up of people who use public services and expenditure - schools, NHS, pensions, benefits etc.
As a nation we are much more socialist than we were for good or ill, and as we on average get older and more ill the demands from Tories get louder.
Very few Tories said 'laisser faire' when furlough came in.
Labour supporters traditionally, being (in the past) less well off, support high taxes which mostly hit non Labour voters.
Everyone of course of all parties vote when 'offered' it, for low tax and high levels of state provision.
I think we have mostly (not PBers of course) become a people who prefer high spend, someone else gets taxed, a policy uniting both Labour and Tory.
This explains Labour's difficulty over paying for NHS/social care: their support is from rich and poor, and they need 3 million more votes from the middling sort.
Starmer just needs a better slogan, "tax wealth not workers".
Blair would not be sitting here writing out the Labour plan for social care
You seem to think that is a massive winner....I would suggest that a) scares a lot of people, asset rich, cash poor...and b) also aspirational types.
I don't know if it's a good slogan or not, my point is that it's better than no slogan. If he's got a better one use that.
But the idea he's going to sit and describe the idea for Labour social care is for the birds, the majority of the public neither no nor care what the plan is, they will listen when they need to, i.e. during an election.
He's literally following the Blair strategy, it's obvious Blair is advising him
Starmer has just been given the sort of solid gold diamond encrusted gift, neatly wrapped with a ribbon and bow of which most opposition leaders could only dream.
The government is planning to raise taxes predominantly on the sorts of people who are potential swing voters who've just been enticed away from his party over Brexit. They aren't even planning to use it in a way which properly fixes the issue it's supposedly all about.
All he has to do is talk a lot about it being a tax on workers, and manage a halfway credible answer to the question "well what would you do instead?"
That's not even a particularly hard question for which to think of a good answer - mandatory insurance for over 60s would be an obvious option with lots of flexibility available on the detail of what exactly what you were proposing, or who would pay when.
But no, the man is too stupid or incompetent (or possibly worried about upsetting the "if it moves tax it" elements of his party) to do this, so remains a sort of joke also-ran, whilst the only serious voices voices in opposition are the sorts of Tory elder statesman types who can see just how distructive this sort of cash grab on workers will be.
Mandatory insurance for the over 60s as a Labour policy would not only be economically unfeasible but would be worth millions of votes for the Tories. Apart from those considerations it's a great idea; widows on state pensions will lap it up.
They don't know what they are, how much they'll cost business (it's more than just "a free APP") - or where they'll be used - but they're going to have them anyway:
MSPs have approved plans for vaccine passports in Scotland by a vote of 68 to 55 - split along party lines between government and opposition
SNP obviously know what is coming with their GRA bill and copying Belarus tactics.
Scottish Parliament bosses have asked the Home Office to designate the building and its grounds as a “protected site” in the interests of national security. Legislation has now been laid in Westminster under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which is due to come into force on October 1. At present, the police have limited powers to intervene if there is no substantive offence taking place, such as protesters making a prolonged noise outside the entrances. But from next month it will be a criminal offence to remain on the parliamentary estate “without lawful authority” punishable by a £5000 fine or a year in jail after a conviction.
That should cover the Indy marches past the Parliament building.
Comments
But the idea he's going to sit and describe the idea for Labour social care is for the birds, the majority of the public neither no nor care what the plan is, they will listen when they need to, i.e. during an election.
He's literally following the Blair strategy, it's obvious Blair is advising him
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20
Good slogans are inspirational.
But he will present a plan at some point - I believe - and then this criticism will be ineffective.
If he presented a plan, he'd get slaughtered.
I absolutely despise evasive politicians but it is clear to me that this is what any opposition leader would be doing right now
"Get Britain working", I don't know, I don't have a clue
He did it so many times during COVID, claiming the government were absolutely f##king it all up with their crazy policies, but when push came to shove, he basically always ended saying well I would do the same as them, just better, sort of, maybe. The classic being vaccine passports.
I agree opposition can be smart - but I disagree that he's taking the wrong approach by not setting out Labour's plans
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436018001002782722?s=20
Even Ed Miliband worked this one out.
You don't have to set out in detail your policy, but if you decide to go big on criticism, you need to at very least say that we have already got the wheels in motion to provide us with detailed alternative plans.
There were seven right-hand-drive models delivered to the UK, and I have a feeling from previous comments that Mr @Dura_Ace had one of them. They’re now worth a fortune, close to a million.
All the other taxes are not favoured, including income tax
NEW THREAD
Say it isn't so.
It did its job, only five votes against and no resignations.
Reshuffle after Conference?
Scottish Parliament bosses have asked the Home Office to designate the building and its grounds as a “protected site” in the interests of national security.
Legislation has now been laid in Westminster under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which is due to come into force on October 1.
At present, the police have limited powers to intervene if there is no substantive offence taking place, such as protesters making a prolonged noise outside the entrances.
But from next month it will be a criminal offence to remain on the parliamentary estate “without lawful authority” punishable by a £5000 fine or a year in jail after a conviction.
Politically Betting thinking though; Starmer is fine. He's doing ok as we see it and given the lack of noise, very well in the party. He will face a big challenge at the Labour conference, but I can't work out what that'll be. Clearly my Labour contacts are limited, and my union contacts zero.
Assuming he's around in three weeks time, then he'll undoubtedly say something.
If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.
Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?
I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
The government is planning to raise taxes predominantly on the sorts of people who are potential swing voters who've just been enticed away from his party over Brexit.
They aren't even planning to use it in a way which properly fixes the issue it's supposedly all about.
All he has to do is talk a lot about it being a tax on workers, and manage a halfway credible answer to the question "well what would you do instead?"
That's not even a particularly hard question for which to think of a good answer - mandatory insurance for over 60s would be an obvious option with lots of flexibility available on the detail of what exactly what you were proposing, or who would pay when.
But no, the man is too stupid or incompetent (or possibly worried about upsetting the "if it moves tax it" elements of his party) to do this, so remains a sort of joke also-ran, whilst the only serious voices voices in opposition are the sorts of Tory elder statesman types who can see just how distructive this sort of cash grab on workers will be.
The batsman (who looked about 60 odd) blocked a couple and then launched the next ball right over the pavilion and straight through the back window of an unfortunate BMW.
Turned out he had previous - including in the 1979 World Cup Final...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collis_King
Never assume village cricket is tame stuff!
Traditionally Tories have been the 'party of low tax' meaning essentially that the tax system is not an instrument of punitive attack on particular groups. Most Tories have been in favour of tax being as low as possible. But Tories have for decades been largely made up of people who use public services and expenditure - schools, NHS, pensions, benefits etc.
As a nation we are much more socialist than we were for good or ill, and as we on average get older and more ill the demands from Tories get louder.
Very few Tories said 'laisser faire' when furlough came in.
Labour supporters traditionally, being (in the past) less well off, support high taxes which mostly hit non Labour voters.
Everyone of course of all parties vote when 'offered' it, for low tax and high levels of state provision.
I think we have mostly (not PBers of course) become a people who prefer high spend, someone else gets taxed, a policy uniting both Labour and Tory.
This explains Labour's difficulty over paying for NHS/social care: their support is from rich and poor, and they need 3 million more votes from the middling sort.