As I predicted at the time, the government would in the end U-Turn and you will end up with means testing and with additional cost of running the scheme it will end up saving absolutely f##k all. Now all we need to here is there is some additional complex process to apply where forms need to be filled in triplicate and the government will hire an additional 10,000 people to process the forms.
When you could have just increased some stealth taxes that hit wealthy OAPs and raised the same money if not more.
As I predicted at the time, the government would in the end U-Turn and you will end up with means testing and with additional cost of running the scheme it will end up saving absolutely f##k all.
When you could have just increased some stealth taxes that hit wealthy OAPs and raised the same money if not more.
And now the money needs to come from somewhere else. So what measure gets taken in its place that p*sses off someone else?
Because of the difficult decisions we had to make last year we’ve managed to stabilise the economy and that means we can now help more pensioners with an increase in the threshold .
The above will be the government spin on the WFA u-turn .
I mean maybe? But the most effective spin has to have some tenuous connection to reality. The government's fiscal situation is even worse now than it was. They really don't want people talking about *that*.
I would wager a lot of money that the spin I mentioned will be close to what No 10 come out with. They really should just do a total u-turn but politically they think the threshold change is less damaging .
Rupert Lowe recorded making antisemitic remark at parliament
In a leaked recording, Lowe can be heard remarking on the size of the camera being prepared to take footage of him. “In days gone by you’d call it a Jewish camera, but that would be politically incorrect. Because it’s so small,” Lowe said.
As I predicted at the time, the government would in the end U-Turn and you will end up with means testing and with additional cost of running the scheme it will end up saving absolutely f##k all.
When you could have just increased some stealth taxes that hit wealthy OAPs and raised the same money if not more.
Remember I didn't even want a stealth tax - it was reverse the 4% NI change by adding 3% to income tax and keeping the WFA.
That gave every pensioner with a yearly income of less than £20,000 better off while offering something to others.
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
You cannot have your Chancellor announcing on TV the winter fuel payment policy remains and a couple of hours later the Prime Minister effectively saying
' No it doesn't '
Beth Rigby on Sky saying Labour are in disarray and who could disagree ?
Although to be fair, I think Beth Rigby starts every piece to camera with (insert party here)... are in disarray....
As I predicted at the time, the government would in the end U-Turn and you will end up with means testing and with additional cost of running the scheme it will end up saving absolutely f##k all.
When you could have just increased some stealth taxes that hit wealthy OAPs and raised the same money if not more.
And now the money needs to come from somewhere else. So what measure gets taken in its place that p*sses off someone else?
Ah that’s where the recent deals come in . The OBR will score these and factor that into GDP growth . Expect more rushed deals as Reeves tries to hit her stupid self-imposed fiscal rules .
Rupert Lowe recorded making antisemitic remark at parliament
In a leaked recording, Lowe can be heard remarking on the size of the camera being prepared to take footage of him. “In days gone by you’d call it a Jewish camera, but that would be politically incorrect. Because it’s so small,” Lowe said.
Not really a rib tickler even by the shite standards of antisemitic 'jokes'.
Oh I see. That trope as part of antisemtism I find a bit of a weird one, because its fine for us to say TSE and his fellow yorkshiremen are as tight as a ducks arse. Frugality doesn't seem a particular negative to trait to me.
Its doesn't seem quite the same as the antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jews run the world, the banks, the space lasers...
As I predicted at the time, the government would in the end U-Turn and you will end up with means testing and with additional cost of running the scheme it will end up saving absolutely f##k all.
When you could have just increased some stealth taxes that hit wealthy OAPs and raised the same money if not more.
And now the money needs to come from somewhere else. So what measure gets taken in its place that p*sses off someone else?
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
And politically they've done it all wrong too. They've now systematically annoyed everyone whatever they think about the WFA.
It's worth remembering why the WFA exists - it was created entirely as a bear trap for the Tories by Gordon Brown - it's a deliberately emotively named handout which was doled out to loads of people who didn't need it, with primary purpose of goading the Tories into cutting it. George Osborne, as the intended victim, had his faults, but even he saw what it was, and wisely left it well alone. Quite why Starmer and Reeves decided to leap into their own well signposted bear trap is a mystery for the ages.
Because of the difficult decisions we had to make last year we’ve managed to stabilise the economy and that means we can now help more pensioners with an increase in the threshold .
The above will be the government spin on the WFA u-turn .
I mean maybe? But the most effective spin has to have some tenuous connection to reality. The government's fiscal situation is even worse now than it was. They really don't want people talking about *that*.
I would wager a lot of money that the spin I mentioned will be close to what No 10 come out with. They really should just do a total u-turn but politically they think the threshold change is less damaging .
Truth is they should have done as Reeves said this morning that the policy remains but Starmer is so weak he twists and bends and frankly has no backbone whatsoever
One things for sure Reeves needs all the recent deals officially signed off before the Autumn Statement so that the OBR can score them into their growth projections.
Even though collectively they don’t add a huge amount even a small increase in the GDP forecasts gives her a bit more fiscal room.
Because of the difficult decisions we had to make last year we’ve managed to stabilise the economy and that means we can now help more pensioners with an increase in the threshold .
The above will be the government spin on the WFA u-turn .
I mean maybe? But the most effective spin has to have some tenuous connection to reality. The government's fiscal situation is even worse now than it was. They really don't want people talking about *that*.
I would wager a lot of money that the spin I mentioned will be close to what No 10 come out with. They really should just do a total u-turn but politically they think the threshold change is less damaging .
Truth is they should have done as Reeves said this morning that the policy remains but Starmer is so weak he twists and bends and frankly has no backbone whatsoever
She said the policy stands but she had already hinted that there would be some changes so doing that with the threshold means it’s not a total u-turn . The government have no choice but to do that as the policy is absolutely toxic .
How does the gov't easily change the threshold to anything other than pension credit without a fortune on means testing ? Pensioners aren't generally in PAYE systems...
Pensioners pay tax, hmrc has the details....setting it to all pensioners that pay less than x tax is easy
One things for sure Reeves needs all the recent deals officially signed off before the Autumn Statement so that the OBR can score them into their growth projections.
Even though collectively they don’t add a huge amount even a small increase in the GDP forecasts gives her a bit more fiscal room.
How does the gov't easily change the threshold to anything other than pension credit without a fortune on means testing ? Pensioners aren't generally in PAYE systems...
Pensioners pay tax, hmrc has the details....setting it to all pensioners that pay less than x tax is easy
Next row for Starmer - where does he set the threshold.
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
Leon and Casion embracing their inner Lord Frosts.
If you have a nice home in a nice green area altruism hits the buffers.
The privileged need to realise that things must change, if they want them to stay the same.
What needs to change is for immigration to become either negative, nil, or less than 10K a year, as the majority of people want according to the latest polling.
That's impossible without economic depressiom, which is why first Johnson, and then Farage won't be able to deliver it.
What that would really need is for a rightwing politician to.really commit to something very out of character - cast-iron commitments to lift the education and training budget over a number of years, such that the above can be attempted again after a clearly defined number of years.
The only way out: 1. Migration is unsustainably and absurdly high. Smash the gangs. Rejoin the international accords. Rapidly process and return. Find an off-shore way to process the questionable cases. 2. Migration is needed because we don't have enough doctors care staff factory workers brickies plumbers sparkies etc. If you want to set the level to zero then here's the cost to you tomorrow 3. We're going to invest heavily now to train up the next generation of Brits to fill these critical jobs. This will take 5 years and we're going to need migrants until then. To help fix the crisis in our universities and remove a large flow of migrants we're going to fund universities to refocus on academic and vocational courses we need
Knuckleheads will complain but with an actual plan to move things forward they will be an ever-shrinking minority.
If Farage was shrewder than I've so far given him credit for, this would actually be a realistic sort of plan for him to adopt.
So far I've only seen him look for short-term gains, though.
Farage, as far as I know, has never once in his long career engaged with reality to propose a practical solution to a real problem. It is not his way of doing things. This doesn't seem to be doing him any harm regrettably
Even Johnson engaged with reality when he had to, eg Get Brexit Done, resulting in a deal so bad he later disowned it.
Practical solutions to real problems inevitably annoy some (potentially large) subset of the population. It’s much easier to claim that there is some imaginary solution that will please everyone and comes without the pesky downsides that real solutions inevitably suffer from.
With vim, vigour & an engaging personality you can use this approach to enter the very highest positions of power, so long as you can convince enough of the population that you have the solutions to their problems. That reality will eventually assert itself is not your problem - it’s theirs.
Sarah Pochin (winner of Runcorn) was just on Woman's Hour. She was excellent - really worth a listen. She gave a simple (simplistic?) practical policy - send 10,000 foreign prisoners home instead of letting wife beaters out early. It was one of the most accessible performances of a politician I can remember, hitting numerous hot spots and not coming across as either a nutter or a racist. I still hope she loses the next general election horribly though.
One problem with that is that 1/3 of those - ~3500 - are on remand, so cannot be sent back.
Another is what did she say about those who may just be released when they get there.
I think that perhaps she should have gone with addressing (or also addressing) the ~17k (20% of pop) prisoners who are on remand.
(I'd agree that she sounds like a good addition to the group, and I'll listen to the interview larer,
Just a point who cares if they get released when they get there its criminals that aren't here, after that who gives a shit
As I predicted at the time, the government would in the end U-Turn and you will end up with means testing and with additional cost of running the scheme it will end up saving absolutely f##k all.
When you could have just increased some stealth taxes that hit wealthy OAPs and raised the same money if not more.
And now the money needs to come from somewhere else. So what measure gets taken in its place that p*sses off someone else?
One things for sure Reeves needs all the recent deals officially signed off before the Autumn Statement so that the OBR can score them into their growth projections.
Even though collectively they don’t add a huge amount even a small increase in the GDP forecasts gives her a bit more fiscal room.
Such a dysfunctional way to run an economy.
I agree it’s a shambles . All Reeves cares about is her fiscal rules and is in denial . This is why they’re rushing out these deals because that’s a way to get better growth projections .
How does the gov't easily change the threshold to anything other than pension credit without a fortune on means testing ? Pensioners aren't generally in PAYE systems...
Pensioners pay tax, hmrc has the details....setting it to all pensioners that pay less than x tax is easy
Next row for Starmer - where does he set the threshold.
Too low and it looks insulting , too high and then why really bother .
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
And politically they've done it all wrong too. They've now systematically annoyed everyone whatever they think about the WFA.
It's worth remembering why the WFA exists - it was created entirely as a bear trap for the Tories by Gordon Brown - it's a deliberately emotively named handout which was doled out to loads of people who didn't need it, with primary purpose of goading the Tories into cutting it. George Osborne, as the intended victim, had his faults, but even he saw what it was, and wisely left it well alone. Quite why Starmer and Reeves decided to leap into their own well signposted bear trap is a mystery for the ages.
Not so mysterious imo. I think they simply saw it as the right thing to do despite it not being popular. They were putting country over party if you like. Your own take (that WFP was a GB gimmick) implies that they were.
But the political hit was greater than expected and it mainly benefited the (now) dreaded Reform. So with this u-turn it's back to the opposite (and tbf more usual) prioritisation of party over country.
Most commentators will probably be unimpressed but most Labour MPs, esp in the red wall, will approve.
Super way to torpedo any goodwill without any benefit.
The Tories - Johnson --> Truss --> Sunak - had a humungous amount of ordure poured over them for being hopeless at delivering Government. And Truss was so bad she spooked the bond market.
But this lot give no confidence that they have any clue at how to deliver Government. They must be testing the patience of the band market too...
I think this government is more of a curate's egg. But they really don't know how to do retail politics. If the Tories hadn't committed seppuku, they'd likely never have been elected.
Labour got a 170-odd seat majority on the back of the voter reaction to the Tories of "Oh, FFS...."
Lord knows how many Labour will be reduced to when the voter reaction to this current term is "Oh, FFS!!!
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
Are Jewish cameras a bit like Jewish spark plugs ?
(Fans of Four Lions will understand.)
I used to sell cameras and I've never heard of a Jewish camera. And my late father was one for anti-semitic jokes, I'm sorry to say, so I'm sure he'd have known one!
How does the gov't easily change the threshold to anything other than pension credit without a fortune on means testing ? Pensioners aren't generally in PAYE systems...
Pensioners pay tax, hmrc has the details....setting it to all pensioners that pay less than x tax is easy
I dont see why an sql query is hard
select all where age > 65 && taxpaid last year > x is hard but then we are talking the public sector
Because of the difficult decisions we had to make last year we’ve managed to stabilise the economy and that means we can now help more pensioners with an increase in the threshold .
The above will be the government spin on the WFA u-turn .
I mean maybe? But the most effective spin has to have some tenuous connection to reality. The government's fiscal situation is even worse now than it was. They really don't want people talking about *that*.
I would wager a lot of money that the spin I mentioned will be close to what No 10 come out with. They really should just do a total u-turn but politically they think the threshold change is less damaging .
Truth is they should have done as Reeves said this morning that the policy remains but Starmer is so weak he twists and bends and frankly has no backbone whatsoever
I don't think it was possible for Starmer to keep the policy and continue to be Labour Leader. The level of anger about this among the Labour rank-and-file is just volcanic. If he hadn't ditched the policy, then he would have been ousted.
From Labourlist: As soon as [Doncaster Mayor Ros] Jones was re-elected she spoke out against Keir Starmer, suggesting the Labour leader was getting it wrong on welfare and winter fuel cuts.
Speaking to LabourList, two Labour candidates who lost their seats echoed her sentiments, albeit on condition of anonymity.
One said: “We feel collectively we were sacrificial lambs thrown under the bus by the government.
“They knew what was going to happen in the local elections, they knew we would haemorrhage seats, and they let that happen.”
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
So little achieved will be the epitath of starmers government
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
Because of the difficult decisions we had to make last year we’ve managed to stabilise the economy and that means we can now help more pensioners with an increase in the threshold .
The above will be the government spin on the WFA u-turn .
I mean maybe? But the most effective spin has to have some tenuous connection to reality. The government's fiscal situation is even worse now than it was. They really don't want people talking about *that*.
I would wager a lot of money that the spin I mentioned will be close to what No 10 come out with. They really should just do a total u-turn but politically they think the threshold change is less damaging .
Truth is they should have done as Reeves said this morning that the policy remains but Starmer is so weak he twists and bends and frankly has no backbone whatsoever
I don't think it was possible for Starmer to keep the policy and continue to be Labour Leader. The level of anger about this among the Labour rank-and-file is just volcanic. If he hadn't ditched the policy, then he would have been ousted.
From Labourlist: As soon as [Doncaster Mayor Ros] Jones was re-elected she spoke out against Keir Starmer, suggesting the Labour leader was getting it wrong on welfare and winter fuel cuts.
Speaking to LabourList, two Labour candidates who lost their seats echoed her sentiments, albeit on condition of anonymity.
One said: “We feel collectively we were sacrificial lambs thrown under the bus by the government.
“They knew what was going to happen in the local elections, they knew we would haemorrhage seats, and they let that happen.”
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
As was widely remarked at the time.
Too late. She'd probably have got away with doing it then, giving her vastly more fiscal elbow room - but would be crucified if trying it now.
Are Jewish cameras a bit like Jewish spark plugs ?
(Fans of Four Lions will understand.)
Or space lasers.
I'm always amused by the formulation "you can't say x anymore" ... while saying "x".
You can pretty much say anything on PB as its (a) mostly anonymous if you want it that way and (b) no-one reads this shit but realistically there are LOTS of things that cannot realistically be said if you are in the public eye and wish to stay that way.
For instance - a much beloved broadcaster had his career ended because of a whipped up campaign accusing him of racism (Danny Baker and the Royal chimp photo). And we wasn't even trying to be racist.
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
Well the good news is that Captain America: Brave New World is now at $415 million worldwide and will probably leave theatres in the coming days. The bad (and surprising) news is that Thunderbolts* is doing *less* well. It's doing about $157mill vs $164mill at day 18 in the domestic market. This is a pity because it's a better film. The budget for both is about the same ($180 mill)
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
Which was time limited. And is now 12 years longer.
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
We have an SPS agreement which means we can actually export the fish we catch, amongst other things (and it’ll reduce the lorry queues at Dover considerably).
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
That were due to expire because they limited it to so many years
See this is what I dont get sorry
It allows us to export fish we catch we dont want....ok I can see that
At the same time allowing them to come in catch the fish we dont want so they dont need those exports
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property, taxation on non-wage income or freebies for pensioners, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
We have an SPS agreement which means we can actually export the fish we catch, amongst other things (and it’ll reduce the lorry queues at Dover considerably).
As I just pointed out though why would they want the exports now we allowed them to catch their own in our waters?
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
Leon and Casion embracing their inner Lord Frosts.
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property, taxation on non-wage income or freebies for pensioners, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
Scotland is welcome to fuck off if you like we dont care the reason your independence referendum didn't work is you held in the wrong side of the border
Rupert Lowe recorded making antisemitic remark at parliament
In a leaked recording, Lowe can be heard remarking on the size of the camera being prepared to take footage of him. “In days gone by you’d call it a Jewish camera, but that would be politically incorrect. Because it’s so small,” Lowe said.
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property or taxation on non-wage income, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
I'm still unsure as to why tax increases on income-shifting such as carried interest, CGT and owning property through companies is politically difficult, it would affect very few, though admittedly they tend to be the few that own the media. The farm IHT loophole closure seems to have faded, you'd have thought even less people would be enraged about an end to people like the Candy's avoiding stamp duty and council tax.
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property or taxation on non-wage income, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
I'm still unsure as to why tax increases on income-shifting such as carried interest, CGT and owning property through companies is politically difficult, it would affect very few, though admittedly they tend to be the few that own the media. The farm IHT loophole closure seems to have faded, you'd have thought even less people would be enraged about an end to people like the Candy's avoiding stamp duty and council tax.
It might be because you are a socialist and cant imagine taxes being bad
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
We have an SPS agreement which means we can actually export the fish we catch, amongst other things (and it’ll reduce the lorry queues at Dover considerably).
As I just pointed out though why would they want the exports now we allowed them to catch their own in our waters?
It's about who owns the quotas, it's not a free for all where everyone can take what they like.
UK fishing rights are owned by a few wealthy families, or overseas interests.
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
We have an SPS agreement which means we can actually export the fish we catch, amongst other things (and it’ll reduce the lorry queues at Dover considerably).
As I just pointed out though why would they want the exports now we allowed them to catch their own in our waters?
Because a. there is plenty of demand for fish, b. a large part of our exports are farmed salmon and shellfish
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
What I realize is that you have no clue what's in it.
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property, taxation on non-wage income or freebies for pensioners, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
Scotland is welcome to fuck off if you like we dont care the reason your independence referendum didn't work is you held in the wrong side of the border
A bit unhinged there Pagan. Not sure how Scotland comes into it.
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
What I realize is that you have no clue what's in it.
Go on then pirate king enlighten me what has starmer got as a concrete thing?
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property or taxation on non-wage income, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
I'm still unsure as to why tax increases on income-shifting such as carried interest, CGT and owning property through companies is politically difficult, it would affect very few, though admittedly they tend to be the few that own the media. The farm IHT loophole closure seems to have faded, you'd have thought even less people would be enraged about an end to people like the Candy's avoiding stamp duty and council tax.
I think people would go berserk if you changed CGT or IHT allowances, particularly on property. Even those who will never pay them. Even a council tax flat rate that a large majority would benefit from would be framed as Labour coming for your house.
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
We have an SPS agreement which means we can actually export the fish we catch, amongst other things (and it’ll reduce the lorry queues at Dover considerably).
As I just pointed out though why would they want the exports now we allowed them to catch their own in our waters?
It's about who owns the quotas, it's not a free for all where everyone can take what they like.
UK fishing rights are owned by a few wealthy families, or overseas interests.
Being an ex trawler man I know exactly the industry, however quota's were brought in due to the cfp and destroyed the industry I worked in. Down to the eu and then there cfp was also hugely destructive of marine environments....since we left the cfp our fish stocks have been recovering
I see everyone is a critic of the indiscriminate slaughter of Gazans now. I wonder if there will be any reflection on the appeasement, selective silences and bothsidesism that got us to this point? (Answers own question: of course there won’t be, you stupid twat)
I'm not in favour of the indiscriminate slaughter of anyone, anywhere in the world, but - personally - I find Israel/Palestine and Gaza/West Bank stuff boring.
I only keep quiet because you get abuse if you don't echo along. But I'm not especially interested.
Yes, I rarely comment on it for the same reason. The Hamas attack and kidnappings were a shocking act of terrorism but the Israeli response is openly genocidal.
It touches so many culture war issues that it soaks up far too much attention, while Sudan, or the Eastern Congo get ignored.
The Israeli response is openly genocidal. Hamas are also openly genocidal. (Yes, that's bothsideism. But it's also true.)
The issue is that we, in the west, have generally supported Israel, for many complex reasons, including historical ones. We have not directly supported Hamas. Now the Israeli government are being openly genocidal, the question is how long we can continue to support them.
I don't think it is a question of us having to support them or they will get crushed by Hamas. But the Israeli government do need to understand that we have zero support for the way they are acting. In fact, that we condemn it.
Peter Tatchell stands for millions of us who don't demonstrate against the wickedness of all sides and in support of babies and children, and ordinary people everywhere.
Bt the way, loads more ordinary people (including babies and children) are being crushed and killed in Sudan than Israel/Gaza and no-one in the west seems to care much.
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
We have an SPS agreement which means we can actually export the fish we catch, amongst other things (and it’ll reduce the lorry queues at Dover considerably).
As I just pointed out though why would they want the exports now we allowed them to catch their own in our waters?
It's about who owns the quotas, it's not a free for all where everyone can take what they like.
UK fishing rights are owned by a few wealthy families, or overseas interests.
Being an ex trawler man I know exactly the industry, however quota's were brought in due to the cfp and destroyed the industry I worked in. Down to the eu and then there cfp was also hugely destructive of marine environments....since we left the cfp our fish stocks have been recovering
Like migration we have the same problem with the eu
Some migration is good migration, some is bad migration
Some of the eu is good things some is bad for us as a nation
Sadly we have most now in binary positions of its all bad or all good......applies to brexit too
Because of the difficult decisions we had to make last year we’ve managed to stabilise the economy and that means we can now help more pensioners with an increase in the threshold .
The above will be the government spin on the WFA u-turn .
I mean maybe? But the most effective spin has to have some tenuous connection to reality. The government's fiscal situation is even worse now than it was. They really don't want people talking about *that*.
I would wager a lot of money that the spin I mentioned will be close to what No 10 come out with. They really should just do a total u-turn but politically they think the threshold change is less damaging .
Truth is they should have done as Reeves said this morning that the policy remains but Starmer is so weak he twists and bends and frankly has no backbone whatsoever
I don't think it was possible for Starmer to keep the policy and continue to be Labour Leader. The level of anger about this among the Labour rank-and-file is just volcanic. If he hadn't ditched the policy, then he would have been ousted.
From Labourlist: As soon as [Doncaster Mayor Ros] Jones was re-elected she spoke out against Keir Starmer, suggesting the Labour leader was getting it wrong on welfare and winter fuel cuts.
Speaking to LabourList, two Labour candidates who lost their seats echoed her sentiments, albeit on condition of anonymity.
One said: “We feel collectively we were sacrificial lambs thrown under the bus by the government.
“They knew what was going to happen in the local elections, they knew we would haemorrhage seats, and they let that happen.”
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
That were due to expire because they limited it to so many years
See this is what I dont get sorry
It allows us to export fish we catch we dont want....ok I can see that
At the same time allowing them to come in catch the fish we dont want so they dont need those exports
Memo to the British people. If you want a better deal for UK fishermen, eat more fish, particularly UK caught fish.
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property or taxation on non-wage income, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
I'm still unsure as to why tax increases on income-shifting such as carried interest, CGT and owning property through companies is politically difficult, it would affect very few, though admittedly they tend to be the few that own the media. The farm IHT loophole closure seems to have faded, you'd have thought even less people would be enraged about an end to people like the Candy's avoiding stamp duty and council tax.
It might be because you are a socialist and cant imagine taxes being bad
Why is council tax or stamp duty bad for the Candy brothers but OK for everybody else?
Same as income-shifting, why is it bad for a small number to be prevented from re-classifying income as a capital gain so they can pay a lower rate than the income tax everybody else pays?
Because of the difficult decisions we had to make last year we’ve managed to stabilise the economy and that means we can now help more pensioners with an increase in the threshold .
The above will be the government spin on the WFA u-turn .
I mean maybe? But the most effective spin has to have some tenuous connection to reality. The government's fiscal situation is even worse now than it was. They really don't want people talking about *that*.
I would wager a lot of money that the spin I mentioned will be close to what No 10 come out with. They really should just do a total u-turn but politically they think the threshold change is less damaging .
Truth is they should have done as Reeves said this morning that the policy remains but Starmer is so weak he twists and bends and frankly has no backbone whatsoever
I don't think it was possible for Starmer to keep the policy and continue to be Labour Leader. The level of anger about this among the Labour rank-and-file is just volcanic. If he hadn't ditched the policy, then he would have been ousted.
From Labourlist: As soon as [Doncaster Mayor Ros] Jones was re-elected she spoke out against Keir Starmer, suggesting the Labour leader was getting it wrong on welfare and winter fuel cuts.
Speaking to LabourList, two Labour candidates who lost their seats echoed her sentiments, albeit on condition of anonymity.
One said: “We feel collectively we were sacrificial lambs thrown under the bus by the government.
“They knew what was going to happen in the local elections, they knew we would haemorrhage seats, and they let that happen.”
If you have a nice home in a nice green area altruism hits the buffers.
The privileged need to realise that things must change, if they want them to stay the same.
What needs to change is for immigration to become either negative, nil, or less than 10K a year, as the majority of people want according to the latest polling.
That's impossible without economic depressiom, which is why first Johnson, and then Farage won't be able to deliver it.
What that would really need is for a rightwing politician to.really commit to something very out of character - cast-iron commitments to lift the education and training budget over a number of years, such that the above can be attempted again after a clearly defined number of years.
The only way out: 1. Migration is unsustainably and absurdly high. Smash the gangs. Rejoin the international accords. Rapidly process and return. Find an off-shore way to process the questionable cases. 2. Migration is needed because we don't have enough doctors care staff factory workers brickies plumbers sparkies etc. If you want to set the level to zero then here's the cost to you tomorrow 3. We're going to invest heavily now to train up the next generation of Brits to fill these critical jobs. This will take 5 years and we're going to need migrants until then. To help fix the crisis in our universities and remove a large flow of migrants we're going to fund universities to refocus on academic and vocational courses we need
Knuckleheads will complain but with an actual plan to move things forward they will be an ever-shrinking minority.
If Farage was shrewder than I've so far given him credit for, this would actually be a realistic sort of plan for him to adopt.
So far I've only seen him look for short-term gains, though.
Our politics has been reduced to absurdist black-and-white binary absolutism. Either you want to close the border NOW and sink the boats, or you want 704m illegals to arrive tomorrow.
Basic maths tells us that the post Boris numbers are absurdly unsustainable. So it has to come down and do so significantly which means a *practical and workable* plan to actually reduce it.
But at the same time we're reliant on migrants because we have a whole stack of jobs we can't fill. Professions we don't train enough people in, geographies where people either don't want to live or can't afford to live, skills we have let go.
Morons equate a lack of people to do job x in place y with unemployed z and say "make them work for benefits". Again, we need a *practical and workable plan*.
Why are we reliant on migrants in the NHS? Because we've made training expensive and difficult, and have an NHS where working conditions are terrible due to the lack of cash. So we need to invest to train people up and then retain that talent. Invest money now to save money later.
Why are we reliant on migrants in the care sector or factories or an endless list of jobs? Because pay and conditions are poor and housing costs are high - Brits can't afford the work and even if they wanted to we've trained a generation that work is crap because you should be a star on Simon Cowell twat tv. Slash housing costs over a period by building a shitton of new houses for rental at set rents not BTL rents
And how do we build? Fund a mass apprenticeship scheme in partnership with industry and universities. With a marketing campaign to make construction cool - "Build our Nation's Future" or something.
It will mean borrowing to invest now. And getting a return on that investment. Delivering long-term savings. Its called CAPITALISM to all the moron Tories who screech on about "who will pay for that" by reflex. You used to be capitalists, what the fuck happened to you?
Friendly advice; I think your mental health would be better if you didn’t throw so many insults around
Disagree - it helps. And its a genuine question - when did the Tories abandon capitalism?
You know best I suppose. But going from telling everyone you’ve been going through mental health problems that you need to fix to calling people morons and twats whilst generally sounding angry in three days make you appear like someone suffering with poor mental health.
I'm not calling anyone a twat. I posted "Simon Cowell Twat TV". A throw-away descriptor for not just all of the Cowell-led talent shows but all of the dating love island naked type shows - the whole industry, not a person.
And I am calling Tories - collectively - morons when they forget all about the basics of capitalism and reduce everything to "who will pay for that".
There are people on here calling a certain poster names. I am not. Yet you're focused on me because...? I have a different political perspective and can list issues and ideas?
No, you’re clearly referencing to people as twats who like a certain genre of TV. TV that appeals to twats. That’s shitty. TV is not all high brow dramas, such as the one about the Post Office, and stuff like BGT or Hit Parade is cheap to make too.
So what if people like stuff like Love Island and the like. It’s not high brow, doesn’t claim to be, but people enjoy it and should not have people look down their nose at them for doing so.
Quite frankly any of the main broadcasters need any show that draws the punters at the moment. They’re having the net and streamers eating their lunch on a daily basis.
The biggest growing streamer last year was BBC iplayer.
And ?
They grew from what to what exactly and how does that compare to the big boys ?
Is their growth simply replacing people watching as broadcast. As happens with Dr Who. So they are not net beneficiaries ?
Do you really think the BBC is not under threat from the likes of Netflix ?
The BBC has long (well, for the past few years anyway) been talking about ending broadcasting in favour of streaming.
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
That were due to expire because they limited it to so many years
See this is what I dont get sorry
It allows us to export fish we catch we dont want....ok I can see that
At the same time allowing them to come in catch the fish we dont want so they dont need those exports
Memo to the British people. If you want a better deal for UK fishermen, eat more fish, particularly UK caught fish.
Memo to idiots like you I eat fish and would eat more if shops would actually stock the damn stuff but they don't. I live on the coast of devon.......could I find a crab for sale could I fuck when I wanted one
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property, taxation on non-wage income or freebies for pensioners, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
When non-political-nerdy friends engage with me about politics, we tend to gravitate to the issues of productivity/rent-seeking/parasitic behaviour and I always seem to end up saying "We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it".
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property, taxation on non-wage income or freebies for pensioners, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
When non-political-nerdy friends engage with me about politics, we tend to gravitate to the issues of productivity/rent-seeking/parasitic behaviour and I always seem to end up saying "We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it".
I'm not EXACTLY sure what I mean, but I FEEL it
There will never be a thatcherite figure on the left they are too obsessed with being owen jones
If you have a nice home in a nice green area altruism hits the buffers.
The privileged need to realise that things must change, if they want them to stay the same.
What needs to change is for immigration to become either negative, nil, or less than 10K a year, as the majority of people want according to the latest polling.
That's impossible without economic depressiom, which is why first Johnson, and then Farage won't be able to deliver it.
What that would really need is for a rightwing politician to.really commit to something very out of character - cast-iron commitments to lift the education and training budget over a number of years, such that the above can be attempted again after a clearly defined number of years.
The only way out: 1. Migration is unsustainably and absurdly high. Smash the gangs. Rejoin the international accords. Rapidly process and return. Find an off-shore way to process the questionable cases. 2. Migration is needed because we don't have enough doctors care staff factory workers brickies plumbers sparkies etc. If you want to set the level to zero then here's the cost to you tomorrow 3. We're going to invest heavily now to train up the next generation of Brits to fill these critical jobs. This will take 5 years and we're going to need migrants until then. To help fix the crisis in our universities and remove a large flow of migrants we're going to fund universities to refocus on academic and vocational courses we need
Knuckleheads will complain but with an actual plan to move things forward they will be an ever-shrinking minority.
If Farage was shrewder than I've so far given him credit for, this would actually be a realistic sort of plan for him to adopt.
So far I've only seen him look for short-term gains, though.
Our politics has been reduced to absurdist black-and-white binary absolutism. Either you want to close the border NOW and sink the boats, or you want 704m illegals to arrive tomorrow.
Basic maths tells us that the post Boris numbers are absurdly unsustainable. So it has to come down and do so significantly which means a *practical and workable* plan to actually reduce it.
But at the same time we're reliant on migrants because we have a whole stack of jobs we can't fill. Professions we don't train enough people in, geographies where people either don't want to live or can't afford to live, skills we have let go.
Morons equate a lack of people to do job x in place y with unemployed z and say "make them work for benefits". Again, we need a *practical and workable plan*.
Why are we reliant on migrants in the NHS? Because we've made training expensive and difficult, and have an NHS where working conditions are terrible due to the lack of cash. So we need to invest to train people up and then retain that talent. Invest money now to save money later.
Why are we reliant on migrants in the care sector or factories or an endless list of jobs? Because pay and conditions are poor and housing costs are high - Brits can't afford the work and even if they wanted to we've trained a generation that work is crap because you should be a star on Simon Cowell twat tv. Slash housing costs over a period by building a shitton of new houses for rental at set rents not BTL rents
And how do we build? Fund a mass apprenticeship scheme in partnership with industry and universities. With a marketing campaign to make construction cool - "Build our Nation's Future" or something.
It will mean borrowing to invest now. And getting a return on that investment. Delivering long-term savings. Its called CAPITALISM to all the moron Tories who screech on about "who will pay for that" by reflex. You used to be capitalists, what the fuck happened to you?
Friendly advice; I think your mental health would be better if you didn’t throw so many insults around
Disagree - it helps. And its a genuine question - when did the Tories abandon capitalism?
You know best I suppose. But going from telling everyone you’ve been going through mental health problems that you need to fix to calling people morons and twats whilst generally sounding angry in three days make you appear like someone suffering with poor mental health.
I'm not calling anyone a twat. I posted "Simon Cowell Twat TV". A throw-away descriptor for not just all of the Cowell-led talent shows but all of the dating love island naked type shows - the whole industry, not a person.
And I am calling Tories - collectively - morons when they forget all about the basics of capitalism and reduce everything to "who will pay for that".
There are people on here calling a certain poster names. I am not. Yet you're focused on me because...? I have a different political perspective and can list issues and ideas?
No, you’re clearly referencing to people as twats who like a certain genre of TV. TV that appeals to twats. That’s shitty. TV is not all high brow dramas, such as the one about the Post Office, and stuff like BGT or Hit Parade is cheap to make too.
So what if people like stuff like Love Island and the like. It’s not high brow, doesn’t claim to be, but people enjoy it and should not have people look down their nose at them for doing so.
Quite frankly any of the main broadcasters need any show that draws the punters at the moment. They’re having the net and streamers eating their lunch on a daily basis.
The biggest growing streamer last year was BBC iplayer.
And ?
They grew from what to what exactly and how does that compare to the big boys ?
Is their growth simply replacing people watching as broadcast. As happens with Dr Who. So they are not net beneficiaries ?
Do you really think the BBC is not under threat from the likes of Netflix ?
The BBC has long (well, for the past few years anyway) been talking about ending broadcasting in favour of streaming.
The other thing about the WFA announcement was it was a tremendous act of hubris on Reeves’ part. I think I commented at the time that the tone was odd, and not particularly sensitive or measured. It was very much “I have to take this nice thing away from you now because you can’t have it any more.” It sounded very high and mighty, and I think she was riding on this Iron Chancellor wave that she had been trying desperately to create.
It could still be her undoing.
Not hubris. Not even Reeves. Like Osborne's omnishambles budget, this was a measure straight from the Treasury's wish list. Neither Chancellor spotted the political hand grenade.
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
That were due to expire because they limited it to so many years
See this is what I dont get sorry
It allows us to export fish we catch we dont want....ok I can see that
At the same time allowing them to come in catch the fish we dont want so they dont need those exports
Memo to the British people. If you want a better deal for UK fishermen, eat more fish, particularly UK caught fish.
Memo to idiots like you I eat fish and would eat more if shops would actually stock the damn stuff but they don't. I live on the coast of devon.......could I find a crab for sale could I fuck when I wanted one
I eat plenty lf fish, as does my wife, and we get them either from, as @Gallowgate enthuses about, the wonderful North Shields Fish Quay, Latimers or a place in Gateshead.
The other thing about the WFA announcement was it was a tremendous act of hubris on Reeves’ part. I think I commented at the time that the tone was odd, and not particularly sensitive or measured. It was very much “I have to take this nice thing away from you now because you can’t have it any more.” It sounded very high and mighty, and I think she was riding on this Iron Chancellor wave that she had been trying desperately to create.
It could still be her undoing.
Not hubris. Not even Reeves. Like Osborne's omnishambles budget, this was a measure straight from the Treasury's wish list. Neither Chancellor spotted the political hand grenade.
To be fair to the treasury hard though it is Reeves announced in 2014 long before she got her piggy snout in the government trough she wanted it gone
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
That were due to expire because they limited it to so many years
See this is what I dont get sorry
It allows us to export fish we catch we dont want....ok I can see that
At the same time allowing them to come in catch the fish we dont want so they dont need those exports
They aren't going to come and catch salmon from fish farms.
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property or taxation on non-wage income, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
I'm still unsure as to why tax increases on income-shifting such as carried interest, CGT and owning property through companies is politically difficult, it would affect very few, though admittedly they tend to be the few that own the media. The farm IHT loophole closure seems to have faded, you'd have thought even less people would be enraged about an end to people like the Candy's avoiding stamp duty and council tax.
It might be because you are a socialist and cant imagine taxes being bad
Why is council tax or stamp duty bad for the Candy brothers but OK for everybody else?
Same as income-shifting, why is it bad for a small number to be prevented from re-classifying income as a capital gain so they can pay a lower rate than the income tax everybody else pays?
Or second-homers getting a council tax rebate.
I have never understood why CGT is not paid at the same rate as income tax. It is not double-taxation as it is only paid on the return, not the capital.
A capital gain is exactky the same as bank interest, which is taxed as income.
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
That were due to expire because they limited it to so many years
See this is what I dont get sorry
It allows us to export fish we catch we dont want....ok I can see that
At the same time allowing them to come in catch the fish we dont want so they dont need those exports
Memo to the British people. If you want a better deal for UK fishermen, eat more fish, particularly UK caught fish.
Memo to idiots like you I eat fish and would eat more if shops would actually stock the damn stuff but they don't. I live on the coast of devon.......could I find a crab for sale could I fuck when I wanted one
I eat plenty lf fish, as does my wife, and we get them either from, as @Gallowgate enthuses about, the wonderful North Shields Fish Quay, Latimers or a place in Gateshead.
I love mackeral,dogfish, hake, plaice, sole, monkfish,sardines, crab, and pilchards
I goto a sizeable supermarket fresh I get a choice of salmon, trout, cod, tuna
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
What I realize is that you have no clue what's in it.
Go on then pirate king enlighten me what has starmer got as a concrete thing?
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property or taxation on non-wage income, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
I'm still unsure as to why tax increases on income-shifting such as carried interest, CGT and owning property through companies is politically difficult, it would affect very few, though admittedly they tend to be the few that own the media. The farm IHT loophole closure seems to have faded, you'd have thought even less people would be enraged about an end to people like the Candy's avoiding stamp duty and council tax.
It might be because you are a socialist and cant imagine taxes being bad
Why is council tax or stamp duty bad for the Candy brothers but OK for everybody else?
Same as income-shifting, why is it bad for a small number to be prevented from re-classifying income as a capital gain so they can pay a lower rate than the income tax everybody else pays?
Or second-homers getting a council tax rebate.
I have never understood why CGT is not paid at the same rate as income tax. It is not double-taxation as it is only paid on the return, not the capital.
A capital gain is exactky the same as bank interest, which is taxed as income.
If you re-introduced indexation allowance for CGT, I'd probably agree with your first paragraph. The bank interest analogy is tricky though. Maybe interest below CPI/RPI should also be exempt from tax ?
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property, taxation on non-wage income or freebies for pensioners, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
When non-political-nerdy friends engage with me about politics, we tend to gravitate to the issues of productivity/rent-seeking/parasitic behaviour and I always seem to end up saying "We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it".
I'm not EXACTLY sure what I mean, but I FEEL it
There will never be a thatcherite figure on the left they are too obsessed with being owen jones
It's a Bevan type figure I'm thinking of. Imagine a politician creating the NHS nowadays - impossible. We can't even do social care.
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property, taxation on non-wage income or freebies for pensioners, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
Scotland is welcome to fuck off if you like we dont care the reason your independence referendum didn't work is you held in the wrong side of the border
A bit unhinged there Pagan. Not sure how Scotland comes into it.
His maw was frightened by a giant Tunnock’s Teacake while bearing future genius Pagan2.
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property or taxation on non-wage income, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
I'm still unsure as to why tax increases on income-shifting such as carried interest, CGT and owning property through companies is politically difficult, it would affect very few, though admittedly they tend to be the few that own the media. The farm IHT loophole closure seems to have faded, you'd have thought even less people would be enraged about an end to people like the Candy's avoiding stamp duty and council tax.
It might be because you are a socialist and cant imagine taxes being bad
Why is council tax or stamp duty bad for the Candy brothers but OK for everybody else?
Same as income-shifting, why is it bad for a small number to be prevented from re-classifying income as a capital gain so they can pay a lower rate than the income tax everybody else pays?
Or second-homers getting a council tax rebate.
I have never understood why CGT is not paid at the same rate as income tax. It is not double-taxation as it is only paid on the return, not the capital.
A capital gain is exactky the same as bank interest, which is taxed as income.
A good point, though I was only suggesting that income-shifting is targeted, capital gains on genuine longterm investments are a different argument.
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
What I realize is that you have no clue what's in it.
Go on then pirate king enlighten me what has starmer got as a concrete thing?
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
What I realize is that you have no clue what's in it.
Go on then pirate king enlighten me what has starmer got as a concrete thing?
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
That were due to expire because they limited it to so many years
See this is what I dont get sorry
It allows us to export fish we catch we dont want....ok I can see that
At the same time allowing them to come in catch the fish we dont want so they dont need those exports
Memo to the British people. If you want a better deal for UK fishermen, eat more fish, particularly UK caught fish.
Memo to idiots like you I eat fish and would eat more if shops would actually stock the damn stuff but they don't. I live on the coast of devon.......could I find a crab for sale could I fuck when I wanted one
We have a fishmonger that visits weekly, plus two fish shops and a smokehouse within three miles. Do you want me to send you a crab?
Indicated he will improve thresholds but not universal
Which, to be honest, is sensible.I know what Mr Eabhal has posted down thread, but a more tailored payment would benefit those who need it while ignoring those like me for whom it's merely nice to have.
The problem is that the payment is small beans, so by creating a tailored threshold they create a lot of expensive bureaucracy which wipes out the savings from restricting payments.
The threshold they decided to use at first - pension credit eligibility - meant that no new bureaucracy was created.
They would be better off making it a universal payment than having a custom threshold. They've literally now chosen the worst possible option. Anything else would be better.
The whole thing is at the same time economically inconsequential, and politically disastrous.
Tinkering with it just prolongs the agony for no benefit, and absorbs government time that might be spent on something productive.
They have simultaneously failed to pander to the pensioner lobby and failed to take on the pensioner lobby. It's hard to overstate how bad it is.
Labour fully deserve their miserably low polling scores.
I'm not sure they would have suffered significantly greater political damage if they had fought the pensioner lobby on the big one: the triple lock. All this aggro, and so little achieved...
The underlying issue here is that it's almost impossible to govern this country. Even something like WFP causes insane levels of outrage. A trade deal with Europe that doesn't really change anything is "treason".
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property, taxation on non-wage income or freebies for pensioners, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
Scotland is welcome to fuck off if you like we dont care the reason your independence referendum didn't work is you held in the wrong side of the border
A bit unhinged there Pagan. Not sure how Scotland comes into it.
His maw was frightened by a giant Tunnock’s Teacake while bearing future genius Pagan2.
No I am just someone who is happy to set scotland loose, we dont get a choice here to vote for a non unionist party
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
That were due to expire because they limited it to so many years
See this is what I dont get sorry
It allows us to export fish we catch we dont want....ok I can see that
At the same time allowing them to come in catch the fish we dont want so they dont need those exports
Memo to the British people. If you want a better deal for UK fishermen, eat more fish, particularly UK caught fish.
Memo to idiots like you I eat fish and would eat more if shops would actually stock the damn stuff but they don't. I live on the coast of devon.......could I find a crab for sale could I fuck when I wanted one
I eat plenty lf fish, as does my wife, and we get them either from, as @Gallowgate enthuses about, the wonderful North Shields Fish Quay, Latimers or a place in Gateshead.
I love mackeral,dogfish, hake, plaice, sole, monkfish,sardines, crab, and pilchards
I goto a sizeable supermarket fresh I get a choice of salmon, trout, cod, tuna
I only ever had dogfish once, in Amble, it was superb.
Hake is a favourite of mine. It was my wife’s birthday last week and I took her to the Potted Lobster in Bambrugh for her meal. I had the hake, she had the sea bream, both were superb
Before Covid my local Sainsbury’s and Tesco had a fresh fish counter. Used to love the fresh sardines and the fresh mackerel from them.
We also have some excellent fish stalls in the Grainger market too.
Mind you from time to time on our estate we get people coming round selling ‘fresh fish from Grimsby’ give them MOFOs a wide berth
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
That were due to expire because they limited it to so many years
See this is what I dont get sorry
It allows us to export fish we catch we dont want....ok I can see that
At the same time allowing them to come in catch the fish we dont want so they dont need those exports
Memo to the British people. If you want a better deal for UK fishermen, eat more fish, particularly UK caught fish.
Memo to idiots like you I eat fish and would eat more if shops would actually stock the damn stuff but they don't. I live on the coast of devon.......could I find a crab for sale could I fuck when I wanted one
I eat plenty lf fish, as does my wife, and we get them either from, as @Gallowgate enthuses about, the wonderful North Shields Fish Quay, Latimers or a place in Gateshead.
I love mackeral,dogfish, hake, plaice, sole, monkfish,sardines, crab, and pilchards
I goto a sizeable supermarket fresh I get a choice of salmon, trout, cod, tuna
I only ever had dogfish once, in Amble, it was superb.
Hake is a favourite of mine. It was my wife’s birthday last week and I took her to the Potted Lobster in Bambrugh for her meal. I had the hake, she had the sea bream, both were superb
Before Covid my local Sainsbury’s and Tesco had a fresh fish counter. Used to love the fresh sardines and the fresh mackerel from them.
We also have some excellent fish stalls in the Grainger market too.
Mind you from time to time on our estate we get people coming round selling ‘fresh fish from Grimsby’ give them MOFOs a wide berth
Whereabouts in Amble, was it an Old Boathouse special ?
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
That were due to expire because they limited it to so many years
See this is what I dont get sorry
It allows us to export fish we catch we dont want....ok I can see that
At the same time allowing them to come in catch the fish we dont want so they dont need those exports
Memo to the British people. If you want a better deal for UK fishermen, eat more fish, particularly UK caught fish.
Memo to idiots like you I eat fish and would eat more if shops would actually stock the damn stuff but they don't. I live on the coast of devon.......could I find a crab for sale could I fuck when I wanted one
I eat plenty lf fish, as does my wife, and we get them either from, as @Gallowgate enthuses about, the wonderful North Shields Fish Quay, Latimers or a place in Gateshead.
I love mackeral,dogfish, hake, plaice, sole, monkfish,sardines, crab, and pilchards
I goto a sizeable supermarket fresh I get a choice of salmon, trout, cod, tuna
I only ever had dogfish once, in Amble, it was superb.
Hake is a favourite of mine. It was my wife’s birthday last week and I took her to the Potted Lobster in Bambrugh for her meal. I had the hake, she had the sea bream, both were superb
Before Covid my local Sainsbury’s and Tesco had a fresh fish counter. Used to love the fresh sardines and the fresh mackerel from them.
We also have some excellent fish stalls in the Grainger market too.
Mind you from time to time on our estate we get people coming round selling ‘fresh fish from Grimsby’ give them MOFOs a wide berth
What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project and b) it is in serious economic trouble.
Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own parliament?
It's the necessary damage limitation to Brexit. If you don't fix your mistake, you need to learn to live with it. Apart from May, belatedly, only Starmer has realised in the nine(!) years since the referendum what needs to be done. Unlike May, Starmer has a majority to put it into practice.
The “deal” is laughably bad. He didn’t even get e-gates
Is there a list of actual concrete things the eu got and concrete things the uk got anywhere...ie excluding all the we will explore items on each side?
It’s all incredibly vague, but the outlines are bad for Britain
The one definite decision is on fish: Starmer, who wanted to offer a deal for one year, and denied he would give away four years, got bullied at the last moment and gave away 12 years
What’s more, the EU has got text in the agreement such that: if a future UK government with more bollocks (like, say, Reform) tries to amend this terrible fishing deal, the EU is allowed to hit us with trade sanctions. Yes
But it's *the existing Boris deal* on fishing rights.
What did you imagine would happen after that expired? We negotiate a deal where we deny their access to our waters and maintain our access to their waters?
What's now been added on top is that having landed fish we now have the ability to trade it freely to the market we need to sell it to.
Of course the Tories think it's a bad deal. They are fucking morons.
You’re clueless. We had tremendous leverage. The French were terrified we were going to play hardball and take back all our fish. French governments are all fearful of the fishing and farming lobby
Instead we handed over TWELVE years of UK fish and we got…. Literally nothing. Everything else is an agreement to continue negotiating - but we are certainly going to be paying money and taking EU law again
That’s it. That’s the Starmer reset
And he didn’t even get e-gates. Which aptly summarises his total incompetence. Labour thought they had a great retail offer - trivial but nice - no more passport queues - and they didn’t even get that, in the end
Starmer would have viewed playing hardball as ungentlemanly behaviour.
"We held all the cards", the Buns, Pots, Bones and especially Bung.... I foresee neverending "betrayal wail", there will always be a "Brexit deal" that was better
I was happy with the existing one.
It was ok - but the one before that was an absolute stonker.
You do realise starmer hasn't actually changed anything from the previous deal except giving the french and spanish extra rights to fish our waters?
You mean the same rights agreed by the previous Conservative government.
That were due to expire because they limited it to so many years
See this is what I dont get sorry
It allows us to export fish we catch we dont want....ok I can see that
At the same time allowing them to come in catch the fish we dont want so they dont need those exports
Memo to the British people. If you want a better deal for UK fishermen, eat more fish, particularly UK caught fish.
Memo to idiots like you I eat fish and would eat more if shops would actually stock the damn stuff but they don't. I live on the coast of devon.......could I find a crab for sale could I fuck when I wanted one
We have a fishmonger that visits weekly, plus two fish shops and a smokehouse within three miles. Do you want me to send you a crab?
Plenty of crabs available in Pembrokeshire, mostly in fish shops...
Do you only behave morally because you fear punishments if you don't?
Yes, you’re right, I’m the one in the wrong for posing the moral dilemma here. In spite never having shoplifted in my life. Not the person stealing without fear of any comeback.
Comments
When you could have just increased some stealth taxes that hit wealthy OAPs and raised the same money if not more.
Not really a rib tickler even by the shite standards of antisemitic 'jokes'.
That gave every pensioner with a yearly income of less than £20,000 better off while offering something to others.
Its doesn't seem quite the same as the antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jews run the world, the banks, the space lasers...
That would be relatively easy to administer wouldn't it (?)
Even though collectively they don’t add a huge amount even a small increase in the GDP forecasts gives her a bit more fiscal room.
(Fans of Four Lions will understand.)
Nonce from Pakistan wins right to stay in UK he faces ‘fatwa’ if deported.
😳🙄
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14734579/Pakistani-paedophile-teenage-girl-UK-fatwa.html
But the political hit was greater than expected and it mainly benefited the (now) dreaded Reform. So with this u-turn it's back to the opposite (and tbf more usual) prioritisation of party over country.
Most commentators will probably be unimpressed but most Labour MPs, esp in the red wall, will approve.
Lord knows how many Labour will be reduced to when the voter reaction to this current term is "Oh, FFS!!!
select all where age > 65 && taxpaid last year > x is hard but then we are talking the public sector
From Labourlist:
As soon as [Doncaster Mayor Ros] Jones was re-elected she spoke out against Keir Starmer, suggesting the Labour leader was getting it wrong on welfare and winter fuel cuts.
Speaking to LabourList, two Labour candidates who lost their seats echoed her sentiments, albeit on condition of anonymity.
One said: “We feel collectively we were sacrificial lambs thrown under the bus by the government.
“They knew what was going to happen in the local elections, they knew we would haemorrhage seats, and they let that happen.”
https://labourlist.org/2025/05/doncaster-local-election-results-council-reform/
I'm always amused by the formulation "you can't say x anymore" ... while saying "x".
A lovely image.
Too late.
She'd probably have got away with doing it then, giving her vastly more fiscal elbow room - but would be crucified if trying it now.
For instance - a much beloved broadcaster had his career ended because of a whipped up campaign accusing him of racism (Danny Baker and the Royal chimp photo). And we wasn't even trying to be racist.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/custom-comparisons/Captain-America-Brave-New-World-(2025)/Thunderbolts-(2025)#tab=day_by_day_comparison
See this is what I dont get sorry
It allows us to export fish we catch we dont want....ok I can see that
At the same time allowing them to come in catch the fish we dont want so they dont need those exports
We discuss optimistically about a variety of fiscal reforms on PB. None of them, particularly those that affect property, taxation on non-wage income or freebies for pensioners, are politically possible. We're stuck in the doom loop and we're going to need a Thatcher-type figure, on the left or right, to pull us out of it.
The best Labour can do is sensible iterative reform. That's it, and it not enough.
"If it wasn't politically incorrect I'd say ... (insert dumbass sentiment of choice)"
The farm IHT loophole closure seems to have faded, you'd have thought even less people would be enraged about an end to people like the Candy's avoiding stamp duty and council tax.
UK fishing rights are owned by a few wealthy families, or overseas interests.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/
Only 2% of the total catch is owned by the small inshore fleet.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/07/fishing-brexit-uk-fleetwood/
Some migration is good migration, some is bad migration
Some of the eu is good things some is bad for us as a nation
Sadly we have most now in binary positions of its all bad or all good......applies to brexit too
🚨Megabill problems —
an agreement between leadership + hardliners fell apart overnight
hardliners are furious. say leadership walked away and even rolled back weekend progress
“There is currently a zero percent chance this thing moves today”
they will squeeze this from Rules
Hardliners say the blowup requires time “to put things back on track”
Speaker Johnson wants to vote tonight
https://x.com/meredithllee/status/1925176380989251870
Same as income-shifting, why is it bad for a small number to be prevented from re-classifying income as a capital gain so they can pay a lower rate than the income tax everybody else pays?
Or second-homers getting a council tax rebate.
People just shoplifting so brazenly and without fear of any consequences.
As @Leon has said. More than once. Why should people just obey the law when there are no consequences for those who don’t.
https://x.com/aaronbastani/status/1925149614249832806?s=61
I'm not EXACTLY sure what I mean, but I FEEL it
A capital gain is exactky the same as bank interest, which is taxed as income.
I goto a sizeable supermarket fresh I get a choice of salmon, trout, cod, tuna
Summary above. It has give and take. Neither side would have signed up to something that was all give and no take. Why on earth would they? C'mon.
We gave them fishing rights, they allowed us to export food if we followed rules they imposed on it
Everything else was for later discussion
Hake is a favourite of mine. It was my wife’s birthday last week and I took her to the Potted Lobster in Bambrugh for her meal. I had the hake, she had the sea bream, both were superb
Before Covid my local Sainsbury’s and Tesco had a fresh fish counter. Used to love the fresh sardines and the fresh mackerel from them.
We also have some excellent fish stalls in the Grainger market too.
Mind you from time to time on our estate we get people coming round selling ‘fresh fish from Grimsby’ give them MOFOs a wide berth
How very Liberal Democrat in outlook.