UK The UK Thread feat. Race Riots x PM Keir Starmer - How long?
- Thread starter rumply
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Nov 10, 2022
- 13,244
- 10,687
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Doubtful they ever had a Stone Age. But Mao had a go at that
Smeg Head
Just take a bite
Forget the CO2 equivalent emissions. China is still emitting a crap load of CFCs, putting all life at earth at risk.
Bojan KantKick
Hall of Famer
Answering in order:How is the rachel reeves budget horrific?
It seems like a great progressive budget. raising taxes on wealth/capital instead of income. Check. Increasing spending for the health system. check. Reigning in the excess handouts that drives up house prices and favour existing home owners at the expense of young non owners. Check. Increasing minimum wages. Check
Seriously this looks like an incredible budget for progressives.
Budget 2024 summary: Key points from Rachel Reeves’s speech
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered Labour’s first Budget since 2010 – here’s what you need to know.www.bbc.com
Raising taxes on wealth/capital instead of income - The increases to National Insurance and reduced thresholds destroys the working class and reduces the willingness of business to hire more staff. Good bye to wage growth for workers. They have raised taxes on workers.
Increasing spending for the health system - The NHS needs to be restructured, not more money thrown at it. They are continuing the bullshit conservative policy of throwing more money at the NHS rather than fixing it. They passed the point of diminishing returns on NHS investment decades ago.
Reigning in the excess handouts that drives up house prices and favour existing home owners at the expense of young non owners - This couldn't be more wrong. Labour rolled back the conservative first home buyer stamp duty discounts, making it more expensive for young non owners to buy their first home. They also got rid of the attractiveness of Right To Buy, ****ing over first home buyers in council housing.
Increasing minimum wages - This coupled with national insurance is likely to result in 52,000 less jobs in the economy according to the OBR. She is increasing public sector wages and removing any growth in private sector wages.
Other
Job Market - Hiring has fallen more sharply in the UK than in other major economies over the past year as worries over weak growth and rising wage bills lead some businesses to cut headcount. UK job postings were 13 per cent below their pre-pandemic level and 23 per cent lower than a year ago, according to figures published on Tuesday by the job search site Indeed — a bigger retrenchment than in any of the other markets it covers, including the US, France, Germany, Canada and Australia(Financial Times).
Triple Lock - Committing to this will now cost another £40B per annum.
Cost of Living - Businesses forced to pay significantly more national insurance will lead to these costs being passed onto the consumer further exacerbating the cost of living crisis in the UK. She lied about changes to national insurance btw.
Entrenching stagnation and Real Income - Labour promised the highest sustained growth in the G7 pre-election. Their policies reduce business investment and has forced significant brain drain already. They plan to offset this with more spending ffs. Taxing work and investment is worse than taxing consumption. Economic growth of 1.6% per year at best with projected inflation at 2% per year. Laughable and with economic growth projected to be well below the G7 average (IMF). The markets have already had their say on the budget with government borrowing at its largest level ever, it is also now extremely costly, moving immediately after the budget was announced.
Happy to discuss this further. I live in the UK and have reasonable knowledge on the subject.
Food security - ****ing over farmers with inheritance taxes. This is close to the heart for me as I am from a farming family in northern Victoria. Small farmers are asset rich and income poor (generalisation but mostly true) and work bloody hard providing healthy fresh food to local communities. I am not in favour of taxes for some and not for others, inheritance tax should be abolished and government should focus on reducing bullshit spending.
Private school fees affect on SEND and the state education system - There seems to be an intolerance of the private education system in this country (England). The effect of taxing this system by 20% is shortsighted, immediately costly, and disastrous to those with special needs. UK Tax laws have provision for the ability to reclaim 10 years of VAT once you register for it.
High immediate cost to the Government
Many large private schools have made their intentions clear to reclaim tens of millions of pounds in VAT expense if they are forced to register and on charge VAT to parents. VAT returns are quarterly so by March the country will be even poorer.
Shortsighted
Several large private schools have already closed and many have pulled their children out of private education due to the cost. The state system does not have capacity to take these kids. Not everyone that attends private schools has rich parents.
SEND
Many parents send their SEND children to private schools due to the excellent SEND support they offer. This cannot be offered in the state sector at the moment due to cost and logistics. This move will result in SEND kids being put last. A single mother is taking the government to the high court regarding this using the Human Rights Act and ECHR against Labour (mountains of irony here if you follow UK politics closely). There are more than 100,000 SEND children in the private system.
I've said in other threads on here that this is not me being partisan. The Conservatives were terrible (and not particularly conservative). They were death by a thousand cuts to the country. Labour under Starmer are death with scythe. The things that are good, tend not to be popular, and the things that are popular, tend not to be good.
That's probably enough for now. Plenty more lying on other matters I have omitted but can return to if you like.
Bojan KantKick
Hall of Famer
UK net zero stuff is a fraud. The UK killed their own industry and now buys its electricity in from Holland, Germany and France which has led to massive price increases for consumers and the government through a price cap. All so some dickhead can talk about the UK's commitment to net zero.
Bojan KantKick
Hall of Famer
No argument from me. Why are labour making it worse?
Bojan KantKick
Hall of Famer
What leads you to that conclusion?
It could have been worse but not as a result of changes to national insurance. They could well have been lying but the tories proposed the eradication of national insurance for the self employed and a reduction for everyone else.
How dare those nasty poor non-white people try to live the way we virtuous rich white people do!
Bojan KantKick
Hall of Famer
Not great. The UK is finished.
Raising taxes on wealth over income is a good thing. People working for a living is an economically productive way to earn money. Inheriting wealth and making it from extracting economic rent is not.
Do you have any sources explaining how this manifests? The Conservatives are well known for underfunding the NHS, not throwing lots of money at it. Are you in favour of austerity?
Increasing the purchasing power of young people doesn't solve the fundamental problem of high house prices. What addresses that is eliminating incentives for property investment and adding to the supply of houses.
Those jobs shouldn't exist if they can't pay a decent wage. You're pretty much asking for poverty wage jobs to persist.
Bojan KantKick
Hall of Famer
Tax - They have raised taxes in real terms on income for workers through the national insurance employer increase. For all the whining about the Tories, they actively cut national insurance for workers which led to more money in their pocket. One of the very few things they got right. Who is talking about economic rent?
NHS - It suffers from the similar issues to the police force in this country. It is reactionary with significant waste. The high cost of healthcare to the tax payer is largely back-ended in cost. The NHS has FINALLY started quick and pre-emptive care over the last 12 months with the eConsult service. Preventative health care is cheap. Being a centre for disease and late stage care is not.
I signed up to the Our Future Health study in April hoping that it would be an ongoing thing. Unfortunately it is not but could so easily be done to identify health problems early. https://study.ourfuturehealth.org.uk/welcome?r=community
Given the money that is spent on the NHS, they could expand the NHS Health Check system and create whole life preventative healthcare. I've had this idea for a while but am certainly not the first. Professor John Deanfield — one of the country’s leading cardiologists had the vision to expand the existing NHS Health Check — theoretically offered to those aged 40 to 74 every five years into a lifelong programme of personalised prevention, delivered through the NHS app. Alongside this, we would move prevention services, such as blood pressure checking, into the places we work and visit such as supermarkets, gyms, etc. There is a load more to be done in food education and the UK is particularly bad at it.
Regarding spending by the Tories, they have spent plenty as the chart below shows. The NHS is a statutory service too. They have a budget to work to but they will never have to shut down due to lack of money.
No I am not in favour of austerity and Labour aren't planning to do much more than that https://www.theguardian.com/society...worse-off-than-under-austerity-says-thinktank
The current growth rate in NHS expenditure is completely unsustainable. The more money that is spent on the NHS, the more likely the service is forced to shut down completely. This should not be a partisan issue.
Increasing the purchasing power of young people doesn't solve the fundamental problem of high house prices. What addresses that is eliminating incentives for property investment and adding to the supply of houses.
You won't get any argument from me about housing supply. Both parties have completely ****ed this over the long term. Sadiq Kahn in London and the Tories across the country. Labour are making the right noises about it, but they are only noises and Angela Rayner is a bit of a one person show regarding that. She is approving things with delegated authority at the moment. Housing development planning is extremely expensive and for anything decent you are looking at a minimum of two years from start to decision. I hope this changes but a lot of this is down to issues at local level with incompetent planners and ideologue councillors. It also costs £500k to get a ruling from the Secretary of State, currently Angela Rayner.
I wouldn't worry about property investors, they will be gone for a while, a significant amount have gone to the wall as a result of the prolonged increase to interest rates in the UK. You won't stop the big corporates but the individuals are stuffed for the most part.
Those jobs shouldn't exist if they can't pay a decent wage. You're pretty much asking for poverty wage jobs to persist.
I'm actually in favour of a change to the tax free threshold to nil tax payable from 0-£20,000 per annum. Make it more financially viable to work than sit at home on benefits. I'm not calling for poverty wages, that is a generalisation. What is affordable in Hartlepool is not in London and arguably revolving economic and other policy around London has caused massive issues in this country for decades. Example - Brexit. Who is paying for this increased minimum wage? Business? with National Insurance increasing as well? This will put more people into poverty and create barriers to entry level jobs and pay increases over the medium term leaving people worse off in real terms. They should sort out the fiscal drag for workers too but labour seem happy to copy the Tories on that.
Bojan KantKick
Hall of Famer
They don't have to sell anything. The Office for Budget Responsibility has already told everyone.
Bojan KantKick
Hall of Famer
Angela Rayner released her new National Planning Policy Framework today. She's been very pro-planning in her rhetoric and actions as Secretary of State albeit quite divisive.
Good thread on housebuilding in the UK.
Good thread on housebuilding in the UK.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 18,228
- 16,669
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Not much to like about Starmer, but this made me think, for a moment, that he might have a spine.
- Jul 8, 2017
- 25,484
- 74,495
- AFL Club
- Richmond
He should take Musk to court. I saw a tweet where Musk insinuated Starmer was part of a child paedophile ring. It's definite libel and a serious allegation
Musk needs to be held to account.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 18,228
- 16,669
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I think that would be great in theory.
But I don't think it's possible
I think every time Starmer is asked to sue, it damages Starmer more.
I don't think he will outright say he won't sue, so he has to kind of avoid responding honestly, avoiding the question.
He can't sue, because in reality, where would he initiate legal action, what power or jurisdiction would there be?
What would the costs be, the positive outcomes even if successful, the optics etc?
What Government information would it give Musk access to in deposition etc?
All information can be misrepresented and weaponised, as we've seen from PizzaGate to the 'Twitter files'.
Also, any hesitation to sue Musk would be represented as admitting that there must be some truth to the allegations.
So in an ideal world, it should happen.
In the insane world we currently live in, it actually damages Starmer whenever suing is brought up. Even by people who support him and oppose Musk.
Also remember the cave diver who Musk called a paedophile didn't win his defamation lawsuit.
- Nov 10, 2022
- 13,244
- 10,687
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
He’s not Ditton
- Apr 11, 2002
- 35,802
- 37,288
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Iggles, Georgia.
- Thread starter
- #324
- Apr 11, 2002
- 35,802
- 37,288
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Iggles, Georgia.
- Thread starter
- #325
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
