Still waiting for the media to call him out on his breaking point poster.
Which party will you vote for at the General Election? ( Anonymous).
- Thread starter TheDecameron
- Start date
Still waiting for the media to call him out on his breaking point poster.
Tony L
Administrator
Don’t assume they are all real. A few will inevitably be trolls. A busy forum like this inevitably attracts some real dickheads at times. Certain people have been hoofed out multiple times over the years, some reappearances are well into double-figures. Some have more than one sock-puppet account simultaneously.
8 years on? Don't hold your breath. We all knew then that it was racist dogwhistle shtt, but we were good over and over again that racism wasn't a driver in the leave vote. No, of course not.
It won't be difficult, but my expectations are much higher than that.
This is a bit outdated, I think that he's U-turned on a few more...
All Keir Starmer’s Labour U-turns in one place
POLITICO lists 27 (and counting) key walkbacks in Starmer’s spell as opposition leader.
All Keir Starmer’s Labour U-turns in one place
POLITICO lists 27 (and counting) key walkbacks in Starmer’s spell as opposition leader.www.politico.eu
And there will be more U-turns. Starmer is relatively new to politics (and is not a natural politician - a plus these days), so he is still finding his feet. I suspect it will take some time in power, and the security and confidence that imbues in leaders, for him to firm up (though he will not morph into the iconoclast that the comrades want). That said, he has transformed Labour from a shellshocked laughing stock into a party that looks like it will win the next GE. No mean feat. Whether he can build on those transformational skills to bring hope and change to the country remains to be seen.
tuga
Legal Alien
He's feet have been seen moving towards the right...
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
This is an important question. What are the values we aspire to? Fairness? Standing up for the underdog? Fish n Chips?
Rockmeister
pfm Member
The answer to that depends on when you stopped adding 'modern life' to the 'Whats English' list.
Reform presumably like to wipe at least 75 years of history away. Make it simple and say we were ok until after WW2 and cut the page just before the Windrush set sail.
That should do it.
You know, Churchill, Spitfires, Dog fighting, Village pubs, speaking the Queens English etc.
Seanm
pfm Member
When I think of people who prefer carping on the sidelines to making a difference I think of professional moderates like James O’Brien and Marina Hyde: they bitched about Corbyn, they bitched about the Tory government they helped install, and now they’re going to spend the next 5 years bitching about how “disappointing” Starmer’s Labour are. I’m sure that’s not you though.
PsB
Citizen of Nowhere™
Isn't bitching ineffectively about the lot that happens to disagree with you one of those universally shared characteristics?
It's absolutely not me. I'm a Labour voter, I was delighted to see Blair in 1997. Did his government get it all right? No, but it was better than what had gone before. You have to be in it to win it, we know what Blair did wrong but he and Brown got a lot of things right.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
everyone bitches on, but some (like Rugby professionals) keep it to themselves until only a few mates are listeing and you have beer.
As I said, more U-turns to come - and we did 'left' in 2019. That said, there's also a big discounting operation going on re: whether Starmer will shift leftward should he get into No. 10. Time will tell of course but it won't matter to the Starmer trolls as they motivated by a deep and rigid sense of betrayal.
They are not alone.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
No, not betrayal, just observation of empirical facts and casual analysis of their ideology
Corbyn’s policies were social democratic, not left. Which bit of social democracy do you loathe so much, the social, or the democratic?
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
It looks like it’s been a phone friend job.
gez
pfm Member
Depends on your definition of tax break.
Someone who earns £20k per year pays £594.40 in NI, someone who earns £60k pays £3,210.60 or 5.4x as much (for being on 3x the earnings). Given what NI funds where is the rationale that a person earning £60k makes 5.4x more use of the benefits it pays for:
Basic State Pension, Additional State Pension, New State Pension, New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance, Contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance, Maternity Allowance, Bereavement Support Payment and some that goes to fund the NHS.
Even with the "tax break" someone on £120k pays £ 4,410.60, which is 7.4x that of someone on £20k (despite being on 6x the earnings).
All of the above are fixed rate payments and how much you have earned or actually contributed in NI has no bearing on the return for a given individual. So exactly why should person A pay more NI than person B?
Unlike Income Tax, NI is effectively "ring fenced" as to what it pays for.
National Insurance Fund - Wikipedia
"NIC receipts are, unlike most taxes, paid into the National Insurance Fund and are notionally used to pay for the state pension and other contributory benefits, where an individual’s past payment record has some influence on the size of payments they receive. A small amount is notionally directed to the NHS, although this only makes up a small proportion of NHS funding. As such, in some presentations of receipts, NICs are counted as ‘social contributions’ rather than taxes."
National Insurance Contributions (NICs) - Office for Budget Responsibility
Taxes on different forms of personal income provide the biggest source of revenue for government. In 2024-25 we forecast National Insurance contributions (NICs) to raise £168.1 billion. That represents 14.8 per cent of all receipts and is equivalent to around £5,800 per household and 6 per cent...
obr.uk
Jubal
pfm Member
I think the point is one can afford more than the other. You can extrapolate this argument to any benefit or public service. Your position on whether those better off should or shouldn’t have to pay more is down to your own social conscience. I’m for a safety net.Depends on your definition of tax break.
Someone who earns £20k per year pays £594.40 in NI, someone who earns £60k pays £3,210.60 or 5.4x as much (for being on 3x the earnings). Given what NI funds where is the rationale that a person earning £60k makes 5.4x more use of the benefits it pays for:
Basic State Pension, Additional State Pension, New State Pension, New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance, Contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance, Maternity Allowance, Bereavement Support Payment and some that goes to fund the NHS.
Even with the "tax break" someone on £120k pays £ 4,410.60, which is 7.4x that of someone on £20k (despite being on 6x the earnings).
All of the above are fixed rate payments and how much you have earned or actually contributed in NI has no bearing on the return for a given individual. So exactly why should person A pay more NI than person B?
Unlike Income Tax, NI is effectively "ring fenced" as to what it pays for.
National Insurance Fund - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"NIC receipts are, unlike most taxes, paid into the National Insurance Fund and are notionally used to pay for the state pension and other contributory benefits, where an individual’s past payment record has some influence on the size of payments they receive. A small amount is notionally directed to the NHS, although this only makes up a small proportion of NHS funding. As such, in some presentations of receipts, NICs are counted as ‘social contributions’ rather than taxes."
National Insurance Contributions (NICs) - Office for Budget Responsibility
Taxes on different forms of personal income provide the biggest source of revenue for government. In 2024-25 we forecast National Insurance contributions (NICs) to raise £168.1 billion. That represents 14.8 per cent of all receipts and is equivalent to around £5,800 per household and 6 per cent...
gez
pfm Member
Past direct behaviours and/or statements of hate between individuals, politics has no place in the work place in my opinion. People go to work to earn a living, they're entitled to their opinions, as long as those opinions are not stated or acted upon in the work place to the detriment of other employees, what they believe is none of their employers business. I say this because I know there are employers that will reduce pay increases etc of individuals who are not actively engaged in the employers social change belief system. i.e. each "review" period the employee has to prove what they've done (completely outside their job description) to actively engage in diversity and inclusion behaviours. Employers obviously should have policies of inclusion etc, but they should be restricted to the employer/employee relationship. They can even go as far as to provide and support D&I employee support groups etc, but to mandate that all employees engage themselves in such otherwise they can say goodbye to a % of available salary increase etc is not acceptable.