Pocketman Posted September 26 Share Posted September 26 1 hour ago, scottsdad said: He scrapped the Rwanda scheme pretty much on day 1. and then went and met with Meloni to chat about alternative off-shore/third-country asylum processing options..... 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted September 26 Share Posted September 26 Yeah, I don't think you get credit for abandoning an impractical and ruinously expensive deportation scheme that the Tories only came up with in a desperate bid to prove they're every bit as racist as REFUK. It would've almost been worth another five years of them just to see the panic when they realised they were actually going to have to implement their overseas concentration camp scheme. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Farter Posted September 26 Share Posted September 26 6 hours ago, aDONisSheep said: with a major caveat of means testing Would you means test the NHS? One gotcha question doesn't settle the debate but is somewhere to start. I'm for universality over means testing. A benefit for the elderly has now been put on the same slippery slope as other benefits and its tempting to view that as "how d'you like the taste of your own medicine, Tory voters?". Yet wider picture, its another move in the wrong direction. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 26 Share Posted September 26 43 minutes ago, Freedom Farter said: Would you means test the NHS? One gotcha question doesn't settle the debate but is somewhere to start. I'm for universality over means testing. A benefit for the elderly has now been put on the same slippery slope as other benefits and its tempting to view that as "how d'you like the taste of your own medicine, Tory voters?". Yet wider picture, its another move in the wrong direction. Yes, universality of benefits and services together with a progressive tax system is the way to go. Also cuts out a lot of costly and time consuming bureaucracy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 (edited) Starmer and Lammy meet Trump but don’t meet Harris. If Trump is elected then there is an obligation for the British PM to work with him, however there is no obligation, and absolutely no need, to meet with him prior to the Presidential election. Edited September 27 by Granny Danger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 15 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Starmer and Lammy meet Trump but don’t meet Harris. If Trump is elected then there is an obligation for the British PM to work with him, however there is no obligation, and absolutely no need, to meet with him prior to the Presidential election. Maybe Klaus Schwab has already given him the nod on what the result is going to be? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 Not a good look after going after the elderly and sick https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04pe3653k7o 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 3 minutes ago, doulikefish said: Not a good look after going after the elderly and sick https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04pe3653k7o In fairness it’s a balance issue. They have already removed the WFA from 90% of pensioners - this wasn’t in their manifesto. They will not abolish non-dom status -this was in their manifesto. See, they balance each other out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 54 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Starmer and Lammy meet Trump but don’t meet Harris. If Trump is elected then there is an obligation for the British PM to work with him, however there is no obligation, and absolutely no need, to meet with him prior to the Presidential election. He's spoken to and met the current US Administration numerous times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 1 hour ago, Granny Danger said: Starmer and Lammy meet Trump but don’t meet Harris. If Trump is elected then there is an obligation for the British PM to work with him, however there is no obligation, and absolutely no need, to meet with him prior to the Presidential election. He's probably getting advice on how to keep the cash rolling in now that he's said they won't take any more freebies. Expect to see hats with Make America(n Healthcare Companies) Great Again and a digital KiethKoin in time for Christmas. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 1 minute ago, carpetmonster said: He's probably getting advice on how to keep the cash rolling in now that he's said they won't take any more freebies. Expect to see hats with Make America(n Healthcare Companies) Great Again and a digital KiethKoin in time for Christmas. You might be joking but he’s no doubt positioning himself for his post-politics life. You only need to look at how much Blair is worth now to realise the grift/sinecure potential. When his now 16 year old son has a 16 year old son he won’t have to ‘borrow’ anyone else’s £16 million penthouse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 1 hour ago, doulikefish said: Not a good look after going after the elderly and sick https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04pe3653k7o It'll look even worse if the policy is implemented and actually costs the country money. A lot of the most wealthy people in the country have quite loose ties to the UK and can therefore simply f**k off if they don't like it. The whisperings that things may change to their detriment are probably enough to have them go tbh. I wonder if an exit tax - which several European countries already apply - is a better idea. It applies only to the wealthy and is designed as a detterent to them leaving for a more favourable taxation regime (probably Dubai). Couple that with reform of the non-dom regime to make it less generous and perhaps some of the potentially lost tax revenue would still be captured. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soapy FFC Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 2 hours ago, Michael W said: It'll look even worse if the policy is implemented and actually costs the country money. A lot of the most wealthy people in the country have quite loose ties to the UK and can therefore simply f**k off if they don't like it. The whisperings that things may change to their detriment are probably enough to have them go tbh. I wonder if an exit tax - which several European countries already apply - is a better idea. It applies only to the wealthy and is designed as a detterent to them leaving for a more favourable taxation regime (probably Dubai). Couple that with reform of the non-dom regime to make it less generous and perhaps some of the potentially lost tax revenue would still be captured. The US taxes it's citizens no matter where they live rather than just those who live in the US, could we just not do that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 Imagine being a billionaire and being able to live your life how and where you want, but making the decision on how much it costs like some impoverished oik. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
18BAIRN76 Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 (edited) Watching Starmer reach the levels of unpopularity in less than 3 months that it took Blair 6 years to accomplish is no mean feat. I’m just shocked that other people are taken aback. Beyond a burning hatred of the left and lustful desire to be the ones in power, he - and the overwhelming majority of his frontbench; Reeves, Streeting, Nandy, Lammy etc - have nothing else to offer. They might play around the edges and be marginally more ‘progressive’ than the Tories on some issues, but when it comes to the fixing the ills of the country, they broadly have the same prescription. He’s a totally empty vessel and will only become more unpopular the more people see of him. Edited September 27 by 18BAIRN76 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHF-23 Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 (edited) I mentioned in the build up to the election how much of the message from individual Labour figures, particularly Streeting, to criticism was to lash out like a toddler (or to pretend you considered it a threat to your safety). It's been quite instructive for them to take essentially the same approach to the massive bungs from nice people who just want to do a nice thing for us scandal as well. The "the public sees how trivial this all is" messaging is obviously wrong and truly desperate, but I guess having just won a majority they reckon it doesn't really matter. I listened to an interview with Anas the other day where he essentially said to the journalist "listen you're a real person like me so you get invited to this stuff too, the plebs don't understand that and it's bad form to let them know" - conveniently sidestepping the non-event based bentness. Just as well their only good ideas at time of writing will only make marginal differences to people's lives in several years time and their plans to cut to the bone and hope a wizard (could it be AI?!) fixes public services and makes the line look more tumescent have a line of economists and business leaders queuing up to have their letters denouncing this printed in the FT. Oh and we are celebrating the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh and holding a photo op with unironically one of the worst Israelis. It's good stuff man Edited September 27 by GHF-23 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 20 hours ago, Freedom Farter said: Would you means test the NHS? One gotcha question doesn't settle the debate but is somewhere to start. I'm for universality over means testing. A benefit for the elderly has now been put on the same slippery slope as other benefits and its tempting to view that as "how d'you like the taste of your own medicine, Tory voters?". Yet wider picture, its another move in the wrong direction. I think means testing is horses for courses. I would means test some benefits, and not others. As a slight aside: Universal benefits for all, is an interesting concept, I read a summary of a report on Finland's 'Basic Income' trial, and I thought it looked positive, but it was by no means universal and the trial sample was for people who were unemployed. [So to a certain extent it was means tested, but It was interesting and seemed beneficial none the less]. Back on topic: I understand the argument for universal benefits (and I'm not completely against it), but currently, we're not set up for it and one size does not fit all. It makes no sense for the likes of Sir Alan Sugar (since he's an obvious and easy target) getting the WFA, Housing Benefits etc. I'd much rather try to ensure that those that need it; a) receive it & b) possibly get a bigger piece of the pie (because Alan Sugar doesn't get it). As for GrannyDanger's point about the admin costs, he may well have a point. If we can automate our tax system to a position where rates and allowances would flex to reflect universal benefits, then he might be onto something (but that is still a form of means testing, just after the event). HMRC are a long way from achieving that, but they are making progress. I'm a prime example. I (my wife) continued to receive child benefit, even though we were above both the individual and couples threshold. I then settled up via my tax return at year end, offsetting child benefit against any Tax benefits I should have received for other things (such as private pension fund investments which had been taxed at source). If we could efficiently handle all benefits in a similar matter, then... we might get the best of both worlds. Yours, with my 'practical-head on Miss Sally' aDONis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Diamond For Me Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 Michael Chessum had a decent piece in the LRB about Labour embracing these far right narratives - and solutions - around immigration. I suspect it won't be the first reflection on this incarnation of Labour in power that could equally well go here or in the "normalisation of the far right" thread. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 Turns out Starmer accepted more money for clothes and tried to hide it. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/27/peer-gave-keir-starmer-more-clothes-worth-16000-declared-as-money-for-private-office 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.