Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

[jazzer]

We are sadly saddled with the three stooges till July 2029 because they have such a far reaching majority, that is the problem when you give a party that level of support. 

The ship was being turned around by the last Administration and given all their faults, errors, misdemeanours its not surprising that that got and probably deservedly so out of Office.  But if what has just happened over the past 100+ days since the new Administration took power, we are in for a very bumpy ride and peoples lives will ALL be affected. They say they champion the poor, well all they've done so far by taking away the winter fuel allowance (not eligible for it) and increasing employers national insurance, as sure as eggs is eggs, prices will increase and that hits everyone in the pocket, including the poorest in society. You can only shake the money tree so often, after which time it's Empty. What that means is the cost of providing benefits increases, where does the money then come from. 

To then take on the farmers who feed part of the economy is utter madness, because if they blockade food supplies then people will go hungry, not necessarily starve. You don't shoot the hand that feeds you. 

Their is enough written about the three stooges, Starmer, Reeves and Rayner, I have no idea if they are supposed "communists", but what I have seen is that free speech is being eroded, that can never be good for a democracy, where people are scared to speak out. 

How does all this change, the people will eventually have had enough and rise up against the Govt. It has to happen eventually. Even is Starmer went you are left with Reeves and Rayner. Personally O don't trust either, it will be more of "do as I say, not as I do".  

[Sephiroth]

After the last 14 years of govt where things got demonstrably worse year on year on year - people did not rise up

after 5 prime ministers in 6 years because of their ineptitude - the people did not rise up 

The notion that a govt with a thumping majority is going to be overthrown is for the birds   People do understand what they inherited 

 

the nfu might portray this as a battle on farmers - but so few will be  affected it’s impossible not to laugh   Plus, add in the hilarity of everyone who decried every street protest for 14 years now saying “bring it on!!”

As for the poor - they have removed winter fuel from SOME pensioners who are more likely to afford it   
 

they have also increase minimum wage for the poor   Which ain’t nothing 

 

and well done for squeezing a jaded “money tree” reference in there 

 

Edited Sunday at 15:58 by Sephiroth

[jazzer]

So its OK for Starmer to earn £74K/annum by renting out a property, cat calling the kettle black.......

Their gravy train trundles on.

When the Southport story that involves Starmer finally comes out, he's going to be gone, plus that and the local elections in May 2025 when Liebour will get a drumming.

Even his own MP's have had enough of the mess they've made of things in the first three months of being in power. They had fourteen years to plan for this, what a mess they've created so quickly, couldn't plan there way out of a paper bag.  

Suggest you do the sums, the minimum wage won't  be so minimum when it is introduced, that and the increase in employers national insurance contributions is why so many employers are talking about reducing their cohort of employees and closing shops and businesses.  Businesses don't run at a loss and when they do they close, its the only option for them, you can only absorb a loss for so long before brining the shutters down and closing the doors.

Some people are so blinkered they think the sun shines out of the three stooges, you need to wake up soon. Because wait till there are food shortages, no bread or fresh vegetables, nor meat in the shops, bare shelves in the supermarkets because the farmers will make it happen, plus prices spiralling out of control as a result of a supply and demand market. Every ones going to get on the gravy train and put their prices up, It happened before during lockdown, nothing to stop it happening again. You don't shoot the hand that feeds you.

Then you'll see people getting angry and an uprising start to happen.  Hungry people become angry people very quickly. 

Edited 17 hours ago by jazzer

[Moovart]

I know nothing about farming so can't really comment but when I read things like this interesting thread from Guy Shrubsole I am increasingly cynical about those making the loudest noise.  And yes it is a genuine link.

 

 

[vladi]

Reeves and Truss have both displayed incompetence. The former can also  be  accused of dishonesty and misrepresentation.

However, this all pales into insignificance in comparison to the utter incompetence and stupidity shown by David Lammy. 

He accused Donald Trump of being "a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath" and a "tyrant in a toupee" plus a "racist KKK and Nazi sympathiser"

To make matters worse, Lammy's first decision as Foreign Secretary was to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. The Chagos is home to the large American airbase that is strategically located in the Pacific and a priceless bulwark against Chinese expansion in the region.

There will be a price to pay as Trump in not one to forgive and forget. In reality he is renowned for his retribution on his critics and opponents. For that reason, it would not be surprising if Lammy and Reeves were disposed of in the first cabinet reshuffle.

[Sephiroth]

always love the contrast between a peaceful march in central London under a Tory govt = "the marchers are taking up police time AND stopping traffic!! what if an ambulance can't get to hospital and someone dies! leftie scum!"

vs

a major planned disruption by farmers threatening to stop food production - "good on 'em!! incompetent govt!"

 

NI is simply going back to what it was months ago. Minimum wage increases have happened before

 

And do tell what the Southport story is that hasn't come out?

[malumbu]

Lammy was right on both accounts.  That is not incompetence.  Kim Darroch, the then US Ambassador was also correct with an assessment of the last Trump presidency.  I don't want to be the 51st state 

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you've got to raise taxes, then those inheriting multi-million pound estates, landlords, second property owners, the privately educated, and wealthier pensioners (considering how they have been disproportionately insulated for many years), doesn't' seem like the most unreasonable places to do so. We can't just keep loading more and more pain on young, working renters because it's less noisy.

The fact that the media are absolutely up in arms, suggests there has actually been some political bravery, and that power, wealth and influence isn't acting as an absolute inoculant to tax rises for once.

Edited 4 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

15 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Lammy was right on both accounts.  That is not incompetence.  Kim Darroch, the then US Ambassador was also correct with an assessment of the last Trump presidency.  I don't want to be the 51st state 

Right or wrong, his public statements are going to make it difficult for him to work with the new US president. 

16 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you've got to raise taxes, then those inheriting multi-million pound estates......

Lessons from the past, don't bite the hand that feeds you. If farmers have to sell land to pay inheritance tax, then we lose food security and at the moment that isn't a good idea.

[Earl Aelfheah]

19 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

35 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you've got to raise taxes, then those inheriting multi-million pound estates......

Lessons from the past, don't bite the hand that feeds you. If farmers have to sell land to pay inheritance tax, then we lose food security and at the moment that isn't a good idea.

Or we encourage new blood, innovation and change into an important sector

[Spartacus]

New blood comes from the young inheriting the farms, not faceless corporations buying them up 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm not sure the heredity principle is the best way to encourage change, innovation and competition. I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect those inheriting multimillion pound estates to pay tax on it.

[Spartacus]

Farmers don't earn a lot, work 7 days a week and whilst they are land rich, it's a working asset not a space that can (or should) be sold for building on. 

But as you are so keen on change, give up your day job and go buy a farm then come back on here in a year and tell us how well that goes for you. 

Sometimes you really are a handle that opens doors 🤔

[Sephiroth]

it's not that many farms and they can always gift it to their hardworking offspring before they die, can't they?

 

as for Trump. funny how no-one ever complains when it's trump doing Name calling. Or Tories talking about EU leaders or threatening Irish food supply - never about "making it hard to work with people" then 

[Spartacus]

21 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

it's not that many farms and they can always gift it to their hardworking offspring before they die, can't they?

If 500 farms sell off 20% of their land each year (the PMs estimate on the back of a Rizla paper)  then how long before we lose large chunks of farm land ? 

As for giving away land, sure providing they live 7 years afterwards 

Stop being a labour cheerleader and put yourself in farmers wellies for a moment. 

Farming is a necessity, doesn't make Massive profits and after you consider the 7 days a week often 14 hour days, I bet most farmers don't even earn minimum wage per hour. 

You will soon be whinging if there's no fresh veg on the shelves to go with your non existent turkey at Chrustmas. 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Spartacus

[Earl Aelfheah]

35 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Farmers don't earn a lot, work 7 days a week and whilst they are land rich, it's a working asset not a space that can (or should) be sold for building on. 

But as you are so keen on change, give up your day job and go buy a farm then come back on here in a year and tell us how well that goes for you. 

Sometimes you really are a handle that opens doors 🤔

We're not talking about people who've bought farms. We're talking about people who have inherited multi-million pound estates, having done nothing to earn it. Why should they not have to pay some tax on that.  

[Sephiroth]

It's nothing to do with being a cheerleader for labour - it's about starting to address some of the problems inherent in the economy. Many many many other essential groups of people have contributed fair share or had industries eliminated before so it's not some attack on Farmers

"If 500 farms sell off 20% of their land each year (the PMs estimate on the back of a Rizla paper)  then how long before we lose large chunks of farm land "? 

"As for giving away land, sure providing they live 7 years afterwards " - is that so unlikely? Of the 500  farms in the example, how many would this help? Most I'd say

I just haven't seen anything like the same "but what about the nurses/the police/the miners" as I have about the farmers - it's quite extraordinary

 

 

Edited 47 minutes ago by Sephiroth

[malumbu]

And no mention of hippy chicks either.  A well done to anyone who gets that reference.  Get orrff my land.

[jazzer]

49 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We're not talking about people who've bought farms. We're talking about people who have inherited multi-million pound estates, having done nothing to earn it. Why should they not have to pay some tax on that.  

You don't half spout some nonsense. It's not a tax dodge. They inherited it, do you grasp the concept of what that means?  

And yes, I agree you are a labour or should that be liebour cheer leader. 

So when you inherit a property or business of some wealth, you'll happily give HMRC 40% of what its worth above the threshold, Why should ANYONE have to pay inheritance tax when the original owner has already paid tax on it. Inheritance tax is a death tax, it's taxing the dead for their estate, a wholly and utterly wrong Law. 

When their is no food in the shops, you're view will change.  

Edited 44 minutes ago by jazzer

[Sephiroth]

what it all reminds me of most is the introduction of the minimum wage, and the dire predictions from vested parties

But that all turned out pretty well and no-one would scrap it now would they?

jazzer man - walk away from the weird websites you spend too long on. It's kinda weird

"Why should ANYONE have to pay inheritance tax when the original owner has already paid tax on it."

because you just got summat for nowt

original owner is dead already so it's not a death tax

You just don't like the idea of tax at all - so I'm not sure where money for public services would come from in your world

[jazzer]

What is wrong in getting "something for nowt", that's what inheritance in 96% of cases is. IHT is a death tax, taking 40% from those that inherited from their partner, parents, family etc. .

You live in a world blinkered by your Lefty views, No doubt you were a cheer  leader for Corbin as well, oh how sad.