[Politics] The Labour Government

The Clamp · Oct 26, 2024

Listening to Labour Minister for schools, Catherine McKinnel, flounder on Any Questions.

Struggling further with the question “What’s a working person”

Was asked “what is your definition of a working person”?

Didn’t answer the question, usual bollocks;

“you can’t tempt me into revealing the budget before time, it’s a process we have to respect”.

All true but nothing to do with the question posed to her.

Within 3 sentences she had swerved the question and started talking about some summit in London but she slipped her words and said Sunderland instead of London and then when corrected she fumbled a recovery by saying that the London summit had been good for Sunderland.

Absolute waffle and hogwash.

We’ve heard various definitions this week of what isn’t a working person;

Anyone who can afford to fix a problem in their life.

Someone on 6 figures

Landlords

Anyone who owns shares.

They shot themselves on the foot with that phrase and being unable to clarify what they mean.

What I suspect is that the wobbly phrase “working people” is going to be so weakly defined that Labour will cheerily get away with taxing the middle bracket to within an inch of our pensions.

They have brazenly taken away a payment from some of the poorest in our society. Don’t think they won’t come after your quality of life.

Brace for impact.

Weststander · Oct 26, 2024

Starmer imho came out well under the typically adversarial interrogation by Rigby. He looked more at ease.

Guessing that settling on the employers NI hike is a game changer? They might not have to enact a series of tax hikes that would’ve p1ssed off millions?

Of course subject to the budget.

chip · Oct 26, 2024

The Clamp said:
Listening to Labour Minister for schools, Catherine McKinnel, flounder on Any Questions.

Struggling further with the question “What’s a working person”

We’ve heard various definitions this week of what isn’t a working person;

Anyone who can afford to fix a problem in their life.

Someone on 6 figures

Landlords

Anyone who owns shares.

They shot themselves on the foot with that phrase and being unable to clarify what they mean.

What I suspect is that the wobbly phrase “working people” is going to be so weakly defined that Labour will cheerily get away with taxing the middle bracket to within an inch of our pensions.

They have brazenly taken away a payment from some of the poorest in our society. Don’t think they won’t come after your quality of life.

Brace for impact.

They'd needa lot of help to define a disabled female worker then, imagine the confusion

The Clamp · Oct 26, 2024

chip said:
They'd needa lot of help to define a disabled female worker then, imagine the confusion

Ha!

Well the problem as I see it is that they keep failing to really explain what they mean.

We all know the clamp down on winter fuel payments is actullay sensible idea to means test a benefit that is being paid to wealthy people as well as poor people.

But Labour was so bad at explaining this and allowed themselves to be railroaded by right wing journalists that people simply thought they are attacking poor pensioners.

Now they are failing to explain what they mean by the phrase “working person”

They may have good intentions. They may do good things but their failure to explain themselves properly is making people uneasy.

Yes, there is an argument for just letting them get the work done rather than spend all their time explaining speculation or bad slogans.

But perception counts and there is a valid argument for claiming the perception of the Labour government is that it is dishonest and incompetent. When I don’t necessarily think they are those things.

For now.

beorhthelm · Oct 26, 2024

the tragedy of the "worker" issue is that politicans wrap themselves in knots trying to avoid offence. it's so easy to define: someone who gets there income from their time at work. yep, that means pensioners, landlords, and investors aren't in the group. having floated the term, and it becomeing an issue, why hasn't Labour HQ just told everyone the approved line, couple of counterpoints to obvious interview questions and move on. for some reasons our politicans have forgotten how to do politics. we know they'll hammer savings and captial gains because they've been saying they'll go after unearn income them for 10 years, why does anyone think they'll not?

WATFORD zero · Oct 26, 2024

The Clamp said:
Ha!

Well the problem as I see it is that they keep failing to really explain what they mean.

We all know the clamp down on winter fuel payments is actullay sensible idea to means test a benefit that is being paid to wealthy people as well as poor people.

But Labour was so bad at explaining this and allowed themselves to be railroaded by right wing journalists that people simply thought they are attacking poor pensioners.

Now they are failing to explain what they mean by the phrase “working person”

They may have good intentions. They may do good things but their failure to explain themselves properly is making people uneasy.

Yes, there is an argument for just letting them get the work done rather than spend all their time explaining speculation or bad slogans.

But perception counts and there is a valid argument for claiming the perception of the Labour government is that it is dishonest and incompetent. When I don’t necessarily think they are those things.

For now.

It's really very simple and we both know the answer. You're a working person, I'm not. You won't get taxed more, I will.

Unless of course you want me to come up with a long detailed explanation of various parameters and definitions, so that you can then use that to find a case that you can fire back at me in a 'Gotcha' moment, in which case you can f*** right off :laugh:

Weststander · Oct 26, 2024

beorhthelm said:
the tragedy of the "worker" issue is that politicans wrap themselves in knots trying to avoid offence. it's so easy to define: someone who gets there income from their time at work. yep, that means pensioners, landlords, and investors aren't in the group. having floated the term, and it becomeing an issue, why hasn't Labour HQ just told everyone the approved line, couple of counterpoints to obvious interview questions and move on. for some reasons our politicans have forgotten how to do politics. we know they'll hammer savings and captial gains because they've been saying they'll go after unearn income them for 10 years, why does anyone think they'll not?

Votes.

Don’t want to offend 3.6m who receive dividends, 12m OAP’s. This includes a mindset where occupational pensions are thought of as superannuation (people say they received lower pay when working, the part fruits of that labour paid in retirement).

Bodian · Oct 26, 2024

beorhthelm said:
the tragedy of the "worker" issue is that politicans wrap themselves in knots trying to avoid offence. it's so easy to define: someone who gets there income from their time at work. yep, that means pensioners, landlords, and investors aren't in the group. having floated the term, and it becomeing an issue, why hasn't Labour HQ just told everyone the approved line, couple of counterpoints to obvious interview questions and move on. for some reasons our politicans have forgotten how to do politics. we know they'll hammer savings and captial gains because they've been saying they'll go after unearn income them for 10 years, why does anyone think they'll not?

They have. The media haven't. They are desperate to get a narrow definition - so that they can then go out and find someone who's taxes have risen who could be shoehorned into this definition and tout it as breaking their manifesto promises.

We all know what they mean as @WATFORD zero says just above.

Herr Tubthumper · Oct 26, 2024

chip said:
I agree with you in a sense, in reality that is how most of us behave. But it isn't a good practice as the boundary is subjective and it's interpretation leaves it open to abuse. Would we apply this thinking in domestic violence or child abuse? You and I might have very different ideas about what constitutes a twit - I doubt this is the case. It's also bad law if it acceptable to break it to some degree and the state sanctions it.

The boundary is zero; official line is that any abuse will be clamped down on. The reality is somewhat different though and the black economy is entered/interpreted at your own risk. The only marker I have is a restaurant I know had been fiddling their books for a while, and fiddling software to do it, and was hit with huge backdated bill. So big the owner had to sell up. Everyone else I know it’s just a bit of cash in hand wage top ups….you’ll notice a lot of cafes and bars card machines don’t work at the end of the month!

bluenitsuj · Oct 26, 2024

Giraffe · Oct 26, 2024

Starmer has lost a lot of people with his comments this week. People are up in arms in the business community. The notion that someone running a business is not a worker is an abhorrence.

Guinness Boy · Oct 26, 2024

Giraffe said:
Starmer has lost a lot of people with his comments this week. People are up in arms in the business community. The notion that someone running a business is not a worker is an abhorrence.

When you say “lost”, who do you think they’re turning to?

The Tories crashed the economy, Reform’s economic policies are back of a fag packet lunacy, Lib Dems manifesto was more left wing than Labour and Green would only support ecologically sound business.

Where are your chips and why?

Bold Seagull · Oct 26, 2024

Giraffe said:
Starmer has lost a lot of people with his comments this week. People are up in arms in the business community. The notion that someone running a business is not a worker is an abhorrence.

Given you’re taking a ‘working person’ completely literally, are you saying the business community are up actually taking up arms!? :lol:

Giraffe · Oct 26, 2024

Guinness Boy said:
When you say “lost”, who do you think they’re turning to?

The Tories crashed the economy, Reform’s economic policies are back of a fag packet lunacy, Lib Dems manifesto was more left wing than Labour and Green would only support ecologically sound business.

Where are your chips and why?

I think they’ll return to the Tories and possibly Reform. Depends if those two come to some kind of alliance. The truth is this country is not a socialist state and the people won’t tolerate a socialist government. Starmer needs to move to the middle or he’ll lose next time.

Guinness Boy · Oct 26, 2024

Giraffe said:
I think they’ll return to the Tories and possibly Reform. Depends if those two come to some kind of alliance. The truth is this country is not a socialist state and the people won’t tolerate a socialist government. Starmer needs to move to the middle or he’ll lose next time.

Well he is in the middle.

Which Reform policies do you think businesses will go for?

chip · Oct 26, 2024

This chap knows how to be firm and take difficult decisions. We are in safe hands:

Labour MP Mike Amesbury filmed in heated exchange as assault reported

Police say officers were called to reports of an assault and they were examining the circumstances.

www.bbc.co.uk

Bodian · Oct 26, 2024

Giraffe said:
I think they’ll return to the Tories and possibly Reform. Depends if those two come to some kind of alliance. The truth is this country is not a socialist state and the people won’t tolerate a socialist government. Starmer needs to move to the middle or he’ll lose next time.

Don't think that many people switched from Tory to Labour - so won't return to the Tories from there. The election was mainly won because the Tory vote went off to Reform, or didn't bother.

Giraffe · Oct 26, 2024

Guinness Boy said:
Well he is in the middle.

Which Reform policies do you think businesses will go for?

I think more will return to the Tories but since you asked these are all very business friendly Reform policies:

Reform said it would reduce the main corporation tax rate from 25 per cent to 20 per cent and raise the threshold for paying the tax from £50,000 to £100,000.

Its other proposals for the economy include the abolition of IR35 regulations introduced by the Conservatives in recent years to govern off-payroll working.

Business rates would be scrapped for small and medium firms, while an online delivery tax, levied at 3 per cent, is intended to “create a fairer playing field” for high-street businesses versus online competitors.

The VAT threshold would be raised to £120,000 to “free small entrepreneurs from red tape”.

Guinness Boy · Oct 26, 2024

Giraffe said:
I think more will return to the Tories but since you asked these are all very business friendly Reform policies:

Reform said it would reduce the main corporation tax rate from 25 per cent to 20 per cent and raise the threshold for paying the tax from £50,000 to £100,000.

Its other proposals for the economy include the abolition of IR35 regulations introduced by the Conservatives in recent years to govern off-payroll working.

Business rates would be scrapped for small and medium firms, while an online delivery tax, levied at 3 per cent, is intended to “create a fairer playing field” for high-street businesses versus online competitors.

The VAT threshold would be raised to £120,000 to “free small entrepreneurs from red tape”.

Great, but since they also want to end immigration where are the workers to support this growth coming from?

Weststander · Oct 26, 2024

Giraffe said:
I think more will return to the Tories but since you asked these are all very business friendly Reform policies:

Reform said it would reduce the main corporation tax rate from 25 per cent to 20 per cent and raise the threshold for paying the tax from £50,000 to £100,000.

Its other proposals for the economy include the abolition of IR35 regulations introduced by the Conservatives in recent years to govern off-payroll working.

Business rates would be scrapped for small and medium firms, while an online delivery tax, levied at 3 per cent, is intended to “create a fairer playing field” for high-street businesses versus online competitors.

The VAT threshold would be raised to £120,000 to “free small entrepreneurs from red tape”.

IR35 was started by Labour in 2000.

It taxes cheating employers and de facto employees (using limited companies) from pretending the latter are genuine businesses carrying risks and controlling their working life. Famously John Birt head of the BBC was a tax cheat in the 90’s with his organisation’s collusion.

Depriving the public purse of billions in national insurance and tax.

The untold benefit of IR35 is that most people did the right thing and are engaged as employees.

[Politics] The Labour Government

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Listen to me!!!

VERY part time moderator

Tofu eating wokerati

strong and stable with me, or...

VERY part time moderator

Tofu eating wokerati

Well-known member

Well-known member

VERY part time moderator

Tofu eating wokerati

Well-known member

Share this page