[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?

[fly high]

Government own stats, 880k do fall between the cracks in being poor but unable/unknowing to claim means tested benefits.

And that figure doesn't include those just a few pounds over the cut off. I've said it before & I'll say again, the Labour politicians who say they have protected the most vulnerable are either seriously stupid or outright liars.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Badenough, Sunk, Potty....fantastic

At least he hasn't had to think up a name for that Right Brain Ronnie now he's finally been banned.

Imagine setting up an account, claiming to be neurodiverse and then using that account to troll posters on NSC who have been open and honest about their neurodivesities. Probably the nastiest thing I have seen in 20+ years on NSC and surely someone would have to be a complete and utter **** to do that.

What do you think about the sort of person who would do that ?

 

[Is it PotG?]

What do you think about the sort of person who would do that ?

I think that would be a very interesting idea

 

[beorhthelm]

This is one of the key things for me.

Why are they a 'special case' in the first place? It's presumably to do with food production and keeping us all fed. But other businesses also provide essentials for the public.

Really - the main answer is for us, the public, to pay properly for the food we eat. It's the artificial suppression of prices by supermarkets (in the main) that makes farming unviable in many respects. If we paid fairly for the product farmers provide - then they would be viable.

food prices wanders off to another issue which isn't really relevant. if you doubled crop values you'd more or less have the same problem, which is high asset value with very low marginal profits. a large % tax on the asset value wipes out years of those margins.

 

[Chicken Run]

At least he hasn't had to think up a name for that Right Brain Ronnie now he's finally been banned.

Imagine setting up an account, claiming to be neurodiverse and then using that account to troll posters on NSC who have been open and honest about their neurodivesities. Probably the nastiest thing I have seen in 20+ years on NSC and surely someone would have to be a complete and utter **** to do that.

What do you think about the sort of person who would do that ?

It’s funny isn’t it how we all see things differently, me for example found these two posts by a long time member directed at another to be rather vile

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Listening to PMQT, why can't there be a new 'rape gang' inquiry while at the same time, the tories support the bill and actions that Labour propose?
This includes measure that would prevent parents like the bastard Sharif taking his daughter out of school so he cold torture her.

Labour will win the vote, and yet the take home is that Labour are refusing to look into 'rape gangs'.

Badenough is claiming that the review published in 22, and the recommendation they failed to act upon, is flawed because it mentions Rochdale by name only once.

But they set up the inquiry.

Badenough is spinning this well, but when you dig deep she appears to me to be being disgraceful.

And yet I see no reason why Labout can't create a specific inquiry into rape gangs.
If it is needed.
But is it?
What is it we don't know?

Quite.

You can do both, but that seems way to sensible, however no political points to win that way, so won't happen.

A full inquiry is needed - not that anything will happen other than someone being rolled out to say "lessons will be learnt"

Maggie Oliver was on the TV, who seems to be an expert on this subject, claimed that the Jay inquiry was 10 days long on grooming gangs, aimed at one area and they didn't speak to anyone other than local officials and police officers, seems a bit like marking your own homework if true.....

 

[Hugo Rune]

Listening to PMQT, why can't there be a new 'rape gang' inquiry while at the same time, the tories support the bill and actions that Labour propose?
This includes measure that would prevent parents like the bastard Sharif taking his daughter out of school so he cold torture her.

Labour will win the vote, and yet the take home is that Labour are refusing to look into 'rape gangs'.

Badenough is claiming that the review published in 22, and the recommendation they failed to act upon, is flawed because it mentions Rochdale by name only once.

But they set up the inquiry.

Badenough is spinning this well, but when you dig deep she appears to me to be being disgraceful.

And yet I see no reason why Labout can't create a specific inquiry into rape gangs.
If it is needed.
But is it?
What is it we don't know?

I believe an inquiry about the Oldham cases are needed. This what Musk picked up on but he has no clue about context or detail.

The detail is that the Oldman council don’t want to pay for it (the national review in ‘22 cost £200m+, this would be cheaper but not nearly as expensive) so have challenged the government to do another national one. The answer will probably be that the council gets the funding to run it’s own inquiry from central government, you’d have to praise their councillors if they pull that off.

What is needed is urgent action on the findings and recommendations of the Jay report which I believe the government are undertaking with the bill that the Tories are opposing (having not done anything to implement the recommendations when in government).

That brings me to the SNP and Lib Dem’s who actually asked the important questions to the PM in PMQs rather than jumping on the right wing populist Musk agenda. What a thoroughly wretched opposition we have who have not learned their lessons from their general election humiliation. They are moving to the right to battle Reform for votes. What an idiotic tactic when so many voters in the middle could be lured by a changed Conservative Party.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It’s funny isn’t it how we all see things differently, me for example found these two posts by a long time member directed at another to be rather vile

View attachment 194784View attachment 194785

A couple of Jpegs you've created with no source or context and absolutely nothing to do with the thread

As always, your contribution is greatly appreciated

 

[Is it PotG?]

A couple of Jpegs you've created with no source or context and absolutely nothing to do with the thread

As always, your contribution is greatly appreciated

What ARE you prattling on about?

 

[Hugo Rune]

Maggie Oliver was on the TV, who seems to be an expert on this subject, claimed that the Jay inquiry was 10 days long on grooming gangs, aimed at one area and they didn't speak to anyone other than local officials and police officers, seems a bit like marking your own homework if true.....

I’d take everything she says with a huge pinch of salt. She has self promotion career to look after.

“Oliver appeared in Celebrity Big Brother 21,[15]entered on day 1 and was evicted on day 18.” Wiki

 

[abc]

Did Elon Musk tweet this?

Wretched, wretched lies. The lot of them.

View attachment 194756

However, the stat above was the closet to your truth (if you include forestry and the fishing industry with farming).

Statistics - Work-related fatal injuries in Great Britain

The information in this document relates to the latest 'full-year'; statistics on fatal injuries in the workplace, for 2018/19.

www.hse.gov.uk

Sorry should have clarified: agriculture has the highest fatality rate at 8.23 per 100,000 workers which is 20 times higher than the all-industry rate inc construction. But either way, both are awful situations

 

[pb21]

5/10/30y UK bond interest rates going mental recently, similar to US etc. so not a Labour phenomenon, but still going to make life difficult for them...

Edit: To clarify, not Truss levels of mentalness , just normal levels.

 

[Bodian]

The detail is that the Oldman council don’t want to pay for it (the national review in ‘22 cost £200m+, this would be cheaper but not nearly as expensive) so have challenged the government to do another national one. The answer will probably be that the council gets the funding to run it’s own inquiry from central government, you’d have to praise their councillors if they pull that off.

Reform are going to fund it according to Farage.

 

[nevergoagain]

I truly believe all (at least most) politicians would welcome a far reaching review on ALL CSE, the posturing by both parties is just political points scoring and disgraceful on such a subject. When I say ALL CSE yes I do mean the Pakistani grooming gangs and it needs to be called out as such without fear of racist claims but we also need to get the nonce brigade in the clergy (of all persuasions) to come clean on what they have been hiding for years. I imagine you can also include a swathe of other areas of society in this such as sports coaches, celebrities and anywhere that there has been historic and most likely current cover ups. There's very little in life more important than protecting children from exploitation.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Sorry should have clarified: agriculture has the highest fatality rate at 8.23 per 100,000 workers which is 20 times higher than the all-industry rate inc construction. But either way, both are awful situations

No worries. My post was badly worded after a scotch or two!

I did look at the HSE’s latest report on fatalities in agriculture and was struck by two interesting facts. Firstly, 40% of those fatalities happened to people in the 65+ age category, secondly, they include all deaths in agriculture (such as ramblers being crushed by cows), not just workers so included 4 children who were sadly died.

 

[ROSM]

Quite.

You can do both, but that seems way to sensible, however no political points to win that way, so won't happen.

A full inquiry is needed - not that anything will happen other than someone being rolled out to say "lessons will be learnt"

Maggie Oliver was on the TV, who seems to be an expert on this subject, claimed that the Jay inquiry was 10 days long on grooming gangs, aimed at one area and they didn't speak to anyone other than local officials and police officers, seems a bit like marking your own homework if true.....

I would love to know how the inquiry produced a number of research and investigation reports one of which was a 193 page report into child exploitation by organised networks, in Feb 22 of they only took 10 days of evidence?

This report by the way mentioned Rochdale 22 times..not the 1 that Badenoch selectively mentioned from the overall c450 page child sex abuse report which was a statutory instrument discussing the evidence, failings and recommendations. This would be unlikely to be locations specific unless the evidence was location specific. Anybody who has done an investigation report, thesis or dissertation would understand that. I can only assume that some MPs have forgotten this.

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

I wasted a lot of breath on someone who wants to get rid of all inheritance tax but selected only to focus on the societal group who still pay the least inheritance tax. I am sure this is not your stance so there is no reason to get shirty with me.

The fact (if it is fact) that farming in the UK is so hard that it is barely viable is a separate issue.
Given that farmers have benefitted from the absence of inheritance tax since Thatcher changed the rules, if their businesses are still only millimeters away from bankruptcy, and paying some inheritance tax would push them under, then it means there is a major problem associated with farming finances.

If this is woven into a narrative that includes some attempt to fix the problem and make farming viable then, and only then, would I agree that Labour should reverse the re-introduction of some inheritance tax on some farmers in order to help save the sector.

Thus I would agree with you and one or two others that it is unfair to take away this farmer tax break provided you accept that farming in the UK is essentially unviable, owing presumably to decades of mismanagement by successive governments.

But I can't accommodate the argument (made by another poster, not you) that the end game is to remove all inheritance tax from everyone in society. If that is the end game then it should start with the rest of society who pay full inheritance tax, not farmers who are now being asked to pay some inheritance tax. It is the lack of logic here that set me off because, on the face of it, farmers are still getting a better inheritance tax deal than the rest of us.

Remember it is him not me who is proposing that farmers represent a special case, and yet he is doing so as part of a narrative that requires that farmers are not a special case, and that nobody should pay inheritance tax. If inheritance tax for all of us is wrong, why focus on the group that pays the least inheritance tax to pursue the argument. Either farmers are a special case or they aren't.

It is that which has caused me to post so many exasperated comments on this thread. There is no reason why you should accuse me of trolling.

You seem to waste a lot of breath on here full stop.

 

[abc]

I wasted a lot of breath on someone who wants to get rid of all inheritance tax but selected only to focus on the societal group who still pay the least inheritance tax. I am sure this is not your stance so there is no reason to get shirty with me.

The fact (if it is fact) that farming in the UK is so hard that it is barely viable is a separate issue.
Given that farmers have benefitted from the absence of inheritance tax since Thatcher changed the rules, if their businesses are still only millimeters away from bankruptcy, and paying some inheritance tax would push them under, then it means there is a major problem associated with farming finances.

If this is woven into a narrative that includes some attempt to fix the problem and make farming viable then, and only then, would I agree that Labour should reverse the re-introduction of some inheritance tax on some farmers in order to help save the sector.

Thus I would agree with you and one or two others that it is unfair to take away this farmer tax break provided you accept that farming in the UK is essentially unviable, owing presumably to decades of mismanagement by successive governments.

But I can't accommodate the argument (made by another poster, not you) that the end game is to remove all inheritance tax from everyone in society. If that is the end game then it should start with the rest of society who pay full inheritance tax, not farmers who are now being asked to pay some inheritance tax. It is the lack of logic here that set me off because, on the face of it, farmers are still getting a better inheritance tax deal than the rest of us.

Remember it is him not me who is proposing that farmers represent a special case, and yet he is doing so as part of a narrative that requires that farmers are not a special case, and that nobody should pay inheritance tax. If inheritance tax for all of us is wrong, why focus on the group that pays the least inheritance tax to pursue the argument. Either farmers are a special case or they aren't.

It is that which has caused me to post so many exasperated comments on this thread. There is no reason why you should accuse me of trolling.

I appreciate your considered response. It is an emotive issue amongst the farming industry because it will simply mark the end of many family farms.

The owners may be asset rich but their asset is the land, animals and machinery that enable them to farm. If they pay IHT on passing the business down to the next generation then they will have to sell the assets and that is the end. The average family farming business does not generate enough income to borrow the IHT and service it. The IHT exemption was less a tax 'break' and more a necessity.

But in truth, this issue is the final straw for an industry that has been hammered by successive governments and legislators who have no policy for the future of food production. Food production in the UK is becoming unviable, which is an extremely serious problem for us all and will eventually see higher prices and shortages. So you are right in suggesting (I think) that there needs to be a coordinated approach to solving this problem. If changes to IHT were part of an overall policy that could deliver sustainable (financial and eco) food production then fair enough. This is, of course, not the case.

Sadly, neither this or previous governments understand what 'coordinated' means.

I understand your overall views about IHT in general but you might consider whether it is right to lump the farming issue in with the wider one?

 

[ROSM]

I truly believe all (at least most) politicians would welcome a far reaching review on ALL CSE, the posturing by both parties is just political points scoring and disgraceful on such a subject. When I say ALL CSE yes I do mean the Pakistani grooming gangs and it needs to be called out as such without fear of racist claims but we also need to get the nonce brigade in the clergy (of all persuasions) to come clean on what they have been hiding for years. I imagine you can also include a swathe of other areas of society in this such as sports coaches, celebrities and anywhere that there has been historic and most likely current cover ups. There's very little in life more important than protecting children from exploitation.

Would this be over and above the 7 year Jay independent investigation into child sex abuse that was set up in 2015 and reported in 2022..because this is exactly what that ToR was.

If there is new evidence and new items that weren't considered in that review then by all means have another one. However if all it tells us is what we already know but in more locations then it certainly would risk delaying what could and should be done now and won't justify the cost and pain it will cause to the victims who really just want to see this doesn't happen to anybody else

 

[nevergoagain]

Would this be over and above the 7 year Jay independent investigation into child sex abuse that was set up in 2015 and reported in 2022..because this is exactly what that ToR was.

If there is new evidence and new items that weren't considered in that review then by all means have another one. However if all it tells us is what we already know but in more locations then it certainly would risk delating what could and should be done now and won't justify the cost and pain it will cause to the victims who really just want to see thos doesn't happen to anybody else

I want to see the investigations identify who covered up what and to then be brought to account. I'd like to see recommendations on sentencing guidelines being radically changed as someone buggering a child getting 3 years is so wrong it defies belief. I haven't seen the output of the report but equally haven't seen many of the clergy being prosecuted for cover ups rather than just resigning on a cushy pension.