- This topic has 1,855 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 50 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
You may well be right that we need to pay more tax, HDLG.
But surely the point is Labour won the election by saying that taxes would not go up under a Labour Government. Labour are going back on a hell of a lot of their manifesto. Either they lied to the electorate or should do the right thing and call another general election.Value Is Everythingtbh During Covid I can understand why contracts were given to “mates”.
Because going through the proper channels takes more time… And during Covid, “Time” cost lives. So speeding up the process could have been a good thing (whether it was the right thing or not)
Trouble is their mates were lying about what they could provide… and lies cost lives too.Value Is Everything@ HDLG
This present government consistently repeated that they would not raise the taxes of ‘working people’ so surely it’s right to ask for a definition or who they consider ‘working people’ to be?
Labour has struggled to say what a woman is,with the honourable exception of Rosie Duffield,could this be jeja vu?
good luck too allThe Tories promised tax cuts ….. Just how was that being paid for , kid please explain how u fill this huge black hole that the Tories left without raising taxes …
This is it, Labour may or may not be exaggerating the size of the ‘black hole’ but you have to be living in serious denial if you don’t think there is one. Nobody can possibly deny that the Tories blew billions up the wall. The evidence is right there in front of you.
Does anyone really think they’d raise taxes if they didn’t have to? Obviously it’s never going to be a popular decision. What do those who are against it propose?
Government don’t do what’s popular but what’s needed/required , this is painful but necessary
Given you can be sentenced within a matter of days to three years in the clink for the heinous crime of shouting at the police under Starmer’s regime, I take it this Labour MP who has committed a serious assault will be measured up for his prison uniform soon:
Is it,am I being unfair,to ask how Labour define and/or consider ‘working people’ to be?
good luck to all“Does anyone really think they’d raise taxes if they didn’t have to? Obviously it’s never going to be a popular decision. What do those who are against it propose”?
————————-I don’t think anyone is saying Labour don’t need to raise taxes, Richard. It’s how they do it – in relation to what they said in their manifesto. Before the General Election they said there’d be “no tax rises for the working man”. Now, they’re giving a totally different definition of a working man to what is generally accepted. A different definition to what they were making out before the General Election; when it was all going to be paid for by the well off / rich / non-doms… And there was nothing about Winter Fuel Payments being discontinued in the manifesto.
Labour went on and on about how the Conservatives / Boris “lied to the British people” before the previous General Election… Whereas it was paying for Covid and Ukraine that prevented the Conservatives from doing many things they wanted. So “lied” is too strong a word…
…Whereas within days of Labour coming in to power – absolutely nothing had changed as far as the British / Worldwide economic situation since the election – and yet now Labour had to row back on everything they’d said in their manifesto because of a black hole they somehow didn’t know about. Yet before the election we heard time and time again from Labour about how bad the Conservatives were leaving the economy.
Labour made out they were different to the Conservatives. Labour claimed before the election to be the trustworthy, honourable politicians.
They are different alright. They’re worse. They’re self righteous.
Given their Union paymasters wage rises the country cannot afford… Whilst taking money from pensioners in poverty and the working man / woman.To think I almost voted for them. Many of the electorate were hoodwinked.
Labour Are Liars.
Value Is EverythingLabour and “Working People” definition.
they’ve got themselves tied up in knots, on this one.
Their latest take on it, is something to do with pay slipsThere are 33m people working in the UK; 4.3m of those are self employed. Close to 6m ‘attend’ organisations in the public sector.
Quite frankly, they should never have tried to define the term, as its evolved over the years, from what one might have described, say, from the 70s or 60s.
This bunch of Labour politicians havent a clue, other than a desire to ‘bung’ the public sector £bns, whilst expecting the private sector to pick up the tab.
On another note i trust that Two-Tier has instructed the law to deal with the Labour MP thug in the same way as the Summer rioters. Arrested, in court this morn, in jail by now (12.30pm), sentenced to 3 years. Any news on this?
It keeps on getting better:
Mike Amesbury Sponsoring Anti-Social Behaviour Awareness Campaign Launch Next Month
tbh I think we should wait until learning all the facts about Mike Amesbury.
Although the footage looks extremely bad and I’d never condone violence. We don’t yet know just how much provocation he was under.Value Is EverythingThe civil unrest/rioting/whatever you want to call it cases and Amesbury aren’t remotely similar.
Those involved in the unrest would have pleaded guilty straight away hence why they are now enjoying a daily diet of porridge for breakfast. Frankly it was an exercise in making an example of people and it worked, the unrest stopped. Many will have got away scot-free.
Amesbury will presumably go to trial where the full facts will be established and if guilty he’ll be sentenced in line with the law. He’s been suspended from Labour pending the outcome, don’t see what else they can do. Clearly his position is untenable if he’s guilty but that’s why we have courts, we don’t just throw people in jail because it suits the narrative.
“We don’t yet know just how much provocation he was under.”
Based on the footage, none.
“We don’t just throw people in jail because it suits the narrative.”
Several of the so called rioters committed no act of violence but got up to three years. Very harsh sentences for first offenders, especially those with health issues. One has since died in prison (possibly suicide), sentenced to almost three years by a judge who had previously let off a paedophile and a driver who killed a cyclist, both without any jail time.
There are plenty of other examples of offenders who have not been sent to prison for far more serious offences than shouting at police in full protective outfits:
The latter case in particular (under the previous government) is why people talk about “two tier justice”. There is no good reason why that thoroughly nasty piece of work is not in a prison cell now.
People talk about two tier justice as if it is all somehow Labour’s fault. What this all shows that sentencing seen to be overly harsh or lenient happens under governments of either stripe.
Perhaps there should be a review of sentencing guidelines, that would be a constructive way of sorting it out rather than playing political blame games with what are ultimately people’s lives.
they’ve got themselves tied up in knots, on this one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.