UK Politics

[Guest]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

 

not really. Rayner is against it now because the housing stock does not get replaced, it is a failed policy which yes some people like her benefited from at the time but now we are paying the price.

 

With Abbott, I have no idea what her views on private education, but she probably would like the state school system to support black kids better in state school so that their life chances were as good as white kids...and so that wealthier black people didn't feel like they need to send their kids to private schools.

Double standards isn’t it from the Tories. They are allowed to do things that regular normal folk shouldn’t.

[Neil]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Double standards isn’t it from the Tories. They are allowed to do things that regular normal folk shouldn’t.

dunno that its double standards they're going for her in the same way she goes for them.

 

[lost]

Plus labour are the people who are actually supposed to believe in this stuff. You can't argue the state is the solution but at the same time demonstrate the state is too sh*t for your own needs. These are two politicians who are "supposed" to be from the left of the party.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Neil said:

dunno that its double standards they're going for her in the same way she goes for them.

 

Yeah it is, they are happy to benefit from all this crap but when a working class person tries it they wet themselves. 

[steviewevie]

10 minutes ago, lost said:

Plus labour are the people who are actually supposed to believe in this stuff. You can't argue the state is the solution but at the same time demonstrate the state is too sh*t for your own needs. These are two politicians who are "supposed" to be from the left of the party.

 

An underfunded and badly run state is a problem...same as a badly run private sector...see water companies, train companies etc etc

[lost]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

 

An underfunded and badly run state is a problem...same as a badly run private sector...see water companies, train companies etc etc

 

Didn't these thigns happen under a labour government. Pretty sure Dianne Abbott sent her kid to school in 2003? Education Education Education.

Edited April 13 by lost

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, lost said:

 

Didn't these thigns happen under a labour government. Pretty sure Dianne Abbott sent her kid to school in 2003? Education Education Education.

 

True..but Blair was spouting education education education because it needed more funds, which it got...but problems aren't fixed overnight...and there is the extra issue of black kids in London and the constant difficulties they face.

[Neil]

rayner will probably ride this out ok, same as she did beergate, but now doesn't depend whether or not she did nothing wrong but depend on what others make of it and where thery take it, if she'd have been smart she'd have said she'd stand down in prosecuted rathe than if she did something wrong , cos its easy for the old bill and others to conclude she did something wrong, but very unlikely she'll be prosecuted.

[steviewevie]

..plus Blair's kids went to private schools so there is that.

[Neil]

Just now, steviewevie said:

..plus Blair's kids went to private schools so there is that.

bit more excusable than abbott cos blair was living somewhere different than he  would been  because of his job.if your circumstances have changed that might change the circumstances for other things.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

rayner will probably ride this out ok, same as she did beergate, but now doesn't depend whether or not she did nothing wrong but depend on what others make of it and where thery take it, if she'd have been smart she'd have said she'd stand down in prosecuted rathe than if she did something wrong , cos its easy for the old bill and others to conclude she did something wrong, but very unlikely she'll be prosecuted.

GMP could quite easily say there is no need for further investigation as they are happy with Rayner's reasoning, then The Mail will lose their sh*t and pin blame on Burnham's police force.

[Neil]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

GMP could quite easily say there is no need for further investigation as they are happy with Rayner's reasoning, then The Mail will lose their sh*t and pin blame on Burnham's police force.

yeah, the mail  might they might also join up the dots of consequences they might bring back on themselves or their friends from the expectations they suggest the public should have (such as GMP: must deeply investigate, and then prosecute).

this might make it easy to bring down the mail's owner (for tax avoidance), and also the mail. not sure there's much on the tax avoidance thing now, think he's a non-dom, and that's gone already

Edited April 13 by Neil

[lost]

18 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

True..but Blair was spouting education education education because it needed more funds, which it got...but problems aren't fixed overnight

 

Its never going to be fixed then as the pre-financial crisis period regarding tax revenue generated by the financial sector was as probably as good as its going to get. That hasn't been repalced by anything.

 

But ok we will go with your argument, its ok for everyone to practice tax avoidance / evasion to pay for private sector solutions until each of us deem the public sector ones meet our needs fully.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, lost said:

 

Its never going to be fixed then as the pre-financial crisis period regarding tax revenue generated by the financial sector was as probably as good as its going to get. That hasn't been repalced by anything.

 

But ok we will go with your argument, its ok for everyone to practice tax avoidance / evasion to pay for private sector solutions until each of us deem the public sector ones meet our needs fully.

 

Well that is a choice for governments...they control the purse strings and decide how much tax or spending. It say tax revenue back then is as good as it is going to get is ridiculous when Hunt is cutting taxes every budget. 

And Rayner did not knowingly practice tax avoidance. She is innocent. If found otherwise I will resign from this forum and eat my computer.

[lost]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

And Rayner did not knowingly practice tax avoidance. She is innocent. If found otherwise I will resign from this forum and eat my computer.

 

Don't see it as much of a loss personally. As you said she's at odds with Reeves on economic matters. It could easily be like Corbyn & Tom Watson where the deputy disagrees with the leader but he can't get rid due to being elected by the party.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, lost said:

 

Don't see it as much of a loss personally. As you said she's at odds with Reeves on economic matters. It could easily be like Corbyn & Tom Watson where the deputy disagrees with the leader but he can't get rid due to being elected by the party.

 

They are not at odds though, but I guess there is potential for it seeing as Rayner's main policy seems to be the workers deal thing...but Reeves has been pushing this too. She seems to have a good relationship with Starmer after a flakey start. I would say she's more like Prescott, but with more clout. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

Yeah it is, they are happy to benefit from all this crap but when a working class person tries it they wet themselves. 

I don't agree. It's when a working class person who has publicly stated that they are against, then goes ahead and benefits from it. For instance, loads of working class people benefit from private healthcare. I don't think the Tories would care a jot. 

Edited April 13 by Ommadawn

[Neil]

1 hour ago, lost said:

 

Its never going to be fixed then as the pre-financial crisis period regarding tax revenue generated by the financial sector was as probably as good as its going to get. That hasn't been repalced by anything.

 

But ok we will go with your argument, its ok for everyone to practice tax avoidance / evasion to pay for private sector solutions until each of us deem the public sector ones meet our needs fully.

good analysis there of what he suggested.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Ommadawn said:

I don't agree. It's when a working class person who has publicly stated that they are against, then goes ahead and benefits from it. For instance, loads of working class people benefit from private healthcare. I don't think the Tories would care a jot. 

only sick people use private healthcare. 😛 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Double standards isn’t it from the Tories. They are allowed to do things that regular normal folk shouldn’t.

All Rayner has to do is to publish the tax advice she was given. The longer she delays, the worse it gets for her. There's already some speculation (unproven) that there's stuff in there that might implicate her in other matters which is why she won't publish.

 

If this was a Tory minister, you would be saying exactly the same. Strange (or maybe not) why you don't when it's Labour.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

only sick people use private healthcare. 😛 

but sometimes you don't have a choice when the nhs sends you to a contracted facility (happened to me twice - one was run by a charity, the other was a convalescence hospital, which changed over to privately run while i was there.when it switched over i could feel and notice the lesser service).

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

All Rayner has to do is to publish the tax advice she was given

that wont do it now, its moved on to electoral fraud by declaring the wrong address as her residence.

the tax advice is dependant on what she said were the circumstances, so wouldn't clear up anything about the circumstances, which is at the heart of whether she owes tax or not.

[Guest]

If Rayner was a male and from Eton (for example) would there be this much uproar from the RW?

[Neil]

just hearing a gp practice on the radio complaining that they can't offer appointments cos patients cancel, and the nhs claims back the money for that appointment.

 

i'm guessing the practice initially gets paid for every appointment slot  and if an appointment isn't used , the payment for the slot goes back!

[lost]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

If Rayner was a male and from Eton (for example) would there be this much uproar from the RW?

 

If Boris was female and working class would she/he still be PM?

Edited April 13 by lost