Do you want to discuss boring politics? (30 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Are they now subject to tax?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You said they’d get back to Labour values but can’t point to a Labour govt you’d like them to emulate so maybe what you think are Labour values aren’t? The idea Labour is a far left party on foreign policy historically is a nonsense if you look at literally every Labour government ever. The problem is people cherry pick the undoubtably good Labour governments do like found the NHS and ignore say the partition of India or Malaya.
Labour have always been pragmatic in foreign policy and Corbyn’s attitude has always been very much an outlier. We’ve backed our interests in the ME despite human rights abuses all the way back to Attlee rightly or wrongly.
This government have nationalised rail, pumped billions into public services, reformed workers rights, and taxed wealth more traditional domestic left wing policies than most governments of the last fifty years. Purity tests over the Middle East are hardly a sensible way of judging “Labour values”
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Just when you thought energy bills had stabilised another stupid net zero tax proposal raises it's ugly head.
They're taking that now at least!.
Actually prevent you increasing your monthly amount also so I'll have a Bill to settle outside of my monthly in a month's time, it's like they want you to have a slush fund for them to use,no mate you're the business and it's you that has to take the risk,if there wasn't Risk we could all do it!
Actually prevent you increasing your monthly amount also so I'll have a Bill to settle outside of my monthly in a month's time, it's like they want you to have a slush fund for them to use,no mate you're the business and it's you that has to take the risk,if there wasn't Risk we could all do it!
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
And another one in the pipeline. 
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
They've taken over an existing regional franchise contract at its expiry. It is not nationalisation, the Tories could claim nationalisation when they ran various franchises when they were handed back by the operators. The whole structure of the railway is same as it was. The same conflicting objectives. Private ownership of rolling stock. It's a good first step but nationalisation it is not.
As for workers rights, it isn't law yet and isn't even expected to come into force until 2026. Let's see what happens as it progresses through parliament. I have no confidence in Starmer, under pressure from Reform, not folding.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Embarrassing, Labour and their mates in the private water extortion racket
Punters got to cough up to be on this earth mate, everything you use is up for grabs,.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
What’s embarrassing is you taking any old shite the Telegraph pumps out as gospel if it slags off Labour.
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
“Labour in favour of water meters” is a far more boring headline.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The cosy relationship is long existing
Severn Trent chief proposes ‘social purpose’ water firms amid utilities crisis
Liv Garfield seeks backing from Labour for reforms as government eyes temporary renationalisation of Thames Water
Privatised water lobbyist Angela Smith rejoined the party under Starmer
Yeah, what a load of shite that article is.
In fact, it's not even Labour in favour of it - the water companies are talking about introducing it and a Labour source said they were not considering it.
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
Been binge watching Can't Pay we will take it away the last few days.
Really interesting and raises some interesting arguments.
One thing that shocks me, is how those in social housing are able to go without paying rent for so long. Surely if they are getting paid by the government, rather than the housing benefit money go to them, it goes straight to the landlord?
I'm not clued in on all this stuff, so if it works different apologies.
Really interesting and raises some interesting arguments.
One thing that shocks me, is how those in social housing are able to go without paying rent for so long. Surely if they are getting paid by the government, rather than the housing benefit money go to them, it goes straight to the landlord?
I'm not clued in on all this stuff, so if it works different apologies.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
It always used to be housing benefit was paid direct to landlord social housing or private
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
Ah interesting. Makes sense.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I do think politicians are far too easily convinced (or bought) by lobbists, they are far too lazy to do any deep research and never consider long term consequences.
Ps Water firms ask for bill rises of between 24% and 91%
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
If they get housing benefit and haven’t had it stopped for some reason like a sanction or earning too much one week. The people I know with housing debt it’s usually something like that.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
The cosy relationship is long existing
Severn Trent chief proposes ‘social purpose’ water firms amid utilities crisis
Liv Garfield seeks backing from Labour for reforms as government eyes temporary renationalisation of Thames Waterwww.theguardian.com
Privatised water lobbyist Angela Smith rejoined the party under Starmer
Just another example of a long list of Labour being totally detached from its traditional roots.
They deserve everything coming to them in next few years.
Last edited:
It won't and wouldn't be any different from any of the others or at least not at this point.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Spot on. That critique applies equally to the Tories which is why the idea they’re the ‘omni-party’ or ‘two cheeks on the sam arse’ prevails.
Conservative minded voters felt the Tories in power were a ‘Blairite’ continuation and not at all right wing and currently have the exact same phenomenon right now with this Labour government.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
It’s changed. It now goes to the benefit claimant who should then pay to landlord. It may shock some to learn that often the temptation to hold on to the money is often too great for tenants in receipt of benefits.
There’s a two month rule: ie, the tenant gets 2 months behind and the landlord can apply to the gov for direct payment rather than evict.
Result: tenants often get two months behind.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Water companies existing is proof Labour are detached from their roots?
You guys crack me up.