Starmergeddon: They Came And Ate Us

[sockwithaticket]

Most importantly, the rolling stock is basically all foreign owned. Nationalising the operators won't do an awful lot for passengers while whoever runs the railways pays out the nose to rent the actual trains.

[Biffer]

Almost as if they were being run down to be flogged off cheap.

Exactly.

A good chunk of UK railways are owned by railway companies from overseas! Most European countries have state owned railways albeit supplemented by some private sector operators. They seem to do ok?

Yeah, I made that point further up the page?

[dpedin]

Exactly.

A good chunk of UK railways are owned by railway companies from overseas! Most European countries have state owned railways albeit supplemented by some private sector operators. They seem to do ok?

Yeah, I made that point further up the page?

Ooooops! Sorry

[Biffer]

A good chunk of UK railways are owned by railway companies from overseas! Most European countries have state owned railways albeit supplemented by some private sector operators. They seem to do ok?

Yeah, I made that point further up the page?

Ooooops! Sorry

[I like neeps]

The charity I volunteer with has now sent three emails with a template to email my MP. NI raises will see exactly 160k added to their costs next year (employ c180 people) and as a result there will be job cuts/services scrapped.

Tick tock, this rise won't last.

[Tichtheid]

The charity I volunteer with has now sent three emails with a template to email my MP. NI raises will see exactly 160k added to their costs next year (employ c180 people) and as a result there will be job cuts/services scrapped.

Tick tock, this rise won't last.

The NI increase is going to really hit small charities which are already scrabbling over ever-decreasing sources of funding

It was the first thing my wife said at the announcement- she was a trustee for a small charity.

I don't think they'll go back on it, though.

[Yeeb]

Always an interesting political conundrum, do you go back on an announcement once it’s realised it’s dumb and will hurt jobs and growth and tax revenue raised, and run the risk of looking weak and useless, OR do you stand firm and kick can down round and continue to blame the other party y / trump / EU / thatcher (delete as appropriate) for long enough that people will forget and find a new thing to whinge over ?

I doubt Labour will go back on anything, they are unsurprisingly proving to be just as inept and scandal full as the previous govt

[Biffer]

Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?

[Yeeb]

Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?

The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc

[Tichtheid]

Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?

I don't know enough to be able to answer that properly, but closing or cutting charities doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it.

[I like neeps]

Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?

The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc

I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)

[Biffer]

Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?

The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc

I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.

I would also like to see a system that taxes assets more, particularly when they add little or nothing economically or societally. By default assets are untaxed and transactions are taxed, except when it’s detrimental to the wealthy.

[sockwithaticket]

Given that charities perform a lot of functions that perhaps the state ought to or clean up after messes the state makes (food banks and homless shelters for example), there's certainly a case to grant exemptions.

I really believe it can't be beyond the wit of man to draw up something that would see the likes of Amazon and Starbucks pay a fairer share that would more than compensate.

Always an interesting political conundrum, do you go back on an announcement once it’s realised it’s dumb and will hurt jobs and growth and tax revenue raised, and run the risk of looking weak and useless, OR do you stand firm and kick can down round and continue to blame the other party y / trump / EU / thatcher (delete as appropriate) for long enough that people will forget and find a new thing to whinge over ?

I doubt Labour will go back on anything, they are unsurprisingly proving to be just as inept and scandal full as the previous govt

Not by a long fucking shot. That is some utterly absurd 'both sides are the same' nonsense.

Labour have had Keir taking advantage of being offered free clothes and event tickets (which we know about because he actually declared them, Private Eye have exposed many a Tory who accepted stuff they didn't declare).

Louise Haigh having an expired conviction for lying about losing her phone to get a new one.

And...?

Whereas Priti Patel alone has off the books meetings with a foreign power and resultant breach of the ministerial code, bullying of subordinates which led to a settlement.

One would hardly know where to start with the Boris era, but the crony contracts for non-existent or defective PPE during covid and flagrant breaching of lockdown laws the government were insisting everyone else abide by are as good a place as any.

[Yeeb]

Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?

The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc

I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)

I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing

[Yeeb]

Given that charities perform a lot of functions that perhaps the state ought to or clean up after messes the state makes (food banks and homless shelters for example), there's certainly a case to grant exemptions.

I really believe it can't be beyond the wit of man to draw up something that would see the likes of Amazon and Starbucks pay a fairer share that would more than compensate.

Always an interesting political conundrum, do you go back on an announcement once it’s realised it’s dumb and will hurt jobs and growth and tax revenue raised, and run the risk of looking weak and useless, OR do you stand firm and kick can down round and continue to blame the other party y / trump / EU / thatcher (delete as appropriate) for long enough that people will forget and find a new thing to whinge over ?

I doubt Labour will go back on anything, they are unsurprisingly proving to be just as inept and scandal full as the previous govt

Not by a long fucking shot. That is some utterly absurd 'both sides are the same' nonsense.

Labour have had Keir taking advantage of being offered free clothes and event tickets (which we know about because he actually declared them, Private Eye have exposed many a Tory who accepted stuff they didn't declare).

Louise Haigh having an expired conviction for lying about losing her phone to get a new one.

And...?

Whereas Priti Patel alone has off the books meetings with a foreign power and resultant breach of the ministerial code, bullying of subordinates which led to a settlement.

One would hardly know where to start with the Boris era, but the crony contracts for non-existent or defective PPE during covid and flagrant breaching of lockdown laws the government were insisting everyone else abide by are as good a place as any.

Ah, you are whatabouting my whataboutery ?
Labour have not been in long, and they seem to have had enough scandals in that short time , nicked phones and freebies just in the last few weeks. They are on course for a decent level of slease in a whole parliament . Trumps election gate labour link is arguably far worse than a nicked phone. Just because the previous incumbents were terrible doesn’t mean the current ones are blameless.

Glad you don’t object to me saying they are as inept though.

[I like neeps]

The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc

I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)

I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing

And that tax should be increased, like tax on labour (actually doing something) is.

And unless you built the house, you don't provide anything. You take rent on an existing asset. It was there before you and will be there after you. Happy to help you with that.

[Biffer]

The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc

I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)

I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing

Rent sitting is economically damaging.

[sockwithaticket]

Given that charities perform a lot of functions that perhaps the state ought to or clean up after messes the state makes (food banks and homless shelters for example), there's certainly a case to grant exemptions.

I really believe it can't be beyond the wit of man to draw up something that would see the likes of Amazon and Starbucks pay a fairer share that would more than compensate.

Always an interesting political conundrum, do you go back on an announcement once it’s realised it’s dumb and will hurt jobs and growth and tax revenue raised, and run the risk of looking weak and useless, OR do you stand firm and kick can down round and continue to blame the other party y / trump / EU / thatcher (delete as appropriate) for long enough that people will forget and find a new thing to whinge over ?

I doubt Labour will go back on anything, they are unsurprisingly proving to be just as inept and scandal full as the previous govt

Not by a long fucking shot. That is some utterly absurd 'both sides are the same' nonsense.

Labour have had Keir taking advantage of being offered free clothes and event tickets (which we know about because he actually declared them, Private Eye have exposed many a Tory who accepted stuff they didn't declare).

Louise Haigh having an expired conviction for lying about losing her phone to get a new one.

And...?

Whereas Priti Patel alone has off the books meetings with a foreign power and resultant breach of the ministerial code, bullying of subordinates which led to a settlement.

One would hardly know where to start with the Boris era, but the crony contracts for non-existent or defective PPE during covid and flagrant breaching of lockdown laws the government were insisting everyone else abide by are as good a place as any.

Ah, you are whatabouting my whataboutery ?
Labour have not been in long, and they seem to have had enough scandals in that short time , nicked phones and freebies just in the last few weeks. They are on course for a decent level of slease in a whole parliament . Trumps election gate labour link is arguably far worse than a nicked phone. Just because the previous incumbents were terrible doesn’t mean the current ones are blameless.

Glad you don’t object to me saying they are as inept though.

It's hardly whatboutery to point out differences in scale and seriousness of scandal. It does matter. Having an expired conviction isn't really in the same ballpark as trying to protect a serial sexual assaulter (the Chris Pincher affair), I shouldn't think it's even a resignation issue tbh. What's the point in allowing convictions to expire if we're going to hold them against people in perpetuity?

The trump election thing is only a scandal in the minds of GB news types who desperately want to be outraged at any and everything, even continuations of established behaviour. Thought you were better than that.

I don't expect much of a Labour lot committed to neo-liberal economics and buddying up with businesses like Blackrock. Although not picking pointless fights with the unions that cost more than meeting demands, introducing (slight) improvements to workers and renters rights are certainly good first steps towards being more useful than the Tories ever were.

[Tichtheid]

Given that charities perform a lot of functions that perhaps the state ought to or clean up after messes the state makes (food banks and homless shelters for example), there's certainly a case to grant exemptions.

I really believe it can't be beyond the wit of man to draw up something that would see the likes of Amazon and Starbucks pay a fairer share that would more than compensate.

Hear hear, all of it.

"Oh you can't do that, business will flee the country if you actually get them to pay what they should on their income from the UK"

Utter shite, Amazon etc will not quit the UK, that would just allow someone else to take over their business

[Yeeb]

Given that charities perform a lot of functions that perhaps the state ought to or clean up after messes the state makes (food banks and homless shelters for example), there's certainly a case to grant exemptions.

I really believe it can't be beyond the wit of man to draw up something that would see the likes of Amazon and Starbucks pay a fairer share that would more than compensate.



Not by a long fucking shot. That is some utterly absurd 'both sides are the same' nonsense.

Labour have had Keir taking advantage of being offered free clothes and event tickets (which we know about because he actually declared them, Private Eye have exposed many a Tory who accepted stuff they didn't declare).

Louise Haigh having an expired conviction for lying about losing her phone to get a new one.

And...?

Whereas Priti Patel alone has off the books meetings with a foreign power and resultant breach of the ministerial code, bullying of subordinates which led to a settlement.

One would hardly know where to start with the Boris era, but the crony contracts for non-existent or defective PPE during covid and flagrant breaching of lockdown laws the government were insisting everyone else abide by are as good a place as any.

Ah, you are whatabouting my whataboutery ?
Labour have not been in long, and they seem to have had enough scandals in that short time , nicked phones and freebies just in the last few weeks. They are on course for a decent level of slease in a whole parliament . Trumps election gate labour link is arguably far worse than a nicked phone. Just because the previous incumbents were terrible doesn’t mean the current ones are blameless.

Glad you don’t object to me saying they are as inept though.

It's hardly whatboutery to point out differences in scale and seriousness of scandal. It does matter. Having an expired conviction isn't really in the same ballpark as trying to protect a serial sexual assaulter (the Chris Pincher affair), I shouldn't think it's even a resignation issue tbh. What's the point in allowing convictions to expire if we're going to hold them against people in perpetuity?

The trump election thing is only a scandal in the minds of GB news types who desperately want to be outraged at any and everything, even continuations of established behaviour. Thought you were better than that.

I don't expect much of a Labour lot committed to neo-liberal economics and buddying up with businesses like Blackrock. Although not picking pointless fights with the unions that cost more than meeting demands, introducing (slight) improvements to workers and renters rights are certainly good first steps towards being more useful than the Tories ever were.

You trying to say it’s a GB news only thing is hilarious and I must say I’m enjoy watching you wriggle , Trump made a formal complaint to their electoral commission and was widely reported as such on bbc news , Reuters etc - hardly tinfoil hat gb news . You somehow think it’s not really a thing though

Labour also had a sexual assaulter, and at minister level too. Unsure if was upheld or swept under the carpet , was last year before they got in power so doesn’t quite count perhaps to you in this discussion.

Let’s see how the scandal tally looks at the end of the parliament , because right now the run right is quite similar

Yougov poll shows quite similar public views on which party was sleazier , biggest split is who was worse Boris or kier (Boris will never be topped for sleaze and scandal surely)

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... -is-sleazy

[Yeeb]

I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)

I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing

And that tax should be increased, like tax on labour (actually doing something) is.

And unless you built the house, you don't provide anything. You take rent on an existing asset. It was there before you and will be there after you. Happy to help you with that.

You don’t seem to understand what home provision is , or more importantly what happens to existing tenants and those who wish to rent if landlords leave the market at an increasing rate like they have been doing. (And ultimately, government tax revenue from landlords too).
Happy to help you with that.

[Tichtheid]

Labour also had a sexual assaulter, and at minister level too. Unsure if was upheld or swept under the carpet , was last year before they got in power so doesn’t quite count perhaps to you in this discussion.

Who was that, again?

[Yeeb]

Labour also had a sexual assaulter, and at minister level too. Unsure if was upheld or swept under the carpet , was last year before they got in power so doesn’t quite count perhaps to you in this discussion.

Who was that, again?

No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking

[Tichtheid]

Labour also had a sexual assaulter, and at minister level too. Unsure if was upheld or swept under the carpet , was last year before they got in power so doesn’t quite count perhaps to you in this discussion.

Who was that, again?

No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking

Predatory men, it's almost always men, are certainly a problem. However that view often gets dismissed as being "woke"

I may have found the story
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... al-assault

[Yeeb]

Who was that, again?

No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking

Predatory men, it's almost always men, are certainly a problem. However that view often gets dismissed as being "woke"

I may have found the story
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... al-assault

Probs was that, would not have been guardian site where I read it though as that’s almost a gb news yin yang
Most likely would have been bbc or Reuters source

Can imagine Rayner would be predatory after a few snakebite blacks, she has that look

[robmatic]

I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)

I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing

Rent sitting is economically damaging.

There would be much less of a problem with rentierism in the UK if people were actually able to build new houses but the country is basically 100% nimby.

[Sandstorm]

Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?

I don't know enough to be able to answer that properly, but closing or cutting charities doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it.

Charity cases are just lazy people and should go back to work, do the jobs that immigrants do and so on and so forth.

[SaintK]

Labour also had a sexual assaulter, and at minister level too. Unsure if was upheld or swept under the carpet , was last year before they got in power so doesn’t quite count perhaps to you in this discussion.

Who was that, again?

No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking

It was not a shadow minister
It was Geraint Davies MP for Swansea. He was accused of sexual harrassment by several women over a period of several years. He had the whip withdrawn and was then suspended from the Labour party as soon as a formaal complaint about him had been made. He subsequently stood as an Independent and stood down at the last election

[SaintK]

No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking

Predatory men, it's almost always men, are certainly a problem. However that view often gets dismissed as being "woke"

I may have found the story
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... al-assault

Probs was that, would not have been guardian site where I read it though as that’s almost a gb news yin yang
Most likely would have been bbc or Reuters source

Can imagine Rayner would be predatory after a few snakebite blacks, she has that look

WTF are you on about?

[Yeeb]

I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing

Rent sitting is economically damaging.

There would be much less of a problem with rentierism in the UK if people were actually able to build new houses but the country is basically 100% nimby.

Agree 100%
Instead of pissing about with NI, Labour should have announced a ‘benefits for builders’ programme of
National home building where those able to should be forced to learn a trade and build houses for their money.
The legal archaic blocks to this probably outweigh the vast cost this would be, even though it would largely be spent on Uk based labour, benefitting Uk based people, using Uk based firms and materials.
The land to build it could be nabbed from golf courses , there are 75 within the m25 alone

[Yeeb]

Who was that, again?

No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking

It was not a shadow minister
It was Geraint Davies MP for Swansea. He was accused of sexual harrassment by several women over a period of several years. He had the whip withdrawn and was then suspended from the Labour party as soon as a formaal complaint about him had been made. He subsequently stood as an Independent and stood down at the last election

I stand corrected, nothing to do with Labour then or ministers - tbf though that guardian news headline does say shadow minister so it’s an easy mistake to make.

[Yeeb]

Predatory men, it's almost always men, are certainly a problem. However that view often gets dismissed as being "woke"

I may have found the story
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... al-assault

Probs was that, would not have been guardian site where I read it though as that’s almost a gb news yin yang
Most likely would have been bbc or Reuters source

Can imagine Rayner would be predatory after a few snakebite blacks, she has that look

WTF are you on about?

The lager cider and blackcurrant cordial beverage popular
With northern redheads and rapey labour ministers

[Tichtheid]

Fuck's sakes.

[Paddington Bear]

The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc

I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)

I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing

There’s a place for decent landlords in any economy. What we have is a parasitic class taking vast amounts of productive people’s take home pay, generally offering the lowest possible service, and massively holding back the economy. And somehow this group are a protected class whose investment must be protected at all costs as well

[Yeeb]

I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)

I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing

There’s a place for decent landlords in any economy. What we have is a parasitic class taking vast amounts of productive people’s take home pay, generally offering the lowest possible service, and massively holding back the economy. And somehow this group are a protected class whose investment must be protected at all costs as well

You touch on several points there , and nothing I disagree with at all. Weeding out the exploitive slum Rachman Rigsby types, I am wholly in favour of , and one of mine has been hit by a scheme to in theory ensure these standards are met (Redbridge council now force you to buy a licence , £840 for 5 years, another increasing cost that will have upwards pressure on rents).

It’s actually (in London at least) far easier to go for the highest levels of service, keep the flat nice, attracting higher paying tenants who want to stay long, and in a decade plus I’ve only had about 7-8 weeks void between tenancies when it was empty. Nice places do encourage people who want to keep them nice, as it is their home after all, not mine.

As for protecting classes , I’m also against that too, someone earlier on the page mentioned the triple lock for pensions needing to be zapped , I wholeheartedly agree with this as it’s the biggest single slice of govt spending by far. Even freezing it for a year and putting those savings straight into the nhs (when oldies again take up huge amount of costs) would be a start.
I also have a big problem with the current retired generation for cumulatively being partly to blame for many of the past political decisions affecting us all now.

[SaintK]

Probs was that, would not have been guardian site where I read it though as that’s almost a gb news yin yang
Most likely would have been bbc or Reuters source

Can imagine Rayner would be predatory after a few snakebite blacks, she has that look

WTF are you on about?

The lager cider and blackcurrant cordial beverage popular
With northern redheads and rapey labour ministers

Twat!!!

[Biffer]

No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking

It was not a shadow minister
It was Geraint Davies MP for Swansea. He was accused of sexual harrassment by several women over a period of several years. He had the whip withdrawn and was then suspended from the Labour party as soon as a formaal complaint about him had been made. He subsequently stood as an Independent and stood down at the last election

I stand corrected, nothing to do with Labour then or ministers - tbf though that guardian news headline does say shadow minister so it’s an easy mistake to make.

The point you're deli erately missing is the tories tried to protect their guy. Labour got shot of theirs.

How is that the same in your mind?

[I like neeps]

I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing

And that tax should be increased, like tax on labour (actually doing something) is.

And unless you built the house, you don't provide anything. You take rent on an existing asset. It was there before you and will be there after you. Happy to help you with that.

You don’t seem to understand what home provision is , or more importantly what happens to existing tenants and those who wish to rent if landlords leave the market at an increasing rate like they have been doing. (And ultimately, government tax revenue from landlords too).
Happy to help you with that.

Oh no, I hope tax changes don't forget landlords to sell up en masses driving down house prices considerably. The horror of it all.

Landlords (not through malign intentions) in combination with poor planning laws have distorted British society in a profoundly negative way.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

And that tax should be increased, like tax on labour (actually doing something) is.

And unless you built the house, you don't provide anything. You take rent on an existing asset. It was there before you and will be there after you. Happy to help you with that.

You don’t seem to understand what home provision is , or more importantly what happens to existing tenants and those who wish to rent if landlords leave the market at an increasing rate like they have been doing. (And ultimately, government tax revenue from landlords too).
Happy to help you with that.

Oh no, I hope tax changes don't forget landlords to sell up en masses driving down house prices considerably. The horror of it all.

Landlords (not through malign intentions) in combination with poor planning laws have distorted British society in a profoundly negative way.

The flip side to which is you don't want them to have to sell, you want a lot more landlords and more flexibility in the labour market. That said allowing them to profit from capital gains for doing sod all is an oddity

[SaintK]

It was not a shadow minister
It was Geraint Davies MP for Swansea. He was accused of sexual harrassment by several women over a period of several years. He had the whip withdrawn and was then suspended from the Labour party as soon as a formaal complaint about him had been made. He subsequently stood as an Independent and stood down at the last election

I stand corrected, nothing to do with Labour then or ministers - tbf though that guardian news headline does say shadow minister so it’s an easy mistake to make.

The point you're deli erately missing is the tories tried to protect their guy. Labour got shot of theirs.

How is that the same in your mind?

Whilst it goes on in both main parties the difference in the way they handle these cases is quite stark.