Starmer v Sunak

That part of the debate concerned those reliant only on the state pension, I believe.

 

Yes, all true.

The issue facing the Tories now is that the latest freeze has almost exactly matched the state pension allowance, meaning that those who received state pension only will be taxed on it, without the fiddle they're proposing to remove them from it. In fairness, they've done a good job in masking the fact that its their own personal allowance freezes that has caused the problem, and Labour should be articulating this more effectively. It was very obvious from the debate yesterday, given the way that Etchingham phrased the question to them, that headline income tax rates, VAT and National Insurance were the specific areas queried as tax rises, and it completely ignores the fact that the biggest hit to most people's tax rate in recent years has been from the personal allowance freezes.

 

Strange why Starmer never mentioned the fact that the tories have frozen the personal allowances last few year and up to 2028 .

 

Here's the rub though. It isn’t easier to get up and leave.

it used to be pre Brexit but people who didn’t know enough, didnt understand or just didn’t care were lied to and now we can’t.

That’s why you should always invest time in elections and politics.

 

Just checking you are aware the war you speak about was voted for pretty much unanimously in parliament, stand fast such people as Jeremy Corbyn… just checking

 

My guess is because it's going to be difficult for them to unwind from the existing legislation when they come into power, so we'll have to continue to live with it for a while longer.

Unfreezing the rates is the immediate 'instant win' that Labour should be hoping to implement. However, until they've actually taken over and seen the true state of the financial position they've inherited, it's hard for them to commit to anything along these lines. Rachel Reeves has already said that she can't hold a summer budget as the incoming Chancellor, as she'll need to work with the OBR and make sure that anything they do announce can be aligned with their forecasts. We've seen the effects of a government trying to ignore these as that's exactly what the Truss/Kwarteng mini-budget did, and we all felt the subsequent impact on the markets that achieved.

 

Blessed be the toolmakers

 

This really my grinds my gears. How have we become a society where tax is seen as such an evil, ffs? It's no surprise that most of the countries that appear on the 'World's happiest nations' lists have higher taxation than us - they pay more tax but they have nice stuff, stuff that works, stuff that brings happiness to the populace. Modern, functioning infrastructure, schools, health, transportation, leisure facilities etc etc etc. We, however, despite wanting to see our country get all the nice stuff too - better schools, hospitals, rail, roads, parks, cleaner water, cheaper energy.....are vehemently opposed to even a tiny increase in tax to pay for it. How on earth do these people think nice stuff gets paid for? Magic beans?? If someone told me I'd get a small hike in my income tax, but we'd have a much better country as a result, I'd ask 'where do I sign?'

 

Having watched that hour of vacuous grubby nonsense... I really think we need to scrap these tv debates. I'm not sure they work at all. Sunak repeated lies throughout and wasn't picked up on it. There was no scrutiny of claims and 45 seconds to outline any form of plan is beyond ridiculous.... even more so when one of the candidates heckles and cuts across the other to limit their time further.

It was a very poor format, with very poor contenders and no scope to provide insightful information.

On a wider point though. Politicians, even if their morality is sound, can't win. If they are bold and circumstances change, they are deemed liars. If they play it safe, they have no plan or vision. Media training for decades has urged their pupils not to directly answer the question posed to them, which makes them look evasive. They are encouraged to show empathy in some way which often looks disingenuous. In parliament, votes are whipped, so even if an individual disagrees, they have to vote for it. If they break that whip, they are kicked out of the party and are more likely to be unemployed in due course.

I don't know how politics changes for the better with levels of trust and hostility as they are, but under our current system, ironically and perversely, I feel we are getting the types of politician that we are asking for.

 

So it turns out Richy boy was not being honest last night with his tax claims who would have thought it a Tory PM telling the country lies, anyway it turns out Richy boys claim that the. £2000 figure was worked out by independent treasury civil servants is a complete lie and the Tories were told by the leading civil servant at the treasury that they must not say it was done by civil servants as it was actually done by Tory party special advisers. Who used Tory dreamt up figures not genuinely independent civil service ones. All this is confirmed in a letter from the head civil servant at the treasury in his letter to the shadow chief secretary to the treasury. The fact Richy boy decided to attack Starmer with a lie that surely he knew would unravel given that they had been specifically warned against saying it just shows how utterly desperate he is and how much contempt he has for the British Electorate.

 

Blame the yanks it all comes from the republican party playbook, the yanks would rather see their fellow citizens die than have to pay higher taxes and sadly that way of thinking gained traction over here during the thatcher years.

 

As we get closer and closer to the election the Tories are going to promise madder and matter ****, as they realise they are never going to have to put anything they say into action and they can use their mad promises as a stick to beat Labour with when they're in opposition.

 

I imagine there's alot of Russians agreeing with what putins doing. Doesn't make it right. The u.n opposed it, millions around the world protested against the war, millions of innocent people killed. And to top it off the stockpiling of WMD were never found which was Bush and Blairs reason for invading.

 

And it appears that the labour party had the letter before the debate, which makes me think that Starmer sat back on purpose so Sunak could repeat the lie time and again. It must be the lawyer in him!

 

All done very deliberately, and in full knowledge that the lie would unravel within 24 hours, but deemed 'worth it' as a campaign tactic as the friendly client-journalists would create headlines regarding it which would make the lie stick.

It's gutter politics of the cheapest kind, and absolutely standard behaviour for this Tory government. Even Dan Hodges, a Mail client journalist who's spent most of the last couple of months on a one-man campaign to get Angela Raynor's house sale investigation re-opened, has questioned it and suggested that Sunak has potentially breached the ministerial code in doing so.

https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1798262719327670362

https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1798306248158498870

https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1798272024093368488

 

Nothing between the two parties, why bother having an election.

Those who don't believe the sleaze and deceit will be any different under Starmers Labour are simply looking through rose tinted glasses.

Way it's going, I just hope an independent stands.

 

That wasn't specified though.

 

Based on available evidence all sides of the house voted for it. Chilcott was explicit in this fact.

 

Whoosh... if it was a tory government who I have no doubt would have done the same as Blair and Bush there's no way you would be defending it.

 

It was implied though, because those with an occupational pension on top of the state pension will already be paying income tax. It's whether basic state pensioners should be allowed to be dragged into the income tax threshold.