A Guido Fawkes montage set to the Benny Hill tune…
Fuck you post some shite, and trust me…I know what posting shite looks like.
2 Likes
Dont you think Benny Hill is appropriate for Starmer?
Perhaps Frank Spencer then, or Sgt Wilson?
I think he’s doing a fine job so far, particularly given the shit sandwich he inherited and the state of the conversation in the UK where cunts like Farage and Tice are disproportionately platformed to a fucking scandalous degree.
Things are so stacked against the left in the UK it makes me sick.
4 Likes
Maybe not so much but youve gone after Labour since year dot. So there’s bias,which is allowed but at least admit to it.
Personally think some of your research material needs a rethink. Below is a Wiki quote on Paul Staines, owner and writer for Guido Fawkes.
In 2006, Staines, along with Jag Singh, co-founded MessageSpace, a digital advertising agency which operates an advertising network representing dozens of leading political websites. In 2012, it advised the successful Boris Johnson London mayoral campaign. Private Eye reported in June 2012 that MessageSpace was advising the Russian Embassy in London on using social media
1 Like
I think ALL politicians are devious lying cunts, to varying levels of severity.
You say while only quoting so called Labour lies derived from far right information sources.
For accuracy, Reeves said there would be tax changes in October. She ALSO said that they would not increase tax for normal working people. See the video I posted above. So considering today is 1st August, we dont know what the tax changes will be in October or Labours definition of a normal working person.
So, if I end up paying more tax come 1st November I’m honestly not sure how accepting I’ll be of it. It depends on what it is.
You’ve been played. Guido is a (former?) hack for the Sun.
That video shows Starmer saying their manifesto has been costed and required no tax rises. So far that appears to still be the case. Additional spending commitments may well require tax rises. We remain to see what these are and whether taxes specifically listed in the manifesto (such as income tax and national insurance ) not to increase actually do. The manifesto didnt rule out all potential tax rises, and specifically mentioned some they would make.
2 Likes
The additional problem, and it happened virtually across the West, is that the baby boom generation was simply not paying enough as contributions. Even with identical size cohorts, the pension was inadequate relative to expected payouts. Virtually everywhere they went into structural deficit with the 1970’s inflation stayed that way for 30 years. That has improved in the past 15 years, but the basic mathematics still say we need significant growth in Western economies to fund pension benefits/entitlements.
The result is the current generation of payees will receive far more value than they ever contributed, whereas people 10-15 years away from collecting will pay far more than they are likely to collect - additional changes in payouts will have to happen unless there is economic or population growth greater than current expectations.
Writ large, most pension structures in the West would now barely escape prosecution as a Ponzi scheme if run privately.
3 Likes
It’s not so much financial contributions, as the state pension isn’t invested, it only pays what is required at that time. It is more a case that the birth rate of the boom and subsequent generations dropped off quite dramatically. Partly this was due to the introduction of the birth control pill, but much of it is that cost of raising children has very much fallen on people who can simply not afford it, and that has pushed the birthrate down further. That, combined with the increase in life expectancy has shifted the demographics upwards.
Edit: I was going to say that it is wrong to call it a Ponzi scheme because that relies on the fact that you will run out of people to pay into it. Countries are different entities from people because you don’t expect them to die.
The underlying theory was always having a balance - in the UK, unlike in jurisdictions where public pension funds actually are invested, that was to take the form of investments in public infrastructure, etc. Not hard to see how that abstract idea would fail. Even before the baby boom generation hit pension age, payouts exceeded contributions, with the difference needing to come from general tax revenue.
Countries are different entities, but that simply means they can cut the payouts instead of collapsing. Most Ponzi schemes would be able to survive if they could do that.
Unless I’m mistaken, Rachel Reeves has gone from “we won’t raise taxes” to “we’ll have to raise taxes”
I know taxes have to be raised.
I’m simply pointing out the complete U turn between pre and post need for votes.
Liars.
Pointing out that the item came from a previous hack of the Sun doesn’t change the 180 degree flip flop
Could it be, if Jeremy Hunt did actually lie in his election promises to the country, which portrayed money was available to do these things; knowing full well the Conservatives were going to lose the election anyway; and if the state finances really did have a £22Billion black hole; which was not known to anyone outside JH and his cronies; but was only discovered once Rachel Reeves got her hand ‘on-the-books’ so to speak… Then wouldn’t a recalculation on her behalf have been urgently needed.
Yes she may have gone back on what she had said… but that statement and consequent calculations might have been based on what the lying toads in the Conservative Party were projecting - It might actually be why she came out and said - JH is a liar…!
Or am I missing the obvious somewhere
1 Like
You are mistaken.
Labour committed to not raising rates of the “big three” taxes - income tax, national insurance contributions and VAT.
They did not say that there would be no tax increases at all.
2 Likes
We’ll see
Also worth knowing that they werent aware of the scale of financial hole they inherited. Fawkes along with Hunt will argue that the tories were transparent but only last Tuesday the OBR wrote saying they were not aware of the scale of the issue either. Tory lies again.
That is not the first time the Tories have circumvented process for want of a better word. Truss and Kwarteng know this all too well.
3 Likes
Letter from the OBR to the treasury committee
Dear Treasury Committee Clerk,
OBR Review of the March 2024 Forecast for Departmental Expenditure Limits
I am writing to inform you of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR’s) initiation of a review into the preparation of the Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) forecast for the March 2024 Economic and fiscal outlook (EFO).
In my testimony before the Treasury Committee and other Parliamentary committees, I have expressed my concerns about the transparency and credibility of the existing arrangements within government for forecasting, planning, and controlling the 40 per cent of public expenditure within DEL. In our semi-annual EFO reports (including the March 2024 EFO) and in our August 2023 working paper on The OBR’s forecast performance, the OBR has highlighted potential overspending against the DEL plans set by the Treasury as one of the most significant risks to the fiscal outlook.
The document published today by HM Treasury entitled Fixing the foundations: Public spending audit 2024-25 identifies £21.9 billion in net pressures on the DEL budgets set by the Treasury for the current financial year 2024-25. We were made aware of the extent of these pressures at a meeting with the Treasury last week. The Treasury document also sets out its plans for further managing down these pressures over the remainder of the financial year. If a significant fraction of these pressures is ultimately accommodated through higher DEL spending in 2024-25, this would constitute one of the largest year-ahead overspends against DEL forecasts outside of the pandemic years.
Given the seriousness of this issue, I have initiated a review into the preparation of the DEL forecast in the March 2024 EFO. The review will assess the adequacy of the information and assurances provided to the OBR by the Treasury regarding departmental spending and report to Baroness Sarah Hogg, Chair of the OBR’s Oversight Board, and Dame Susan Rice, Chair of the OBR’s Risk Committee. The review will conclude in advance of our next EFO forecast on 30 October 2024. The review’s findings and recommendations will be copied to the Treasury Committee and National Audit Office and published.
In the meantime, I welcome the important actions announced today by HM Treasury to improve the transparency and credibility of their institutional arrangements for forecasting, planning, and controlling DEL. We will come to our own conclusions as to the adequacy of these measures for our purposes as forecasters and any further actions that we consider need to be taken in light of our own review.
I am copying this letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Members of the OBR’s Oversight Board, and my colleagues on the OBR’s Budget Responsibility Committee.
4 Likes
Nope. Reeves said they wouldn’t raise Income Tax or Vat, and they wouldn’t increase the tax burden on ordinary working people.
Thanks to the Tories, we’re in a proper mess.
Reeves has to go after wealth, however - as I think Arminius noted - this is incredibly hard, as wealth today is pretty flighty and difficult to get hold of.
This is why the VAT on private schools is such a good policy - it targets people with money, but not money they can just offshore. You can’t move Eton to the Cayman Islands.
Ultimately, I think the sensible thing now would be to tax land, and that’s where we might be heading.
4 Likes
Guido Fawkes can go fuck himself.
3 Likes
Not sure that gives the desired result without some really clever working of the legislation. You may end up hammering farmers, Network Rail, local authorities, other government organisations and so on. It can quickly become a postcode or even a street lottery. Heaven forbid you own a corner plot for example.
You will also need to be very careful not to hammer middle earners etc.
Personally if the government were to tell me that i was going to be taxed an extra £5 (say) a week but that was ringfenced for NHS somethingorother i’d be ok with that. I would not be happy paying extra to fuel a Thames Water bonus scheme.
1 Like
Here’s hoping you’re right.
Increasing “ordinary” workers (how broad is that spectrum?) tax, and removing winter payments from pensioners (albeit means tested I’m hearing) would not be good