FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Pre Budget speech
Pre Budget speech
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"We know Reeves lost control of the economy last year, her fiscal rules and numerous u-turns hit hard. Today Reeves will deliver a pre-budget speech from Downing Street, an unusual move and one that is surely meant to brace the country for very bad news.. Will the broadest shoulders be all or the few? " Based on the speech, it will be all. Batten down the hatches as we will be much poorer in a few weeks time. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Reeves is a great advert for its who you know not what you know,given a job that is way beyond her" Yeah, to be fair it isn’t just Reeves — you could say the same about a fair chunk of both the cabinet and the shadow cabinet, and most of Reform while we’re at it. The problem isn’t one party, it’s that political advancement in Britain still runs more on connections and media polish than competence. We’ve normalised managerial mediocrity dressed up as leadership. | |||
| |||
"Look what’s just happened to the pound after that speech" Certainly not done the pound any good. Will it turn into a full blown run? Probably not yet. But if it does then what? BoE step in to bolster it? Interest rates up? This stupid woman is playing with fire and this could very quickly blow up in her face. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"She will be gone by christmas.and the liebour party will be gone next general election.if you or i told so many lies like them lot do we would of been sacked long ago...only problem is if the 2 main parties are done for who is everyone going to vote for..cause the conservatives and liebour are finished in this country..." The problem is not the government, the problem is the people. Everyone wants to have everything and pay nothing 🤷♂️ Income tax is going up, to be honest I don't mind as long as they cut benefits. Why should I get less and they get more 🤷♂️ | |||
"She will be gone by christmas.and the liebour party will be gone next general election.if you or i told so many lies like them lot do we would of been sacked long ago...only problem is if the 2 main parties are done for who is everyone going to vote for..cause the conservatives and liebour are finished in this country... The problem is not the government, the problem is the people. Everyone wants to have everything and pay nothing 🤷♂️ Income tax is going up, to be honest I don't mind as long as they cut benefits. Why should I get less and they get more 🤷♂️" our taxes will go up but those of us who work won't get fuck all in return | |||
| |||
"Yeah, that’s the mentality: people who don’t have enough should get even less." people who have less should try working instead of poncing | |||
"Yeah, that’s the mentality: people who don’t have enough should get even less." Yep, no work no pay rise. Keeps it simple 👍 Of course those lazy bastards that can work won't work spoil it for those truly in need, but baby machines need to be stopped,if you can't afford children don't breed. The well is dry. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Yeah, that’s the mentality: people who don’t have enough should get even less. Yep, no work no pay rise. Keeps it simple 👍 Of course those lazy bastards that can work won't work spoil it for those truly in need, but baby machines need to be stopped,if you can't afford children don't breed. The well is dry." Fact is we need more children, the birth rate is dropping and that creates problems in the future for the economy, less taxes being paid and less people in areas such as social care for those of us who in twenty years might need such things.. Or increased immigration which is not exactly popular.. | |||
"The politics of suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous." so you want to punish the comftable so those who choose a life on benefits feel more comftable | |||
"The politics of suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous.so you want to punish the comftable so those who choose a life on benefits feel more comftable " That’s nowhere close to what I said. What I actually want is for the absolute richest to actually pay the tax rate they are meant to without the million and one loopholes they have lobbied for. That way no one suffers. | |||
| |||
"The politics of suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous.so you want to punish the comftable so those who choose a life on benefits feel more comftable That’s nowhere close to what I said. What I actually want is for the absolute richest to actually pay the tax rate they are meant to without the million and one loopholes they have lobbied for. That way no one suffers." Tax loopholes are up there with 5g tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. Business can reinvest money rather than pay tax but there's no magic ticket | |||
"Tax loopholes are up there with 5g tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. Business can reinvest money rather than pay tax but there's no magic ticket " Reinvestment isn’t a loophole — it’s a business expense. A loophole is when money is funnelled through shell companies or overseas entities to avoid tax entirely. That’s not conspiracy; it’s on the public record in HMRC and PAC reports. Knowing more than a few accountants, I can assure you there are plenty of loopholes — most of them perfectly legal, which is the whole problem. The system isn’t broken; it’s built that way. | |||
| |||
"Yeah, that’s the mentality: people who don’t have enough should get even less. Yep, no work no pay rise. Keeps it simple 👍 Of course those lazy bastards that can work won't work spoil it for those truly in need, but baby machines need to be stopped,if you can't afford children don't breed. The well is dry. Fact is we need more children, the birth rate is dropping and that creates problems in the future for the economy, less taxes being paid and less people in areas such as social care for those of us who in twenty years might need such things.. Or increased immigration which is not exactly popular.." At least someone speaks sense re: Birthrate and Immigration | |||
"The politics of suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous.so you want to punish the comftable so those who choose a life on benefits feel more comftable That’s nowhere close to what I said. What I actually want is for the absolute richest to actually pay the tax rate they are meant to without the million and one loopholes they have lobbied for. That way no one suffers." You did say that, you have changed your approach when challenged and you realised what you entered was "Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous". The politics of envy and self entitlement is one of the constant challenges we have as a nation. | |||
"You did say that, you have changed your approach when challenged and you realised what you entered was "Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous". The politics of envy and self entitlement is one of the constant challenges we have as a nation." it was commentary. I was describing the mentality that treats punishing poverty as valid. It’s not envy to ask the richest to pay what they owe. That’s the politics of fairness, not envy. If calling out a rigged system counts as ‘self-entitlement,’ maybe the problem isn’t the people asking questions — it’s the people who think accountability is an attack. | |||
"We know Reeves lost control of the economy last year, her fiscal rules and numerous u-turns hit hard. Today Reeves will deliver a pre-budget speech from Downing Street, an unusual move and one that is surely meant to brace the country for very bad news.. Will the broadest shoulders be all or the few? " It appears she is preparing the ground for bad news ref tax rises. Similar to last year when they constantly talked the country down, then announced big tax rises and then said they won't be back for more. One idea I have seen put forward a few times now is to increase income tax by 2p and reduce NI by 2p. Apparently this makes it neutral for basic rate tax payers but raises money. Sounds a clever idea but of course breaks their manifesto promise. One thing that's certain is they will blame everyone and everything, probably including the cat, but not take responsibility themselves | |||
"We know Reeves lost control of the economy last year, her fiscal rules and numerous u-turns hit hard. Today Reeves will deliver a pre-budget speech from Downing Street, an unusual move and one that is surely meant to brace the country for very bad news.. Will the broadest shoulders be all or the few? It appears she is preparing the ground for bad news ref tax rises. Similar to last year when they constantly talked the country down, then announced big tax rises and then said they won't be back for more. One idea I have seen put forward a few times now is to increase income tax by 2p and reduce NI by 2p. Apparently this makes it neutral for basic rate tax payers but raises money. Sounds a clever idea but of course breaks their manifesto promise. One thing that's certain is they will blame everyone and everything, probably including the cat, but not take responsibility themselves " I agree about the blame game. She has delivered one budget, set her fiscal rules and blown billions on u-turns and super inflated public sector pay awards. The NI increase has also played a major factor in low growth rates that she is complaining about! We knew it was coming, they must have known it was coming and to soften the blow they rollout the usual bait, Covid, Conservatives, austerity, Brexit. These things were known about, and as I said a budget has already come and gone, so why bring this up now? Because it is the meat they think the people want, but even the most diehard labour supporter must know they are throwing out any excuse they can to try and slow the discontent in their performance. Wait until the BMA return for more money, I'm not sure the public will suffer their selfishness and strong arm tactics for above inflation pay rises this time round, not when the rest of the country is taking home less money a month. We seem to be in the predicted mess. | |||
"You did say that, you have changed your approach when challenged and you realised what you entered was "Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous". The politics of envy and self entitlement is one of the constant challenges we have as a nation. it was commentary. I was describing the mentality that treats punishing poverty as valid. It’s not envy to ask the richest to pay what they owe. That’s the politics of fairness, not envy. If calling out a rigged system counts as ‘self-entitlement,’ maybe the problem isn’t the people asking questions — it’s the people who think accountability is an attack. " You said "so the comfortable can feel righteous". That is your commentary, it doesn't make sense, why use righteous? Comfortable is also not the super rich.. | |||
"You said "so the comfortable can feel righteous". That is your commentary, it doesn't make sense, why use righteous? Comfortable is also not the super rich.. " Comfortable” wasn’t meant as “super rich” — it meant those cushioned enough not to feel the consequences of policies that hurt the poorest. “Righteous” refers to the moral framing often used to justify that harm — the idea that hardship somehow builds character while comfort signals virtue. I wasn’t attacking people who are doing okay; I was describing a mindset that mistakes privilege for morality. The issue isn’t wealth itself — it’s the defence of inequality as if it were fairness. And like I said before, my stance isn’t about punishing anyone. It’s about closing the loopholes and getting the money from the super-rich who keep dodging their obligations. Just asking them to pay their fair share like everyone else. That’s not envy — that’s basic fairness. | |||
| |||
"You said "so the comfortable can feel righteous". That is your commentary, it doesn't make sense, why use righteous? Comfortable is also not the super rich.. Comfortable” wasn’t meant as “super rich” — it meant those cushioned enough not to feel the consequences of policies that hurt the poorest. “Righteous” refers to the moral framing often used to justify that harm — the idea that hardship somehow builds character while comfort signals virtue. I wasn’t attacking people who are doing okay; I was describing a mindset that mistakes privilege for morality. The issue isn’t wealth itself — it’s the defence of inequality as if it were fairness. And like I said before, my stance isn’t about punishing anyone. It’s about closing the loopholes and getting the money from the super-rich who keep dodging their obligations. Just asking them to pay their fair share like everyone else. That’s not envy — that’s basic fairness." Can you give me an example of a super rich person, how much they pay in tax and how much you think they should pay ? | |||
"The politics of suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous." Most (sane) people don't want to punish the poor, they just want the government to do something about the out of control welfare spending, bogus disability claims and number of people existing solely on benefits before having their pockets picked to pay for the government's incompetence and weakness. The irony is that many people who are genuinely in need of state help don't get enough because of the amount lost on medicalising everyday life and on people who should be working but make a conscious choice to exist off of benefits | |||
"You said "so the comfortable can feel righteous". That is your commentary, it doesn't make sense, why use righteous? Comfortable is also not the super rich.. Comfortable” wasn’t meant as “super rich” — it meant those cushioned enough not to feel the consequences of policies that hurt the poorest. “Righteous” refers to the moral framing often used to justify that harm — the idea that hardship somehow builds character while comfort signals virtue. I wasn’t attacking people who are doing okay; I was describing a mindset that mistakes privilege for morality. The issue isn’t wealth itself — it’s the defence of inequality as if it were fairness. And like I said before, my stance isn’t about punishing anyone. It’s about closing the loopholes and getting the money from the super-rich who keep dodging their obligations. Just asking them to pay their fair share like everyone else. That’s not envy — that’s basic fairness." You said this: "Comfortable” wasn’t meant as “super rich” — it meant those cushioned enough not to feel the consequences of policies that hurt the poorest. So you are saying anyone who is comfortable, not living on benefits, are feeling righteous. You have tied yourself up in knots on this. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"RMT accepts three-year pay deal for London Underground staff | London Underground | The Guardian https://share.google/SkhS7b05CBg99cET0 Even the RMT had seen the writing on the wall... Slipping this in before the public outrage." Unusually swift and perfect timing  | |||
"Any people think Rachel looks a good girl in the bedroom?" she would probably rob you blind afterwards | |||
"Any people think Rachel looks a good girl in the bedroom?she would probably rob you blind afterwards" Great for parties... She likes to screw everyone. | |||
"Any people think Rachel looks a good girl in the bedroom?" Kinda always had a little crush on her tbh. | |||
"Any people think Rachel looks a good girl in the bedroom?she would probably rob you blind afterwards Great for parties... She likes to screw everyone."  | |||
| |||
"A penny or two won’t do it. To meet peoples expectations, cope with the increase in population numbers on housing/nhs & benefits culture, you would all have to be paying 50%+ tax. The UK is just a downward spiral if you’re working or lower middle class " Social housing starts are down 29% on 2024, and private market starts down 26.5% (Aug figs) Social housing completions, after right to buy and demolitions, are negative. What happened to Labours 1.5 million new homes | |||
 | |||
"The politics of suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous. Most (sane) people don't want to punish the poor, they just want the government to do something about the out of control welfare spending, bogus disability claims and number of people existing solely on benefits before having their pockets picked to pay for the government's incompetence and weakness. The irony is that many people who are genuinely in need of state help don't get enough because of the amount lost on medicalising everyday life and on people who should be working but make a conscious choice to exist off of benefits " Agree pretty much with most of that but as usual the elephant (grossly fat in its riches) in the room is also those who can should pay but clever accountants and an over complicated tax system designed to benefit the minority are also art if the problem .. But the common deflection inspired tropes of the disabled and the feckless fag smoking, telly watching brat producers comes to the fore .. Almost like those in power who benefit from the current systems manipulate the hype.. Look over there and fight amongst yourselves.. | |||
"Don't worry no tax increases because they said so in the manifesto they published to got the votes "One of you is the same age as us and every party in my lifetime has done the same, fodder to the masses who would rather live in a time of mountains of debt as a nation and put our heads in the sand and blame that lot or them.. Two cheeks same arse.. | |||
"The politics of suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous. Most (sane) people don't want to punish the poor, they just want the government to do something about the out of control welfare spending, bogus disability claims and number of people existing solely on benefits before having their pockets picked to pay for the government's incompetence and weakness. The irony is that many people who are genuinely in need of state help don't get enough because of the amount lost on medicalising everyday life and on people who should be working but make a conscious choice to exist off of benefits Agree pretty much with most of that but as usual the elephant (grossly fat in its riches) in the room is also those who can should pay but clever accountants and an over complicated tax system designed to benefit the minority are also art if the problem .. But the common deflection inspired tropes of the disabled and the feckless fag smoking, telly watching brat producers comes to the fore .. Almost like those in power who benefit from the current systems manipulate the hype.. Look over there and fight amongst yourselves.." Are you saying the fag smoking baby machines dont exist then ? Maybe some weekend we can meet up and I'll walk you round the estate down the road on a Saturday night lol | |||
" ... Fact is we need more children, the birth rate is dropping and that creates problems in the future for the economy, less taxes being paid and less people in areas such as social care for those of us who in twenty years might need such things.. Or increased immigration which is not exactly popular.. At least someone speaks sense re: Birthrate and Immigration " Sod saving the planet, eh! | |||
"The politics of suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous. Most (sane) people don't want to punish the poor, they just want the government to do something about the out of control welfare spending, bogus disability claims and number of people existing solely on benefits before having their pockets picked to pay for the government's incompetence and weakness. The irony is that many people who are genuinely in need of state help don't get enough because of the amount lost on medicalising everyday life and on people who should be working but make a conscious choice to exist off of benefits Agree pretty much with most of that but as usual the elephant (grossly fat in its riches) in the room is also those who can should pay but clever accountants and an over complicated tax system designed to benefit the minority are also art if the problem .. But the common deflection inspired tropes of the disabled and the feckless fag smoking, telly watching brat producers comes to the fore .. Almost like those in power who benefit from the current systems manipulate the hype.. Look over there and fight amongst yourselves.." why do you think its the ultra wealthy are the only ones fiddling tax? Pretty much every self employed person I know dosent pay the tax they are supposed to,yea they get caught short during furlough but rest of the time they are keeping more money than they should,fact is the majority of people would pay less tax if they could get away with it,I know I would | |||
"Yeah, that’s the mentality: people who don’t have enough should get even less. Yep, no work no pay rise. Keeps it simple 👍 Of course those lazy bastards that can work won't work spoil it for those truly in need, but baby machines need to be stopped,if you can't afford children don't breed. The well is dry. Fact is we need more children, the birth rate is dropping and that creates problems in the future for the economy, less taxes being paid and less people in areas such as social care for those of us who in twenty years might need such things.. Or increased immigration which is not exactly popular.. At least someone speaks sense re: Birthrate and Immigration " Unfortunately most of the baby makers benefits mob aren't producing productive offspring, just more drain on society | |||
| |||
"The politics of suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous. Most (sane) people don't want to punish the poor, they just want the government to do something about the out of control welfare spending, bogus disability claims and number of people existing solely on benefits before having their pockets picked to pay for the government's incompetence and weakness. The irony is that many people who are genuinely in need of state help don't get enough because of the amount lost on medicalising everyday life and on people who should be working but make a conscious choice to exist off of benefits Agree pretty much with most of that but as usual the elephant (grossly fat in its riches) in the room is also those who can should pay but clever accountants and an over complicated tax system designed to benefit the minority are also art if the problem .. But the common deflection inspired tropes of the disabled and the feckless fag smoking, telly watching brat producers comes to the fore .. Almost like those in power who benefit from the current systems manipulate the hype.. Look over there and fight amongst yourselves.. Are you saying the fag smoking baby machines dont exist then ? Maybe some weekend we can meet up and I'll walk you round the estate down the road on a Saturday night lol " If I was intending to say that I very forthrightly would have.. Brought up in a council house in Liverpool I know there are some who milk the system till the teats are wrung out but it's not just those.. For everyone who is content to wait till the next giro comes in there's also others who deserve help for the times in life when shit happens through no fault of their own and they're often a user of the system that gets forgotten or looked at in the same way as the above.. And it's not their fault that the system is underfunded and lacks the resources to target those taking the piss .. Saturday nights on estates pah..
 | |||
"The politics of suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous. Most (sane) people don't want to punish the poor, they just want the government to do something about the out of control welfare spending, bogus disability claims and number of people existing solely on benefits before having their pockets picked to pay for the government's incompetence and weakness. The irony is that many people who are genuinely in need of state help don't get enough because of the amount lost on medicalising everyday life and on people who should be working but make a conscious choice to exist off of benefits Agree pretty much with most of that but as usual the elephant (grossly fat in its riches) in the room is also those who can should pay but clever accountants and an over complicated tax system designed to benefit the minority are also art if the problem .. But the common deflection inspired tropes of the disabled and the feckless fag smoking, telly watching brat producers comes to the fore .. Almost like those in power who benefit from the current systems manipulate the hype.. Look over there and fight amongst yourselves..why do you think its the ultra wealthy are the only ones fiddling tax? Pretty much every self employed person I know dosent pay the tax they are supposed to,yea they get caught short during furlough but rest of the time they are keeping more money than they should,fact is the majority of people would pay less tax if they could get away with it,I know I would" That's a fair point and cheers for raising it.. 
Can't argue at all that at all levels there are some or many who do that..
We see others 'getting away with it' be they a serving prime minister with his families money in a tax haven or some lazy sod whose never contributed yet goes in holidays and is always in the pub/bookies and it's natural we think fuck it if they're doing it etc ..
| |||
"The politics of suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous. Most (sane) people don't want to punish the poor, they just want the government to do something about the out of control welfare spending, bogus disability claims and number of people existing solely on benefits before having their pockets picked to pay for the government's incompetence and weakness. The irony is that many people who are genuinely in need of state help don't get enough because of the amount lost on medicalising everyday life and on people who should be working but make a conscious choice to exist off of benefits Agree pretty much with most of that but as usual the elephant (grossly fat in its riches) in the room is also those who can should pay but clever accountants and an over complicated tax system designed to benefit the minority are also art if the problem .. But the common deflection inspired tropes of the disabled and the feckless fag smoking, telly watching brat producers comes to the fore .. Almost like those in power who benefit from the current systems manipulate the hype.. Look over there and fight amongst yourselves.." Is that exactly what you’re doing - common leftist deflection ? | |||
"Is that exactly what you’re doing - common leftist deflection ? " Surely for it to be a deflection, it would have to be off-topic. It isn’t — it’s literally about how blame keeps getting shifted downward instead of upward. If that’s ‘leftist deflection,’ then apparently asking who benefits from the narrative is now off-limits. | |||
"The politics of suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Punish the poor so the comfortable can feel righteous. Most (sane) people don't want to punish the poor, they just want the government to do something about the out of control welfare spending, bogus disability claims and number of people existing solely on benefits before having their pockets picked to pay for the government's incompetence and weakness. The irony is that many people who are genuinely in need of state help don't get enough because of the amount lost on medicalising everyday life and on people who should be working but make a conscious choice to exist off of benefits Agree pretty much with most of that but as usual the elephant (grossly fat in its riches) in the room is also those who can should pay but clever accountants and an over complicated tax system designed to benefit the minority are also art if the problem .. But the common deflection inspired tropes of the disabled and the feckless fag smoking, telly watching brat producers comes to the fore .. Almost like those in power who benefit from the current systems manipulate the hype.. Look over there and fight amongst yourselves.. Is that exactly what you’re doing - common leftist deflection ? " By adding a group of people who were missed out? No I don't think I was, on the whole those who can contribute absolutely should do so and there can be no allowances for freeloaders etc funny enough I've been labelled as right wing before on here but that's the work ethics that we were raised with.. It's not only about one group in any society not pulling their weight and paying their dues.. | |||
| |||
" The government’s own figures for the tax gap — the money lost through avoidance, evasion, and error — sit at £46.8 billion." There’s the lions share of the £70bn deficit So why attack pensioners, farmers, the disabled; collectively about £2.5bn gain after U turns. And now Main Street will have our pockets picked instead of the tax evaders. | |||
| |||
"The most aggressive estimate I can find for benefit fraud puts it at £6.5 billion — around 2.2% of the benefits system. The government’s own figures for the tax gap — the money lost through avoidance, evasion, and error — sit at £46.8 billion. So which side is really the bigger drain on society? For the record, benefit fraud is wrong. It takes money from people who genuinely need support. But perspective matters. If we’re serious about tackling waste and unfairness, the biggest leaks aren’t at the bottom — they’re at the top. The tax gap is around seven times larger than the total cost of benefit fraud. It’s not about excusing one. It’s about caring enough to fix both." Agreed..
The ones leading the narrative which constantly comes through are the likes of the media conglomerates with huge vested interests in deflecting the ire of the public to those who can't speak out as much ..
Yet time after time it's swallowed rather than look at every strata of society and how they all contribute..
Hey bloody ho.. | |||
" The government’s own figures for the tax gap — the money lost through avoidance, evasion, and error — sit at £46.8 billion. There’s the lions share of the £70bn deficit So why attack pensioners, farmers, the disabled; collectively about £2.5bn gain after U turns. And now Main Street will have our pockets picked instead of the tax evaders. " Why? Because it's easier than taking on the likes of Murdoch etc and the multi nationals where down the line an ex Pm, Chancellor etc might need a cushty number.. | |||
| |||
"The government’s own figures for the tax gap — the money lost through avoidance, evasion, and error — sit at £46.8 billion." Then the government has an easy win. Tax avoidance is the structuring of tax affairs so as to pay less tax. If the government feel that is wrong, they should just change the law to make it illegal. Hey presto, loads of extra money, and plaudits from the public for cracking down on those that don't pay their fair share. Why aren't they doing that? | |||
"The most aggressive estimate I can find for benefit fraud puts it at £6.5 billion — around 2.2% of the benefits system. The government’s own figures for the tax gap — the money lost through avoidance, evasion, and error — sit at £46.8 billion. So which side is really the bigger drain on society? For the record, benefit fraud is wrong. It takes money from people who genuinely need support. But perspective matters. If we’re serious about tackling waste and unfairness, the biggest leaks aren’t at the bottom — they’re at the top. The tax gap is around seven times larger than the total cost of benefit fraud. It’s not about excusing one. It’s about caring enough to fix both." Disillusioned ideology, you’re a country mile from the reality with this rhetoric. £6.5 billion in fraud may sound small next to £46 billion in lost tax, but talk about ignoring ignoring what’s being spent. Approx £316 billion goes on benefits nearly 11 % of GDP, including £141 billion on unemployment and working age welfare, with £35 billion on housing benefits. The numbers keep climbing.... And where does the money come from for all those benefits? The top 1 % of earners contribute about 30 % of all income tax, the top 10 % contribute over 60 %, and the bottom half less than 10 %. Wake up to the enormous drain on our society and who funds it...! We should be tougher with things like unemployment benefit, 12 months claiming, after that month on month reductions. | |||
"Disillusioned ideology, you’re a country mile from the reality with this rhetoric. £6.5 billion in fraud may sound small next to £46 billion in lost tax, but talk about ignoring ignoring what’s being spent. Approx £316 billion goes on benefits nearly 11 % of GDP, including £141 billion on unemployment and working age welfare, with £35 billion on housing benefits. The numbers keep climbing.... And where does the money come from for all those benefits? The top 1 % of earners contribute about 30 % of all income tax, the top 10 % contribute over 60 %, and the bottom half less than 10 %. Wake up to the enormous drain on our society and who funds it...! We should be tougher with things like unemployment benefit, 12 months claiming, after that month on month reductions." So your stance is that those who aren’t committing fraud don’t deserve their benefits? Because that’s what your post implies. You’re not talking about fraud anymore — you’re talking about punishing people simply for needing help. And let’s be honest: a large part of the benefits bill goes to households already working full-time. They’re not lazy — they’re drowning in a housing market and cost of living that wages no longer match. Take a typical two-adult household with children. Two adults working full-time on minimum wage earn roughly £47,600 a year gross — about £40,000 after tax. Now look at what that same family faces just to stay afloat (all national averages): Rent (4-bed home for 2.5 children): ~£24,000 a year Utilities (gas, electricity): ~£2,000 Water, broadband, council tax, insurance: ~£3,000 Food: ~£8,500 Car running costs: ~£3,000 Transport and extras: ~£2,000 That’s roughly £42,500 a year in unavoidable costs — more than their take-home pay. And that’s before you even factor in clothes for the kids, birthdays, Christmas, a day out, a takeaway, a streaming subscription — any trace of ordinary life. This isn’t a family refusing to work. It’s a family putting in a full week and still sinking. That’s not a moral failing — it’s an economic one. | |||
"Disillusioned ideology, you’re a country mile from the reality with this rhetoric. £6.5 billion in fraud may sound small next to £46 billion in lost tax, but talk about ignoring ignoring what’s being spent. Approx £316 billion goes on benefits nearly 11 % of GDP, including £141 billion on unemployment and working age welfare, with £35 billion on housing benefits. The numbers keep climbing.... And where does the money come from for all those benefits? The top 1 % of earners contribute about 30 % of all income tax, the top 10 % contribute over 60 %, and the bottom half less than 10 %. Wake up to the enormous drain on our society and who funds it...! We should be tougher with things like unemployment benefit, 12 months claiming, after that month on month reductions. So your stance is that those who aren’t committing fraud don’t deserve their benefits? Because that’s what your post implies. You’re not talking about fraud anymore — you’re talking about punishing people simply for needing help. And let’s be honest: a large part of the benefits bill goes to households already working full-time. They’re not lazy — they’re drowning in a housing market and cost of living that wages no longer match. Take a typical two-adult household with children. Two adults working full-time on minimum wage earn roughly £47,600 a year gross — about £40,000 after tax. Now look at what that same family faces just to stay afloat (all national averages): Rent (4-bed home for 2.5 children): ~£24,000 a year Utilities (gas, electricity): ~£2,000 Water, broadband, council tax, insurance: ~£3,000 Food: ~£8,500 Car running costs: ~£3,000 Transport and extras: ~£2,000 That’s roughly £42,500 a year in unavoidable costs — more than their take-home pay. And that’s before you even factor in clothes for the kids, birthdays, Christmas, a day out, a takeaway, a streaming subscription — any trace of ordinary life. This isn’t a family refusing to work. It’s a family putting in a full week and still sinking. That’s not a moral failing — it’s an economic one." Your opening line is wrong, very wrong, try reading my post again.. Secondly, you have maintained that your use of AI is to reason, bring back facts, research them, compile them and then get AI to present your findings. Your reply was 6 minutes after my post. I will make an assumption you are not sitting on threads pressing refresh every couple of seconds, so a delay from my post to your recognition is expected. It is then logical that you have simply copied my post, put it into AI asked for a reply and posted it straight back in the forum. That would account for the large amount of facts, data and story telling in your post in such a short period, and more importantly that the AI output wasn't checked by you because it is AI bot slop. | |||
"Your opening line is wrong, very wrong, try reading my post again.. Secondly, you have maintained that your use of AI is to reason, bring back facts, research them, compile them and then get AI to present your findings. Your reply was 6 minutes after my post. I will make an assumption you are not sitting on threads pressing refresh every couple of seconds, so a delay from my post to your recognition is expected. It is then logical that you have simply copied my post, put it into AI asked for a reply and posted it straight back in the forum. That would account for the large amount of facts, data and story telling in your post in such a short period, and more importantly that the AI output wasn't checked by you because it is AI bot slop." My reply was seventeen minutes after your first post — the one you deleted, incidentally — and I happen to know a lot of this data already because this isn’t the first time I’ve had to challenge the claim that benefits are only for people who don’t work. All I did was plug in figures I already knew and update them against your claims. If I’d needed AI to fact-check you, I still would have — because evidence is evidence, no matter who brings it. Your dislike for how I present information does nothing to prove your argument or disprove mine. It just shows you’d rather attack the method than engage with the data. That’s not debate — that’s deflection, and it’s a classic ad hominem. | |||
"Take a typical two-adult household with children. Two adults working full-time on minimum wage earn roughly £47,600 a year gross — about £40,000 after tax. Now look at what that same family faces just to stay afloat (all national averages): Rent (4-bed home for 2.5 children): ~£24,000 a year Utilities (gas, electricity): ~£2,000 Water, broadband, council tax, insurance: ~£3,000 Food: ~£8,500 Car running costs: ~£3,000 Transport and extras: ~£2,000 That’s roughly £42,500 a year in unavoidable costs — more than their take-home pay. And that’s before you even factor in clothes for the kids, birthdays, Christmas, a day out, a takeaway, a streaming subscription — any trace of ordinary life. This isn’t a family refusing to work. It’s a family putting in a full week and still sinking. That’s not a moral failing — it’s an economic one." Let's just look at 1 of those claims. The average UK rent is around £1400 per month, or £16,800 a year, not the £24,000 you claimed. I've not bothered checking the rest because I'm pretty sure I know what I'll find. | |||
| |||
"Let's just look at 1 of those claims. The average UK rent is around £1400 per month, or £16,800 a year, not the £24,000 you claimed. I've not bothered checking the rest because I'm pretty sure I know what I'll find." That would be the average rent across all property types — including studios, one-beds, and areas with much lower costs. The figure I used is for a four-bed property, which is what a two-adult, 2.5-child household would typically need. According to the ONS Private Rent Index (August 2025), the UK average for a 4-bed home is roughly £2,000 per month, or £24,000 per year. The overall average rent of ~£1,348 per month is for all homes combined — it’s not comparable for a family of five. | |||
"Your opening line is wrong, very wrong, try reading my post again.. Secondly, you have maintained that your use of AI is to reason, bring back facts, research them, compile them and then get AI to present your findings. Your reply was 6 minutes after my post. I will make an assumption you are not sitting on threads pressing refresh every couple of seconds, so a delay from my post to your recognition is expected. It is then logical that you have simply copied my post, put it into AI asked for a reply and posted it straight back in the forum. That would account for the large amount of facts, data and story telling in your post in such a short period, and more importantly that the AI output wasn't checked by you because it is AI bot slop. My reply was seventeen minutes after your first post — the one you deleted, incidentally — and I happen to know a lot of this data already because this isn’t the first time I’ve had to challenge the claim that benefits are only for people who don’t work. All I did was plug in figures I already knew and update them against your claims. If I’d needed AI to fact-check you, I still would have — because evidence is evidence, no matter who brings it. Your dislike for how I present information does nothing to prove your argument or disprove mine. It just shows you’d rather attack the method than engage with the data. That’s not debate — that’s deflection, and it’s a classic ad hominem." You actually quoted my post.. My post the one you quoted: By NotMe66 OP Man 26 minutes ago Your reply: By TheNerdyFemby Woman 21 minutes ago. Difference 5 minutes: Claiming you know the data already is a little much. | |||
| |||
"You actually quoted my post.. My post the one you quoted: By NotMe66 OP Man 26 minutes ago Your reply: By TheNerdyFemby Woman 21 minutes ago. Difference 5 minutes: Claiming you know the data already is a little much." Yawn. This is getting tiresome. I saw your original post before it was deleted, switched tabs to pull in the data I’ve used in similar discussions before, and by the time I’d finished writing, your post had vanished — so I replied to the new one. No grand conspiracy, just a simple timeline. And yes, I do know a lot of this data already. When you spend enough time correcting the same myths about benefits and work, you get used to citing the same figures — ONS, DWP, HMRC, it’s all public. If the best rebuttal you can offer is to nitpick timestamps instead of the evidence, that says plenty about which part of this argument is running on empty. | |||
"Let's just look at 1 of those claims. The average UK rent is around £1400 per month, or £16,800 a year, not the £24,000 you claimed. I've not bothered checking the rest because I'm pretty sure I know what I'll find. That would be the average rent across all property types — including studios, one-beds, and areas with much lower costs. The figure I used is for a four-bed property, which is what a two-adult, 2.5-child household would typically need. According to the ONS Private Rent Index (August 2025), the UK average for a 4-bed home is roughly £2,000 per month, or £24,000 per year. The overall average rent of ~£1,348 per month is for all homes combined — it’s not comparable for a family of five. " Your rent figure is correct for 4-bed home ~£24,000 pa Government data derived from 800+councils reads Date. Rent£pm Apr 2025 £2,076 May 2025 £2,078 Jun 2025 £2,082 Jul 2025 £2,077 Aug 2025 £2,085 Sep 2025 £2,096. | |||
"The most aggressive estimate I can find for benefit fraud puts it at £6.5 billion — around 2.2% of the benefits system. The government’s own figures for the tax gap — the money lost through avoidance, evasion, and error — sit at £46.8 billion. So which side is really the bigger drain on society? For the record, benefit fraud is wrong. It takes money from people who genuinely need support. But perspective matters. If we’re serious about tackling waste and unfairness, the biggest leaks aren’t at the bottom — they’re at the top. The tax gap is around seven times larger than the total cost of benefit fraud. It’s not about excusing one. It’s about caring enough to fix both. Disillusioned ideology, you’re a country mile from the reality with this rhetoric. £6.5 billion in fraud may sound small next to £46 billion in lost tax, but talk about ignoring ignoring what’s being spent. Approx £316 billion goes on benefits nearly 11 % of GDP, including £141 billion on unemployment and working age welfare, with £35 billion on housing benefits. The numbers keep climbing.... And where does the money come from for all those benefits? The top 1 % of earners contribute about 30 % of all income tax, the top 10 % contribute over 60 %, and the bottom half less than 10 %. Wake up to the enormous drain on our society and who funds it...! We should be tougher with things like unemployment benefit, 12 months claiming, after that month on month reductions." Is the £46 billion in lost tax due to illegal scams or clever accountants exploring our highly complex tax system? If it's illegal scams then definitely needs full attention. If it's clever accountants then that's for the government to sort out and begs the question why haven't they or the previous lot done that with so much money to gain. Benefit fraud is going to be illegal so again need full attention. Is this a case of comparing a legal (though morally questionable) position with a clear illegal position? | |||
"You actually quoted my post.. My post the one you quoted: By NotMe66 OP Man 26 minutes ago Your reply: By TheNerdyFemby Woman 21 minutes ago. Difference 5 minutes: Claiming you know the data already is a little much. Yawn. This is getting tiresome. I saw your original post before it was deleted, switched tabs to pull in the data I’ve used in similar discussions before, and by the time I’d finished writing, your post had vanished — so I replied to the new one. No grand conspiracy, just a simple timeline. And yes, I do know a lot of this data already. When you spend enough time correcting the same myths about benefits and work, you get used to citing the same figures — ONS, DWP, HMRC, it’s all public. If the best rebuttal you can offer is to nitpick timestamps instead of the evidence, that says plenty about which part of this argument is running on empty." I will leave this here, I don't enjoy people backing themselves into corners, it isn't that important. | |||
" I will leave this here, I don't enjoy people backing themselves into corners, it isn't that important. " Alright then — enjoy your corner. | |||
"The most aggressive estimate I can find for benefit fraud puts it at £6.5 billion — around 2.2% of the benefits system. The government’s own figures for the tax gap — the money lost through avoidance, evasion, and error — sit at £46.8 billion. So which side is really the bigger drain on society? For the record, benefit fraud is wrong. It takes money from people who genuinely need support. But perspective matters. If we’re serious about tackling waste and unfairness, the biggest leaks aren’t at the bottom — they’re at the top. The tax gap is around seven times larger than the total cost of benefit fraud. It’s not about excusing one. It’s about caring enough to fix both. Disillusioned ideology, you’re a country mile from the reality with this rhetoric. £6.5 billion in fraud may sound small next to £46 billion in lost tax, but talk about ignoring ignoring what’s being spent. Approx £316 billion goes on benefits nearly 11 % of GDP, including £141 billion on unemployment and working age welfare, with £35 billion on housing benefits. The numbers keep climbing.... And where does the money come from for all those benefits? The top 1 % of earners contribute about 30 % of all income tax, the top 10 % contribute over 60 %, and the bottom half less than 10 %. Wake up to the enormous drain on our society and who funds it...! We should be tougher with things like unemployment benefit, 12 months claiming, after that month on month reductions. Is the £46 billion in lost tax due to illegal scams or clever accountants exploring our highly complex tax system? If it's illegal scams then definitely needs full attention. If it's clever accountants then that's for the government to sort out and begs the question why haven't they or the previous lot done that with so much money to gain. Benefit fraud is going to be illegal so again need full attention. Is this a case of comparing a legal (though morally questionable) position with a clear illegal position?" I'm not 100% sure where the figure came from other that the other poster claiming it was avoidance etc. The point is, people using tax laws to reduce their burden is not illegal and it is those same people who contribute the most towards benefits that are simply given away. I want people off benefits and people to stop glorifying their rights to have benefits because others are working hard and doing well, and it's not fair. | |||
| |||
"Is the £46 billion in lost tax due to illegal scams or clever accountants exploring our highly complex tax system? If it's illegal scams then definitely needs full attention. If it's clever accountants then that's for the government to sort out and begs the question why haven't they or the previous lot done that with so much money to gain. Benefit fraud is going to be illegal so again need full attention. Is this a case of comparing a legal (though morally questionable) position with a clear illegal position?" When I posted, I just took the totals for each. And you’re right — if they’re legal loopholes, that’s different from fraud, at least legally if not morally. Looking deeper into the HMRC data, around £32 billion of the £46 billion tax gap comes from non-compliance or evasion — that’s the illegal side. The rest, roughly £10–14 billion, is avoidance and error, which sits in the grey area of “legal but ethically questionable.” So yeah, from a legal point of view rather than a moral one, I should have said £32 billion instead of £46 billion. But even then, that’s still several times larger than total benefit fraud — which was £6.5 billion in 2023/24. The point stands either way: both are problems, but one costs the public far more than the other. | |||
"I'm not 100% sure where the figure came from other that the other poster claiming it was avoidance etc. The point is, people using tax laws to reduce their burden is not illegal and it is those same people who contribute the most towards benefits that are simply given away. I want people off benefits and people to stop glorifying their rights to have benefits because others are working hard and doing well, and it's not fair. "So you’d support raising the minimum wage, expanding social housing, and tackling rent inflation then? Because if the goal is to get people off benefits, the most effective way isn’t punishment — it’s ensuring that work actually pays enough and housing actually costs enough less for families to stand on their own. Plenty of people on benefits are already working full-time, but wages and rents are so mismatched that the system ends up subsidising low pay and high profit margins. That’s not “glorifying benefits”; it’s evidence of a broken market. If we fix that — through fair wages, affordable homes, and stable living costs — far fewer people would need help in the first place. | |||
"Let's just look at 1 of those claims. The average UK rent is around £1400 per month, or £16,800 a year, not the £24,000 you claimed. I've not bothered checking the rest because I'm pretty sure I know what I'll find." "That would be the average rent across all property types — including studios, one-beds, and areas with much lower costs. The figure I used is for a four-bed property, which is what a two-adult, 2.5-child household would typically need." Ah, so you deliberately picked a house type that was unaffordable for your specified family. More likely is that they would be in a 3 bedroom house, and the kids would be sharing. | |||
" Is the £46 billion in lost tax due to illegal scams or clever accountants exploring our highly complex tax system? If it's illegal scams then definitely needs full attention. " • the largest component of the tax gap by tax type is the Corporation Tax gap at a 40% share, followed by the Income tax, National Insurance contributions and Capital Gains Tax gap with a 31% share and the VAT gap with a 19% share of the overall tax gap • the tax gap from small businesses is the largest component of the tax gap by customer group at a 60% share in 2023 to 2024; the tax gap from wealthy makes up the lowest proportion of the tax gap at 5% in 2023 to 2024 I’d argue it’s both. Thousands of examples could be given. Here’s one small one; I’m self employed, what percentage of my mileage is business (claimable on SA) or private use. And who’s checking that for 4.2 million self employed people. | |||
"Ah, so you deliberately picked a house type that was unaffordable for your specified family. More likely is that they would be in a 3 bedroom house, and the kids would be sharing." I went with the most likely legal requirement. A family with 2.5 children is statistically likely to have mixed genders, and under the Housing Act 1985, once they’re over 10 it’s unlawful for them to share a bedroom. So if they were in a three-bed and the older kids were sharing, that would actually breach overcrowding standards. A four-bed isn’t luxury — it’s the legal minimum for that family size. An argument could be made that I should have gone for the average between a four- and five-bed house, since a family that size might well need the extra space. But I kept it at the lower end deliberately — I’d rather understate than exaggerate. | |||
"Looking deeper into the HMRC data, around £32 billion of the £46 billion tax gap comes from non-compliance or evasion" If you dig even deeper you'll find that a very large chunk of that "non-compliance" figure is companies failing to pay their taxes because they've gone bankrupt. That's not money that's lost to the Exchequer, that's just money that doesn't exist. | |||
"I'm not 100% sure where the figure came from other that the other poster claiming it was avoidance etc. The point is, people using tax laws to reduce their burden is not illegal and it is those same people who contribute the most towards benefits that are simply given away. I want people off benefits and people to stop glorifying their rights to have benefits because others are working hard and doing well, and it's not fair.
So you’d support raising the minimum wage, expanding social housing, and tackling rent inflation then?
Because if the goal is to get people off benefits, the most effective way isn’t punishment — it’s ensuring that work actually pays enough and housing actually costs enough less for families to stand on their own.
Plenty of people on benefits are already working full-time, but wages and rents are so mismatched that the system ends up subsidising low pay and high profit margins. That’s not “glorifying benefits”; it’s evidence of a broken market.
If we fix that — through fair wages, affordable homes, and stable living costs — far fewer people would need help in the first place."The system subsidises many bad choices. I have no issues in it supporting people in need for the short term, after that they need to work and get on with it. | |||
"The system subsidises many bad choices. I have no issues in it supporting people in need for the short term, after that they need to work and get on with it." But the system is rigged to make it all but impossible for most people to actually earn enough to live without support. If full-time work still leaves families relying on benefits, that’s not a “bad choice” — that’s a sign of laws and markets that don’t balance. Wages haven’t kept up with productivity or inflation, and private rents have risen far faster than income. If you want fewer benefit claims, the only sustainable solution is to fix the structural causes: raise wages, rein in rent, and make housing affordable again. Until that happens, blaming individuals for systemic failures is just noise. I think we both agree on wanting fewer people needing help — we just differ on how to make that happen. | |||
"Ah, so you deliberately picked a house type that was unaffordable for your specified family. More likely is that they would be in a 3 bedroom house, and the kids would be sharing." "I went with the most likely legal requirement. A family with 2.5 children is statistically likely to have mixed genders, and under the Housing Act 1985, once they’re over 10 it’s unlawful for them to share a bedroom." What nonsense. It's only against the law for children of the opposite sex to share a bedroom after the age of 10. A 3 bedroom house could have the parents in one room, the boys in another, and the girls in the third. This could in theory house a family of any size. Even a 2 bedroom house would be sufficient as one of the groups could sleep in the lounge (according to the law). | |||
" If we fix that — through fair wages, affordable homes, and stable living costs — far fewer people would need help in the first place. The system subsidises many bad choices. I have no issues in it supporting people in need for the short term, after that they need to work and get on with it." Many of those bad choices are ones made by the state For example 2.1 million affordable rent social housing units sold at one time discounts on right to buy. Meaning more households forced into private rented housing, a sector that receives £14bn annually in housing benefit for 2 million household claimants. | |||
"If we fix that — through fair wages, affordable homes, and stable living costs — far fewer people would need help in the first place." How would you propose to make more homes affordable? | |||
"Looking deeper into the HMRC data, around £32 billion of the £46 billion tax gap comes from non-compliance or evasion If you dig even deeper you'll find that a very large chunk of that "non-compliance" figure is companies failing to pay their taxes because they've gone bankrupt. That's not money that's lost to the Exchequer, that's just money that doesn't exist." Company linked to Michelle Mone owes £39m in unpaid taxes Statement by administrators puts PPE Medpro’s total debts at £188m, including £39m said to be owed to HMRC (Todays guardian) | |||
"What nonsense. It's only against the law for children of the opposite sex to share a bedroom after the age of 10. A 3 bedroom house could have the parents in one room, the boys in another, and the girls in the third. This could in theory house a family of any size. Even a 2 bedroom house would be sufficient as one of the groups could sleep in the lounge (according to the law)." A three-bed might scrape through on paper, but that’s the minimum legal threshold, not a realistic living standard. The law defines when housing becomes so inadequate it’s illegal — not when it’s actually suitable. And just to add, Local Housing Allowance guidance — the same framework used by the DWP to calculate rent support — also classifies that household as entitled to a four-bed property. Under their own bedroom entitlement rules, a couple with three mixed-gender children qualifies for the four-bed rate. So the four-bed figure wasn’t exaggerated — it reflects both the legal and official standard for a family of that size. Of course, you don’t have to agree with that standard, but it’s the one the system is built on. | |||
"If we fix that — through fair wages, affordable homes, and stable living costs — far fewer people would need help in the first place. How would you propose to make more homes affordable?" That would make for a fascinating PhD | |||
"If we fix that — through fair wages, affordable homes, and stable living costs — far fewer people would need help in the first place. How would you propose to make more homes affordable?" I think I already covered that — higher minimum wage, more aggressive social housing construction, and proper rent controls in the private sector. And while we’re at it, tackling the half-million livable homes sitting empty across the UK because they’re being hoarded as investment assets would help too. It’s hard to talk about a housing shortage when so many properties are deliberately kept off the market for profit. | |||
| |||
" If we fix that — through fair wages, affordable homes, and stable living costs — far fewer people would need help in the first place. The system subsidises many bad choices. I have no issues in it supporting people in need for the short term, after that they need to work and get on with it. Many of those bad choices are ones made by the state For example 2.1 million affordable rent social housing units sold at one time discounts on right to buy. Meaning more households forced into private rented housing, a sector that receives £14bn annually in housing benefit for 2 million household claimants. " I have given this some thought as it resurfaces a lot. What difference does it make if the house is owned or rented, there are only so many houses. If all the houses were rentals there still wouldn't be enough houses. Young people and families living in London paying over the odds for their accommodation have choices, they can move to an area that doesn't cost so much to live in. People wanting to live in an area they can't afford is not a reason to subsidies their personal choices. | |||
"Is the £46 billion in lost tax due to illegal scams or clever accountants exploring our highly complex tax system? If it's illegal scams then definitely needs full attention. If it's clever accountants then that's for the government to sort out and begs the question why haven't they or the previous lot done that with so much money to gain. Benefit fraud is going to be illegal so again need full attention. Is this a case of comparing a legal (though morally questionable) position with a clear illegal position? When I posted, I just took the totals for each. And you’re right — if they’re legal loopholes, that’s different from fraud, at least legally if not morally. Looking deeper into the HMRC data, around £32 billion of the £46 billion tax gap comes from non-compliance or evasion — that’s the illegal side. The rest, roughly £10–14 billion, is avoidance and error, which sits in the grey area of “legal but ethically questionable.” So yeah, from a legal point of view rather than a moral one, I should have said £32 billion instead of £46 billion. But even then, that’s still several times larger than total benefit fraud — which was £6.5 billion in 2023/24. The point stands either way: both are problems, but one costs the public far more than the other." I think I did mention morality in my post. Any illegal tax scams should be clamped down on heavily especially given the amounts you mention. If they are legal positions (but morally questionable) then they should be closed which given the amounts you mention makes it difficult to understand why the government past and present haven't done it. Benefit fraud is more straightforward as is clearly illegal. | |||
" I think I did mention morality in my post. Any illegal tax scams should be clamped down on heavily especially given the amounts you mention. If they are legal positions (but morally questionable) then they should be closed which given the amounts you mention makes it difficult to understand why the government past and present haven't done it. Benefit fraud is more straightforward as is clearly illegal." Absolutely — and I wasn’t disagreeing with you at all. You made a solid point, and I was just trying to expand on it. We’re very much on the same page: if loopholes are legal, then it’s on the government to close them. The frustrating bit is that they don’t — largely because those who benefit most from the current setup are also the ones with the lobbying power to keep it that way. It’s not about excusing benefit fraud — that’s clearly wrong. It’s about asking why we come down so hard on small-scale wrongdoing at the bottom while quietly tolerating (and sometimes rewarding) the massive losses at the top. | |||
"What nonsense. It's only against the law for children of the opposite sex to share a bedroom after the age of 10. A 3 bedroom house could have the parents in one room, the boys in another, and the girls in the third. This could in theory house a family of any size. Even a 2 bedroom house would be sufficient as one of the groups could sleep in the lounge (according to the law)." "A three-bed might scrape through on paper, but that’s the minimum legal threshold, not a realistic living standard." Oh right, so you've abandoned your claim that a 3 bed would be illegal, and you've swapped to "not realistic". If you actually asked some less well off people, you'd find that it's not at all uncommon for kids to share a room, especially for a family that's existing on the minimum wage. But I can see that you're ignoring the difficult questions, and only answering those where you think you can fool people with a bit of made-up legal stuff. I'll let you carry on. | |||
"Oh right, so you've abandoned your claim that a 3 bed would be illegal, and you've swapped to "not realistic". If you actually asked some less well off people, you'd find that it's not at all uncommon for kids to share a room, especially for a family that's existing on the minimum wage. But I can see that you're ignoring the difficult questions, and only answering those where you think you can fool people with a bit of made-up legal stuff. I'll let you carry on." That’s not what I said at all. Depending on the setup, it can be illegal under the overcrowding standards — I just broadened the scope to explain what’s considered the baseline, not the ideal. And even if a cramped setup technically passes the legal test, that doesn’t make it reasonable or sustainable. If families are forced to live that way while both adults are working full-time, that’s not proof of good budgeting — it’s evidence of a system that’s stopped working for ordinary people. | |||
"How would you propose to make more homes affordable?" "I think I already covered that — higher minimum wage, more aggressive social housing construction, and proper rent controls in the private sector." But a higher minimum wage will cause inflation, taking property prices up with it. You can try building social housing, but where will you get the builders? And how will you manage to keep the build cost down with that increased minimum wage and the inflation adding to the material costs? Rent controls will cause many landlords to just sell up, meaning that there will be less availability of rental homes. Less availablity will mean that prices increase. "And while we’re at it, tackling the half-million livable homes sitting empty across the UK because they’re being hoarded as investment assets would help too. It’s hard to talk about a housing shortage when so many properties are deliberately kept off the market for profit." And what does "tackling" mean? Are you proposing to confiscate them? | |||
"And what does "tackling" mean? Are you proposing to confiscate them?" It’s a long-standing myth that minimum-wage hikes unleash terrible, unforeseen consequences. The evidence just doesn’t bear that out. Every major study by the Low Pay Commission, the ONS, and even the IMF shows that moderate increases have minimal impact on inflation — usually less than half a percent — and no consistent link to job losses. The biggest drivers of housing inflation aren’t wages; they’re interest rates, speculative ownership, and limited supply. Paying people fairly doesn’t break the economy — it just makes it harder to rely on poverty as a business model. As for social housing, the issue isn’t a shortage of builders or materials; it’s political will. Councils and housing associations can already build below market rates. What slows them down is bureaucracy, restricted funding, and the hoarding of developable land by large private interests. And the rent-control panic never holds up to evidence either. Countries like Germany, Denmark, and France all use forms of rent stabilisation without collapsing their rental markets. When designed properly, rent caps stop runaway profiteering while keeping long-term tenancies viable. As for confiscated property — not at all. The goal isn’t to seize anything; it’s to adjust taxes so that hoarded investment homes are either rented out or sold to first-time buyers. That way it’s win-win: more homes in use, less speculation, and fewer ghost properties inflating the market. Mind you, I’m a raging leftist — so while I’m not proposing it as a viable plan, I wouldn’t exactly lose sleep over repurposing a few of those empty homes by whatever means. | |||
" Mind you, I’m a raging leftist — so while I’m not proposing it as a viable plan" Ain't that the truth | |||
"And what does "tackling" mean? Are you proposing to confiscate them? It’s a long-standing myth that minimum-wage hikes unleash terrible, unforeseen consequences. The evidence just doesn’t bear that out. Every major study by the Low Pay Commission, the ONS, and even the IMF shows that moderate increases have minimal impact on inflation — usually less than half a percent — and no consistent link to job losses. The biggest drivers of housing inflation aren’t wages; they’re interest rates, speculative ownership, and limited supply. Paying people fairly doesn’t break the economy — it just makes it harder to rely on poverty as a business model. As for social housing, the issue isn’t a shortage of builders or materials; it’s political will. Councils and housing associations can already build below market rates. What slows them down is bureaucracy, restricted funding, and the hoarding of developable land by large private interests. And the rent-control panic never holds up to evidence either. Countries like Germany, Denmark, and France all use forms of rent stabilisation without collapsing their rental markets. When designed properly, rent caps stop runaway profiteering while keeping long-term tenancies viable. As for confiscated property — not at all. The goal isn’t to seize anything; it’s to adjust taxes so that hoarded investment homes are either rented out or sold to first-time buyers. That way it’s win-win: more homes in use, less speculation, and fewer ghost properties inflating the market. Mind you, I’m a raging leftist — so while I’m not proposing it as a viable plan, I wouldn’t exactly lose sleep over repurposing a few of those empty homes by whatever means." Courtesy of Grok, prompt: Provide hard evidence in one sentence bullet points to refute the following argument (your text). Remove any from sources that show bias or are opinions only, rather than based on facts or evidence. - Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City indicates that minimum wage hikes can result in negative effects on employment and higher prices when monetary policy does not accommodate the changes, challenging the notion of minimal inflation impact. - An NBER working paper shows that minimum wage increases reduce job growth over time, particularly for younger workers and in lower-wage industries, rather than having no link to job losses. - A Journal of Public Economics study on a high minimum wage introduction revealed significant negative spillover effects on employment in related industries, refuting assertions of negligible consequences. - Evidence from the Federal Reserve suggests that house price growth has been a key contributor to overall inflation, and rising nominal wages exceeding productivity can stoke inflationary pressures that indirectly affect housing costs through increased construction and maintenance expenses. - Reports from the National Alliance to End Homelessness highlight that rising rents driven by inflation, which can be fueled by wage pressures in a tight labor market, increase homelessness risks, linking wage hikes to exacerbated housing affordability issues. - A 2025 report from BRG Building Solutions notes that over 35,000 unfilled vacancies in the UK construction sector are threatening housebuilding targets, indicating a severe skills shortage of builders as a primary barrier to social housing delivery. - Tutor2u economic analysis explains that shortages in skilled construction workers are preventing the UK from meeting housing targets, leading to fewer homes built and higher prices, countering claims that materials and labor are not the issue. - A London School of Economics report on rent control evidence internationally concludes that while rents may decrease short-term, long-term negative impacts include reduced housing supply and quality, as seen in various European implementations. - Research from the American Economic Association indicates that rent controls in Germany negatively impact regulated rental yields and contribute to gentrification by shifting housing toward higher-income groups. - A comprehensive review on rent control effects published on EconStor finds that such policies lower housing rents but also impose adverse effects on both landlords and tenants, including potential income redistribution issues in countries like France and Denmark. - A study in Real Estate Economics shows that Germany's rent control promotes gentrification and amplifies supply shortages for moderately priced housing, challenging the idea that it stabilizes markets without collapse. It's brilliant. No need to read or understand these walls of text. Just copy, paste and prompt! | |||
"Courtesy of Grok, prompt: Provide hard evidence in one sentence bullet points to refute the following argument (your text). Remove any from sources that show bias or are opinions only, rather than based on facts or evidence." But here’s the problem with doing what you claim I do instead of what I actually do. Copy-pasting walls of "evidence" without reading them just ends up spreading half-truths. Let’s go through them properly. - "Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City says wage hikes cause inflation and job loss." That’s not a real-world study; it’s a theoretical model that says "if the central bank over-reacts with high interest rates, employment could fall." It’s a "what if," not "what happens." (Search for Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City minimum wage inflation model.) - "NBER working paper shows job growth falls." That’s Meer & West (2013). It found slower job growth in a few US sectors, not mass job loss. Other NBER papers - Card & Krueger, Dube et al. - found almost no change. (Search for NBER Meer & West minimum wage job growth 2013.) - "Journal of Public Economics study shows big spillovers." That paper looked at an unusually large one-off hike during a recession. It’s an edge case, not typical of the gradual rises we’ve seen in the UK. (Search for Journal of Public Economics minimum wage spillover effects.) - "Fed evidence says wages drive housing inflation." Even the Fed says the main housing inflation drivers are interest rates, supply limits, and rent pressures, not wage growth. (Search for Federal Reserve housing inflation report 2023.) - "National Alliance to End Homelessness links wage rises to homelessness." No, it doesn’t. Their reports say homelessness tracks rising rents and lack of affordable housing, not pay increases. (Search for National Alliance to End Homelessness housing affordability 2024.) - "35,000 builder vacancies prove we can’t build social housing." Yes, there’s a skills shortage, but that’s an argument for better training, apprenticeships, and planning reform, not for abandoning construction. (Search for BRG Building Solutions construction skills shortage 2025.) - "LSE report says rent control fails." The LSE’s own review says the evidence is mixed: crude rent freezes can backfire, but moderate, inflation-linked rent stabilisation can protect tenants without collapsing the market. (Search for LSE rent control international evidence report.) - "German and US studies show rent control causes gentrification." That refers mostly to Berlin’s extreme "rent cap," which even Germany’s economists criticised for poor design. Rent stabilisation across most of Germany still works fine. (Search for Real Estate Economics Germany rent control study or AEA Germany rent control gentrification.) --- Bottom line: These sources don’t refute anything. They’re cherry-picked caveats and edge cases dressed up as universal truths. The wider body of research - from the Low Pay Commission, ONS, IFS, and IMF - shows that moderate minimum-wage rises barely touch inflation, employment stays stable, and rent controls work when designed sensibly. Reading the studies matters more than just pasting them. And yes, I actually went through all of these and looked – though having the AI pull up the links saved me a lot of time. | |||
" These sources don’t refute anything. They’re cherry-picked caveats and edge cases dressed up as universal truths. " Aha! | |||
" These sources don’t refute anything. They’re cherry-picked caveats and edge cases dressed up as universal truths. Aha!" Eureka? | |||
" Aha! Eureka? " Anyone going there today? !!! | |||
" - "National Alliance to End Homelessness links wage rises to homelessness." No, it doesn’t. Their reports say homelessness tracks rising rents and lack of affordable housing, not pay increases. - "LSE report says rent control fails." The wider body of research - from the Low Pay Commission, ONS, IFS, and IMF - shows that moderate minimum-wage rises barely touch inflation, employment stays stable, and rent controls work when designed sensibly. Reading the studies matters more than just pasting them." We are in a world of trouble with rental housing, most if not all of the problems caused by the state. Tory section 24 tax rises means HRT landlords pay higher rate tax but get a basic rate tax allowance, not deduction, on business mortgage interest. This means for many they are loss making. To circumvent this many portfolio landlords have incorporated. But that is not an option for the 97% of landlords who own between 1 and 3 properties. For anyone entering the landlord market, the tories put a 3% second home stamp duty premium, which Reeves recently increased to 5%. With the added budget threat of annual property taxes, or national insurance applied to rental income. These and other polices have led to Shelter recently confirming that landlords exiting the market is the largest cause of homelessness. As for social housing, starts are in decline. Rayners 300,000 rental homes not being built. Social housing completions, after right to buy and demolitions, are negative. The jobbing builder who buys a ‘doer upper’ now has to pay an 5% stamp duty and pays double rate council tax as the property is a second home. First time buyers are not equipped to buy those properties up as they were 30 years ago when the likes of Halifax would lend you a bit extra to improve the property. The likes of Allsop auctions are full of vacant semi derelict properties - nothing from government except obstacles to get them transferred to private buyers and no grants to improve them. Then add the renter reform act with some big sticks on landlords, which is contributing to more exiting. In the background the likes of Lloyds and black rock buying up tens of thousands of private rental homes, at market rent. And the government rehousing asylum seekers from hotels, at any cost, via Clearsprings, Serco and Mears group, offering above market rents to lure in private landlords. | |||
"We are in a world of trouble with rental housing, most if not all of the problems caused by the state. Tory section 24 tax rises means HRT landlords pay higher rate tax but get a basic rate tax allowance, not deduction, on business mortgage interest. This means for many they are loss making. To circumvent this many portfolio landlords have incorporated. But that is not an option for the 97% of landlords who own between 1 and 3 properties. For anyone entering the landlord market, the tories put a 3% second home stamp duty premium, which Reeves recently increased to 5%. With the added budget threat of annual property taxes, or national insurance applied to rental income. These and other polices have led to Shelter recently confirming that landlords exiting the market is the largest cause of homelessness. As for social housing, starts are in decline. Rayners 300,000 rental homes not being built. Social housing completions, after right to buy and demolitions, are negative. The jobbing builder who buys a ‘doer upper’ now has to pay an 5% stamp duty and pays double rate council tax as the property is a second home. First time buyers are not equipped to buy those properties up as they were 30 years ago when the likes of Halifax would lend you a bit extra to improve the property. The likes of Allsop auctions are full of vacant semi derelict properties - nothing from government except obstacles to get them transferred to private buyers and no grants to improve them. Then add the renter reform act with some big sticks on landlords, which is contributing to more exiting. In the background the likes of Lloyds and black rock buying up tens of thousands of private rental homes, at market rent. And the government rehousing asylum seekers from hotels, at any cost, via Clearsprings, Serco and Mears group, offering above market rents to lure in private landlords. " I think we actually agree on most of this. Thatcher’s sell-off gutted social housing, and every government since has made it harder to rebuild what was lost. The result is exactly what you describe – a market where both tenants and small landlords are squeezed from opposite sides. Section 24 and the stamp duty hikes probably did drive a lot of smaller landlords out, but that’s partly because the system before it rewarded speculation over stability. It’s wild that property has become one of the only “investments” where profit can come entirely from scarcity. The Shelter data you mentioned makes the same point from another angle – that the main drivers of homelessness are rising rents and the lack of genuinely affordable homes. The exodus of small landlords is a symptom of that same imbalance, not the cause of it. I completely agree that we need to get those derelict homes and stalled builds back into use. Policy just keeps tripping itself up with short-term fixes and conflicting incentives. If we focused on long-term stability – steady social housing construction, incentives for fair private renting, and mortgage access for long-term renters – the pressure would ease on every side. The system’s broken, yes, but it’s fixable if we stop treating housing as an asset class and start treating it as infrastructure again. | |||
| |||
"Be interesting to see what shite comes out of the revolting piece of shits mouth, fucking useless cunt " Take it you're not a fan of her. | |||
"She just oozes weakness and uncertainty. At least she's not anyone's boss here, could you imagine?" Both of those, the cause being her own ineptitude. She is neither an economist or financial expert. Labour have Dr Miatta Farnbulleh, PhD economic development, working at the treasury, Reeves couldn’t tie her shoe laces. As someone says above imagine being managed by someone less competent and less qualified. | |||
| |||
"Just been reading the new labour deputy leader has said that the government should not break it's manifesto commitment on raising tax. So either this is a giant bluff to divert attention from lots of other tax increases / service cuts or the deputy and the chancellor are on a collision course " If you like that, you’re going to love this. Lucy Powell – the new Labour deputy leader – has made it clear she supports trans rights. In her own words: “I’m a woman, I’m a feminist, and I see absolutely no contradiction in being a woman and also supporting the trans community to feel included and to have their rights as well.” That’s not coded language or hedging – that’s an unambiguous statement that trans people deserve the same rights, dignity, and inclusion as women. In today’s political climate, that’s about as close as it gets to saying: “We’re not backing down on equality.” Feel free to reinterpret her words or argue about them. | |||
"Just been reading the new labour deputy leader has said that the government should not break it's manifesto commitment on raising tax. So either this is a giant bluff to divert attention from lots of other tax increases / service cuts or the deputy and the chancellor are on a collision course If you like that, you’re going to love this. Lucy Powell – the new Labour deputy leader – has made it clear she supports trans rights. In her own words: “I’m a woman, I’m a feminist, and I see absolutely no contradiction in being a woman and also supporting the trans community to feel included and to have their rights as well.” That’s not coded language or hedging – that’s an unambiguous statement that trans people deserve the same rights, dignity, and inclusion as women. In today’s political climate, that’s about as close as it gets to saying: “We’re not backing down on equality.” Feel free to reinterpret her words or argue about them." You may have me mixed with someone else. Why would I comment on or reinterpret her words on what she said about trans issues when the subject is the pre budget speech. I know threads deviate but that's a bit much in my opinion | |||
"Just been reading the new labour deputy leader has said that the government should not break it's manifesto commitment on raising tax. So either this is a giant bluff to divert attention from lots of other tax increases / service cuts or the deputy and the chancellor are on a collision course If you like that, you’re going to love this. Lucy Powell – the new Labour deputy leader – has made it clear she supports trans rights. In her own words: “I’m a woman, I’m a feminist, and I see absolutely no contradiction in being a woman and also supporting the trans community to feel included and to have their rights as well.” That’s not coded language or hedging – that’s an unambiguous statement that trans people deserve the same rights, dignity, and inclusion as women. In today’s political climate, that’s about as close as it gets to saying: “We’re not backing down on equality.” Feel free to reinterpret her words or argue about them. You may have me mixed with someone else. Why would I comment on or reinterpret her words on what she said about trans issues when the subject is the pre budget speech. I know threads deviate but that's a bit much in my opinion " Sorry sweetie — it’s been a long day of people shifting goalposts, creating false dichotomies, and tossing out ad hominems, so I defaulted to a negative stance. I wasn’t trying to derail your post or mix you up with anyone else. | |||
| |||
"So many rumours floating around on how they would try to fill the newly found blackhole. I am guessing the one that will most probably be true is the plan to reduce 2% in NI and increase 2% income tax. It would be interesting to see how much more money the Employer NI increase really generated this year and how many jobs were lost because of that." I have seen the idea of raising income tax and reducing NI several times now. It's an interesting idea but does mean breaking the manifesto promise. As it involves reducing NI the amount raised is not that big. If they are going to break their manifesto promise surely they need to raise as much as possible to at least try and make it worth the inevitable political damage. Also as previously mentioned it puts the chancellor in direct conflict with the deputy leader. All will become clear soon I guess | |||
"Lucy Powell – the new Labour deputy leader – has made it clear she supports trans rights. In her own words: “I’m a woman, I’m a feminist, and I see absolutely no contradiction in being a woman and also supporting the trans community to feel included and to have their rights as well.” That’s not coded language or hedging – that’s an unambiguous statement that trans people deserve the same rights, dignity, and inclusion as women." No, it's a statement that she personally *feels* that trans people deserve the same rights, dignity, and inclusion as women. She's not making the claim that this is an unambiguous truth. I notice that she also isn't making the claim that the Labour party join her in that belief. | |||
"So many rumours floating around on how they would try to fill the newly found blackhole. I am guessing the one that will most probably be true is the plan to reduce 2% in NI and increase 2% income tax. It would be interesting to see how much more money the Employer NI increase really generated this year and how many jobs were lost because of that. I have seen the idea of raising income tax and reducing NI several times now. It's an interesting idea but does mean breaking the manifesto promise. As it involves reducing NI the amount raised is not that big. If they are going to break their manifesto promise surely they need to raise as much as possible to at least try and make it worth the inevitable political damage. Also as previously mentioned it puts the chancellor in direct conflict with the deputy leader. All will become clear soon I guess " The theory is that the manifesto promised was not to increase tax on "working people". Reducing NI by 2% and increasing income tax by the same amount would mean the working people will still pay the same tax but pensioners, landlords and self-employed will pay more. So they can technically argue that they are still keeping up their promise | |||
| |||
"The theory is that the manifesto promised was not to increase tax on "working people". Reducing NI by 2% and increasing income tax by the same amount would mean the working people will still pay the same tax but pensioners, landlords and self-employed will pay more. So they can technically argue that they are still keeping up their promise" That will allow all the news media to calculate the cross-over point where someone starts to pay more, and then say that Labour considers anyone earning more than that to be "not a worker". That number is going to be quite low, and it'll alienate a whole bunch of people. | |||
"2p on standard rate income tax is a 10% increase And Bailey said inflation has peaked " | |||
"So many rumours floating around on how they would try to fill the newly found blackhole. I am guessing the one that will most probably be true is the plan to reduce 2% in NI and increase 2% income tax. It would be interesting to see how much more money the Employer NI increase really generated this year and how many jobs were lost because of that. I have seen the idea of raising income tax and reducing NI several times now. It's an interesting idea but does mean breaking the manifesto promise. As it involves reducing NI the amount raised is not that big. If they are going to break their manifesto promise surely they need to raise as much as possible to at least try and make it worth the inevitable political damage. Also as previously mentioned it puts the chancellor in direct conflict with the deputy leader. All will become clear soon I guess The theory is that the manifesto promised was not to increase tax on "working people". Reducing NI by 2% and increasing income tax by the same amount would mean the working people will still pay the same tax but pensioners, landlords and self-employed will pay more. So they can technically argue that they are still keeping up their promise "If they go down this road I suspect that may well be the defence they use. However I would expect other parties to point out that the promise was not to raise any of the big 3 taxes. It did not say it was a balance or was calculated on overall tax paid. They were very clear. So clear it means raising any of these taxes will result in big political damage | |||
" The theory is that the manifesto promised was not to increase tax on "working people". Reducing NI by 2% and increasing income tax by the same amount would mean the working people will still pay the same tax but pensioners, landlords and self-employed will pay more. So they can technically argue that they are still keeping up their promise
If they go down this road I suspect that may well be the defence they use. However I would expect other parties to point out that the promise was not to raise any of the big 3 taxes. It did not say it was a balance or was calculated on overall tax paid. They were very clear. So clear it means raising any of these taxes will result in big political damage "I don't remember the exact wording of their promise. But if they said they won't raise the big three, then they will be in trouble if they did this. Not to mention the fact that this affects pensioners again after all the bad PR that happened over the winter allowance. | |||
" So clear it means raising any of these taxes will result in big political damage " They are gonners now; small boat arrivals, housing, tax, pensioners, farmers, disabled, free clothes, Rayner, Mandelson, corruption and homeless ministers. On tax, the new party deputy says they should keep to their manifesto. That’s a direct challenge to Reeves. | |||
" So clear it means raising any of these taxes will result in big political damage They are gonners now; small boat arrivals, housing, tax, pensioners, farmers, disabled, free clothes, Rayner, Mandelson, corruption and homeless ministers. On tax, the new party deputy says they should keep to their manifesto. That’s a direct challenge to Reeves. " And the hilarious part is... the people most likely to turn on Labour over this will probably end up choosing something far worse. Because let’s be honest — if the Tories or Reform get back in, we’ll all pay the price for their idea of “tough decisions.” | |||
" So clear it means raising any of these taxes will result in big political damage They are gonners now; small boat arrivals, housing, tax, pensioners, farmers, disabled, free clothes, Rayner, Mandelson, corruption and homeless ministers. On tax, the new party deputy says they should keep to their manifesto. That’s a direct challenge to Reeves. " Maybe political parties should be held more accountable for breaking manifesto pledges??? | |||
" So clear it means raising any of these taxes will result in big political damage They are gonners now; small boat arrivals, housing, tax, pensioners, farmers, disabled, free clothes, Rayner, Mandelson, corruption and homeless ministers. On tax, the new party deputy says they should keep to their manifesto. That’s a direct challenge to Reeves. Maybe political parties should be held more accountable for breaking manifesto pledges???" Exactly. And I’d go further – accountability shouldn’t stop at manifesto pledges. Politicians should be answerable for any measurable act of misconduct, misinformation, or negligence that directly harms the public interest. If we treated false claims, data manipulation, and conflicts of interest with the same seriousness we treat financial fraud, you’d see a lot less of both. Elected office should be a position of stewardship, not immunity. | |||
| |||
" So clear it means raising any of these taxes will result in big political damage They are gonners now; small boat arrivals, housing, tax, pensioners, farmers, disabled, free clothes, Rayner, Mandelson, corruption and homeless ministers. On tax, the new party deputy says they should keep to their manifesto. That’s a direct challenge to Reeves. Maybe political parties should be held more accountable for breaking manifesto pledges??? Exactly. And I’d go further – accountability shouldn’t stop at manifesto pledges. Politicians should be answerable for any measurable act of misconduct, misinformation, or negligence that directly harms the public interest. If we treated false claims, data manipulation, and conflicts of interest with the same seriousness we treat financial fraud, you’d see a lot less of both. Elected office should be a position of stewardship, not immunity." Manifesto pledges cannot and should not override global economic changes. There is no magic money tree | |||
"Rachel Reeves has been told that cutting funding for home insulation at the budget would risk the UK’s climate goals and hurt low-income households in a joint intervention by energy firms, fuel poverty charities and environmental groups Starmer said at COP30 that the uk was ‘all in ‘ and ‘stepping up’ to tackle climate change. " The amount of total shite being reported that Reeves has been "warned" about is unbelievable. Click bait shite. Taxes must and will rise. Benefits must and will be reduced Public services must and will be cut. The countries fuxked and nobody especially fartage has a magic wand | |||
" ... There is no magic money tree " There have been magic money trees for as long as I can remember! | |||
" ... There is no magic money tree There have been magic money trees for as long as I can remember!" Some people still believe in them, others think rich people are money trees | |||
| |||
| |||
"Rachel Reeves has been told that cutting funding for home insulation at the budget would risk the UK’s climate goals and hurt low-income households in a joint intervention by energy firms, fuel poverty charities and environmental groups Starmer said at COP30 that the uk was ‘all in ‘ and ‘stepping up’ to tackle climate change. The amount of total shite being reported that Reeves has been "warned" about is unbelievable. Click bait shite. Taxes must and will rise. Benefits must and will be reduced Public services must and will be cut. The countries fuxked and nobody especially fartage has a magic wand" How about concentrating on the people who pay taxes in the UK instead of screwing them over time after time they fuck up and we pay for it, If they stop wasting money like around £600 million annually for housing foreign national offenders in prisons they wouldn't have to raising taxes, Asylum hotels costing between £3-5 a year, billions on foreign aid and projects around the world, resettling Afghans costing over £500 million, £40.5 billion on HS2, Billions on net zero goals, and that's not even mentioning billions spent continually interfering in other countries around the world, The governments keep changing but we get the same shitty service | |||
