Westminster Politics 2024-2029

11101 said:
Those who advocate welfare cuts don't think it should be easy to live on it.

Disability related benefits is the exception but that's also now been hijacked.
Click to expand...
I know. That's why it would be a breath of fresh air to see them try to live on such. Like the ones who most advocate for war having to be on the frontlines.

This is a class-war opinion. Most workers (a plurality, minimally) will need such things at some stage. And re disability, anyone might end up needing those payments at any stage.

Consider the vast lay-offs (transitional stage) which AI may (will imo) bring.. How many are going to need these payments even if briefly in years to come.
 
neverdie said:
I know. That's why it would be a breath of fresh air to see them try to live on such. Like the ones who most advocate for war having to be on the frontlines.

This is a class-war opinion. Most workers (a plurality, minimally) will need such things at some stage. And re disability, anyone might end up needing those payments at any stage.

Consider the vast lay-offs (transitional stage) which AI may (will imo) bring.. How many are going to need these payments even if briefly in years to come.
Click to expand...
You’ve written a few times now about people who think we should go to war having to go to the front lines.
I replied once I think but here it is again.
If you join the army or other armed services it might be your job to go to war.
It is what you train for (amongst other things).
My grandfathers and my dad all served and went to war. It was their job. Doesn’t make it any less brave but the point of an army is that you should use it if you have to.
I get it’s easy for armchair warriors to say this and that but your argument is completely baseless .
 
The Purley King said:
I get it’s easy for armchair warriors to say this and that but your argument is completely baseless .
Click to expand...
No, my argument isn't against people in the army but armchair warriors called politicians.

It's not baseless because none of them will do it. There's but a few who will. That goes for weapons contractors, too.

If a soldier on the frontlines is advocating for war I think they'd be wrong but they wouldn't be hypocrites because most soldiers, as aside, despise war.
 
neverdie said:
No, my argument isn't against people in the army but armchair warriors called politicians.

It's not baseless because none of them will do it. There's but a few who will. That goes for weapons contractors, too.

If a soldier on the frontlines is advocating for war I think they'd be wrong but they wouldn't be hypocrites because most soldiers, as aside, despise war.
Click to expand...
Have a day off will you?
It’s not politicians jobs to go to war.
They are “supposed” to make the right decisions for us but however fecking inept they are I doubt they send British troops into a dodgy situation after a five minute chat over a cup of coffee.
 
The Purley King said:
I doubt they send British troops into a dodgy situation after a five minute chat over a cup of coffee.
Click to expand...
An allegation in an MI6 report about Iraq’s supposed chemical weapons capability before the 2003 war to remove Saddam Hussein appeared to have been lifted from a Hollywood film, according to the Chilcot report.

A section of the inquiry’s findings about the build-up to the conflict in the autumn of 2002 found that MI6, formally known as the Secret Intelligence Service or SIS, feared a source might have taken inspiration from The Rock, a 1996 thriller starring Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage

The report details how MI6 sent information to “a small number of very senior readers”, including Tony Blair and the then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, on 11 and 23 September 2002.

Based on what MI6 called “a new source on trial with direct access”, this alleged that Saddam’s government had accelerated the production of chemical and biological agents, and in particular that chemical agents might be carried in glass containers.

After some discussion on the reliability of the new source, in early October MI6 was questioned directly about this idea. The report says: “It was pointed out that glass containers were not typically used in chemical munitions; and that a popular movie [The Rock] has inaccurately depicted nerve agents being carried in glass beads or spheres.”

MI6 accepted this possible flaw to the intelligence, the report adds: “The questions about the use of glass containers for chemical agents and the similarity of the description to those portrayed in The Rock had been recognised by SIS. There were some precedents for the use of glass containers but the points would be pursued when further material became available.”

Chilcot’s team describe further doubts about the anonymous source’s reliability, noting that Sir Richard Dearlove, the then MI6 chief, was “following progress of the case”.

The report adds: “By 6 December, questions were being asked within SIS about whether there was any further reporting. It was suggested that that meant ‘a health warning’ on material from SIS’s source. Following further contacts, doubts were expressed on 9 December within SIS about the reliability of the source and whether he had ‘made up all or part of the account of his dealings’ with the sub-source.

Nonetheless, in December Straw asked Dearlove’s team about the possibility of this mystery source “producing silver bullet intelligence” to guide UN inspectors to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The response came that the sub-source did exist, but the main source “may not have written up the intelligence in the manner which was being claimed for him”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...i6-sources-iraqi-weapons-claim-chilcot-report
Click to expand...
.
 
Smores said:
It's bollocks anyway as most funds claiming to be ESG complaint or PAB complaint are anything but these days and it's still quite a niche as it is. There's been efforts around more accurately labelling them but many aren't bothering.

The audience of that letter is the voters not fund managers. They know who to speak to if they were actually trying to affect change.
Click to expand...
Loads of different UK and EU changes to ESG disclosure on funds seems to have confused matters if anything. The right wing pressure is starting though.

Lead story on the Telegraph but accidentally on purpose omitting that only a small percentage of investments goes into ESG-related funds and you can get a FTSE tracker of regular UK equity fund and have all the defence holdings you want.

Top pension funds refuse to back defence industry​

Some of Britain’s biggest pension firms have been accused of blocking Britain’s plans to boost defence in the wake of the Ukraine war.

Aviva, Royal London and the National Employment Savings Trust (Nest) are among a group of pension giants that restrict or block investment in the defence industry on “ethical” grounds.
Click to expand...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/03/06/top-pension-funds-refuse-to-back-defence-industry/

The readers are biting though.

Thompson A French38 min ago
If a UK pension funds bans investment in UK defence it should lose it's licence.
Click to expand...
John johnofba6 min ago
Defending the uk is unethical?
Click to expand...
Les Miles27 min ago
So the Woke Lefties have even infiltrated the pension industry? Their only obligation should be to their members not political causes.
Click to expand...
Edward Coulson47 min ago
Ask local councils to buy defence stock for their gold plated public sector pension Ponzi schemes, but with no tax payer bale if they don’t preform.
Click to expand...
Stuart Harris1 hr ago
Last year I instructed my SIPP managers to invest in defence-related funds.
Click to expand...
 
stuart harris is a hero. never before has a country seen such brave sacrifice.
 
The Purley King said:
Have a day off will you?
It’s not politicians jobs to go to war.
They are “supposed” to make the right decisions for us but however fecking inept they are I doubt they send British troops into a dodgy situation after a five minute chat over a cup of coffee.
Click to expand...

Cameron and François Hollande essentially did in Libya tbf. We have had many politicians who enjoy playing toy soldiers far too much and are happy to send troops to far flung places to kill and die, where the politicians are insulated from the consequences to a large degree. I don't think Russia, Ukraine etc. is at all the same situation though, it's essentially a defensive war right on Europe's doorstep so shouldn't be equated with most of our recent wars.

I think the take that war is horrific and should be avoided at all costs isn't a bad one at all, but in this case if one is using it to allow war criminals a free pass to ride through other sovereign countries and destroy democracies around the world, perhaps a rethink of one's real values are in order.

For one thing, did a war in Iraq make climate change worse? Probably. Would letting Russia destroy Ukraine and dictate policy to Europe's governments make it worse? Absolutely. So if you want to avoid one it would seem logical you would want to avoid the other if you give even a smidgeon of a shit about what's right.
 

Rachel Reeves changed the government’s position on non-doms weeks after one of the world’s most powerful financiers asked her personally not to increase the tax burden on the super rich.

Documents released to openDemocracy under the Freedom of Information Act reveal Stephen Schwarzman, the CEO of leading asset manager Blackstone, raised “concerns” with Reeves about her plans to reform the tax treatment of non-domiciled individuals at a meeting in Downing Street in December.

The chancellor had previously used the autumn Budget in late October to re-commit to Labour’s manifesto promise to abolish the non-dom tax regime, which allows wealthy individuals who live in the UK to be domiciled elsewhere for tax purposes.

But around a month after meeting with Schwarzman, Reeves watered down this commitment.
Click to expand...

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/da...ackstone-stephen-schwarzman-lobbying-meeting/
 
The Purley King said:
Have a day off will you?
It’s not politicians jobs to go to war.
They are “supposed” to make the right decisions for us but however fecking inept they are I doubt they send British troops into a dodgy situation after a five minute chat over a cup of coffee.
Click to expand...
You're basically saying something contradictory at the start and more or less completely agreeing with me after that. Don't see the reason to continue.

I.e., politicians are supposed to do the right thing. We agree. They don't is the problem.
 
Last edited:
Jippy said:
Loads of different UK and EU changes to ESG disclosure on funds seems to have confused matters if anything. The right wing pressure is starting though.

Lead story on the Telegraph but accidentally on purpose omitting that only a small percentage of investments goes into ESG-related funds and you can get a FTSE tracker of regular UK equity fund and have all the defence holdings you want.

Top pension funds refuse to back defence industry​


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/03/06/top-pension-funds-refuse-to-back-defence-industry/

The readers are biting though.
Click to expand...

That's just typical telegraph these days, I'm convinced half of their content is written by an AI they've trained on the worse daily mail headlines.

At least once a day they pop up in my news feed claiming Labour and/or green initiatives are going to bankrupt the country. I'm not sure how many times they can publish the same article about paying to turn off wind farms either.

I'm also a little perplexed how they think a small minority of funds investing a small percentage of their portfolio in defence companies is going to assist Ukraine. If they're planning a share listing they'll have no shortage of takers as it is but I doubt they're short on capital to expand.

If only the government had a direct way they could raise money for an issue.
 
Jippy said:
Loads of different UK and EU changes to ESG disclosure on funds seems to have confused matters if anything. The right wing pressure is starting though.

Lead story on the Telegraph but accidentally on purpose omitting that only a small percentage of investments goes into ESG-related funds and you can get a FTSE tracker of regular UK equity fund and have all the defence holdings you want.

Top pension funds refuse to back defence industry​


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/03/06/top-pension-funds-refuse-to-back-defence-industry/

The readers are biting though.
Click to expand...
Those commenters are fecking morons. The worst of society.
 
Reeves is very stupid

GlcybV0W0AADtYE


 
Pexbo said:
Ah yes the same Rachel Reeves at the heart of an expenses scandal at HSBC for using expenses to go on lavish lunches with her coworkers and friends.
Click to expand...
It’s cool that a football forum has a higher standard of journalism than the UK press.
 
Sweet Square said:
It’s cool that a football forum has a higher standard of journalism than the UK press.
Click to expand...
The UK press, who have accepted as a universal truth that a cheese sandwich is a £5 expenditure, but that buying a block of cheddar and loaf of bread incurrs zero costs, thus becoming a '£5 hack'.

Absolute geniuses.
 
The third point is a real nasty one.



Carol Vickers, who lives in Horsforth near Leeds and has multiple disabilities, told me she has a full time job, a part time job and runs a company, but needs PIP to help her cope with the cost of her disability. She has previously spoken to me about the difficulty in applying for PIP and then appealing it. Today she said that losing the benefit could make her less likely to be able to stay in work. She said it felt as if government's always targeted disabled people, most of whom wanted to work but for whom getting and keeping a job can be difficult. Louise Murphy, Senior Economist at the Resolution Foundation, said: "This package combines sensible reforms to incentivise and support people with poor health back towards work, with hugely controversial cuts to non-work-related disability benefits.

"Freezing PIP next year will result in a real-terms income loss for around four million people, 70 per cent of whom are in low-to-middle income households. The scale of eligibility restrictions required to save £5 billion will change who the Government considers to be disabled. It must tread very carefully on this."
Click to expand...
.
 
Last edited:
Ayush_reddevil said:


Seems like it's all kicking off in reform party
Click to expand...

Which is weird because usually when you put together the absolute shower of shite, bat shit crazy, dregs of society grifters into one organisation you get stability.
 
I find the whole welfare system to be a really sensitive topic. Of course you want it to be there to help the people who need it but it does lead to some people misusing it. Is there any research into how big that number actually is?
 
3.7% (£9.7 billion) of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud and error.

0.4% (£1.1 billion) of total benefit expenditure was underpaid due to fraud and error

the net loss to the Department for Work and Pensions, after accounting for recoveries, was 3.2% (£8.6 billion) of total benefit expenditure

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...-system-financial-year-2023-to-2024-estimates

Also from the UK Government:

the UK tax gap in 2022 to 2023 is estimated to be 4.8% of total theoretical tax liabilities, or £39.8 billion in absolute terms, which means HMRC collected 95.2% of all tax due.

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...p&text=the UK tax gap in,95.2% of all tax due
 
Frosty said:
3.7% (£9.7 billion) of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud and error.

0.4% (£1.1 billion) of total benefit expenditure was underpaid due to fraud and error

the net loss to the Department for Work and Pensions, after accounting for recoveries, was 3.2% (£8.6 billion) of total benefit expenditure

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...-system-financial-year-2023-to-2024-estimates

Also from the UK Government:

the UK tax gap in 2022 to 2023 is estimated to be 4.8% of total theoretical tax liabilities, or £39.8 billion in absolute terms, which means HMRC collected 95.2% of all tax due.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary#:~:text=Headline tax gap estimates,-Headline tax gap&text=the UK tax gap in,95.2% of all tax due
Click to expand...

What there isn't is an estimate of the wastage with schemes like PIPs which are rightly a focus of the benefits cuts. You can get free theme park tickets for anxiety, or go to a completely unaccredited therapist for any reason you choose with no questions asked. And to qualify for all of this the assessment amounts to a questionnaire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.