Report me to HR thenI feel attacked.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I am proud member of the 1/5
decent sources in government are saying a very early election. much earlier than expected. brought to you by the Truss/@n@l rumourer.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
An early election was always inevitable. Leaving it to run until they legally have to call an election is weak. This puts them in control of the date and they will no doubt have a big campaign ready with lots of dirt and misinformation lined up for their client journalists to propagate.
"Sir Keir Starmer is a Sir. He thinks he's better than you because you don't have a Sir. Do you really want a posh git telling you what to do? Vote for Rishi Sunak, a man who fills his own petrol tank, and stand up to the elitists. God Save the King. Vote Tory."
Plus, the Labour Party have never had a brown leader or a woman, even though they are woke, hypocrites
How does an early election make sense when you consider they just brought in Cameron? Why would he come back for a very short stint when it looks like they'll get hammered in the elections?
Things can only get worse, I bet.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...082789f67453dd#block-655f56008f082789f67453dd
Starmer calls latest net migration figures 'shockingly high'
Keir Starmer has described today’s net migration figures, showing it at 745,000 in the year to December 2022 (a figure that has been revised upwards) and 672,000 in the year to June 2023, as “shockingly high”. Echoing language used by Yvette Cooper (see 1.07pm), Starmer said:
Asylum seekers, eh?
UK voted for Brexit, told the Europeans they weren't welcome. Wanted a system so that people from all over the world could come.
They're coming.
Make Brexit work, Starmer? Haha. Funny.
Starmer calls latest net migration figures 'shockingly high'
Keir Starmer has described today’s net migration figures, showing it at 745,000 in the year to December 2022 (a figure that has been revised upwards) and 672,000 in the year to June 2023, as “shockingly high”. Echoing language used by Yvette Cooper (see 1.07pm), Starmer said:
Starmer still appealing to the knuckle-draggers.
Asylum seekers, eh?
UK voted for Brexit, told the Europeans they weren't welcome. Wanted a system so that people from all over the world could come.
They're coming.
Make Brexit work, Starmer? Haha. Funny.
He’s there to help them win the election. They want a Cameron bounce with traditional Tory voters.
"David Cameron is a nice man. Think back on how nice he was. Don't Google it, just remember all of the nice things he did. There you go. Nice... Such a nice man. And he clearly loves animals, even ones you'd find on a farm. Vote Tory."
Controlling the narrative. They could wait until 2025 but could be shafted by events outside their control.
But why? Why not just stay and milk every last penny? There's certainly no way they can avoid the wipeout.
They were always going to try and win it based on beating inflation and culture wars. Fact is this might be as good as it gets for them.
Early easter election was the expectation wasn't it? Can't see it being much sooner as it takes a couple of month.
Plus, they need all the OAPs they can get, not so easy in the winter
Those that are remaining believe they can win.
This is still way, way wrong. 6.3 million were entitled to the disability cost of living payment ( a one off payment of £150). This figure includes the elderly and children. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies 2.2 million working age people were in receipt of disability benefits as of 2020/21. This equates to 6% of the workforce. (PDF, Page 3):
IFS said:
My guess is that they think that things are going to be significantly worse in six to twelve months time?
Inflation as a whole is down which has been spun as one of their accomplishments, regardless of the fine print around that.
Also the Rwanda thing, at the moment they're failing but I would imagine they see using the recent judgement as a call to arms being a vote winner for them, vote for us an we'll feck human rights in the arse sort of thing.
And they're back to vocally beating on the poor, which goes down well with old people I guess.
How much they play in the wider electorate I don't know. But immigration certainly seems like it's a big concern for a lot of people (rightly or wrongly).
So they've finally caught up with the rest of us.
A winter election will be brutal for the tories. I mean, any election would be brutal for them now, but a winter election now would be even more brutal.
If Rwanda is going to be sold as an election winner why did they sack the nasty bitch that was overseeing it?
Think after sacking Suella, internally there'll be big enough voices not backing him. Right of the party probably threaten votes of no confidence which I don't think anyone believes will get anywhere but you still probably don't want that smoke so close to an election, so calling an election first and giving yourself a fighting chance might be best?
All quite hypothetical, more likely just damage limitation.
Actually, it's fair to say nobody backs Rishi at the moment. The far right wing of the group thinks he's too soft, and the moderate right wing of the party thinks it's ridiculous he wants to bypass human rights laws.
He likes coke too
It's a nuclear button to hold off the right, yes
He became a Lord? I have no idea what that entitles him to, but I’m sure it’s worth a couples months of work.
I’d seen April time touted to give people chance to feel the 2% NI relief in their pocket. I’m not sure when BoE plan to resume interest rate hikes, assuming they will - that might make them want to do it a bit earlier if they’re going to bother calling one.
I'm not saying I agree with it. I just think they are enjoying its uses for their continued culture wars and Europe bashing in getting their base fired up. It's all they really have left to fight on.
Cruella being sacked wasn't because of Rwanda was it? And after the Supreme Court decision Sunak came out guns blazing. They want to play on the lefty lawyer shit.
It's such a small amount I'd doubt many will feel anything.
For what exactly?
Appreciate the notion, don't often see generosity like that these days.
I was quoting the below (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9602/), although you are correct the terminology states "a disability benefit", rather than specifically disability living allowance.
The initial point was that those deemed economically inactive and therefore not counted within the governments unemployment figures have risen (and weren't a good measure to start with for the reasons mentioned); making the sub 5% UK official unemployment figure quite misleading.
"The number of people entitled to receive a disability benefit in Great Britain has risen over time, from 3.9 million in May 2002 to 6.3 million in February 2023, and is expected to rise further.
The proportion of the population claiming a disability benefit .. the national average (9.6%)."
So Robert Jenrick wants to raise the min wage for visas to 35k and stop dependents coming with people in healthcare, as well as scrapping the shortages list.
Anyone with half a brain cell could tell you that would utterly cripple health and social care in this country. And these are diluted proposals compared to what those further on the tory right want.
But no, as a few posters keep saying, we have to listen and engage with those who have serious concerns about immigration otherwise its our fault that they end up with the far right.
Anyone with half a brain cell could tell you that would utterly cripple health and social care in this country. And these are diluted proposals compared to what those further on the tory right want.
But no, as a few posters keep saying, we have to listen and engage with those who have serious concerns about immigration otherwise its our fault that they end up with the far right.
Jenrick is so dismally thick, he'll probably be the next leader.
Meanwhile, back in the sleazy world of the pig-fecker...
Fresh China questions for Cameron as video shows him praising port project
Former PM seen quoting from Chinese-funded study in support of Sri Lankan development
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...uestions-for-david-cameron-video-port-project
Meanwhile, back in the sleazy world of the pig-fecker...
Fresh China questions for Cameron as video shows him praising port project
Former PM seen quoting from Chinese-funded study in support of Sri Lankan development
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...uestions-for-david-cameron-video-port-project
5% rise in utility bills over winter will offset 2% off NI for most people I expect. For the median UK salary of £38,000 the NI changes will save about £380 a year (~£32 a month). Price cap change is about £100 per year for the average household, a lot of which takes effect over the winter months. So I guess if you were a 2 salary household you'd notice perhaps a ~£45 rise in disposable income between you over the winter months. Meanwhile food and petrol are probably still inflating too...
Last edited:
The bolded may be true, and that is reflected in the quote I posted from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The fact remains that this has little to do with the 6.3 million figure you keep citing. That 6.3 million includes anyone "entitled to receive a disability benefit in Great Britain." This includes kids eligible for the disability living allowance for children as well as pensioners who can claim attendance allowance or a mobility supplement etc.
The actual figure you want to be citing is that which applies to those payments available only to the working age population. This is the Personal Independence Payment and 2.8 million people were in receipt of it as of October last year. This is probably a slight underestimate of all working age claimants (a small number of folk claim industrial injury disability payments, or a reduced earnings allowance for instance) but it is a far better reflection of reality than the figure of 6.3 million, which is why the IFS cite it.
2.8m still represents over 7% of the working age population, and reflects a pretty steep rise from the IFS figures of 2.1m in 2021.
It's good to see the government look to reduce people's benefits and force people into work with the looming threat of AI taking loads of people jobs and the need for universal basic income becoming an ever more pressing issue.
No, that is what happened last time with the Industrial Training Boards( ITBs) which were supposed to encourage employers to train staff in certain areas within their industry. However whilst it worked for a time, it eventually became in many industries a 'scam' in which the larger employers benefited by effectively getting the government (tax payer) to pay for their basic training needs and not the more advanced levels. As usual in these matters 'economies of scale' were used and the smaller employers lost out on scale. Although some ITB's did introduced 'Award Schemes', which were, in qualitative terms, offering a wider scope to individuals.
Whilst ITB's were not offering a 'job creation' scheme, as it was basically a training scheme concept, there were elements aimed at encouraging recruitment. The 'job creation' thing came in when Maggie Thatcher and Lord Young introduced the TECs and YTS appeared. This had some good features in particular for the young, school leavers, etc, because it introduced elements of off-the-job compulsory FE into training schemes, which equipped participants with qualifications which were inherently based around 'transferable skills sets' that could be taken into other jobs in other industries.
The down side was the payment to YTS apprentices, (although partly subsidised by the government) were set below the national industry apprentice rates agreed with the TUC, subsequently a number of TU's rejected YTS, and in particular because of Mrs 'T''s involvement. The schemes also were effectively initially only twelve months schemes , when full apprenticeships it many industries, were at least 3 -5 years ( this was before the move from 'time serving' to 'competence -based' assessments), there were some adjustments made when Mrs Thatcher proclaimed that "all 16 year old school leavers would either, go into full time employment, or into full time education, or on to a YTS programme".
Personally I thought a lot of TU's 'missed' a trick' on this one, yes it was the hated figure of Thatcher pushing this, but there were basic elements in YTS, never seen in youth provision before, or since, and had they been more positive responses from TU's (collectively) we might now not be suffering the severe skill shortages that we are now.
Because the weaknesses in YTS were never put right, nor the 'Luke-warm' interest from TU (and the Labour party) improved, the scheme eventually, like the ITB's, became a 'scam' for many unscrupulous employers
I hope Starmer will learn from the past, and in a new venture ensure everyone participates, no exceptions from employers or public in a new scheme that gives a legal backing to employment, training and remuneration.
A certain amount of compulsion will be necessary, maybe even some 'dragooning'.
Last edited: