New prime minister

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 13 of 61 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

Badger11 Beckenham 30 Sep 22 9.34am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I don't know is the answer, but any responsible politician will revise their stance in a crisis and declare it to be in the national interest. I mention Trump when it's relevant. Although his fingers reach many pies, they aren't in this one! Brexit is. Both in the way Parliament behaved in 2019 and the economic damage we have added to that which everyone else is fighting. Thinking about it, the way the SNP's ambitions could get sidelined might be a grand coalition. Too many unknowns yet. We need to get through the next weeks first Starmer has ruled out a coalition with the SNP so unless Labour change their policy in the union I don't see how they can do other. The SNP will demand Indyref2 as payment for an anti Tory coalition agreeing to this will seriously damage Labour if Scotland breaks away. By the way I have no problem with coalitions or electoral pacts as long as the parties are up front with their voters about this before any election and explain what it means. The Liu Dems betrayed their voters in 2010. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 30 Sep 22 9.34am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I don't know is the answer, but any responsible politician will revise their stance in a crisis and declare it to be in the national interest.

I mention Trump when it's relevant. Although his fingers reach many pies, they aren't in this one! Brexit is. Both in the way Parliament behaved in 2019 and the economic damage we have added to that which everyone else is fighting.

Thinking about it, the way the SNP's ambitions could get sidelined might be a grand coalition. Too many unknowns yet. We need to get through the next weeks first

Starmer has ruled out a coalition with the SNP so unless Labour change their policy in the union I don't see how they can do other. The SNP will demand Indyref2 as payment for an anti Tory coalition agreeing to this will seriously damage Labour if Scotland breaks away.

By the way I have no problem with coalitions or electoral pacts as long as the parties are up front with their voters about this before any election and explain what it means.

The Liu Dems betrayed their voters in 2010.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 30 Sep 22 10.50am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I doubt the "left wing media", who-ever they are, are read by those who make the markets or internationally. It's not whether you, or anyone else, will directly benefit from a tax cut, but what the whole package does to the economy. Paying £100 less in tax helps no-one if everything costs twice as much next year. It's the lack of realism and detail about the funding that's at fault. It's the idea that trickle-down economics, which has been proven not to work in the best of times, will work in the worst. It's the analysis of the many experts that the package will increase problems, rather than solve them. It's the conclusion that the group of people behind this have no idea what they are actually doing. One of those rare times I agree with you. The excuses and invented fantasy reasons for this on social media are impressive. All those reasons just happened to be enough to hammer the UK markets just as KK spoke. A complete coincidence. Or it’s a reaction to the possibility of a labour government. Nothing to do with the Tory party members voting for someone so out of her depth she drowned immediately. Perhaps why she’s disappeared unless it’s to embarrass herself further on a soft touch local radio. The PM options just get worse and worse. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 30 Sep 22 10.50am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I doubt the "left wing media", who-ever they are, are read by those who make the markets or internationally.

It's not whether you, or anyone else, will directly benefit from a tax cut, but what the whole package does to the economy. Paying £100 less in tax helps no-one if everything costs twice as much next year.

It's the lack of realism and detail about the funding that's at fault. It's the idea that trickle-down economics, which has been proven not to work in the best of times, will work in the worst. It's the analysis of the many experts that the package will increase problems, rather than solve them. It's the conclusion that the group of people behind this have no idea what they are actually doing.

One of those rare times I agree with you.

The excuses and invented fantasy reasons for this on social media are impressive. All those reasons just happened to be enough to hammer the UK markets just as KK spoke. A complete coincidence. Or it’s a reaction to the possibility of a labour government. Nothing to do with the Tory party members voting for someone so out of her depth she drowned immediately. Perhaps why she’s disappeared unless it’s to embarrass herself further on a soft touch local radio. The PM options just get worse and worse.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 30 Sep 22 10.53am
Originally posted by Willo The narrative of the 'Left' is about making the rich richer and all that palaver referring to the reduction of the top rate of tax from 45% to 40%. The 1% cut in basic rate income tax will benefit 31 Million people across the spectrum. The cancellation of the NI rise will also benefit these good folk. Cancellation of the Corporation Tax hike will assist businesses. Let us not forget the changes to Stamp Duty and of course the Billions which the Government will spend on the Energy Cap, affecting everyone. Labour can trot out the "Making the rich richer" line time and again, knowing full well that the Mini-Budget provides substantial support for ALL. Changes to stamp duty mean nothing now mortgage rates have risen and the housing market is going to see big challenges. Pretty much like most of the budget, and that’s because they didn’t think it through, don’t have the capacity to, or just ignored the warnings. Truss was warned. Edited by Rudi Hedman (30 Sep 2022 11.05am) COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 30 Sep 22 10.53am

Originally posted by Willo

The narrative of the 'Left' is about making the rich richer and all that palaver referring to the reduction of the top rate of tax from 45% to 40%.

The 1% cut in basic rate income tax will benefit 31 Million people across the spectrum.
The cancellation of the NI rise will also benefit these good folk.
Cancellation of the Corporation Tax hike will assist businesses.
Let us not forget the changes to Stamp Duty and of course the Billions which the Government will spend on the Energy Cap, affecting everyone.

Labour can trot out the "Making the rich richer" line time and again, knowing full well that the Mini-Budget provides substantial support for ALL.

Changes to stamp duty mean nothing now mortgage rates have risen and the housing market is going to see big challenges. Pretty much like most of the budget, and that’s because they didn’t think it through, don’t have the capacity to, or just ignored the warnings. Truss was warned.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (30 Sep 2022 11.05am)

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 30 Sep 22 11.03am
Originally posted by Willo I have been accused of completely missing the point. My point was NOT to provide a possible explanation for the reasons behind the volatility in the markets but to merely respond to the Labour's "Making the rich richer" mantra by highlighting those measures that have been introduced which will benefit those across the spectrum. On that note I have to get 'Togged-up' as I am due to travel to meet some Conservative activists for a jolly good chinwag and a hearty lunch. "Ill-informed" they are certainly NOT, nor in general are the 170,000 members from an array of backgrounds and professions and rich in life experiences. Edited by Willo (30 Sep 2022 9.47am) Let us know how pleased they are with the choice of Truss and what it’s done to the economy, households and the Tory party after many said what a disaster it would be. If she manages to look more like Maggie in interviews maybe she’ll pull it off. Actually just being available to be interviewed firstly. [Tweet Link] COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 30 Sep 22 11.03am

Originally posted by Willo

I have been accused of completely missing the point.

My point was NOT to provide a possible explanation for the reasons behind the volatility in the markets but to merely respond to the Labour's "Making the rich richer" mantra by highlighting those measures that have been introduced which will benefit those across the spectrum.

On that note I have to get 'Togged-up' as I am due to travel to meet some Conservative activists for a jolly good chinwag and a hearty lunch. "Ill-informed" they are certainly NOT, nor in general are the 170,000 members from an array of backgrounds and professions and rich in life experiences.

Edited by Willo (30 Sep 2022 9.47am)

Let us know how pleased they are with the choice of Truss and what it’s done to the economy, households and the Tory party after many said what a disaster it would be. If she manages to look more like Maggie in interviews maybe she’ll pull it off. Actually just being available to be interviewed firstly.

[Tweet Link]

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Glazier#1 30 Sep 22 11.15am
Originally posted by Willo The narrative of the 'Left' is about making the rich richer and all that palaver referring to the reduction of the top rate of tax from 45% to 40%. The 1% cut in basic rate income tax will benefit 31 Million people across the spectrum. The cancellation of the NI rise will also benefit these good folk. Cancellation of the Corporation Tax hike will assist businesses. Let us not forget the changes to Stamp Duty and of course the Billions which the Government will spend on the Energy Cap, affecting everyone. Labour can trot out the "Making the rich richer" line time and again, knowing full well that the Mini-Budget provides substantial support for ALL. Yes, but by how much? What's 1% of 15k? What's 5% of 1m? Sorry but the iniquity of it speaks volumes to me. Surely those percentages should be the other way around, no? Presumably, Willo, you are of the opinion that this 5% cut in the top rate will attract people into this country but a 5% increase in the top rate would make high earners leave. I shouldn't assume anything, of course; just having a guess. I'm asking. Am I wrong? Edited by Glazier#1 (30 Sep 2022 11.17am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Glazier#1

30 Sep 22 11.15am

Originally posted by Willo

The narrative of the 'Left' is about making the rich richer and all that palaver referring to the reduction of the top rate of tax from 45% to 40%.

The 1% cut in basic rate income tax will benefit 31 Million people across the spectrum.
The cancellation of the NI rise will also benefit these good folk.
Cancellation of the Corporation Tax hike will assist businesses.
Let us not forget the changes to Stamp Duty and of course the Billions which the Government will spend on the Energy Cap, affecting everyone.

Labour can trot out the "Making the rich richer" line time and again, knowing full well that the Mini-Budget provides substantial support for ALL.

Yes, but by how much?
What's 1% of 15k?
What's 5% of 1m?

Sorry but the iniquity of it speaks volumes to me. Surely those percentages should be the other way around, no?

Presumably, Willo, you are of the opinion that this 5% cut in the top rate will attract people into this country but a 5% increase in the top rate would make high earners leave.

I shouldn't assume anything, of course; just having a guess. I'm asking. Am I wrong?

Edited by Glazier#1 (30 Sep 2022 11.17am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Sep 22 11.18am
Originally posted by Badger11 Starmer has ruled out a coalition with the SNP so unless Labour change their policy in the union I don't see how they can do other. The SNP will demand Indyref2 as payment for an anti Tory coalition agreeing to this will seriously damage Labour if Scotland breaks away. By the way I have no problem with coalitions or electoral pacts as long as the parties are up front with their voters about this before any election and explain what it means. The Liu Dems betrayed their voters in 2010. As avoiding the break-up of the UK is, in my opinion, the over-riding priority, this only increases my sense that we face a huge political and economic crisis. One that could, and should, have been avoided by responsible leadership. Let's hope we get some soon! Maybe we will see a grand coalition of the sensible and responsible emerge. I don't think it's possible for parties to be "up front" about that, as there are just too many variables. They have to react to events and decide what's necessary in the circumstances, rather than make promises they cannot keep beforehand. They generally say that anyway, so they are "up-front" about it. I don't think the Lib-Dems betrayed anyone. They enabled a government to be formed and for it to work pretty well, at significant cost to their own immediate future. So they were both responsible and brave. They acted in the national interest. They did what I want all MPs to do, which is to represent us and deliver what's needed, irrespective of party loyalties. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Sep 22 11.18am

Originally posted by Badger11

By the way I have no problem with coalitions or electoral pacts as long as the parties are up front with their voters about this before any election and explain what it means.

The Liu Dems betrayed their voters in 2010.

As avoiding the break-up of the UK is, in my opinion, the over-riding priority, this only increases my sense that we face a huge political and economic crisis. One that could, and should, have been avoided by responsible leadership. Let's hope we get some soon! Maybe we will see a grand coalition of the sensible and responsible emerge.

I don't think it's possible for parties to be "up front" about that, as there are just too many variables. They have to react to events and decide what's necessary in the circumstances, rather than make promises they cannot keep beforehand. They generally say that anyway, so they are "up-front" about it.

I don't think the Lib-Dems betrayed anyone. They enabled a government to be formed and for it to work pretty well, at significant cost to their own immediate future. So they were both responsible and brave. They acted in the national interest. They did what I want all MPs to do, which is to represent us and deliver what's needed, irrespective of party loyalties.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Sep 22 11.41am
Originally posted by Willo I have been accused of completely missing the point. My point was NOT to provide a possible explanation for the reasons behind the volatility in the markets but to merely respond to the Labour's "Making the rich richer" mantra by highlighting those measures that have been introduced which will benefit those across the spectrum. On that note I have to get 'Togged-up' as I am due to travel to meet some Conservative activists for a jolly good chinwag and a hearty lunch. "Ill-informed" they are certainly NOT, nor in general are the 170,000 members from an array of backgrounds and professions and rich in life experiences. Edited by Willo (30 Sep 2022 9.47am) Diverting onto the Labour Party's stance is just a distraction at this time. They are not in government. The Tory Party is. No-one should take their eyes off the ball right now. You and your chums can go on fooling themselves as much as you wish. The truth is they are not representative of the whole electorate and together believe in an ideology not generally shared. They represent less than half of 1% of us. It's ludicrous that they can choose our PM. Just look at the result. Even you must now realise how foolish it was. They aren't ill-informed about what interests them, but they are about life outside their own small world. I've met a few. They don't come from an array of backgrounds at all. They are mostly middle class, professional men, and their wives. The question is what should be done now? I would hope that rather than play political games and try to defend the indefensible, the Tory membership will accept how foolish they have been and request that the task of selecting a PM be returned to the MPs, who are elected by us all to take decisions on our behalf. Doing that would gain some respect and, possibly, save you from decades in the wilderness. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Sep 22 11.41am

Originally posted by Willo

I have been accused of completely missing the point.

On that note I have to get 'Togged-up' as I am due to travel to meet some Conservative activists for a jolly good chinwag and a hearty lunch. "Ill-informed" they are certainly NOT, nor in general are the 170,000 members from an array of backgrounds and professions and rich in life experiences.

Edited by Willo (30 Sep 2022 9.47am)

Diverting onto the Labour Party's stance is just a distraction at this time. They are not in government. The Tory Party is. No-one should take their eyes off the ball right now.

You and your chums can go on fooling themselves as much as you wish. The truth is they are not representative of the whole electorate and together believe in an ideology not generally shared. They represent less than half of 1% of us. It's ludicrous that they can choose our PM. Just look at the result. Even you must now realise how foolish it was.

They aren't ill-informed about what interests them, but they are about life outside their own small world. I've met a few. They don't come from an array of backgrounds at all. They are mostly middle class, professional men, and their wives.

The question is what should be done now? I would hope that rather than play political games and try to defend the indefensible, the Tory membership will accept how foolish they have been and request that the task of selecting a PM be returned to the MPs, who are elected by us all to take decisions on our behalf.

Doing that would gain some respect and, possibly, save you from decades in the wilderness.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 30 Sep 22 11.54am
Originally posted by Glazier#1 Yes, but by how much? What's 1% of 15k? What's 5% of 1m? Sorry but the iniquity of it speaks volumes to me. Surely those percentages should be the other way around, no? Presumably, Willo, you are of the opinion that this 5% cut in the top rate will attract people into this country but a 5% increase in the top rate would make high earners leave. I shouldn't assume anything, of course; just having a guess. I'm asking. Am I wrong? Edited by Glazier#1 (30 Sep 2022 11.17am) What the mini-budget should have announced was not a reduction of the top rate down to 40% but a reduction in the 40% rate down to 35%. This would affect far more workers yet still attract HNW people to work in the UK. The left's 'bash the rich' stance would be watered down considerably. hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.
Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines

Sussex 30 Sep 22 11.54am

Send a Private Message to Behind Enemy Lines

Originally posted by Glazier#1

Yes, but by how much?
What's 1% of 15k?
What's 5% of 1m?

Sorry but the iniquity of it speaks volumes to me. Surely those percentages should be the other way around, no?

Presumably, Willo, you are of the opinion that this 5% cut in the top rate will attract people into this country but a 5% increase in the top rate would make high earners leave.

I shouldn't assume anything, of course; just having a guess. I'm asking. Am I wrong?

Edited by Glazier#1 (30 Sep 2022 11.17am)

What the mini-budget should have announced was not a reduction of the top rate down to 40% but a reduction in the 40% rate down to 35%. This would affect far more workers yet still attract HNW people to work in the UK. The left's 'bash the rich' stance would be watered down considerably.

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 30 Sep 22 12.05pm
I foresee austerity Mk.2. '50 billions of cuts needed say economists etc'. A new Osborne to reintroduce another totally discredited tory policy, they really have no ideas at all. Cutting the services you would think could no longer be cuttable, with the aim of reducing the vast debts caused by this fiasco. To think the idea was to promote economic growth the chances of finding anyone who still thinks that is still possible after the carnage is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 30 Sep 22 12.05pm

I foresee austerity Mk.2.

'50 billions of cuts needed say economists etc'.

A new Osborne to reintroduce another totally discredited tory policy, they really have no ideas at all.

Cutting the services you would think could no longer be cuttable, with the aim of reducing the vast debts caused by this fiasco.

To think the idea was to promote economic growth the chances of finding anyone who still thinks that is still possible after the carnage is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 30 Sep 22 12.11pm
Originally posted by Glazier#1 Yes, but by how much? What's 1% of 15k? What's 5% of 1m? Sorry but the iniquity of it speaks volumes to me. Surely those percentages should be the other way around, no? Presumably, Willo, you are of the opinion that this 5% cut in the top rate will attract people into this country but a 5% increase in the top rate would make high earners leave. I shouldn't assume anything, of course; just having a guess. I'm asking. Am I wrong? Edited by Glazier#1 (30 Sep 2022 11.17am) 1% of 15k is £150 5% of 1 m is 50k But 1m wages means £1270 tax free 38k taxed at 20% = £7600 tax 940k taxed at 40% = roughly 400k so hmg get around 400k in tax 15k wages = 1270 tax free. 2300 taxed at 20% = £460 tax to hmg. Now look who contributes the most and who is the bigger beneficiary to the uk. Then wonder why a 5% cut is really no big deal. Oh sorry take 1% from the lowest band as it’s 19% now. The jealousy of some is sickening.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 30 Sep 22 12.11pm

Originally posted by Glazier#1

Yes, but by how much?
What's 1% of 15k?
What's 5% of 1m?

Sorry but the iniquity of it speaks volumes to me. Surely those percentages should be the other way around, no?

Presumably, Willo, you are of the opinion that this 5% cut in the top rate will attract people into this country but a 5% increase in the top rate would make high earners leave.

I shouldn't assume anything, of course; just having a guess. I'm asking. Am I wrong?

Edited by Glazier#1 (30 Sep 2022 11.17am)

1% of 15k is £150
5% of 1 m is 50k

But 1m wages means £1270 tax free 38k taxed at 20% = £7600 tax
940k taxed at 40% = roughly 400k so hmg get around 400k in tax
15k wages = 1270 tax free. 2300 taxed at 20% = £460 tax to hmg.

Now look who contributes the most and who is the bigger beneficiary to the uk.
Then wonder why a 5% cut is really no big deal.
Oh sorry take 1% from the lowest band as it’s 19% now.
The jealousy of some is sickening.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 30 Sep 22 12.17pm
Originally posted by Willo Dear oh Dear Even if I was informed that my Tories were ahead by 33 points, I would hardly be whooping for joy as the General Election is 2 years away and the political landscape could change dramatically as events unfold. 'Should have gone to Sunak-savers'
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 30 Sep 22 12.17pm

Originally posted by Willo

Dear oh Dear

Even if I was informed that my Tories were ahead by 33 points, I would hardly be whooping for joy as the General Election is 2 years away and the political landscape could change dramatically as events unfold.

'Should have gone to Sunak-savers'

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 30 Sep 22 12.30pm
Originally posted by Glazier#1 Oh dear oh dear. You're OCD over 'lefties' is leaving you so out of touch. If you really think that people's real fears about the cost of living, the housing cost crisis (sorry, was that a 'leftie; word? lol)and inequity is purely the result of The 'leftwing media' scaremongering, you really do need a check-up from the neck up, my paranoid friend. The post did end with a ? Maybe you can’t answer it, but never mind eh!
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 30 Sep 22 12.30pm

Originally posted by Glazier#1

Oh dear oh dear.
You're OCD over 'lefties' is leaving you so out of touch. If you really think that people's real fears about the cost of living, the housing cost crisis (sorry, was that a 'leftie; word? lol)and inequity is purely the result of The 'leftwing media' scaremongering, you really do need a check-up from the neck up, my paranoid friend.

The post did end with a ?
Maybe you can’t answer it, but never mind eh!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 13 of 61 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

New prime minister

Site Map

Sponsors