[The Earl of Chesterfield]

s42blue, on 11 March 2024 - 07:05 PM, said:

Genuinely seeking the opinions of those who know more about the Labour Party’s thoughts. Not looking to stir or provoke, just looking to learn.

Will Labour:

Put a cap on Financial Services bonuses?
Revoke the need for photo ID at elections?
Nationalise the utilities? Which?
Call a general election should the party need to replace its Leader?
Retain the triple lock?
Consider an EU referendum?
Build on the green belt and change planning laws?

Some of these questions are selfish, some are rules that irk me, some are bigger issues. The big issues I’m getting a handle on.

We’re finding out some of the plans for the manifesto (not enough IMO still but understand the reasons why.

Looking forward to the results/opinions.

Heh, heh, heh.

Quality proddery, my friend.

Yet as our other friend Ian keeps telling us, surely it'll all appear in the manifestos.

Y'know, the same manifestos he, as an admitted Lib' Dem' supporter, like another friend 'DitC', have repeatedly excused being torn to shreds when that party leapt so willingly into bed with the austerity imposing Tories.

Yet he now demands definitive pledges from Labour. A scrutiny so obviously lacking of other parties. In the same way questions of costing from them are similarly absent.

Meanwhile 'Valley' is suddenly interested in a way only the mention of migrants or Muslims usually trigger a response.

I can only repeat my frustration at my party. I want bold; I want decisive; I want transformational. However they, I, and we all know seventy five percent of the media will immediately escalate their lie laden smear-fest the minute that happens.

So to put it in Town terms they're being 'Duncan' rather than 'Cook'...

[isleaiw1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 01 April 2024 - 08:35 PM, said:

Heh, heh, heh.

Quality proddery, my friend.

Yet as our other friend Ian keeps telling us, surely it'll all appear in the manifestos.

Y'know, the same manifestos he, as an admitted Lib' Dem' supporter, like another friend 'DitC', have repeatedly excused being torn to shreds when that party leapt so willingly into bed with the austerity imposing Tories.

Yet he now demands definitive pledges from Labour. A scrutiny so obviously lacking of other parties. In the same way questions of costing from them are similarly absent.

Meanwhile 'Valley' is suddenly interested in a way only the mention of migrants or Muslims usually trigger a response.

I can only repeat my frustration at my party. I want bold; I want decisive; I want transformational. However they, I, and we all know seventy five percent of the media will immediately escalate their lie laden smear-fest the minute that happens.

So to put it in Town terms they're being 'Duncan' rather than 'Cook'...

We all know what we will get will be some vague promises and then they will get in, say things are a lot worse than they imagined and tax has to go up, projects scaled back, missions delayed,..... whoever wins, I hasten to add. If its Labour will you go on for years about them tearing up the manifesto or will you say they did what they had to do for the good of the country....?

Got a telling off from my Mum at the weekend when I said I might not bother as none of them do much for me

[s42blue]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 01 April 2024 - 08:35 PM, said:

Heh, heh, heh.

Quality proddery, my friend.

Yet as our other friend Ian keeps telling us, surely it'll all appear in the manifestos.

Y'know, the same manifestos he, as an admitted Lib' Dem' supporter, like another friend 'DitC', have repeatedly excused being torn to shreds when that party leapt so willingly into bed with the austerity imposing Tories.

Yet he now demands definitive pledges from Labour. A scrutiny so obviously lacking of other parties. In the same way questions of costing from them are similarly absent.

Meanwhile 'Valley' is suddenly interested in a way only the mention of migrants or Muslims usually trigger a response.

I can only repeat my frustration at my party. I want bold; I want decisive; I want transformational. However they, I, and we all know seventy five percent of the media will immediately escalate their lie laden smear-fest the minute that happens.

So to put it in Town terms they're being 'Duncan' rather than 'Cook'...

It genuinely started as a question. Then maybe “proddery” as the tumbleweed went by. It seems that many will vote for Labour just because they’re not the Tories.

Indeed the detail will be in the manifesto but I thought they were fair Qs to ask with only (hopefully) 6 months to go. Surely a manifesto isn’t just thought of when campaigning starts?

I want definitive pledges from everyone not slogans.

Fair play for answering, thanks.

As for Town managers I don’t think you can say Duncan as he had proven success. SKS is currently like the early tenure of Martin Allen….seems the right guy to get us out of this mess, might even start well, seems a nice guy…. Please please let it not mirror the ref of his tenure!!

[isleaiw1]

s42blue, on 02 April 2024 - 09:31 AM, said:

It genuinely started as a question. Then maybe “proddery” as the tumbleweed went by. It seems that many will vote for Labour just because they’re not the Tories.

Indeed the detail will be in the manifesto but I thought they were fair Qs to ask with only (hopefully) 6 months to go. Surely a manifesto isn’t just thought of when campaigning starts?

I want definitive pledges from everyone not slogans.

Fair play for answering, thanks.

As for Town managers I don’t think you can say Duncan as he had proven success. SKS is currently like the early tenure of Martin Allen….seems the right guy to get us out of this mess, might even start well, seems a nice guy…. Please please let it not mirror the ref of his tenure!!

Shall we like Rayner to Carson then, right hand person, not too good at rules and doing the right thing, desperately wants to be popular and successful but struggling on all fronts currently

[s42blue]

isleaiw1, on 02 April 2024 - 10:01 AM, said:

Shall we like Rayner to Carson then, right hand person, not too good at rules and doing the right thing, desperately wants to be popular and successful but struggling on all fronts currently

No. Likening that leech to anyone or anything is unfair. Maybe snake would be acceptable.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

As an aside summat remarkable happened this weekend (I'll stick it here as, in a sense, it's relevant to this discussion).

I got a tory leaflet through my letterbox.

Remarkable?

Yeah, as it's the first time I can ever remember them bothering with my ward.

What else was remarkable was how little mention there was of Sunak, the last fourteen years, or even any real association with the national party (for clarity, that's the tory party in a national context - not the BNP. However...).

Seems even this poor bloke drawing an extremely short straw is turning his back on the Government...

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

isleaiw1, on 02 April 2024 - 09:16 AM, said:

We all know what we will get will be some vague promises and then they will get in, say things are a lot worse than they imagined and tax has to go up, projects scaled back, missions delayed,..... whoever wins, I hasten to add. If its Labour will you go on for years about them tearing up the manifesto or will you say they did what they had to do for the good of the country....?

Got a telling off from my Mum at the weekend when I said I might not bother as none of them do much for me

Not gonna happen, but it'd be beyond hilarity to see your wriggles and squirms should the Lib' Dem's enter a post election coalition with Starmer, Ian.

But once again shredding their manifesto to do so would all be in 'the national interest', of course...

[isleaiw1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 02 April 2024 - 11:38 AM, said:

Not gonna happen, but it'd be beyond hilarity to see your wriggles and squirms should the Lib' Dem's enter a post election coalition with Starmer, Ian.

But once again shredding their manifesto to do so would all be in 'the national interest', of course...

If they needed to join a coalition to avoid a minority govt, nothing getting done and another election a few weeks or months later, I'd say that was worthwhile, if they can agree on things that have to stay and things that dont. Tuition fees can stay, in fact make everyone pay them back even if they spend 3 years getting drunk and get a job after that they could have got before!

But I'm not wedded to the Lib Dems so I can judge with independence.

Will you stand by Labour if they drop key manifesto points after the election as its worse than they expected?

[isleaiw1]

Will Labour.... have any councillors by the election?
https://www.theguard...test-leadership

Will Labour.... be popular a few weeks after the election?
https://www.ft.com/c...79-3ceef10e7529

But of course its just the biased right wing media... (and the guardian!)

[Bobby Darling]

isleaiw1, on 02 April 2024 - 03:06 PM, said:

Will Labour.... have any councillors by the election?
https://www.theguard...test-leadership

Will Labour.... be popular a few weeks after the election?
https://www.ft.com/c...79-3ceef10e7529

But of course its just the biased right wing media... (and the guardian!)

Yes and yes. Stop forecasting. Trust your track record. Along with predicting the end of Labour, 10 years of power for the wonderfully “charismatic “ Boris Johnson (he’s better than Starmer cos solicitors are dull) and a March Budget tax give away would change the polls, you have not had much success with your predictions. I know that they are based on your absolute objective approach to politics but objectivity requires a little more knowledge. Surely?

[isleaiw1]

Bobby Darling, on 02 April 2024 - 06:17 PM, said:

Yes and yes. Stop forecasting. Trust your track record. Along with predicting the end of Labour, 10 years of power for the wonderfully “charismatic “ Boris Johnson (he’s better than Starmer cos solicitors are dull) and a March Budget tax give away would change the polls, you have not had much success with your predictions. I know that they are based on your absolute objective approach to politics but objectivity requires a little more knowledge. Surely?

I would never have predicted Boris, so dont confuse me with that one.... he gets sacked from everything, I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did....

As for tax giveaway, isnt 1500 quid in last two budget things a giveaway.... and more to come when interest rates are down and therefore govt interest is down allowing for more giveaways in the autumn...

And did I predict the end of Labour? I am sure its a question with a question mark. You really need to learn to read...

I'm OK with my knowledge thanks, I know about things that are worthy of my time. Politicians these days rarely are...

[Bobby Darling]

isleaiw1, on 02 April 2024 - 06:37 PM, said:

I would never have predicted Boris, so dont confuse me with that one.... he gets sacked from everything, I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did....

As for tax giveaway, isnt 1500 quid in last two budget things a giveaway.... and more to come when interest rates are down and therefore govt interest is down allowing for more giveaways in the autumn...

And did I predict the end of Labour? I am sure its a question with a question mark. You really need to learn to read...

I'm OK with my knowledge thanks, I know about things that are worthy of my time. Politicians these days rarely are...

Don’t wriggle you lauded Johnson as a charismatic leader who would way outlast Starmer. Everybody knew about tax giveaways; you suggested they would impact the polls and reduce Labour’s lead. I won’t comment on the End of Labour thread. You really ought to fess up on that one. I will await the Reds under the Bed emerging in 2025 to take over Labour. Fair enough on your last two sentences but why post on politics is you are saying it ain’t worth your time to understand the subject. That has baffled me.

[isleaiw1]

Bobby Darling, on 02 April 2024 - 07:13 PM, said:

Don’t wriggle you lauded Johnson as a charismatic leader who would way outlast Starmer. Everybody knew about tax giveaways; you suggested they would impact the polls and reduce Labour’s lead. I won’t comment on the End of Labour thread. You really ought to fess up on that one. I will await the Reds under the Bed emerging in 2025 to take over Labour. Fair enough on your last two sentences but why post on politics is you are saying it ain’t worth your time to understand the subject. That has baffled me.

I said he was charismatic, in a way Blair was. Find me a quote where I said he would outlast Starmer, given I am well aware how sacked he has been....

I asked a question, will Labour survive. Its still a fair question as they probably now have the issue of actually doing something - and that will be a real challenge and so far they arent saying much that inspires me.

I understand economics. I understand finance. I know enough to be able to judge what matters to me, that is what matters me and not the political aspects, I've spent my life trying to avoid politics!

Whereas from posts that you make such as the one quoted, I'd say political jousting is all that matters to you...

By the way you didnt comment on the tax cuts. It might be called NI but its still a tax...

[fishini]

Rather than ask what labour will do which is a hypothetical question at the moment would it not be rather more pointed to ask what have the Tories done in the last 14 years

[isleaiw1]

fishini, on 02 April 2024 - 07:54 PM, said:

Rather than ask what labour will do which is a hypothetical question at the moment would it not be rather more pointed to ask what have the Tories done in the last 14 years

Never been big on looking backwards, that has gone, so look at what you can influence going forward...

(besides they have done very little of any use so it doesnt take very long!)

[s42blue]

fishini, on 02 April 2024 - 07:54 PM, said:

Rather than ask what labour will do which is a hypothetical question at the moment would it not be rather more pointed to ask what have the Tories done in the last 14 years

Of course a voter has to consider what has happened. But as is commonly said “you can’t change the past, only the future “.

We all vote on a hypothesis.

At least I’d expected the question about an election being called in the event of a change of leader as encumbent PM being answered.

[isleaiw1]

https://www.independ...r-b2524953.html

This might be a hint of a policy - Wes Streeting on the NHS.

What he says makes sense, how he pitches it is a bit odd, but if those that can go private (through health insurance etc)do, then the govt can provide better care and options for those who dont have choices...

So tick for Labour today (which I am guessing makes me in a minority on this announcement!)

As for Raynor, I dont know who gave her tax advice but this is quite categorical...

A married couple can only have one PPR between them. These rules are detailed at TCGA 1992, s 222(6). The result of this is that they must choose which property will be their joint main home for tax purposes. This means that one will be exempt from capital gains tax and the other will be subject to capital gains tax.

It doesnt even matter if they live in one each! This explains that:

This is the nature of the advice:
s222(6) TCGA 1992 sets out that spouses can have only one main residence between them. In addition, S1011 ITA 07 defines married couples as being regarded as living together for tax purposes unless they are separated (legally or in circumstances which are likely to be permanent). It therefore follows that from the date of marriage there can only be one property qualifying for PPRR.

Now unless Raynor had a deed of separation or having just married her husband they had already decided not to stay married and can evidence that, she has CGT to pay...

And Chris call it a non story all you like but remember, only one of use has studied this stuff and it aint you...

This post has been edited by isleaiw1: 08 April 2024 - 01:25 PM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

isleaiw1, on 08 April 2024 - 01:08 PM, said:

https://www.independ...r-b2524953.html

This might be a hint of a policy - Wes Streeting on the NHS.

What he says makes sense, how he pitches it is a bit odd, but if those that can go private (through health insurance etc)do, then the govt can provide better care and options for those who dont have choices...

So tick for Labour today (which I am guessing makes me in a minority on this announcement!)

As for Raynor, I dont know who gave her tax advice but this is quite categorical...

A married couple can only have one PPR between them. These rules are detailed at TCGA 1992, s 222(6). The result of this is that they must choose which property will be their joint main home for tax purposes. This means that one will be exempt from capital gains tax and the other will be subject to capital gains tax.

It doesnt even matter if they live in one each! This explains that:

This is the nature of the advice:
s222(6) TCGA 1992 sets out that spouses can have only one main residence between them. In addition, S1011 ITA 07 defines married couples as being regarded as living together for tax purposes unless they are separated (legally or in circumstances which are likely to be permanent). It therefore follows that from the date of marriage there can only be one property qualifying for PPRR.

Now unless Raynor had a deed of separation or having just married her husband they had already decided not to stay married and can evidence that, she has CGT to pay...

And Chris call it a non story all you like but remember, only one of use has studied this stuff and it aint you...

You've really gone all Daily Mail on the Angie Raynor thing, haven't you pal.

For context, though, the allegation she avoided up to three and a half grand in tax originates from the Ashcroft whose nom-dom status has seen him avoid millions.

But of course we can all see which one you're more motivated by.

I say the Mail should hand any evidence it supposedly has to the Old Bill and let them investigate. At which point I'm pretty sure we'll discover this story has all the merits of the beer and curry one it similarly championed...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 08 April 2024 - 08:55 PM

[isleaiw1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 08 April 2024 - 08:52 PM, said:

You've really gone all Daily Mail on the Angie Raynor thing, haven't you pal.

For context, though, the allegation she avoided up to three and a half grand in tax originates from the Ashcroft whose nom-dom status has seen him avoid millions.

But of course we can all see which one you're more motivated by.

I say the Mail should hand any evidence it supposedly has to the Old Bill and let them investigate. At which point I'm pretty sure we'll discover this story has all the merits of the beer and curry one it similarly championed...

Two wrongs dont make a right, or so I was told - and one gets lots of airtime on here.

I am fairly peed about the CGT one having paid a chunk of CGT on a second house last year... dont see I why should if the deputy leader of the next govt doesnt have to. So yes, until she can prove otherwise everything I know says she is wrong... and the amount doesnt bother me.... its the principle because laws are based on principles....

She has said she didnt pay CGT. She sold a house when married. She hasnt said they declared the other house as their PPR. So she has tax to pay. I look forward to the police bringing a case... And yes you can see I am motivated by doing the right thing....but dont make it about me, you have the law in front of you quoted from the act, but you are basically saying she is innocent because she says she is... do you give the same leeway to the Tories...

No comment on Streeting saying the private sector should support the NHS...?