Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2024 19:18:43 GMT 1
Does anyone know how Julia Buckley voted in relation to this ill conceived policy that will force millions of pensioners into fuel poverty As far I'm aware she abstained. Sean Davies however voted with the government. Not happy at all  |
|
rob62
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 209
|
Post by rob62 on Sept 10, 2024 20:13:12 GMT 1
At least Julia realises that this is a wrong policy that will hurt ordinary people, even if she didn't have the courage to vote against.
|
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Sept 11, 2024 17:23:05 GMT 1
With the PM refusing to rule out the possibility of removing the taxpayer- funded concessionary bus fare scheme (all right - I KNOW that he couldn't be expected to comment in advance of any Budget announcement, although he could simply have denied it) - I found myself wondering what the cost is to the Treasury of Child Benefit and whether this could be reduced or eliminated in order to plug this alleged "fiscal black hole".....
Actually, I lie: the cost of Child Benefit is anticipated to reach over £12bn this year, according to a Google search......
|
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Sept 11, 2024 17:23:39 GMT 1
With the PM refusing to rule out the possibility of removing the taxpayer- funded concessionary bus fare scheme (all right - I KNOW that he couldn't be expected to comment in advance of any Budget announcement, although he could simply have denied it) - I found myself wondering what the cost is to the Treasury of Child Benefit and whether this could be reduced or eliminated in order to plug this alleged "fiscal black hole".....
Actually, I lie: the cost of Child Benefit is anticipated to reach over £12bn this year, according to a Google search......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2024 6:31:24 GMT 1
Tax avoidance, which is technically legal, on corporation tax alone has cost the treasury over £4billion in the last 5 years.
Tax evasion, which is illegal, costs the treasury in 2022-23 alone £5.5 billion , tax lost due to criminal attacks on the tax system at £3.5 billion and tax lost due to the hidden economy at £2.2 billion.
Amazon UK services for example use their Luxembourg base to avoid paying UK taxes and then have the barefaced cheek to claim tax back from the treasury for investments in infrastructure that they would have had to make anyway. Some people claim that companies like Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc. would pull out of the UK if we taxed them the full amount, but no company would ever leave the 6th largest economy on the planet for spite.
The government need to be putting in place methods to claw back the missing taxes from these and many other companies and ensure that every loophole and gap is closed up, tight. The next thing we need to do is start taxing share options at source. Senior executives across the country are getting billions in share options and until they sell them they are not taxable and even then they are only taxable on the difference between the strike price and the sale price. These share options are part of a salary package offered to senior executives and should be treated as such and taxed at normal rates.
Long Term Incentives like shares and stock options make up around 40% of the average FTSE 100 CEOs total compensation. The average package for those CEOs alone is around £4.4million, that's before you add in the CFO and all the other senior and medium level executives. There are literally billions of pounds just waiting to be taxed in the square mile alone, we just need the will.
It might be harder to police and to implement in the first place, but it has to be better than going after easy money from people already struggling. The £1.5billion that the government are saying that will save the treasury is a drop in the ocean compared to executive pay, dividends and bonuses.
|
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Sept 12, 2024 10:02:36 GMT 1
Tax avoidance, which is technically legal, on corporation tax alone has cost the treasury over £4billion in the last 5 years.
Tax evasion, which is illegal, costs the treasury in 2022-23 alone £5.5 billion , tax lost due to criminal attacks on the tax system at £3.5 billion and tax lost due to the hidden economy at £2.2 billion.
Amazon UK services for example use their Luxembourg base to avoid paying UK taxes and then have the barefaced cheek to claim tax back from the treasury for investments in infrastructure that they would have had to make anyway. Some people claim that companies like Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc. would pull out of the UK if we taxed them the full amount, but no company would ever leave the 6th largest economy on the planet for spite.
The government need to be putting in place methods to claw back the missing taxes from these and many other companies and ensure that every loophole and gap is closed up, tight. The next thing we need to do is start taxing share options at source. Senior executives across the country are getting billions in share options and until they sell them they are not taxable and even then they are only taxable on the difference between the strike price and the sale price. These share options are part of a salary package offered to senior executives and should be treated as such and taxed at normal rates.
Long Term Incentives like shares and stock options make up around 40% of the average FTSE 100 CEOs total compensation. The average package for those CEOs alone is around £4.4million, that's before you add in the CFO and all the other senior and medium level executives. There are literally billions of pounds just waiting to be taxed in the square mile alone, we just need the will.
It might be harder to police and to implement in the first place, but it has to be better than going after easy money from people already struggling. The £1.5billion that the government are saying that will save the treasury is a drop in the ocean compared to executive pay, dividends and bonuses.
Hello, Neil - it's been some time since we had one of our occasional spats, so I think we're due for one! lol Firstly it is a nonsense to suggest that tax legally avoided - in other words, not legally collectable - constitutes a "loss" to the treasury: one cannot "lose" that to which one has no legal entitlement; if, however, you are implying that tax avoidance should be made as illegal as tax evasion, that is a completely different matter, with far-reaching consequences, and not a rabbit-hole which I care to explore. Secondly, with regard to the financial models employed by the companies you highlighted, I concede that you may have a point, but the belief that this could be addressed by the UK government acting in isolation is naive - it would require an internationally-agreed worldwide taxation structure, and THAT is not going to happen, except in the world of John Lennon's "Imagine".....total fantasy! Lastly, there are always ways in which to tweak the tax system, so as to benefit one group or another, sometimes without intentionally bringing about disbenefits in other other areas, but there is always the so-called Law of unintended consequences ..... Whilst I do not doubt YOUR good intentions, I have to say that there is more than a slight whiff of envy in much of your post which, and envy provides much of the fuel for the dreams of the Left....of course, the fundamental reasons for that envy to exist at all would disappear if we were all paid the same rate whatever the job wouldn't it......? |
|
|
|
Post by sheltonsalopian on Sept 12, 2024 11:33:15 GMT 1
I have to admit I am very surprised at the amount of backlash to the policy. It always felt like an unnecessary bung to pensioners. Love paying income tax and NI to give retired millionaires £300 a year to have their heating on... it's bizarre.
Yes I get the arguments about those just over the threshold being caught out - but that happens with every policy, child benefit is the biggest example.
Absolutely frightening the hold the pensioners class has on our politics. (I am trying not to generalise but being in my early 30's it feels every sacrifice in the last 10-15 years came from the working class)
|
|
rob62
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 209
|
Post by rob62 on Sept 12, 2024 12:12:32 GMT 1
Of course those of you that are young, and Im not, will of course be pensioners one day.
So you will be paying tax and NI allowance all your working lives and will get less and less back when you retire
|
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Sept 12, 2024 13:20:44 GMT 1
I have to admit I am very surprised at the amount of backlash to the policy. It always felt like an unnecessary bung to pensioners. Love paying income tax and NI to give retired millionaires £300 a year to have their heating on... it's bizarre. Yes I get the arguments about those just over the threshold being caught out - but that happens with every policy, child benefit is the biggest example. Absolutely frightening the hold the pensioners class has on our politics. (I am trying not to generalise but being in my early 30's it feels every sacrifice in the last 10-15 years came from the working class) You may find it "absolutely frightening" the hold that the "pensioner class" has, but as it is largely that particular group which traditionally takes a greater participation in our democratic processes (by casting their votes), I fail to understand why you shouldfind it frightening, nor surprising, for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by sheltonsalopian on Sept 12, 2024 13:29:25 GMT 1
I have to admit I am very surprised at the amount of backlash to the policy. It always felt like an unnecessary bung to pensioners. Love paying income tax and NI to give retired millionaires £300 a year to have their heating on... it's bizarre. Yes I get the arguments about those just over the threshold being caught out - but that happens with every policy, child benefit is the biggest example. Absolutely frightening the hold the pensioners class has on our politics. (I am trying not to generalise but being in my early 30's it feels every sacrifice in the last 10-15 years came from the working class) You may find it "absolutely frightening" the hold that the "pensioner class" has, but as it is largely that particular group which traditionally takes a greater participation in our democratic processes (by casting their votes), I fail to understand why you shouldfind it frightening, nor surprising, for that matter. I would imagine because where we are today is as a large result of that pensioner class, as like you put it, they are the ones who participate the greatest in our democracy. For what it's worth and I don't want to jump to assumptions but you probably look at the unions in the 70's and 80's as holding the country to ransom - I view the pensioner class of today as doing the same. |
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Sept 12, 2024 13:40:38 GMT 1
Does anyone know how Julia Buckley voted in relation to this ill conceived policy that will force millions of pensioners into fuel poverty Julia Buckley did not register a vote. Obviously a lady of firm political convictions........probably working from home that day. Bless. |
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Sept 12, 2024 13:55:07 GMT 1
You may find it "absolutely frightening" the hold that the "pensioner class" has, but as it is largely that particular group which traditionally takes a greater participation in our democratic processes (by casting their votes), I fail to understand why you shouldfind it frightening, nor surprising, for that matter. I would imagine because where we are today is as a large result of that pensioner class, as like you put it, they are the ones who participate the greatest in our democracy. For what it's worth and I don't want to jump to assumptions but you probably look at the unions in the 70's and 80's as holding the country to ransom - I view the pensioner class of today as doing the same. Without wishing to appear "picky",it was you, in your post, who first used the expression "pensioner class", but it is of course a statement of the bleedin' obvious" that where we are today is the result of people exercising their democratic vote! Isn't democracy wonderful! I do not take seriously your comment regarding who is "holding the country to ransom" - in no way at all can this set of circumstances be described as analogous to trade union actions 50 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by sheltonsalopian on Sept 12, 2024 14:24:45 GMT 1
I would imagine because where we are today is as a large result of that pensioner class, as like you put it, they are the ones who participate the greatest in our democracy. For what it's worth and I don't want to jump to assumptions but you probably look at the unions in the 70's and 80's as holding the country to ransom - I view the pensioner class of today as doing the same. Without wishing to appear "picky",it was you, in your post, who first used the expression "pensioner class", but it is of course a statement of the bleedin' obvious" that where we are today is the result of people exercising their democratic vote! Isn't democracy wonderful! I do not take seriously your comment regarding who is "holding the country to ransom" - in no way at all can this set of circumstances be described as analogous to trade union actions 50 years ago. Fair enough, just find all this uproar over pensioners losing £300 the vast majority of who don't need it, ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Sept 12, 2024 14:40:01 GMT 1
Without wishing to appear "picky",it was you, in your post, who first used the expression "pensioner class", but it is of course a statement of the bleedin' obvious" that where we are today is the result of people exercising their democratic vote! Isn't democracy wonderful! I do not take seriously your comment regarding who is "holding the country to ransom" - in no way at all can this set of circumstances be described as analogous to trade union actions 50 years ago. Fair enough, just find all this uproar over pensioners losing £300 the vast majority of who don't need it, ridiculous. Do you have the evidence to support your assertion that the "vast majority" don't need it? In any event that may, or may not, be true of each and every universal (i.e non means-tested) benefit, but I'm not certain whether the Labour Party, in particular, is a great fan of means-testing as a method of addressing this; did not John McDonnell, no less, recently pass comment on this aspect, or am I mistaken? |
|
|
|
Post by sheltonsalopian on Sept 12, 2024 15:04:13 GMT 1
Fair enough, just find all this uproar over pensioners losing £300 the vast majority of who don't need it, ridiculous. Do you have the evidence to support your assertion that the "vast majority" don't need it? In any event that may, or may not, be true of each and every universal (i.e non means-tested) benefit, but I'm not certain whether the Labour Party, in particular, is a great fan of means-testing as a method of addressing this; did not John McDonnell, no less, recently pass comment on this aspect, or am I mistaken? 11.4 million received it, Age UK reckon up to 2million will now struggle (https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/29/up-to-2m-pensioners-will-struggle-without-winter-fuel-help-say-campaigners), that tells me there's 9.4 million pensioners who don't need it. I'd class that as a vast majority don't need it. The threshold was chosen because no extra means testing is needed to determine who is and isn't eligible for it. John McDonnell would oppose free houses for all if he learnt it was Starmer that proposed it so don't think he's a great voice on the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Sept 12, 2024 16:24:16 GMT 1
Uproar or not,, the sheer hypocrisy of Adolf Starmer standing up in the Commons not so very long ago and condemning the Conservative government for even thinking about cutting the winter fuel payments must, even with the low bar of honesty we have come to expect from all our politicians, rank as one of the all-time acts of duplicitous behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Sept 12, 2024 17:42:46 GMT 1
Do you have the evidence to support your assertion that the "vast majority" don't need it? In any event that may, or may not, be true of each and every universal (i.e non means-tested) benefit, but I'm not certain whether the Labour Party, in particular, is a great fan of means-testing as a method of addressing this; did not John McDonnell, no less, recently pass comment on this aspect, or am I mistaken? 11.4 million received it, Age UK reckon up to 2million will now struggle (https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/29/up-to-2m-pensioners-will-struggle-without-winter-fuel-help-say-campaigners), that tells me there's 9.4 million pensioners who don't need it. I'd class that as a vast majority don't need it. The threshold was chosen because no extra means testing is needed to determine who is and isn't eligible for it. John McDonnell would oppose free houses for all if he learnt it was Starmer that proposed it so don't think he's a great voice on the matter. Those figures are interesting, but there is a world of difference between "will struggle without it" and " don't need it"; in my case, I don't NEED it, I suppose, but will definitely struggle to meet the additional Christmas expenditure in its absence. As to whether Mr McDonnell is the authentic voice of either the Labour Party, or true Socialism is another matter.... |
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Sept 12, 2024 17:47:00 GMT 1
Uproar or not,, the sheer hypocrisy of Adolf Starmer standing up in the Commons not so very long ago and condemning the Conservative government for even thinking about cutting the winter fuel payments must, even with the low bar of honesty we have come to expect from all our politicians, rank as one of the all-time acts of duplicitous behaviour. I really don't think that it is helpful to resort to name-calling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2024 6:28:53 GMT 1
Tax avoidance, which is technically legal, on corporation tax alone has cost the treasury over £4billion in the last 5 years.
Tax evasion, which is illegal, costs the treasury in 2022-23 alone £5.5 billion , tax lost due to criminal attacks on the tax system at £3.5 billion and tax lost due to the hidden economy at £2.2 billion.
Amazon UK services for example use their Luxembourg base to avoid paying UK taxes and then have the barefaced cheek to claim tax back from the treasury for investments in infrastructure that they would have had to make anyway. Some people claim that companies like Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc. would pull out of the UK if we taxed them the full amount, but no company would ever leave the 6th largest economy on the planet for spite.
The government need to be putting in place methods to claw back the missing taxes from these and many other companies and ensure that every loophole and gap is closed up, tight. The next thing we need to do is start taxing share options at source. Senior executives across the country are getting billions in share options and until they sell them they are not taxable and even then they are only taxable on the difference between the strike price and the sale price. These share options are part of a salary package offered to senior executives and should be treated as such and taxed at normal rates.
Long Term Incentives like shares and stock options make up around 40% of the average FTSE 100 CEOs total compensation. The average package for those CEOs alone is around £4.4million, that's before you add in the CFO and all the other senior and medium level executives. There are literally billions of pounds just waiting to be taxed in the square mile alone, we just need the will.
It might be harder to police and to implement in the first place, but it has to be better than going after easy money from people already struggling. The £1.5billion that the government are saying that will save the treasury is a drop in the ocean compared to executive pay, dividends and bonuses.
Hello, Neil - it's been some time since we had one of our occasional spats, so I think we're due for one! lol Firstly it is a nonsense to suggest that tax legally avoided - in other words, not legally collectable - constitutes a "loss" to the treasury: one cannot "lose" that to which one has no legal entitlement; if, however, you are implying that tax avoidance should be made as illegal as tax evasion, that is a completely different matter, with far-reaching consequences, and not a rabbit-hole which I care to explore. Secondly, with regard to the financial models employed by the companies you highlighted, I concede that you may have a point, but the belief that this could be addressed by the UK government acting in isolation is naive - it would require an internationally-agreed worldwide taxation structure, and THAT is not going to happen, except in the world of John Lennon's "Imagine".....total fantasy! Lastly, there are always ways in which to tweak the tax system, so as to benefit one group or another, sometimes without intentionally bringing about disbenefits in other other areas, but there is always the so-called Law of unintended consequences ..... Whilst I do not doubt YOUR good intentions, I have to say that there is more than a slight whiff of envy in much of your post which, and envy provides much of the fuel for the dreams of the Left....of course, the fundamental reasons for that envy to exist at all would disappear if we were all paid the same rate whatever the job wouldn't it......? Closing the loopholes that allow for avoidance would be a start. There are companies out there that make huge amounts of money delivering schemes that allow people to legally dodge taxes that you and I would pay. Do the names Jimmy Carr and Gary Barlow ring any bells? Legal? Yes. Moral? No.
As far as I'm aware we make our own laws in this country, something about taking back control wasn't it? Profits made in the UK could and should be taxed in the UK, not Ireland or Luxembourg.
You accuse me of the politics of envy. I don't envy the jobs of these CEOs, because they have immense responsibilities that I certainly wouldn't want, not least the job of keeping thousands of people employed. I don't actually envy their compensation rates, because in most cases they earn their money and when the brown stuff hits the fan they are the ones plastered all over the news, Paula Vennels being a case in point. I do however think that they have a responsibility to pay the full amount in taxes.
I love this quote from author John Green “Public education does not exist for the benefit of students or the benefit of their parents. It exists for the benefit of the social order.
We have discovered as a species that it is useful to have an educated population. You do not need to be a student or have a child who is a student to benefit from public education. Every second of every day of your life, you benefit from public education.
So let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools, even though I don't personally have a kid in school: It's because I don't like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people.”
The same goes for healthcare, the transport network, pensions, benefits and innumerable other things our taxes go on. Does Amazon not use our road network to get deliveries in and out? Would they not benefit from a health service that gets their ill or injured staff back to work in a more timely manner? Do they not benefit from people coming through our education system? The same things apply to every other company or corporation that is happy to take the benefits of the taxation system, but less keen to contribute towards it.
I would love to pay lower taxes across the board and I truly believe that we as a country could even lower the rates of corporation and capital gains taxes if it weren't for those spending many millions of pounds to consultants to find ways to avoid billions of pounds in taxes. If everyone paid their bills it would lower everyone else's bill and the country would still have more money to improve the lives of everyone here.
If you think that this is me calling for some sort of left wing utopia that's up to you, but if you're happy to wait for the money to trickle down I've got some magic beans you'll be interested in 
|
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Sept 13, 2024 10:22:41 GMT 1
Uproar or not,, the sheer hypocrisy of Adolf Starmer standing up in the Commons not so very long ago and condemning the Conservative government for even thinking about cutting the winter fuel payments must, even with the low bar of honesty we have come to expect from all our politicians, rank as one of the all-time acts of duplicitous behaviour. I really don't think that it is helpful to resort to name-calling. If he acts like a dictator then it's fair to name him as one. |
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Sept 14, 2024 15:58:34 GMT 1
I really don't think that it is helpful to resort to name-calling. If he acts like a dictator then it's fair to name him as one. Big if unless your hooked on right wing propaganda.. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Sept 15, 2024 11:29:02 GMT 1
I really don't think that it is helpful to resort to name-calling. If he acts like a dictator then it's fair to name him as one. How has he acted like a dictator? |
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Sept 15, 2024 12:30:13 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13849055/disabled-pensioners-lose-winter-fuel-payments-Keir-Starmer-Rachel-Reeves.htmlSeven out of ten disabled pensioners are set to lose their winter fuel payments under the cuts planned by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, according to newly-published government documents. An estimated 71 per cent of the 1.6 million disabled people who currently receive the benefit will lose out under the Labour policy to strip the payment from millions of pensioners in England and Wales. The changes mean that households will only be entitled to the payment if they receive Pension Credit or certain other means-tested benefits. An equity assessment published by the Department for Work and Pensions on Friday night stated: 'Around 71 per cent (1.6m) of people with a disability will lose entitlement'. According to the assessment, the figures are based on data from May 2023 which considers those who received the State Pension and if they received a pensioner disability benefit such as Attendance Allowance (AA) Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or Personal Independence Payment (PIP), none of which are means tested.
|
|
rob62
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 209
|
Post by rob62 on Sept 15, 2024 15:07:48 GMT 1
A truly shocking policy that hits those on modest incomes the hardest and condemns many elderly people to fuel poverty .
Stamer should hang his head in shame
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2024 16:53:20 GMT 1
A truly shocking policy that hits those on modest incomes the hardest and condemns many elderly people to fuel poverty . Stamer should hang his head in shame I didn't trust Starmer back in 2020 when he stood for the leadership. I voted for Rebecca Long-Bailey, because there was just something not quite right about him. I couldn't put my finger on, he just didn't seem trustworthy. I was proven to be correct in my assessment when he ditched every single one of the pledges he made within weeks of taking over. I mean what sort of Labour leader punishes his own MPs for standing up on picket lines? Or for wanting parents with kids and the elderly to have enough to eat and still be able to put the heating on.
Shame that all those people moaning the loudest and longest now are no doubt the very people that couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn in 2017.
Be in no doubt that I will be visiting Shaun Davies at his next local surgery and also have no doubt that he will not be keen to meet with me a second time.
|
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Sept 19, 2024 15:20:33 GMT 1
If he acts like a dictator then it's fair to name him as one. How has he acted like a dictator? The hypocrisy of the man is breathtaking. Within a few months of standing up in parliament to berate the last government for even thinking about removing winter fuel allowances, he has done exactly that with the arrogant stroke of the ministerial pen. He has not even waited for the budget to announce this and god forbid any Labour MP who might have voted against it……a vote he sought to avoid….no doubt in addition to the threat of the whip being withdrawn, he probably half considered jail sentences. No wonder half the Labour MPs mysteriously came down with illness on the day of the vote. This is why the man is an arrogant dictator. |
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Sept 19, 2024 16:43:18 GMT 1
How has he acted like a dictator? The hypocrisy of the man is breathtaking. Within a few months of standing up in parliament to berate the last government for even thinking about removing winter fuel allowances, he has done exactly that with the arrogant stroke of the ministerial pen. He has not even waited for the budget to announce this and god forbid any Labour MP who might have voted against it……a vote he sought to avoid….no doubt in addition to the threat of the whip being withdrawn, he probably half considered jail sentences. No wonder half the Labour MPs mysteriously came down with illness on the day of the vote. This is why the man is an arrogant dictator. You sure? |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Sept 19, 2024 17:17:40 GMT 1
How has he acted like a dictator? The hypocrisy of the man is breathtaking. Within a few months of standing up in parliament to berate the last government for even thinking about removing winter fuel allowances, he has done exactly that with the arrogant stroke of the ministerial pen. He has not even waited for the budget to announce this and god forbid any Labour MP who might have voted against it……a vote he sought to avoid….no doubt in addition to the threat of the whip being withdrawn, he probably half considered jail sentences. No wonder half the Labour MPs mysteriously came down with illness on the day of the vote. This is why the man is an arrogant dictator. So he's managing the country and the Labour party, unlike any leader since Blair and Thatcher were able to do with the country and their respective parties? Come to think of it, by your yardstick I assume Blair and Thatcher would both be arrogant dictators? |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Sept 21, 2024 12:33:25 GMT 1
Starmer's had a busy summer, but image is important and he's looking a bit Boris' wallpaper at the moment.
Some may remember how a small cost saving move cast Maggie as 'Maggie Thatcher milk snatcher' One pensioner passes away because of the cold and Starmer could be cast as 'Kier Starmer pensioner harmer' or somesuch.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Sept 21, 2024 17:10:54 GMT 1
Never mind so long as Lady Starmer has free clothes everything will be ok.
I am quite frankly stunned by all the goings on. It is not what I expected at all so how naive can I be.
I’m sick of the lot of them - both our main parties are morally bankrupt.
|
|
