UK General Election 2024 (or 25)

Betfair trading & Punting on politics. Be aware there is a lot of off topic discussion in this group centred on Political views.
Locked
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23468
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

ShaunWhite wrote:
Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:08 pm
Euler wrote:
Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:46 pm
I don't see what option we have, whoever is in power.
The first step would be abolishing in-work benefits (£30bn+) and forcing employers to pay their own wage bill at an appropriate level. What sort of free market economics is it that props up businesses with taxes?
A lot of in-work benefits are for part-timers not working long enough hours to earn a sustaining wage.
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

Derek27 wrote:
Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:46 pm
ShaunWhite wrote:
Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:08 pm
The first step would be abolishing in-work benefits (£30bn+) and forcing employers to pay their own wage bill at an appropriate level. What sort of free market economics is it that props up businesses with taxes?
A lot of in-work benefits are for part-timers not working long enough hours to earn a sustaining wage.
It's a fair point and not straightforward but imo the #1 issue is insufficient wages. And it's bs that additional wages feeds inflation unless its adding to disposable income. Tax receipts go up when people are paid more, not just when they're taxed more.

How can you have growth when nobody can afford to buy anything?
Archery1969
Posts: 3192
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
Location: Newport

Instead of fixing growth who was it that introduced in work benefits ?
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23468
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Archery1969 wrote:
Fri Nov 18, 2022 10:38 pm
Instead of fixing growth who was it that introduced in work benefits ?
'In-work' benefits have always existed. I think Income Support was available to people working and Jobseekers' Allowance was payable to people working just a few hours and looking for more work. Then you had DLA, now replaced by PIP, which is a disability benefit and not related to being out-of-work.
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

Archery1969 wrote:
Fri Nov 18, 2022 10:38 pm
Instead of fixing growth who was it that introduced in work benefits ?
Gordon Brown (working tax credits 1999), and it was to protect part-timers to the tune of ONE £billion, not over THIRTY billion.
Archery1969
Posts: 3192
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
Location: Newport

ShaunWhite wrote:
Sat Nov 19, 2022 5:38 pm
Archery1969 wrote:
Fri Nov 18, 2022 10:38 pm
Instead of fixing growth who was it that introduced in work benefits ?
Gordon Brown (working tax credits 1999), and it was to protect part-timers to the tune of ONE £billion, not over THIRTY billion.
Same bloke who sold half our gold reserves at a market low and never topped them back up.
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23468
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Starmer wants to abolish the House of Lords. :D

How would that work? Would the bill have to be passed by the House of Lords? :lol:
User avatar
Archangel
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:03 pm
Location: Polo Lounge, Beverly Hills Hotel

Derek27 wrote:
Sat Nov 19, 2022 10:51 pm
Starmer wants to abolish the House of Lords. :D

How would that work? Would the bill have to be passed by the House of Lords? :lol:
How does anyone become a member of that House in the first place?
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23468
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Archangel wrote:
Sat Nov 19, 2022 11:13 pm
Derek27 wrote:
Sat Nov 19, 2022 10:51 pm
Starmer wants to abolish the House of Lords. :D

How would that work? Would the bill have to be passed by the House of Lords? :lol:
How does anyone become a member of that House in the first place?
Dunno. Some are born into the house and some are given the job by the PM for years of service, arse-licking, cooking his dinner, etc. Blair changed things but I don't know who elects them.

A quick google though has answered my previous question. The House of Lords is a revising body that has more time to debate issues and send bills back to the Commons for amendment. They can delay a bill for up to a year and stop the government from doing anything quickly, but ultimately they can't block a bill from being passed into law.

Let's hope those expense-abusing wallies in wigs are gone before the decade's out. Each one should be individually escorted out by security guards to make sure he doesn't nick anything.
Archery1969
Posts: 3192
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
Location: Newport

House of Lords - Independent Members will be appointed by the King after being proposed by the Prime Minister acting on advice of an Appointments Commission.
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

Derek27 wrote:
Sat Nov 19, 2022 11:26 pm

Let's hope those expense-abusing wallies in wigs are gone before the decade's out. Each one should be individually escorted out by security guards to make sure he doesn't nick anything.
The HoL has been applying much needed checks and balances since 1801, it would be a tragedy to see it go just because the latest fashion is to deride anyone earning more than the avg wage, and leaving the law making entirely in the hands of a bunch of headline grabbing career wanabes. It's far from perfect but like nationalisation, the flaws don't outweigh the benefits of the principal and reform makes much more sense than abolition.

The original idea was that it was populated by people who were of such significance they had little to gain from grubby politics and would act in the best interests of the country, and it should return to that.
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23468
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

ShaunWhite wrote:
Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:25 am
Derek27 wrote:
Sat Nov 19, 2022 11:26 pm

Let's hope those expense-abusing wallies in wigs are gone before the decade's out. Each one should be individually escorted out by security guards to make sure he doesn't nick anything.
The HoL has been applying much needed checks and balances since 1801, it would be a tragedy to see it go just because the latest fashion is to deride anyone earning more than the avg wage, and leaving the law making entirely in the hands of a bunch of headline grabbing career wanabes. It's far from perfect but like nationalisation, the flaws don't outweigh the benefits of the principal and reform makes much more sense than abolition.

The original idea was that it was populated by people who were of such significance they had little to gain from grubby politics and would act in the best interests of the country, and it should return to that.
I think the intention is to replace it with an elected body, rather than scrap it altogether.

History has shown that if you give ten people power and trust, nine of them may honour that trust, but one baddie will more than undo the work of nine goodies. Boris Johnson is a good example of that. Even if his party was full of honest, intelligent and competent people, his narcissistic personality would still have brought his party to its knees. :)

And we're not talking early 18th century here. The expense scandal has proved however wealthy you are, if you got unsupervised access to the till, some people will stick their filthy hands in it and milk it for all its worth.
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23468
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

I'm not a fan of Sunak but It's such a relief to have a PM that can actually speak!

I'm surprised they haven't brought out the Truss wind-up dolls that say, what I have done today, in the national interest, I have acted decisively, etc.
User avatar
Archangel
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:03 pm
Location: Polo Lounge, Beverly Hills Hotel

ShaunWhite wrote:
Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:25 am
Derek27 wrote:
Sat Nov 19, 2022 11:26 pm

Let's hope those expense-abusing wallies in wigs are gone before the decade's out. Each one should be individually escorted out by security guards to make sure he doesn't nick anything.

The original idea was that it was populated by people who were of such significance they had little to gain from grubby politics and would act in the best interests of the country, and it should return to that.
They are all politically appointed so that doesn't really hold up all. Unless you want to go back to it being populated by your "betters"
User avatar
Derek27
Posts: 23468
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Dr Liam Fox: The government should be judged by what they do for the NHS. :lol: :lol: :lol:

3-hour wait for an ambulance if you have a heart attack, not even worth calling for anything else. :lol:
Locked

Return to “Political betting & arguing”