Starmer's speech 27th Aug 24

Sorry, 5%, not 10%. We’d have to be in an unholy mess (again) before pensions increase 10% year on year.

To reiterate, this is exactly the same as it would have been if the Tories remained in office.
So you mean the Tories were ruthlessly impoverishing pensioners, and soaking the old? Surely not!

In the election campaign, Sunak's constant reiteration that 'Labour are after your pension' was based on their not repealing the policies that he brought in (namely the freezing of the personal allowance). Did he think people were too dim to realise that that didn't just affect pensioners, but anyone whose income hovers around that level? Only the remarkably self-interested would see it that way, surely?

Admittedly, it is harder for older people to increase their income (and arguably there is no reason why they should have to after a lifetime of working), but pensioners are not 'rinsed' when they pay tax, or 'soaked' by a frozen personal allowance, as is often suggested on here. I would rather see the allowance rise, along with the state pension, but I don't see why pensioners shouldn't pay the same rates of tax as other groups.

Particularly doodledog since we don’t pay NI.

In fact, I think there are a lot of measures that could be taken to make tax (and not just income tax) fairer and more redistributive, but I genuinely don’t see any appetite for those kind of structural changes from this government (not, of course, from the last one).

Thank you Siope and Doodledog

Anyone else think that Angela Rayner has been pretty good in parliament today? Made mincemeat of Badenoch [imo].

AR has taken over the office in the Commons previously used by the Attorney General for the last 100 years. I don’t know what to think. Perhaps she needs the extra space ??

You been reading “the dung on the rose bush of politics” again, ronib? And even your friend Paul couched that as an unsubstantiated rumour.

Oh, and even if it’s true, I don’t see that the allocation of MP’s offices requires you to feel anything.

Siope I think Guido Fawkes seems a lot more knowledgeable than most on this forum however. I didn’t read that as an unsubstantiated rumour but wouldn’t it be great to find out for sure?

No. I genuinely couldn’t care less who sits where.

Siope

No. I genuinely couldn’t care less who sits where.

So why comment negatively then, if you really don’t care?

However, for the record, the Hansard Siciety has a clear explanation of how offices are allocated; oddly (not a bit oddly) MPs do t just get to choose their own:

Offices are allocated by the party whips, according to seniority and with regard to party balance in each building and across the estate

So that’s Whips from all parties, agreeing.

Mollygo because a) I’m bored, and b) I dislike people making unsubstantiated claims as if they are stating facts.

That’s quite a level of caring.

Siope well I am bored too. I can find no more information on AR taking over the Attorney General’s office in the Commons apart from GF - so just where are you finding this ?

Finding what? I haven’t said anything about Rayner’s office specifically. I simply explained, using information from one reputable source - the Hansard Society - how offices in Parliament are allocated.

^I can find no more information on AR taking over the Attorney General’s office in the Commons apart from GF*

I wonder why that is…

Siope so you don’t know if AR has changed the office for deputy PM after all …. Probably don’t care either…

MayBee70

The portrait totally dominated the room. Thatcher is the total antithesis of everything Starmer stands for and believes in. Is it any wonder that he didn’t want it taking centre stage in that room? Would Thatcher have sat in the shadow of a huge portrait if Keir Hardy every day? I think not. Maybe Brown had it commissioned to remind everybody how her ideologies completely divided the country and continue to do so to this day?

Wonder why no other Labour PM moved this portrait from The Thatcher Room.
Perhaps his Union paymasters made him do it.
He is disparaging the office of PM.
She gathered the country together. He is tearing it apart.

She gathered the country together? In what way? That we were all united in being worried sick that we would have a redundancy notice in our paypacket each month!

Freya5 👏👏👏👏👏👏

MayBee70

She gathered the country together? In what way? That we were all united in being worried sick that we would have a redundancy notice in our paypacket each month!

Absolutely, MayBee. I don't think there has been a more divisive PM, although the past 14 years has seen a few close contenders.

David49

In the last few weeks Starmer has axed WFA, slashed MPs expenses, cancelled the Helicopter trips and promised a tough budget stopping the previous waste.

He’s my kind of PM, if I have to pay tax I want it spent properly not gifted to those who already have enough

Where has he slashed mps expenses. Stopping their WFA at 2,000 each would be an excellent Start.

MayBee70

She gathered the country together? In what way? That we were all united in being worried sick that we would have a redundancy notice in our paypacket each month!

Well then, perhaps you'll empathise when fanatical milliband puts all the oil workers on the dole. Making our energy bills even higher due to having to import more oil and gas from Dubai, instead of utilising what is under our feet. Still they are under the thumb of the stop oil criminals. How clever is that. Starmer and his Crew are becoming the most authoritarian Gov ever seen in this country. No wonder they are plummeting in the polls.

Actually I don’t believe
That we were all united in being worried sick that we would have a redundancy notice in our paypacket each month
any more than we are now.
There were things that went wrong then, just as there were under TB and GB.

As a matter of fact, DH was made redundant under the Labour government. We were certainly worried sick then.

Besides which, Mrs T had a good headline phrase-so good that Starmer has bagged it for himself.