Labour

[Archie]

When?
And i take it we are a federal state
Just asking… i mean it was what he stated, before then stating it would be impossible

Where did the vow say the UK would be completely restructured into a federal state?

 

[Archie]

And if you think he delivered it all, tell us what was in the vow and what he delivered seeing as you keep asking what were lies.
Federalism as a start was a huge lie
Westminster couldn’t overrule what was a devolved issue!! Well they’ve actually done that, so another lie

I think it's incumbent on those who say the vow was a lie to say where. I've already pointed to the key element which was the Smith Commission and subsequent legislation.

Can you say where the UK has overruled on a devolved issue? The only ones I'm aware of is where it impacted on UK, which is beyond the Scottish Parliament powers.

I've asked where a restructure of the entire UK was in the vow?

 

[aggie]

I think it's incumbent on those who say the vow was a lie to say where. I've already pointed to the key element which was the Smith Commission and subsequent legislation.

Can you say where the UK has overruled on a devolved issue? The only ones I'm aware of is where it impacted on UK, which is beyond the Scottish Parliament powers.

I've asked where a restructure of the entire UK was in the vow?

Archie, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous here?

The key message the body politic in Scotland heard at the time, quite deliberately, was the broad promise that Scotland would be transitioned into a more or less a federal state if we rejected full independence -- that was the message behind the words "extensive new powers".

You can point to the Smith Commission or whatever, but that's ultimately a 'small print' argument. And in many ways, the very point here is that the small print is irrelevant -- Brown was deliberately vague about what they meant, spouting quite high-level promises which never needed explained as there was very little time to go before the referendum. (And which remains doubly irritating, given the amount of time Better Together had spent droning on about costing and detail.)

Your nit-picking here sounds to me a bit like the guy who says "we'd never explicitly talked about exclusivity" after cheating on his new bird -- it's pure sophistry, or evasion by technicality.

We were all there. We all know what they meant. And we all know they had no intention of ever honouring the actual substance of it. They said what they felt they had to in order to ensure the vote went their way. Pretending it was a good faith pledge to really change Scotland made after a late Damascene moment is absurd, in my view.

 

[Archie]

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to reply. There's usually radio silence when I ask what the lies were in the vow.

Archie, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous here?

I don't think I am. I think your dismissal of the detail of what was actually promised and implemented is a key issue with the perception of the Vow. It has become a touchstone for what I can only describe as 'stabbed in the back myths' around the referendum. It has also been conflated with a lot of arguments from the run up to the referendum which weren't actually part of the vow.

The key message the body politic in Scotland heard at the time, quite deliberately, was the broad promise that Scotland would be transitioned into a more or less a federal state if we rejected full independence -- that was the message behind the words "extensive new powers".

You say that, but what was written was:
- The Scottish Parliament is permanant
- Extensive new powers will be delivered.

That's what it said. And that's what was delivered. You can debate whether enough powers were transferred, but you can't argue that it didn't happen. And it's sophistry on your part to argue that extensive new powers meant a federal state, as you imagine it. And if you had paused to consider what you heard actually meant: a complete realignment of the consitutional arrangements British state, with relevance to Scotland, England, Wales and NI , based on an extrapolation of the front page of the Daily Record. It's not really credible, is it?

You can point to the Smith Commission or whatever, but that's ultimately a 'small print' argument. And in many ways, the very point here is that the small print is irrelevant -- Brown was deliberately vague about what they meant, spouting quite high-level promises which never needed explained as there was very little time to go before the referendum. (And which remains doubly irritating, given the amount of time Better Together had spent droning on about costing and detail.)

The Smith Commission isn't small print. It was the core of delivering the new powers. A process that all of the main parties in Scotland signed up to. I really don't think you can dismiss this in the way you have. The issue is, I think, that there was a post hoc rationalisation of what the vow meant. And surprise surprise, that rationalisation doesn't directly relate back to what was promised. In fairness Brown's book 'Our Scotland our Britain' where he does discuss federalist options, was published in June 2014. But again, Brown was an MP of a party that wasn't even in Government.

Your nit-picking here sounds to me a bit like the guy who says "we'd never explicitly talked about exclusivity" after cheating on his new bird -- it's pure sophistry, or evasion by technicality.

I am genuinely dumbfounded how you can think spelling out what the Vow consisted of and how it was delivered is nit picking. It's the problem with this discussion. People say what they think it was and then critique it on that basis. You yourself opine on your view of what people heard. But not what it said. To take your analogy, it reads a bit like the guy caught cheating saying ' but you said we didn't need to be exclusive', but she didn't say that, it was what you heard.

We were all there. We all know what they meant. And we all know they had no intention of ever honouring the actual substance of it. They said what they felt they had to in order to ensure the vote went their way. Pretending it was a good faith pledge to really change Scotland made after a late Damascene moment is absurd, in my view.

That's an opinion, not a fact. It's like asking a historian for a source and being told 'the dugs in the street knew it'. Significant powers were transferred. Jeane Freeman said they were 'the biggest transfer of powers since devolution began' The Scottish Parliament Information Centre wrote that the fiscal changes set out in the Smith Commission would mean Holyrood was one of the most economically powerful devolved parliaments in the world, compared to federal systems like Germany and Switzerland.

So we can argue about whether the transfer of powers was to your satisfaction. We can argue about the motivations. But you can't argue that it was a lie. It would be like me saying that I'm giving you a present. I give you the present and you don't like it. You can moan about the present, but you can't say that I lied about giving you a present.

One final point. The Vow is spoken about in terms that it made the difference to the referendum result. This is an article from the National - a newspaper that I suspect many here would have some sympathy for.

'The Vow' did not win 2014 independence vote for the Union, academics argue

A BOOK by a team of political academics aims to dispel “myths” about the 2014 independence referendum, including the importance of “The…

www.thenational.scot

This is a report on research into the referendum, which found that that the Vow had little impact. Compare the sober report in the National with the comments below. They contest the research findings, largely it would appear on a 'we were there, we knew what it meant' basis!

 

[egb_hibs]

Lowest turnout in UK general election since universal suffrage, report shows

IPPR thinktank finds that only 52% of the British adult population cast their ballots on 4 July

www.theguardian.com

Starmer romped home with a lower vote share than RN in France as I noted elsewhere, and in context of the lowest turnout since universal suffrage.

Hope he manages to keep his party's feet on the ground, because they don't have a mandate anywhere approaching the power they now enjoy.

 

[egb_hibs]

@Smurf thought this might interest you. Labour now enjoy their highest ever level of support amongst the most affluent, and lowest ever among the least affluent. The realignment continues apace.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Smurf]

@Smurf thought this might interest you. Labour now enjoy their highest ever level of support amongst the most affluent, and lowest ever among the least affluent. The realignment continues apace.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And I reckon the least affluent could continue to be attracted by Reform... And Labour might increase its support from more affluent...

 

[egb_hibs]

And I reckon the least affluent could continue to be attracted by Reform... And Labour might increase its support from more affluent...

There is a lot of room for the former as the wider story is the less affluent not voting. I was directed to the above tweet by this admirably reflective piece in the paper of those affluent labour voters:

Hidden behind the celebration of Labour’s ‘landslide’ win is a depressing disfranchisement | Nesrine Malik

The gulf in voter turnout between haves and have-nots has widened. The result is no politics for those who can’t afford it, says Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik

www.theguardian.com

 

[emerald green]

Archie, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous here?

The key message the body politic in Scotland heard at the time, quite deliberately, was the broad promise that Scotland would be transitioned into a more or less a federal state if we rejected full independence -- that was the message behind the words "extensive new powers".

You can point to the Smith Commission or whatever, but that's ultimately a 'small print' argument. And in many ways, the very point here is that the small print is irrelevant -- Brown was deliberately vague about what they meant, spouting quite high-level promises which never needed explained as there was very little time to go before the referendum. (And which remains doubly irritating, given the amount of time Better Together had spent droning on about costing and detail.)

Your nit-picking here sounds to me a bit like the guy who says "we'd never explicitly talked about exclusivity" after cheating on his new bird -- it's pure sophistry, or evasion by technicality.

We were all there. We all know what they meant. And we all know they had no intention of ever honouring the actual substance of it. They said what they felt they had to in order to ensure the vote went their way. Pretending it was a good faith pledge to really change Scotland made after a late Damascene moment is absurd, in my view.

top post mr aggie

 

[Hattie]

Archie, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous here?

The key message the body politic in Scotland heard at the time, quite deliberately, was the broad promise that Scotland would be transitioned into a more or less a federal state if we rejected full independence -- that was the message behind the words "extensive new powers".

You can point to the Smith Commission or whatever, but that's ultimately a 'small print' argument. And in many ways, the very point here is that the small print is irrelevant -- Brown was deliberately vague about what they meant, spouting quite high-level promises which never needed explained as there was very little time to go before the referendum. (And which remains doubly irritating, given the amount of time Better Together had spent droning on about costing and detail.)

Your nit-picking here sounds to me a bit like the guy who says "we'd never explicitly talked about exclusivity" after cheating on his new bird -- it's pure sophistry, or evasion by technicality.

We were all there. We all know what they meant. And we all know they had no intention of ever honouring the actual substance of it. They said what they felt they had to in order to ensure the vote went their way. Pretending it was a good faith pledge to really change Scotland made after a late Damascene moment is absurd, in my view.

Spot on Aggie…
To say

I think it's incumbent on those who say the vow was a lie to say where. I've already pointed to the key element which was the Smith Commission and subsequent legislation.

Can you say where the UK has overruled on a devolved issue? The only ones I'm aware of is where it impacted on UK, which is beyond the Scottish Parliament powers.

I've asked where a restructure of the entire UK was in the vow?

drug consumption rooms…. Or would that affect the English?
I mean how dare we try sort out our own problems

 

[Hattie]

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to reply. There's usually radio silence when I ask what the lies were in the vow.


I don't think I am. I think your dismissal of the detail of what was actually promised and implemented is a key issue with the perception of the Vow. It has become a touchstone for what I can only describe as 'stabbed in the back myths' around the referendum. It has also been conflated with a lot of arguments from the run up to the referendum which weren't actually part of the vow.

You say that, but what was written was:
- The Scottish Parliament is permanant
- Extensive new powers will be delivered.

That's what it said. And that's what was delivered. You can debate whether enough powers were transferred, but you can't argue that it didn't happen. And it's sophistry on your part to argue that extensive new powers meant a federal state, as you imagine it. And if you had paused to consider what you heard actually meant: a complete realignment of the consitutional arrangements British state, with relevance to Scotland, England, Wales and NI , based on an extrapolation of the front page of the Daily Record. It's not really credible, is it?

The Smith Commission isn't small print. It was the core of delivering the new powers. A process that all of the main parties in Scotland signed up to. I really don't think you can dismiss this in the way you have. The issue is, I think, that there was a post hoc rationalisation of what the vow meant. And surprise surprise, that rationalisation doesn't directly relate back to what was promised. In fairness Brown's book 'Our Scotland our Britain' where he does discuss federalist options, was published in June 2014. But again, Brown was an MP of a party that wasn't even in Government.

I am genuinely dumbfounded how you can think spelling out what the Vow consisted of and how it was delivered is nit picking. It's the problem with this discussion. People say what they think it was and then critique it on that basis. You yourself opine on your view of what people heard. But not what it said. To take your analogy, it reads a bit like the guy caught cheating saying ' but you said we didn't need to be exclusive', but she didn't say that, it was what you heard.

That's an opinion, not a fact. It's like asking a historian for a source and being told 'the dugs in the street knew it'. Significant powers were transferred. Jeane Freeman said they were 'the biggest transfer of powers since devolution began' The Scottish Parliament Information Centre wrote that the fiscal changes set out in the Smith Commission would mean Holyrood was one of the most economically powerful devolved parliaments in the world, compared to federal systems like Germany and Switzerland.

So we can argue about whether the transfer of powers was to your satisfaction. We can argue about the motivations. But you can't argue that it was a lie. It would be like me saying that I'm giving you a present. I give you the present and you don't like it. You can moan about the present, but you can't say that I lied about giving you a present.

One final point. The Vow is spoken about in terms that it made the difference to the referendum result. This is an article from the National - a newspaper that I suspect many here would have some sympathy for.

'The Vow' did not win 2014 independence vote for the Union, academics argue

A BOOK by a team of political academics aims to dispel “myths” about the 2014 independence referendum, including the importance of “The…

www.thenational.scot

This is a report on research into the referendum, which found that that the Vow had little impact. Compare the sober report in the National with the comments below. They contest the research findings, largely it would appear on a 'we were there, we knew what it meant' basis!

But you frny what was basically told.. a federal state for Scotland with all the powers!
Deny all you want, but it’s what was in between the lines of the vow, if you can’t agree with that then what’s the point

 

[Archie]

But you frny what was basically told.. a federal state for Scotland with all the powers!
Deny all you want, but it’s what was in between the lines of the vow, if you can’t agree with that then what’s the point

The vow was the front page of the Daily Record. You and Aggie are arguing for something that isn't there. Who told you that there would be a federal state with 'all the powers', whatever that means? And why did you think that the entire constitutional arrangements of the UK would be ripped up because of the front page of the Daily Record? I'll remind you that the man behind the vow is now the Chief Executive of the SNP. I'll also remind you that the SNP signed off the Smith Commission with shaped the legislative delivery. This all started with me questioning where 'the Vow' was a lie. All I've got back is what you think it said - not what it actually did. So yes - I will deny it. I am, of course, open to people providing credible evidence to prove me wrong.

 

[Archie]

Spot on Aggie…
To say

drug consumption rooms…. Or would that affect the English?
I mean how dare we try sort out our own problems

So what you appear to be asking for is the power for the Scottish Parliament to be able to legislate on anything. I get why you want that, but Scotland isn't an independent country. But under the Scotland Act drugs legislation is reserved to Westminster. It's not a matter of whether it affects 'the English'. It's about certain policy areas where it is believed that it's better to be consistent across the UK. Now there's a legitimate argument to be had about that in general, and also the specific issue around drug consumption rooms. But it's where we are. As it happens, the previous UK Government was supportive (eventually) of the Glasgow pilot. I don't know how it ended up. Consumption rooms: a legal place for illegal drugs?

 

[Hattie]

The vow was the front page of the Daily Record. You and Aggie are arguing for something that isn't there. Who told you that there would be a federal state with 'all the powers', whatever that means? And why did you think that the entire constitutional arrangements of the UK would be ripped up because of the front page of the Daily Record? I'll remind you that the man behind the vow is now the Chief Executive of the SNP. I'll also remind you that the SNP signed off the Smith Commission with shaped the legislative delivery. This all started with me questioning where 'the Vow' was a lie. All I've got back is what you think it said - not what it actually did. So yes - I will deny it. I am, of course, open to people providing credible evidence to prove me wrong.

Daily record!
I mean, eh? What?
Not even looked at the rag for about 15 years, read nothing online either!
But if you want to split hairs on ye go

 

[Archie]

Daily record!
I mean, eh? What?
Not even looked at the rag for about 15 years, read nothing online either!
But if you want to split hairs on ye go

I'm really confused now. The Vow was on the front page of the Daily Record just before the referendum. Are we talking at cross purposes?

 

[egb_hibs]

Who was it that said its better to be a lucky general than a good one? Sir Keir looks set to reap dividends from an economy powering away from an ailing EU and that are coming good just at the right time to be a good news story for our new government

Britain to be fastest growing major European economy, IMF predicts

Growth in Britain is set to outstrip every other major European economy next year, the International Monetary Fund has predicted, in a sharp bounce back from the recession in 2023.

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[egb_hibs]

It’s been mentioned in passing on another thread, but worth committing to the record on our labour thread here:

Labour halts Tory law on freedom of speech in English universities

Education secretary ‘to consider options’ including repeal of controversial powers introduced by last government

www.theguardian.com

Over the last few weeks Labour have behaved as expected; removing disincentives to illegal migration, and signalling they are going to naturalise new voters in the established Democratic Party manner. Now they are pulling down protections against crypto fascism in the university system. Meanwhile Ed Miliband shocked even jaded old moi with the sheer mendacity of his arguments for his energy crusade.

Meanwhile, while it is too early to draw conclusions, the mood music is piping in, that suggests no change to our economic stagnation but possibly a clutch more destroyed pensions and the likes.

So far, so predictable.


Contractually obligatory section to maintain compliance with ‘Archie’s law’ 2024

Readers should be aware that the author recognises that members of other political parties are not only capable of, but enthusiastically active in moonhowling bampottery.

In particular it cannot be stressed enough that this can include members of the SNP. In fact, think of something bad, and the SNP are probably involved. To be honest they are probably responsible for much of the worlds evils, current and past, and pose a threat to all our futures. They’re also smelly.

 

[kaimendhibs]

Labour with Starmer is not my labour

 

[hibbybilly]

 

[egb_hibs]

It’s been mentioned in passing on another thread, but worth committing to the record on our labour thread here:

Labour halts Tory law on freedom of speech in English universities

Education secretary ‘to consider options’ including repeal of controversial powers introduced by last government

www.theguardian.com

Over the last few weeks Labour have behaved as expected; removing disincentives to illegal migration, and signalling they are going to naturalise new voters in the established Democratic Party manner. Now they are pulling down protections against crypto fascism in the university system. Meanwhile Ed Miliband shocked even jaded old moi with the sheer mendacity of his arguments for his energy crusade.

Meanwhile, while it is too early to draw conclusions, the mood music is piping in, that suggests no change to our economic stagnation but possibly a clutch more destroyed pensions and the likes.

So far, so predictable.


Contractually obligatory section to maintain compliance with ‘Archie’s law’ 2024

Readers should be aware that the author recognises that members of other political parties are not only capable of, but enthusiastically active in moonhowling bampottery.

In particular it cannot be stressed enough that this can include members of the SNP. In fact, think of something bad, and the SNP are probably involved. To be honest they are probably responsible for much of the worlds evils, current and past, and pose a threat to all our futures. They’re also smelly.

Andrew Doyle reckons the next step will be an enforced school curriculum being drafted by one of the cult’s mullahs. Let’s hope not, but the signs are ominous. All the attempts to paint the SNP as more cracked than Labour look ridiculous now, as they always were.

Labour's war on free speech

unherd.com

 

[emerald green]

Lowest turnout in UK general election since universal suffrage, report shows

IPPR thinktank finds that only 52% of the British adult population cast their ballots on 4 July

www.theguardian.com

Starmer romped home with a lower vote share than RN in France as I noted elsewhere, and in context of the lowest turnout since universal suffrage.

Hope he manages to keep his party's feet on the ground, because they don't have a mandate anywhere approaching the power they now enjoy.

great post.

 

[Hattie]

Rachel Reeves ready to deliver the bad news: Britain is broke — The Times and The Sunday Times

When Rachel Reeves arrived at the Treasury for her first day at work as the country’s first female chancellor, she barely had time to finish her cup of tea before the bad news began. Sleep-deprived but elated after watching her party sweep into power with a landslide victory in the early hours...

apple.news

They are just like a class of kids blaming each other, finger pointing, he said she said… liar liar pants on fire!!
Its all just a game to them.
So feck knows what to believe in this piece. Cannot trust either side
Tories stole the money?
Gifting themselves billions through their “non tendering” process during covid?
Labour lies to raise taxes?
Maybe add more of the multi biliion private finance deals they’ve already burdened us with?
Or Both

 

[EH17 Jimmy]

Aye arse cheeks scenario. You on the peeve today Stu? Got that holiday feeling?

 

[egb_hibs]

Rachel Reeves ready to deliver the bad news: Britain is broke — The Times and The Sunday Times

When Rachel Reeves arrived at the Treasury for her first day at work as the country’s first female chancellor, she barely had time to finish her cup of tea before the bad news began. Sleep-deprived but elated after watching her party sweep into power with a landslide victory in the early hours...

apple.news

They are just like a class of kids blaming each other, finger pointing, he said she said… liar liar pants on fire!!
Its all just a game to them.
So feck knows what to believe in this piece. Cannot trust either side
Tories stole the money?
Gifting themselves billions through their “non tendering” process during covid?
Labour lies to raise taxes?
Maybe add more of the multi biliion private finance deals they’ve already burdened us with?
Or Both

Re all this Labour ‘black hole in finances’ chat. There may very well be, but I understand the government’s books are entirely open via the OBR; open to me and you not just Rachel Reeves. So Labour won’t really have been surprised, and probably had tax raises in plan all along - this is likely stage management.

It’s mentioned here along with other parameters:

“ First, there are no “books”, no password-protected numbers stored away in the recesses of the Treasury. For 14 years, fiscal policy has been subject to public and independent oversight by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). The “books”, if you insist, are as open to you or me as they are to ministers.

Reeves, in other words, knew perfectly well what the situation was when she said that every Labour policy was “fully funded and fully costed – no ifs, no ands, no buts”. She understood what pressures there were on the public finances when, during the general election, she repeatedly promised “no additional tax rises” beyond the three that Labour had admitted to.

Second, far from deteriorating, the economic outlook has improved since Labour drew up its plans. Everyone says so. Even the IMF, which has been wrongly predicting recessions ever since the Brexit vote, has upped its forecasts. Britain’s PMI, a measure of business confidence, has been more positive than the eurozone’s for months. So far this year, ours has been the most successful of the world’s major economies.

Third, the claim that Labour is inheriting a uniquely poor situation is palpable piffle. We don’t have to reach back to Wilson’s devaluation or Healey’s IMF bailout. We need only recall the situation that the last Labour government bequeathed 14 years ago. In 2010, unemployment was at 8 per cent; now it is 4.4 per cent. In 2010, inflation was at 3.4 per cent; now it’s 2 per cent, precisely on target. In 2010, the deficit was about 10 per cent of GDP and forecast to grow; now, it is 3.1 per cent and falling.

Fourth, the reason that taxes, prices, spending and borrowing rose is that we paid people to stay at home for the better part of two years – a policy that Labour wanted to prolong.”

Rachel Reeves is about to get a harsh lesson in one of the most basic rules of economics

Labour will soon discover that you can’t squeeze more tax out of Britain without crushing the economy

www.telegraph.co.uk

It looks to me we are right back to the Blair years; authoritarian quackery (stand up Bridget Phillips), encouraging immigration (take a bow Yvette Cooper), and now likely looking at more pensions sabotage and other hijinks to fund bumper public sector rises. We’ve been here before.

The liberal consensus is failed but I guess this is the final link in the Blair/Cameron/Sunak/Starmer chain that we need to go through.

 

[Smurf]

Rachel Reeves ready to deliver the bad news: Britain is broke — The Times and The Sunday Times

When Rachel Reeves arrived at the Treasury for her first day at work as the country’s first female chancellor, she barely had time to finish her cup of tea before the bad news began. Sleep-deprived but elated after watching her party sweep into power with a landslide victory in the early hours...

apple.news

They are just like a class of kids blaming each other, finger pointing, he said she said… liar liar pants on fire!!
Its all just a game to them.
So feck knows what to believe in this piece. Cannot trust either side
Tories stole the money?
Gifting themselves billions through their “non tendering” process during covid?
Labour lies to raise taxes?
Maybe add more of the multi biliion private finance deals they’ve already burdened us with?
Or Both

They've made it clear no tax rises will hit working people.

 

[Doc Shrink]

They've made it clear no tax rises will hit working people.

They'd better no hit the pensioners.


@EH17 Jimmy and I are sharpening up the pitchforks just in case.

There will be plenty to go round lads.

 

[egb_hibs]

They've made it clear no tax rises will hit working people.

We’ll see.

I reckon it will not be great for self employed, pensions contributors and those who brought up a family, helping society’s future.

Bridget Phillipson’s stance is by far the most worrying though. The country is rooked - having never recovered from their last term, not least because of the incompetents that followed - and labour will do what they do, and probably make it worse.

But nixing the free speech bill in the face of this lunatic movement that is corrupting institutions and kids ? That’s different gravy. And it’s why, at the end of the day, the other shower may be useless and venal, but Labour are the contemporary nasty party.

 

[EH17 Jimmy]

Quite right Doc. We can get a platoon of mobility scooter things.

Blast them with propaganda (or Billy's 'jokes).

Shout hurty things like fascist at them.

 

[Jack]

They'd better no hit the pensioners.


@EH17 Jimmy and I are sharpening up the pitchforks just in case.

There will be plenty to go round lads.

Aye right!

You'll be away on holiday somewhere.

 

[Doc Shrink]

Does Putin lead from the front?
Does Zelenski?
Netanyahu?

No of course not.

Even Ryan isn't in the front line battling demons from hell, or aliens, or Big Pharma.

No, modern day leaders in warfare do the strategy and send others to kill or die.

I may be on the beach, but I'll be thinking of you all.
At times anyway.

@EH17 Jimmy will be the suicide squad leader.

 

[paigntonhibby]

They've made it clear no tax rises will hit working people.

The tax allowance is staying at 12700 for the next 5 years..
If I get a pension rise of £33 a month over that period I will be paying tax on my pension

 

[EH17 Jimmy]

Aye and leave auld me to lead the troops.

 

[EH17 Jimmy]

On my fourth mission. I'm a delegator Doc

Does Putin lead from the front?
Does Zelenski?
Netanyahu?

No of course not.

Even Ryan isn't in the front line battling demons from hell, or aliens, or Big Pharma.

No, modern day leaders in warfare do the strategy and send others to kill or die.

I may be on the beach, but I'll be thinking of you all.
At times anyway.

@EH17 Jimmy will be the suicide squad leader.

 

[Doc Shrink]

On my fourth mission. I'm a delegator Doc

I'm not sure you're clear on the role of a suicide squad Jimmy, if you think you can do four missions.

 

[EH17 Jimmy]

Faulty explosives Doc

 

[Smurf]

The tax allowance is staying at 12700 for the next 5 years..
If I get a pension rise of £33 a month over that period I will be paying tax on my pension

If that's the case that's a Tory policy. There's been no Labour budget yet and when there is it wouldn't be possible to reverse all they disagree with. Indeed it will never be possible. That's the reality.

 

[Hattie]

Aye arse cheeks scenario. You on the peeve today Stu? Got that holiday feeling?

Yep, done all the garden this morning and now settled with a cold cider

 

[egb_hibs]

If that's the case that's a Tory policy. There's been no Labour budget yet and when there is it wouldn't be possible to reverse all they disagree with. Indeed it will never be possible. That's the reality.

I would have thought it an absolutely core labour value to reduce the task burden on less affluent workers and pensioners. I mean it’s called the Labour Party , not the ‘public sector and dependency party’, right?

 

[Smurf]

I would have thought it an absolutely core labour value to reduce the task burden on less affluent workers and pensioners. I mean it’s called the Labour Party , not the ‘public sector and dependency party’, right?

So how do they get the money? I'd be kind of radical to get it....

 

[egb_hibs]

So how do they get the money? I'd be kind of radical to get it....

Not give an inflation busting pay rise to the public sector ?