As with the cladding scandal , each one is blaming the other

But again factually they all know that the Postmasters have been conspired against & no one was prepared to hold their hands up.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 43 minutes ago
The company producing the cladding lied about its fire retardent properties and used false data in its promotions.

That's where the blame lies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The inquiry you referenced said the LABC was partially to blame.

Are the policies that this Labour government adopting based on shawing up a future vote or for the benefit of the whole country?

Another political party that priorities's it own political future expediency over what is actually best for the country & its population in the long run.

This political polarisation of our society is at the root of why our country is undoubtedly broken, totally dysfunctional & at odds with its self.

We are essentially bankrupt as the our economy cannot sustain without 100bln per year in borrowings & a further 100bln + in interest payments a figure which rapidly becoming unsustainable.

In four years that will equate to - 800bln from our economy.

This country needs REFORM of our political system, our policies that use our tax take & our thinking.

Lets talk

Is the Attorney General Lord Hermer guilty of Hate speech with his recent comments regarding people questioning whether this country may have to leave the ECHR & ECJ?

The Attorney General the highest Law officer in the land is in place to serve the whole country irrespective of their own personal political feelings, his recents comments are politcal, divisive & totally inappropriate for a person in such a position.

Our judiciary & government are following these unelected bodies advice as non negotiable rulings opposed to what they are advice , which we can or cannot adopt at our discretion.

Every country in the E.U interprets ECHR & ECJ rulings as discretionary advice on a case by case basis.

* Every country in the E.U interprets ECHR rulings as discretionary advice on a case by case basis.*

The ECJ rulings are followed by the countries who have elected this body, we do not fall into this category

No doubt lots of things need to change but Nigel Farage isn't the answer.

comment by TheFactChecker (U23259)
posted 5 minutes ago
No doubt lots of things need to change but Nigel Farage isn't the answer.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
This 100% and certainly not the reform party.

Well agreed, no doubt lots of things need to change

But Clearly the issue seems to be our country needs to reform as our political system is at the root of the 50+ years of social decline in this country.

Both the Tories & this current government are not fit for purpose.

Now personally i want reform with or without Nigel Farage, but I do want reform of the way this country manages its economy & its social affaires.

How about you ?

I think almost everyone wants to see change in this Country, but I don't see how that comes from a political party or Government at the moment.

The government are looking at more tax increases.

Can the UK population cope with even more tax hikes?

The Prime minister has committed to increase defence spending as the UK is moving to a war footing against Russia.

Are you happy with higher taxes or is it time to look at how our tax take is being spent.

Is it time to reconsider our spending on

Nett Zero, Illegal immigration & DEI ?

Is the UK a busted economy ?

Our economy cannot sustain itself without 100bln+ per year in borrowings , our interest on our debt is in excess of 2.5 trillion is 100bln+ per year..

In very plain english this equates to in over two 5 years

A - 500m+ in interest payments & an increase of 500m+ on our debt, which will take our debt to over 3 trillion.

This is quite simply totally unsustainable?

Now if you are not fully invested in the good of this country for all of its 70m inhabitants you may say , its not an issue, TAX the Rich?

But if you are fully invested as a tax payer relying upon the services of this country on a daily basis, this rate of borrowing will be a significant issue, as the borrowing goes up less money will be available.

Finally our energy policies are bankrupting our society.

This is an issue for all those who are fully invested in the best for this country & its 70m inhabitants .

comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 19 minutes ago
The government are looking at more tax increases.

Can the UK population cope with even more tax hikes?

The Prime minister has committed to increase defence spending as the UK is moving to a war footing against Russia.

Are you happy with higher taxes or is it time to look at how our tax take is being spent.

Is it time to reconsider our spending on

Nett Zero, Illegal immigration & DEI ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm placing my trust in Reform and their Magic Money Tree

I'm placing my trust in Reform and their Magic Money Tree
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that maybe Boris, but first this country has to cope with the last 4 years of this Labour administration.

Are you happy with your taxes going up, can you afford the cost or is it effecting your daily life ?

Are you happy with the condition of the services that the state provide?

Finally do you think we should look at how & why our tax take is being spent.?

You do get the issue - implications with the debt increase & the interest payments.?

Well that maybe Boris, but first this country has to cope with the last 4 years of this Labour administration.
-------------------------------------------------
Are you the new Doctor Who?

Boris, my view is that if this administration continues as it doing, this will be its last 4 years in office.

Dissatisfaction is extremely high.

But hey dont let semantics cloud interfere with genuine conversation.

? do you have an answer to anything I have raised?

or

Are you happy & chuffed to bits with what this administration is doing?

Well Labour have been in office for about 11 months.

The Tories were in power for 14 years.

It's a bit early to give an assessment.

It's funny how Reform say they're going to tackle waste yet baulked at the idea of taking the WFP off the richest pensioners.

Well there are numerous issues to be solved imo, we cant agree with everything , now can we.

I think the issue is what is meant by richest, is that having 15k life savings or being a multi millionaire?

Imo, it should be means tested and the metric should looked at.

If you are looking forward to a life where you can earn money, then you are economically active, but if you past work ability and you face the last years of your life , your life saving to point should not be penalised imo.

After all you have paid tax on them already, but agreed there should be a rational cut off point.

I totally agree about it being means tested, Labour did drop a massive bollok there and thankfully they’ve seen sense

comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 13 minutes ago
Well there are numerous issues to be solved imo, we cant agree with everything , now can we.

I think the issue is what is meant by richest, is that having 15k life savings or being a multi millionaire?

Imo, it should be means tested and the metric should looked at.

If you are looking forward to a life where you can earn money, then you are economically active, but if you past work ability and you face the last years of your life , your life saving to point should not be penalised imo.

After all you have paid tax on them already, but agreed there should be a rational cut off point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's projected that the WFP cut will raise between 1.3 and 1.5m at the current threshold.

If you raise that threshold and then have a means tested approach, the tax take will reduce while the cost of administering it will soar. It will barely be worth it in terms of savings and that's why this Govt set the threshold at the very easily administered threshold - maximum take minimum cost.

£1.3 - £1.5bn not m

I can't understand why it costs so much to administer. Surely if they invested in making it easier and cheaper to do so, over the long term it would pay dividends.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
Well Labour have been in office for about 11 months.

The Tories were in power for 14 years.

It's a bit early to give an assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My assessment after 2 months of the coalition was that it was awful.

I've no idea what the Tories have to do with assessing this Government. Sure it may change but right now I've not got any confidence in them.

I also support the 2 Child Cap

No one who already had 3 or more children was affected when it was first implemented.