Cable Forum - Starmer’s chronicles

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Starmer’s chronicles (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33712992)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36215460)

Grim has a point. That’s the problem with politicians - they don’t think strategically in the interests of the people - only themsleves.

Hence killing the coal mining industry without a plan for the affected areas was terrible oversight. Of course Scargill didn’t help the cause and it got Thatcher into revenge mode.

Agreed, King Arthur could probably have done things better/differently but I'm sure he would argue he was fighting for the very existence of his members. That terrible oversight of not having a plan for the future is one reason it's still so raw round here.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36215461)

They didn't need replacing because there was NO NET IMPACT on homeless etc.

That makes absolutely no sense at all . There was still a housing queue waiting for people to move or die . Sell the houses build no more what happens to the growing queue. Talk sense man. No caps needed

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Anyway, back the thread title. I've never hidden my dislike for our PM and have never considered him to be a true Labourite, I'm sure I've said on here I consider him a Liberal who realised he would never get to power so chose to pretend to be Labour. The sooner he's gone the better. I know who I want to be PM and it's none of the names being banded about at the moment.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Paul did ask what we were paying in all fairness Grim

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36215419)

Given she was last PM some 35 years ago, what price would that be ?

Selling off state owned oil assets would be the obvious one. That is having a tangible impact 35 years on.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

In answer to Grim’s point about Labourism, Atlee was a good example of good Labourism. His lot did a good job for post-war UK. After him, Wilsonn was too political; Callaghan was a nothing. Blair was aa moderniser who kept the UK going; Brown was a crock; Starmer - POS.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36215443)

It wasn't just the fact she sold them off, its the fact she put laws and restrictions in place to stop new ones being built with the proceeds, her utilities sell off has led us to where we are now, sky high bills, companies loaded with debt and little investment, Norway has a huge sovereign wealth fund benefitting its people with the proceeds of North Sea oil, who benefitted from our north sea oil and we will be paying the price for her policies forever not just 35 years after because the damage done can't simply be undone, it took decades to get the right to buy money freed up and used in communities for instance

They were STILL being built. There was NO INCREASED REQUIREMENT as a result.

---------- Post added at 12:20 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36215463)

No NET impact. The number being housed didn't change.

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36215453)

It wasn't just the Mines closing that decimated towns, it was also the knock on effect of the businesses that serviced the mines now having no work too.

I'm only around 25 miles from some badly hit areas.

Labour closed more mines.

---------- Post added at 12:25 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36215441)

You accidentally missed out a bit…

Strange when Rayner underpays Stamp Duty it’s a scandal, but when Tice underpays £91k of Corporation Tax, it’s a minor administrative error…

He didn't underpay. He paid it instead as income tax.
Rayner deliberately and intentionally underpaid stamp duty, CGT, and right to buy discount refund.
50% of the property was transferred to her son, with her remaining 25% sold to his trust. Sidestepping CGT and higher stamp duty. confused about the whole situation surrounding that. Doesn't make legal sense.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36215471)

Rayner deliberately and intentionally underpaid stamp duty, CGT, and right to buy discount refund.
50% of the property was transferred to her son, with her remaining 25% sold to his trust. Sidestepping CGT and higher stamp duty. confused about the whole situation surrounding that. Doesn't make legal sense.

Rayner's been cleared.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36215475)

Rayner's been cleared.

Mud sticks :p:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36215475)

Rayner's been cleared.

Only of intentionally doing it. The act of doing it has been proved.
Her actions of transferring 50% and selling her remaining 25% weren't considered.

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:35 ----------

Starmer's running out of MPs willing to be Ministers.
Wes Streeting resigns.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36215471)

They were STILL being built. There was NO INCREASED REQUIREMENT as a result.

---------- Post added at 12:20 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------

No NET impact. The number being housed didn't change.

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 ----------

Labour closed more mines.

---------- Post added at 12:25 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

He didn't underpay. He paid it instead as income tax.
Rayner deliberately and intentionally underpaid stamp duty, CGT, and right to buy discount refund.
50% of the property was transferred to her son, with her remaining 25% sold to his trust. Sidestepping CGT and higher stamp duty. confused about the whole situation surrounding that. Doesn't make legal sense.

No, she didn’t…

You stated "deliberately", HMRC said it wasn’t…

Quote:

Rayner said she welcomed the HMRC's conclusion that "there wasn't any wrongdoing and that I didn't try to avoid paying tax, and I wasn't careless in the way I conducted myself".

The BBC has seen an email from the tax authority to Rayner's lawyers which verifies that HMRC regards the matter as closed.

HMRC also spells out in the email that Rayner will not face a penalty charge.

A penalty is incurred if a tax error is "careless" or "deliberate".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx219y4qy0qo

---------- Post added at 14:58 ---------- Previous post was at 14:56 ----------

Anyway, back on topic…

Streeting appears to be chickening out of challenging Starmer…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

HMRC . . looking after their own I see :erm:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36215489)

HMRC . . looking after their own I see :erm:

Ah, the old "when the facts don't support your premise, try a smear instead" approach... ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

After being shafted by HMRC due to a mistake THEY made, and admitted to, I now place them in the same box* as all the other corrupt and incompetent organisations (usually of Government origin) that pick on the small guy yet freely hand out 'get out of jail free' cards to their associates.

*It's a big box, and I may have to get a bigger one soon :)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles

Burnham is given a route back into power. I read on here Rayners a chav. This is like EastEnders. The drama and backstabbing :LOL: