Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[LutonSpurs]

You are correct and it’s worth keeping a sense of proportion. The number of transgender athletes competing at elite levels is very small, and there are many issues facing the country that affect far more people on a daily basis. Government attention should not become consumed by a debate that, in practical terms, affects relatively few individuals.

However, saying it is not the biggest issue facing the country is different from saying it is not an issue at all. Questions about fairness, women's opportunities, safeguarding, and inclusion are legitimate public policy concerns. Dismissing those concerns out of hand is unlikely to persuade anyone and often deepens divisions.

The most constructive approach is to recognise two truths at the same time: transgender people deserve respect and inclusion, and women deserve confidence that female sporting categories remain fair. The challenge is finding policies that balance those interests as fairly as possible, rather than pretending one side's concerns do not exist.

Sure. But you made it the first point in response to the Burnham news. Hence the response.

It is a minor issue on the scale of things.

And the Trans community are so small but seem to be pushed in to the media hate cycle. I just want them to be left alone.

 

[P.D.]

Your examples mostly show that a wealth tax would need sensible rules, not that it is unworkable. Every tax has edge cases: income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and corporation tax all have valuation, liquidity and enforcement issues. The existence of complexity is not the same as the policy being impossible.

If someone owns a £15m business, the obvious answer is not ‘the business must be sold.’ A well-designed wealth tax could allow deferral, installments, or special treatment for genuine trading businesses, especially where the owner is asset-rich but cash-poor. That is a design choice, not a fatal flaw.

The valuation point is overstated too. Businesses, property and other assets are valued all the time for lending, insurance, probate, accounts, transactions and tax. The state would not need a perfect valuation of every asset every day; it would need a workable system, just like every other tax does.

As for who administers it, the answer is: the tax authority, as it does with other taxes. It would use thresholds, declarations, audits, reporting rules and anti-avoidance measures. You don’t reject a tax because it needs administration — administration is part of how taxes work.

And on the IMF quote, that does not mean ‘wealth tax can never work.’ It means the IMF generally prefers better capital gains and inheritance tax design over a broad wealth tax. That is an argument about what they think is the better policy mix, not proof that a wealth tax is impossible.

So the real issue is not whether a wealth tax can be perfectly neat — it can’t. The real issue is whether the benefits of taxing extreme wealth outweigh the practical costs. Saying ‘it’s complicated’ is not the same as proving ‘it can’t be done.’

I'll give you credit, good response but I don't think it's possible to work through all those things in a fair and equitable way that would make the tax worthwhile and those are just the things that jumped to mind. I'm sure there's loads of other complexities that would come up and I'm still of the belief it would be detrimental long term to have this type of policy approach. There's a reason why other major countries haven't done it before.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

When Starmer was first being talked about as a potential Prime Minister — even before he formally ran for the role — I quite liked him. He came across as a decent, serious man and a welcome alternative to the moral chaos and dishonesty that had come to define Boris Johnson's government.

However, despite all the rhetoric about competence, integrity and change, I don't feel the words have been matched by enough meaningful action. The situation at the border still appears largely out of control, although I accept that any government would face significant challenges in dealing with it.

More broadly, it feels as though the government lurches from one embarrassment to the next. Peter Mandelson's return to a prominent role is only the latest example, raising questions about Labour's promise of a fresh start. Added to that have been a series of awkward controversies and political missteps that have undermined Starmer's carefully cultivated image of professionalism and good judgement. While none of these incidents may be individually catastrophic, together they contribute to a growing sense that the government is struggling to live up to the high standards it set for itself in opposition.

Andy Burnham seems like a decent man from the outside. He appears to have genuine momentum and enjoys support from people across the political spectrum, which is increasingly rare in modern politics.

But this whole situation feels like yet another example of how politicians may enter public life with good intentions, only to lose sight of their primary responsibility once higher office comes into view. Too often, serving constituents appears to take a back seat when the prospect of becoming Prime Minister becomes a realistic ambition.

Perhaps that's the nature of politics. Once the top job is within reach, loyalty, principles and promises can quickly become secondary considerations. It makes me wonder whether there is any politician, from any political party who wouldn’t sell their own mum to step over the current PM to take their job?

I agree with most of that Jurg...but most of the brick that comes with the job get activated the moment you arrive from the outside....it's like a tank of piranhas. And it's way beyond the daily broadsheets and tabloids of yesteryear, everyone gets and wants their fill.

It crushed Starmer. He knew he'd be facing it, and he tried to rail against it BUT there's too many people absorbed by this brick, and the storyline has to be neverending, so there's no let up.

I think it's likely Starmer would have been a good PM in a different era.

Interesting to see how Burnham goes

 

[Glenda's Legs]

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

So this women and girls defenders does not give a damn when it's a white man. Here he is defending the orange pedo again. "He has a point" about grooming gangs yes. But he also doesn't actually give a fudge about girls. Only the skin colour of the perpetrator matters to him. It's plain as day for his fans. But keep pretending you aren't racist fuks

Very “patriotic” of our Tommy as well.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Very “patriotic” of our Tommy as well.

Dining in Russia, cucking Trump in America.....waves those flags and paint those roundabouts though

 

[Gutter Boy]

Dining in Russia, cucking Trump in America.....waves those flags and paint those roundabouts though

And chooses to resides much of the year as an immigrant in a Muslim country

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

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

 

[Baleforce]

“Nobody cares”

“Well the parliamentary ethics committee do”

fudging gold

 

[Glenda's Legs]

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

I don't understand why he isn't being challenged on changing his story from the money being provided for security, to being provided as a thank you for his work on Brexit. Almost like he makes it up as he goes along.
The sad thing is he is probably right that the people he is appealing to don't care, because he is very, very good at deflecting.
Having said that he is getting extremely defensive and more prickly than usual as this one is not going away (unlessthe Standards Committee find in his favour).