Jump to content

news & politics:discussion


zahidf
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

The gas price cap gets reset on April 1. It is predicted that this will mean a 50% rise in prices for most consumers. It's hard to see that not being a huge problem for the govt when it occurs, though so far no word on any mitigation.

Yeah I’m not looking forward to the bills after April, it’s not going to be pretty. At least it’ll be warmer for a few months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

The gas price cap gets reset on April 1. It is predicted that this will mean a 50% rise in prices for most consumers. It's hard to see that not being a huge problem for the govt when it occurs, though so far no word on any mitigation.

I am sure they will do something.

But this rise at the same Time as NI increase and inflation possibly at 6% will hit people hard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Isn’t VAT 17.5 % how does that cover a 50% rise in prices ? Or have I got my figures wrong ? 

I think VATs actually only 5% on domestic energy bills so cutting it will have even less impact than you think. Obviously it will help a bit but not by very fucking much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

There was a time when restrictions where a vote winner with the public...  Quite the opposite now.  I don't think Labour have worked that one out yet.

They backed the govt plan b … what are you seeing that’s different ? Or are u not reading the posts above and believing Boris spin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SheffJeff said:

I think VATs actually only 5% on domestic energy bills so cutting it will have even less impact than you think. Obviously it will help a bit but not by very fucking much.

Crumbs 😞 best order some more logs for the wood burner 😞 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

There was a time when restrictions where a vote winner with the public...  Quite the opposite now.  I don't think Labour have worked that one out yet.  They backed plan B and now they go quiet....

They need to be pressuring the prime minster to open up more...  That will wrong foot them politically.

Johnson brought in plan B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

You miss the point...

If Labour don't have a position - if they are not opposing or setting the narrative - then Johnson can label them anyway he wants.

Starmer from the start should have been holding Boris to the fire on why he is locking down - why he is brining in plan B - why is he destroying the economy.  He did the opposite.  Why aren't we going further ?  Why aren't we doing more testing ?   Why didn't we close the borders ? 

By not going against most of this - AND backing plan B - And voting through every restriction Boris proposed - he can't separate himself from any of it.  He did back restrictions.  All the way through.  He voted for them all and asked why the prime minsister was dithering and delaying (forgot that ? )

Wrong again. They poll badly if play politics and oppose when should be supporting during a crisis. They could have not voted for it as that would probably fatally damage Johnson...but they didn't, maybe because they are good people and not evil scum, or maybe they actually prefer to keep Johnson there as he is a disaster waiting to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, steviewevie said:

Wrong again. They poll badly if play politics and oppose when should be supporting during a crisis. They could have not voted for it as that would probably fatally damage Johnson...but they didn't, maybe because they are good people and not evil scum, or maybe they actually prefer to keep Johnson there as he is a disaster waiting to happen.

Yep, Labour acted in the national interest to get plan b which was what was needed at the time. They could’ve nearly toppled Johnson but decided not too. A PM with an 80 seat majority relying on opposition votes for key legislation is very embarrassing for the PM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Barry Fish said:

Well don't cry when its rightly pointed out they wanted lockdowns and restrictions.  They voted for all of it.

because it was the necessary to keep health services from being overwhelmed and to reduce serious illness and death. Now it isn't so clear as most are immunised and we have a very infectious variant which causes less severe illness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Bless - you might want to look up how democracy works in the United Kingdom.

One MP = One Vote...

Labours had the numbers to stop Plan B - they backed it...  They backed it all...

You can rightly say Starmer wanted lockdowns and restrictions.

Well, they supported plan B...and so did I, so good on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Well, they supported plan B...and so did I, so good on them.

Plan b was definitely needed but it was key government legislation which if they had lost would’ve essentially been a confidence matter in the Commons.

Either way though Labour/Starmer never called for a winter lockdown just the government to publish a plan for if things got worse. Johnson is lying when he has Starmer wanted a lockdown, if anything it’s Johnson that talks about lockdowns the most. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Barry Fish said:

So why complain if its such a vote winner ? Take the credit ?  🙂 

I am guessing you know deep down its not a vote winner 😛 

Vaccines are a vote winner for sure...think too early to say not having more restrictions this winter is (which Starmer hasn't called for anyway)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...