Rachel Reeves

[Londonlisa2001]

Hi Wayne , I've gone onto the Guardian website around 6 times over the last 2 days. I can honestly say that It hasn't helped. I find the links very amateurish (think Sunday sport) and also not very left wing. The political stories that I have read there are much the same as I would find on BBC and Daily Mail outlets. I will have a look again tomorrow

If you want a more unbiased and in depth view of news ByLine Times is worth following. It’s free on twitter etc. I say more unbiased as some would regard it as being quite ‘lefty’, but that’s more in a social commentary sense rather than economically so. And it depends on their writer as well. They are pretty interesting sometimes.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

There are some really good points being made and some brilliant suggestions about potential options to improve things, but I think that in addition to raising more revenue we need to look at cutting expenditure too.

The benefits bill has exploded over the last few years, different components of benefit have seen the number of people who are claiming increasing massively and that is something which needs to be looked at because it’s unsustainable. I’m all for supporting those what are unable to work, but supporting those who can’t be asked to work or who are playing the system is a different matter.

Are the disability thresholds set at the correct levels, are the applications scrutinised sufficiently and the system need to be reviewed? Over and above that, the 16 hour rule needs to be reviewed and we need to incentivise people to work. It can’t be right that people are better off on benefits than those who are holding down full time jobs.

The entire system needs a root and branch review.

One thing that’s frequently overlooked in welfare discussions is how large the transfer of wealth is between the ‘state’ and private shareholders through the use of benefits.

A significant number of recipients of universal credit are actually in work (about 37%). Many are in full time work. The reality is that minimum wage jobs even ‘full time’ do not pay enough to allow people to live (depending on their other circumstances). So the state tops up.

Effectively it’s a transfer of benefits to increase company profits.

 

[rockinj]

Does I represent the news outlet? I'm looking for left leaning outlets. Does that fit the bill and more importantly, is it free?

It’s centre left, used to be firmly centre when it was the independent.

It’s an old fashioned moderate read with tories contributing but it definitely has a more social democratic outlook. Not “left wing”

 

[rockinj]

One thing that’s frequently overlooked in welfare discussions is how large the transfer of wealth is between the ‘state’ and private shareholders through the use of benefits.

A significant number of recipients of universal credit are actually in work (about 37%). Many are in full time work. The reality is that minimum wage jobs even ‘full time’ do not pay enough to allow people to live (depending on their other circumstances). So the state tops up.

Effectively it’s a transfer of benefits to increase company profits.

Will come back to you on this.

 

[Pompeyjack]

It’s centre left, used to be firmly centre when it was the independent.

It’s an old fashioned moderate read with tories contributing but it definitely has a more social democratic outlook. Not “left wing”

Thanks for the input Rock.

 

[Ringwood]

Hi Ring are you following Falkirk and Dundee games this season, as "our boy's) are up there? And if you don't give a shit about who wins the Glasgow Derby then you must be in the 5% that Swanjax was talking about. Please don't burst his bubble .

I'm clearly in the 5%.. ...

 

[waynekerr55]

Look how easy Farage is having it over his girlfriend buying a house for £850k despite having never had any discernible income that could amass anything even approaching that in savings.

And this is exactly the reason why Lisa Nandy should have her metaphorical boot on the throat of the BBC. Whatever they do Mason and Kuenssberg will spin it that it's bad and great for uncle Nige

 

[Trampie]

Wealth needs to be taxed until the pips squeak, the very rich need to be taxed to within an inch of their lives and then more money should be given to pensioner's, the working class and the middle class.

A redistribution of wealth is required not just in the UK but across the Western World, the rich are getting richer and buying up all the assets (land, property, gold, art, jewellery etc), the rest are getting poorer, the very rich are driving up prices of assets which means the middle classes can't afford those assets.

You will work like a dog, own nothing and be happy, says the rich.

 

[Trampie]

The majority of the rich won't go, their assets are here the people that pay them rent are here.

The pensioner's need extra money, if they got 20 quid a week extra the majority of them would spent it in the economy, if the rich got more money then they would either bank it or buy more land and property driving prices up higher, meaning the middle classes won't be able to afford such assets.

 

[Trampie]

We tax income and not wealth per se, the wealthy people in this country have got billions the obvious solution to avoid cuts to benefits and services is to tax wealth, heard it somewhere a 2% tax on wealth above 10 million quid (would only affect 20,000 very rich people) and would prevent lots of cuts, but the media owners are all millionaires, lots of politicians are millionaires and they vote for what's best for them and not what's best for the country.

 

[Pentyrchjack]

All the very wealthy people that I know pay very little income tax or corporation tax because they can afford top accountants to avoid such taxes that we, mere mortal working class people, have no choice but to have deducted automatically from our meagre net earnings. There should be a distinction between taxing income and taxing wealth, although the practicalities aren't easy.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

The majority of the rich won't go, their assets are here the people that pay them rent are here

Quite right.

Call their bluff. Do it. I bet most of them bottle it.

Even if they did bugger off, then by their own laws - the laws of rapacious capitalism - "the market is king, the market will decide". If they leave, someone else will come along and plug the gap. That's what they always tell us. When it suits them, of course.

 

[JackSomething]

This thread developed into a fantastic discussion on various topics, but I have just read an article on something that will likely receive a fraction of the attention that Rachel Reeves' letting slip-up attracted:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y95p045g9o

To summarise, PPE Medpro owes the government £187m in tax and fines for breach of contract as they took advantage of the pandemic to line their own pockets. Doug Barrowman has admitted he was the ultimate beneficial owner of PPE Medpro and that he'd received more than £60m in profit from the company. To the surprise of no-one, they had to enter administration after losing their court case and being hit with the bill, apparently leaving just £672k available to unsecured creditors.

There's also a secured debt of £1m owed to a company called Angelo (PTC) and this is likely to rank ahead of government creditors when it comes to paying out whatever can be recovered from the company. The administrators say they expect there to be enough money to pay Angelo (PTC) in full, presumably leaving next to nothing for the £187m they owe the government. Who's the beneficial owner of Angelo (PTC) you ask? Well it's one of Doug Barrowman's companies of course.

It'd be lovely to think that national outrage for this insane situation would attract as much anger as the Chancellor's mistake over literal financial peanuts in comparison, but I won't be holding my breath. It's not as if the media are going to whip up their useful idiots when Barrowman's one of the club.

 

[DJack]

If you want a more unbiased and in depth view of news ByLine Times is worth following. It’s free on twitter etc. I say more unbiased as some would regard it as being quite ‘lefty’, but that’s more in a social commentary sense rather than economically so. And it depends on their writer as well. They are pretty interesting sometimes.

Noted, thank you.

 

[monmouth]

This thread developed into a fantastic discussion on various topics, but I have just read an article on something that will likely receive a fraction of the attention that Rachel Reeves' letting slip-up attracted:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y95p045g9o

To summarise, PPE Medpro owes the government £187m in tax and fines for breach of contract as they took advantage of the pandemic to line their own pockets. Doug Barrowman has admitted he was the ultimate beneficial owner of PPE Medpro and that he'd received more than £60m in profit from the company. To the surprise of no-one, they had to enter administration after losing their court case and being hit with the bill, apparently leaving just £672k available to unsecured creditors.

There's also a secured debt of £1m owed to a company called Angelo (PTC) and this is likely to rank ahead of government creditors when it comes to paying out whatever can be recovered from the company. The administrators say they expect there to be enough money to pay Angelo (PTC) in full, presumably leaving next to nothing for the £187m they owe the government. Who's the beneficial owner of Angelo (PTC) you ask? Well it's one of Doug Barrowman's companies of course.

It'd be lovely to think that national outrage for this insane situation would attract as much anger as the Chancellor's mistake over literal financial peanuts in comparison, but I won't be holding my breath. It's not as if the media are going to whip up their useful idiots when Barrowman's one of the club.

Is that Baroness Bra’s company? Should be in jail. Meanwhile something like ‘immigrant claims benefits’ is front page news and the BBC goes straight to a fash to ‘discuss it’.

The country is ill, and Starmer had a big enough majority to sort it out. Instead we have a frightened mouse and Ming Vase McWanky running things, and Rachel Osborne running the treasury dancing to the tune of the unelected unaccountable guesses of something called OBR. I think it might have been the last chance, unless they suddenly realise that confronting the Nazi bullshit is the only way, not trying to apologetically ape it, that they need to get a grip of the media, be much bolder and act like a government not a focus group.

Just accept you’re toast, because Reeves and Starmer are, and Labour probably is. Behave like you’re going to lose the next election, you have 3 years to make a difference, and DO BIG THINGS. It’s a leadership job, not middle management.

It all really boils my piss.