Fastest ever Goverment petition

[Albionic68]

Back door you say? Are you suggesting the Great British electorate has been fisted up the ricker? What? Again?

[regis80]

Nail on head. Didn't the EU petition get 5 million votes or something?

This petition is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Labour will be in power now for another 4.5 years whatever happens.

I don't agree with some of the things they've done with their budget - particularly with regards to growth. But equally, the Tories lied to get in office multiple times. It just erodes trust further in politics and politicians.

I also think they are at least making some reasonably sensible financial decisions - even if they did not explain they were going to do it in their manifesto. Something the last Govt did not do - they were financially reckless.

Yep 5m signed that petition to effectively vote on a new referendum and this current petition is laughable.

Apparently what i?m reading is that this inheritance tax on farmers is on the wealthy.. but it?s all been whipped up by the wealthy and of course ?the national truth? aka daily mail that the likes of soulman will believe to come out and attack the policy, which no doubt led to this petition.

Didn?t farmers vote for brexit? 😂

[regis80]

Yes to referendum on the EU and can?t believe people like Sunak with his wealth does not donate his PM salary to charity - greedy
w anker!

Surely if your wealth reaches X and you are considerably wealthy you shouldn?t be picking up a state pension either! So you could be 60 and on 100K a year plus and get free prescriptions yet a single mum on 25K a year and under 60 must pay. The system is f ucked!

No shame in some! If I was on 200K a year and an Arsenal supporter I would refuse to go in corporate hospitality if Starmer gets it for free. He?s not representing the government FFS and should pay like the rest in there!

If i?m honest Al, if ever I was a millionaire or billionaire, and I could afford to give some of my wealth to government in taxes? i probably wouldn?t purely because the mismanagement of finances in this country I wouldn?t trust them.

I think we need some successful company director to take over the country that focuses on everyone gaining in wealth and getting a sense of satisfaction. I doubt we will ever.

I think blaming labour for the financial crisis is wrong when it?s the bankers who caused this from their short selling. Tories will argue a free market economy but then want government intervention when things go wrong.. what are people expecting?

[Omegstrat6]

What do you reckon AI ChatGPT Omegastrat? 😂 waiting for your response to my prompt and little one liner of yours that you add. Lol.

Sorry, late to the party on this thread Regis

Maybe me being thick but don't quite get the reference -am I a Chatbot? Maybe I am I can try and count the number of bikes or traffic lights outside if that helps?

In any event, pretty much agree with your own post on this matter.

I understand 68's comment about using the vote that took generations to get but the problem with democracy and our voting system is when it leads to a very polarized two-party choice where neither party really adequately represents the beliefs of so many voters. Given this, I sort of get the apathy of some and the tactical voting of others. Be nice to have a party where I could say, yeah, I agree with the majority of their policies but sadly not. Very few potential leaders in any party with the integrity you would expect either. A depressed economy and falling living standards only makes things worse as inevitably leads to a rise in populism and greater divisions.

One thing I would like politicians of all sides to do is to listen harder to the electorate and be prepared to at least pause intended policies if they warrant a re-think and more thorough investigation before proceeding. Doesn't matter if it is Brexit, the winter fuel allowance for pensioners or the proposed changes in inheritance tax for farmers. Don't always agree with Clarkson, but surely the sign of any decent leader is the ability to be "big" enough to pause to listen to others, especially on major changes, rather than sweep arguments aside and forge ahead regardless? Does not necessarily mean that they change their minds but at least it may force them to be more transparent and examine all the information so that they can better justify their decisions. At the moment-very much as with Brexit-we're just getting far too much nay-saying from both sides rather than proper, informed, debate. And that's without even going into the questions around going back on election promises!

[Omegstrat6]

Ok, I have to plead guilty to the one-liner bit Regis

[Omegstrat6]

Yep 5m signed that petition to effectively vote on a new referendum and this current petition is laughable.

Apparently what i?m reading is that this inheritance tax on farmers is on the wealthy.. but it?s all been whipped up by the wealthy and of course ?the national truth? aka daily mail that the likes of soulman will believe to come out and attack the policy, which no doubt led to this petition.

Didn?t farmers vote for brexit? ��

My understanding is that Reeve's wants to get more money to spend on the NHS/public services through inheritance tax on wealthy farmers which they have avoided paying for many years. Naturally, these wealthy farmers do not want to lose their profits but farming is a little different than other sectors. Many farmers may be asset rich (the value of the land itself if sold or equipment) but comparatively cash poor (making very slim profits). Clarkson indeed brought his farm partially to avoid inheritance tax but his Diddly Squat show has at least highlighted the stresses -both mentally and financially-of trying to run a farm. The government say that they are targeting the very wealthy landowners and estates and that smaller farms worth up to ?3m will not be affected. Personally no issue with that but the concern is that the government's figures do not match those of Defra and other bodies who claim that the new proposals will impact a far higher percentage of smaller farms than Labour are claiming, leading to them having to sell up, inevitably to larger concerns.

Its a similar argument to that around the winter fuel allowance for pensioners. Clearly, the country cannot afford to continue such blanket benefit payments and many well-off pensioners do not need the allowance. Personally, I have no issue with this but the concern is for those pensioners who might "fall between the cracks". Surely any such policy-whether on fuel allowance benefits or inheritance tax on farmers-should be graded rather than cliff-edge "all or nothing" ones? Government spending and taxation need to be far better targeted.

[Leicesterbaggie]

Having lived the first eigh**** years of my life in rural Herefordshire I feel that I am in a reasonable position to comment regarding farming and farmers as many of my school mates were farmer’s sons. Starmer said that he won’t tax the working man. Well, I can assure you that not many work harder than farmers. Come wind, rain and shine twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, fifty two weeks a year. If these farms go under, which many more than the govt. suggest, will, we’re going to rely more and more on imports and at what cost?

It’s fine to give in to overpaid train drivers, whose job isn’t that taxing, but let’s clobber the farmers instead. While not praising the Tories they could have ended the rail strikes if they had capitulated to the unions like Labour did. In fact, it was the first thing that they did when they came to power. I wonder why!

Farming is a difficult job and they need all the help possible. I would just like to add that I have no relatives in the farming industry and am not
oblivious to the many failings of the Tory party either. However, prior to the election Labour were going to bring integrity back into politics; telling the truth doesn’t appear to be one them.

[regis80]

Having lived the first eigh**** years of my life in rural Herefordshire I feel that I am in a reasonable position to comment regarding farming and farmers as many of my school mates were farmer?s sons. Starmer said that he won?t tax the working man. Well, I can assure you that not many work harder than farmers. Come wind, rain and shine twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, fifty two weeks a year. If these farms go under, which many more than the govt. suggest, will, we?re going to rely more and more on imports and at what cost?

It?s fine to give in to overpaid train drivers, whose job isn?t that taxing, but let?s clobber the farmers instead. While not praising the Tories they could have ended the rail strikes if they had capitulated to the unions like Labour did. In fact, it was the first thing that they did when they came to power. I wonder why!

Farming is a difficult job and they need all the help possible. I would just like to add that I have no relatives in the farming industry and am not
oblivious to the many failings of the Tory party either. However, prior to the election Labour were going to bring integrity back into politics; telling the truth doesn?t appear to be one them.

I absolutely cannot stand Starmer for the scandals re donations etc, I think it?s kick in the nuts to voters. I?m glad I didn?t vote at this election, mainly because my vote would not have mattered.

Anyway, i?ve nothing against farmers but I do think they?ve been misinformed and misled by what the new changes are due to bring. Especially the smaller farmers.. anyway that?s what i?m led to believe from this:

Sky news clip where the professor clarifies the new rules:
https://youtu.be/PK8N2GwN4EA?si=7FXXslDypptvlROj

I?m glad these farmers know how to protest, it?s just a pity they didn?t when Truss agreed trade deals with NZ and OZ.. i wonder why?

[Omegstrat6]

I absolutely cannot stand Starmer for the scandals re donations etc, I think it?s kick in the nuts to voters. I?m glad I didn?t vote at this election, mainly because my vote would not have mattered.

Anyway, i?ve nothing against farmers but I do think they?ve been misinformed and misled by what the new changes are due to bring. Especially the smaller farmers.. anyway that?s what i?m led to believe from this:

Sky news clip where the professor clarifies the new rules:
https://youtu.be/PK8N2GwN4EA?si=7FXXslDypptvlROj

I?m glad these farmers know how to protest, it?s just a pity they didn?t when Truss agreed trade deals with NZ and OZ.. i wonder why?

Good interview link. Of course a wealthy landowner like Victoria Vyvyan (whose CLBA organization owns a 1/3 rd of farmland in England and Wales ) isn't going to like losing any of her own huge profits which is why she labels the apparently sensible and reasoned professor/ accountant a "Marxist" and strives to get considerably poorer young farmers like Jacob onside.

I do have sympathy for the concerns of small farmers because, whilst it is true that they are asset rich and could sell up and become very wealthy from it, they want to continue to farm despite comparatively small profits from their undoubted hard work ( And, If they did sell, their land would surely only then be brought up by rich estates such as those belonging to the CLBA and they would make more money using tenant farmers).

The professor interviewed on here seems to make sense to me too but Labour need to do much better to allay the concerns of small farmers and steer them away from the self-interest driven fear-mongering spread by wealthy landowners like VV.

That said, farmers surely also need to be paid a fair price for their produce and rather than increasing taxes on fertilizer the government should be looking at addressing this instead which should, in turn, then lead to less government money given in subsidiaries. Guess you can't have it both ways though-we either continue to use public money to help fund subsidiaries in farming which takes it away from other services like the NHS or else we have to accept paying more for own- grown foodstuffs 🤔

[westcountryvillain]

Didn't Reeves concede that the budget would drive up unemployment as smaller businesses simply cannot afford the additional living wage and employers NI? This would surely drive the welfare state costs up and any increased tax take from the fiscal drag would diminish as companies won't replace workers who leave in order to balance the books.

Now they've suddenly woken up to the bloated welfare state problem and want to get people back into work, you couldn't make this up.