CornwallFox

Most labour supporters don't think they're left wing enough. We'd like to see them increase spending and lose their fiscal rules until growth is achieved. The fiscal rules are creating unnecessary economic drag and stopping them being a transformational government. The issue is parents being able to afford their kids isn't really a tax issue - it's a pay issue. And having employers pay wages that can really be lived on without the need for benefits to subsidise poor pay is a real issue. But that might be a hard one for us to find common ground on perhaps?

I understand that's a very popular viewpoint. An alternative consideration for you though: people might have been able to afford 3 kids but then lose their job. Also don't we need the birth rate to be a decent level? I'm really unclear on the cost as ultimately the money will all be spent and taxed multiple times as it's going straight into the real economy so the cost will be offset by recovery elsewhere

JJ is indeed great in midfield but he does a different job to winks. So who is sitting next to our slightly behind JJ so he can maraud forward?

Really not sure what people want. Being realistic with suggestions, what do people think any of the parties would have done differently? The Tories might not have raised tax but would have splashed public spending to already utterly crippled public services thanks to austerity. Reform are a joke party with no policies. Greens would raise taxes on wealth and invest hugely, which kinda appeals to me but isn't really popular with any media or usually the electorate. Lib Dems I'm not really sure tbh. If we want public services to get better were going to need to invest. Removal of two child benefit cap not universally popular it's fair to say but it is also the most direct means to reduce child poverty. What different choices would you make? Not just what would you like, but what would you give up in return?

People buy cars, bikes, white goods and other stuff via salary sacrifice

I the only thing I'd really thought about is the fact I'm not sure why most salary sacrifice schemes have any tax incentives. Why should people get money off fridges just because it comes out their salary? I find it bizarre.

I think the issue is they seem to be genuinely trying to fix the foundations but that is a long term approach. Plus some of the issues will take sustained efforts, like cancer times as you mention them. They seem to be happy to work to the parliamentary and electoral cycle with the aim of having really positive results by the time of the next election, but that doesn't give the short term answers people tend to want. I'm not giving a view either way on that, but I think that's what's happening.

And chips in those silver tumbler type things

Stutter penalties should have been banned years ago

Although her voice is annoying I do enjoy the level of distain in carries when talking about Tory austerity 😅

Reeves sounds horrendous to listen to doesn't she? And the stupid fake smile she started doing after some mild criticism a year ago is also annoying.

The obr have released it not the government

I don't envy you 😅

I used to work in the benefits sector when I was younger and of course many do take the micky. But most don't. I happen to think you build a benefits system to provide a proper and well funded safety net to the majority, then add in severe penalties for those that take the micky. If you base the system on the micky takers, as seems to be the case more and more, then there's no safety net for the rest of us.

You know what, turns out I'm wrong as that was a fair question. So not sure where I got that from. I stand corrected. What I will say though, is although it's not liked, from a purely economic standpoint benefits are actually a positive as it pretty much all gets spent in the economy so it's basically the government directly funding the economy via a middle man. So has an entirely positive economic impact. It's much better for the economy that rich people hoarding it. Pretty much all benefit spending increases growth and goes back to the treasury over time. So it's still a matter of looking up for the problem in our economy.

Look up, not down, for the reason tax rates have to keep increasing.

He's not a creator or scorer so that's hardly surprising. He's more of a wish Michael Carrick. James does a completely different job.

Thank God I didn't realise we were playing this tonight 😅

I recall when 'Barcelona wants Leicester wonderkid Hamza Choudhury'

Dude. It's a Leicester fans website. There's zero contention. It's a cob.

Vast majority of mine is in the S&P

With Harris, I have no idea if she would have been good or bad as she doesn't the entire time attacking trump rather than saying what she do. Similar issue to the Brexit campaign for remain, there was no vision to get behind for those wavering beyond leave = bad (which it does but there still needs to be a good argument for how the status quo can be good given it's inherently difficult to defend a status quo)

I think our centre backs are more than good enough for this league and aren't the issue. Scoring goals is the issue imo. I think left and right back are important as we need full backs that can join the attack. Centre mid isn't great but winks and JJ are good enough and skipp can do a job so long as he gives the ball to somebody else once he gets it. Number 10 would be my next priority above CM and CB as that link player is missing and JJ much better as an 8.

striker, left back Right back In that order

There's been a government consultation about them and 99% of respondents said they were a problem. Moving on to another phase of reviewing their use I believe so something should change at some point but it's a slow process.