|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On May 06 2025 04:05 Velr wrote:I hate that people bring up "Tomboys" so often when it comes to Trans issues. They were/are just girls and all around me everyone around was totally ok with girls like that (and is to this day with women like that), if anything they were often seen as strong/independant and so on. Bringing them up when talking about young people experiencing gender disphoria or whatever seems extremly ignorant and damaging. If anything this is solidifying gender roles/stereotype by othering whoever isn't neatly fitting the stereotype. Yeah, there are trans woman who are tomboys... The large majority just fucking aren't. They are just girls/women (often young and impressionable), categorizing them as something diffrent is probably the most ignorant and moronic one could do for their self esteem. Social media is doing enough to "othering" out people that don't cleanly fit conservative gender roles, it doesn't help when progressives suddenly start that shit too (even if they mean good). But I guess if it helps to make an argument about Trans issues, it's a-ok to just categorize people again. I mean, isn't that the core issue to all of this. Show nested quote +However the kind of intense focus on what you did and your career that millenials got certainly sucked. I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.
At least in Sweden it felt like everyone in my generation were told that they could be whatever they wanted if they just worked hard for it which I guess it's fine. But later on it felt like that shifted into a focus on what you did, like your work defined a lot of whom you were because of this. There is a stereotype about it and I think it has some truth to it. You work hard and you get depressed when you don't make it.
I've seen quite a few articles on it and know some people who were quite down at the time because their intended careers didn't work out. At this point people are likely mostly over it.
I do think there is a truth to that culture weights what defines you as a person much more than we think, and it can change both between places and different cultures but also over time. A person from northern europe isn't going to define themselves on which family they are from. For someone from the middle east their clan might be a core part of their idea of whom they are.
And I personally feel there has been a shift towards gender being much more important than it used to be but I'm sure many other things have changed as well. I sometimes think about what would be the most healthy mix. Maybe there isn't one, maybe it's different for different people.
IDK, I just feel that there is always a way society expects you to define yourself as a person that most people follow and it seems to contain mostly the same things but the proportions vary a lot both between cultures, geographically and over time. I don't know if I make sense on this but I have spent some time thinking on it.
|
Northern Ireland25363 Posts
On May 04 2025 14:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2025 20:40 WombaT wrote:On May 03 2025 14:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 03 2025 13:25 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2025 06:23 WombaT wrote:
Hm, Reform seem to be doing rather well in these locals.
I wonder if that’s gonna translate to them being viable in the next general, or they’ll do a UKIP and not be able to break through that ceiling despite doing well on other elections? We saw in the last general that they were competative in a lot of races, but that competativeness is what cause such a landslide in the number of seats. If they were to become even more competative it wouldn't result in a lot more reform seats but more or less fewer conservative mps. The problem for Labour is that at the last GE they were seen as the sensible alternative. They have made themselves so deeply unpopular in the last 6 months that they're really going to have to work at regaining trust now for the next 4 years to replicate what was already 'not the best' performance at the last election. The best thing that could happen for reform isn't more people voting reform, its fewer people voting Labour, and that's what looks like happening on the current trajectory. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/02/keir-starmer-under-fire-labour-mps-byelection-loss-reform-uk“In Runcorn, the Labour message was, ‘Vote Labour or get Nigel Farage,’ and quite a lot of people seemed to go, ‘OK, I’ll take Farage.’ I’ve been doing this for a decade and I’ve never seen this level of dislike for Labour, particularly from people who were willing to give them a chance last year and feel they were given false hope,” the activist said.
“One man chased me down a path yelling, ‘Are you Labour?’ When I told him I was a Green he calmed down.” I find it a bit odd. I get why myself, or yourself, or those of similar persuasions aren’t super enthusiastic to put it lightly. It seems Labour have become deeply unpopular with the ‘common sense middle’ of the nation, and pretty damn quickly. Something it took them months to do seemingly what it took the Tories multiple terms and borderline self-sabotage to do. It’s an odd feeling, they’re not my politics, but within the politics they’re trying to appeal to, I think they’re doing alright? But yet it seems to be quite a large segment of that constituency that’s turning. The problem is the people who they have economically punished. They have gone after entire demographics that are spread across the political spectrum. The elderly, the disabled etc. These aren't leftist groups of people, and we all know elderly and disabled people well enough to visibly see the struggle that is being enforced on them and the effect it has on them being singled out and attacked by Labour. Its not a good look for anyone, people were willing to bite their tongues and accept it from the tories because you expect it from them when you tick the tory box, but Labour? Add to that the right wing media just standing ready with false indignation at Labour doing the stuff they wanted to do when they were in power but couldn't and of course, their supporters lapping that up, Labour will soon realize that they are making some huge, unforgiveable mistakes. I talk to people who have voted for the tories since the 80s because they were betrayed once by Labour in the late 70s and never forgot it. A sense of betrayal is the one thing that voters never, ever forget. Labour have probably permanently lost themselves a bunch of loyal voters by sacrificing their own voters for 'the economy' instead of going after the wealthy.
Pensioners deserve a bit of economic punishment seeing as they usually skate in this regard while voting to fuck us workshy youngsters
No in seriousness I think this makes sense within the sort of political confines we inhabit. A betrayal from an ostensible ally versus a known enemy hits that bit harder. Totally get that and agree 100%
If you reside within the ostensible centre, I’m unsure why fucking years of Tory austerity, into outright blatant incompetence is that much more tolerable than Labour being dicks. Why they’re seemingly more vulnerable to it is a source of intrigue for me.
|
On May 06 2025 08:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2025 14:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 03 2025 20:40 WombaT wrote:On May 03 2025 14:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 03 2025 13:25 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2025 06:23 WombaT wrote:
Hm, Reform seem to be doing rather well in these locals.
I wonder if that’s gonna translate to them being viable in the next general, or they’ll do a UKIP and not be able to break through that ceiling despite doing well on other elections? We saw in the last general that they were competative in a lot of races, but that competativeness is what cause such a landslide in the number of seats. If they were to become even more competative it wouldn't result in a lot more reform seats but more or less fewer conservative mps. The problem for Labour is that at the last GE they were seen as the sensible alternative. They have made themselves so deeply unpopular in the last 6 months that they're really going to have to work at regaining trust now for the next 4 years to replicate what was already 'not the best' performance at the last election. The best thing that could happen for reform isn't more people voting reform, its fewer people voting Labour, and that's what looks like happening on the current trajectory. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/02/keir-starmer-under-fire-labour-mps-byelection-loss-reform-uk“In Runcorn, the Labour message was, ‘Vote Labour or get Nigel Farage,’ and quite a lot of people seemed to go, ‘OK, I’ll take Farage.’ I’ve been doing this for a decade and I’ve never seen this level of dislike for Labour, particularly from people who were willing to give them a chance last year and feel they were given false hope,” the activist said.
“One man chased me down a path yelling, ‘Are you Labour?’ When I told him I was a Green he calmed down.” I find it a bit odd. I get why myself, or yourself, or those of similar persuasions aren’t super enthusiastic to put it lightly. It seems Labour have become deeply unpopular with the ‘common sense middle’ of the nation, and pretty damn quickly. Something it took them months to do seemingly what it took the Tories multiple terms and borderline self-sabotage to do. It’s an odd feeling, they’re not my politics, but within the politics they’re trying to appeal to, I think they’re doing alright? But yet it seems to be quite a large segment of that constituency that’s turning. The problem is the people who they have economically punished. They have gone after entire demographics that are spread across the political spectrum. The elderly, the disabled etc. These aren't leftist groups of people, and we all know elderly and disabled people well enough to visibly see the struggle that is being enforced on them and the effect it has on them being singled out and attacked by Labour. Its not a good look for anyone, people were willing to bite their tongues and accept it from the tories because you expect it from them when you tick the tory box, but Labour? Add to that the right wing media just standing ready with false indignation at Labour doing the stuff they wanted to do when they were in power but couldn't and of course, their supporters lapping that up, Labour will soon realize that they are making some huge, unforgiveable mistakes. I talk to people who have voted for the tories since the 80s because they were betrayed once by Labour in the late 70s and never forgot it. A sense of betrayal is the one thing that voters never, ever forget. Labour have probably permanently lost themselves a bunch of loyal voters by sacrificing their own voters for 'the economy' instead of going after the wealthy. Pensioners deserve a bit of economic punishment seeing as they usually skate in this regard while voting to fuck us workshy youngsters No in seriousness I think this makes sense within the sort of political confines we inhabit. A betrayal from an ostensible ally versus a known enemy hits that bit harder. Totally get that and agree 100% If you reside within the ostensible centre, I’m unsure why fucking years of Tory austerity, into outright blatant incompetence is that much more tolerable than Labour being dicks. Why they’re seemingly more vulnerable to it is a source of intrigue for me.
"If you reside within the ostensible centre, I’m unsure why fucking years of Tory austerity, into outright blatant incompetence is that much more tolerable than Labour being dicks. Why they’re seemingly more vulnerable to it is a source of intrigue for me"
Because you think in 2 party reality. Labour got voted in because people got fed up with Tories. Pretty much first thing they did was carry on with Tories policies (winter fuel thing). This was flat out retarded, particularly if you are aware what happened to LibDems (tuition fees). It would have still worked out, if there weren't untested alternative, which used to be the case, it is not anymore though. I honestly dont get journalists sometimes (just one example):
https://www.cityam.com/shock-poll-puts-reform-uk-ahead-of-labour-for-first-time-as-tories-surge/
All it does is saying: "Reform can actually win majority", which is insane message to send to the nation where general understanding is, that it is stuck in between only 2 parties forever. It translates to: " You have the chance to change status quo". I expect next GE to be bloodbath.
|
Northern Ireland25363 Posts
A bloodbath in which direction?
Again my specific question is of those who are vaguely happy with the status quo, why did it take well over a decade seemingly for dissatisfaction with the Tories to reach a level they got turfed out, but Labour are speedrunning it apparently. That specifically is confusing to me
For those who are very unhappy, yeah that’s explicable. Left wing voters, those who are sold on Reform’s stuff. Yeah that I understand.
|
On May 06 2025 11:29 WombaT wrote:
A bloodbath in which direction?
Again my specific question is of those who are vaguely happy with the status quo, why did it take well over a decade seemingly for dissatisfaction with the Tories to reach a level they got turfed out, but Labour are speedrunning it apparently. That specifically is confusing to me
For those who are very unhappy, yeah that’s explicable. Left wing voters, those who are sold on Reform’s stuff. Yeah that I understand.
"A bloodbath in which direction? " honestly I dont know, but I think reshuffle is going to be reform vs LibDems..
On May 06 2025 11:29 WombaT wrote:
Again my specific question is of those who are vaguely happy with the status quo,
For those who are very unhappy, yeah that’s explicable. Left wing voters, those who are sold on Reform’s stuff. Yeah that I understand.
What I think is that you simply overestimate numbers of people who are in any way, shape or form, vaguely happy.
|
Northern Ireland25363 Posts
On May 06 2025 12:04 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2025 11:29 WombaT wrote:
A bloodbath in which direction?
Again my specific question is of those who are vaguely happy with the status quo, why did it take well over a decade seemingly for dissatisfaction with the Tories to reach a level they got turfed out, but Labour are speedrunning it apparently. That specifically is confusing to me
For those who are very unhappy, yeah that’s explicable. Left wing voters, those who are sold on Reform’s stuff. Yeah that I understand. "A bloodbath in which direction? " honestly I dont know, but I think reshuffle is going to be reform vs LibDems.. Show nested quote +On May 06 2025 11:29 WombaT wrote:
Again my specific question is of those who are vaguely happy with the status quo,
For those who are very unhappy, yeah that’s explicable. Left wing voters, those who are sold on Reform’s stuff. Yeah that I understand. What I think is that you simply overestimate numbers of people who are in any way, shape or form, vaguely happy.
I don’t think I’ve ever claimed people are happy, or indeed that that’s an unmerited way to feel.
To reiterate my point, for a certain cohort of voters, why did it take like 14 years of Tory nonsense for that dam to break, and with Labour it’s seemingly taking months. I don’t know how I can put it any more clearly than that
Not demanding an answer, I don’t have one myself! Just that’s the question
For left-leaning folks I can totally understand why. I was a Labour member as were three generations above me, I am no longer.
For people who dig that populist Reform vibe I also get it. For people vaguely in the middle I do not get why the tide has turned quite this quickly
|
On May 06 2025 12:21 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2025 12:04 Razyda wrote:On May 06 2025 11:29 WombaT wrote:
A bloodbath in which direction?
Again my specific question is of those who are vaguely happy with the status quo, why did it take well over a decade seemingly for dissatisfaction with the Tories to reach a level they got turfed out, but Labour are speedrunning it apparently. That specifically is confusing to me
For those who are very unhappy, yeah that’s explicable. Left wing voters, those who are sold on Reform’s stuff. Yeah that I understand. "A bloodbath in which direction? " honestly I dont know, but I think reshuffle is going to be reform vs LibDems.. On May 06 2025 11:29 WombaT wrote:
Again my specific question is of those who are vaguely happy with the status quo,
For those who are very unhappy, yeah that’s explicable. Left wing voters, those who are sold on Reform’s stuff. Yeah that I understand. What I think is that you simply overestimate numbers of people who are in any way, shape or form, vaguely happy. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed people are happy, or indeed that that’s an unmerited way to feel. To reiterate my point, for a certain cohort of voters, why did it take like 14 years of Tory nonsense for that dam to break, and with Labour it’s seemingly taking months. I don’t know how I can put it any more clearly than that Not demanding an answer, I don’t have one myself! Just that’s the question For left-leaning folks I can totally understand why. I was a Labour member as were three generations above me, I am no longer. For people who dig that populist Reform vibe I also get it. For people vaguely in the middle I do not get why the tide has turned quite this quickly
I think the people you are talking about would have voted the tories out earlier, but Corbyn was in charge of Labour at the time.
|
On May 06 2025 14:46 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2025 12:21 WombaT wrote:On May 06 2025 12:04 Razyda wrote:On May 06 2025 11:29 WombaT wrote:
A bloodbath in which direction?
Again my specific question is of those who are vaguely happy with the status quo, why did it take well over a decade seemingly for dissatisfaction with the Tories to reach a level they got turfed out, but Labour are speedrunning it apparently. That specifically is confusing to me
For those who are very unhappy, yeah that’s explicable. Left wing voters, those who are sold on Reform’s stuff. Yeah that I understand. "A bloodbath in which direction? " honestly I dont know, but I think reshuffle is going to be reform vs LibDems.. On May 06 2025 11:29 WombaT wrote:
Again my specific question is of those who are vaguely happy with the status quo,
For those who are very unhappy, yeah that’s explicable. Left wing voters, those who are sold on Reform’s stuff. Yeah that I understand. What I think is that you simply overestimate numbers of people who are in any way, shape or form, vaguely happy. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed people are happy, or indeed that that’s an unmerited way to feel. To reiterate my point, for a certain cohort of voters, why did it take like 14 years of Tory nonsense for that dam to break, and with Labour it’s seemingly taking months. I don’t know how I can put it any more clearly than that Not demanding an answer, I don’t have one myself! Just that’s the question For left-leaning folks I can totally understand why. I was a Labour member as were three generations above me, I am no longer. For people who dig that populist Reform vibe I also get it. For people vaguely in the middle I do not get why the tide has turned quite this quickly I think the people you are talking about would have voted the tories out earlier, but Corbyn was in charge of Labour at the time.
Looking at kwark's numbers (https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4950#98995 from the USpol thread because it went offtopic there), that doesn't seem to make sense. Then again, neither does wombat's question in the first place. What those people seem to show is, in agreement with Kwark's analysis: the UK is a bastion of the neoliberal right. This last election wasn't about either side gaining votes from the other, it was about who stayed at home. If Starmer's landslide victory was with a similar % of the popular vote to Corbyn's ignominious defeat, then that means the question isn't really about convincing the other side to swap votes, but more about who stays at home. This last election apparently had (almost) record numbers of voters stay at home: https://www.economicsobservatory.com/what-do-we-know-about-voter-turnout-in-parliamentary-elections These were clearly more disgruntled Tory voters than people fed up with Labour, but I fear to say that in general, Labour is at a disadvantage because overall the population trends right, and votes for the Tories. Especially when Labour tries to do Labour things rather than neoliberal lite. Starmer isn't the bogeyman Corbyn is to the right. They can deal with neoliberal lite for a few years. So disgruntled and fed up, they stayed at home rather than voted for Rish! (also going to show that just like Jeb! You need more than punctuation to make people excited about you). But they still didn't vote for Starmer.
|
On May 06 2025 11:29 WombaT wrote:
A bloodbath in which direction?
Again my specific question is of those who are vaguely happy with the status quo, why did it take well over a decade seemingly for dissatisfaction with the Tories to reach a level they got turfed out, but Labour are speedrunning it apparently. That specifically is confusing to me
For those who are very unhappy, yeah that’s explicable. Left wing voters, those who are sold on Reform’s stuff. Yeah that I understand. Because the lake of discontent doesn't empty just because a different party won.
The anger is all still there and unless you can drain it away real quick a new dam (party) isn't going to last long.
Voters don't care if it's party a or b, they want their lives to not be shit, yesterday.
|
Northern Ireland25363 Posts
On May 06 2025 16:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2025 14:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 06 2025 12:21 WombaT wrote:On May 06 2025 12:04 Razyda wrote:On May 06 2025 11:29 WombaT wrote:
A bloodbath in which direction?
Again my specific question is of those who are vaguely happy with the status quo, why did it take well over a decade seemingly for dissatisfaction with the Tories to reach a level they got turfed out, but Labour are speedrunning it apparently. That specifically is confusing to me
For those who are very unhappy, yeah that’s explicable. Left wing voters, those who are sold on Reform’s stuff. Yeah that I understand. "A bloodbath in which direction? " honestly I dont know, but I think reshuffle is going to be reform vs LibDems.. On May 06 2025 11:29 WombaT wrote:
Again my specific question is of those who are vaguely happy with the status quo,
For those who are very unhappy, yeah that’s explicable. Left wing voters, those who are sold on Reform’s stuff. Yeah that I understand. What I think is that you simply overestimate numbers of people who are in any way, shape or form, vaguely happy. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed people are happy, or indeed that that’s an unmerited way to feel. To reiterate my point, for a certain cohort of voters, why did it take like 14 years of Tory nonsense for that dam to break, and with Labour it’s seemingly taking months. I don’t know how I can put it any more clearly than that Not demanding an answer, I don’t have one myself! Just that’s the question For left-leaning folks I can totally understand why. I was a Labour member as were three generations above me, I am no longer. For people who dig that populist Reform vibe I also get it. For people vaguely in the middle I do not get why the tide has turned quite this quickly I think the people you are talking about would have voted the tories out earlier, but Corbyn was in charge of Labour at the time. Looking at kwark's numbers (https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4950#98995 from the USpol thread because it went offtopic there), that doesn't seem to make sense. Then again, neither does wombat's question in the first place. What those people seem to show is, in agreement with Kwark's analysis: the UK is a bastion of the neoliberal right. This last election wasn't about either side gaining votes from the other, it was about who stayed at home. If Starmer's landslide victory was with a similar % of the popular vote to Corbyn's ignominious defeat, then that means the question isn't really about convincing the other side to swap votes, but more about who stays at home. This last election apparently had (almost) record numbers of voters stay at home: https://www.economicsobservatory.com/what-do-we-know-about-voter-turnout-in-parliamentary-elections These were clearly more disgruntled Tory voters than people fed up with Labour, but I fear to say that in general, Labour is at a disadvantage because overall the population trends right, and votes for the Tories. Especially when Labour tries to do Labour things rather than neoliberal lite. Starmer isn't the bogeyman Corbyn is to the right. They can deal with neoliberal lite for a few years. So disgruntled and fed up, they stayed at home rather than voted for Rish! (also going to show that just like Jeb! You need more than punctuation to make people excited about you). But they still didn't vote for Starmer.
Aye can’t disagree with much of that.
I’d agree that electorally the UK definitely skews Neoliberal centre thru right, but this Labour incarnation is basically that.
Indeed this is precisely my confusion. I totally get why left/right populists aren’t big fans, makes sense. I mean I’m not.
But I’ve read plenty of folks saying they voted Tories multiple elections in a row, until the shitshow became too much and gave Starmer’s lot a shot, and are massively dissatisfied now. But I’m just not seeing that particular calculus. If the Tories were acceptable for multiple generals in a row, what’s this Labour crossed the Rubicon on?
But again, I’m really talking about quite a specific cohort rather than more generally.
More generally I think they’re up a rather shit creek, but might be alright depending on various other factors. Tories are still rebuilding, Reform is seemingly the new player but they might steal more votes from each other than from Labour.
I do think a fundamental problem Labour have is they’re consistently attacked for being too left, too ‘woke’, which sticks for some as a reason to not vote for them. But they’re not really in actuality either of those things, so people who actually value them aren’t incentivised to vote for them either.
|
Okay it is official now - Reform takes next election:
https://news.sky.com/story/whats-in-the-uk-india-trade-deal-13362856
"Both UK workers in India and Indian workers in the UK will only pay tax in their country of origin rather than the one they're living in, under the agreement.
Indian workers transferred to the UK - and their employers - won't have to pay national insurance contributions for three years."
So unless Reform gets banned, or something, all they have to do is repeat bolded ad nauseum.
Edit: typo.
|
As I understand it it applies for Indian workers who are temporarily dispatched to the UK while still working and being payed by their Indian employer. So they are still paying all taxes in India and this just prevents being double charged.
But obv reform voters arent interested in how things actually work, they just want to be angry at foreigners.
|
Bloody hell we're back to the sixties and the Indians are the bad guys again.
I can't keep up.
It was only a couple of years ago we were just about to be beset by hundreds of billions of Romanians.
|
On May 07 2025 17:59 Jockmcplop wrote:
Bloody hell we're back to the sixties and the Indians are the bad guys again.
I can't keep up.
It was only a couple of years ago we were just about to be beset by hundreds of billions of Romanians.
How did you get that Indians are the bad guys?? Government is, India just happened to be on the other side of this deal, it would be the same for any other country.
On May 07 2025 17:12 Gorsameth wrote:
As I understand it it applies for Indian workers who are temporarily dispatched to the UK while still working and being payed by their Indian employer. So they are still paying all taxes in India and this just prevents being double charged.
But obv reform voters arent interested in how things actually work, they just want to be angry at foreigners.
Then you understand it wrong, the way it is most likely going to work is: you will have recruitment company in India which will hire people there and pay for their tickets, which will be later deducted from their salary. Thats how it was set up in Poland before joining EU.
|
United States42695 Posts
On May 07 2025 16:27 Razyda wrote:Okay it is official now - Reform takes next election: https://news.sky.com/story/whats-in-the-uk-india-trade-deal-13362856"Both UK workers in India and Indian workers in the UK will only pay tax in their country of origin rather than the one they're living in, under the agreement. Indian workers transferred to the UK - and their employers - won't have to pay national insurance contributions for three years." So unless Reform gets banned, or something, all they have to do is repeat bolded ad nauseum. Edit: typo.
How much would you bet on Reform winning the election? I’d give you 10:1.
|
Northern Ireland25363 Posts
On May 07 2025 16:27 Razyda wrote:Okay it is official now - Reform takes next election: https://news.sky.com/story/whats-in-the-uk-india-trade-deal-13362856"Both UK workers in India and Indian workers in the UK will only pay tax in their country of origin rather than the one they're living in, under the agreement. Indian workers transferred to the UK - and their employers - won't have to pay national insurance contributions for three years." So unless Reform gets banned, or something, all they have to do is repeat bolded ad nauseum. Edit: typo.
It’s almost like you have to make concessions to agree trade deals.
If this tips the scales for a Reform victory our nation is dumber than I’d previously thought. And that was already quite a low bar.
They appear to desire the impossible and steadfastly refuse to learn, or admit they got things wrong.
They were warned that you’d be leaving a lot of potential money on the table by leaving the EU, and that the UK wouldn’t have a queue of suitors, desperate to appease the UK in terms of subsequent trade deals. Trade deals you ideally need to compensate from leaving the UK in the first place.
|
On May 07 2025 22:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2025 16:27 Razyda wrote:Okay it is official now - Reform takes next election: https://news.sky.com/story/whats-in-the-uk-india-trade-deal-13362856"Both UK workers in India and Indian workers in the UK will only pay tax in their country of origin rather than the one they're living in, under the agreement. Indian workers transferred to the UK - and their employers - won't have to pay national insurance contributions for three years." So unless Reform gets banned, or something, all they have to do is repeat bolded ad nauseum. Edit: typo. How much would you bet on Reform winning the election? I’d give you 10:1.
Given that there is still 4 years to ban them I would expect something in the high 3 digits rather than 10. 
On May 07 2025 23:06 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2025 16:27 Razyda wrote:Okay it is official now - Reform takes next election: https://news.sky.com/story/whats-in-the-uk-india-trade-deal-13362856"Both UK workers in India and Indian workers in the UK will only pay tax in their country of origin rather than the one they're living in, under the agreement. Indian workers transferred to the UK - and their employers - won't have to pay national insurance contributions for three years." So unless Reform gets banned, or something, all they have to do is repeat bolded ad nauseum. Edit: typo. It’s almost like you have to make concessions to agree trade deals. If this tips the scales for a Reform victory our nation is dumber than I’d previously thought. And that was already quite a low bar. They appear to desire the impossible and steadfastly refuse to learn, or admit they got things wrong. They were warned that you’d be leaving a lot of potential money on the table by leaving the EU, and that the UK wouldn’t have a queue of suitors, desperate to appease the UK in terms of subsequent trade deals. Trade deals you ideally need to compensate from leaving the UK in the first place.
Thing is, it doesnt matter. People were angry at tories, voted labour, now they get angrier and angrier at labour and will vote for something else. Happens to be reform as of now.
In your last 2 paragraphs you basically making my point.
|
On May 07 2025 23:30 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2025 22:41 KwarK wrote:On May 07 2025 16:27 Razyda wrote:Okay it is official now - Reform takes next election: https://news.sky.com/story/whats-in-the-uk-india-trade-deal-13362856"Both UK workers in India and Indian workers in the UK will only pay tax in their country of origin rather than the one they're living in, under the agreement. Indian workers transferred to the UK - and their employers - won't have to pay national insurance contributions for three years." So unless Reform gets banned, or something, all they have to do is repeat bolded ad nauseum. Edit: typo. How much would you bet on Reform winning the election? I’d give you 10:1. Given that there is still 4 years to ban them I would expect something in the high 3 digits rather than 10.
I don't like to bet on bad outcomes but otherwise I would take it. I don't think Reform is likely to win at all but I think they probably win more than one in ten times.
|
On May 07 2025 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2025 23:30 Razyda wrote:On May 07 2025 22:41 KwarK wrote:On May 07 2025 16:27 Razyda wrote:Okay it is official now - Reform takes next election: https://news.sky.com/story/whats-in-the-uk-india-trade-deal-13362856"Both UK workers in India and Indian workers in the UK will only pay tax in their country of origin rather than the one they're living in, under the agreement. Indian workers transferred to the UK - and their employers - won't have to pay national insurance contributions for three years." So unless Reform gets banned, or something, all they have to do is repeat bolded ad nauseum. Edit: typo. How much would you bet on Reform winning the election? I’d give you 10:1. Given that there is still 4 years to ban them I would expect something in the high 3 digits rather than 10. I don't like to bet on bad outcomes but otherwise I would take it. I don't think Reform is likely to win at all but I think they probably win more than one in ten times.
Seems like you are right:
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics
Kwark offer is rather generous, still however 4 years to go means a lot can happen, and I severely lack confidence that government wont use its powers to prevent that from happening.
|
Northern Ireland25363 Posts
On May 07 2025 23:30 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2025 22:41 KwarK wrote:On May 07 2025 16:27 Razyda wrote:Okay it is official now - Reform takes next election: https://news.sky.com/story/whats-in-the-uk-india-trade-deal-13362856"Both UK workers in India and Indian workers in the UK will only pay tax in their country of origin rather than the one they're living in, under the agreement. Indian workers transferred to the UK - and their employers - won't have to pay national insurance contributions for three years." So unless Reform gets banned, or something, all they have to do is repeat bolded ad nauseum. Edit: typo. How much would you bet on Reform winning the election? I’d give you 10:1. Given that there is still 4 years to ban them I would expect something in the high 3 digits rather than 10. Show nested quote +On May 07 2025 23:06 WombaT wrote:On May 07 2025 16:27 Razyda wrote:Okay it is official now - Reform takes next election: https://news.sky.com/story/whats-in-the-uk-india-trade-deal-13362856"Both UK workers in India and Indian workers in the UK will only pay tax in their country of origin rather than the one they're living in, under the agreement. Indian workers transferred to the UK - and their employers - won't have to pay national insurance contributions for three years." So unless Reform gets banned, or something, all they have to do is repeat bolded ad nauseum. Edit: typo. It’s almost like you have to make concessions to agree trade deals. If this tips the scales for a Reform victory our nation is dumber than I’d previously thought. And that was already quite a low bar. They appear to desire the impossible and steadfastly refuse to learn, or admit they got things wrong. They were warned that you’d be leaving a lot of potential money on the table by leaving the EU, and that the UK wouldn’t have a queue of suitors, desperate to appease the UK in terms of subsequent trade deals. Trade deals you ideally need to compensate from leaving the UK in the first place. Thing is, it doesnt matter. People were angry at tories, voted labour, now they get angrier and angrier at labour and will vote for something else. Happens to be reform as of now. In your last 2 paragraphs you basically making my point.
It was a point that could be attached to your post yes, equally you didn’t really frame it explicitly when you were making it. Could read as pro-Reform, could read as ‘this is a bad policy’, could also read as ‘this policy isn’t too bad, but it’s gonna make people angry and they’re going to vote Reform’.
What is your actual position here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
