Jump to content

AngryOfTuebrook

Season Ticket Holder
  • Posts

    66,829
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    215

Everything posted by AngryOfTuebrook

  1. A tiny minority of the population (something like 1.5%, I think) pay the top rate of 45% on income over £125k. My guess is that even a measure as small as changing that 45% to 46% would comfortably pay for scrapping the two-child cap and pay for a shit load of other poverty-reduction measures. And, of course, any additional money given to poorer people gets spent (because they need stuff) which supports economic growth.
  2. Yay! A publicly-managed portfolio of (what should be) public property has made a decent profit, but the Godfather gets his taste. I'm sure he'll spend it wisely.
  3. Technically, it does. It would help something like 1.1 million children, but there are 250,000 who would cross the line of the official definition of poverty.
  4. The Manifesto doesn't say that the two-child cap wouldn't be lifted. It doesn't mention it at all. It does say that Labour will tackle child poverty, so the SNP amendment was not inconsistent with Labour's Manifesto. https://labour.org.uk/change/break-down-barriers-to-opportunity/
  5. I don't buy it. Nobody picked up the Labour Manifesto, eagerly looked for a promise to keep children in poverty and then voted accordingly. The seven who have been suspended aren't "populist nutters"; they're good Labour MPs voting against a Tory austerity measure, exactly as their constituents would want them to do. They are the truer representatives of the Labour Movement; why should they have stood as Independents? And even if this SNP amendment (which never should have been necessary) had passed, that would not have damaged Labour's 2029 election chances. The bottom line is that hundreds of thousands of children will remain in poverty indefinitely, not because we can't afford to help them, but because Keir Starmer chooses to leave them in poverty.
  6. I get that party leaders like to flex their muscles from time to time, but imagine a Labour Party Leader making this sort of stand over his right to keep children in poverty. It's fucking disgusting.
  7. It's really not as if buying pork reminded her of that. Not by any stretch of the imagination. OK, let me rephrase it: do you imagine any Muslim would take offence at a non-Muslim eating pork? Or would give a fuck if they did it at Eid? Or would have any negative reaction to someone tweeting Eid Mubarak? A pound to a pinch of shit says whoever decided to juxtapose those tweets wasn't a Muslim.
  8. I obviously meant they'd react that way to Eid Mubarak.
  9. The whole idea of building an iconic stadium is false, anyway. Stadiums gain iconic status on account of what happens there: great players in great teams winning great matches in front of great fans. A mere building doesn't give you that.
  10. The leader's speech at their conference is going to be brutal. I can't wait.
  11. But it's bollocks, though. Any Muslims would have responded to the first message with "Aah, that's nice" at most. And no Muslims at all would have taken issue with her enjoying a pork chop, because she's not a Muslim. So what's the point in trying to juxtapose the two?
  12. That cunt Vance was straight onto the racist dog-whistle, banging on about Harris never expressing "gratitude" for living in America. (The unspoken bit is that - in the USA, as in Europe - non-white people don't really belong here and they owe us a debt of gratitude for letting them stay.)
  13. I have literally never heard a Liverpool fan say that he wasn't.
  14. In other news, Elite has divorced Jenna Coleman and shacked up with Suella Braverman. It makes a lot of sense.
  15. I would have to lay it on thick. "Suella. Braverman. You are being called out for gratuitous, arbitrary cruelty by Suella fucking Braverman."
  16. So... non-Muslims aren't allowed to wish Muslims Eid Mubarak? Are non-Christians allowed to wish Christians Happy Christmas?
  17. Knowing just about nothing about her motivation for seeking the job or the seriousness with which she would approach the job, I can safely say they are both better than Trump's.
  18. Have you looked at the timeline? Sir Michael Take it really is not.
×
×
  • Create New...