Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think Keir Starner is ignoring women and children’s rights?

441 replies

Greengablesfables · 16/05/2024 17:58

Hello hello? Kier? We’re here. We are right here. We are Women. Are you listening to us? Hello? Hello?

To think Keir Starner is ignoring women and children’s rights?
OP posts:
Thread gallery
36
ilovesooty · 17/05/2024 21:53

Marjoriefrobisher · 17/05/2024 21:27

No you’re not. Stop being disingenuous.

Show quote history

What gives you the right to claim her query isn't what she's politely stated it to be?

Marjoriefrobisher · 17/05/2024 21:27

Churchview · 17/05/2024 20:01

Just bumping this post up again as nobody replied. I'm still very interested to hear your views.

Show quote history

No you’re not. Stop being disingenuous.

GoodAfternoonGoodEveningAndGoodnight · 17/05/2024 20:48

CrappySack · 17/05/2024 18:29

Tories: For themselves and their rich mates. Not for you.

Show quote history

Yup

GoodAfternoonGoodEveningAndGoodnight · 17/05/2024 20:39

EasternStandard · 17/05/2024 14:01

Not really

Some pp only post on these threads to say stop talking about this

Although I do notice actual change is welcome, despite some efforts to stop it 🤔

Show quote history

I have never said "stop talking about this" and haven't seen anyone else say that either (,maybe they have, apologies if so)
Just we're not all one track minded voters and other things are important to us as a woman.

Churchview · 17/05/2024 20:01

Churchview · 17/05/2024 09:28

I wonder if I might genuinely and respectfully ask - Are those posters who are unhappy with Labour's stance on this issue confident of how the Conservatives will deal with this matter in future, especially given reference to their performance in this area over the past 14 years? Things have become a real mess, obviously frightening so for some, and I would be interested to know how you feel the Conservatives will deal with this situation which clearly isn't going to disappear whichever party governs next.

Also to the same posters. Can I please ask are you satisfied with what the Conservatives have achieved for women and children over the same period? On balance do you think women and children are generally in a better position now than where we were in 2010? It seems to me that we clearly aren't and I find it hard to get over that in relation to a single issue. Does that issue outweigh the general situation and, if so, how?

Just eager to get an insight into the wider feelings of those for whom this subject is clearly a burning issue.

I suppose I'm primarily asking @Allthesea, @Marjoriefrobisher and @Greengablesfables because of your constant presence on the thread, but any other input would be really welcome.

Just bumping this post up again as nobody replied. I'm still very interested to hear your views.

ArabellaScott · 17/05/2024 19:13

CrappySack · 17/05/2024 18:29

Tories: For themselves and their rich mates. Not for you.

Show quote history

Yep. Shit, isn't it? We really don't have much of a choice..

CrappySack · 17/05/2024 18:38

Churchview · 16/05/2024 21:15

Surely not 'creep in', but rather the direct result of 14 years of Conservative policy.

Doesn't have to be fast tracked by anyone - it's already happening.

Show quote history

This.

It's such an unconvincing argument. People really think women are stupid.

CrappySack · 17/05/2024 18:29

ArabellaScott · 17/05/2024 14:23

Labour: For the men. Not for you.

Tories: For themselves and their rich mates. Not for you.

Marjoriefrobisher · 17/05/2024 18:18

In fact, it was secondary legislation (a set of regs made for him personally) which gave effect to his pension tax break. So it would not have consumed significant parliamentary time. But it would have been even easier for him to say look, do what you want with other ex DPPs, but leave me out of it. I’m a terribly good and moral person who’s already quite rich and I can pay for plenty of halo polish as it is.
He didn’t.

WickedSerious · 17/05/2024 18:18

Marjoriefrobisher · 17/05/2024 13:14

The term necessary clearly being given an unusual definition here.
its ok, you can spare me the explanation

Show quote history

Lots of words have 'unusual' definitions now,it's hard to keep up.

ilovesooty · 17/05/2024 18:09

EasternStandard · 17/05/2024 16:24

Your threads draw the crowd op ;

I do wonder how people square saying be quiet on every thread with - moving away from Self ID is good

How do they think women got there wrt political change

Show quote history

Don't think I recall seeing this OP before.

Not that it matters I suppose. It doesn't alter the fact that people can read and comment on whatever threads they please, even if it's to comment on the old ground that the OP so helpfully mentions. AFAIAC people have different voting priorities but I doubt if anyone is going to prioritise things differently on an individual basis however many of these threads there are.

Marjoriefrobisher · 17/05/2024 18:00

It makes you wonder what could be so very different between Sunak and Starmer doesn’t it? Hmmmm. Whatever could it be.

Marjoriefrobisher · 17/05/2024 17:58

BIossomtoes · 17/05/2024 17:48

He had no option. Not being in government.

Sir Keir Starmer says he would scrap his own pension tax perk https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65052706

Show quote history

Yes, I think we all understand that he can’t change the legislation just yet. The point is that he has waited a decade to make clear his intention to do so, despite which he must be given the benefit of the doubt, while rishis motives are always, always suspect.
im pretty sure in fact that if he’d objected back in 2013 to being given this benefit Parliament would have been delighted to use the time to pass other legislation. Strangely, it doesn’t seem to have come up until he’s come under scrutiny.
im sure that’s just a coincidence.

BIossomtoes · 17/05/2024 17:48

Marjoriefrobisher · 17/05/2024 17:10

Plus preferential tax treatment of his substantial public sector pension, let’s not forget.
in fairness he has said he will scrap that (although he seems to have been happy enough with it at the time). I’m sure he has entirely pure motives for this though. Not like Rishi who is definitely trying to line his own pocket even when he gives legitimate tax advantages away.

Show quote history

He had no option. Not being in government.

Sir Keir Starmer says he would scrap his own pension tax perk https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65052706

Sir Keir Starmer

Sir Keir Starmer says he would scrap his own pension tax perk

The Labour leader says he would include himself in plans to reverse high earner tax breaks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65052706

Marjoriefrobisher · 17/05/2024 17:10

Clavinova · 17/05/2024 15:52

Didn't Keir Starmer benefit from the same tax rate (capital gains tax) when he sold his donkey field 18 months ago?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/16/keir-starmer-paid-99400-in-uk-tax-on-404000-of-income-labour-reveals

Show quote history

Plus preferential tax treatment of his substantial public sector pension, let’s not forget.
in fairness he has said he will scrap that (although he seems to have been happy enough with it at the time). I’m sure he has entirely pure motives for this though. Not like Rishi who is definitely trying to line his own pocket even when he gives legitimate tax advantages away.

Original poster
Greengablesfables · 17/05/2024 16:28

EasternStandard · 17/05/2024 16:24

Your threads draw the crowd op ;

I do wonder how people square saying be quiet on every thread with - moving away from Self ID is good

How do they think women got there wrt political change

Show quote history

Quite. But really, it reminds me of those bloody suffragettes! They didn’t care about poverty or hunger. All They cared about was flippin wimmin’s rights. Making all that noise. Annoying everyone. Didn’t they Understand? There were More Important Things to worry about.

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 17/05/2024 16:24

Greengablesfables · 17/05/2024 14:27

With their mates. Quite cute really.

Show quote history

Your threads draw the crowd op ;

I do wonder how people square saying be quiet on every thread with - moving away from Self ID is good

How do they think women got there wrt political change

Tootiredforallthiscrap · 17/05/2024 16:23

Yup like the tories 😂

TicklishLemur · 17/05/2024 16:21

Wes Streeting is even worse. Used to be super into gender ideology but saying now saying ‘transwomen' aren’t women. They couldn’t care less about any vulnerable group, they just say what is politically expedient

Clavinova · 17/05/2024 15:56

If Keir Starmer sold his plot of land in the knowledge that Labour intends to increase capital gains tax for the rest of us, that's downright sneaky.

Clavinova · 17/05/2024 15:52

AdamRyan · 17/05/2024 14:21

He paid 500,000 tax last year on income of 2.2m. That's a 23% rate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/rishi-sunaks-tax-return-shows-he-paid-more-than-half-a-million-pounds-in-tax-last-year-13067577

It is ridiculous that a multi millionaire pays a lower rate of tax than anyone earning over £50,000 in the PAYE system.

It's not a smear, just an observation. Why are you finding the criticism of Sunak so difficult to hear?

Show quote history

Didn't Keir Starmer benefit from the same tax rate (capital gains tax) when he sold his donkey field 18 months ago?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/16/keir-starmer-paid-99400-in-uk-tax-on-404000-of-income-labour-reveals

Keir Starmer paid £99,400 in UK tax on £404,000 income, Labour reveals

Details about leader’s finances for 2022-23 come after Rishi Sunak revealed he paid more than £508,000 of tax on £2.2m plus

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/16/keir-starmer-paid-99400-in-uk-tax-on-404000-of-income-labour-reveals

Marjoriefrobisher · 17/05/2024 15:39

AdamRyan · 17/05/2024 15:34

I certainly don't "do this continuously". I was responding to your initial comment that implied that the myth of Starmers child's gender identity was equivalent to the reality of Sunaks tax affairs.

I'm not voting Conservative, in part because its ridiculous that millionaires pay a lower tax rate than just about managing PAYE earners. Others may make different choices. Up to them.

Show quote history

you are doing it continuously. Every attempt you make to suggest they are guilty of impropriety falls apart. Yet instead of acknowledging this you keep on desperately trying. When there are many real, substantial criticisms of the man. Why?

AdamRyan · 17/05/2024 15:34

Marjoriefrobisher · 17/05/2024 15:30

But when examined, your criticism isn’t of him; it’s of the current tax system. when examined the insinuation that he doesn’t pay what owes falls apart. And you do this continually. I ask again; why the determination to insinuate he and his wife are guilty of impropriety? Where does this come from? It’s not criticism, which no one can legitimately object to (although they may disagree); it’s the naked desperation to insinuate they are guilty of financial wrongdoing which is deeply odd and calls for explanation.

Show quote history

I certainly don't "do this continuously". I was responding to your initial comment that implied that the myth of Starmers child's gender identity was equivalent to the reality of Sunaks tax affairs.

I'm not voting Conservative, in part because its ridiculous that millionaires pay a lower tax rate than just about managing PAYE earners. Others may make different choices. Up to them.

Marjoriefrobisher · 17/05/2024 15:34

AdamRyan · 17/05/2024 14:23

Anyway, rather than derail further I'll just leave this for people interested in whether or not Sunak declares his conflicts of interest

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/08/24/rishi-sunaks-many-failures-to-fully-declare-his-conflicts-of-interests/

this establishes that you are not alone in your determination to smear the Sunak/Murthys but it does no more than that, I’m afraid.
ill keep asking; why is it so important to you to try and make out they are not honest? Where does it come from? There’s a million more substantive criticisms you could make. Why the desperation to cling to this? It’s weird.

Marjoriefrobisher · 17/05/2024 15:30

AdamRyan · 17/05/2024 14:21

He paid 500,000 tax last year on income of 2.2m. That's a 23% rate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/rishi-sunaks-tax-return-shows-he-paid-more-than-half-a-million-pounds-in-tax-last-year-13067577

It is ridiculous that a multi millionaire pays a lower rate of tax than anyone earning over £50,000 in the PAYE system.

It's not a smear, just an observation. Why are you finding the criticism of Sunak so difficult to hear?

Show quote history

But when examined, your criticism isn’t of him; it’s of the current tax system. when examined the insinuation that he doesn’t pay what owes falls apart. And you do this continually. I ask again; why the determination to insinuate he and his wife are guilty of impropriety? Where does this come from? It’s not criticism, which no one can legitimately object to (although they may disagree); it’s the naked desperation to insinuate they are guilty of financial wrongdoing which is deeply odd and calls for explanation.