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

[Greengablesfables]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

This.

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

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

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

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.

Yup

No you’re not. Stop being disingenuous.

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

I have nothing to gain by being disingenuous and honestly am not.

I'm active on here across a range of threads and boards and have no axe to grind.

The wider issues are important for me and I wonder how they figure for posters who seem so focused on this single issue. Also, because Labour are being portrayed as failing in this area, I wonder how you believe the other parties compare.

I am asking what I think is a reasonable question in the context of the thread.

What’s interesting to me about your question (which was quite clearly framed from a critical viewpoint, not one of genuine enquiry, so let’s drop that silliness) was that it demonstrates that you assume that my objections to the smearing of the Sunak/murthys, which is what I have been posting about, must be the product of a particular political viewpoint. The possibility that it might be a genuine objection to smears with murky motivations didn’t occur to you.
Most revealing

i can post what I like within guidelines. If you think it’s not, report it.

Sorry, but what are you actually talking about?
What's with all the cryptic "must revealing" insinuations (insinuating what, and why?) at someone who just asked a perfectly reasonable question in context to the thread instead of just answering?

My question was clearly completely unrelated to the tax issue and entirely concerned with the wider issues regarding the rights and welfare of women and children. I've included your name in my post as you have posted widely across a range of subjects and not just the tax issue, so I felt you must feel very strongly about the subject raised in the OP.

I'm sorry you don't want to answer my question Marjorie and hope that someone else will. Thank you for taking the time to reply.

you’ve missed the point. The question assumed certain political loyalties on my part, when what I’d been mainly posting about was unjustified smears against Sunak. It genuinely didn’t occur to her that a person might object to the behaviour as a matter of principle irrespective of their political opinion of Sunak or the current government.
If demanding answers to questions is the thing to do, perhaps she could also demand some answers of those who continue to attack his financial probity with no evidence. I’ve asked those doing that for an explanation repeatedly with no answer. she doesn’t seem interested in that, however. Strange.

Perhaps you could also ask some questions of those smearing Sunak repeatedly with no evidence - which is what I’ve been posting about here, and which caused you to assume I must be loyal to him politically. I’ve asked about this several times with no response. Or does that not interest you?

Disingenuous = dishonest, deceitful, underhand.

No Marjorie, as I've already said, my question wasn't about the tax issue as was quite clear in the original question. I have read up on the tax issue widely and have formed my own opinions on that, so that's why I've not raised that question here or elsewhere on MN.

Neither did my question assume any political loyalties on your part. It was asking for the opinion of posters on this thread who seemed to believe that Labour's approach is wrong. If that is not what you believe then I'm sorry to have bothered you but the question is always there if you would like to give your view on it. It's not a trick - I am interested in any answers from anyone.

As I say, I hope someone will be able to answer my initial question please.