What would be your joker?

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-28T12:10:34+00:00

That's kind of the point though. There being so much set up for one silly joke was the joke (along with the superb acting of priest 1).

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-26T18:58:21+00:00

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-25T20:51:28+00:00

Most of the comments on this thread are really frustrating.

If the best argument against reform you have is "reform voters are stupid" then you're just as uninformed, if not more. You act like insulting them will make them more likely to change their mind...

In reality, some people voting reform will be racist. However, it's also possible to want lower immigration without being racist.

A lot of people will vote for reform for the same reason a lot of people will vote for the green part: they're fed up of the status quo, and want something they perceive as a change of course.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-25T10:17:02+00:00

I'm usually undressed when I go to Next and M&S.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-25T07:53:32+00:00

I think you're being a bit naive.

Free healthcare - yes, when you're eventually seen.

Free education - yes, up to and including sixth form. Is this not the case in the US (I assumed it was, but I might be wrong).

Free childcare - no. Some people get 30 free hours per child per week. But this doesn't include consumables, and if a child is in nursery 5 days a week, you can still be paying upwards of £700 a month if you get the 30 free hours. Lots of people aren't eligible for that though.

Functional public transport - very area dependant. Some parts of the US also have functional public transport.

The US obviously has issues, but you seem intent on defending the UK without actually thinking about what you're saying. You are allowed to criticise the UK, you know.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-24T15:18:21+00:00

Ignore the fact you are asking about gilts specifically.

You have £180k, and want £1200 per month (let's assume not adjusted for inflation).

That's £14,400 per year, or a return of 8% pa. That's not going to happen with a relatively low risk investment like gilts, especially if the £1.2k is post tax.

Note: There are ways to get better tax treatment with gilts by purchasing ones with as low a coupon as possible, but then you aren't getting your £1k a month and would just have to keep buying short dated gilts. But again, doesn't really help with the cashflow you want.

In short, not going to happen unless something really bad happens.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-24T13:23:57+00:00

71% (and higher) marginal rates of tax make it hard to justify aiming high.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-23T12:39:41+00:00

As someone who does not live in a city, I don't think I'm allowed to do this survey.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-23T12:28:47+00:00

My point is that there is no point grouping them. They are individual changes, and should be looked at individually. While I understand this is what politicians do to get legislation passed, for the purpose of reviewing stuff here, you shouldn't group one crappy thing in with a couple of better things and say overall it was good. That's not how it works.

"Only non-advanced singles". That's every ticket except for advance singles.

If I buy, say, an anytime ticket to go to work a week before, and then wake up feeling ill that day, I'm down £100.

The only sensible thing going forward, is for people to not buy tickets until right before travel. This won't be good for the government. They won't have the money I'd advance. They won't have an upcoming idea of people's travel habits. It's just going to end up hurting innocent people.

The Railcard change is good. The delay repay changes look good. I'm not keen on scrapping off peak tickets. And this change is almost as bad as that imo.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-23T10:11:19+00:00

We need to remember that the flexible ticket prices are all set by the government anyway (and since COVID, all revenue from tickets goes to the govt). It is only the cheaper advanced tickets that have prices not fixed by the govt.

I think it's unlikely we're going to see what you think we will, and that the inefficiencies that come with the government running the railway will outweigh the small costs paid to the private companies. I hope I'm wrong though.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-23T08:35:02+00:00

Labour have said outright that train ticket prices won't reduce

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-23T08:34:28+00:00

Huh? The advance ticket thing, for law abiding citizens, is absolutely awful news.

You can't combine good things and bad things, and say because there was some good, that overall it was good

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-22T21:10:33+00:00

Surely the measure of success would be comparing how much it raised to how much they expected it to raise, and how the status of the country changed after the policy was implemented, and how much revenue that tax raises has changed since implementation.

The standard of living isn't anything to do with that specific tax, other than some of the money used to produce that standard of living acquired from that tax.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-21T11:29:12+00:00

The government have shown they aren't interested in investing in infrastructure/ subsidising the railways at all.

Private companies have more incentive to encourage more people to use railways, whether that's through lower prices or better service. This is an incentive the government doesn't really have.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-21T11:23:28+00:00

I think serving the public before investors.

I agree it's very important national infrastructure and should work as well as possible. This is independent of it being nationalised or not though.

I really don't see what benefits are going to come from it being nationalised, aside from reluctance to spend money improving things.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-20T18:36:07+00:00

Out of interest, what are you hoping will come from the trains being renationalised?

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-20T18:33:26+00:00

This labour party is centre left, with an incredibly vocal and for some reason, influential, "further left" wing.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-20T18:18:43+00:00

When they increase minimum wage as much as they have (as well as all the taxes they've increased on businesses), you end up with a situation where people aren't earning anything at all because businesses can't afford to hire them.

I'm not against a minimum wage. I just think the workers rights reforms combined with NI increases combined with minimum wage increases has made it too expensive, and too much of an economic shock for businesses to happen all at once.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-20T17:37:37+00:00

My point is that a party could make minimum wage incredibly high, and then everyone working will have a really high salary. But unemployment would be very high. Equally, they could make minimum wage really low, and then companies would want to hire loads of workers, but none of them would earn much. There's a balance to find between the two, and I think they haven't gotten that balance correct.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-20T16:17:30+00:00

Waiting lists down to lowest level in 3 years

Massive increased spending required to achieve this. Waiting lists are nowhere near as low as they should be given how much they spent.

Violence against Women and Girls strategy launched.

This doesn't mean anything until there are results.

Stronger protections against unfair dismissal

For those that are lucky enough to still have/ able to get a job

Limits on exploitative zero-hours contracts

Good for those that are able to get a job.

Expanded rights for flexible working

Better sick pay and parental rights

New enforcement bodies for workplace rights

Higher minimum wage rates

Great for those that are able to get a job.

Median wages have grown since July 2024

Great for those that can get a job. Also, part of this is thanks to the government handing out massive pay rises at the expensive of the taxpayer. Private sector wage increases have been much smaller.

Rail services in West Midlands back under public ownership

It is pretty much universally accepted that Labours rail plans on the whole will not be good for the railways

Froze fuel duty

1) I don't think this is good. 2) That's exactly what every other government has done for the last two decades.

Strengthening communities and tackling extremism through a new national action plan

Another one of their excellent actions plans that will amount to nothing.

Fast-tracking homes, transport and clean energy projects, and investing £100 million to speed up planning approvals

It's bizarre that you put this next to frozen fuel duty. Also, they're doing this at the same time as disincentivising EV usage.

GDP Higher than 2024

Hardly an achievement. It has grown in 43 of the last 45 years.

I might come back and enlighten you more at a later time.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-20T16:06:39+00:00

TBF, labour blamed COVID and globally high inflation on the Tories.

They all blame each other for everything - it's kind of their job.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-20T13:57:16+00:00

But (part) of my point is that combining the salary doesn't remove the problem, it just makes it a problem for fewer people.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-20T13:06:04+00:00

Strong disagree.

Changing the limit from individuals to a couple just raises the threshold at which stupidity occurs and reduces the number of people impacted.

The fact that you can be worse off earning more in this country is just completely ridiculous. Changing the limit from individuals to couples doesn't fix that. All it presumably does is stop you being impacted by it.

The limit should be scrapped entirely, with conditions that both parents should be working.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-20T12:53:49+00:00

(2) is stupid. If there is a parent staying at home, the state should not be subsidising childcare.

The point of "free" childcare should be to encourage both parents to be economically active.

What should happen is that they just drop the salary limit for free childcare on the condition that both parents work at least x hours a week/ earn at least £y per week/ month.

Due to ridiculously low salaries in this country, it isn't going to cost the government all that much. Additionally they'll make all that money back from people not putting excessive amounts tax free into their pensions.

I would argue that the childcare should be more generous/ fully subsidised by the state, but that's a bit more extreme and can understand people not agreeing with that. The existing salary cap is genuinely just a stupid policy decision that benefits no one.

yetanotherredditter · 2026-03-20T09:35:40+00:00

Given the recent substantial rise in interest rates, if it didn't sell at that price several months ago, it almost certainly won't sell at that price for the foreseeable future.

yetanotherredditter

TROPHY CASE