Commons Leader rolls out Oasis puns to describe year since Labour's election
Her comments came in the last Business Questions before the parliamentary recess, which will begin next Tuesday.
The Manchester Central MP said: 'I couldn't let this opportunity pass without telling the House that Manchester is buzzing right now with its bucket hats, its music, and even parkas in this hot weather. As we've all come together to celebrate the Oasis reunion.
'When Oasis were last performing at Heaton Park it was under a Labour government, and the shadow leader (Jesse Norman) invited me to give the House a few more groaning puns, so if he'll forgive me.
'Some Might Say this Government has a Masterplan for change, of course, I know it's not been a great year for the party opposite since their biggest election defeat in history, but perhaps they need to Stop Crying Their Heart Out, Don't Look Back In Anger, and hope that Reform Fade Away.
'Talking of which, last year we have seen Reform come on the scene in the House of Commons, some of their MPs have had better attendances than others.
'The honourable member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), as usual, is probably on a beach Half A World Away.
'There's more, there's one last one. Let's hope this Labour Government Live Forever.'
Commons deputy speaker Nusrat Ghani responded and called the comments 'interesting'.
Ms Powell had been asked by Conservative shadow leader Mr Norman what the Government planned to do to protect veterans who had served in Northern Ireland from prosecution.
He said: 'Hundreds and thousands of men and women went to Northern Ireland, not of their own accord but under orders and in the chain of command, on the Queen's business, to combat the most serious terrorist organisation in the world at the time, and to protect human lives and human society.'
He said the decisions by Labour to abandon the Legacy Act had left veterans in their 70s and 80s 'exposed to legal harassment, anxiety and trauma'.
Ms Powell replied: 'This is a complex situation, and we need to resolve it. He might disagree with this, but the previous government's Legacy Act was found to be unlawful and unworkable and is now subject to further court action.
'That means currently that nobody is protected by it, and nor does it give people the justice that they want, because there would be so much legal uncertainty about the status of doing so.
'That is why our priority is finding a way forward that gives veterans, survivors and communities confidence in the process. We will take our time to do this.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Voting at 16 can make elections a habit
Sixteen and 17 year olds in Scotland have been able to vote in Holyrood and council elections for more than a decade. And thanks to last week's announcement by the UK Government, that will now be extended to Westminster elections too. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It's a logical move and fulfils a Labour election pledge, but UK-wide polls suggest nearly half voters oppose it, so the case will have to be made again. Scotland introduced votes at 16 for the 2014 independence referendum and then extended it to Scottish Parliament and council elections. Those who first got the vote at 16 were more likely to vote in subsequent elections, researchers found Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The year after the referendum, a study found 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland were more engaged with politics - researching issues, taking part in demonstrations, signing petitions and engaging with elected representatives - than people of the same age elsewhere in the UK. Sadly, the effect did not seem to last. Research by Edinburgh University academics in the context of the last Scottish Parliament elections in 2021 concluded that the lowering of the voting age had not led to any long-term increase in political engagement among young people. But what did last was an increased likelihood of turning out to vote. The research by Jan Eichhorn and Christine Hübner found those who first became entitled to vote at 16 were more likely to turn out at the 2021 election than those who were first able to vote at 18 or older. And this applied not only to those who first got the vote at the referendum, but also those who became eligible at subsequent elections. The researchers say: "This suggests a lasting positive effect of being allowed to vote from 16 on young people's voter turnout as they grow up." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Opponents will claim that at 16 people are not mature enough to vote. The same argument was made when the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1969. Indeed, the Speaker's Conference, a cross-party body looking at election rules, recommended only reducing it to 20. But the Labour government had already accepted another committee's recommendations to lower the age of majority to 18, so decided the voting age should follow suit. The latest change will bring England into line with Scotland and Wales, which also has votes at 16 for Senedd and council elections. The next challenge is to increase citizenship education, give young people more opportunities for genuine engagement and show them it can make a difference.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Ministers must protect value of state pension as it is lifeline for many
The sad reality is people drawing their pension 25 years from now are set to be £800, or eight per cent, worse off per year than their counterparts today. The governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made huge strides in cutting pensioner poverty. Introducing pension credit helped millions of low-income pensioners and retirement savings were boosted, But every generation faces fresh challenges and this one is no different. The sad reality is people drawing their pension 25 years from now are set to be £800, or eight per cent, worse off per year than their counterparts today. Four in 10 – nearly 15million people – are not saving enough for retirement. Young people are in a bind caused by the cost-of-living crisis. Their incomes are squeezed and they are paying an outrageous amount of their net income on rent. Many people want to save more for when they retire but simply cannot afford to do so. One of the issues the UK-wide Poverty Commission is expected to look at is the challenges facing the low-paid and the estimated three million self-employed people who are not saving into a pension. Labour must take a values-based position into pension reform. Ministers must protect the value of the state pension as it is a lifeline for many people. Labour is right to encourage people to save more for their retirement if they can. But they must also provide greater incentives for people on modest incomes to find the spare cash. Part of this involves turning the corner on the cost-of-living crisis so that people have more money in their pockets. Keir Starmer has the chance to be as bold as previous Labour Prime Ministers and he must seize the opportunity. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. Identity scandal The public's right to be protected from beasts like Connor Tait does not end when they are let out jail. The 32-year-old hid in a bush and pounced on the child who was walking home from football training in 2013. He was released from jail in 2023 and has recently changed his identity – using the name 'Connie Duncan' – while advertising himself on social media as a cleaner and dog walker. Ash Regan MSP is right when she says the case underlines a deeply troubling reality that when sexual offenders can change their identity without proper safeguards. How can it be right that a convicted paedophile can simply adopt a new identity and begin advertising services to enter people's homes? Public safety must be put first. Tait should not be allowed anywhere near any family's home. We need robust checks and transparency to prevent offenders from simply reinventing themselves and potentially putting others at risk.
Sky News
3 hours ago
- Sky News
The wealth tax options Reeves could take to ease her fiscal bind
Faced with a challenging set of numbers, the chancellor is having to make difficult choices with political consequences. Tax rises and spending cuts are a hard sell. Now, some in her party are calling for a different approach: target the wealthy. Is there a way out of all of this for the chancellor? Economic growth is disappointing and spending pressures are mounting. The government was already examining ways to raise revenue when, earlier this month, Labour backbenchers forced the government to abandon welfare cuts and reinstate winter fuel payments - blowing a £6bn hole in the budget. The numbers are not adding up for Rachel Reeves, who is steadfastly committed to her fiscal rules. Short of more spending cuts, her only option is to raise taxes - taxes that are already at a generational high. For some in her party - including Lord Kinnock, the former Labour leader, the solution is simple: introduce a new tax. They say a flat wealth tax, targeting those with assets above £10m, could raise £12bn for the public purse. Yet, the government is reportedly reluctant to pursue such a path. It is not convinced that wealth taxes will work. The evidence base is shaky and the debate over the efficacy of these types of taxes has divided the economics community. 1:16 Why are we talking about wealth? Wealth taxes are in the headlines but calls for this type of reform have been growing for some time. Proponents of the change point to shifts in our economy that will be obvious to most people living in Britain: work does not pay in the way it used to. At the same time wealth inequality has risen. The stock of wealth - that is the total value of everything owned - is much larger than our income, that is the total amount of money earned in a year. That disparity has been growing, especially during that era of low interest rates after 2008 that fuelled asset prices, while wages stagnated. It means the average worker will have to work for more years to buy assets, say a house, for example. Left-wing politicians and economists argue that instead of putting more pressure on workers - marginal income tax rates are as high as 70% for some workers - the government should instead target some of this accumulated wealth in order to balance the books. 2:19 The Inheritocracy At the heart of it all is a very straightforward argument about fairness. Few will argue that there aren't problems with the way our economy is functioning: that it is unfair that young people are struggling to buy homes and raise families. Proponents of a wealth tax say that it would not only raise revenue but create a fairer tax system. They argue that the wealth distortions are creating a divided society, where people's outcomes are determined by their inheritances. The gap is large. A typical 50-year old born to the poorest 20% of parents in the UK is already worth just a quarter of what someone born to the richest 20% of parents is worth at that age. This is before they inherit anything when their parents die. A lot of money is passed on earlier; for example, people may have had help buying their first home. That gap widens when the inheritance is passed on. This is when inheritance tax, one of the existing wealth taxes we have in the UK, kicks in. However, its impact in addressing that imbalance is negligible. Most people don't meet the threshold to pay it. The government could bring more people into the tax but it is already a deeply unpopular policy. 1:51 Alternatives So what other options could they explore? Lord Kinnock recently suggested a new tax on the stock of wealth - one to two percent on assets over £10m. That could raise between £12bn and £24bn. When making the case for the tax, Lord Kinnock told Sky News: "That kind of levy does two things. One is to secure resources, which is very important in revenues. "But the second thing it does is to say to the country, 'we are the government of equity'. This is a country which is very substantially fed up with the fact that whatever happens in the world, whatever happens in the UK, the same interests come out on top unscathed all the time while everybody else is paying more for getting services." However, there is a lot of scepticism about some of these numbers. Wealthier people tend to be more mobile and adept at arranging their tax affairs. Determining the value of their assets can be a challenge. In Downing Street, the fear is that they will simply leave, rendering the policy a failure. Policymakers are already fretting that a recent crackdown on non-doms will do the same. Critics point to countries where wealth taxes have been tried and repealed. Proponents say we should learn from their mistakes and design something better. Some say the government could start by improving existing taxes, such as capital gains tax - which people pay when they sell a second property or shares, for example. The Labour government has already raised capital gains tax rates but bringing them in line with income tax could raise £12bn. Then there is the potential for National Insurance contributions on investment income - such as rent from property or dividends. Estimates suggest that could bring in another £11bn. This is nothing to sniff at for a chancellor who needs to find tens of billions of pounds in order to balance her books. By the same token, she is operating on such fine margins that she can't afford to get the calculation wrong. There is no easy way out of this fiscal bind for Rachel Reeves. Whether wealth taxes are the solution or not, hers is a government that has promised reform and creative thinking. The tax system would be a good place to start.
