Forum menu
so maybe we should leave the countries defence to you
The country's defence was fine as it was.
Just lol... Have you not Been keeping up with current events?
Our military cannot stand on its own.. Yes we have expertise in certain areas and in certain tech.. But we rely heavily on our European friends to fill the gaps in and vice versa.
That's what cooperation is all about... Pooling resources for the benefit of all.
You could even call it socialist.
But socialists be like "no, not like that!"
Sigh.
What would be great to see is the USA kicked out of NATO, but as that's basically impossible, the next best option, IMO, would be for all NATO members to quit and immediately form an identical organisation without the USA.
In fact a lot of European leaders are alluding to something similar, as we all know the USA can no longer be trusted, certainly under the Trump regime.
Thats the point I was making
The point you appear to be making now is that the Tories were according to you total shite but that Starmer's government isn't quite as bad as total shite. That is precisely what I mean by just how low you set the bar for Starmer.
So okay the government shows a commitment to the rule of law but no I am not bowled over by that, although apparently you are.
And I am not the only one who expects a lot more from a government, especially a Labour government, than maintaining the rule of law and prosecuting those guilty of criminality. Which will explain why support for Labour has collapsed in the last 8 months.
Wow, I love that new feature, apparently my post with a link to a Sky News article is "awaiting moderation". Presumably someone hit the report button because they didn't like it. That's quite something!
and will be prosecuting the companies responsible
Have you actually got a link to back up that claim binners? I can't see where it says that any company will be prosecuted. In fact the opposite, it would appear that they won't be prosecuted at all and the London Mayor is simply saying that they "should be barred from future contracts"
London Mayor Sadiq Khan said companies named and shamed in the report "should be barred from future contracts" and "this must now finally happen without further delay".
How does that fit in with this comment you made?
do you think they’d be doing what they always did and ignoring it completely so as to let there mates off the hook and keeping the gravy train rolling and prosecuting absolutely nobody?
It would appear that they will be "prosecuting absolutely nobody" as you put. Remind me again what we should be celebrating?
Increasing defence spending seems a commanding, proportionate and sensible response to recent events.
I also support the funding being moved over from foreign aid, which seems like the right place for the funding to come from, given it's still going towards trying to ensure peace in the world, just much closer to home.
Starmer has shown excellent leadership once again on an important, developing issue. The country is safer in his hands.
It would appear that they will be "prosecuting absolutely nobody
Does the government decide who to prosecute in these cases? We're not the US...
The govt has accepted all the enquiry recs, which is what it is able to do, and is penalising the companies in the way that it can. Let's see what the police, CPS and courts do.
Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner proposes prison time for executives who break the rules in response to Grenfell inquiry recommendations.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-inquiry-companies-ban-rayner-b2704972.html
So what else would you like the government to do?
Does the government decide who to prosecute in these cases? We're not the US...
Dunno, I have no idea what influence the government might have over the Crown Prosecution Service, but binners seemed to think that the current government should take credit for any prosecution of the seven named and shamed companies.
So what else would you like the government to do?
I haven't criticised the government over Grenfell, Angela Rayner's response to the enquiry seems perfectly adequate to me. Although I am not sure if all the Grenfell survivors agree?
Grenfell came up on this thread because binners appears to believe that it is a good example of what a fantastic job the current government are doing.
That won't stop him with cyber interference though, where is NATO when it comes to that?
Not necessarily NATO, but Govs are all over it. Five Eyes, NCSC, GCHQ, DI, etc., and allies equivalents thereof.
Sir Alex Younger, ex Head of MI6 has written and spoken extensively on it, if you're interested to know more.
I mean if Starmers government is being criticised for doing the correct thing where previous governments have been at best indifferent to the grenfell/cladding issue, then there is. Just no Pleasing some people
If Starmer came up with a cure for cancer tonight, then this thread would be full of the usual suspects whining and bitching that he hadn’t found a cure for MS yet.
Let the festival of joyless, humourless lefty miserablism be unrestrained!
And they wonder why the UK will never elect a lefty government? Just imagine this lot in charge? A fascist dictatorship would start to look appealing
, but binners seemed to think
Maybe I should pursue what you think another poster seems to think... Nah, it's making my ears bleed.
I'm just making the point that it's hardly likely that the government is going to announce today that it's going to launch prosecutions which it has no legal power or precedent to do.
By all means express how you feel about this...
, but binners seemed to think
Maybe I should pursue what you think another poster seems to think... Nah, it's making my ears bleed.
I'm just making the point that it's hardly likely that the government is going to announce today that it's going to launch prosecutions which it has no legal power or precedent to do.
By all means express how you feel about this...
Indeed, the government and judiciary in the UK are seperate, at least on paper, for very good reasons... you only have to look at the USA where the Trump regime is riding bare-back over the courts with total impunity as he's stuffed the courts with 'friendly' judges.
If the likes of Farage or the new 'turbo-extreme' version of the conservatives are anything to go by, they would follow the same play book.
What's to stop the same thing happening in the uk if a government has a massive majority? - they can force though laws if they want... just look at boris Johnson, who broke parlimentary precident on an almost daily basis during his tenure.
It would appear that they will be "prosecuting absolutely nobody" as you put. Remind me again what we should be celebrating
2026 before the CPS will make a charging decision
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-statement-grenfell
“Our team of specialist prosecutors will then carefully review the file but do not expect to be in a position to make any charging decisions until the end of 2026.
It would appear that they will be "prosecuting absolutely nobody" as you put. Remind me again what we should be celebrating
2026 before the CPS will make a charging decision
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-statement-grenfell
“Our team of specialist prosecutors will then carefully review the file but do not expect to be in a position to make any charging decisions until the end of 2026.
There's a carefull legal process to adhere to, (pesky rules etc.) who would have thunk it? 😉
I mean the UK government could just ignore the law, a-la- Trump?
It's almost as if Starmer was a lawyer in a previous incarnation, so probably has at least some understanding, and respect for the rules, and what needs to be done to change those rules in a correct and sane manner where appropriate.
Good to see Starmers carefully dismissive language over Russia and the US attempting to cut Ukraine and the EU out of thier side show negotiations, and sat down with EU leaders.
If his direction continues and he goes for the 11% cut for public services for arms - he will seal his fate as leader. (Which he doesn't need to do. Money is available - it's the resources that are needed.)
The man is losing the plot and doing desperate things now because his personal ratings are so awful.
Nothing good is coming out of Starmer currently no matter how you dress this up.
This post didn't age well, 🤣 he's (Starmer) cutting dubious foreign aid payments to dodgy countries where the funds are most likely misapropriated anyway..
What say you now?
Let the festival of joyless, humourless lefty miserablism be unrestrained!
Well you seem to want to celebrate the fact that the government is, well, the government.
And in a desperate attempt to talk up just how fantastic Starmer's government is you point to the conclusion of an enquiry which had nothing at all to do with them, saying :
In other news, Labour has accepted every recommendation of the Grenfell Inquiry, is establishing an organisation to enforce it and will be prosecuting the companies responsible
Which it turns out isn't even true. The government has said it is accepting in full 49 of the 58 recommendations, not "every recommendation" as you erroneously claimed
Nor has the government said that it "will be prosecuting the companies responsible".
So what exactly are we supposed to be celebrating ?
And in the meantime in other news the international aid budget has been slashed, Trump and Farage style, by 40%, something that will cost lives as well as the ability to tackle climate change related issues, thanks to joyless humourless centrist miserablism.
Which obviously your nonsense about Grenfell was supposed divert attention away from.
Let the festival of joyless, humourless lefty miserablism be unrestrained!
Well you seem to want to celebrate the fact that the government is, well, the government.
And in a desperate attempt to talk up just how fantastic Starmer's government is you point to the conclusion of an enquiry which had nothing at all to do with them, saying :
In other news, Labour has accepted every recommendation of the Grenfell Inquiry, is establishing an organisation to enforce it and will be prosecuting the companies responsible
Which it turns out isn't even true. The government has said it is accepting in full 49 of the 58 recommendations, not "every recommendation" as you erroneously claimed
Grenfell
So what exactly are we supposed to be celebrating ?
And in the meantime in other news the international aid budget has been slashed, Trump and Farage style, by 40%, something that will cost lives as well as the ability to tackle climate change related issues, thanks to joyless humourless centrist miserablism.
Which obviously your nonsense about Grenfell was supposed divert attention away from.
How about you stick to facts, Ernie don't play the player, play the ball etc?
international aid budget has been slashed, Trump and Farage style, by 40%, something that will cost lives as well as the ability to tackle climate change related issues
Tackle climate change? how on earth is giving a country like India (a country that can afford it's own space programme, and a huge net pollutor) UK tax payers money in the form of 'aid', any sort of tackling anything??
I'll give you a hint - UK foreign aid isn't what it 'says on the tin' - it's essentially legal bribes on a transactional basis -
"I give you this - you give me that."
It's very nieve to think that UK foreign aid paid to other countries trickles down to poor people, it gets hoovered up by their respective governments and sub-contractors to buy boats and fancy cars.
I reckon what this thread teaches us is that Starmer could literally announce the introduction of rationing and the conscription of everyone under 40 into the military and binners et al would be applauding it as entirely rational and pragmatic response to world events.
Every day I hear people tell me how bad everything is and how the world is screwed. Well that’s all happened on the watch of the likes of Starmer and other establishment politicians who prioritise the acquisition and retaining of power over the use of it to effect positive change.
We could do so much better.
It's very nieve to think that UK foreign aid paid to other countries trickles down to poor people, it gets hoovered up by their respective governments and sub-contractors to buy boats and fancy cars.
Ah, so you think that Nigel Farage was right about international aid when he said it should be cut by 50%
It makes you wonder why in Labour's election manifesto only eight months ago there was a clear commitment to increase international aid, not cut it, as there was also in the election manifesto of your favourite political party mattyfez the LibDems.
It also makes you wonder why Starmer described cutting international aid as an "extremely difficult and painful” decision, did he not realise how corrupt it is?
I chinny reckon you are wrong. So there.
FFS are you really using schoolyard jibes now in response to opinions you don’t like? Grow up!
Two weeks ago the Labour Foreign Secretary :
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/07/trumps-international-aid-cuts-usaid-china-lammy
Donald Trump’s plans to make dramatic cuts to the United States’ international aid budget could be a “big strategic mistake” that allows China to step in and further its global influence, the UK foreign secretary has said.
Development remains a very important soft power tool. And in the absence of development … I would be very worried that China and others step into that gap.
“We were hugely critical of the way that the last government handled the decision. So I would caution US friends to look closely at what went wrong in the United Kingdom as they navigate this decision.”
So David Lammy warns the US government that "dramatic cuts" in international aid budget could be a big strategic mistake, and he emphasizes that he was "hugely critical" of the last government's decision to cut the international aid budget (from 0.7% to 0.5%) and then just two weeks later he announces a 40% cut in the UK international aid budget.
They really are totally clueless aren't they, they have no idea what they are doing and they are obviously just making it up as they go along. David Lammy couldn't even convince himself of his own argument never mind convince Donald Trump.
But hey, the great news is that they are going to accept in full 49 of the 58 recommendations in the Grenfell enquiry, ffs.
Are you backtracking from your original statement now?
No not at all. And it wasn't a statement it was a question.... does it necessarily have to be a custodial sentence?
What is there for me to backtrack on?
I would say so... You can nail them to the wall for me...
Meanwhile...
Latest from Starmer:
On his visit to grand lizard Trump,
The prime minister insisted that “there is no issue between us” on Ukraine as he jetted out – attempting to play down disagreements in the past two weeks.
He said: “Of course, the president has been very clear about the peace that he wants. He’s right about that. We all want peace. The question is, how do we make sure it’s a lasting peace? There’s no issue between us on this.”
His words came as it was revealed he plans to host Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky and other European leaders for a defence summit this weekend.
Honestly, the rhetoric from the pretend socialists on here is really not helping anyone.
Just apply the Tory test:
If a Tory leader did anything Starmer was doing would there be pages of comments about Johnson and inmates running the asylum?
But back in material reality energy bills are going up and it's accepted as normal.
Especially having gone on about a £300 reduction in bills. GBenergy are you still being totally pointless ?
(There is also the sneaky uptick in EV tax April -Yes it was a Labour government that introduced a tax on green cars.)
You can't have a plan for society by just doing stupid reactionary things that mostly make people's lives hard and expect to be in power.
I see nothing at all for my small business to get excited about either. Business development is shocking currently. Nothing going off.
Just apply the Tory test:
If a Tory leader did anything Starmer was doing would there be pages of comments about Johnson and inmates running the asylum?
But back in material reality energy bills are going up and it's accepted as normal.
Especially having gone on about a £300 reduction in bills. GBenergy are you still being totally pointless ?
(There is also the sneaky uptick in EV tax April -Yes it was a Labour government that introduced a tax on green cars.)
You can't have a plan for society by just doing stupid reactionary things that mostly make people's lives hard and expect to be in power.
I see nothing at all for my small business to get excited about either. Business development is shocking currently. Nothing going off.
Honestly, the rhetoric from the pretend socialists on here is really not helping anyone.
The pretend socialists being the Labour party?
Great let's agree then being right-wing is shit for most things unless you're proper rich.
No problem.
You could tell from the announcement of the cuts in aid by Lammy that he knew he was talking pure horseshit. Reminded me rather of Cable and seing Royal mail.
Either he has to say what he knows is a load of nonsense or resign but you could tell he didn't believe a word of it
Just apply the Tory test:
Is the decision to reduce foreign aid spending one driven by necessity or ideology?
Guardian have published an article on a wide scale YouGov poll on attitudes to immigration.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/q7m1sWJ9/Screenshot-20250227-071430.pn g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/q7m1sWJ9/Screenshot-20250227-071430.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
Just apply the Tory test:
Is the decision to reduce foreign aid spending one driven by necessity or ideology?
Ideology. The stupid adherence to the household budget analogy for the uk. Its ideology and neoliberalism that prevents them spending money.
Ideology. The stupid adherence to the household budget analogy for the uk.
I am not sure it is so much as just using it as an excuse to pander to the hard right and try and appear more reform like.
If they are going to nick reform ideas they could at least go for the more intelligent ones like reducing the interest payments to banks for the reserves, mostly created by quantative easing. Possibly not at the reform levels but at those suggested by the FT campaign. Would bring us into line with the European Central Bank and the Japanese central banks.
So not exactly radical policy.
The stupid adherence to the household budget analogy for the uk.
You are Liz Truss, and I claim my five pounds. It's weird how folks outside govts (or radical politicians inside govts for that matter) always claim that finding more money is always incredibly easy to find/create/spend with zero malign side-effects, and yet here we are...Plus of course the idea that politicians (of all people) should have access to unlimited funds always strikes me as the equivalent of giving an arsonist a book of matches and a can of petrol.
You could tell from the announcement of the cuts in aid by Lammy that he knew he was talking pure horseshit.
Well if he looked shifty that is hardly surprising, at the forefront of his mind must have been that interview he had given the Guardian only two weeks earlier in which he talked about the "big strategic mistake" of cutting USAID.
Like Starmer David Lammy was previously a barrister so he should be able to make claims in public which he knows not to be true whilst still maintaining a straight face.
Is the decision to reduce foreign aid spending one driven by necessity or ideology?
No not ideology, unless his ideology over the issue changed completely during the period of a couple of weeks. At the beginning of February he obviously recognised the value of soft power which international aid brings and the risk of handing that over to China (unless he was lying then) You have to assume that he is still does.
And not "necessity" either because 40% of 0.5% GDP is obviously not the only money available to a government looking to increase defence spending. What it is is a straightforward choice.
The decision by Labour to reduce international aid by exactly the same amount as they pledged to increase it by in their election manifesto 8 months ago is driven by the fact that they really don't know what they are doing.
Under Starmer Labour have never had a clear vision beyond winning a general election, and the strategy for achieving that was based on the Tories handing it to them on a plate.
The current Labour government is like a rudderless ship and as a consequence it is becoming increasingly impossible to predict how they will behave or what they will say. It all depends on the currents.
Btw I reckon that David Lammy fits in nicely into this chaotic situation as I have always considered him to be something of a loose cannonball. He has repeatedly made the headlines due to idiotic comments, such as when he denounced Comic Relief for promoting a "white saviour" mentality. So on the face of it at least he should be celebrating any reduction in Western aid.
Double post
Idiotic?
Yes you heard correctly. I am suggesting that publicly attacking Comic Relief, a charitable event which has raised £millions for good causes, because you didn't like one segment with one particular celebrity, is idiotic.
Other opinions are available
The current Labour government is like a rudderless ship and as a consequence it is becoming increasingly impossible to predict how they will behave or what they will say. It all depends on the Currents
I'm starting to believe this now. (Although I said they were rudderless many times.)
Not being driven by anything particularly useful or having a solid gameplan- or even understanding how your own finances work. It just puts you in a position of reacting to everything in the most bizarre fashion.
They really do need to remove those stupid fiscal rules. They were made up to appear prudent but they've satisfied no one. Of course they're not prudent though because as we found out last week you have to make a case to cut foreign-aid over defense. Nothing prudent about it. You've made a sacrifice because you believe (incorrectly) the currency you issue is in limited supply.
It makes no sense at all to box your choices in as per the right-wing would do.
For too long society has fallen to the mythical shenanigans of the 'market place' (remember the bond market is enabled by government and could be turned off without issue for spending) and believing the private sector funds the state. This threat has regressed us to simplify accepting decay as built-in, and normal because of black-holes etc.
We can all see the mess around us. There's only one way to correct this and it's not what Labour are doing currently.
Only today the top guy at the BDA was saying on the radio that the current government is not making enough in-roads into dental appointments for the NHS. Because action in this area would be a problem for whom?
If this was a science experiment - based on current outcomes everyone half-sensible would be pushing for a way to correct all this with government tools - massive investment, taxing wealth for getting their control in check and re-wiring society to make it better.
But it requires some proper solid politics and economic thinking. We just don't have that in Starmer. He's not even pragmatist - he's just a ridiculous puppet with not a consistent thought in his head that will lose the battle with the current trajectory.
(Also Reeves is quiet currently. Hope she's reflecting on what she's about to do come spring.l
The current Labour government is like a rudderless ship and as a consequence it is becoming increasingly impossible to predict how they will behave or what they will say. It all depends on the Currents
I'm starting to believe this now. (Although I said they were rudderless many times.)
Not being driven by anything particularly useful or having a solid gameplan- or even understanding how your own finances work. It just puts you in a position of reacting to everything in the most bizarre fashion.
They really do need to remove those stupid fiscal rules. They were made up to appear prudent but they've satisfied no one. Of course they're not prudent though because as we found out last week you have to make a case to cut foreign-aid over defense. Nothing prudent about it. You've made a sacrifice because you believe (incorrectly) the currency you issue is in limited supply.
It makes no sense at all to box your choices in as per the right-wing would do.
For too long society has fallen to the mythical shenanigans of the 'market place' (remember the bond market is enabled by government and could be turned off without issue for spending) and believing the private sector funds the state. This threat has regressed us to simplify accepting decay as built-in, and normal because of black-holes etc.
We can all see the mess around us. There's only one way to correct this and it's not what Labour are doing currently.
Only today the top guy at the BDA was saying on the radio that the current government is not making enough in-roads into dental appointments for the NHS. Because action in this area would be a problem for whom?
If this was a science experiment - based on current outcomes everyone half-sensible would be pushing for a way to correct all this with government tools - massive investment, taxing wealth for getting their control in check and re-wiring society to make it better.
But it requires some proper solid politics and economic thinking. We just don't have that in Starmer. He's not even a pragmatist - he's just a ridiculous puppet with not a consistent thought in his head that will lose the battle with the current trajectory.
(Also Reeves is quiet currently. Hope she's reflecting on what she's about to do come spring.l
Other opinions are available
Including those of Sir Lenny Henry if you read the link...
More good news. I'm sure the usual suspects will be along soon to explain what amazing plans Labour has to reverse youth unemployment. Starmer could conscript them into his new army with all this new defence money.
Other opinions are available
Including those of Sir Lenny Henry if you read the link...
I've never heard it referred to as 'white saviours' before but that is quite apt.
Sending wealthy white celebs to Africa and other impoverished places to act as heroes is an idea decades past its sell by date.
Even in the mid-2000's when friends were going volunteering abroad to do things like "build schools" (having never been on a building site in their lives), there was mainstream recognition among my peer group that there was a degree of implied white supremacism inherent in that activity: as if simply being white was all it took to be a hero to these poor foreigners.
I'm sure the far right and many boomers will somehow manage to be offended by the idea that it should stop, but Lammy was absolutely right.
Including those of Sir Lenny Henry
Of course.
Would you like me to provide a list of all the other idiotic comments our Foreign Secretary David Lammy has made, it is surprisingly extensive?
Have you heard the one about Henry VII succeeding Henry VIII, or the one about the BBC being racist for mentioning white and black smoke during a conclave?
Other opinions are available
Including those of Sir Lenny Henry if you read the link...
I've never heard it referred to as 'white saviours' before but that is quite apt.
Sending wealthy white celebs to Africa and other impoverished places to act as heroes is an idea decades past its sell by date.
Even in the mid-2000's when friends were going volunteering abroad to do things like "build schools" (having never been on a building site in their lives), there was mainstream recognition among my peer group that there was a degree of implied white supremacism inherent in that activity: as if simply being white was all it took to be a hero to these poor foreigners.
I'm sure the far right and many boomers will somehow manage to be offended by the idea that it should stop, but Lammy was absolutely right.
off topic, but when I lost my mum many years ago, think I was about 25 at the time, I was in a job I didn't like and had some money to spend, so I contacted a charity about help in in the former Yugoslavia - they asked how much volunteering experience I had - I said technically none to speak of, but I'm self funded and I have a pair of hands? and they basicaly weren't interested 🤔
as I have always considered him to be something of a loose cannonball.
The phrase is "loose cannon". A navy thing.
Would you like me to provide a list of all the other idiotic comments our Foreign Secretary David Lammy has made
What? He says something about comic relief that comic relief agrees with and acts on, and that's your example of an idiotic statement?
I think that will do for now.
The former army chief argued it was a false premise that aid and defence were in competition.
Dannatt said: “As General Jim Mattis, the former US secretary of defence, famously put it: ‘If you don’t fund the state department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition, ultimately.’
"Weak states become breeding grounds for terrorism, organised crime, and mass migration crises.”
I don't think Gen Richard Dannatt fully understands politics. At the heart of the decision to massively cut the international aid budget are political calculations which have nothing to do with the security of the UK and everything to do with the success of Labour whilst in government.
First and foremost Labour is facing a very serious political threat from Reform UK which the overwhelming majority of opinion polls now put in the lead. Cutting the international aid budget by 40% almost matches Nigel Farage's commitment to cut it by 50%.
Labour are trying to pull the rug from under Nigel Farage and beat him at his own game. This is just building on the dog-whistling "Labour are tough on immigrants" campaign. Obviously this won't be any more successful than Rishi Sunak's attempt to beat Reform at their game but centrists can't offer any other solutions than a lurge to the right. Aping your right-wing political opponents is the only strategy that centrists have.
Secondly the current Labour government is obsessed with pleasing Donald Trump. Starmer during his very first phone call to the newly installed Donald Trump wasted no time in informing him that he was committed to deregulation and cutting red tape, just like Trump himself is. And now Starmer is informing Trump that just like him he is slashing international aid plus he is increasing defence exactly as he wants him to.
Gen Richard Dannatt is right of course but it is completely irrelevant to current political reality.
The one reoccurring feature of Western foreign policies is that they are always spectacularly short-sighted and invariably come back to bite the West on the arse. Both Starmer and Trump will be history in 5 years time so why should they give a toss?
He says something about comic relief that comic relief agrees with and acts on, and that's your example of an idiotic statement?
He didn't just 'say something about comic relief' he talked about "white saviours", which is an idiotic comment to make. David Lammy is a Harvard educated barrister who enjoys a more comfortable lifestyle than the average white and black persons in the UK and is desperately looking for things to cultivate a chip on his shoulder. And his enthusiasm for doing so was highlighted by the speed with which he was willing to accuse the BBC of racism in reference to white and black conclave smoke.
I consider Lamming to be a gaffe prone loose cannonball. Have you heard him explain how men can develop "cervixes"? Or how he grew up in a family dependent on tax credits despite the fact that tax credits were not introduced until he was 31 years old?
Now he is completely backtracking on what he said only a couple of weeks ago concerning the importance international aid. Still I guess with less USAID and UK aid reaching poor third world countries there will be less of this 'white saviour' attitude, so he should be happy about that.
You are aware that the ‘foreign aid’ budget was funnelled by the last government mainly being used for paying for asylum seeker accommodation?
So our ‘foreign aid’ budget mostly ended up with hotel chains, whoever owned the Bibby Stockholm and the Rwandan government
So our ‘foreign aid’ budget mostly ended up with hotel chains, whoever owned the Bibby Stockholm and the Rwandan government
No one told the former head of the British army Gen Richard Dannatt?
Although luckily "the last government" is no longer in charge so that is obviously not relevant.
More good news on the NHS as meaningful steps taken towards ending the awful practice of the "8am scramble" for appointments.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7ee895nr0o
Getting a GP appointment was such a dehumanising experience for so many people, at a point in time when they're often naturally worried about some aspects of their health - great to see Labour tackling real issues and making progress.
Although luckily "the last government" is no longer in charge so that is obviously not relevant.
Does the slate get wiped clean at the start of a new parliamentary term then comrade? Is it like a video game where you just go back to level one and start again?
Anyway…. some more terrible news for you to and the rest of the forum misanthropes to moan about…
If you ban a bonus, they'll just put it on the salary. Re-nationalisation is the only answer.
More good news on the NHS as meaningful steps taken towards ending the awful practice of the "8am scramble" for appointments.
...great to see Labour tackling real issues and making progress.
There isn't an agreement on anything, except in principle.
The Government now have about a fortnight to commit to a complete renegotiation of GPs contracts in the face of an August ballot that was 98% in favour of collective action.
"More good news..." by roli case "Dr Bramall-Stainer told BBC Breakfast general practice had been pushed to "desperation point" over the last 15 years - with "thousands" of GPs leaving." from the BBC link^^
While it is naive to think that banning bonuses won't just be worked around it is also naive to expect any difference if nationalised. Water and sewage are basically too cheap for what is involved with it yet everyone expects it to be cheap. If could have more money by charging more or it could have more money by having it direct from government funding if nationalised. The latter is better as it could be taken from national pot, i.e. poorer people don't need to pay more but it would still need to be given the budget which we no doubt cannot afford.
Re-nationalisation is the only answer.
I couldn’t agree more. How you go about renationalising a number of private companies/monopolies who are tens of billions in debt is a tough one though.
How do you actually go about doing that? It’s not like the rail companies who are on time limited franchises that will come to an end. That’s a serious question by the way. I have absolutely no idea.
Anyway…. some more terrible news for you to and the rest of the forum misanthropes to moan about…
A misanthrope might be better described as the Liberal that rounds the edges of failed privatisation so struggling families still have to pay higher bills rather than put an essential service in state hands so they can be accountable and fully funded.
(A natural monopoly can't benefit from market forces when you can't choose your supplier.)
It's basic stuff and no amount of slight adjustments of the way capitalism rewards the boss of our most essential service fixes that basic problem.
It's not just about being cheap, it's an environmental and public health issue. When I told a Spanish ecologist what was going on here he couldn't believe it. My word, it's amazing what people have been forced to tolerate.
I couldn’t agree more. How you go about renationalising a number of private companies/monopolies who are tens of billions in debt is a tough one though.
It's not a tough one at all.
Mostly the finances of the nationalising water companies estimated over generously at 80-90bn.
Realistically probably less. (As low as 14.7bn if you do some shrewd accounting. Which the government could do )
Government gets an asset to balance some of that off.
Paying dividends whilst running up debts is absolutely ridiculous. Having a profit whilst increasing debt is no way to run a company.
I've said before the public either pays through higher and higher bills or the government simply bloody buys it.
Customers now pay for servicing the debt that Thames Water have run up. It's absolutely stupid.
Or let's just wait for it to go bankrupt. Then take it.
Political will.
It's a false market anyway.
Does the slate get wiped clean at the start of a new parliamentary term then comrade?
So let me get this right, you are claiming that the government is cutting International Aid by 40% because "our ‘foreign aid’ budget mostly ended up with hotel chains, whoever owned the Bibby Stockholm and the Rwandan government" and you don't want to see it wasted on asylum seekers when it could be spent on defence?
You are Nigel Farage and I claim my five proud British pounds.
Btw according to your favourite newspaper in 2023, when the Tories were in government, 28% of the international aid budget was going into housing asylum seekers, so even if things have barely changed under Starmer, as you seem to think, that is still a very long way from "mostly".
Sir Keir Starmer is to take UK overseas aid to its lowest level as a percentage of national income since records began, even if he manages to halve the current £4.5bn cost of housing asylum seekers.
The extraordinary finding, a complete reversal of Labour manifesto pledges and its historical commitment to helping the world’s poorest, is made by Ian Mitchell, the co-director of the respected London-based thinktank the Centre for Global Development.
The 'greatest cut in UK overseas aid in history' by definition means greater than any cut carried out by any Tory government.
And yet some people on here who rant endlessly about the Tories, claiming to despise them, will defend Starmer doing a complete reversal of an eight month old manifesto pledge and actually behaving worse than the Tories.
What stunning hypocrisy. And then people scratch their heads trying to figure out why voters have lost confidence in mainstream parties. Although I am sure binners that you will tell me that it's because voters are stupid and gullible.
Although I am sure binners that you will tell me that it's because voters are stupid and gullible.
At the last count it was 52%
How often do you count? Surely the "last count" was July 4th 2024. Do you remember that day when voters were asked who they would like to govern them?
To jolt your memory among the many promises made by Labour was a commitment to increase international aid, which is currently quite a topical issue.
Stupid? I don't think so. Gullible? Probably.
I have lost confidence in mainstream political parties too. Tories were a given but Starmer is ****ing awful and just a liar and hypocrite. I am however not stupid or gullible so won't be switching to Reform as a better bet but many will, you know like that 52%.
Re-nationalisation is the only answer.
What does it achieve though? The debt pile might be made smaller, but the day to day operational costs and all the things that need doing and improving, still need to be paid for. And for those simply stating that the rise in bills directly funds debt servicing, what is the actual percentage of a customer bill that goes to that debt cost (clue: it's not what you think)? I've said this a few times before, and i'm not defending the bad conduct of companies or the clear failures of privatisation, just the choice of medicine being a simple statement of 're-nationalisation'.
There's a multitude of other options and 'middle ways', or compromises to navigate this difficult and complex issue. The current government has no desire to nationalise water, so it's a practical non-starter. If it comes to special administration (which is looking less likely now), then it would be temporary, and only mean underwriting debt for a period of time - bills and the operation of the company would remain as-is.
The actual direction of travel for the water industry will be the outcomes and recommendations from the Cunliffe Review. There will likely be structural changes to the whole industry from this, including regulators and water companies. So we're going to have to wait for that to report back. It's unlikely to recommend nationalisation, as one of the the aims is making the industry 'attract long-term investment'. Whether you agree with that or not, that's the pragmatic outlook for the medium term.
I couldn’t agree more. How you go about renationalising a number of private companies/monopolies who are tens of billions in debt is a tough one though
Work out how profitable they are based on the amount of tax they paid, then buy them out based on that value.
That would be a great way to incentivise them to play fair with the tax system, but I don't think they would entertain it.
As for SKS... I keep thinking that he's not necessarily Tory-lite, he's just naive and trying deperately to court the voters that _might_ vote Reform by moving to the right, instead of actually doing things that benefit the people he was elected to represent. That and the fact that he is over a barrel with a lot of the large infrastructure projects (Hinkley, Sizewell) thanks to previous governments of both sorts.
I couldn’t agree more. How you go about renationalising a number of private companies/monopolies who are tens of billions in debt is a tough one though.
Having a profit whilst increasing debt is no way to run a company.
It is if you want to use that borrowed money to invest in infrastructure or productive capital. I appreciate that might not fit with the somewhat esoteric economic theories that you favour.
he talked about "white saviours", which is an idiotic comment to make. David Lammy is a Harvard educated barrister who enjoys a more comfortable lifestyle than the average white and black persons in the UK and is desperately looking for things to cultivate a chip on his shoulder.
Ah, so you've got to be a poor black guy to comment on the white saviour trope?
I consider Lamming to be a gaffe prone loose cannonball.
a deliberate call back to a suicidal Scandinavian rodent/doubling down on your Malapropism?
Have you heard him explain how men can develop "cervixes"? Or how he grew up in a family dependent on tax credits
No, and neither have you though I do recall right wing and anti-trans commentators rounding on his comment when cornered by Nick Robinson, that men can have cervixes. Trans men, obv. What's wrong with that?
Or how he grew up in a family dependent on tax credits
It was income support, a form of tax credit from which his family with five kids in Tottenham benefitted. And a few right wing commentators went ah ha!
Black smoke I'll give you 🙂 Maybe just stick with that as the others put you in some pretty unpleasant company. And if you can't get the sneery asides right, is it possible your skewed vision might be impaired on the other stuff?
It is if you want to use that borrowed money to invest in infrastructure or productive capital. I appreciate that might not fit with the somewhat esoteric economic theories that you favour.
It isnt if you have the government doing the borrowing which, incidentally, as a rule it can do so cheaper than private companies. So if you move away from ideological obsession with private being better you can do better with public investment.
The problem, as with all natural monopolies, is that there is no incentive to invest in infrastructure unless forced by the government. After all its not like I am going to get funding for my start up to install an alternative set of mains is it?
How you go about renationalising a number of private companies/monopolies who are tens of billions in debt is a tough one though.
I think if they could manage to take over numerous banks who were hundreds of billions in debt and on the brink of collapse in a matter of days they can probably work out how to take over a few water companies. They are the government after all, they can do pretty much anything they want by passing an act of parliament. That's all it would need to privatise the water companies.
The bailout of failing banks was totally different to a nationalisation of solvent water companies. Parliament can't simply expropriate assets from companies without paying compensation to them.
The problem, as with all natural monopolies, is that there is no incentive to invest in infrastructure unless forced by the government.
...which is exactly why the government (actually OFWAT) forces the water companies to invest in infrastructure.
Parliament can't simply expropriate assets from companies without paying compensation to them.
Of course it could, parliament makes the law and they can change it to do anything it wants. Whether they should do that is another question of course. I'm not suggesting that shareholders of solvent companies shouldn't be compensated, but there's no reason they can't do it.
In other news, it would appear there is at least one person in the Labour govt who isn't prepared to prostitute themselves to Trump and indulge in rightwing racist cosplay.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/28/anneliese-dodds-resigns-keir-starmer-cut-aid-budget
This news has cheered me up no end! Someone ready to stand by their principles, the politics of fear are winning out in the labour party at the moment “don’t rock the boat or it’ll let reform in”! The British voters would probably appreciate more honesty and politicians standing by views and policies expressed before election rather than the large scale ditching of principles once in power?
Parliament can't simply expropriate assets from companies without paying compensation to them.
Well, they could.
But it would be best to draw up a comprehensive list first, because you only tend to get away with this sort of thing once.
And you have to be 100% sure that you will never need/want international investment again.
🤣🤣🤣
...which is exactly why the government (actually OFWAT) forces the water companies to invest in infrastructure.
Uh huh and lets see how that is done. Oh yes by having guaranteed price increases to cover the costs + interest + profit.
Then what happens is, ermm, it isnt spent on infrastructure.
These arent companies whose investors are taking risks putting money into projects which may or may not pay off but companies only investing when forced and with a guaranteed revenue stream.
The problem, as with all natural monopolies, is that there is no incentive to invest in infrastructure unless forced by the government. After all its not like I am going to get funding for my start up to install an alternative set of mains is it?
As mentioned, Ofwat are there to oversee the process of asset investment and how costs are recovered from bills. Anyone know what % of bills covers this cost? Capital expenditure (which is generally money spent on assets) is a significant proportion of water company activity, and is one of the reasons some of them are taking Ofwat to the CMA, because they want to invest more in infrastructure than Ofwat will allow/thinks they can recover.
As mentioned above, privatisation just isn't going to happen in the near future, so discussing how it may happen is just hypothetical fancy. The reality is, it relies on private investment which the investors then require a % return on, and the current strategy is to reform things so that the industry is attractive enough for private investment in the future. There's a case to be made that if you nationalised as things stand, you inherit a broken industry that you might struggle to finance (let alone reform) in an agreeable way, so why not keep the current risk in private hands? That's aside from the fact the government do not want to nationalise, and will not add tens of billions of £s to their budget forecasts and all the attendant difficulties and civil service bandwidth it would consume, whilst not making a single bit of difference to what would happen on the ground during that time.