UK Government Threa...
 

UK Government Thread

6,012 Posts
211 Users
7537 Reactions
100 K Views
Posts: 3443
Free Member
 

In case anyone was still in doubt- it’s not “left vs right”, it’s the super-rich vs the rest of us

It's not even subtle anymore it's a smash and grab.

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 7:54 pm
Posts: 3443
Free Member
 

If Centrism's aims are to make things materially worse and pave the way for more extreme government's it's looking like a total success

I'd say it's the patronising authoritarians. They don't practice what they preach, talk down to people, don't have any solutions just penalties and restrictions to be imposed on other people, not themselves of course.

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 8:08 pm
Posts: 402
Free Member
 

  ransos

Free Member

 

Report

Comment of the week.

 

 

 

Comment of the weak, certainly.

 

In that case, I assume your next move is to rally the rest of the pack in for the kill?

 

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 8:21 pm
AD reacted
Posts: 6674
Full Member
 

Thinks about posting a serious comment, thinks better of it, donkey gif it is.


Oh No Deal With It GIF by DreamWorks Animation

 

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 8:43 pm
Posts: 15795
Free Member
 

In that case, I assume your next move is to rally the rest of the pack in for the kill?

 

I've no idea what you're talking about. My post was in response to a usually prolific poster who asked us to wait for details of benefits cuts to be confirmed, and for once had no comment once they had been.  Obviously, normal service has now resumed and the small stock of pictures is being used in lieu of anything to say.

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 8:52 pm
Posts: 14393
Full Member
 

Wow, so now I'm right wing and racist...?

 

Lol, this thread is just a circle-jerk, I should know better than to post in it 🤣 

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 9:23 pm
Posts: 3443
Free Member
 

Probably a climate change denier and Pootin/Orange Shit Gibbon (funny names eh aren't I clever) sympathiser as well 😉

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 10:02 pm
Posts: 14322
Full Member
 

Posted by: mattyfez

Wow, so now I'm right wing and racist...?

Are you still assuming that any criticism of the government is a personal attack on you, or has someone specifically accused you of being right-wing and racist?

 

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 10:03 pm
Posts: 402
Free Member
 

I've no idea what you're talking about. My post was in response to a usually prolific poster who asked us to wait for details of benefits cuts to be confirmed, and for once had no comment once they had been. Obviously, normal service has now resumed and the small stock of pictures is being used in lieu of anything to say.

I think you've got every idea what I'm talking about.

 

You chose to pun 'comment of the week' into 'comment of the weak'. Weak animals are the ones picked off first by an assembled pack of predators. It's pretty clear to me that there are some alphas in here who like to gang up on others.

 

At least acknowledge what you're doing rather than deflecting. Or will it be my turn next?

 

Fow what it is worth I would characterise myself as a fair bit to the left of mattyfez and something like a lapsed Binners. I held out a lot of hope for Starmer. I thought he was going to act like a QC and use some gravitas to challenge some of the Brexity, rightward drifting shite that has poisoned British political discourse for a decade now. But I'm increasingly convinced he hasn't got the minerals. I think he has political convictions, but I don't think he has the balls to advance them. I think he has accepted failure and given up on the electorate. Perhaps he is right to do so, but not having been elected prime minister.

 

Still, whatever - pile on if you like, I'm not sure I'm that bothered any more. I'm politically homeless, so I might as well concentrate on me and mine and stop sweating the big stuff. What's the point if every supposed political clean slate turns out to be a continuation with a different coloured rosette slapped on it?

 

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 10:19 pm
Posts: 24231
Free Member
 

.....

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 10:38 pm
Posts: 14322
Full Member
 

Blimey, some people really think that the "UK government thread" is all about them. 

Anyway in other news......did anyone else know that the Labour candidate in the Runcorn by-election has launched an online petition calling for an asylum hotel in the constituency to be closed?

I have only just seen this :

https://www.runcornandwidnesworld.co.uk/news/25026406.labour-candidate-calls-asylum-hotel-closed/

"A Labour by-election campaign targeting asylum hotels is callous and indefensible. Last summer, a hotel named by a Labour MP in Parliament was set on fire with people inside. This rhetoric fuels hate and puts lives at risk. After last year's far-right riots, it is beyond contempt."

The particularly interesting aspect of this story is that firstly you have to assume that the Labour by-election candidate has the personal approval of Sir Keir Starmer, and secondly that it is the Home Office that decides which hotels are used as temporary accommodation for asylum applicants. 

So the Labour candidate in Runcorn is attempting to force the closure of a hotel which the Labour Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, has approved as necessary to house people waiting for the asylum applications to be processed.

And the hotel isn't even named!

Still I guess none of that is important, the point is that it serves as a useful dog-whistle to racists and bigots.

Although if I was a racist and bigot living in Runcorn I would simply use Labour's validation of my bigotry to feel more comfortable about voting for the proper racist by-election candidate.

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 10:48 pm
Posts: 14393
Full Member
 

Posted by: ernielynch

Posted by: mattyfez

Wow, so now I'm right wing and racist...?

Are you still assuming that any criticism of the government is a personal attack on you, or has someone specifically accused you of being right-wing and racist?

 

I'll try to simplify my angle on that for you:

You and some others, rather than saying something accurate (when talking about the current govenment) such as 'starmer' or 'starmers labour' are simply saying 'centrists'.

'Centrism' isn't a political party, movement, or partisan view, it simply means blanced and moderate - the clue is in the word.

I'm sure you are reasonably intelligent, so I'm going to assume you are doing this to paint a certain picture to fit a certain agenda, or are saying things like that out of pure ignorance?

Then lumping in 'centrists' with the right wing, well, that just further confirms my thoughts.

I'm sure it's not lost on you that such language is loaded - when you try to lable 'centrists' as right wing...well they are not right wing by defnition, and racist too?

 

So yes, when you use the words like 'racist' and and 'right wing' to describe 'centrism', when what you actually mean is the labour party in its current form - and me being pretty moderate and centrist, I do take that as an attack.

 

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 10:49 pm
Posts: 7478
Full Member
 

Posted by: Oakwood

It's pretty clear to me that there are some alphas in here who like to gang up on others.

I would suggest you are missing a fair amount of history given your joining date. There was several years where anyone who was slightly left or right wing was met with tirades of abuse from the Labour centre right members.

This pretty much lasted until Starmer started to disappoint at which point there was rather a lot of silence and announcements about being bullied. Occasionally sparking back into life when an announcement is made before the disappointment and inability to defend the indefensible is overwhelmed. Its actually a bad sign for the budget not a budget that there is radio silence right now.

If you dont call everyone who disagrees a "sixth former" or similar whilst demonstrating a knowledge of politics rather less than a sixth former you are unlikely to be insulted.

At least by those on the left.

Those in the centre might see an announcement they like at some point and go on the offensive again. This will be especially likely come election time when anyone who is politically homeless will get the "who else will you vote for" and accusations of being a tory (or possibly reform now) supporter hurled at them.

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 10:55 pm
quirks reacted
Posts: 15795
Free Member
 

You chose to pun 'comment of the week' into 'comment of the weak'. Weak animals are the ones picked off first by an assembled pack of predators. It's pretty clear to me that there are some alphas in here who like to gang up on others.

 

At least acknowledge what you're doing rather than deflecting. Or will it be my turn next?

 

Please refrain from ascribing views to me that I have not expressed and do not hold. You are reading far too much into a simple pun aimed at a poster who seems to prefer silly pictures to reasoned debate. I consider that to be weak. As are your attempts at playing the victim.

 

 

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 10:57 pm
Posts: 3443
Free Member
 

Please refrain from ascribing views to me that I have not expressed and do not hold

Don't spoil his fun!

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:02 pm
Posts: 14393
Full Member
 

Posted by: ransos

You chose to pun 'comment of the week' into 'comment of the weak'. Weak animals are the ones picked off first by an assembled pack of predators. It's pretty clear to me that there are some alphas in here who like to gang up on others.

 

At least acknowledge what you're doing rather than deflecting. Or will it be my turn next?

 

Please refrain from ascribing views to me that I have not expressed and do not hold. You are reading far too much into a simple pun aimed at a poster who seems to prefer silly pictures to reasoned debate. I consider that to be weak. As are your attempts at playing the victim.

 

 

 

z.JPG

 

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:03 pm
Posts: 15795
Free Member
 

Oh look. Another poster with a silly picture, and it took you two attempts to get the right one. QED.

 

Obviously, normal service has now resumed and the small stock of pictures is being used in lieu of anything to say.

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:05 pm
Posts: 7478
Full Member
 

Posted by: mattyfez

You and some others, rather than saying something accurate (when talking about the current govenment) such as 'starmer' or 'labours starmer' are simply saying 'centrists'.

What they said was "the centrists announcement". Now if you wish to disagree with Starmers party being centrist thats fair enough.

It is somewhat arguable but your response wasnt  "I disagree with Starmer being described as centrist" and instead went for "These are your words. I am a centrist, so I do take that as an attack, yes."

The context was pretty clear so I am not sure why you decided it was an attack on you? 

I am always fascinated by the demand for perfect accuracy in terminology from others when they dont display it themselves or dont demand it from those on "their" side.

 

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:09 pm
Posts: 15795
Free Member
 

The context was pretty clear so I am not sure why you decided it was an attack on you? 

It beats trying to defend the indefensible.

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:12 pm
Posts: 3443
Free Member
 

Where's Mr Brexit when you need him?!? come on TJ I'm sure you've got something to add.

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:16 pm
Posts: 14393
Full Member
 

Posted by: ransos

Oh look. Another poster with a silly picture, and it took you two attempts to get the right one. QED.

 

Obviously, normal service has now resumed and the small stock of pictures is being used in lieu of anything to say.

Do you even contribute anything to the forum other than spamming UK politics threads? you're just a shill, IMO.

 

 

 

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:16 pm
Posts: 15795
Free Member
 

Do you even contribute anything to the forum other than spamming UK politics threads? you're just a shill, IMO.

I suppose I could respond with a personal attack or a silly picture, but I wouldn't want to cramp your style. I'll instead leave you with your own words:

 

relentless speculative drivel on here from the usual suspects...

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:21 pm
Posts: 8364
Full Member
 

Perhaps stop identifying as centrist then cos ain't they the ones centre between left and right... So when the left have veered right... So by definition have the centrists.

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:24 pm
Posts: 14322
Full Member
 

Well it seems that the tactic of the Starmer supporters to derail this thread away from politics,  which is clearly a sensitive subject for them, by posting pictures of donkeys and engaging in petty bitching has been somewhat successful.

I thought that my post concerning the Labour by-election candidate's dog-whistling might have been a subject for discussion, apparently not.


Fail Star Trek The Next Generation GIF by MOODMAN

 

Tory politicians and Trump supporters don't seem to get off so lightly on stw

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:30 pm
Posts: 24231
Free Member
 

**** me what an unpleasant place this has become. No wonder it's dying on its arse. To think a week or two ago the mods were issuing play the ball not the man warnings, that lasted well.

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:34 pm
Posts: 3443
Free Member
 

Well it seems that the tactic of the Starmer supporters to derail this thread away from politics

Starmer fans eh. How tragic.

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:43 pm
Posts: 3443
Free Member
 

Come on hands up who's a Starmer fan?

 
Posted : 25/03/2025 11:49 pm
Posts: 10880
Full Member
 

Posted by: chestercopperpot

Come on hands up who's a Starmer fan?

 

Good luck with that 

 

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 12:00 am
kelvin reacted
Posts: 56100
Full Member
 

9AD38EAD-EA5E-44A7-B83B-B8334000A692.jpeg

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 12:03 am
Posts: 10880
Full Member
 

This interview with Angus Hanton is a good/watch listen on American ownership of British companies, his book “Vassal State” is worth a read.

 

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 12:12 am
Posts: 24231
Free Member
 

Am I (still) a Starmer fan - I'll break cover..... nothing new to say but here in one place.

Small g government I continue to be impressed by. The junior ministers, advisors, civil servants in DSIT, DESNZ, etc. and their detailed and diligent approach to a formal spending review process that decides what they are going to prioritise is impressive. Of course there will be decisions made that some don't like, and I'll probably get criticised for not providing detail, or for the gov not releasing more information yet, or whatever else but sorry, that's how it is. I know some stuff is close to agreed, some has a lot of back and forward to do, some might even get mentioned tomorrow, some might not until June. Call me a Mitty if you like, nothing I can provide yet to convince you otherwise. As to what's prioritised - at the risk of poking the hornets nest again, I'm glad I don't have to prioritise welfare vs CNI that if it fails could bring the whole country to its knees because they are very difficult decisions.

Big G government - disappointed. Optically the suits and tickets while entirely within the rules has done nothing to dissuade the 'all the same' criticism. Although at the same time, I've defended the security cost argument, the more it's happened the less sold I am on it. Add to that the choices made so far - I don't know how it would have landed but better to have held back on some of the unpopular stuff announced which has undermined good work being done elsewhere, has backbenchers facepalming left right and centre, and has swamped a number of good policy announcements that has been done. The autumn budget should have been a success, but is now forgotten. So if big G gov is the product of its leaders, then no, I'm no longer a fan.

And then (god help me) the elephant in the room of whether the situation is so bad that the rules do need to go out of the window. I am not an economist so I don't know and I remain sceptical whether Rone's much espoused theory works or not (and please don't try and explain it again) or whether it creates a bigger issue. I did say 6 months ago that I could envisage a situation where the SR could see a release in some areas because of the depth of the issue caused by external factors and the absolute must do's exceeding the available budget, and the Trump first days has only contributed more to that with the defence spend - yet I don't see any sign of it.

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 12:41 am
Posts: 3443
Free Member
 

Without delving into the content. At least you have laid out what you think without playing games and being underhand.

Everyone on this forum should be able to do the same without a kangaroo court in session.

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 1:16 am
Posts: 14393
Full Member
 

Posted by: sirromj

Perhaps stop identifying as centrist then cos ain't they the ones centre between left and right... So when the left have veered right... So by definition have the centrists.

See that's where I strongly disagree... The left can veer further left, and the right can veer further right... But that doesn't change the position of the center, in the context of politics.
Changing the envelope is nothing more than manipulation.

Just look at the democrats party in the USA... An accurate way to describe them in the context of UK politics would probably roughly equate to the conservative party in the UK.
Just because Republicans are extreme right wing doesn't change that.

Yes I voted Labour in the last GE, but I'm no fan of Starmer... All I can say so far about Starmers labour is I'd rather that than another tory or reform government.

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 2:37 am
Posts: 12304
Free Member
 

I would rather have none of them but given the choice of the 3 then it would still be Labour but only just.   
rumoured more welfare cuts today to gain a paltry 1.6 billion.  Could get 20 billion just by putting in a 2% wealth tax on over 10 million which doesn’t seem drastic and would think it would be supported by 99% of people but when Rayner was asked about taxes she said they have hit the “sweet spot” with how it is now - FFS is all I can say to that.  

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 6:44 am
Posts: 7478
Full Member
 

Posted by: theotherjonv

And then (god help me) the elephant in the room of whether the situation is so bad that the rules do need to go out of the window.

The problem is the rules are as illusory as the theory Rone supports. They are "rules" that she invented and has decided not to adapt to the changing circumstances but instead changing everything else.

Its somewhat similar to what Germany is dealing with right now where their self imposed "debt brake" rule has ended up causing far more issues than it solves especially in terms of impact on infrastructure and other long term spending. Hence why they are now bodging it to allow for some spending whilst still retaining the illusion.

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 9:01 am
Posts: 402
Free Member
 

Sweeping generalisations, pile-ons, personal attacks, "he started it, Miss" and silly pictures.

 

I'm pretty much politically homeless these days, but I know the reasons why and the road that has put me here.

 

If I was simply politically homeless and looking for answers and some hope of finding a political home, I wouldn't want to be directed to this forum.

 

I'm just going to remove myself more and more from taking an interest in UK politics. I'm already trying to avoid the news, but there's other stuff there that I am interested in, so quickly turning off isn't always possible.

 

It seems the die is cast.

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 9:05 am
Posts: 24231
Free Member
 

Me too. What has passed in the last few weeks and months isn't debate, it's entrenched division.

It's perfectly possible to think some of what's being done is good and some bad, and v/v. It's perfectly possible that your vision of priorities is different to mine. I don't hate you because of that, I've grown to loathe some posters because of the way they conduct themselves. And the way that because some things have been ****ed up, everything being done is now automatically bad and anyone that supports any part of it is now some evil fascist as a result.

I think welfare state needs revision. There, I said it. Do I think THIS revision is right - probably not. Do I think lifting the 2 child cap should have been done? Optically it would have been a (cheap) and easy win, but I can also defend the position that a broader review of poverty and child poverty would be more effective and make economic sense.

Am I frustrated it's taking a long time; yes but as per previous post there's a lot of moving parts to this SR and I can't criticise for the attention to all the details, particularly in comparison to 'on a whim' policies of the last lot. And FWIW, below the rosette wearing types there's a lot of the same people involved in both - who despite being politically neutral were equally frustrated by the lack of a long term spending plan, and who now are able to get on with their jobs properly.

Am I prepared to wait and then judge when the big reveal happens. I have no choice, it's what's happening.

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 9:20 am
verses reacted
Posts: 31480
Full Member
 

The otherjonv providing a voice of reason in the chaos. And backed by actual experience. Can I vote for you next time?

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 9:28 am
Posts: 6674
Full Member
 

Ok in the vein of the otherjonv I'll also try and explain how I think and why without using emotive language.

My belief is a country generates it wealth from the labour of individuals within society, the more people economically productive the more resource and overhead a government has to redistribute surplus wealth generated (ie those that are highly economically active have to pay some of it through taxes to government to support those not economically active enough to support their basic needs. That's basis of our society. It a balance though, generally people generating more wealth do do something to generate it, not everyone in the 10th percentile and above have been handed a golden ticket, in the fact the majority haven't. So whilst it's right those higher earners (and I'm not talking about the truly wealthy, come on to them later) there's got to be some fairness about how much they are expected to contribute back into society.

Like theotherjonv I don't buy into Rones take on MMT and nor do any serious politicians it seems otherwise why are they not all following Rones approach? A question that has been asked many times wit a serious answer. The super wealthy, and the amount of wealth a few individuals hoard is obscene, are a difficult nut to crack, their wealth means they can go elsewhere, physically and economically. And ironically they are often still running organisations in the UK generating wealth. Shoul they pay a lot more into society, absolutely, should so much wealth be hoarded by so few, absolutely not. What do we realistically do about it, no idea.

So onto my main point which I think is what is driving Starmers government, we are not producing enough wealth as a country to support the living standards the population as a whole have come to expect. It's a hard fact, we need to reduce the support for those people not economically active enough to support themselves whilst at the same time making them more economically active. It's just simple maths, not idealogical or nasty.

Now the complex bit, of the people who are economically inactive or under active there is a huge spectrum from those completely unable to work due to unavoidable le medical or life changing situations right through to an increasing number of people who are finding life too tough and fall back on state support. Not deliberately and not as conscious decision, however it is real and Covid accelerated the trend.

So as a Starmer supporter and centrist my approach and I believe the government's approach is to try to maximise what wealth we do have for the people we need it the most without significantly increasing the burden on higher earners (who have seen their taxes disproportionately increase through the freezing of allowances and removal of universal benefits), there's only so much theupper earners ca be milked. I don't think Starmer has any wish to remove benefits from disabled people, trouble is the definition of disabled is so broad someone considering themselves disabled is going to lose out, back to my earlier point, there's not enough cash in the pot. There's also a coherent argument to be made that the more generous you make the welfare system the more people become dependant on it, same argument about building more roads increase traffic.

So whilst on the face of it Starmer's government may seem like the same as the Torys but I think the Torys motivation is completely different. Starmer addresses are beauracrats, they see a broken system and are trying to fix it and making lots of enemies (and PR cockups) on the way. The Torys just wanted cheap votes via throw away simplistic policies and pandering to people nastier prejudices.

Theultimate difference between the 2, if Starmer gets it right, had it will bea long time until that can be assessed, we will end up with a fairer more sustainable society. If Reform or the current Tory incarnation get back in it will be a nailed on certainties that the country will be come more divided, more unfairand more bitter accelerating the downward spiral.

So bottom line, us centrists are not nasty and being lumped into the same category as the right is offensive, our take is we have limited resources and not everyone is going to get what they, it's not about targeting specific groups because of who they are.

Obviously if you don't agree with our basic economic understanding of how the world works then the rest of it wontmake any sense either. However that's the same problem centrists have with the lefts view of the world, reconciling the basic views of we don't have enough resources vs we do if we choose to is a big chasm to breach,  however if it's that easy to to implement the latter option why aren't more countries doing it?

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 9:33 am
verses reacted
Posts: 34068
Full Member
 

The problem is the rules are as illusory as the theory Rone supports.

Indeed, most fiscal rules "imposed" on spending by politicians can be covered by the Mikado quote 

"Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative"

Ideology first, fiscal rules/theory/narrative second to suit the first.

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 9:58 am
Posts: 24231
Free Member
 

Fair post by Stumpyjon. You can disagree with it without being nasty about it.

 

One correction. I'm not 'against' MMT, I don't have the understanding to judge if it works or if it would crash economies. I'm pretty far from an idiot (I think) and normally in these situations I would try to understand and choose a side but I've been so turned off by the way the proponents debate their opinion that now I just roll eyes and skip over posts, as indeed I have been advised to do in the past.

 

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 10:24 am
Posts: 14322
Full Member
 

Blimey, has this thread turned into a self-help vehicle for confused and demoralised centrists? Binners usually a man of so many words and opinions is reduced to posting just pictures, which I assume is some sort of hysteria, and now we're getting profound navel-gazing with talk of "I am still a centrist" or "I feel homeless".

How about discussing "the UK government" which is the subject matter ? 

Most people are of the opinion that the Starmer-Reeves government is screwing up in terms of their priorities, even if some believe that it is all part of a cunning plan and everything will be alright on the night.

Even what is widely seen as the centrist's bible, the Guardian, strongly disapproves :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/24/the-guardian-view-on-rachel-reevess-spending-cuts-a-choice-not-an-economic-necessity

And this failure to offer a convincing economic argument and strategy is of course translating into political failure, every single opinion poll for months now has put support for Labour at 22-28% which is  catastrophically bad, especially when you consider that combined Tory-Reform support is about double that. When was the last time that Labour enjoyed so little support? And they look set to lose one of the safest Labour seats in a few weeks time.

A seismic shift is occurring in British politics and the catalyst is the current Labour government, time to wake up and face this reality.

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 10:25 am
 MSP
Posts: 15224
Free Member
 

nor do any serious politicians it seems otherwise why are they not all following Rones approach?

 

Because the people financing politics benefit from the current illusionary rules. It is clear that the whole political world is under attack from the oligarchs, we can see it vividly in the US but the same is happening in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world. It is as clear as day to pretty much everyone but no politician is acting to defend democracy.

Why is that? Do you think it is because they can't see what is clear to everyone else, or do you think it is because they are more concerned with their short term funding drying up than actually taking actions that they will suffer for in the short term but everyone will benefit from.

We have professional politicians that are too often removed from the societies they rule, that don't understand the impacts of the decisions they make on the electorate, especially the political games they play. 

Do you think we would still get the same political direction we currently have if only donations of a max of say 1000 pounds a year from any individual or organisation was introduced, and if the lobbying industry was smashed? I certainly don't I would expect quite a large swing left without the benign influence of big money donators distorting democracy.

It could be that Starmer believes that by not bucking the system he can do a little bit of good in a seriously flawed system, but even if that is true it won't hold back the tide, the political direction is ever heading to the right and has been for over 40 years, and the pace of change is increasing.

The center in 1985 would now be considered far left lunacy by "centrists" and frequently is described as such on STW, people who were describing tory policy as "performative cruelty" 12 months ago are now excusing worse attacks on those that have the least by a labour government now. The idea that centrists haven't been shifted right just is demonstrably not true.

 

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 10:30 am
quirks reacted
Posts: 12304
Free Member
 

And this failure to offer a convincing economic argument and strategy is of course translating into political failure, every single opinion poll for months now has put support for Labour at 22-28% which is  catastrophically bad, especially when you consider that combined Tory-Reform support is about double that.

I am no fan of Starmer but what do all those that feel he is not doing good enough at think Reform or Tories will do for them?  I think most voters are pretty stupid (sue me) and that proves it.  We have just had 14 years of tories so they surely can't be the answer can they and if they feel Reform are going to sort it out then how many seconds have they spent looking into that?

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 10:46 am
Posts: 29397
Full Member
 

 Could get 20 billion just by putting in a 2% wealth tax on over 10 million which doesn’t seem drastic

Worth a listen to this morning's More Or Less.

There are plenty of ways to get wealth holders to pay their share (the inheritance tax change for farmers estate owners a baby step here), but a wealth tax sounds easier than changing our current taxes... it probably isn't. I'd start with making GCT the equal of IncomeTax+NI, so no matter how you earn your money, it's taxed roughly the same. Workers shouldn't be paying a bigger share of their income than asset holders.

Anyway, my prediction for today is the same as on an earlier page... "the rules" will be broken. Lots of politicking to try and hide that. Total government spend will still be much higher than it was under the last government, and higher than it would have been under a Conservative government if they'd won the last election. Further tax increases will be avoided (a mistake) for now while we wait for the last lot to kick in and bed in, but are unavoidable in future years. So the gap between spending and tax take will increase further than planned. There will be some token and much reported on cuts to some government departments and some other benefit area to try and look "responsible"... won't be pensioners pockets hit this time.

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 10:51 am
Posts: 12304
Free Member
 

There are plenty of ways to get wealth holders to pay their share (the inheritance tax change for farmers estate owners a baby step here), but a wealth tax sounds easier than changing our current taxes... it probably isn't.

I don't care if it is easy or not, the fact is they are not even trying.  I suppose just keep to the easy stuff like reducing benefit payments...

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 10:57 am
Posts: 29397
Full Member
 

Still worth a listen. 

We already have taxes that can be, and should be, used to make those with assets pay more. We should be using them. This government won't have two tax raising events so soon together though (they should, but they won't). They'll be little to nothing announced on tax today (would like to be wrong here).

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 11:02 am
Posts: 14322
Full Member
 

and if they feel Reform are going to sort it out

They probably don't.  Which why any party led by Nigel Farage has historically always done very badly in general elections.

What has changed now is that Starmer is convincing voters that Labour is not the answer to their concerns, in a similar way that Nick Clegg proved that the LibDems weren't.

Reform's main appeal is that they aren't one of the other three parties, and at a time when when mainstream politicians have been thoroughly discredited that is quite powerful.

The fact that most voters don't really know what Reform would do in government adds to that appeal. Starmer and McSweeney exploited the lure of the political unknown - when in opposition they pushed very hard the suggestion that voters should back them because they weren't Tories, whilst as much as possible said very little about what they would do once in power.

 

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 11:03 am
Posts: 24231
Free Member
 

and then ernie arrives. How depressingly familiar.

I'll break cover further. When I said 

It's perfectly possible that your vision of priorities is different to mine. I don't hate you because of that, I've grown to loathe some posters because of the way they conduct themselves.

it's predominantly them I'm referring to. I don't even think they're really here for the debate, rather to start arguments.

 

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 11:07 am
Posts: 12304
Free Member
 

Yes Starmer definitely fooled a lot of people using the Labour branding but I guess people didn't think it would be this bad.  Not sure what Reform are fooling people with, without mentioning racism.  

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 11:09 am
Posts: 12304
Free Member
 

Still worth a listen. 

Thanks, I will do shortly as a program I used to listen to regularly.  

 
Posted : 26/03/2025 11:10 am
kelvin reacted
Page 89 / 118