Sir Ralph

You know what, I disagree with most of what you say but you do actually articulate your view in a polite way, even if I dont agree. A few others on here could take note including the village idiot.

I beg to differ on your first point, noting we are only 1.5 years into the current Government. Their opinion polls have tanked faster than any new Government before them, which means it's not just me saying it. I haven't read the accounts of these people yet but these were nearly 50 years ago I believe. If these are true (and not politically motivated) I dont judge someone's character on what they did 50 years ago, especially when they were a teenager. In fact, I think it smacks of desperation to dig someone's character out based on when they were a teenager in the early 1970s! I'm sure we have all said / done stupid things in our youth that we would disagree with now. Judge somebody on who they are now, not what they may have (potentially) been once. If you were really genuinely worried about antisemitism you should definitely not vote for the Labour Party. As I am aware, they are the only party to be found to be institutionally antisemitic (within the last 5 years) by the EHRC. Does that bother you? I assume it must and therefore you wouldnt vote for them?

Yes I did. I agree there is a lack of detail and I dont think they will achieve a reasonable portion of what they set out as it is too aspirational. They werent a serious GE contender last time so their next manifesto I suspect will be more realistic as it will come under more scrutiny. As I said I would prefer a Tory led coalition with Reform as a smaller part of the coalition in order to ensure the Tories maintain control but are kept on their toes and remain centre right / right in their decision making.

Fair enough, I agree you cant make a decision now. It sounds as though you would consider Labour in the same way I mentioned the Tories / Reform coalition. However I woudnt take the piss out of you for saying you would consider voting for them based on the circus that they currently are. So grow up a bit.

So you think the best alternative would be.........

So I am assuming that the Lib Dems and Labour are serious parties. In respect of the latter thats an interesting observation currently. Can you tell me what experience the Lib Dems have beyond what Reform currently have in terms of being in Government? Genuine question. You have an obsession with the rich. You do realise they pay most of the tax in this country. Its also often a sign of aspiration and hard work that people have made money - aspiration is a good thing FYI. The 'rich' probably helped pay for some of the things you have received from the Government so maybe you should reflect on that, rather than bash them.

So who is actually a serious option for the next GE at the moment? You seem to be saying Reform arent a serious option so you must have someone in mind who is? Personally, at the moment, I hope the Tories get in as part of the majority of a Coalition with Reform to keep the Tories 'true'.

Delving into the OBR's economic forecast, the UK's official forecaster says welfare spending is expected to rise this year by some £18bn to a total bill of £333bn. The OBR estimates the bill will rise by an average of £11bn a year, to reach £406bn in 2030-31 and swell to 11.2% of the total size of the UK economy. To put this into context we spend 4% of GDP on education (which I believe decreased last year). Prioritising state reliance rather than education which facilities independence from the state.

I didnt comment on this Lounge until August this year. Anyway the title of this thread is relevant. Isnt the question how good or crap this Government is rather than the length of my posting record which is utterly irrelevant to the government's performance. For the record, I was not impressed with the Tories. When things are bad though, always blame the Tories (or someone else) right?! #desperaratetimes #scrappingthebarrel #alwayssomeoneelsesfault

If you call pointing out the errors of the mess of this Government whining, then yes. My post is about front page news related to the Labour Party. Its pretty relevant to the Title of this thread. If they weren't so shit, there wouldnt be much to 'whine' about.

This is the problem with Labour, they just want to tax you. They will even lie now to do it. Reeves has essentially increased the cost of living for millions of families, during a cost of living crisis, when she didnt need to, in order to appease some socialists on her backbenches. Not a good look at all https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7kgejn5vno

Thats not correct. I said the below and you asked me if reintroducing the cap would result in poverty. Of course it would compared to the non-cap position and I stated it. I didnt say I had no problem with kids in poverty. Then you got your knickers in a twist. He can comment on your posts and this debate - thats why its called a Forum. There will be some occasions of poverty as a result. These already exist as the policy is in place. All policies have pros and cons. However, this policy encourages irresponsibility and punishes those people that are responsible. Do you believe this policy will encourage people who are on welfare to have more kids and rely on the state at taxpayers expense?

I'm already buzzing for this. This is what supporting a football team should feel like.

This is because the budget deficit hasn’t increased and has a larger headroom. The headroom itself is good in principle and could have been achieved by any government. It can be achieved in a number of ways, including cuts or a more balanced budget. A lot of scepticism in the economy was already factored in before the budget because people knew what was coming and actually feared that the nutters were going to deliver a worse budget than they did. This government is obsessed with taxes rather than economic growth. Thats it. It doesn’t mean that the markets believe it’s a “good budget” and the article highlights the scepticism about long term growth.

I would have responded to you but you were bloody rude this afternoon so I'm not wasting my time. I'm not dodging your questions as your responses were pretty average anyway - not exactly challenging. I just dont like you or care for your opinions and the other poster got you spot on. Learn to engage with people respectfully and people will respect you, regardless of whether you disagree.

I typed out a response and then thought “I can’t be bothered”. I don’t want to waste any more time on him. Have a good evening

Succinct.

Yes if you’ve been recently employed the bizarre thing is it doesn’t help you. Long term benefit claimants are fine. I speak from experience of long term claimants I’m aware of. Says a lot about who the system helps and doesnt

I understand that and some people do need welfare. I know stories of guys working two jobs and struggling. I have the genuine utmost respect. Also for people in @sadoldgit situation. However some need a kick up the ars and an ultimatum. I would question their tolerance threshold. That’s human nature. There is a lack of ars kicking in the current system. Thanks for engaging in a respectful way.

I’ve never lived on welfare. I have lived below the poverty line both in this country and abroad (the equivalent of UK poverty line). In this country my dad wouldn’t take welfare as a matter of principle. I know of people in my area who are on welfare and they are certainly not struggling. Whilst some are certainly struggling, there is too much abuse of the system in my opinion. The Labour Cabinet believe the same as they wanted welfare reform. This isn’t some mad surprise or idea

Put my view to one side. This is Tory policy to reinstate the two child cap for the reasons I said. This isn’t some outlier view. It’s the oppositions policy. I’ve lived in countries with true poverty and seen the consequence. I’ve also seen the opportunity a good capitalist system can provide and encourage people out of poverty. There is a balance to these things and my opinion is this balance has gone too far. Whilst I appreciate the respect you post with I don’t need lecturing from other rude posters about the consequences of poverty.

This is Tory policy. I didn’t say I hoped they suffered in poverty. You keep jumping to conclusions. You don’t understand the wider societal impact of such a policy on encouraging parents of those people to move towards employment in some cases and create a non state reliant future. I aspire for kids but we have different ways. You want them to be state reliant, I want a longer term plan which means they aren’t. Also don’t call me a cunt because I disagree with you. To my mind you talk utter BS sometimes but I don’t stoop that low

Poverty to dying. You’ve missed the point. Stop trying to shame me because I disagree with you. Angry little lefty

There will be some occasions of poverty as a result. These already exist as the policy is in place. All policies have pros and cons. However, this policy encourages irresponsibility and punishes those people that are responsible. Do you believe this policy will encourage people who are on welfare to have more kids and rely on the state at taxpayers expense?

Most sensible people have kids they can afford. Lots of responsible people want more kids but can’t afford them. Let’s tax those poor gits more to pay for the ones that have been irresponsible