Sir Ralph

I was trying to be fair. I don’t think I am wrong but I was trying to get a half reasonable response.

I agree to some degree. But the question is then, are there inefficiencies that can be addressed which have much less consequential impacts and could be tackled instead of more and more tax rises (to at least minimise those tax rises)? My issue is where is the governments plan for this to achieve a balanced budget?

I know people that work for local authorities and the impact on their budgets. Pre 2008 they were bloated so austerity did address some of this. I agree that now they are more stretched. I think there maybe some efficiencies in some local authorities but I think I agreed before that this would be relatively limited. LA spending is about 20% - what about the rest of government spending? Are there cuts to be made there?

Don’t pretend you have answered my question and that fob off. My question is why have spending cuts being seriously considered? This point is being debated regularly in the mainstream media….its not as if this is some wacky left field idea The only thing from you is a sarcastic response that suggests no spending cuts are possible. Let me make it simple for you: a. No spending cuts are possible at all moving forward b. Spending cuts are possible but the government won’t do it. It’s a really easy question to respond to. If you were unclear my answer is b). Maybe I am wrong and maybe I’m right but I’m clear on my opinion.

So you can’t answer it still. My reason remains the only reasonable explanation on the table in relation to this clinically useless government and why they won’t consider spending cuts. Thanks

Incorrect. @tdmickey3 criticised reform policy and I asked him what his alternative would be. He couldn’t respond so the point was don’t criticise if you don’t have an alternative to put forward. I actually think streeting comes across as one of the few competent ministers. you haven’t responded to my question about spending cuts though

Easy to criticise if you have no alternative isn’t it. Keep ploughing in the billions then

Azaz was terrible again. Seems to want to take so much time on the ball Downs - More effort than the usual pedestrian attitude. I would say a lot of effort is a bit much. He has the physical presence of a sleeping Pygmy. His end product was still terrible but he won a header 😂

The formation is a big problem. With three at the back it leaves us with a player less to press up top. It also leaves Fellows playing 20 yards too deep and means that Azaz (who I agree has been crap) gets more attention from the extra central midfielder they then have. He is a player that needs space and time to operate. I don’t understand the persistence with it and why we aren’t playing 4-2-3-1 As a side point I thought THB looked much more up for it tonight

So what’s your plan for saving the NHS in the long run? So far all government plans are to countinue blindly ploughing billions in - do you think that’s sustainable in the long run? What did reform actually say about insurance based health care by the way?

I actually edited that but socialist governments do increase state intervention by their very nature. I can explain that to you if you want but only after the below Don’t focus on that comment - please answer my key point. Again digressing from the point in hand. I’ve given you the answer that you can agree to or instead give me an alternative justification. It’s disappointing that nobody can explain it

You haven’t responded to the question as to why the government only wants to tax people and there has been no consideration to reducing spending. WHY? Don’t digress. You and none of your mates can answer this. let me answer it for you….they are scared and can’t reduce spending because there are too many socialist MPs who won’t allow them to. They would prefer to maintain the current level of government wastage in some quarters rather than being “unpopular” to those on the gravy train and propose a balanced budget. I also have evidence in the inability to cut welfare. Happy to be wrong but you need to explain why no spending cuts are being considered.

Yep question ignored well done. You continue to prove me right which I’m grateful for. Nothing, nada. Blind partisan support for the shitest government in my lifetime

Course it’s not. Nobody responded to my question of yesterday as to why the government hasn’t undertaken any spending cuts. You will do the same

We can’t press with that shit formation

The band of brothers will shit over anyone’s idea to reduce tax. Ask them why the government isn’t reviewing or hasn’t cut tax and they can’t answer. Don’t waste your time

The 5-3-1-1 doesn’t work we can’t press with it

Is this a dream?

Because one of you mentioned Trump. I said this hasn’t got anything to do with him. But the band of brothers is obsessed with him. The point is this guy is an inexperienced socialist. Nobody has given any credible reason why he is appropriate for this job. Just Trump blah blah

Do you know what the experience of mamdani is?

Pointless this isn’t about Trump it’s about the new mayor. You lot are obsessed

Life experience. Trump has much more of it than this guy.

I wouldn’t recommend getting into a discussion about socialism being more successful than capitalism, or even close to it Well he hasn’t done much so isn’t sufficiently experienced for this post. Don’t deflect the guys political views and experience isn’t relevant to Trump. Would you say you are a socialist?

Socialism often fails, particularly more extreme versions. There are many examples of this. Have you looked at this guys experience?

Sometimes good ideas on the face of it have consequences. NY is a pro business city until now. This sends the wrong message and I expect that, depending on the tax levels, businesses and the wealthy may move state. State built housing in recent times has often failed and you need to rely on the private sector to deliver it. I suspect the economic environment won’t be conducive to this (eg London now)