The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[whelk]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

On this lounge forum I’ve been called various names, including a c£&@.

Not the faint hearted the lounge. Although that must’ve been uncalled for

Edited August 14 by whelk

[Farmer Saint]

12 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

1. I’m not a liar - never admitted to it.  Your opinion is I’ve been caught out cause you don’t agree. Poor form to stoop that low. 
 

2. On this lounge forum I’ve been called various names, including a c£&@. I don’t recall ever resort to such chat. Poor form.

3. Im not going to explain what I do in real estate. If you couldn’t work out from earlier when I explained to some of your friends the basics of foreign investment in real estate, then me explaining it further is pointless. You think I got that from chat GPT? Your friends have taken the Michael out of me for even asking what they do and the relevance. I’ve given much more information about my background (and to be fair you have) than the rest of the contributors on here.  

4. I believe that most contributors on this page have socialist views and don’t have any basic idea about business or how the capitalist system works (ps the world  is based upon it). All too embarrassed to admit you’re socialist so you fudge the answer - saying that’s an old school view on life is frankly shirking the answer. To me that means you have socialist views as any true capitalist would be happy to admit what they are. 

5. When the inner circle is debated or challenged for a certain period you tend to get abusive and try to take the piss. A few of you continue to engage sensibly but the rest are unable to. I’ve seen it with other people, other than me, that have engaged with different views. They eventually get called irrational or stupid. Hence I realised it’s an echo chamber. No real forum does that. 

6. Good night. I’ll revisit this in a year and let’s see what happens. Hopefully Labour will turn the economy around but I doubt they will. If they do I will genuinely come back and admit I was wrong. I would be delighted if that happens. If they don’t I look forward to more excuses from the echo chamber.

In the meantime UTS

Ok, so what were you admitting to getting caught out on then?

In relation to your line of work, just a sector is all I asked for. The problem is, because you've confused and contradicted yourself so much in trying to carve out some sort of argument, I can't work out what sector you are in.

Wealthy people tend to spread their wealth, which means they could be investing in multiple real estate sectors, so it would be good to know.

[Farmer Saint]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

1. I’m not a liar - never admitted to it.  Your opinion is I’ve been caught out cause you don’t agree. Poor form to stoop that low. 
 

2. On this lounge forum I’ve been called various names, including a c£&@. I don’t recall ever resort to such chat. Poor form.

3. Im not going to explain what I do in real estate. If you couldn’t work out from earlier when I explained to some of your friends the basics of foreign investment in real estate, then me explaining it further is pointless. You think I got that from chat GPT? Your friends have taken the Michael out of me for even asking what they do and the relevance. I’ve given much more information about my background (and to be fair you have) than the rest of the contributors on here.  

4. I believe that most contributors on this page have socialist views and don’t have any basic idea about business or how the capitalist system works (ps the world  is based upon it). All too embarrassed to admit you’re socialist so you fudge the answer - saying that’s an old school view on life is frankly shirking the answer. To me that means you have socialist views as any true capitalist would be happy to admit what they are. 

5. When the inner circle is debated or challenged for a certain period you tend to get abusive and try to take the piss. A few of you continue to engage sensibly but the rest are unable to. I’ve seen it with other people, other than me, that have engaged with different views. They eventually get called irrational or stupid. Hence I realised it’s an echo chamber. No real forum does that. 

6. Good night. I’ll revisit this in a year and let’s see what happens. Hopefully Labour will turn the economy around but I doubt they will. If they do I will genuinely come back and admit I was wrong. I would be delighted if that happens. If they don’t I look forward to more excuses from the echo chamber.

In the meantime UTS

Ok, so what were you admitting to getting caught out on then? I literally posted the messages.

In relation to your line of work, just a sector is all I asked for. The problem is, because you've confused and contradicted yourself so much in trying to carve out some sort of argument, I can't work out what sector you are in.

Wealthy people tend to spread their wealth, which means they could be investing in multiple real estate sectors, so it would be good to know.

Edited August 14 by Farmer Saint

[rallyboy]

The last time someone said they'd leave it there, they were back seven minutes later - slamming the door on the way out then coming back loses impact.

One of the current problems is that Reform has lurched so far to the right that they can't even see the left from there, and need to believe that everyone in the centre ground must be raving Marxists who all hate running their own businesses successfully.

I suspect the looney lefties are mostly in the middle.

[badgerx16]

53 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 

4. I believe that most contributors on this page have socialist views and don’t have any basic idea about business or how the capitalist system works (ps the world  is based upon it). All too embarrassed to admit you’re socialist so you fudge the answer - saying that’s an old school view on life is frankly shirking the answer. To me that means you have socialist views as any true capitalist would be happy to admit what they are. 

 

Why is Socialism bad ? Do you even know what the term means ?

Should the NHS be privatised ? Should Social Care ?

Should mainstream education continue to be publicly funded ?

Would publicly owned water companies do a worse job than the privatised ones, which still require public funding to keep them going ? Similarly the rail network ?

Should workers have some protections against exploitation ?

Compare the above examples to the car crashes that are their equivalents in the capitalist paradise that is the United Staes of America.

 

Edited August 14 by badgerx16

[Farmer Saint]

I'm trying to not be too hard on him - I've given him various get outs to show and explain what his issues are. The problem is he doesn't seem to understand basic politics, government strategy, and as an extension tax and how that affects the wealth of individuals and businesses, along with the social costs associated.

He reminds me of me when I first came out of uni, thinking I knew it all, spouting crap about how life was all about making money and The Wealth of Nations etc. Nowadays I sit with the Theory of Moral Sentiments, but both are bedfellows, and both show that Capitalism and Socialism can live hand in hand. It is for this reason that I reject Ralph's question on what my "beliefs" are.

Also, a lot of rich people are selfish twats. I'd prefer to be a champagne socialist than one of those knobbers.

Edited August 14 by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

[Gloucester Saint]

100 pts for me having voted Tory 2017 as May’s deal whilst naive was far better than what we ended up with from Johnson and Frost (and was obviously so) and Corbyn’s manifesto. Not a very socialist thing to do.

My usual party were in disarray post-Brexit and 2015 GE wipeout (apparently austerity was only down to us).

Other than that, agree with the rest of that table - if you’re beyond 600 pts it’s a sad state of affairs.

Edited August 14 by Gloucester Saint

[Gloucester Saint]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

How many farewells is this fellow going to have?

More than Status Quo and possibly more than GM even.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

I scored 25,400 

[whelk]

Today’s FT. There will be none left soon 

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Today’s FT. There will be none left soon 

Clearly not true, as Ralph's real estate consortium full of UK Business & Asset owners/Non Dom's are all moving to Dubai to save on Income Tax because Labour. 

[egg]

37 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Clearly not true, as Ralph's real estate consortium full of UK Business & Asset owners/Non Dom's are all moving to Dubai to save on Income Tax because Labour. 

I'm waiting for the "Rachel Reeves has doubled the GDP of the UAE" headline. Should be anyday now. 

[Farmer Saint]

31 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm waiting for the "Rachel Reeves has doubled the GDP of the UAE" headline. Should be anyday now. 

Going back through all this though, it is why a Wealth Tax is something they should seriously look at. The majority of wealthy owners are not as financially mobile as they would like to be. They will put up with either 4-8 years of pain as they know it'll be removed after that, so let's make hay as the sun shines and get a wealth tax sorted.

Edited August 15 by Farmer Saint

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Going back through all this though, it is why a Wealth Tax is something they should seriously look at. The majority of wealthy owners are not as financially mobile as they would like to be. They will put up with either 4-8 years of pain as they know it'll be removed after that, so let's make hay as the sun shines and get a wealth tax sorted.

A wealth tax should be on the agenda, ditto some way of hitting the tax dodging corporations. We'll get a VAT rise instead imo. 

[whelk]

Although I did read that if a wealth tax is implemented there will be a surge in deaths as all the multimillionaires will jump off cliffs rather than contribute more to maintain society.

[badgerx16]

I hope you are all following the Government's advice to delete old emails and photos to save water.

[whelk]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

A wealth tax should be on the agenda, ditto some way of hitting the tax dodging corporations. We'll get a VAT rise instead imo. 

HMRC should do a ad campaign highlighting the main companies that do their utmost to avoid paying tax - let the public decide who they may want to boycott. Recently read that Nandos are bastards for tax avoidance. 

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, whelk said:

HMRC should do a ad campaign highlighting the main companies that do their utmost to avoid paying tax - let the public decide who they may want to boycott. Recently read that Nandos are bastards for tax avoidance. 

But I don't think we want them to be boycotted, we just want them to pay tax...let's just close those loopholes.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Clearly not true, as Ralph's real estate consortium full of UK Business & Asset owners/Non Dom's are all moving to Dubai to save on Income Tax because Labour. 

Perhaps explains the move to a more service based business, like Ice Creams

[whelk]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But I don't think we want them to be boycotted, we just want them to pay tax...let's just close those loopholes.

If they fear and see a boycott they’ll pay tax

[Doctoroncall]

1 hour ago, egg said:

A wealth tax should be on the agenda, ditto some way of hitting the tax dodging corporations. We'll get a VAT rise instead imo. 

The issue is coming up with the rules and regulations for a wealth tax. At the moment it’s just a great sound bite for the public to get behind, it’ll soon turn sour when they cannot implement anything properly. 

[egg]

14 minutes ago, Doctoroncall said:

The issue is coming up with the rules and regulations for a wealth tax. At the moment it’s just a great sound bite for the public to get behind, it’ll soon turn sour when they cannot implement anything properly. 

Agreed. The detail and implementation is vital, but I'd rather see a hit on people who have monster wealth than every person pay for VAT for example. 

[Doctoroncall]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Agreed. The detail and implementation is vital, but I'd rather see a hit on people who have monster wealth than every person pay for VAT for example. 

Probably 99% of people would agree. Even @trousers!

[rallyboy]

Trousers had to move west for tax reasons, he made millions from his strawberry mivvi and cornets empire.

His mansion has two concrete 99s as gateposts and sprinkles instead of gravel - he'll be off to Dubai with Phil any day now.

😡

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, egg said:

A wealth tax should be on the agenda, ditto some way of hitting the tax dodging corporations. We'll get a VAT rise instead imo. 

Imagine the uproar when the doctors get hit with a wealth tax!

[egg]

11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Imagine the uproar when the doctors get hit with a wealth tax!

Ha! Depends what you hit. Pensions within the lifetime allowance shouldn't be, and even then, I doubt the government would pay for actuarial values of government defined benefit schemes, so that the government would tax them. That'd be an interesting one. 

[whelk]

20 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Imagine the uproar when the doctors get hit with a wealth tax!

Wealth should be judged outside of just high income earners. Talking extreme wealth but as others have said it is far from simple to implement 

[Turkish]

Rachel Reeves voice, fuck me she sounds like she should be on Sesame Street. 

[Farmer Saint]

4 hours ago, whelk said:

Wealth should be judged outside of just high income earners. Talking extreme wealth but as others have said it is far from simple to implement 

Exactly - high earners will fuck off to Dubai.

[Gloucester Saint]

6 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Trousers had to move west for tax reasons, he made millions from his strawberry mivvi and cornets empire.

His mansion has two concrete 99s as gateposts and sprinkles instead of gravel - he'll be off to Dubai with Phil any day now.

😡

On the plus side though, his fencing business is going really well. Made from lovely North Devonian wood which is ideal for sitting on.

[Gloucester Saint]

5 hours ago, Turkish said:

Rachel Reeves voice, fuck me she sounds like she should be on Sesame Street. 

Which character do you reckon?

[hypochondriac]

Labour working wonders for that economy. 

[tdmickey3]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Labour working wonders for that economy. 

Yep, much worse than the Tories

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Yep, much worse than the Tories

Which part of the Tory tenure are we comparing it to? Not that we should compare anyway, Labour are quite capable of being judged on their own merits of without reference to the terrible Tories. 

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Which part of the Tory tenure are we comparing it to? Not that we should compare anyway, Labour are quite capable of being judged on their own merits of without reference to the terrible Tories. 

It's in your graph 

[Farmer Saint]

5 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Labour working wonders for that economy. 

Inflation in general is based on external factors more than anything. Monetary and fiscal policy really doesn't have that much of an affect nowadays, otherwise you could blame this rise on BoE interest rate movements. I don't think it is, I think it's global trade and oil making biggest differences.

[egg]

17 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Inflation in general is based on external factors more than anything. Monetary and fiscal policy really doesn't have that much of an affect nowadays, otherwise you could blame this rise on BoE interest rate movements. I don't think it is, I think it's global trade and oil making biggest differences.

Indeed. Pretty daft to bash labour for the rise in food prices that are dictated by a multitude of non governmental factors, to include the weather. It's a tad difficult for them to control the oil markets too. 

[whelk]

Need to get it lower for next month as September CPI is the index used for benefit and pension rises.

Walking round the supermarket after some steak, wine and chocolate it feels like fucking 38%

Edited Wednesday at 16:13 by whelk

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, whelk said:

Need to get it lower for next month as September CPI is the index used for benefit and pension rises.

Walking round the supermarket after some steak, wine and chocolate it feels like fucking 38%

Don't go near the coffee...

[Sir Ralph]

13 hours ago, egg said:

Indeed. Pretty daft to bash labour for the rise in food prices that are dictated by a multitude of non governmental factors, to include the weather. It's a tad difficult for them to control the oil markets too. 

https://www.ft.com/content/25d080e1-ca2b-4c4f-8d9e-b36ba42ce7f9
 

Eurozone countries are running at 2% inflation nearly half the UK. 
 

Direct quote attributing the key reasons for the difference to domestic policies by this “government”:

Wage growth is proving stickier in the UK than in the euro area, analysts said, with chancellor Rachel Reeves’ increases in employer national insurance contributions and a boost to the living wage contributing to more persistent price rises. 

 

Edited Thursday at 05:09 by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://www.ft.com/content/25d080e1-ca2b-4c4f-8d9e-b36ba42ce7f9
 

Eurozone countries are running at 2% inflation nearly half the UK. 
 

Direct quote attributing the key reasons for the difference to domestic policies by this “government”:

Wage growth is proving stickier in the UK than in the euro area, analysts said, with chancellor Rachel Reeves’ increases in employer national insurance contributions and a boost to the living wage contributing to more persistent price rises. 

 

Indeed. Pretty daft to suggest that financial policies haven't had a clear impact on this. Frankly bizarre to suggest they haven't. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://www.ft.com/content/25d080e1-ca2b-4c4f-8d9e-b36ba42ce7f9
 

Eurozone countries are running at 2% inflation nearly half the UK. 
 

Direct quote attributing the key reasons for the difference to domestic policies by this “government”:

Wage growth is proving stickier in the UK than in the euro area, analysts said, with chancellor Rachel Reeves’ increases in employer national insurance contributions and a boost to the living wage contributing to more persistent price rises. 

 

It's a pay wall link 

What does it say that's relevant to the point about food and fuel inflation being a governmental caused issue? Employers NI may slightly impact the former, but I'm struggling to understand how that's made my Colombian coffee beans shoot up in price. 

[Sir Ralph]

31 minutes ago, egg said:

It's a pay wall link 

What does it say that's relevant to the point about food and fuel inflation being a governmental caused issue? Employers NI may slightly impact the former, but I'm struggling to understand how that's made my Colombian coffee beans shoot up in price. 

1. We are at 3.8% inflation. Eurozone at 2%, France at 0.9%

2. Inflation likely to rise to 4% in the next few month. Economic growth poor

3. Inflation linked to increases in food due to NI increases, wage inflation from minimum wage change and regulation introduced around packaging

4. Due to increased inflation, interest rates will be limited by BoE. 

So in summary, everyone else's inflation is less than ours and the difference is mainly linked to Government policies.

You may struggle to link the two but whether you like it or not, that's what it says. I trust the FT and they are clearly saying this significant difference is based on Government policies. This is contrary to the opinions of various posters here.

 

Edited Thursday at 06:56 by Sir Ralph

[whelk]

Any comments on how this impacts your doom narrative Ralph?

https://news.sky.com/story/surprise-good-news-as-government-borrowing-less-than-half-forecast-13415470

[whelk]

I thought all the Brexiteers wanted a high wage economy. Assume they are opposed to any minimum wage rise as clearly that is giving increases to the wrong sort of people?

[whelk]

38 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I trust the FT

 

On 15/08/2025 at 06:19, whelk said:

Today’s FT. There will be none left soon 

Any comment?

[egg]

50 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

1. We are at 3.8% inflation. Eurozone at 2%, France at 0.9%

2. Inflation likely to rise to 4% in the next few month. Economic growth poor

3. Inflation linked to increases in food due to NI increases, wage inflation from minimum wage change and regulation introduced around packaging

4. Due to increased inflation, interest rates will be limited by BoE. 

So in summary, everyone else's inflation is less than ours and the difference is mainly linked to Government policies.

You may struggle to link the two but whether you like it or not, that's what it says. I trust the FT and they are clearly saying this significant difference is based on Government policies. This is contrary to the opinions of various posters here.

 

Cheers. So a bit of food inflation is policy related. Nowt to do with the weather? Fuel, coffee and chocolate prices? Rachel's fault too? 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Cheers. So a bit of food inflation is policy related. Nowt to do with the weather? Fuel, coffee and chocolate prices? Rachel's fault too? 

The NI and minimum wage rise will obvious impact costs and then prices however that isn’t anything systemic that will worry economists for future.

And no good Ralph citing individual months compared with EU countries as any sort of long-term comparison, largely meaningless unless over significant time. Assume he’d be hysterical if UK had France’s unemployment rate?

 

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

1. We are at 3.8% inflation. Eurozone at 2%, France at 0.9%

2. Inflation likely to rise to 4% in the next few month. Economic growth poor

3. Inflation linked to increases in food due to NI increases, wage inflation from minimum wage change and regulation introduced around packaging

4. Due to increased inflation, interest rates will be limited by BoE. 

So in summary, everyone else's inflation is less than ours and the difference is mainly linked to Government policies.

You may struggle to link the two but whether you like it or not, that's what it says. I trust the FT and they are clearly saying this significant difference is based on Government policies. This is contrary to the opinions of various posters here.

 

Odd that you should now be putting so much store by the FT when you dismissed an article I quoted from them that rubbished your erroneous claim that the rich were fleeing the UK in droves.

Perhaps give this some thought, although, again, it flies in the face of what you would have us believe.

https://www.economicsobservatory.com/why-are-food-prices-rising-in-the-uk