The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

His plan to deport all those arriving on dinghies is a case in point. Where to Nigel? The plan was picked apart in minutes as being unworkable

😂😂😂

You’re criticising  him for exactly the same policy as Starmers….

I must have missed your “where to Sir Kier” post, or you’re post saying it’s unworkable. 
 

Sir Keir Starmer has promised that migrants arriving in the UK on small boats will be "detained and sent back" as the number crossing the English Channel remains at a record high.

The prime minister is facing mounting pressure to show results on tackling Channel crossings and ending the use of asylum hotels, with small-scale protests outside the hotels continuing.

 

Sir Keir said on X: "I am clear: we will not reward illegal entry. If you cross the Channel unlawfully, you will be detained and sent back."

 

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It’s not just Farage. Tice, 30p Lee, previously Lowe…the party attracts plenty of deeply unpleasant and untrustworthy people. You just have to look at what is happening in the US to see what would happen here if Reform win the next election. Hopefully the mess they are currently making of running many local councils will put off protest voters. You would like to think that those who have had enough of the two main parties would give their vote to the LibDems rather than Farage, yet despite already making a mess of this country by championing Brexit, some people still think he worthy of trusting with their vote.

Didn’t he say that he would leave the country if Brexit wasn’t a success? Why is he still here? He has a proven track record as a disrupter and destroyer but a zero past reputation as someone who can fix things. His plan to deport all those arriving on dinghies is a case in point. Where to Nigel? The plan was picked apart in minutes as being unworkable and he had to backtrack on women and children immediately.

Any idiot can spout populist nonsense and get the hard of thinking to support them (you only have to read some of these posts). Fixing a broken country takes time, money and unpopular decisions. We all want better services and a better infrastructure but no one wants to pay for it. Taxes will have to rise. The idea that things will improve without tax rises is a nonsense. Starmer would do well to stop worrying about Badenoch and Farage with a u turn on tax increases and start preparing us for them now.

Bring in fair and proportionate tax rises across the board. Spell out exactly where the money is going, hit your targets over the next 4 years and win over the trust of the floating voters.

If Farage wins power outright or forms a coalition with Badenoch, God help us all. If you think we are currently a divided nation, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Laughing emojis, people shinning up lamp posts with flags and spotty kids running local councils  will be the least of our worries.

The problem with Labour is exactly this - they are seen as untrustworthy- they have u-turned on so many policies that people don’t trust them anymore. Thats another reason why Farage will get elected. So it’s fine to say you think he’s untrustworthy but to the man on the street why is Starmer and cabinet any more trustworthy? My opinion is they haven’t demonstrated this. If they had they would be in less trouble in the polls. Indeed the reason that Reform is doing well and Labour not so well isn’t just because of “popularism” it’s because people don’t trust Labour. So they have themselves to blame to some degree.
 

I agree that you need a rationale long term strategy to address the country’s issues. I disagree about needing to tax significantly more as the go to solution, noting that Reeves has already raised taxes for businesses significantly. Even if you did, the problem with this Government is currently they are only interested taxing and not about reforming or cutting, which is also needed. Keeping taxing more and you won’t improve the economy - that’s not the solution. Starmer and Cabinet does not have back bench support for policies that might be unpopular as was shown with their failure to cut welfare costs. Therefore they aren’t making unpopular decisions that are needed….at least yet. 

Edited August 31 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It’s not just Farage. Tice, 30p Lee, previously Lowe…the party attracts plenty of deeply unpleasant and untrustworthy people. You just have to look at what is happening in the US to see what would happen here if Reform win the next election. Hopefully the mess they are currently making of running many local councils will put off protest voters. You would like to think that those who have had enough of the two main parties would give their vote to the LibDems rather than Farage, yet despite already making a mess of this country by championing Brexit, some people still think he worthy of trusting with their vote.

Didn’t he say that he would leave the country if Brexit wasn’t a success? Why is he still here? He has a proven track record as a disrupter and destroyer but a zero past reputation as someone who can fix things. His plan to deport all those arriving on dinghies is a case in point. Where to Nigel? The plan was picked apart in minutes as being unworkable and he had to backtrack on women and children immediately.

Any idiot can spout populist nonsense and get the hard of thinking to support them (you only have to read some of these posts). Fixing a broken country takes time, money and unpopular decisions. We all want better services and a better infrastructure but no one wants to pay for it. Taxes will have to rise. The idea that things will improve without tax rises is a nonsense. Starmer would do well to stop worrying about Badenoch and Farage with a u turn on tax increases and start preparing us for them now.

Bring in fair and proportionate tax rises across the board. Spell out exactly where the money is going, hit your targets over the next 4 years and win over the trust of the floating voters.

If Farage wins power outright or forms a coalition with Badenoch, God help us all. If you think we are currently a divided nation, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Laughing emojis, people shinning up lamp posts with flags and spotty kids running local councils  will be the least of our worries.

 

Edited August 31 by Sir Ralph

[Lord Duckhunter]

Fresh on the back of David Blunkett & Jack Straw another pinko is starting to get it.

Starmers predecessor as DPP & former Lib Dem peer Ken Macdonald. 
 

The key is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its definition of what it takes to make a successful asylum application.

This is the foundational problem. The definition in the Convention - that anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution is entitled to asylum - is too broad. That’s what has allowed the whole question of migration to get out of control. So millions of people are on the move who are, in reality, economic migrants, not entitled to settle in the UK. Yet they can plausibly claim that they face persecution at home and win asylum that way. If they are from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or a host of other places, who is to say they would not have a well-founded fear of persecution if they return? In this way, economic migrants magically become refugees.

Does Parliament have the authority set its own refugee rules?

We can do anything. Parliament is sovereign. We have what's called a dualist system: international treaties don't become part of domestic law unless parliament approves them. So the Refugee Convention is not a part of our domestic law. We could leave it for a temporary period because we face a particular emergency. I've never thought it's an outrage to leave international treaties and conventions if they if they no longer work.

 

[Sir Ralph]

More ideas which run contrary to their target of delivering more housing at a substantial level - one of their headline policy approaches. If they bring it in it’s another example of promoting tax over economic growth. 

Notwithstanding this it will hit labours polling figures in some urban areas (Bristol, Brighton and London) which will be further damaging to any seat numbers they get in the next election. I suspect something else they haven’t considered, as well as increasing the housing costs for local authorities. In turn this will mean government funding for local authorities will need to increase.

https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2025/09/labour-tax-grab-is-final-nail-in-property-investment-coffin/

Edited September 1 by Sir Ralph

[rallyboy]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

More ideas which run contrary to their target of delivering more housing at a substantial level - one of their headline policy approaches. If they bring it in it’s another example of promoting tax over economic growth. 

Notwithstanding this it will hit labours polling figures in some urban areas (Bristol, Brighton and London) which will be further damaging to any seat numbers they get in the next election. I suspect something else they haven’t considered, as well as increasing the housing costs for local authorities. In turn this will mean government funding for local authorities will need to increase.

https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2025/09/labour-tax-grab-is-final-nail-in-property-investment-coffin/

Wealth management company puts out press release promoting what they sell.

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Wealth management company puts out press release promoting what they sell.

So do you think that these proposed policies will help to address house building to increase home ownership and encourage economic growth?

A alternative view could be that you are dismissing the view of a specialist in their field with no rebuttal. 
 

I find it bizarre that people still defend them. The Tories were a shambles but these lot are something else. Their policy approach is incoherent other than they consistently want to tax people more.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/28/property-tax-threat-slow-down-housing-market-uk-agents

Edited September 1 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

8 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Wealth management company puts out press release promoting what they sell.

Exactly, unsure why people still don't understand how the world works.

[Sir Ralph]

9 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Exactly, unsure why people still don't understand how the world works.

So please respond to the point being made then because I think you are just dismissing something from a specialist who has more experience in the field than you. Will these potential policies help to increase housebuilding (Labour policy) and increase economic activity (Labour policy)? Its all good providing flippant one line responses but it doesnt actually address the issue.

Here's a response from the Chairman of the Conveyancing Society with 40 years experience but I suspect that he doesnt know how the world works either . https://todaysconveyancer.co.uk/eddie-goldsmith-shares-profound-concerns-property-tax-open-letter/

Edited September 2 by Sir Ralph

[east-stand-nic]

There is no money for public services, NHS etc. However, we can afford to pay for the best lawyers

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1206620354433519&rdid=1xV3kDl102YLEprg

Anyone who still supports Starmer in anyway clearly has mental health issues. 

[egg]

38 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

There is no money for public services, NHS etc. However, we can afford to pay for the best lawyers

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1206620354433519&rdid=1xV3kDl102YLEprg

Anyone who still supports Starmer in anyway clearly has mental health issues. 

That's daft even by your standards, and echo chamber fm.

Do you honestly think that governments don't always employ decent lawyers to advise and represent it? When the unthinking vote your reform mates in, they will as well.

 

 

[east-stand-nic]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

That's daft even by your standards, and echo chamber fm.

Do you honestly think that governments don't always employ decent lawyers to advise and represent it? When the unthinking vote your reform mates in, they will as well.

 

 

But when Trump does it, you go into meltdown. Yet again, caught you out big time lol. 

And yes, Starmer DID also make sure all three judges were hand picked to support him. Are you going to be a big baby and deny that lol? Come on, grow up FFS, They all do it and you know it. 

Edited September 2 by east-stand-nic
missing text

[egg]

4 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

But when Trump does it, you go into meltdown. Yet again, caught you out big time lol. 

Wtf are you on about mate. I've never said a word about Trump hiring lawyers. 

Now hiring his picks as Supreme Court Judges, that's a different matter. 

When people start criticising a government for hiring lawyers to uphold the law, but applaud a leader who hires Judges to get things done his way, something ain't right. 

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, egg said:

That's daft even by your standards, and echo chamber fm.

Do you honestly think that governments don't always employ decent lawyers to advise and represent it? When the unthinking vote your reform mates in, they will as well.

 

 

If a government has to hire lawyers to make its case then it's a shit government. 

Oh...

[badgerx16]

Why does the Governmrnt need to hire lawyers when so many of them ARE lawyers ?

[whelk]

4 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

There is no money for public services, NHS etc. However, we can afford to pay for the best lawyers

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1206620354433519&rdid=1xV3kDl102YLEprg

Anyone who still supports Starmer in anyway clearly has mental health issues. 

Genuine question, do you always think you are the smartest guy in the room? Or do you have moments of self reflection when you actually realise you are as thick as mince?

Edited September 2 by whelk

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

There is no money for public services, NHS etc. However, we can afford to pay for the best lawyers

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1206620354433519&rdid=1xV3kDl102YLEprg

Anyone who still supports Starmer in anyway clearly has mental health issues. 

And you are supposed to have a massive intellect?

The government have a legal requirement to accommodate asylum seekers. The previous government put more and more of them into places that used to be hotels. This government had already said that it plans to move asylum seekers out of these buildings by the end of this term (within the next 4 years). It clearly cannot move out everybody until firm plans are in place as to what to do with them. That will take time. The appeal judge clearly took this into account when making his judgement.

It was the local council, who used money that could have been spent on fixing potholes and other very essential local services, who started these legal proceedings leaving the government with no choice.

You don’t like asylum seekers so you have chosen to attack the government for spending money on legal action when it was initiated by the very people who have more of a problem with asylum seekers than they do with people who think that it is perfectly ok to intimidate in large crowds.

I don’t suppose that you bothered to listen to the people who live locally and said that there wasn’t a problem with the inhabitants of the building. They were more concerned with the number of outsiders turning up outside the building.

We have a system in this country whereby anyone suspected of breaking the law is dealt with by the police within the Criminal Justice System. A baying mob is not a part of that system. They clearly have your sympathies but without them, the money spent on legalities could be better spent elsewhere, could it not?

Go on, have a chuckle.

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, whelk said:

Genuine question, do you always think you are the smartest guy in the room? Or do you have moments of self reflection when you actually realise you are as thick as mince?

Nic is only the second smartest person in the room when he is on his own.

[tdmickey3]

56 minutes ago, whelk said:

Genuine question, do you always think you are the smartest guy in the room? Or do you have moments of self reflection when you actually realise you are as thick as mince?

He is so thick, the comparison with mince is unfair on the mince, if he hit his head on his bedroom wall he would say it is a  conspiracy that the government didn't warn him about it

[egg]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

If a government has to hire lawyers to make its case then it's a shit government. 

Oh...

 

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Why does the Governmrnt need to hire lawyers when so many of them ARE lawyers ?

I'm not sure these are meant as serious points. 

The government always has, and always will, hire lawyers for any legal matter or court.

Nobody would expect Kier or the lord chancellor to pop along to the High Court every time there's a judicial review or some other legal process involving the government would they.  

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

He is so thick, the comparison with mince is unfair on the mince, if he hit his head on his bedroom wall he would say it is a  conspiracy that the government didn't warn him about it

But if the Government had warned him he would have dismissed it as FAKE NEWS.

[egg]

In more important news, government borrowing costs have soared, which isn't great when coupled with increased borrowing. Essentially, we're a bit fucked. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy989njnq2wo

 

[Sir Ralph]

The daily good news Labour story. Increased borrowing caused in part by Labour policy and the markets fear of the decisions they will make in the next budget and how sustainable they are - of course they just want to tax everyone. The only upside to crashing the economy is a possible vote of confidence and no more Labour for 20-30 years.  

https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/uk-borrowing-costs-g7-gilt-yields-2025/

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

In more important news, government borrowing costs have soared, which isn't great when coupled with increased borrowing. Essentially, we're a bit fucked. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy989njnq2wo

 

If they get a grip of the budget they might reduce the damage. Unfortunately they are so blinkered they could bollox it up for us. I have zero confidence in them to manage this properly. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

The daily good news Labour story. Increased borrowing caused in part by Labour policy and the markets fear of the decisions they will make in the next budget and how sustainable they are - of course they just want to tax everyone. The only upside to crashing the economy is a possible vote of confidence and no more Labour for 20-30 years.  

https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/uk-borrowing-costs-g7-gilt-yields-2025/

I'm baffled why you think that labour MPs would vote themselves out of a job, and open the doors for a reform government. 

[egg]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

If they get a grip of the budget they might reduce the damage. Unfortunately they are so blinkered they could bollox it up for us. I have zero confidence in them to manage this properly. 

You criticise tax rises, whilst singling out our increasing debt, and increased borrowing costs. There's a disconnect there. 

The markets want to see financial prudence

If we accept that more borrowing isn't the answer, and you've ruled out tax rises, what's the solution to reducing the fiscal black hole to the satisfaction of the markets? 

 

 

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, egg said:

I'm baffled why you think that labour MPs would vote themselves out of a job, and open the doors for a reform government. 

Because they have done so far. Ideologically, the Labour government think taxing anyone who isnt reliant on the state is a sound strategy for reducing the budget deficit and staying within the fiscal rules - any idiot will tell you that it wont work on its own. It needs a long term plan for growth. They have only taxed because they have shown a lack of backbone when it comes to reforming and cutting. We are now, quite quickly, starting to see the outcome of their policies and its a mess. Starmer should change course to some degree, but I doubt he will because his backbenchers have already shown they have clout.

There are also external factors, of course, but they have done their fair share to get us to this point. 

[Sir Ralph]

17 minutes ago, egg said:

You criticise tax rises, whilst singling out our increasing debt, and increased borrowing costs. There's a disconnect there. 

The markets want to see financial prudence

If we accept that more borrowing isn't the answer, and you've ruled out tax rises, what's the solution to reducing the fiscal black hole to the satisfaction of the markets? 

 

 

 

I appreciate a vote of no confidence is unfortunately unlikely. The chances would increase if things get really bad. 

I fully agree they want to see prudence.

Reduce public spending! There is vast levels of waste and incompetency. You should focus on dealing with that first, before you start taxing everyone. The public sector is too bloated.

Edited September 2 by Sir Ralph

[Gloucester Saint]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm baffled why you think that labour MPs would vote themselves out of a job, and open the doors for a reform government. 

They’re in fucking La La Land, of course they aren’t going to do that, even though this government isn’t particularly good. The idea of Reform being more economically prudent 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Tories still hungover from Truss and Boris, Lib Dem’s will be tidier but will people accept a Remain party if it brings some economy stability and regain some of the 6% of the economy the idiot hard Brexit lost?

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

They’re in fucking La La Land, of course they aren’t going to do that, even though this government isn’t particularly good. The idea of Reform being more economically prudent 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Tories still hungover from Truss and Boris, Lib Dem’s will be tidier but will people accept a Remain party if it brings some economy stability and regain some of the 6% of the economy the idiot hard Brexit lost?

I appreciate a vote of no confidence is unfortunately unlikely. The chances would increase if things get really bad. 

We aren’t talking about reform. They aren’t in government - you can’t speculate about how they will do.

We are talking about labour and their terrible economic strategy. We can say how they are doing because they are unfortunately currently in government 

Edited September 2 by Sir Ralph

[Gloucester Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

I fully agree they want to see prudence.

Reduce public spending! There is vast levels of waste and incompetency. You should focus on dealing with that first, before you start taxing everyone. The public sector is too bloated.

Why is that? Brexit - that’s why. Did you think all of those trade negotiators grew on trees? And whilst no fan of this government, they were left to cut those extra posts, hundreds of thousands of them. NHS being cut by 50% In terms of actual non-frontline posts by Streeting so that’s addressed.

Simplest way is to soften Brexit - gets you 5-6% of GDP back which dwarfs any public sector savings.

Also, in the North and parts of Midlands public sector jobs are the only decent skilled ones around. With your approach, Reform will win 0 seats. Levelling Up was badly executed but what do you think Boris did it? Because he won him a shitload of votes in 2019 in deprived areas.

Thatcher spent loads on subsidies attracting Nissan, Honda and Toyota in the 1980s, there isn’t a market fairy that these IEA types suddenly think are going to build car factories. Steel has been propped up by subsidies on and off for years. And Farage thinks you can re-start a steel furnace…

I don’t rate his grasp of any detail, let alone regional economic policy. 

[Gloucester Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

We aren’t talking about reform. They aren’t in government - you can’t speculate about how they will do.

We are talking about labour and their terrible economic strategy. We can say how they are doing because they are unfortunately currently in government 

I’ll decide what is and out of scope - Farage is unable to answer a single question on economic policy and has said Truss’s policies were on the right track.

[Sir Ralph]

27 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Why is that? Brexit - that’s why. Did you think all of those trade negotiators grew on trees? And whilst no fan of this government, they were left to cut those extra posts, hundreds of thousands of them. NHS being cut by 50% In terms of actual non-frontline posts by Streeting so that’s addressed.

Simplest way is to soften Brexit - gets you 5-6% of GDP back which dwarfs any public sector savings.

Also, in the North and parts of Midlands public sector jobs are the only decent skilled ones around. With your approach, Reform will win 0 seats. Levelling Up was badly executed but what do you think Boris did it? Because he won him a shitload of votes in 2019 in deprived areas.

Thatcher spent loads on subsidies attracting Nissan, Honda and Toyota in the 1980s, there isn’t a market fairy that these IEA types suddenly think are going to build car factories. Steel has been propped up by subsidies on and off for years. And Farage thinks you can re-start a steel furnace…

I don’t rate his grasp of any detail, let alone regional economic policy. 

I agree that brexit isn’t economically good. I didn’t vote for it. If we went back in it would be economically better. However the Conservatives and Labour Governments have and are working in this framework.

I agree that spending on infrastructure and subsidy to encourage economic growth can justify increased public spending if the net outcome is economic growth.
 

However as soon as it came in, labour increased spending. In fact it is the largest real terms increase in day to day spending in 20 years (oh and significantly more than she said before the election). Increase if £23 billion for 24/25 and £39 billion for 25/26. This was mainly paid for by taxing businesses. So the principle of government policy to date is tax business and use that to increase day to day spending. The much needed welfare cuts were binned (those anticipated savings will now be paid by businesses and me). That doesn’t grow an economy - it’s all one way. I don’t understand why you still defend their policies - it’s absolutely obvious they are all over the place.

On reform you can take a view on what you think will happen. My point is that nobody really knows how they will do. We know how labour is doing so an assessment of labour is more credible as a matter of fact

Edited September 2 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

Need to increase taxes, put up that top rate of tax to 47%, let's work a feasible wealth tax (as that money can't be moved) and increase personal NI back to previous levels.

Alongside this let's rework that welfare bill to be fairer, remove the ability to purchase property within the UK from overseas, subsidise and increase the number of council houses built to allow for private rents to decrease and an increase in house availability for the average Joe. Alongside this a top down look at the NHS and Care system, as well as having a National Care Service to allow for less beds in hospitals to be taken up.

And lastly, increase the number of years you have to stay abroad to be able to bring income back untaxed. If they want to leave, they leave for a long time.

[Sir Ralph]

I’ve noticed a shift on here - the regular defence of the Labour Party’s economic strategy is now subsiding into (1) a suggestion of alternatives that they should be putting forward or (2) deflection that other parties messed up or wouldn’t do as well.
 

This indicates a silent acceptance that their policies aren’t up to it. To be honest they have even surprised me with how quickly they managed to balls it up - the only time they have exceeded expectations!

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

Reduce public spending! There is vast levels of waste and incompetency. You should focus on dealing with that first, before you start taxing everyone. The public sector is too bloated.

Yeah all so simple to the simple minded. No one has thought of that pal. Well done

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, whelk said:

Yeah all so simple to the simple minded. No one has thought of that pal. Well done

It’s a principle I’m highlighting, but that should be clear. So far Labour has just taxed and I’m saying that’s not the solution (albeit many people who think they are very clever have told me on here that this economic approach is sound - not looking as clever at the moment).

Again dismissal with no rebuttal. A common theme.

Just keep taxing then I suspect that’s what you think? That’s working really well isn’t it.

 

Edited September 2 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, whelk said:

Yeah all so simple to the simple minded. No one has thought of that pal. Well done

I mean, surely that's just an ongoing task for any business, reduce wastage and increase efficiencies.

[whelk]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I mean, surely that's just an ongoing task for any business, reduce wastage and increase efficiencies.

Yes and of course huge inefficiencies in public sector but not easy to address as culture is entrenched in many areas. So an austerity example, let’s cut the police budget to flush out all those inefficiencies. What happened. Less police officers, people feeling less safe due to less visibility of the police presence as deterrents. Look the country is broken, remember when you had bobbies on the beat. Fuck, don’t come for my taxes, fund more police by erasing the inefficiencies. 

 

Edited September 2 by whelk

[whelk]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

It’s a principle I’m highlighting, but that should be clear. So far Labour has just taxed and I’m saying that’s not the solution (albeit many people who think they are very clever have told me on here that this economic approach is sound - not looking as clever at the moment).

Again dismissal with no rebuttal. A common theme.

Just keep taxing then I suspect that’s what you think? That’s working really well isn’t it.

 

What you are saying is fairly basic - do you think you have come up with some gotcha? You seem to have missed that a key reason Labour were voted in was because many had enough of broken services. They don’t give a fuck about your selfish mates fucking off to Dubai. 

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, whelk said:

Yes and of course huge inefficiencies in public sector but not easy to address as culture is entrenched in many areas. So an austerity example, let’s cut the police budget to flush out all those inefficiencies. What happened. Less police officers, people feeling less safe due to less visibility of the police presence as deterrents. Look the countries broken remember when you had bobbies on the beat. Fuck, don’t come for my taxes, fund more police by erasing the inefficiencies. 

 

Absolutely - process inefficiencies exacerbated by software issues, staff shortages etc. there needs to be a full top down analysis of everything in the NHS, but my God that is expensive, especially as you'd need to outsource. When you're paying Deloitte £1k per man day to come in and do that, you're £10bn down before you've even started looking at the solution. 

Just look at Track and Trace, a fairly simple development, cost £36bn. You could run up a £60bn cost analysing the NHS very easily, and it would take 6 years to implement, by when the technology has moved forward and you've wasted most of the money.

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

What you are saying is fairly basic - do you think you have come up with some gotcha? You seem to have missed that a key reason Labour were voted in was because many had enough of broken services. They don’t give a fuck about your selfish mates fucking off to Dubai. 

*Made-up*

[Sir Ralph]

10 minutes ago, whelk said:

What you are saying is fairly basic - do you think you have come up with some gotcha? You seem to have missed that a key reason Labour were voted in was because many had enough of broken services. They don’t give a fuck about your selfish mates fucking off to Dubai. 

Well they are about to balls things up so I suspect at some point somebody will have to cut public services again (whether this government or the next one) to fix the problems Labour hasn’t created. 
 

The issue is they haven’t really even tried to address the inefficiencies. They have just massively increased day to day public sector spending. It’s like taking over a company, seeing there are inefficiencies but just giving the business more money to significantly increase wages, without really tackling the inefficiencies.

I’m happy to pay more tax if the government isn’t just going to waste it. Currently there is too much waste and Labour hasn’t addressed it. To busy hoping that taxing businesses and rich people will be politically more popular.

You say selfish I say sensible. If you already pay multiples in tax compared to  the average citizen and keep being asked to pay more. Leave until you have a more friendly government. Why spend half your day working for the government to take it and waste it. But that’s all rubbish anyway because nobody is leaving and the economy is booming!

Edited September 2 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

"NHS inefficiency stems from chronic underinvestment in infrastructure like buildings and IT, leading toproductivity losses and staff time wasted on manual processes. High staff vacancies and bed occupancy exacerbate these problems, creating a system under immense pressure with little capacity for improvement. Inefficiencies also arise from outdated manual systems, lack of staff training, variations in clinical practices, and challenges in integrating new technologies, all of which delay patient care and increase costs."

There is no quick fix.

Edited September 2 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

40 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’ve noticed a shift on here - the regular defence of the Labour Party’s economic strategy is now subsiding into (1) a suggestion of alternatives that they should be putting forward or (2) deflection that other parties messed up or wouldn’t do as well.
 

This indicates a silent acceptance that their policies aren’t up to it. To be honest they have even surprised me with how quickly they managed to balls it up - the only time they have exceeded expectations!

That's not a shift. That's been the case the entire time.

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Well they are about to balls things up so I suspect at some point somebody will have to cut public services again (whether this government or the next one) to fix the problems Labour hasn’t created. 
 

The issue is they haven’t really even tried to address the inefficiencies. They have just massively increased day to day public sector spending. It’s like taking over a company, seeing there are inefficiencies but just giving the business more money to increase wages, without really tackling the inefficiencies. I’m happy to pay more tax if the public sector isn’t just going to waste it. Currently there is too much waste and Labour hasn’t addressed it. To busy hoping that taxing businesses and rich people will be politically more popular.

You say selfish I say sensible. If you already pay multiples in tax compared to  the average citizen and keep being asked to pay more. Leave until you have a more friendly government. Why spend half your day working for the government to take it and waste it. But that’s all rubbish anyway because nobody is leaving and the economy is booming!

I have asked this before, but what extra taxes are they paying? You still haven't answered that.

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I have asked this before, but what extra taxes are they paying? You still haven't answered that.

😆

[Weston Super Saint]

10 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I have asked this before, but what extra taxes are they paying? You still haven't answered that.

Lol.

The other day you posted a screenshot of him being on your ignore list.

Looks like you took him off to engage

Bless you. You must have been feeling lonely.

Edited September 2 by Weston Super Saint

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

😆

You're being quoted all over the place answering my messages, it's doing my head in as you're still making stuff up. I just want a single list of the Labour taxes your "Dubai mates" are now dodging.

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

Lol.

The other day you posted a screenshot of him being on your ignore list.

Looks like you took him off to engage

Bless you. You must have been feeling lonely.

I forgot about that - You mean this one?