The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[egg]

19 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Not all, a lot were picked up and sent to offshore detention centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. The main plank of the policy was anyone who arrived by boat would never be resettled in Australia, even if they are found to be a genuine refugee. This stopped them.

I presume they have “human rights” in Australia despite not being in the ECHR…..

You miss the point that Cherie was making and I was replying to. It had nothing to do with the Australian detention center point. It was about boats arriving, and being turned around. 

People got to Australia on boats capable of making it to Australia, hence they got there. They could then be turned around on the boats they arrived in, on the assumption they could return to where the started from. 

That's different to people leaving France on a dinghy that can't make it here, and being collected by our border force taxi service. Nobody is sending them back to sea on a dinghy that'll bobble about in the channel before failing. If the boat managed to make it here undamaged, so could make it back, that's a different story. 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

56 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Most positions in the NHS are not for doctors.

Because they can't do them?

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Portsea Island.

Or the Isle of Wight.

Isle of Wight and Ports are already full of inbreds and criminals so be too difficult to tell them apart from the locals.

Edited October 23 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

Starmer pushing hard on digital ID over the last couple of days which has morphed from a system to prove who yo are for work to all manner of other things.

[AlexLaw76]

 

[hypochondriac]

On 24/10/2025 at 09:28, hypochondriac said:

Starmer pushing hard on digital ID over the last couple of days which has morphed from a system to prove who yo are for work to all manner of other things.

Am not sure why that's so amusing @tdmickey3. If it was Elon musk funding this stuff to the degree that Larry Ellison is, it would be global news. 

[tdmickey3]

21 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Am not sure why that's so amusing @tdmickey3. If it was Elon musk funding this stuff to the degree that Larry Ellison is, it would be global news. 

Because its not morphed into anything, it was always like that

[hypochondriac]

31 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Because its not morphed into anything, it was always like that

I meant publically. It's obviously part of a big behind the scenes move pushed by Larry Ellison so he can enrich his tech oracle and the rest of his tech empire. Along with the devil himself Blair of course.

[tdmickey3]

28 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I meant publically. It's obviously part of a big behind the scenes move pushed by Larry Ellison so he can enrich his tech oracle and the rest of his tech empire. Along with the devil himself Blair of course.

Conspiracy theorist

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Conspiracy theorist

I suggest you look how much Larry Ellison has given the Tony Blair foundation and how much it has changed since his money arrived. 

[Sir Ralph]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cql9ez5grpqo
 

“Saints will win the Premier League next year”, says Solar. I’m getting increasingly fed up with this silly women who keeps making excuses for her own incompetency. These policies won’t increase growth but will pave the way for further tax rises to cover the next black hole in 2026. Bunch of jokers and 3 years before they get kicked out

[Farmer Saint]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cql9ez5grpqo
 

“Saints will win the Premier League next year”, says Solar. I’m getting increasingly fed up with this silly women who keeps making excuses for her own incompetency. These policies won’t increase growth but will pave the way for further tax rises to cover the next black hole in 2026. Bunch of jokers and 3 years before they get kicked out

We need tax rises. We have the NHS and a relatively low tax burden, and we're £40bn a year light from not being in the EU. What do you expect?

https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationally

 

[AlexLaw76]

This, is good news

 

[Sir Ralph]

21 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

We need tax rises. We have the NHS and a relatively low tax burden, and we're £40bn a year light from not being in the EU. What do you expect?

https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationally

 

We don’t need tax rises we need efficiencies in day to day public spending and significant welfare reductions. I won’t increase growth. You need to look at day to day public services spending not overall tax levels

Edited 19 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

We don’t need tax rises we need efficiencies. 

We've been down that road already, many times.

[Sir Ralph]

23 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

This, is good news

 

It’s been playing on my mind too. Then if your car lights are too bright you should be taxed for that. 

[whelk]

57 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Bunch of jokers and 3 years before they get kicked out

Diddums. You really think this is simple don’t you? Feels like you know very little but think you know a lot - Dunning Kruger effect all too prevalent these days

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

It’s been playing on my mind too. Then if your car lights are too bright you should be taxed for that. 

You should try building the roads yourself. Fuck taxes

[whelk]

27 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

We've been down that road already, many times.

It is damning that these morons are constantly conned with this. And you can bet these are the most vocal criticising public services. 
Let’s sell off a few prisons and make all the staff redundant

Edited 19 hours ago by whelk

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, whelk said:

It is damning that these morons are constantly conned with this. And you can bet these are the most vocal criticising public services. 
Let’s sell off a few prisons and make all the staff redundant

It’s amazing that these morons consistently think that higher taxes achieves growth when there are historical precedents in this country that it doesn’t. Your suggestion is crude and not reflective of what I said. We are now in an era of the highest tax burden since the 1940s so you would be stupid not to consider it should be reduced rather than continue to be increased.
 

If your political strategy is to increase dependency of people on public spending by increasing the number of people in the public sector and dependent on welfare benefits to get more votes then that makes sense. It’s no wonder some people have this view of continually increasing taxes if they directly benefit from it.

Edited 19 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

It’s amazing that these morons consistently think that higher taxes achieves growth when there are historical precedents in this country that it doesn’t. Your suggestion is crude and not reflective of what I said. We are now in an era of the highest tax burden since the 1940s so you would be stupid not to consider it should be reduced rather than continue to be increased.
 

If your political strategy is to increase dependency of people on public spending by increasing the number of people in the public sector and dependent on welfare benefits to get more votes then that makes sense. It’s no wonder some people have this view of continually increasing taxes if they directly benefit from it.

The Tories decreased NI as a pathetic attempt that was not affordable. COVID and Ukraine effect on cost of living has led to massive increase in burden. I get you like to think it’s unneeded bureaucrats twiddling thumbs taking all your taxes, but that is such a simplistic viewed encouraged by your ideology.

No one is saying tax rises bring growth but the economy is not in good shape and no Utopian view of the past is going to solve that. It is bleak but these are the times we are in and things need paying for. 

I agree regarding welfare that ridiculous to have so many people saying they can’t work

I also disagree with government being slaves to the OBR and fiscal rules as well. Refreshing to hear Mervyn King challenging this the other day. 
 

 

[Sir Ralph]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

The Tories decreased NI as a pathetic attempt that was not affordable. COVID and Ukraine effect on cost of living has led to massive increase in burden. I get you like to think it’s unneeded bureaucrats twiddling thumbs taking all your taxes, but that is such a simplistic viewed encouraged by your ideology.

No one is saying tax rises bring growth but the economy is not in good shape and no Utopian view of the past is going to solve that. It is bleak but these are the times we are in and things need paying for. 

I agree regarding welfare that ridiculous to have so many people saying they can’t work

I also disagree with government being slaves to the OBR and fiscal rules as well. Refreshing to hear Mervyn King challenging this the other day. 
 

 

I didn’t say strip all taxes but there are inefficiencies in day to day public spending that haven’t been addressed. From the mouths of people that work in these sectors. I also liaise with people in the public sector so I understand the need for it but also how it is bloated in parts. In some areas there are bureaucrats that are making themselves look busy but not achieving much. The government seems broadly unwilling to address this but just to tax people and that’s the problem. There is a lack of balance in their budget. I suspect they know this needs to be addressed but can’t because of their own party. Ultimately this is what is likely to loss those MPs their jobs in my opinion so short sighted

Edited 18 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

We don’t need tax rises we need efficiencies in day to day public spending and significant welfare reductions. I won’t increase growth. You need to look at day to day public services spending not overall tax levels

No, if we have a National Health Service, we need higher taxes. There is no way around that. But that's fine, perhaps if we want to keep low taxes we need to look to fund the NHS in a different way.

https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationally

You have clearly never looked at process and system improvements for large companies. As it is where I made my living I can tell you it will cost tens of billions to do, and by the time it's done the technology and processes will be out of date and need replacing again. All we can do is small iterative changes, but unfortunately that means the scope remains small and tends to be dealt with in silo's with no real thought to integration to the rest of the "company".

If you want a root cause analysis and process improvement for public services, the only realistic way to do that is to privatise as they will look to save everywhere to ensure efficiencies. This is not a green field architecture you're talking about here, it's embedded with legacy systems, architecture and processes.

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

54 minutes ago, whelk said:

Diddums. You really think this is simple don’t you? Feels like you know very little but think you know a lot - Dunning Kruger effect all too prevalent these days

He reminds me of me when I got out of University - he's very headstrong with very little knowledge but thinks he's world-wise. 

I assume he is quite young judging by his frame of references and lack of empathy.

[Farmer Saint]

42 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

It’s amazing that these morons consistently think that higher taxes achieves growth when there are historical precedents in this country that it doesn’t. Your suggestion is crude and not reflective of what I said. We are now in an era of the highest tax burden since the 1940s so you would be stupid not to consider it should be reduced rather than continue to be increased.
 

If your political strategy is to increase dependency of people on public spending by increasing the number of people in the public sector and dependent on welfare benefits to get more votes then that makes sense. It’s no wonder some people have this view of continually increasing taxes if they directly benefit from it.

You do know they're not trying to increase growth with higher taxes, don't you? And do we really have the highest tax burden since the 1940s, because I don't think we currently do.

Edited 18 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

You do know they're not trying to increase growth with higher taxes, don't you?

But reeves keeps saying that she is going to grow the economy which was the headline of the BBC article. I agree that higher taxes won’t. How are they encouraging business growth then?

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

He reminds me of me when I got out of University - he's very headstrong with very little knowledge but thinks he's world-wise. 

I assume he is quite young judging by his frame of references and lack of empathy.

Pretty patronising. I’m not young unfortunately but you seem to think that you know everything about the world too which I don’t believe you do. When people don’t agree with your world view it doesn’t make your case to patronise them as that’s quite immature. I don’t patronise you

Edited 18 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

But reeves keeps saying that she is going to grow the economy which was the headline of the BBC article. I agree that higher taxes won’t. How are they encouraging business growth then?

Sorry, what? It's a BBC news article, not a Reeves news article. If you read it then it will give you your answers if it has them. Show us where Reeves has said that increasing taxes will grow the economy.

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Pretty patronising. I’m not young unfortunately but you seem to think that you know everything about the world too which I don’t believe you do. When people don’t agree with your world view it doesn’t make your case to patronise them. I don’t patronise you

No, you certainly don't patronise me. How have you got to your age without really understanding macro-economics and taxes, because you consistently show a poor understanding of how economies work. It has nothing to do with agreeing with a world view, it has to do with how capitalist economies work. You consistently say I'm a socialist. I'm not. I'm a traditional Conservative voter. However, the state the country is in and was left in after years of pathetic Tory re-distribution of wealth has led us to a situation where taxes have to be increased.

Edited 18 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

No, you certainly don't patronise me. How have you got to your age without really understanding macro-economics and taxes, because you consistently show a poor understanding of how economies work. It has nothing to do with agreeing with a world view, it has to do with how capitalist economies work.

So have you on a number of occasions

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

So have you on a number of occasions

Really, where?

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Really, where?

Inflation in the uk and it having nothing to do with government policy for one, despite multiple sources saying it does. I found that particular stance unusual.

You consistently allege how you are advising xy and z but of all the people in the higher echelons of business, I’ve genuinely never met anyone with the views that you have. So respectfully I have my doubts and we clearly both have doubts about each other.  I don’t want to have a slagging match as it won’t achieve anything and whilst we may both think each other talk BS I don’t think we will come to agreement on that so best to continue to be polite

Edited 18 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Sorry, what? It's a BBC news article, not a Reeves news article. If you read it then it will give you your answers if it has them. Show us where Reeves has said that increasing taxes will grow the economy.

Ok so the question is how is she helping to grow the economy if you are a business owner? She says she is going to show the worsening economic forecasts wrong. Genuinely what is she putting in place to help achieve this from a business perspective?

Edited 18 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Inflation in the uk and it having nothing to do with government policy for one, despite multiple sources saying it does. I found that particular stance unusual.

You consistently allege how you are advising xy and z but of all the people in the higher echelons of business, I’ve genuinely never met anyone with the views that you have. So respectfully I have my doubts and we clearly both have doubts about each other.  I don’t want to have a slagging match as it won’t achieve anything 

I never said it has nothing to do with government policy, I said that the vast majority of inflation was due to external factors and not to do with interest rates, hence why I was encouraging large cuts to interest rates as it shouldn't affect inflation. This should encourage growth by the way.

You've clearly not spent a lot of time in boardrooms, but I am genuinely interested in what you think my views are? 

[Farmer Saint]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok so the question is how is she helping to grow the economy if you are a business owner? She says she is going to show the worsening economic forecasts wrong. Genuinely what is she putting in place to help achieve this from a business perspective?

Won't we find that out at the budget? I'm not sure why you're getting annoyed at that article, and what you think it proves.

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

I never said it has nothing to do with government policy, I said that the vast majority of inflation was due to external factors and not to do with interest rates, hence why I was encouraging large cuts to interest rates as it shouldn't affect inflation. This should encourage growth by the way.

You've clearly not spent a lot of time in boardrooms, but I am genuinely interested in what you think my views are? 

I think your views are quite pro tax / state intervention and I don’t see much pro business rhetoric in your messaging which I would have expected. I appreciate that your personal views and business views can be different but my experience is that your day to day business work and what you see in that (the good and bad impact of government) would change your personal views.

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Won't we find that out at the budget? I'm not sure why you're getting annoyed at that article, and what you think it proves.

But to date what has she done to encourage business? If they want to drive economic growth (which they continue to say they do) it should be easy to reel off….
 

What annoys me is that she is blaming everything else but they have been in power for coming up to 1.5 years. I won’t hold my breath on the budget based on her comments to date

Edited 17 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

I think your views are quite pro tax / state intervention and I don’t see much pro business rhetoric in your messaging which I would have expected. I appreciate that your personal views and business views can be different but my experience is that your day to day business work and what you see in that (the good and bad impact of government) would change your personal views.

I'm not traditionally pro-tax by any means, and considering I spent the majority of my working life running my own businesses your second assertion is wrong. Where have I shown I am anti-business?

I don't think you quite realise what a mess this country has been left in, and that's where we differ.

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I'm not traditionally pro-tax by any means, and considering I spent the majority of my working life running my own businesses your second assertion is wrong. Where have I shown I am anti-business?

I don't think you quite realise what a mess this country has been left in, and that's where we differ.

I didn’t say you were anti business. I said you appear to be more pro state intervention / taxes and I can’t recall you prioritising business in many (if any) of your statements which I would expect. In terms of the second assertion, I would anticipate that would impact your views, as it does me as a business owner. 

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

But to date what has she done to encourage business?
 

What annoys me is that she is blaming everything else but they have been in power for coming up to 1.5 years. I won’t hold my breath on the budget based on her comments to date

You seem to think I'm defending Reeves here - that is also an issue. What I'm trying to do is show you that what you are saying the article says, it doesn't. 

We need to encourage investment and spending, and to do that we need to  massively decrease interest rates to start with. But let's not kid ourselves, the current deficit needs to be dealt with and we need further investment in public services, alongside forcing the whip on tighter benefits controls. The Business NI increase was stupid. The Tories should not have decreased personal NI contributions - that was done to fuck up Labour in this government.

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

But to date what has she done to encourage business? If they want to drive economic growth (which they continue to say they do) it should be easy to reel off….
 

What annoys me is that she is blaming everything else but they have been in power for coming up to 1.5 years. I won’t hold my breath on the budget based on her comments to date

.

Edited 17 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

12 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

You seem to think I'm defending Reeves here - that is also an issue. What I'm trying to do is show you that what you are saying the article says, it doesn't. 

We need to encourage investment and spending, and to do that we need to  massively decrease interest rates to start with. But let's not kid ourselves, the current deficit needs to be dealt with and we need further investment in public services, alongside forcing the whip on tighter benefits controls. The Business NI increase was stupid. The Tories should not have decreased personal NI contributions - that was done to fuck up Labour in this government.

Ok I understand that you aren’t defending Reeves. In the context that we are both looking at this in the same way …..

1. how has the government policies helped to reduce interest rates;and

2. What policies has it introduced to encourage business?

In respect of the latter I assume you agree with me that there is no discernible policy we can both think of where they have encouraged business and we agree this is a huge failure on their part?

As a side point I don’t think you address the deficit by increasing public sector day to day spending which they have. That has the opposite effect

Edited 17 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

53 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok I understand that you aren’t defending Reeves. In the context that we are both looking at this in the same way …..

1. how has the government policies helped to reduce interest rates; and

2. What policies has it introduced to encourage business?

In respect of the latter I assume you agree with me that there is no discernible policy we can both think of where they have encouraged business and we agree this is a huge failure on their part?

As a side point I don’t think you address the deficit by increasing public sector day to day spending which they have. That has the opposite effect

Let me know if you can help me with the two questions above though as it maybe that we find common ground on these two points.

[Farmer Saint]

3 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok I understand that you aren’t defending Reeves. In the context that we are both looking at this in the same way …..

1. how has the government policies helped to reduce interest rates;and

2. What policies has it introduced to encourage business?

In respect of the latter I assume you agree with me that there is no discernible policy we can both think of where they have encouraged business and we agree this is a huge failure on their part?

As a side point I don’t think you address the deficit by increasing public sector day to day spending which they have. That has the opposite effect

Yes, I know you don't decrease the deficit by increasing spending - what I meant is we are in the difficult position where we need to do both.

In respect of your questions above:

1. Interest Rates could come down now, so I think you could say what they've done so far has contributed to that. But, as I've said many times, interest rates at the moment aren't high or low due to government policy, it is due to the external factors on inflation. The issue is the BoE are managing this all very poorly and are using old school economic theory to try to solve it, when that is not what is needed now.

2. Decreasing planning laws for one will help building and construction and their supply chains. Green investment etc. Encouraging technology investment from the US. If they can get fuel/energy prices down then that is a big win for businesses and the public.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Update on the new broom. 

This time it’s Reeves making a “mistake”. 😂😂😂. 

[Gloucester Saint]

44 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Update on the new broom. 

This time it’s Reeves making a “mistake”. 😂😂😂. 

Don’t rate her at all - although the markets do - but what has she actually gained apart from hassle? 

Totally different from Rayner and Farage who have gained financially from property dealings. Who paid for it then? Russia and Putin quite probably just like his mate Banks. This stench won’t be going away any time soon around Farage. Led by Donkeys will ensure that https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce845w70g0yo

Different to the Uniparty my arse. Farage is in hock and debt to all sorts of shady figures. 

This is someone in Reeves’s entourage not doing their due diligence - never trust estate agents https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd04d0yxnrvo

5/10 at worst, silly but her budget will soon bury it and the Gammons will pile onto that. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Don’t rate her at all - although the markets do - but what has she actually gained apart from hassle? 

Totally different from Rayner and Farage who have gained financially from property dealings. Who paid for it then? Russia and Putin quite possibly. This won’t be going away any time soon around Farage https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce845w70g0yo

Different to the Uniparty my fucking arse.

This is someone in Reeves’s entourage not doing their due diligence - never trust estate agents https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd04d0yxnrvo

5/10 at worst, silly but her budget will soon bury it and the Gammons will pile onto that. 

I don't really disagree but it's just another item to add to the ledger and another example of the overall impression of incompetence.