The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[badgerx16]

Police snd Crime Commissioners being scrapped.

[tdmickey3]

47 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Police snd Crime Commissioners being scrapped.

good, utterly pointless

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Police snd Crime Commissioners being scrapped.

Good, a start to the cuts that Labour apparently haven't been looking at.

Edited Thursday at 13:20 by Farmer Saint

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Good, a start to the cuts that Labour apparently haven't been looking at.

You say 'good', but just who will be opening the village fete next summer now?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You say 'good', but just who will be opening the village fete next summer now?

Since the vicar is helping police with safeguarding concerns, and the fete organising committee were caught running illegal lotteries, it doesn't much matter.

[Weston Super Saint]

20 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Since the vicar is helping police with safeguarding concerns, and the fete organising committee were caught running illegal lotteries, it doesn't much matter.

So the boat people are in with a shout then?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

So the boat people are in with a shout then?

Whoever can run a lucky dip is welcome (and eligible to join the SR manager selection panel).

[Baird of the land]

So now running scared of an increase in income tax. Becoming a trend of them being brave sir robin, after welfare and winter fuel allowance. Very curious to see how they are going to plug black hole without it.

Edited yesterday at 07:53 by Baird of the land

[iansums]

2 hours ago, Baird of the land said:

So now running scared of an increase in income tax. Becoming a trend of them being brave sir robin, after welfare and winter fuel allowance. Very curious to see how they are going to plug black hole without it.

What a dithering bunch they are. After the last Tory government (Sunak/Hunt) were steadying the ship after Covid and the cost of living crisis (and Truss), this lot are really fucking things up big time.

[rallyboy]

Having never claimed she would raise income tax, Reeves then doesn't raise it.

After fucking up their predictions, political opponents dress up this non-event as a U-turn.

Classic spin straight out of Yes, Minister. 😄

 

 

[Farmer Saint]

U-turn after U-turn...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mx3nv7zy8o

And we've lost all those millionaires who didn't want to pay an extra 2 pennies in the pound.

[The Kraken]

2 hours ago, iansums said:

What a dithering bunch they are. After the last Tory government (Sunak/Hunt) were steadying the ship after Covid and the cost of living crisis (and Truss), this lot are really fucking things up big time.

🤣

[rallyboy]

Three-tier Kier and his woke union paymasters are having a nightmare!

They all hate the UK so much they cancelled the fantastic Rwanda scheme that had delivered great value for money and have now refused to build those 40 new hospitals that the Tories bravely started, they are literally murdering patients through indecision.

If they build a hospital now it'll just be another dithering leftie U-Turn, and will probably be used to house hate marchers at our expense. That's not what I call Brexit.

[Sir Ralph]

You know things are getting desperate when the “gang” are making a point that it’s a success that the government haven’t publicly u-turned on a matter within the budget. They must be sat in No 10 patting themselves on the back for not fing up publicly. Sets a new low bar for measuring success!
 

Who is worse Sport Republic or this Government?

Edited yesterday at 14:09 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

35 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You know things are getting desperate when the “gang” are making a point that it’s a success that the government haven’t publicly u-turned on a matter within the budget. They must be sat in No 10 patting themselves on the back for not fing up publicly. Sets a new low bar for measuring success!
 

Who is worse Sport Republic or this Government?

How are you feeling about it now? Are you happy? Are your millionaire mates sat in Dubai happy, crying into their bowls of sand?

Edited yesterday at 14:20 by Farmer Saint

[sadoldgit]

Short memories some people have. It is almost as if the governments of Cameron,Johnson/Cummings, May and Truss weren’t an utter shambles. And these people think that Farage would be better!!! 

Jesus wept.

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

You know things are getting desperate when the “gang” are making a point that it’s a success that the government haven’t publicly u-turned on a matter within the budget. They must be sat in No 10 patting themselves on the back for not fing up publicly. Sets a new low bar for measuring success!
 

Who is worse Sport Republic or this Government?

Have you seen the budget details?

Just want to clarify that the u turn is u turn, thanks

[Sir Ralph]

35 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Short memories some people have. It is almost as if the governments of Cameron,Johnson/Cummings, May and Truss weren’t an utter shambles. And these people think that Farage would be better!!! 

Jesus wept.

I agree that the Johnson and Truss governments (latter in particular) had their bad moments. Truss was terrible for a very short period, due to the speed of her policies changes, before she got the push. Most of them got pushed when they had messed up. These lot have acheived 1.5 years of consistent rubbish. They are record breakers in the crap olympics.

I would like Streeting to be PM but unfortunately a significant portion of his party is socialist so his hands would be tied.

Edited yesterday at 14:56 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Have you seen the budget details?

Just want to clarify that the u turn is u turn, thanks

So you think it is a u-turn?

[iansums]

13 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Have you seen the budget details?

Just want to clarify that the u turn is u turn, thanks

They leaked proposals to the press, saw them get a hammering and changed their minds. They don't have the courage of their convictions, we've see it throughout the past 18 months.

[Farmer Saint]

37 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Have you seen the budget details?

Just want to clarify that the u turn is u turn, thanks

I think he's ignoring me now after losing his debate with me the other day - it's a shame because he never responded to:

- The article by the associate director of the IFS.

- The fact that even though taxes are the most important factor to millionaires, instead of moving to other low tax parts of the US a lot of millionaires are jumping ship to the high tax havens of Europe.

- That the Government have started to make cuts, first ones to do with the PCCs. Shame he didn't mention that in his exhaustive list of cuts 😂

[egg]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

You know things are getting desperate when the “gang” are making a point that it’s a success that the government haven’t publicly u-turned on a matter within the budget. They must be sat in No 10 patting themselves on the back for not fing up publicly. Sets a new low bar for measuring success!
 

Who is worse Sport Republic or this Government?

Bollox. It's a non story.

Manifesto. No income tax rise.

Decision. No income tax rise.

There's no non U-turn to herald because there's not been a U-turn. 

[sadoldgit]

The u turn would be implementing an income tax rise in the budget when they said in the manifesto that they would not. As Egg says, if they say they will not increase income tax in the manifesto and don’t, that is being true to their pledge.

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

So you think it is a u-turn?

No as we have not had the budget yet, if you do then can you show it to me?

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, iansums said:

They leaked proposals to the press, saw them get a hammering and changed their minds. They don't have the courage of their convictions, we've see it throughout the past 18 months.

Rumours, unless you can show me the budget…?

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

I agree that the Johnson and Truss governments (latter in particular) had their bad moments. Truss was terrible for a very short period, due to the speed of her policies changes, before she got the push. Most of them got pushed when they had messed up. These lot have acheived 1.5 years of consistent rubbish. They are record breakers in the crap olympics.

I would like Streeting to be PM but unfortunately a significant portion of his party is socialist so his hands would be tied.

Moments ? 
🙄

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

 

I would like Streeting to be PM but unfortunately a significant portion of his party is socialist so his hands would be tied.

Labour Party, Socialist ? - what a fucking surprise.

You will be claiming there are free market capitalists in the Conservatives next.

Edited yesterday at 16:20 by badgerx16

[iansums]

31 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Labour Party, Socialist ? - what a fucking surprise.

You will be claiming there are free market capitalists in the Conservatives next.

You know full well what he meant. The government are torn between keeping the left wing of their party happy whilst dealing with the reality of managing an economy. 

[iansums]

45 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Rumours, unless you can show me the budget…?

I’m not sure Rachel can either at the moment.

[Farmer Saint]

Although I think taxes do need to rise, it's also good news that this doesn't need to be done due to improved economic forecasts, so I guess an all round "well done" is probably due from all our posters.

[Sir Ralph]

15 hours ago, iansums said:

You know full well what he meant. The government are torn between keeping the left wing of their party happy whilst dealing with the reality of managing an economy. 

Exactly we all know it and it’s been played out before over the welfare bill. This is one of the reasons why they can’t come up with a coherent budget, placating the socialist left of their party. I thought they had maybe got rid of that mad lot but they were hiding. I’ll look forward to some of the gang trying to now argue that the left wing element of the Labour Party haven’t called the shots on the previous budget (and therefore this one).

Some people think the Goverment has “saved the day” by getting less shite growth forecasts than expected which has meant the budget deficit they have helped to create is just not as terrible as previously expected. One of the main reasons for the budget deficit is due to the downgrade in productivity of business (nothing to do with the previous budget at all!!). They are the types of people that, if Saints were expected to finish 24th this season, might say it’s a success finishing 23rd. You don’t deserve congratulations for getting into a less (but nonetheless) shite position that you had helped create.  😂

Edited 14 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

28 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Exactly we all know it and it’s been played out before over the welfare bill. This is one of the reasons why they can’t come up with a coherent budget, placating the socialist left of their party. I thought they had maybe got rid of that mad lot but they were hiding. I’ll look forward to some of the gang trying to now argue that the left wing element of the Labour Party haven’t called the shots on the previous budget (and therefore this one).

Some people think the Goverment has “saved the day” by getting less shite growth forecasts than expected which has meant the budget deficit they have helped to create is just not as terrible as previously expected. One of the main reasons for the budget deficit is due to the downgrade in productivity of business (nothing to do with the previous budget at all!!). They are the types of people that, if Saints were expected to finish 24th this season, might say it’s a success finishing 23rd. You don’t deserve congratulations for getting into a less (but nonetheless) shite position that you had helped create.  😂

That's a unique take on it. 

There's no appeasement to the "socialist left". Not wanting to make slashing cuts, and a return to austerity, is a central ground stance, not a socialist one. 

We're skint. You say tax raising aren't the answer. I say austerity isn't the answer. I also say taking benefits from people who need them is wrong, and if the government needs a system that sorts the needy from the greedy, then assuming they're all greedy and should go without isn't the way a decent society operates imo. 

The rest of your post is just bollox. 

[Sir Ralph]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a unique take on it. 

There's no appeasement to the "socialist left". Not wanting to make slashing cuts, and a return to austerity, is a central ground stance, not a socialist one. 

We're skint. You say tax raising aren't the answer. I say austerity isn't the answer. I also say taking benefits from people who need them is wrong, and if the government needs a system that sorts the needy from the greedy, then assuming they're all greedy and should go without isn't the way a decent society operates imo. 

The rest of your post is just bollox. 

You still haven’t answered why Starmers facts about the inefficiency of the public sector are incorrect. Any thoughts on why those government figures are incorrect yet?

We have a different view I agree but saying the socialist left are not influencing the Labour Party is completely wrong.
 

You need welfare I agree but it’s gone too far. encouraging people to be reliant on benefits and paying people to have more children than they responsibly have (when the tax payers making the tax contributions for this can’t sometime afford the same the same number of children) isn’t the way a decent society operates. I agree with the cabinet on the reductions they proposed so even they know it needs to happen https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-shake-up-to-welfare-system-in-a-generation-to-get-britain-working

The rest of my post is correct. Celebrating shiteness.

To be fair this is a good policy shift which the Tories didn’t introduce and could have. Well done to the government on this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c231x8rj1zpo

Edited 13 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a unique take on it. 

There's no appeasement to the "socialist left". Not wanting to make slashing cuts, and a return to austerity, is a central ground stance, not a socialist one. 

We're skint. You say tax raising aren't the answer. I say austerity isn't the answer. I also say taking benefits from people who need them is wrong, and if the government needs a system that sorts the needy from the greedy, then assuming they're all greedy and should go without isn't the way a decent society operates imo. 

The rest of your post is just bollox. 

It's also the fact that the socialism ideology is for a high, progressive, tax society. It'd be more that the right of his party wouldn't want him to raise taxes, wouldn't it?

Edited 13 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You still haven’t answered why Starmers facts about the inefficiency of the public sector are incorrect. Any thoughts on why those government figures are incorrect yet?

We have a different view I agree but saying the socialist left are not influencing the Labour Party is completely wrong.
 

You need welfare I agree but it’s gone too far. encouraging people to be reliant on benefits and paying people to have more children than they responsibly have (when the tax payers making the tax contributions for this can’t sometime afford the same the same number of children) isn’t the way a decent society operates. I agree with the cabinet on the reductions they proposed so even they know it needs to happen https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-shake-up-to-welfare-system-in-a-generation-to-get-britain-working

The rest of my post is correct. Celebrating shiteness.

https://observer.co.uk/news/business/article/the-uk-has-a-productivity-problem-cuts-wont-fix-it

Also, show us anyone on here who has said that the benefits system does not need a complete re-think.

Edited 13 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[egg]

42 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You still haven’t answered why Starmers facts about the inefficiency of the public sector are incorrect. Any thoughts on why those government figures are incorrect yet?

We have a different view I agree but saying the socialist left are not influencing the Labour Party is completely wrong.
 

You need welfare I agree but it’s gone too far. encouraging people to be reliant on benefits and paying people to have more children than they responsibly have (when the tax payers making the tax contributions for this can’t sometime afford the same the same number of children) isn’t the way a decent society operates. I agree with the cabinet on the reductions they proposed so even they know it needs to happen https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-shake-up-to-welfare-system-in-a-generation-to-get-britain-working

The rest of my post is correct. Celebrating shiteness.

To be fair this is a good policy shift which the Tories didn’t introduce and could have. Well done to the government on this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c231x8rj1zpo

I'm not going to answer what you want me to, mostly because you swerve many questions put to you. That's why I didn't ask any questions of you - there's no point. I've merely made points.

Edited 12 hours ago by egg

[egg]

12 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

https://observer.co.uk/news/business/article/the-uk-has-a-productivity-problem-cuts-wont-fix-it

Also, show us anyone on here who has said that the benefits system does not need a complete re-think.

Ditto the SEND system, equally unaffordable in its current guise. We have LA's who can't afford to properly educate SEND after kids under it's jurisdiction, only to be told by Judges that they must do things that they haven't got money for. It's a broken system.

If the approach people want to take to PiP etc was taken to SEND kids, there'd be an erroneous assumption that those kids are all putting on their Autism, global development delay, disability, etc, and left to rot at home 

https://www.countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk/councils-warn-send-system-faces-total-collapse-without-major-reform-to-services/

[Sheaf Saint]

17 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

Moments ? 
🙄

One of them was one long, continuous, cringe worthy car crash of a moment.

And the other one was Liz fucking Truss!

[hypochondriac]

On 14/11/2025 at 10:30, rallyboy said:

Having never claimed she would raise income tax, Reeves then doesn't raise it.

After fucking up their predictions, political opponents dress up this non-event as a U-turn.

Classic spin straight out of Yes, Minister. 😄

 

 

Do you think there was never an intention to break any manifesto commitments at any point? Probably not a very smart idea to lead the markets up the garden path then. Hardly instills confidence and markets aren't fans of unpredictability.

What was that pre budget statement about if not telegraphibg the breaking of the manifesto?

Edited 10 hours ago by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Ditto the SEND system, equally unaffordable in its current guise. We have LA's who can't afford to properly educate SEND after kids under it's jurisdiction, only to be told by Judges that they must do things that they haven't got money for. It's a broken system.

If the approach people want to take to PiP etc was taken to SEND kids, there'd be an erroneous assumption that those kids are all putting on their Autism, global development delay, disability, etc, and left to rot at home 

https://www.countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk/councils-warn-send-system-faces-total-collapse-without-major-reform-to-services/

In fairness, much of the funding for SEND children relies on the experience and nouse of the people writing the applications. I've seen plenty of examples of children being refused with more extensive needs than someone else who is accepted based solely on the person who knows how to write the application in order to get it accepted. So not entirely erroneous then.

[egg]

38 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

In fairness, much of the funding for SEND children relies on the experience and nouse of the people writing the applications. I've seen plenty of examples of children being refused with more extensive needs than someone else who is accepted based solely on the person who knows how to write the application in order to get it accepted. So not entirely erroneous then.

The reality is that LA's refuse to assess when they know they should, then get told by the tribunal that they must, then once they do they refuse to issue a plan, then get told by the tribunal that they must, then try stick the kid in a school unsuitable, then get told by the tribunal to go with the parent's (appropriate) choice of school. 

Every tribunal step takes a year or so of the child's life. LA's play the system to buy time. They don't want to, but don't have the resources. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

The reality is that LA's refuse to assess when they know they should, then get told by the tribunal that they must, then once they do they refuse to issue a plan, then get told by the tribunal that they must, then try stick the kid in a school unsuitable, then get told by the tribunal to go with the parent's (appropriate) choice of school. 

Every tribunal step takes a year or so of the child's life. LA's play the system to buy time. They don't want to, but don't have the resources. 

I know that happens. It is also the case that funding relies to.alarge degree on the people writing the applications and how bloody minded the parent is. Parents who don't give much of a toss about their children or who are incapable of making a fuss or who are worn down by the system get overlooked or ignored. A parent willing to make enough fuss will receive support if they know the right things to say and do even if their child doesn't actually require the support over someone who does. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

I know that happens. It is also the case that funding relies to.alarge degree on the people writing the applications and how bloody minded the parent is. Parents who don't give much of a toss about their children or who are incapable of making a fuss or who are worn down by the system get overlooked or ignored. A parent willing to make enough fuss will receive support if they know the right things to say and do even if their child doesn't actually require the support over someone who does. 

Ah gotcha. Agreed. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Ah gotcha. Agreed. 

You're also correct that local authorities are legally required to spend the vast majority of their budget on things they have no choice over. That means they are reduced to presiding over the tiny percentage left over to make any choices with. A much better situation would be to have more rigorous and impartial assessments of SEND, fully fund those who actually require it across the country directly from central government, remove it from those who have lesser needs abd allow local authorities a proper budget where they can make actual choices for their communities. It's mad that an area of high disadvantage with large amounts of SEND have a far lower budget for other things than a more affluent area.

[egg]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You're also correct that local authorities are legally required to spend the vast majority of their budget on things they have no choice over. That means they are reduced to presiding over the tiny percentage left over to make any choices with. A much better situation would be to have more rigorous and impartial assessments of SEND, fully fund those who actually require it across the country directly from central government, remove it from those who have lesser needs abd allow local authorities a proper budget where they can make actual choices for their communities. It's mad that an area of high disadvantage with large amounts of SEND have a far lower budget for other things than a more affluent area.

Yep to all of that. The spend on tribunal judges and specialist members, plus the consequential pension costs, is vast. Diverting those resources to LA's to make the correct decisions at the outset is infinitely more sensible than paying judges and specialist members to tell them to spend unbudgeted monies further down the line. The system needs an urgent root and branch review and restructure. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Yep to all of that. The spend on tribunal judges and specialist members, plus the consequential pension costs, is vast. Diverting those resources to LA's to make the correct decisions at the outset is infinitely more sensible than paying judges and specialist members to tell them to spend unbudgeted monies further down the line. The system needs an urgent root and branch review and restructure. 

Nice to have an area of agreement with you for a change.

[Lord Duckhunter]

22 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The u turn would be implementing an income tax rise in the budget when they said in the manifesto that they would not. As Egg says, if they say they will not increase income tax in the manifesto and don’t, that is being true to their pledge.

Freezing thresholds is an increase. And before you start, they’ve all done it since Gordon Brown released a lot of the population don’t understand that.  It’s only half wits that think freezing thresholds doesn’t increase tax, and judging by your post, you’re clearly one of them. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter

[Farmer Saint]

56 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Freezing thresholds is an increase. And before you start, they’ve all done it since Gordon Brown released a lot of the population don’t understand that.  It’s only half wits that think freezing thresholds doesn’t increase tax, and judging by your post, you’re clearly one of them. 

That for sure is an increase, but it feels like it's expected now, how ever much it shouldn't be. We shouldn't hide behind this as a stealth tax, we should grow some balls and increase taxes if that's what is needed (wanted), rather than drag the lower paid into more tax.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

That for sure is an increase, but it feels like it's expected now, how ever much it shouldn't be. We shouldn't hide behind this as a stealth tax, we should grow some balls and increase taxes if that's what is needed (wanted), rather than drag the lower paid into more tax.

Absolutely. Freezing the allowance is cowardly. 

[Sir Ralph]

7 hours ago, egg said:

I'm not going to answer what you want me to, mostly because you swerve many questions put to you. That's why I didn't ask any questions of you - there's no point. I've merely made points.

Point where I have not answered a question. You don’t want to answer this because nobody has so far.