The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[badgerx16]

There will always be grifters, it is the consequence of having a welfare safety net.

There will always be 'employers' looking to game the system and shirk their responsibilities to their employees. This is a standard side effect of capitalism.

Until somebody invents the perfect system, with %100 employment at rates that guarantee an acceptable minimum standard of living, these 2 statements will remain true.

[badgerx16]

Ralph, have you ever in your life experienced living on welfare ? For most people it isn't the scrounger's utopia the Mail and Express like to portray.

Edited 14 hours ago by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Ralph, have you ever in your life experienced living on welfare ?

I’ve never lived on welfare. I have lived below the poverty line both in this country and abroad (the equivalent of UK poverty line). In this country my dad wouldn’t take welfare as a matter of principle.

I know of people in my area who are on welfare and they are certainly not struggling. Whilst some are certainly struggling, there is too much abuse of the system in my opinion. The Labour Cabinet believe the same as they wanted welfare reform. This isn’t some mad surprise or idea

Edited 14 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’ve never lived on welfare. I have lived below the poverty line both in this country and abroad (the equivalent of UK poverty line). In this country my dad wouldn’t take welfare as a matter of principle.

Whilst that is an admirable and principled position, it is one that others find harder to take.

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Whilst that is an admirable and principled position, it is one that others find harder to take.

I understand that and some people do need welfare. I know stories of guys working two jobs and struggling. I have the genuine utmost respect. Also for people in @sadoldgit situation.

However some need a kick up the ars and an ultimatum. I would question their tolerance threshold. That’s human nature. There is a lack of ars kicking in the current system.

Thanks for engaging in a respectful way.

Edited 14 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

15 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Put my view to one side. This is Tory policy to reinstate the two child cap for the reasons I said. This isn’t some outlier view. It’s the oppositions policy. 
 

I’ve lived in countries with true poverty and seen the consequence. I’ve also seen the opportunity a capitalist system can provide and encourage people out of poverty. Whilst I appreciate the respect you post with I don’t need lecturing from other rude posters about the consequences of poverty. 

The point is your opinion is that children should suffer in poverty as a result of their parents feckless attitude towards procreation. 

That's the problem here.

Lifting kids out of poverty should be the first agenda for any government, left or right. They are the economic future for countries, so you want them to be as high-achieving as possible. Starting them off in a life of poverty strangles that, and is very poor for the economy.

[sadoldgit]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’ve never lived on welfare. I have lived below the poverty line both in this country and abroad (the equivalent of UK poverty line). In this country my dad wouldn’t take welfare as a matter of principle.

I know of people in my area who are on welfare and they are certainly not struggling. Whilst some are certainly struggling, there is too much abuse of the system in my opinion. The Labour Cabinet believe the same as they wanted welfare reform. This isn’t some mad surprise or idea

How do you know what level of abuse the system is facing? A bloke down the pub type of actually factual information?

Everybody wants welfare form. No system is perfect, but I can tell you that getting Universal Credit and PIP is no walk in the park. My wife applied a few years ago when she left her job through bullying. She had to go in for several meetings and fill in countless forms. So did I, even though I wasn’t claiming benefit. In the end we were turned down because of my pension. The fact that we were relying on my pension and her wages to make ends meet didn’t come into it. They also said it was a pity that we had a mortgage as they could have helped us if we had been paying rent! 
You need to look beyond the rhetoric of Badenoch and Reform. The idea that thousands of people are living the life of Riley on benefits is no different from the myth that all of our problems are down to migrants. 
I was out of work for a period about 20 years ago so went sling to the job centre to see what they could do for me. It was so depressing that I never went back. They will always be people who play the system. That doesn’t mean that everybody is. Do you feel the same about very rich people who employ accountants to avoid paying tax? I don’t hear people of your ideology complain about the rich playing the system to get richer.

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

How do you know what level of abuse the system is facing? A bloke down the pub type of actually factual information?

Everybody wants welfare form. No system is perfect, but I can tell you that getting Universal Credit and PIP is no walk in the park. My wife applied a few years ago when she left her job through bullying. She had to go in for several meetings and fill in countless forms. So did I, even though I wasn’t claiming benefit. In the end we were turned down because of my pension. The fact that we were relying on my pension and her wages to make ends meet didn’t come into it. They also said it was a pity that we had a mortgage as they could have helped us if we had been paying rent! 
You need to look beyond the rhetoric of Badenoch and Reform. The idea that thousands of people are living the life of Riley on benefits is no different from the myth that all of our problems are down to migrants. 
I was out of work for a period about 20 years ago so went sling to the job centre to see what they could do for me. It was so depressing that I never went back. They will always be people who play the system. That doesn’t mean that everybody is. Do you feel the same about very rich people who employ accountants to avoid paying tax? I don’t hear people of your ideology complain about the rich playing the system to get richer.

Yes if you’ve been recently employed the bizarre thing is it doesn’t help you. Long term benefit claimants are fine. I speak from experience of long term claimants I’m aware of. Says a lot about who the system helps and doesnt 

Edited 13 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Gloucester Saint]

53 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

There will always be grifters, it is the consequence of having a welfare safety net.

There will always be 'employers' looking to game the system and shirk their responsibilities to their employees. This is a standard side effect of capitalism.

Until somebody invents the perfect system, with %100 employment at rates that guarantee an acceptable minimum standard of living, these 2 statements will remain true.

Yep, through my involvement with CAMRA I see fantastic breweries and pubs doing well, some good ones earlier in their business plan struggling with big rent hikes and cost of stock/staff availability in more rural areas (esp from the big pub cos, get managing tenants in a lower rate and hike it hugely when they are getting established after 18 months) and some shysters. On the latter, here is a prime example from the Midlands earlier this year  

 

Edited 13 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[badgerx16]

40 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I understand that and some people do need welfare. I know stories of guys working two jobs and struggling. I have the genuine utmost respect. Also for people in @sadoldgit situation.

However some need a kick up the ars and an ultimatum. I would question their tolerance threshold. That’s human nature. There is a lack of ars kicking in the current system.

Thanks for engaging in a respectful way.

Not bad for a Leftie, eh ?

[Mixedkebab]

3 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

This is not aspiration. You don't aspire for children to not be in poverty. Kids are in poverty now, this will help to lift quite a few out. If that means we have to tax the rich, which includes myself, a bit more, then fuck it, we should do it. Children are not a commodity to use as collateral because you think that we should punish the feckless. We live in a country where two parents can both work full time and still have to use food banks. You do not understand the societal impact that poverty has on children.

I'm not a socialist, I'm a one nation Tory, and you ARE a cunt. A real, grade A, don't give a fuck about anyone than myself, cunt. Own it.

Jesus Christ, what an over privileged, self righteous shiny Herman Gelmet we’ve got here. “I’m a one nation Tory”. What kind of herpes brain actually sits and typed out this po-faced dribble on a message board?

[egg]

4 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I will respond to you. Later on. I can’t prove that. Ok most sensible people I know who graft and make net tax contributions to this country

The like minded people you associate with are not most people. 

Some people respect the need for a welfare state, and appreciate that not everyone who needs that welfare is a lazy scrounger.

Are you seriously suggesting that disabled people who can't work, for example, shouldn't have kids? 

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes if you’ve been recently employed the bizarre thing is it doesn’t help you. Long term benefit claimants are fine. I speak from experience of long term claimants I’m aware of. Says a lot about who the system helps and doesnt 

The whole welfare system has been a mess for years and as said is in urgent need of reform. I would have no problem in benefits being means tested. The trouble is that would involve a large increase in staff/expense/government spending. 
Labour are taking measures to get long term claimants (those who can) back into work. It takes time. Early days but let’s see how that develops.

[iansums]

I must have missed all the news reports of kids dying from poverty over the past 8 years 

[iansums]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The whole welfare system has been a mess for years and as said is in urgent need of reform. I would have no problem in benefits being means tested. The trouble is that would involve a large increase in staff/expense/government spending. 
Labour are taking measures to get long term claimants (those who can) back into work. It takes time. Early days but let’s see how that develops.

What measures? Genuine question, all I see is them making it more difficult for employers to take people on.

[benjii]

A lot of people think they are net contributors because they pay tax, but for a household to be a net contributor it needs to contribute around 17k per person of tax revenues each year.

Most people are living off the state. It's a question of degree.

[badgerx16]

One stupid manifesto pledge ditched;

"The government has U-turned on its manifesto commitment to offer all workers the right to claim unfair dismissal from their first day in a job."

[badgerx16]

21 minutes ago, iansums said:

I must have missed all the news reports of kids dying from poverty over the past 8 years 

Slightly over-dramatic headline perhaps ;

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-society-politics/news/article/5856/uk-children-dying-through-poverty-data-shows

"The report also shows that children living in the most disadvantaged areas are more likely to die in intensive care,"

“This report lays bare the stark and shameful reality that children in the UK are dying because of poverty. It is simply unacceptable that a child's postcode determines their chances of survival, health and opportunity."

 

https://www.nursinginpractice.com/clinical/one-third-of-uk-children-grow-up-in-poverty-with-higher-risk-of-dying-young/

"A report, Addressing Poverty Update: UK Children Dying through Poverty, highlights how children from disadvantaged areas face a 13 per cent higher risk of death in paediatric intensive care than those from the least disadvantaged areas. "

Edited 10 hours ago by badgerx16

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Mixedkebab said:

Jesus Christ, what an over privileged, self righteous shiny Herman Gelmet we’ve got here. “I’m a one nation Tory”. What kind of herpes brain actually sits and typed out this po-faced dribble on a message board?

Thank God we've got fuckwits like you to police us eh?

[Farmer Saint]

29 minutes ago, egg said:

The like minded people you associate with are not most people. 

Some people respect the need for a welfare state, and appreciate that not everyone who needs that welfare is a lazy scrounger.

Are you seriously suggesting that disabled people who can't work, for example, shouldn't have kids? 

I'm waiting for his suggestion of chemical castration to ensure people that he doesn't think should have kids, don't. 

I certainly know at least one person on this thread who should fall under that category.

Edited 10 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

24 minutes ago, iansums said:

I must have missed all the news reports of kids dying from poverty over the past 8 years 

Cool, well have a read:

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-society-politics/news/article/5856/uk-children-dying-through-poverty-data-shows

https://www.ncmd.info/publications/child-mortality-social-deprivation/

https://cpag.org.uk/news/more-children-ill-poverty-bleak-paediatricians-survey-anniversary-child-poverty-taskforce

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

47 minutes ago, Mixedkebab said:

Jesus Christ, what an over privileged, self righteous shiny Herman Gelmet we’ve got here. “I’m a one nation Tory”. What kind of herpes brain actually sits and typed out this po-faced dribble on a message board?

Succinct.

[Farmer Saint]

10 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

One stupid manifesto pledge ditched;

"The government has U-turned on its manifesto commitment to offer all workers the right to claim unfair dismissal from their first day in a job."

Good - businesses will be very happy with that. Let's see if they create the jobs they said that this policy was stopping...

[Farmer Saint]

39 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Succinct.

Do you know what "succinct" means, because the post is anything but?

Edited 9 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[badgerx16]

53 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Succinct.

Err, no.

"expressed in few words; concise; terse"

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Err, no.

"expressed in few words; concise; terse"

I typed out a response and then thought “I can’t be bothered”. I don’t want to waste any more time on him. Have a good evening 

Edited 9 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

37 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I typed out a response and then thought “I can’t be bothered”. I don’t want to waste any more time on him. Have a good evening 

So you thought you'd respond with a word that doesn't make any sense?

Edited 9 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

I think we're all waiting for Sir Ralph's responses, or will these just be added to the long list of questions he is yet to answer...

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

I think we're all waiting for Sir Ralph's responses, or will these just be added to the long list of questions he is yet to answer...

I would have responded to you but you were bloody rude this afternoon so I'm not wasting my time. I'm not dodging your questions as your responses were pretty average anyway - not exactly challenging. I just dont like you or care for your opinions and the other poster got you spot on. Learn to engage with people respectfully and people will respect you, regardless of whether you disagree.

Edited 7 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

21 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I would have responded to you but you were bloody rude this afternoon so I'm not wasting my time. I'm not dodging your questions as your responses were pretty average anyway - not exactly challenging. I just dont like you or care for your opinions and the other poster got you spot on. Learn to engage with people respectfully and people will respect you, regardless of whether you disagree.

Mate, you would prefer kids to be in poverty than to allow people child benefit for if they have more than 2 kids, and as the above studies prove, child poverty causes child deaths.

That's bordering on evil, so don't you dare try to take the high road.

I'll add those questions to the long list of questions you have refused to answer in the past.

Edited 7 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Mixedkebab]

18 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Mate, you would prefer kids to be in poverty than to allow people child benefit for if they have more than 2 kids, and as the above studies prove, child poverty causes child deaths.

That's bordering on evil, so don't you dare try to take the high road.

I'll add those questions to the long list of questions you have refused to answer in the past.

By the extreme bipolar style nature of your arguments you think the UK works like some clichéd Dickensian rip off drama series.

Nobody wants to see kids in poverty, your Bono style posh boy acting like a working class hero rant doesn’t make you any more caring than most.

There are many ways the government could’ve addressed child poverty, so that the money went directly to fund children’s services rather than a blanket payment to families, where some will of course use it for the right reasons but many others will abuse it.

Not necessarily agreeing with lifting the cap doesn’t make people akin to Pol Pot.

But your Student Grant, circular glasses, German army jacket, Steve Biko Union Bar style dribbling will carry on regardless.

[sadoldgit]

Not as bad as some would like to believe then …

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/sterling-uk-bond-prices-rise-whippy-trading-reeves-budget-soothes-some-nerves-2025-11-26/

 

[sadoldgit]

44 minutes ago, Mixedkebab said:

By the extreme bipolar style nature of your arguments you think the UK works like some clichéd Dickensian rip off drama series.

Nobody wants to see kids in poverty, your Bono style posh boy acting like a working class hero rant doesn’t make you any more caring than most.

There are many ways the government could’ve addressed child poverty, so that the money went directly to fund children’s services rather than a blanket payment to families, where some will of course use it for the right reasons but many others will abuse it.

Not necessarily agreeing with lifting the cap doesn’t make people akin to Pol Pot.

But your Student Grant, circular glasses, German army jacket, Steve Biko Union Bar style dribbling will carry on regardless.

“Many others will abuse it.” Where is the evidence for this statement. Define “many.” Do you think that maybe the word “some” might be more accurate or are just doing the usual assumption that we are a nation of scroungers?

[Sir Ralph]

15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Not as bad as some would like to believe then …

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/sterling-uk-bond-prices-rise-whippy-trading-reeves-budget-soothes-some-nerves-2025-11-26/

 

This is because the budget deficit hasn’t increased and has a larger headroom. The headroom itself is good in principle and could have been achieved by any government. It can be achieved in a number of ways, including cuts or a more balanced budget.

A lot of scepticism in the economy was already factored in before the budget because people knew what was coming and actually feared that the nutters were going to deliver a worse budget than they did. 

This government is obsessed with taxes rather than economic growth. Thats it. It doesn’t mean that the markets believe it’s a “good budget” and the article highlights the scepticism about long term growth.

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

They will always be people who play the system

Sounds like you and your Mrs were two them. Moaning that the tax payer didn’t pony up because of your pension & the lack of a mortgage. This is the problem with welfare, people who don’t need it, thinking it’s a right. It’s spread way too thinly, with the deserving getting less because of that. 

[Mixedkebab]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

“Many others will abuse it.” Where is the evidence for this statement. Define “many.” Do you think that maybe the word “some” might be more accurate or are just doing the usual assumption that we are a nation of scroungers?

Ok then, some. The only evidence I have is my eyes and ears, having lived with and among a lot of drink & drug abusers and thieves, who also happened to be parents, on various estates in the not too distant past, and I’m pretty sure that overall things haven’t progressed that much since then as far as bad parenting is concerned.

Of course there are plenty who manage to leave that behind and end up as cracking parents. Unfortunately there are plenty who don’t.

Edited 5 hours ago by Mixedkebab