The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[whelk]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

Just a small guess that if net migration was going up you wouldn't be on here saying how wonderful that was.

He’d be delighted as he is one of these cunt landlords who loves to exploit

[whelk]

11 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I find it amusing that people that have no idea support labour still and pretend they are pro business..#mainlytheunemployedorgovernmentemployees

Do you have kids? I am thinking not

[egg]

1 hour ago, iansums said:

Who said ‘everything is getting worse’? I certainly didn’t. Any improvements in public sector stats are more than welcome and I’ve stated on here before that Streeting in particular is doing a good job. My comments were about the economy which of course is critical to fund all the public services.

It's the focus on negativity, and made up information, that grates.

Sure, labour aren't doing great after being dealt a shit hand, but there are successes. You yourself focused on some negatives yesterday, and with factual inaccuracy. I balanced with some factual positives.

I've never voted labour and probably never will, but the whole anti Starmer/labour environment we're in (in not talking this forum) is pathetic. People out there talk as if Starmer has somehow changed policy to invite illegal immigrants in, and open up the country, without any understanding of the facts or reality. You then get the likes of Duck suggesting that the huge reduction in net migration is a negative when we all know he'd be whining if it hadn't reduced. That's completely disingenuous of him and doesn't make for sensible discussion. 

 

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Do you have kids? I am thinking not

He definitely does not have kids. That is crystal clear to me.

[egg]

12 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

He definitely does not have kids. That is crystal clear to me.

It's a transparent persona. I'm ignoring the bloke. There are posters I don't always agree with on politics - Turkish, Iansums, and others - but they're honest and reasonable. I know this isn't the real world, but have a bit of authenticity. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

35 minutes ago, egg said:

It's the focus on negativity, and made up information, that grates.

Sure, labour aren't doing great after being dealt a shit hand, but there are successes. You yourself focused on some negatives yesterday, and with factual inaccuracy. I balanced with some factual positives.

I've never voted labour and probably never will, but the whole anti Starmer/labour environment we're in (in not talking this forum) is pathetic. People out there talk as if Starmer has somehow changed policy to invite illegal immigrants in, and open up the country, without any understanding of the facts or reality. You then get the likes of Duck suggesting that the huge reduction in net migration is a negative when we all know he'd be whining if it hadn't reduced. That's completely disingenuous of him and doesn't make for sensible discussion. 

 

A party doing some things well, some things less so, some as best it can and some it's stuck with? In this polarised world? Pick a side! 🙂

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Do you have kids? I am thinking not

Relevance to this point?

[Farmer Saint]

https://www.ft.com/content/788e878f-7938-488a-8fef-67990c74c214?utm_social_post_id=627514189&utm_social_handle_id=8860325749&fbclid=IwdGRjcAOza1ZjbGNrA7NrSmV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHoKQ3duTv8aCVRGATjhG-ilUNy9oHO6sJGiG4L9OMJJaVkKeNnolKIYTDn1s_aem_Ha1PLdrckgYHD0s0Q9Bc0Q

A point made multiple times by myself and @whelk with regards employment demographics, and another reason why encouraging people to have more children through child benefit is probably a good thing.

[sadoldgit]

With the birth rate dropping surely it makes more sense to encourage people to have more children? It’s that or increase immigration and we know what a hot potato that subject is.

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 hours ago, egg said:

You then get the likes of Duck suggesting that the huge reduction in net migration is a negative when we all know he'd be whining if it hadn't reduced. That's completely disingenuous of him and doesn't make for sensible discussion

It’s not disingenuous at all. If 500k young English people leave for abroad, and these people are replaced by 500k foreign men of fighting age, who speak poor English and don’t embrace western values , that’s not a good thing, despite the fact it’s a zero sum in respect of net migration. The economy is he adding one way, with unemployment only going to get worse. What’s disingenuous is people pretend it isn’t and cherry picking “facts” because it’s not the Tories. There’s a reason labour are tanking  in the polls, and Starmer is so unpopular, and it’s not because they’re doing such a great job with the economy 

Edited Saturday at 17:58 by Lord Duckhunter

[The Kraken]

Duck pretending to be impartial 🤣

Remember well you preaching how great a landlord you were as you kept rates low for years to have good tenants, then when Rachel from accounts (arf) came in you simply had to put rates up immediately because of the Labour Party. Not disingenuous my arse.

[LuckyNumber7]

10 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

With the birth rate dropping surely it makes more sense to encourage people to have more children? It’s that or increase immigration and we know what a hot potato that subject is.

No, this country (and planet as a whole) is already horribly overpopulated so encouraging it to grow even more is not a good thing.

Controlled and managed migration, filling the holes that need filling, is fine. But it's been anything but for the last 20 years.

[Lord Duckhunter]

14 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Duck pretending to be impartial 🤣

Remember well you preaching how great a landlord you were as you kept rates low for years to have good tenants, then when Rachel from accounts (arf) came in you simply had to put rates up immediately because of the Labour Party. Not disingenuous my arse.

It’s an absolute fact that Reeves & Starmer have increased costs for landlords, and the ones that don’t sell up prior to these changes, will pass the increases on to their tenants. Pretending otherwise isn’t being “impartial”, it’s wilfully ignoring reality because it isn’t the nasty Tories making renters finances worse…..

[Sir Ralph]

23 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s an absolute fact that Reeves & Starmer have increased costs for landlords, and the ones that don’t sell up prior to these changes, will pass the increases on to their tenants. Pretending otherwise isn’t being “impartial”, it’s wilfully ignoring reality because it isn’t the nasty Tories making renters finances worse…..

This is what is happening. I know people who are looking to sell parts of their rental portfolio as a result. This means those houses go to private owners and there is less supply for renters. Same demand and less supply means higher cost for renters.

The properties that are kept by landlords will mean costs are passed onto renters.

Either way the legislative changes will harm renters not help them. It’s an example of government meddling where they don’t haven’t looked two steps ahead. 

[sadoldgit]

On 20/12/2025 at 22:46, LuckyNumber7 said:

No, this country (and planet as a whole) is already horribly overpopulated so encouraging it to grow even more is not a good thing.

Controlled and managed migration, filling the holes that need filling, is fine. But it's been anything but for the last 20 years.

I don’t disagree, but as soon as you bring up immigration you will invoke the ire of the growing number of xenophobes and Reform voters.

[egg]

On 21/12/2025 at 11:12, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s an absolute fact that Reeves & Starmer have increased costs for landlords, and the ones that don’t sell up prior to these changes, will pass the increases on to their tenants. Pretending otherwise isn’t being “impartial”, it’s wilfully ignoring reality because it isn’t the nasty Tories making renters finances worse…..

The rent reform change will limit future rent increases but that isn't a cost increase.

[sadoldgit]

Our housing issues go all the way back to Thatcher who sold off council houses and failed to reinvest in new ones.

[iansums]

I see that after a pause for a few days, 800 illegals entered the country by boat on Saturday. Is it ok to post this, or am I being too negative? 🫢

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, iansums said:

I see that after a pause for a few days, 800 illegals entered the country by boat on Saturday. Is it ok to post this, or am I being too negative? 🫢

A tiny amount compared to the millions already here, being given housing, meals, mobile phones and benefits whilst our former soldiers who fought for us are on the streets. The misogynistic far left typically typically blame the housing crisis on a women who was in power over 40 years ago, easy to make a scape goat rather than face the real issues these Owen Jones fan boys dont want to address. 

[sadoldgit]

As a dyed in the wool capitalist Sir Ralph, do you think it is ok that the oil companies continue to make massive profits or do you think that they should be taxed more to help pay for the crumbling public services that are desperate for more investment?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2dzk4kz722o.amp

[Weston Super Saint]

21 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As a dyed in the wool capitalist Sir Ralph, do you think it is ok that the oil companies continue to make massive profits or do you think that they should be taxed more to help pay for the crumbling public services that are desperate for more investment?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2dzk4kz722o.amp

You know that petrol and diesel sales are already subject to an additional tax, on top of VAT, right?

[iansums]

18 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As a dyed in the wool capitalist Sir Ralph, do you think it is ok that the oil companies continue to make massive profits or do you think that they should be taxed more to help pay for the crumbling public services that are desperate for more investment?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2dzk4kz722o.amp

That article is more to do with retailers profits than the oil companies. They have seen big rises in costs like many other businesses. However it is always the case sadly that they are quick to put prices up but very slow to bring them down.

[egg]

1 hour ago, iansums said:

I see that after a pause for a few days, 800 illegals entered the country by boat on Saturday. Is it ok to post this, or am I being too negative? 🫢

Yep, constant focus on the problem is pointless and solves nowt. I'm still waiting for someone to tell what the viable solution is. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Our housing issues go all the way back to Thatcher who sold off council houses and failed to reinvest in new ones.

Yep, but no government since has addressed the problem to be fair. Private landlords are the only option for most people unfortunately. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, egg said:

The rent reform change will limit future rent increases but that isn't a cost increase.

They’re limited to one a year, with 2 months notice, they also need to be aligned with “local market rates” and you can’t evict tenants as easily.
 

Local market rates will go up, and most landlords only increased rents once a year anyway. Once you add in the number of landlords selling up which is impacting supply, rents will defo increase as a result of this bill. Tenants will get better protection from rogue landlords, but at the cost of increased rents.
 

You’ve really drunk the Starmer kool aid , if you think this will result in anything other than increased rents. 

[iansums]

37 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep, constant focus on the problem is pointless and solves nowt. I'm still waiting for someone to tell what the viable solution is. 

Mass deportation centres to be run by the army, two meals a day, no benefits and no ability to leave the centre. The alternative is a paid for flight back to where they came from. Conditions need to be made harsh so they get the message that they’re not welcome. Another alternative is to cut they’re goolies off.

[Farmer Saint]

29 minutes ago, iansums said:

Mass deportation centres to be run by the army, two meals a day, no benefits and no ability to leave the centre. The alternative is a paid for flight back to where they came from. Conditions need to be made harsh so they get the message that they’re not welcome. Another alternative is to cut they’re goolies off.

Where are these centres? Is it the same for women and children? 

[Weston Super Saint]

49 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Where are these centres? Is it the same for women and children? 

Portsmouth.

Yes 

Yes

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

44 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Portsmouth.

Yes 

Yes

 

There's the harsh conditions. But having migrants fend off waves of webbed creatures looking for a better life in the detention centre, seems a bit much.