The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[egg]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Why the fuck has Starmer gone out of his to say Jim Ratcliffe should apologise? He can say what he wants

Yep. More poor judgement. Little petulant shot at Davey in PMQ's too. For a bright bloke, he's pretty daft. 

[sadoldgit]

Ratcliffe should apologise… for getting his facts wrong. The population hasn’t grown by 12 million from 2020 to 2025. The figure is 2.7 million.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Ratcliffe should apologise… for getting his facts wrong. The population hasn’t grown by 12 million from 2020 to 2025. The figure is 2.7 million.

From Beeb...

" I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."

However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates, external that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.

So, he's not far off the current population. He's out a fair bit on 2020. But would only have to go back a bit to make the same points.

Considering all the other, far more objectionable things he said, calling him out on the figures seems odd.

I'd have thought Starmer would be better served trying to recall how many others with links to child abuse he's endorsed, rather than try and deflect onto someone sharing his views.

[Gloucester Saint]

4 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

From Beeb...

" I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."

However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates, external that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.

So, he's not far off the current population. He's out a fair bit on 2020. But would only have to go back a bit to make the same points.

Considering all the other, far more objectionable things he said, calling him out on the figures seems odd.

I'd have thought Starmer would be better served trying to recall how many others with links to child abuse he's endorsed, rather than try and deflect onto someone sharing his views.

Not just a fair bit out - 8million is quite some margin of error. Personally I don’t think it’s a fight Starmer should pick, his response to Davey wasn’t very bright either, and his judgement is bloody awful. But Ratcliffe’s comments were miles off as well and bullshit, so one idiot doesn’t make the other idiot valid. If I was with our Exec Board at work and I was as far out on my facts as Ratcliffe was, I’d get torn to shreds and wouldn’t be credible. Starmer shouldn’t have joined in but Ratcliffe doesn’t do Man U any favours either.

Edited 14 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Gloucester Saint]

8 hours ago, whelk said:

Why the fuck has Starmer gone out of his to say Jim Ratcliffe should apologise? He can say what he wants

I don’t think this is a fight he should pick and he’s become obsessed with Reform and related issues. Ratcliffe’s comments are lazy Boomer slop that he’s picked up from the Mail or Telegraph and miles off reality, so I don’t neccessarily agree that Ratcliffe shouldn’t be challenged but there’s plenty of others picking up the challenge so an under pressure PM didn’t need to join in. 

[Sir Ralph]

9 hours ago, whelk said:

Why the fuck has Starmer gone out of his to say Jim Ratcliffe should apologise? He can say what he wants

No he can’t not in starmers world. Alternative opinions need to be apologised for. Starmer is a virtue signalling muppet and his views are now in the minority 

So do your job and sort the demise of the economy out,as a result of your policies  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy4wg0y0j02t

Edited 13 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

Disappointing growth figures. 

Overall a negligible increase, but no quarterly growth in services, and the worst performance in construction (-2.1%) in over 4 years. The weather has undoubtedly contributed to the latter, but not healthy signs for our economy. 

Probably Davey or Ratcliffe's fault. 

[Farmer Saint]

21 minutes ago, egg said:

Disappointing growth figures. 

Overall a negligible increase, but no quarterly growth in services, and the worst performance in construction (-2.1%) in over 4 years. The weather has undoubtedly contributed to the latter, but not healthy signs for our economy. 

Probably Davey or Ratcliffe's fault. 

And yet, it's the highest annual growth since the COVID bounce-backs in 2021 and 2022 (which was a net 1.6% over 3 years including 2020), and about equal to 2018 and 2019.

Welcome to post-Brexit Britain GDP growth.

Edited 13 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[egg]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

And yet, it's the highest annual growth since the COVID bounce-backs in 2021 and 2022, and about equal to 2018 and 2019.

Welcome to post Brexit Britain GDP growth.

That's a worrying perspective, and shows where we're at. As much as we ridicule Trump and his antics, our growth in comparison to theirs is incomparable. 

There needs to be a grown up discussion asap about closer ties to the EU. Geopolitically, and financially, it's pretty much essential. 

[Farmer Saint]

26 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a worrying perspective, and shows where we're at. As much as we ridicule Trump and his antics, our growth in comparison to theirs is incomparable. 

There needs to be a grown up discussion asap about closer ties to the EU. Geopolitically, and financially, it's pretty much essential. 

Considering we've had the Tories, who are all about the economy according to our resident back-of-fag packet economists, presiding over all those years, I think it shows two main things:

1. It doesn't seem to matter who's in charge - as long as you don't do anything particularly batshit mental (see tax breaks given by Liz Truss and supported by multiple on here and in the right wing press) then it doesn't overly matter what you do, it doesn't make much difference.

2. The reason for the above, and I've said it multiple times in reference to interest rates, is that due to the truly global market we find ourselves in, economic performance is down to external factors. What we need to do is invest massively in technology, and ensure we keep our services intact. It's why being part of the EU, and keeping our trading hub away from Frankfurt is so important.

One of the businesses I advise for had seen four quarters of single digit falls in sales, but over the past year has seen that building back up. Was the reason the change in strategy the board implemented? Most of the board like to think so. However, our fall in sales and subsequent upturn correlate pretty much exactly with China's economic performance...

Edited 12 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

I don’t think this is a fight he should pick and he’s become obsessed with Reform and related issues. Ratcliffe’s comments are lazy Boomer slop that he’s picked up from the Mail or Telegraph and miles off reality, so I don’t neccessarily agree that Ratcliffe shouldn’t be challenged but there’s plenty of others picking up the challenge so an under pressure PM didn’t need to join in. 

Ratcliffe got his figures very wrong which undermines his point and makes him look a bit silly. The underlying observation - that Britain has changed dramatically, that some places look nothing like they did a generation ago and that the rate of change has been drastic - is real enough.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

No he can’t not in starmers world. Alternative opinions need to be apologised for. Starmer is a virtue signalling muppet and his views are now in the minority 

So do your job and sort the demise of the economy out,as a result of your policies  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy4wg0y0j02t

Are we being colonised? Shouldn’t people be called out for talking bollocks and deliberately misrepresenting facts? Not in your world as you obviously believe that rubbish.

[Farmer Saint]

54 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Ratcliffe got his figures very wrong which undermines his point and makes him look a bit silly. The underlying observation - that Britain has changed dramatically, that some places look nothing like they did a generation ago and that the rate of change has been drastic - is real enough.

Well, it's not a generation ago, it's 5 years ago apparently.

Again, if you don't like brown people then people shouldn't have voted for Brexit.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Well, it's not a generation ago, it's 5 years ago apparently.

Again, if you don't like brown people then people shouldn't have voted for Brexit.

Can you have concerns about the rate of demographic change and about a large influx of foreigners without being accused of not liking brown people? I have concerns about the rate of change over the last twenty years but the idea that I hate brown people is clearly a nonsense. 

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Can you have concerns about the rate of demographic change and about a large influx of foreigners without being accused of not liking brown people? I have concerns about the rate of change over the last twenty years but the idea that I hate brown people is clearly a nonsense. 

Where did I put this on you? I'm talking about what Ratcliffe said.

[Turkish]

7 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

From Beeb...

" I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."

However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates, external that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.

So, he's not far off the current population. He's out a fair bit on 2020. But would only have to go back a bit to make the same points.

Considering all the other, far more objectionable things he said, calling him out on the figures seems odd.

I'd have thought Starmer would be better served trying to recall how many others with links to child abuse he's endorsed, rather than try and deflect onto someone sharing his views.

Has he been spending too much time with Eni Aluko?

[rallyboy]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Alternative opinions

Ratcliffe's wasn't an alternative opinion, it was made-up shit.

We are in an era when some people value pub gossip more than facts.

 

[Sir Ralph]

39 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

Ratcliffe's wasn't an alternative opinion, it was made-up shit.

We are in an era when some people value pub gossip more than facts.

 

His general point was about the impact of rapid levels of immigration on the economy coupled with too many people relying on benefits. I agree his figures weren’t right but his general concerns are shared by lots of people and he is reiterating what is one of the key issues for the electorate and it’s embarrassing that politicians still try to shame people rather than engaging with their views and explaining why they disagree with them.
 

I would certainly be listening to Jim Radcliffes view on the state of the UK than many other people. Other people that live abroad don’t have a particularly positive view about it at the moment. Have you listened to the interview?

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[whelk]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Are we being colonised? Shouldn’t people be called out for talking bollocks and deliberately misrepresenting facts? Not in your world as you obviously believe that rubbish.

Do you think it is the PM’s role to respond though? Maybe he should be checking X for bollocks Alan Sugar has written and ask him to apologise too?

[whelk]

31 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

His general point was about the impact of rapid levels of immigration on the economy coupled with too many people relying on benefits. I agree his figures weren’t right but his general concerns are shared by lots of people and he is reiterating what is one of the key issues for the electorate and it’s embarrassing that politicians still try to shame people rather than engaging with their views and explaining why they disagree with them.
 

I would certainly be listening to Jim Radcliffes view on the state of the UK than many other people. Other people that live abroad don’t have a particularly positive view about it at the moment. Have you listened to the interview?

I think many who moan about Britain are just discontented with modern society, which I can understand.  Most people’s lives are not hugely affected whether Labour or Tory are in government. Having constant information (much which we don’t need) makes people more annoyed at politicians. This isn’t relative to how anyone’s lives are affected. What was so much better in 2023 than 2025?

 

Edited 10 hours ago by whelk

[whelk]

As an aside Ratcliffe was offered to buy Saints before Marcus arrived

[whelk]

2 hours ago, egg said:

That's a worrying perspective, and shows where we're at. As much as we ridicule Trump and his antics, our growth in comparison to theirs is incomparable. 

There needs to be a grown up discussion asap about closer ties to the EU. Geopolitically, and financially, it's pretty much essential. 

Europe is so inferior in terms of natural resources compared with US. It isn’t their approach to politics that is the difference, although clearly they value work more than the average European.

[rallyboy]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

As an aside Ratcliffe was offered to buy Saints before Marcus arrived

We dodged a fuckwit there.

Ineos cycling, his sailing team, Man United, he's had a shocker.

[whelk]

1 minute ago, rallyboy said:

We dodged a fuckwit there.

Ineos cycling, his sailing team, Man United, he's had a shocker.

Indeed although back then he was a recluse and didn’t want any publicity 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Where did I put this on you? I'm talking about what Ratcliffe said.

Where has he said he hates brown people? His underlying point was the same as the one I agreed with. 

[Sir Ralph]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

I think many who moan about Britain are just discontented with modern society, which I can understand.  Most people’s lives are not hugely affected whether Labour or Tory are in government. Having constant information (much which we don’t need) makes people more annoyed at politicians. This isn’t relative to how anyone’s lives are affected. What was so much better in 2023 than 2025?

 

I broadly agree but think it is getting worse over time. The country needs a reset in terms of mentality and I think this situation has evolved over the past 20 years

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I broadly agree but think it is getting worse over time. The country needs a reset in terms of mentality and I think this situation has evolved over the past 20 years

It's longer than that. A nation of entitled people who think everyone owns them something. As kids any problems their parents fixed for them so they've grown up thinking the world is always sunshine and 22 degrees. When they realise it isn't they cant cope. Where there are problem blame someone else. When they fail, which will happen, it's catastrophic because they've always got plaudits just for at turning up. One of the biggest issues i think is the breakdown of the traditional family, no dad acting as a role model for boys, plus parents trying to protect their kids from the world rather than prepare them. Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times, we have had good times, now were feeling the effects of this with all the weak men around, which you're not allowed to say, because it might offend women 

[Sir Ralph]

18 minutes ago, Turkish said:

It's longer than that. A nation of entitled people who think everyone owns them something. As kids any problems their parents fixed for them so they've grown up thinking the world is always sunshine and 22 degrees. When they realise it isn't they cant cope. Where there are problem blame someone else. When they fail, which will happen, it's catastrophic because they've always got plaudits just for at turning up. One of the biggest issues i think is the breakdown of the traditional family, no dad acting as a role model for boys, plus parents trying to protect their kids from the world rather than prepare them. Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times, we have had good times, now were feeling the effects of this with all the weak men around, which you're not allowed to say, because it might offend women 

100% Agree. Hardship builds character and resilience which there is a big lack of. Our society has changed to protect people from consequence and weak mentality, which has just exacerbated it

Edited 9 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

39 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Where has he said he hates brown people? His underlying point was the same as the one I agreed with. 

Using the word colonised points to a time where indigenous people were taken over by whites. The use of that word was not an accident. The fact many anti-racism charities and think tanks are having a go points to this as well.

[Sir Ralph]

11 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Using the word colonised points to a time where indigenous people were taken over by whites. The use of that word was not an accident. The fact many anti-racism charities and think tanks are having a go points to this as well.

In your opinion has or hasn’t that happened in certain parts of the UK (eg parts of London, towns and cities in the midlands and up north)?

Edited 9 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Do you think that has or hasn’t happened in certain parts of the UK (eg parts of London, towns and cities in the midlands and up north)?

That these places have been colonised over the last 5 years? No, I do not.

"Colonised refers to the state of a land, people, or organism that has been settled, occupied, and often subjugated by a foreign power or species. It involves establishing political, economic, and social control over an indigenous population or territory."

Stupid word to use.

Edited 9 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[sadoldgit]

23 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

In your opinion has or hasn’t that happened in certain parts of the UK (eg parts of London, towns and cities in the midlands and up north)?

What parts of London and towns and cities in the Midlands have been “colonised?”

[AlexLaw76]

8 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

What parts of London and towns and cities in the Midlands have been “colonised?”

The areas they have to lie about why Israeli football fans should be banned from attending.

 

[Sir Ralph]

28 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

What parts of London and towns and cities in the Midlands have been “colonised?”

I didn’t use the word “colonise” and that isn’t a good word to use in the point he was trying to make.

i think the point some people make is that there are some cities and towns in the Uk where people have settled only in those places and as a result there is a lack of integration in them. The local politics are wholly run by specific groups. This is starting to play out on the national political scene and is influencing the way (and not for the better) in which some political parties, mainly Labour who are in competition for votes in these places, now address certain issues. This is probably why Starmer and Burnham stuck their nose into this. Are you saying this isn’t happening in places?

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

12 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The areas they have to lie about why Israeli football fans should be banned from attending.

 

By that, you mean the police, yes?

[Farmer Saint]

24 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I didn’t use the word “colonise” and that isn’t a good word to use in the point he was trying to make.

i think the point some people make is that there are some cities and towns in the Uk where people have settled only in those places and as a result there is a lack of integration in them. The local politics are wholly run by specific groups. This is starting to play out on the national political scene and is influencing the way (and not for the better) in which some political parties, mainly Labour who are in competition for votes in these places, now address certain issues. This is probably why Starmer and Burnham stuck their nose into this. Are you saying this isn’t happening in places?

But Ratcliffe did.

No-one disagrees with the integration and general immigration issues as far as I know. However, that is not what he's being asked to apologise for, he's been asked to apologise for using the word "colonised".

Unfortunately, yet again, you miss the point.

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[AlexLaw76]

12 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

By that, you mean the police, yes?

I wonder why the police felt compelled to do it. 
 

 

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I wonder why the police felt compelled to do it. 
 

 

Why don't you post some hilarious and poorly referenced memes/opinions from "X" to prove your point?

Edited 8 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But Ratcliffe did.

No-one disagrees with the integration and general immigration issues as far as I know. However, that is not what he's being asked to apologise for, he's been asked to apologise for using the word "colonised".

Unfortunately, yet again, you miss the point.

 

I thought I was on ignore. Please add me back on ignore

Edited 7 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Why don't you post some hilarious and poorly referenced memes/opinions from "X" to prove your point?

His point is a legitimate one to a stupid comment. You missed the point again

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I thought I was on ignore. Please add me back on ignore

You are the one that replied to me. Thought you wanted an answer?

Edited 7 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

His point is a legitimate one to a stupid comment. You missed the point again

But his point is not being argued, his wording is.

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

You are the one that replied to me. Thought you wanted an answer?

Please pop me on ignore. Be best for the both of us

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Please pop me on ignore. Be best for the both of us

How's about you fuck off full stop, be best for the whole forum?

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But his point is not being argued, his wording is.

Cool that's pretty non controversial. His language wasn't great and possibly stupid - though I'd argue it doesn't provide evidence that he hates Brown people - but his underlying point was correct.

Edited 7 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Cool that's pretty no controversial. His language wasn't great - though I'd argue it doesn't provide evidence that he hates Brown people - but his underlying point was correct.

Using the word "colonised" points to that for me, so have to agree to disagree.

But yes, immigration is too high and integration is too low. As said above, I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

Edited 7 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[iansums]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

How's about you fuck off full stop, be best for the whole forum?

That's pretty poor Farmer.

[iansums]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Cool that's pretty non controversial. His language wasn't great and possibly stupid - though I'd argue it doesn't provide evidence that he hates Brown people - but his underlying point was correct.

Agreed. Unfortunately, the wild inaccurate figures on the population and lazy use of words takes away from the perfectly valid point he was trying to make.

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, iansums said:

That's pretty poor Farmer.

🥱

Don't be such a snowflake

Edited 7 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, iansums said:

That's pretty poor Farmer.

This is normal behaviour from him. You should have seen him get his knickers in a twist over the two child benefit cap. Very amusing. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Sir Ralph