The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[AlexLaw76]

 

Just waiting to see if Luke Pollard follows suit. 

 

Edited Thursday at 20:25 by AlexLaw76

[AlexLaw76]

6 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I am aware, unfortunately…
 

I’ve also seen first hand some of the contracts and projects on HS2.  

Sufficed to say it’s no wonder the country is broke. They quite literally pour our taxes down the drain. 
 

Anyone that promotes higher taxes clearly has never seen how the goverment spends those taxes. 

When parts of the services have to cancel exercises or close funding lines for hardware and kit because they are required to change entire fuel suppliers and re-configure fuel tanks, because said new supplier has a lower carbon footprint......

The game is up. Said it for a few years that the UK Armed Forces are cooked, and it has absolutely accelerated under this Govt with their quite frankly insane 'direction'

Edited Thursday at 20:27 by AlexLaw76

[Osvaldorama]

10 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

When parts of the services have to cancel exercises or close funding lines for hardware and kit because they are required to change entire fuel suppliers and re-configure fuel tanks, because said new supplier has a lower carbon footprint......

The game is up. Said it for a few years that the UK Armed Forces are cooked, and it has absolutely accelerated under this Govt with their quite frankly insane 'direction'

Yeah, agreed 100%… plus it’s not just the armed forces. You can extrapolate this across the entire government. Every single department, every thing it touches is run pathetically badly and spends money like it’s Monopoly money. 
 

I genuinely believe most people have no idea how bad all this stuff is. 

Most people don’t want to face the reality that the UK is becoming a third world country. 

Edited Thursday at 20:35 by Osvaldorama

[AlexLaw76]

18 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Yeah, agreed 100%… plus it’s not just the armed forces. You can extrapolate this across the entire government. Every single department, every thing it touches is run pathetically badly and spends money like it’s Monopoly money. 
 

I genuinely believe most people have no idea how bad all this stuff is. 

Most people don’t want to face the reality that the UK is becoming a third world country. 

Suicidal empathy is the Labour government splurging £10 billion a year on welfare for foreigners, £13 billion a year on foreign aid, and £15 billion in the coming years on hotels & HMOs for illegals and then saying “sorry no money for our own national defence”

Edited Thursday at 20:53 by AlexLaw76

[egg]

40 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

When parts of the services have to cancel exercises or close funding lines for hardware and kit because they are required to change entire fuel suppliers and re-configure fuel tanks, because said new supplier has a lower carbon footprint......

The game is up. Said it for a few years that the UK Armed Forces are cooked, and it has absolutely accelerated under this Govt with their quite frankly insane 'direction'

That's ridiculous. Net zero is a pointless pipe dream, and I hadn't appreciated that it had touched the military where it matters.

When the battlefield is strewn with bodies and broken equipment, why would anyone give a monkeys about the carbon footprint. 

 

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Suicidal empathy is the Labour government splurging £10 billion a year on welfare for foreigners, £13 billion a year on foreign aid, and £15 billion in the coming years on hotels & HMOs for illegals and then saying “sorry no money for our own national defence”

Just wait till Burnham gets into power. This is just the start….country run by a party many of which wouldn’t be employable in a normal business (and have never had responsible jobs) but are trusted with making decisions on billions. 

Edited Thursday at 22:00 by Sir Ralph

[Holmes_and_Watson]

48 minutes ago, egg said:

That's ridiculous. Net zero is a pointless pipe dream, and I hadn't appreciated that it had touched the military where it matters.

When the battlefield is strewn with bodies and broken equipment, why would anyone give a monkeys about the carbon footprint. 

 

Labour's defence review is expected to say that all kit must be biodegradable, so that decomposes along with the bodies of our losing army.

[badgerx16]

The future battlefield will be dominated by drones - the UK MoD has recruited a specialist unit to lead the way.....

[AlexLaw76]

7 hours ago, egg said:

That's ridiculous. Net zero is a pointless pipe dream, and I hadn't appreciated that it had touched the military where it matters.

When the battlefield is strewn with bodies and broken equipment, why would anyone give a monkeys about the carbon footprint. 

 

That is just one example. Fire fighting solutions (liquid/foam etc) MUST be changed to something more environmentally friendly, which is costing millions, and will continue to cost millions in the years ahead. The net zero tentacles go as far as to influence decision making in the sourcing of compressed air used for buoyancy aids - it is endless.

The cost of “sustainability” to Defence is enormous, and a huge thing under this govt. Massive additional burdens have been placed on Defence outwith already agreed 2 and 10 year budget assumptions and do absolutely zero in terms of capability and capacity. In some cases, it reduces it. 

This is not the bottom, there is further to fall with defence if we stay in this path. 

Edited yesterday at 04:56 by AlexLaw76

[Osvaldorama]

8 hours ago, egg said:

That's ridiculous. Net zero is a pointless pipe dream, and I hadn't appreciated that it had touched the military where it matters.

When the battlefield is strewn with bodies and broken equipment, why would anyone give a monkeys about the carbon footprint. 

 

It touches absolutely everything. Not just the military. 
 

No exaggeration to say tens of billions are wasted on this (and other) fucking nonsense. 
 

I genuinely believe with my whole heart that if people could see how the government spends our money, we would all be in agreement that raising taxes is not the answer. Because it’s FUCKING ridiculous. 
 

We HAVE to fix the crazy spending and lack of common sense before they steal more money from people. 
 

You wouldn’t give a heroin addict an unlimited credit card. You’d fix the addiction first. 

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

Every ruling party for at least the last 30 years has perpetuated and set policy that has caused Britain to become stagnant.

Mass immigration has been a massive contributor to the issue but it’s definitely not the only reason.

Part of the reason we have an ever weakening industrial sector is energy prices. Part of the reason the benefits bill continually rises faster than anything else is the triple lock. 

Brexit, Covid, Ukraine/Russia war / US craziness has effed us over. 

There were easy wins for Labour to be had but they backtracked on it. 

Edited yesterday at 06:03 by JohnnyShearer2.0

[iansums]

2 hours ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Every ruling party for at least the last 30 years has perpetuated and set policy that has caused Britain to become stagnant.

Mass immigration has been a massive contributor to the issue but it’s definitely not the only reason.

Part of the reason we have an ever weakening industrial sector is energy prices. Part of the reason the benefits bill continually rises faster than anything else is the triple lock. 

Brexit, Covid, Ukraine/Russia war / US craziness has effed us over. 

There were easy wins for Labour to be had but they backtracked on it. 

This. The current Labour government is not solely to blame but by Christ they've made a complete balls-up of running the country. They act as though they have a majority of 10, not 150.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

12 minutes ago, iansums said:

This. The current Labour government is not solely to blame but by Christ they've made a complete balls-up of running the country. They act as though they have a majority of 10, not 150.

I think I read that Starmer has lost 7 ministers in a month or so.

Could it be that Starmer's new broom is too good? That it just can't stop sweeping?

Will a tearful Starmer appear in front of No 10 to tell us the broom is out of control, like an animated Disney broom?

I know I joked that the new broom was now our only weapon in the defence review. But Starmer can't unleash an endlessly sweeping broom on the world. It doesn't know foe from friend! Certainly not shadow minister from minister.

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Part of the reason the benefits bill continually rises faster than anything else is the triple lock. 

The triple lock has only brought the old age pension back into line with where it would have been had Mrs Thatcher not abolished the link to earnings (which subsequent governments didn’t reintroduce). The left opposed that 1980 decision, so you’d think they’d want to rebalance it, but no, they now use it as an excuse to hide behind their complete and utter failure to control the welfare budget, and try to portray pensioners as rich .

The only ridiculous thing about the triple lock is the random 2.5% and this was inserted purely for political reasons. After Brown had to give them a rise of pennies the coalition didn’t want that bad publicity in future low growth/low inflation years, so devised the 2.5% 

 

The basic fundamental point which used to have universal support, is pensioners can’t work extra hours, can’t get second jobs or work side hustles. Their income should be pegged to earnings/ inflation  so they have the same spending power during their retirement.
 

In no way should increased spending on pensions be used to hide the fact our welfare system is fucked and people who should be working, aren’t. They’re being paid to do sweet FA. 

[Whitey Grandad]

Anyone who says that the Triple Lock has to go is just saying that pensioners should get less.

[egg]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Anyone who says that the Triple Lock has to go is just saying that pensioners should get less.

Disagree. I'm against the triple lock - knowing it'll impact many people, my folks included - simply because it's unaffordable. I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, but what gets my goat is pensioners screaming to slash welfare, but insisting that the triple lock remains. The entire welfare state needs serious attention, the state pension included. 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Disagree. I'm against the triple lock - knowing it'll impact many people, my folks included - simply because it's unaffordable. I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, but what gets my goat is pensioners screaming to slash welfare, but insisting that the triple lock remains. The entire welfare state needs serious attention, the state pension included. 

You seem to think that it's a big increase. It isn't.  It's pitiful. It doesn't even cover the increase in Council Tax and utility bills.

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Disagree. I'm against the triple lock - knowing it'll impact many people, my folks included - simply because it's unaffordable. I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, but what gets my goat is pensioners screaming to slash welfare, but insisting that the triple lock remains. The entire welfare state needs serious attention, the state pension included. 

It represents 40% of the benefits bill.

[iansums]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Disagree. I'm against the triple lock - knowing it'll impact many people, my folks included - simply because it's unaffordable. I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, but what gets my goat is pensioners screaming to slash welfare, but insisting that the triple lock remains. The entire welfare state needs serious attention, the state pension included. 

Agreed. A few years before I take the state pension but I do think the triple lock needs to go. Most politicians realise this but are scared to face up to it, not exactly a vote winner with the massive pensioner vote. (I wonder if I’m allowed a vote when I retire)

[egg]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You seem to think that it's a big increase. It isn't.  It's pitiful. It doesn't even cover the increase in Council Tax and utility bills.

I haven't suggested that I think that. 

Do you feel all welfare should be triple locked, or just the one you receive? 

[Whitey Grandad]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

I haven't suggested that I think that. 

Do you feel all welfare should be triple locked, or just the one you receive? 

IT'S NOT WELFARE FFS.

[The Kraken]

Except it is though.

[egg]

59 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

IT'S NOT WELFARE FFS.

It is, although, I'll rephrase 

Do you feel all welfare should be triple locked, or just the state pension? 

[CB Fry]

8 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

IT'S NOT WELFARE FFS.

Very much is welfare.

[iansums]

This shows why we need to simplify the tax system and do away with NI, it’s just another income tax but people don’t understand that.

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, iansums said:

This shows why we need to simplify the tax system and do away with NI, it’s just another income tax but people don’t understand that.

Probably administratively simpler and possibly less costly to collect - although I’d defer to others in that aspect.

The positive with NI is that you know what it’s going on - NIF and NHS. 

[hypochondriac]

I find debates on the triple lock odd. It's obviously going to be scrapped at some point because it will reach a point where it is utterly unaffordable so at that point it won't even be a choice. The only question is when it will be scrapped 

[Gloucester Saint]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I find debates on the triple lock odd. It's obviously going to be scrapped at some point because it will reach a point where it is utterly unaffordable so at that point it won't even be a choice. The only question is when it will be scrapped 

Politically it’s a hot potato at the moment because most of the tabloids - Mail, Telegraph, Express - (Sun tends to be a more mixed demographic) - are almost exclusively read by that generation. That’s why Jeremy Hunt in opposition openly says in a regular basis that it’s unsustainable but couldn’t do so as serving CoE. It’s unreasonable that they have that much media firepower - also see winter fuel allowance which the government made of a right pig’s ear of politically but the hysterical reaction from those outlets was completely OTT. 

Which is why it’s great that the vote goes to 16+ by the next GE because it helps switch the policy focus away slightly more from that demographic. Or it would if Labour had a backbone….

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, iansums said:

This shows why we need to simplify the tax system and do away with NI, it’s just another income tax but people don’t understand that.

I just explained the various taxes to my 10 year old when running a business and explained that half the money you make goes on tax before you even spend it (when you are taxed again). His response - why do you bother working

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I find debates on the triple lock odd. It's obviously going to be scrapped at some point because it will reach a point where it is utterly unaffordable so at that point it won't even be a choice. The only question is when it will be scrapped 

It was only brought in to bring pensions back up to the level they would have been had the Government not broken the link with earnings in 1980. When it was set up, nobody said then it was “unaffordable”, and had the pension remained linked to earnings it would be slightly higher than it is now. 
 

It was not some sort of bribe, or bung to people who vote in large numbers, it was a specific policy to address a specific issue. I used to buy this “unaffordable “ line, but when you look into it, that’s too simplistic. The present generation are paying more pension benefit, because in the last 46 years not enough was paid in. We are correcting that 1980 decision and the fact that until the coalition, subsequent Governments didn’t correct it. It’s now getting into the area where it is where it was intended to be, so a time ale should be set to abolish the triple lock and go back to the original link to earrings. 

It is now being used as an inter generational football, with pensioners being portrayed as rich and entitled. Some are, most aren’t. The most important thing is the principle of the old age pension remain. It should be universal, with rich people getting it as well. This is to encourage everyone to save in a private pension themselves, to build on the foundation of a basic state pension. If you start means testing it, I might as well piss money against the wall each year, rather than put it in a pension. If you’re taking 12k off me a year, because I’m drawing down 12k a year, why bother building that pot up. 
 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

15 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Except it is though.

 

14 hours ago, egg said:

It is, although, I'll rephrase 

Do you feel all welfare should be triple locked, or just the state pension? 

 

7 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Very much is welfare.

It never used to be so.

The state pension is different in that for the older recipients payments depended on contributions. 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It was only brought in to bring pensions back up to the level they would have been had the Government not broken the link with earnings in 1980. When it was set up, nobody said then it was “unaffordable”, and had the pension remained linked to earnings it would be slightly higher than it is now. 
 

It was not some sort of bribe, or bung to people who vote in large numbers, it was a specific policy to address a specific issue. I used to buy this “unaffordable “ line, but when you look into it, that’s too simplistic. The present generation are paying more pension benefit, because in the last 46 years not enough was paid in. We are correcting that 1980 decision and the fact that until the coalition, subsequent Governments didn’t correct it. It’s now getting into the area where it is where it was intended to be, so a time ale should be set to abolish the triple lock and go back to the original link to earrings. 

It is now being used as an inter generational football, with pensioners being portrayed as rich and entitled. Some are, most aren’t. The most important thing is the principle of the old age pension remain. It should be universal, with rich people getting it as well. This is to encourage everyone to save in a private pension themselves, to build on the foundation of a basic state pension. If you start means testing it, I might as well piss money against the wall each year, rather than put it in a pension. If you’re taking 12k off me a year, because I’m drawing down 12k a year, why bother building that pot up. 
 

 

Very well said.

[CB Fry]

13 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

 

 

It never used to be so.

The state pension is different in that for the older recipients payments depended on contributions. 

Always always always has been a benefit.

The contributions do not drive your payment, it's just a qualification to receive the benefit. It has never been a savings scheme.

[egg]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

 

 

It never used to be so.

The state pension is different in that for the older recipients payments depended on contributions. 

I'll take the non answer to mean that you want the triple lock for the state pension to stay, as you get it, but that shouldn't apply to any other form of welfare. 

[SW5 SAINT]

17 hours ago, egg said:

I haven't suggested that I think that. 

Do you feel all welfare should be triple locked, or just the one you receive? 

The state pension isn’t welfare. It’s based on your National Insurance contributions. Just like any pension scheme you can make regular checks to see how much it has increased every year based on what NI contributions have been made. If the government raided NI funds to pay for something else that’s not down to the pensioners….

Edited 3 hours ago by SW5 SAINT
Edit

[egg]

11 minutes ago, SW5 SAINT said:

The state pension isn’t welfare. It’s based on your National Insurance contributions. Just like any pension scheme you can make regular checks to see how much it has increased every year based on what NI contributions have been made. If the government raided NI funds to pay for something else that’s not down to the pensioners….

It's welfare, and completely different to a "any pension scheme" - you neither save nor have a a defined benefit. All your NI payments do is gain you an entitlement to some form of state pension at a variable date in the future, and go in the pot as per any tax. 

None of us started paying NI with a contract to get a guaranteed amount, at a guaranteed date, with a guaranteed annual increase. It's bizarre that people talk as if that's what they've done.