The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Osvaldorama]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Better hope you never get ill, burgled, or your house catches fire. Those non-existent public sector workers won't be there to help you.

Do you have children ? If so, do they go to state schools ? Would you prefer that your waste bins are emptied regularly and the street lights stay on ?

This is a stupid argument. 
 

All of those would exist without the state, they’d just be run a lot better because there would be proper incentives. 

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

This is a stupid argument. 
 

All of those would exist without the state, they’d just be run a lot better because there would be proper incentives. 

You said you "get zero in return", which is patently untrue.

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Osvaldorama said:

I’m absolutely fine thanks, just sick of paying so much tax and getting zero in return except more taxes and government overreach 

Better get used to feeling sick then because you never get much in return, unless of course you are unlucky enough to get sick.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Here it is

 

"Stare at a wall" that's a girl living a fulfiled live, fuck me 

[whelk]

8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

"Stare at a wall" that's a girl living a fulfiled live, fuck me 

She seemed intelligent enough and I thought she was probably taking the piss.  Or maybe she’s a Buddhist?

[AlexLaw76]

I wonder how it will be implement?

probably half arsed. All over 16: have to prove their age. Next thing, digital ID comes in to make it all much easier.

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

She seemed intelligent enough and I thought she was probably taking the piss.  Or maybe she’s a Buddhist?

Possibly, although quite funny how she assumed Starmer would bottle it

[whelk]

Just now, Turkish said:

Possibly, although quite funny how she assumed Starmer would bottle it

Who would dare question Starmer’s bottle?!

[Osvaldorama]

33 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I wonder how it will be implement?

probably half arsed. All over 16: have to prove their age. Next thing, digital ID comes in to make it all much easier.

Exactly.. he’s pretty much already said this. 
 

His ‘social media ban for under 16s’ is not a ban for under 16s.

It is a ban on *selected* social media for EVERYONE. Until you identify yourself

And it’s specifically targeting the platforms that show dissent against the current regime. (Blue sky, hive of the left wing and child predators) is absent from the list 

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, Osvaldorama said:

Exactly.. he’s pretty much already said this. 
 

His ‘social media ban for under 16s’ is not a ban for under 16s.

It is a ban on *selected* social media for EVERYONE. Until you identify yourself

And it’s specifically targeting the platforms that show dissent against the current regime. (Blue sky, hive of the left wing and child predators) is absent from the list 

What's the problem with identifying yourself?

[whelk]

11 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What's the problem with identifying yourself?

Government overreach presumably means you shouldn’t clamp down on nonces

[Osvaldorama]

42 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What's the problem with identifying yourself?

 

It’s infringing on freedom. 
 

it’s treating people as guilty, even when innocent. It’s authoritarian, draconian and dangerous. 
 

Make no mistake, Starmer is doing this because he knows the country is growing more and more unhappy with the government. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Osvaldorama

[Osvaldorama]

38 minutes ago, whelk said:

Government overreach presumably means you shouldn’t clamp down on nonces

The nonces are all on Blue Sky, the one app they didnt ban because it suits their political agenda

[Farmer Saint]

11 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

 

It’s infringing on freedom. 
 

it’s treating people as guilty, even when innocent. It’s authoritarian, draconian and dangerous. 
 

Make no mistake, Starmer is doing this because he knows the country is growing more and more unhappy with the government. 

Is it though? I would suggest if you don't want that don't use social media. It's a hotbed of cunts anyway.

[egg]

17 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

 

It’s infringing on freedom. 
 

it’s treating people as guilty, even when innocent. It’s authoritarian, draconian and dangerous. 
 

Make no mistake, Starmer is doing this because he knows the country is growing more and more unhappy with the government. 

How's your freedom being impacted by identifying yourself, then doing the thing that you want to do freely? 

How's it dangerous? 

Draconian, not even close, and safeguards aren't authoritarian, they're safeguards. 

[whelk]

15 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

The nonces are all on Blue Sky, the one app they didnt ban because it suits their political agenda

Is this like your pizza paedo ring - run by the Clintons?

[Osvaldorama]

27 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Is it though? I would suggest if you don't want that don't use social media. It's a hotbed of cunts anyway.

Yes. It is. The state wants total control. It is in the people’s best interests to resist this.

Has been proven over and over again throughout history. 
 

Both fascists and communists alike would love a subservient, observed population. Read some George Orwell to see a fictional glimpse of that this is like. 
 

With all of these kinds of things, if you give an inch, they take a mile and then continue to take more and more. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Osvaldorama

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Yes. It is. The state wants total control. It is in the people’s best interests to resist this.

Has been proven over and over again throughout history. 
 

Both fascists and communists alike would love a subservient, observed population. Read some George Orwell to see a fictional glimpse of that this is like. 
 

With all of these kinds of things, if you give an inch, they take a mile and then continue to take more and more. 

Again, just don't go on social media. Not sure what freedom's you're missing out on. What are you specifically sad to miss out on once you've identified yourself?

[Osvaldorama]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Again, just don't go on social media. Not sure what freedom's you're missing out on. What are you specifically sad to miss out on once you've identified yourself?

Anonymity online in my eyes is vitally important, especially in a country where we are seeing thousands of arrests per year for criticism of the government.
 

I don’t want to live in a police state. I don’t want to live in a society where people are assumed guilty and not innocent.
 

As I said…This is nothing to do with child safety, and everything to do with silencing political dissent.  

Edited 4 hours ago by Osvaldorama

[aintforever]

42 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Anonymity online in my eyes is vitally important, especially in a country where we are seeing thousands of arrests per year for criticism of the government.
 

I don’t want to live in a police state. I don’t want to live in a society where people are assumed guilty and not innocent.
 

As I said…This is nothing to do with child safety, and everything to do with silencing political dissent.  

How exactly is Kier Starmer going to stop anyone criticising him on X or Facebook?

[Farmer Saint]

53 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Anonymity online in my eyes is vitally important, especially in a country where we are seeing thousands of arrests per year for criticism of the government.
 

I don’t want to live in a police state. I don’t want to live in a society where people are assumed guilty and not innocent.
 

As I said…This is nothing to do with child safety, and everything to do with silencing political dissent.  

Thousands of arrests for criticising the government? Like who? I expect to see some examples of arrests for things that can't be deemed illegal.

Anonymity is a funny one. On Facebook it tends to be used on the local groups for people who want to be racist. I assume that's not what you use it for?

[Farmer Saint]

19 minutes ago, aintforever said:

How exactly is Kier Starmer going to stop anyone criticising him on X or Facebook?

Thousands of arrests mate. Thousands!!!!

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Osvaldorama said:

 

I don’t want to live in a police state. I don’t want to live in a society where people are assumed guilty and not innocent.
 

Just as well that you don't, then.

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Osvaldorama said:

Anonymity online in my eyes is vitally important,
 

The Internet is not designed for anonymity To start with, your IP address is known to your ISP, and everything follows from that. 

Yes VPNs and the "dark web" can help, but Social Media is certainly not the place to expect to operate without being identified.

[Osvaldorama]

20 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Thousands of arrests for criticising the government? Like who? I expect to see some examples of arrests for things that can't be deemed illegal.

Anonymity is a funny one. On Facebook it tends to be used on the local groups for people who want to be racist. I assume that's not what you use it for?

 

Yes - over 12000 since 2023  

 

The thing is - these new powers never get reversed. You may agree with it now, but what happens in a  few years if someone you disagree with gets into power? 
 

Would you trust Trump with a totally censored internet? 

 

[badgerx16]

4 hours ago, Osvaldorama said:

 (Blue sky, hive of the left wing and child predators) is absent from the list 

Perhaps because they already have age verification in place.

[Gloucester Saint]

7 hours ago, Osvaldorama said:

I’m absolutely fine thanks, just sick of paying so much tax and getting zero in return except more taxes and government overreach 

Yeah, because the privatised water companies are working out really swell (if the swell is faeces or toxic). I could really rub your nose in it and highlight facts and figures about our energy companies and the tens of thousands piled up in US Republican states through Covid by their healthcare system but I’ll save that treat for a future occasion. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68701486

 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

 

Yes - over 12000 since 2023  

 

The thing is - these new powers never get reversed. You may agree with it now, but what happens in a  few years if someone you disagree with gets into power? 
 

Would you trust Trump with a totally censored internet? 

 

Can you actually put the link please? A screenshot of a title doesn't give us the context of the article.

[Osvaldorama]

Just now, Gloucester Saint said:

Yeah, because the privatised water companies are working ours really swell (if the swell is faeces or toxic)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68701486

 

 

 

This is a bad example as even though they are “private” they have not been a truly free / private market. They’ve been kind of a state sponsored monopoly which has allowed the worst of both worlds. 
 

The failures of the system aren't born out of open-market competition; they are born out of a deeply flawed regulatory framework that gave private companies the perks of a monopoly without the market discipline that forces normal businesses to perform.

[Gloucester Saint]

1 minute ago, Osvaldorama said:

This is a bad example as even though they are “private” they have not been a truly free / private market. They’ve been kind of a state sponsored monopoly which has allowed the worst of both worlds. 
 

The failures of the system aren't born out of open-market competition; they are born out of a deeply flawed regulatory framework that gave private companies the perks of a monopoly without the market discipline that forces normal businesses to perform.

The infrastructure is the same! Same with the energy firms, they’re just buying from the wholesale market.

It’s why public v private comparisons are best left to rent-a-Henry dinlos in the Telegraph. Some sectors do things better than others and nothing wrong with a mixed economy. 

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Can you actually put the link please? A screenshot of a title doesn't give us the context of the article.

There is a lot of comment on this if you GOOGLE it, including a report that criticises Police for arresting a man who posted pictures of his fancy dress worn for a party - he was dressed as the Manchester Arena bomber, carrying a placard that read "I love Ariana Grande", and had "BOOM" and "TNT" written on his rucksack. Obviously harmless play and totally inoffensive.

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

This is a bad example as even though they are “private” they have not been a truly free / private market. They’ve been kind of a state sponsored monopoly which has allowed the worst of both worlds. 
 

The failures of the system aren't born out of open-market competition; they are born out of a deeply flawed regulatory framework that gave private companies the perks of a monopoly without the market discipline that forces normal businesses to perform.

And, of course, the US utility companies, for example, are peerless in their quality of service and value for money.

[Osvaldorama]

1 minute ago, Gloucester Saint said:

The infrastructure is the same! Same with the energy firms, they’re just buying from the wholesale market.

It’s why public v private comparisons are best left to rent-a-Henry dinlos in the Telegraph. Some sectors do things better than others and nothing wrong with a mixed economy. 

Private companies are always better than public, for a plethora of reasons. 

State planning and centralised control does not work, and always leads to terrible outcomes  

Anyone that thinks otherwise hasn’t read enough history. (Sorry to be blunt; but it’s true). 

 

[Osvaldorama]

13 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Perhaps because they already have age verification in place.

Nope, it’s because it’s pro-Labour, pro-state. 
 

For all the other platforms he is following the same playbook that authoritarian governments always use:

 

Create the problem (stranger danger), sell the solution (more authoritative surveillance state), repeat. 

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Osvaldorama said:

Nope, it’s because it’s pro-Labour, pro-state. 
 

For all the other platforms he is following the same playbook that authoritarian governments always use:

 

Create the problem (stranger danger), sell the solution (more authoritative surveillance state), repeat. 

Sounds like Farage and the boats to me.

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

All over 16: have to prove their age. Next thing, digital ID comes in to make it all much easier.

Wouldn’t surprise me, Labour have been obsessed with people having some sort of ID since Blair. If they have their way, you’ll have to prove who you are for everything, (apart from voting that is, that’s a step too far 😂). 
 

 

[badgerx16]

19 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Nope, it’s because it’s pro-Labour, pro-state. 

You do come up with some absolute bullshit;

https://bsky.social/about/blog/09-10-2025-age-assurance-approach

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

36 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Private companies are always better than public, for a plethora of reasons. 

State planning and centralised control does not work, and always leads to terrible outcomes  

Anyone that thinks otherwise hasn’t read enough history. (Sorry to be blunt; but it’s true). 

 

Nope, not having that private companies are always better than public.

A lot will be better, a lot will be worse. Some similar. 

[Osvaldorama]

8 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Nope, not having that private companies are always better than public.

A lot will be better, a lot will be worse. Some similar. 

Free market will always produce the best outcomes. 
 

Too much information goes into setting a price to be able for humans to dictate them. 
 

The soviets thought they could centrally control prices and look what that led to. Extrapolate that same thing, to all other organisations. 

[Osvaldorama]

27 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You do come up with some absolute bullshit;

https://bsky.social/about/blog/09-10-2025-age-assurance-approach

Not at all. Bluesky is heavily left/liberal. X is heavily conservative. 
 

This is why bluesky is immune from the regime’s ban 

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

2 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Free market will always produce the best outcomes. 
 

Too much information goes into setting a price to be able for humans to dictate them. 
 

The soviets thought they could centrally control prices and look what that led to. Extrapolate that same thing, to all other organisations. 

Not sure why you dovetailed into a free market versus socialism slant.

I simply stated some will be better, some worse and some the same.

The free market does not always deliver the best outcomes. That's simply not true. 

[Sheaf Saint]

44 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Nope, it’s because it’s pro-Labour, pro-state. 
 

For all the other platforms he is following the same playbook that authoritarian governments always use:

 

Create the problem (stranger danger), sell the solution (more authoritative surveillance state), repeat. 

Better for who?

The privatisation of the water industry in this country has been an absolute disaster for consumers, but I'm sure it's made a handful of people quite rich, seeing as the companies have jointly paid out around £85bn in dividends since 1989.

We're told that privatisation is better because it allows for extra capital investment that publicly owned bodies can't bring in. But the reality is that these companies need to be dragged kicking and screaming to meet their WINEP obligations through infrastructure improvements, and are always looking to circumvent the signoff process to get schemes through that don't meet their measure specifications.

[Gloucester Saint]

51 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Private companies are always better than public, for a plethora of reasons. 

State planning and centralised control does not work, and always leads to terrible outcomes  

Anyone that thinks otherwise hasn’t read enough history. (Sorry to be blunt; but it’s true). 

 

Red brick university educated, how about you?

BT worked as a privatisation, railways, energy and water failed spectacularly so it’s case by case clearly to anyone. I take it you’ve read those state organisations from France and the Netherlands who own much of our infrastructure you cite as failures actually fund the pension schemes of their teachers and civil servants from the profits they cream off us for rubbish services under the shells of UK utility firms they bought? And the UK sold those firms to them. 

Ever used state run trains in Germany?

Japan’s trains are private but there are specific reasons why they are successful, principally because it isn’t relying on share capital and leveraged buyouts https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-japan-has-such-good-railways/

[Gloucester Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Better for who?

The privatisation of the water industry in this country has been an absolute disaster for consumers, but I'm sure it's made a handful of people quite rich, seeing as the companies have jointly paid out around £85bn in dividends since 1989.

We're told that privatisation is better because it allows for extra capital investment that publicly owned bodies can't bring in. But the reality is that these companies need to be dragged kicking and screaming to meet their WINEP obligations through infrastructure improvements, and are always looking to circumvent the signoff process to get schemes through that don't meet their measure specifications.

French and Dutch teachers pensions schemes are the biggest winners, a tiny group of shareholders plus a handful of UK board members and CEOs.

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Not at all. Bluesky is heavily left/liberal. X is heavily conservative. 
 

This is why bluesky is immune from the regime’s ban 

No it isn't.

That is just conspiracy nut bollox.

Edited 1 hour ago by badgerx16

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, Osvaldorama said:

 

Yes - over 12000 since 2023  

 

The thing is - these new powers never get reversed. You may agree with it now, but what happens in a  few years if someone you disagree with gets into power? 
 

Would you trust Trump with a totally censored internet? 

 

 

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Can you actually put the link please? A screenshot of a title doesn't give us the context of the article.

Any danger?

[Gloucester Saint]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

That is just conspiracy nut bollox.

You just summarised his last 100 posts.

Turned into Thailand Nic/Ralph rather than Dani Osvaldo.

[whelk]

There’s been some pseudo intellectuals on here but this guy! Banging on about Orwell and history like a 15 yo. Forgets himself regularly with inane shite like the govt can’t protect you, heal you etc then pivots to economics and the bond  market again like a 15 yo desperate to impress. As always they are so gullible, completely believing they are smart.  

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

You just summarised his last 100 posts.

Turned into Thailand Nic/Ralph rather than Dani Osvaldo.

I'm hoping he's just a wind-up as not sure he can genuinely believe what he is writing. If he does he's a great example of everything that is wrong with this country.

[Osvaldorama]

10 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

No it isn't.

That is just conspiracy nut bollox.

A couple of years ago it was “conspiracy” that Labour wanted to bring in digital IDs. 
 

Yet here we are.