The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

A more detailed summary than I have seen from any of the pro-Labour lot on here though. All that has been posted by the lefties is 'we just need to spend more money on public services' and no real justification for it or whether the impact on 'real' working people is acceptable. There has been no comments from the lefties on why there have been no reduction in public spending or welfare (but an increase instead) and therefore the government is taxing the whole nation more (when it said it would not). Why?  This is the question nobody can answer.

Also someone on here said people voted for this Government and this budget. They absolutely did not. The Governments manifesto talked about no tax rises. So, people did not vote for this.

What are “real working people?”

No justification for spending more up public services? Well you don’t live here so the state of the NHS, schools, roads, the Criminal Justice System, local government, social housing etc., doesn’t worry you. It worries those of us real people who aren’t earning a fortune living real lives in the UK though.

How many governments stick to their manifestos? When circumstances change wouldn’t you expect an appropriate reaction to deal with them regardless of what was promised?

Edited 3 hours ago by sadoldgit

[tdmickey3]

More terrible news!!

As everyone tries to work out what the budget means for their wallets and society, the economic forecasts released yesterday have taken a bit of a back seat.

But they could have as big an impact on you as some of the budget measures. 

Thanks to the announced measures to slow price rises, along with inflation and economic growth forecasts, the view is that an interest rate cut in December is now more likely.

Traders reckon there's a 93% chance the Bank of England will bring the interest rate down to 3.75% in December, according to London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) data. 

Lower interest rates mean cheaper borrowing and lower mortgage rates.

And interest rate falls are on course to continue into next year. Currently, cuts are anticipated in March and July, which would bring the rate down to 3.25%, according to the LSEG data. 

While independent forecasters, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), think inflation for this year will be higher than their last estimate (thanks to wage rises), they do recognise it will fall. 

Plus, measures to bring down price rises, such as energy bill cuts and the fuel duty freeze, will help too.

 

 

[egg]

Decent work done on immigration.

[iansums]

Unfortunately what the budget doesn’t do is promote growth, small businesses especially are less likely to take on more staff due to the taxes on jobs. All of this means less tax revenue and more welfare payments.

[Baird of the land]

Amazed the markets reacted as well as they did to the budget. A budget that was politically expedient(at quieting Labour unrest) in spending lots now but back loading taxation(that's apparently going to kick around the time of the next election. I definitely expect Reeves to be back with more tax next year, especially as there's the massive SEND iceberg on the horizon that i doubt they have much will to tackle. 

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, iansums said:

Unfortunately what the budget doesn’t do is promote growth, small businesses especially are less likely to take on more staff due to the taxes on jobs. All of this means less tax revenue and more welfare payments.

Maybe that will make up for this:

" 40% of corporation tax due from small businesses is not being paid. The small business tax gap rose sharply during the pandemic – and hasn’t fallen since."

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/06/19/the-small-business-tax-crisis-40-of-tax-due-isnt-paid/

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

I’m so tempted to let you know what my degree was in

Me too - I'll give you a clue @Sir Ralph, it's not beekeeping...

 

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Economics. Some of the people in the civil service have them too. Doesnt mean that gives you an understanding of the real world impacts. What do you think to the questions I posed bearing in mind I set out my position?

Yep, we should be listening to a jumped up estate agent who makes up people to prove his points.

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yep, we should be listening to a jumped up estate agent who makes up people to prove his points.

I literally don’t give two hoots about what you think I do or don’t do and who I know or don’t. What I don’t need to do is send pictures of my book shelf or at corporate events to validate myself on a forum of people I don’t know . Cheerio. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[sadoldgit]

A question for you Ralph re manifesto promises. How do you think it would have gone down if George Osbourne (a Tory by the way) had said in their manifesto that he would raise VAT to 20%?

Still, those sly, lying lefties eh?

[east-stand-nic]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

A question for you Ralph re manifesto promises. How do you think it would have gone down if George Osbourne (a Tory by the way) had said in their manifesto that he would raise VAT to 20%?

Still, those sly, lying lefties eh?

You expecting others to answer your questions again? What an utter hypocrite.

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

A question for you Ralph re manifesto promises. How do you think it would have gone down if George Osbourne (a Tory by the way) had said in their manifesto that he would raise VAT to 20%?

Still, those sly, lying lefties eh?

That was fine. He did that in an emergency budget after the 2008 financial crisis. The context was very different.

what he didn’t do was raise it in the context of facilitating an increase in public spending and welfare rises. This is essentially what the government is doing now with taxes. We are not in a 2008 crisis. 
 

Very different situations. 
 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

You expecting others to answer your questions again? What an utter hypocrite.

I know and they still haven’t answered. I even bothered to set it out. The tumbleweed is palpable. You would have thought the number of lefties on here one of them would have at least given it a go.

They get personal, deflect or give broad responses and send me pictures of their book shelves😂

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I get annoyed because half of you are clueless about the economy and the real impact. Some of this is basic if you speak to business owners. The Government promised not to increase taxes for people. Their budget has done just that because of decisions they have made elsewhere around public spending and welfare. They would not have been elected if they had told people what they were going to do. If you

1. As a principle increasing taxes during a cost of living crisis should be last resort. The Government promised not to increase taxes and were elected on this basis. Do you dispute this?

2. They should have cut welfare and not increased it. The Cabinet wanted to do this and so there is clear evidence that this was possible. Do you dispute this? They have increased welfare spending because of their backbenchers not because it was the sensible economic approach.

3. They havent reduced public spending before increasing taxes. I revert to the article by Starmer where he said this was possible.https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/starmer-too-many-civil-servants-comfortable-in-tepid-bath-of-managed-decline  Is Starmer wrong? I quote: Starmer also criticised public sector productivity. The PM said productivity in the public sector has dropped by 2.6% compared to a year ago, and is 8.5% lower than just before the Covid-19 pandemic. He says this “wouldn’t be accepted in any other sector or walk of life” and that he will not subsidise lower productivity "with ever-rising taxes on the British people”.

 4.They bang on about economic growth being important (albeit they have no clue what it means). Which parts of the budget yesterday will increase growth and jobs? I can tell you that the pension tax, increased dividend tax, mansion tax, tourist tax, freezing income tax thresholds will do the opposite. 

5. I understand that you need to keep things fiscally tight but there are so many other ways of doing this. There is no justification for the all out tax approach for the second budget in a row.

Ok, here goes:

1. Nope, but they were elected before the £22bn black hole left by the Tories was discovered. To not raise taxes to cover that would be stupid as would leave us further in deficit. To cut on an already fucked set of public services is idiotic.

2. Taking kids out of poverty is a good thing. Giving disabled people help is a good thing. Welfare needs reform, as we've all been asking for on the left, but these policies aren't the ones to lose.

3. As we've argued many, many, many times before, to increase productivity you can't just cut jobs. You have to invest in IT and Process improvement, and it takes significant time to do that, to a point where Labour are likely not in power. It's why it's been overlooked by successive governments for 40 years.

4. Some of those taxes are irrelevant to growing the economy. However, what you also have to understand is that investment in public services grows the economy as well through supply chain and increased spending from wages. They are also relying on the BoE to reduce interest rates to increase investment. The ISA change will help to grow the UK economy by increasing investment in British listed companies. By the way, this is how we have looked over the past few years in relation to growth:

 

5. Why isn't there a justification for it? We have crumbling public services and infrastructure. We have kids going hungry. Tell me why it is not justified, rather than just saying it isn't.

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Ok, here goes:

1. Nope, but they were elected before the £22bn black hole left by the Tories was discovered. To not raise taxes to cover that would be stupid as would leave us further in deficit. To cut on an already fucked set of public services is idiotic.

2. Taking kids out of poverty is a good thing. Giving disabled people help is a good thing. Welfare needs reform, as we've all been asking for on the left, but these policies aren't the ones to lose.

3. As we've argued many, many, many times before, to increase productivity you can't just cut jobs. You have to invest in IT and Process improvement, and it takes significant time to do that, to a point where Labour are likely not in power. It's why it's been overlooked by successive governments for 40 years.

4. Some of those taxes are irrelevant to growing the economy. However, what you also have to understand is that investment in public services grows the economy as well through supply chains. They are also relying on the BoE to reduce interest rates to increase investment. The ISA change will help to grow the UK economy by increasing investment in British listed companies. By the way, this is how we have looked over the past few years in relation to growth:

 

5. Why isn't there a justification for it? We have crumbling public services and infrastructure. We have kids going hungry. Tell me why it is not justified, rather than just saying it isn't.

Bloody hell a response. I’ll have a look at it. Happy to find common ground.

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

That was fine. He did that in an emergency budget after the 2008 financial crisis. The context was very different.

what he didn’t do was raise it in the context of facilitating an increase in public spending and welfare rises. This is essentially what the government is doing now with taxes. We are not in a 2008 crisis. 
 

Very different situations. 
 

 

 

Labour were in charge in 2008...

[iansums]

34 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Maybe that will make up for this:

" 40% of corporation tax due from small businesses is not being paid. The small business tax gap rose sharply during the pandemic – and hasn’t fallen since."

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/06/19/the-small-business-tax-crisis-40-of-tax-due-isnt-paid/

That’s a different issue, one for HMRC to resolve. The tax hikes will punish those businesses that do pay their corporation tax on time.

[Farmer Saint]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I literally don’t give two hoots about what you think I do or don’t do and who I know or don’t. What I don’t need to do is send pictures of my book shelf or at corporate events to validate myself on a forum of people I don’t know . Cheerio. 

Send us a photo of your Foxton's Mini.

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

Labour were in charge in 2008...

The words “in an emergency budget after the 2008 crisis” are relevant here

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

Send us a photo of your Foxton's Mini.

Fair game 😂

[tdmickey3]

17 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I literally don’t give two hoots about what you think I do or don’t do and who I know or don’t. What I don’t need to do is send pictures of my book shelf or at corporate events to validate myself on a forum of people I don’t know . Cheerio. 

Are you not engaging again?  

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

The words “in an emergency budget after the 2008 crisis” are relevant here

But he didn't come in until 2010, and his manifesto was written after the 2008 crisis.

[tdmickey3]

Just now, tdmickey3 said:

Are you not engaging again?  

 

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Fair game 😂

 

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The words “in an emergency budget after the 2008 crisis” are relevant here

 

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Bloody hell a response. I’ll have a look at it. Happy to find common ground.

🤣

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But he didn't come in until 2010, and his manifesto was written after the 2008 crisis.

Yes to deal with the fallout of the 2008 crisis. It was a 2010 response to the biggest global financial crisis, government bank bailouts and ensuring that we were as financially sound as possible. Remember Greece, Ireland and Italy? He was trying to avoid that.

The point is the current situation and then are completely different.

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes to deal with the fallout of the 2008 crisis. It was a 2010 response to the biggest global financial crisis, government bank bailouts and ensuring that we were as financially sound as possible. Remember Greece, Ireland and Italy? He was trying to avoid that.

The point is the current situation and then are completely different.

But the point is his manifesto changed even though the fallout had taken place for 2008...but if you are correct it still feels very similar to finding a unaccounted for £22bn hole in your finances.

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But the point is his manifesto changed even though the fallout had taken place for 2008...but if you are correct it still feels very similar to finding a unaccounted for £22bn hole in your finances.

You cannot be comparing 2008 to now surely?! Please tell me you aren’t?

Regardless (1) I thought they filled the alleged black hole with the last £40m budget - was that not the case? (2) before VAT tax he actually made savings. His order of priority was the opposite of Reeves.

 

[Farmer Saint]

9 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You cannot be comparing 2008 to now surely?! Please tell me you aren’t?

Regardless (1) I thought they filled the alleged black hole with the last £40m budget - was that not the case? (2) before VAT tax he actually made savings. His order of priority was the opposite of Reeves.

 

No, but the concept is the same. 

Yeah, he cut public services massively, perhaps irreparably, and has led us to the situation we are in now.

I am really struggling to understand why you don't think a Labour government would increase taxes and plow money into public services? That's why I voted Labour.

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[east-stand-nic]

36 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I know and they still haven’t answered. I even bothered to set it out. The tumbleweed is palpable. You would have thought the number of lefties on here one of them would have at least given it a go.

They get personal, deflect or give broad responses and send me pictures of their book shelves😂

Spot on. But that is what all lefty types do when confronted with things they cannot answer without admitting their side is wrong. It makes them furious. 

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Spot on. But that is what all lefty types do when confronted with things they cannot answer without admitting their side is wrong. It makes them furious. 

( The Common Loon )

 

[LuckyNumber7]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I’ve just had a look at the front pages today. Apparently taking children out of poverty is rewarding “skivers.” Little wonder Reform is doing well in the polls when they have the mainstream media in their pocket.

It's simple, if you can't afford to have kids then don't. 

Disgusting that hard working people are expected to pay for people to pop out more little brats.

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Spot on. But that is what all lefty types do when confronted with things they cannot answer without admitting their side is wrong. It makes them furious. 

Ahh Nic’s found a friend. Sweet 

[tdmickey3]

8 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Spot on. But that is what all lefty types do when confronted with things they cannot answer without admitting their side is wrong. It makes them furious. 

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

It's simple, if you can't afford to have kids then don't. 

Disgusting that hard working people are expected to pay for people to pop out more little brats.

This is what most of the population think. Most responsible people don’t have kids they can’t afford. Now they are paying taxes for those who are more likely to have been irresponsible. What a great societal incentive this government has just laid down.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

12 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Spot on. But that is what all lefty types do when confronted with things they cannot answer without admitting their side is wrong. It makes them furious. 

But I've answered the questions...

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

This is what most of the population think. Most responsible people don’t have kids they can’t afford. Now they are paying taxes for those who are more likely to have been irresponsible. What a great societal incentive this government has just laid down

Proof needed that it's what "most" of the population think, ta!

And a response to my retorts too please.

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Proof needed that it's what "most" of the population think, ta!

And a response to my retorts too please.

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

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

I will respond to you. Later on. I can’t prove that. Ok most sensible people I know

No, again, not true, as sensibility is a subjective thing.

Most sensible people I know don't want children to starve.

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

No, again, not true, as sensibility is a subjective thing.

Most sensible people I know don't want children to starve.

Most sensible people have kids they can afford. Lots of responsible people want more kids but can’t afford them. Let’s tax those poor gits more to pay for the ones that have been irresponsible 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Most sensible people have kids they can afford. Lots of responsible people want more kids but can’t afford them. Let’s tax those poor gits more to pay for the ones that have been irresponsible 

Ok, so you're happy that children with irresponsible parents starve then?

I can tell you don't have kids.

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Ok, so you're happy that children with irresponsible parents starve then?

I can tell you don't have kids.

There will be some occasions of poverty as a result. These already exist as the policy is in place. All policies have pros and cons.
 

However, this policy encourages irresponsibility and punishes those people that are responsible. Do you believe this policy will encourage people who are on welfare to have more kids and rely on the state at taxpayers expense?

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

There will be rare occasions of poverty as a result. All policies have pros and cons.
 

However, this policy encourages irresponsibility and punishes those people that are responsible. Do you believe this policy will encourage people who are on welfare to have more kids and rely on the state at taxpayers expense?

Good, we're into the collateral damage realm, and that collateral damage is children dying.

This conversation is over, because you're an odious cunt.

[tdmickey3]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

There will be some occasions of poverty as a result. These already exist as the policy is in place. All policies have pros and cons.
 

However, this policy encourages irresponsibility and punishes those people that are responsible. Do you believe this policy will encourage people who are on welfare to have more kids and rely on the state at taxpayers expense?

 

[Sir Ralph]

12 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Good, we're into the collateral damage realm, and that collateral damage is children dying.

This conversation is over, because you're an odious cunt.

Poverty to dying. You’ve missed the point. Stop trying to shame me because I disagree with you. Angry little lefty

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn0g0xnr7klt?app-referrer=deep-link

UK net migration drops sharply to 204,000 in year to June - live updates - BBC News

Need to take into account for every 100,000 people lost, we lose £7bn from the tax coffers...

[Farmer Saint]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Poverty to dying. You’ve missed the point.

Oh sorry, you just hope those children suffer in poverty. Luckily no-one in poverty ever dies. I apologise, you must be the new Mother Theresa.

What a cunt.

[Sir Ralph]

10 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Oh sorry, you just hope those children suffer in poverty. Luckily no-one in poverty ever dies. I apologise, you must be the new Mother Theresa.

What a cunt.

This is Tory policy. I didn’t say I hoped they suffered in poverty. You keep jumping to conclusions. You don’t understand the wider societal impact of such a policy on encouraging parents of those people to move towards employment in some cases and create a non state reliant future.

I aspire for kids but we have different ways. You want them to be state reliant, I want a longer term plan which means they aren’t.
 

Also don’t call me a cunt because I disagree with you. To my mind you talk utter BS sometimes but I don’t stoop that low

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

This is Tory policy. I didn’t say I hoped they suffered in poverty. You keep jumping to conclusions. You don’t understand the wider societal impact of such a policy on encouraging parents of those people to move towards employment in some cases and create a non state reliant future.

I aspire for kids but we have different ways. You want them to be state reliant, I want a longer term plan which means they aren’t. You’re a socialist, I’m a capitalist.
 

Also don’t call me a cunt because I disagree with you. 

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.

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[sadoldgit]

27 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

There will be some occasions of poverty as a result. These already exist as the policy is in place. All policies have pros and cons.
 

However, this policy encourages irresponsibility and punishes those people that are responsible. Do you believe this policy will encourage people who are on welfare to have more kids and rely on the state at taxpayers expense?

 

You seem to have a very warped view of human beings. Do you honestly believe that most people want to struggle to put food on the table?

In my first marriage we had four children between us. My wife didn’t have to work. We had a lovely home and a good lifestyle. Out of the blue I was made redundant and everything changed. 
You go on about “lefties” as if people who care and have empathy for everyone in society is somehow a bad thing.

I’ll tell you what is bad. Worshipping money for its own sake and assuming that people who struggle either deserve to or are fiddling the system.

Here is something for you to put this into context -

Capitalism = anyone can be rich

Communism = nobody can be rich

Socialism (lefties) = anyone can be rich but nobody should be poor.

I think most people would be happy with the last one. Probably not you though.

 

[Farmer Saint]

https://johnmajorarchive.org.uk/2025/11/19/sir-john-majors-speech-at-maurice-fraser-lecture-18-november-2025/

 

[Sir Ralph]

21 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

You seem to have a very warped view of human beings. Do you honestly believe that most people want to struggle to put food on the table?

In my first marriage we had four children between us. My wife didn’t have to work. We had a lovely home and a good lifestyle. Out of the blue I was made redundant and everything changed. 
You go on about “lefties” as if people who care and have empathy for everyone in society is somehow a bad thing.

I’ll tell you what is bad. Worshipping money for its own sake and assuming that people who struggle either deserve to or are fiddling the system.

Here is something for you to put this into context -

Capitalism = anyone can be rich

Communism = nobody can be rich

Socialism (lefties) = anyone can be rich but nobody should be poor.

I think most people would be happy with the last one. Probably not you though.

 

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 good capitalist system can provide and encourage people out of poverty. There is a balance to these things and my opinion is this balance has gone too far.
 

Whilst I appreciate the respect you post with I don’t need lecturing from other rude posters about the consequences of poverty. 

Edited 34 minutes ago by Sir Ralph