The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

His plan to deport all those arriving on dinghies is a case in point. Where to Nigel? The plan was picked apart in minutes as being unworkable

😂😂😂

You’re criticising  him for exactly the same policy as Starmers….

I must have missed your “where to Sir Kier” post, or you’re post saying it’s unworkable. 
 

Sir Keir Starmer has promised that migrants arriving in the UK on small boats will be "detained and sent back" as the number crossing the English Channel remains at a record high.

The prime minister is facing mounting pressure to show results on tackling Channel crossings and ending the use of asylum hotels, with small-scale protests outside the hotels continuing.

 

Sir Keir said on X: "I am clear: we will not reward illegal entry. If you cross the Channel unlawfully, you will be detained and sent back."

 

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It’s not just Farage. Tice, 30p Lee, previously Lowe…the party attracts plenty of deeply unpleasant and untrustworthy people. You just have to look at what is happening in the US to see what would happen here if Reform win the next election. Hopefully the mess they are currently making of running many local councils will put off protest voters. You would like to think that those who have had enough of the two main parties would give their vote to the LibDems rather than Farage, yet despite already making a mess of this country by championing Brexit, some people still think he worthy of trusting with their vote.

Didn’t he say that he would leave the country if Brexit wasn’t a success? Why is he still here? He has a proven track record as a disrupter and destroyer but a zero past reputation as someone who can fix things. His plan to deport all those arriving on dinghies is a case in point. Where to Nigel? The plan was picked apart in minutes as being unworkable and he had to backtrack on women and children immediately.

Any idiot can spout populist nonsense and get the hard of thinking to support them (you only have to read some of these posts). Fixing a broken country takes time, money and unpopular decisions. We all want better services and a better infrastructure but no one wants to pay for it. Taxes will have to rise. The idea that things will improve without tax rises is a nonsense. Starmer would do well to stop worrying about Badenoch and Farage with a u turn on tax increases and start preparing us for them now.

Bring in fair and proportionate tax rises across the board. Spell out exactly where the money is going, hit your targets over the next 4 years and win over the trust of the floating voters.

If Farage wins power outright or forms a coalition with Badenoch, God help us all. If you think we are currently a divided nation, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Laughing emojis, people shinning up lamp posts with flags and spotty kids running local councils  will be the least of our worries.

The problem with Labour is exactly this - they are seen as untrustworthy- they have u-turned on so many policies that people don’t trust them anymore. Thats another reason why Farage will get elected. So it’s fine to say you think he’s untrustworthy but to the man on the street why is Starmer and cabinet any more trustworthy? My opinion is they haven’t demonstrated this. If they had they would be in less trouble in the polls. Indeed the reason that Reform is doing well and Labour not so well isn’t just because of “popularism” it’s because people don’t trust Labour. So they have themselves to blame to some degree.
 

I agree that you need a rationale long term strategy to address the country’s issues. I disagree about needing to tax significantly more as the go to solution, noting that Reeves has already raised taxes for businesses significantly. Even if you did, the problem with this Government is currently they are only interested taxing and not about reforming or cutting, which is also needed. Keeping taxing more and you won’t improve the economy - that’s not the solution. Starmer and Cabinet does not have back bench support for policies that might be unpopular as was shown with their failure to cut welfare costs. Therefore they aren’t making unpopular decisions that are needed….at least yet. 

Edited Sunday at 12:21 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It’s not just Farage. Tice, 30p Lee, previously Lowe…the party attracts plenty of deeply unpleasant and untrustworthy people. You just have to look at what is happening in the US to see what would happen here if Reform win the next election. Hopefully the mess they are currently making of running many local councils will put off protest voters. You would like to think that those who have had enough of the two main parties would give their vote to the LibDems rather than Farage, yet despite already making a mess of this country by championing Brexit, some people still think he worthy of trusting with their vote.

Didn’t he say that he would leave the country if Brexit wasn’t a success? Why is he still here? He has a proven track record as a disrupter and destroyer but a zero past reputation as someone who can fix things. His plan to deport all those arriving on dinghies is a case in point. Where to Nigel? The plan was picked apart in minutes as being unworkable and he had to backtrack on women and children immediately.

Any idiot can spout populist nonsense and get the hard of thinking to support them (you only have to read some of these posts). Fixing a broken country takes time, money and unpopular decisions. We all want better services and a better infrastructure but no one wants to pay for it. Taxes will have to rise. The idea that things will improve without tax rises is a nonsense. Starmer would do well to stop worrying about Badenoch and Farage with a u turn on tax increases and start preparing us for them now.

Bring in fair and proportionate tax rises across the board. Spell out exactly where the money is going, hit your targets over the next 4 years and win over the trust of the floating voters.

If Farage wins power outright or forms a coalition with Badenoch, God help us all. If you think we are currently a divided nation, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Laughing emojis, people shinning up lamp posts with flags and spotty kids running local councils  will be the least of our worries.

 

Edited Sunday at 12:19 by Sir Ralph

[Lord Duckhunter]

Fresh on the back of David Blunkett & Jack Straw another pinko is starting to get it.

Starmers predecessor as DPP & former Lib Dem peer Ken Macdonald. 
 

The key is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its definition of what it takes to make a successful asylum application.

This is the foundational problem. The definition in the Convention - that anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution is entitled to asylum - is too broad. That’s what has allowed the whole question of migration to get out of control. So millions of people are on the move who are, in reality, economic migrants, not entitled to settle in the UK. Yet they can plausibly claim that they face persecution at home and win asylum that way. If they are from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or a host of other places, who is to say they would not have a well-founded fear of persecution if they return? In this way, economic migrants magically become refugees.

Does Parliament have the authority set its own refugee rules?

We can do anything. Parliament is sovereign. We have what's called a dualist system: international treaties don't become part of domestic law unless parliament approves them. So the Refugee Convention is not a part of our domestic law. We could leave it for a temporary period because we face a particular emergency. I've never thought it's an outrage to leave international treaties and conventions if they if they no longer work.

 

[Sir Ralph]

More ideas which run contrary to their target of delivering more housing at a substantial level - one of their headline policy approaches. If they bring it in it’s another example of promoting tax over economic growth. 

Notwithstanding this it will hit labours polling figures in some urban areas (Bristol, Brighton and London) which will be further damaging to any seat numbers they get in the next election. I suspect something else they haven’t considered, as well as increasing the housing costs for local authorities. In turn this will mean government funding for local authorities will need to increase.

https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2025/09/labour-tax-grab-is-final-nail-in-property-investment-coffin/

Edited 23 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[rallyboy]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

More ideas which run contrary to their target of delivering more housing at a substantial level - one of their headline policy approaches. If they bring it in it’s another example of promoting tax over economic growth. 

Notwithstanding this it will hit labours polling figures in some urban areas (Bristol, Brighton and London) which will be further damaging to any seat numbers they get in the next election. I suspect something else they haven’t considered, as well as increasing the housing costs for local authorities. In turn this will mean government funding for local authorities will need to increase.

https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2025/09/labour-tax-grab-is-final-nail-in-property-investment-coffin/

Wealth management company puts out press release promoting what they sell.

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Wealth management company puts out press release promoting what they sell.

So do you think that these proposed policies will help to address house building to increase home ownership and encourage economic growth?

A alternative view could be that you are dismissing the view of a specialist in their field with no rebuttal. 
 

I find it bizarre that people still defend them. The Tories were a shambles but these lot are something else. Their policy approach is incoherent other than they consistently want to tax people more.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/28/property-tax-threat-slow-down-housing-market-uk-agents

Edited 20 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

8 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Wealth management company puts out press release promoting what they sell.

Exactly, unsure why people still don't understand how the world works.

[Sir Ralph]

9 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Exactly, unsure why people still don't understand how the world works.

So please respond to the point being made then because I think you are just dismissing something from a specialist who has more experience in the field than you. Will these potential policies help to increase housebuilding (Labour policy) and increase economic activity (Labour policy)? Its all good providing flippant one line responses but it doesnt actually address the issue.

Here's a response from the Chairman of the Conveyancing Society with 40 years experience but I suspect that he doesnt know how the world works either . https://todaysconveyancer.co.uk/eddie-goldsmith-shares-profound-concerns-property-tax-open-letter/

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[east-stand-nic]

There is no money for public services, NHS etc. However, we can afford to pay for the best lawyers

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1206620354433519&rdid=1xV3kDl102YLEprg

Anyone who still supports Starmer in anyway clearly has mental health issues. 

[egg]

38 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

There is no money for public services, NHS etc. However, we can afford to pay for the best lawyers

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1206620354433519&rdid=1xV3kDl102YLEprg

Anyone who still supports Starmer in anyway clearly has mental health issues. 

That's daft even by your standards, and echo chamber fm.

Do you honestly think that governments don't always employ decent lawyers to advise and represent it? When the unthinking vote your reform mates in, they will as well.

 

 

[east-stand-nic]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

That's daft even by your standards, and echo chamber fm.

Do you honestly think that governments don't always employ decent lawyers to advise and represent it? When the unthinking vote your reform mates in, they will as well.

 

 

But when Trump does it, you go into meltdown. Yet again, caught you out big time lol. 

And yes, Starmer DID also make sure all three judges were hand picked to support him. Are you going to be a big baby and deny that lol? Come on, grow up FFS, They all do it and you know it. 

Edited 4 hours ago by east-stand-nic
missing text

[egg]

4 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

But when Trump does it, you go into meltdown. Yet again, caught you out big time lol. 

Wtf are you on about mate. I've never said a word about Trump hiring lawyers. 

Now hiring his picks as Supreme Court Judges, that's a different matter. 

When people start criticising a government for hiring lawyers to uphold the law, but applaud a leader who hires Judges to get things done his way, something ain't right. 

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, egg said:

That's daft even by your standards, and echo chamber fm.

Do you honestly think that governments don't always employ decent lawyers to advise and represent it? When the unthinking vote your reform mates in, they will as well.

 

 

If a government has to hire lawyers to make its case then it's a shit government. 

Oh...

[badgerx16]

Why does the Governmrnt need to hire lawyers when so many of them ARE lawyers ?

[whelk]

4 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

There is no money for public services, NHS etc. However, we can afford to pay for the best lawyers

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1206620354433519&rdid=1xV3kDl102YLEprg

Anyone who still supports Starmer in anyway clearly has mental health issues. 

Genuine question, do you always think you are the smartest guy in the room? Or do you have moments of self reflection when you actually realise you are as thick as mince?

Edited 35 minutes ago by whelk

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

There is no money for public services, NHS etc. However, we can afford to pay for the best lawyers

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1206620354433519&rdid=1xV3kDl102YLEprg

Anyone who still supports Starmer in anyway clearly has mental health issues. 

And you are supposed to have a massive intellect?

The government have a legal requirement to accommodate asylum seekers. The previous government put more and more of them into places that used to be hotels. This government had already said that it plans to move asylum seekers out of these buildings by the end of this term (within the next 4 years). It clearly cannot move out everybody until firm plans are in place as to what to do with them. That will take time. The appeal judge clearly took this into account when making his judgement.

It was the local council, who used money that could have been spent on fixing potholes and other very essential local services, who started these legal proceedings leaving the government with no choice.

You don’t like asylum seekers so you have chosen to attack the government for spending money on legal action when it was initiated by the very people who have more of a problem with asylum seekers than they do with people who think that it is perfectly ok to intimidate in large crowds.

I don’t suppose that you bothered to listen to the people who live locally and said that there wasn’t a problem with the inhabitants of the building. They were more concerned with the number of outsiders turning up outside the building.

We have a system in this country whereby anyone suspected of breaking the law is dealt with by the police within the Criminal Justice System. A baying mob is not a part of that system. They clearly have your sympathies but without them, the money spent on legalities could be better spent elsewhere, could it not?

Go on, have a chuckle.

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, whelk said:

Genuine question, do you always think you are the smartest guy in the room? Or do you have moments of self reflection when you actually realise you are as thick as mince?

Nic is only the second smartest person in the room when he is on his own.