The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[whelk]

6 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

When it is there side it is OK

Their, thick boy

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, whelk said:

Where’s Ralphie boy to laud it about France’s booming economy and low inflation?

The comment I made was that France and the Euro Zone has lower inflation than us at the current time. What relevance is that to their national debt which has accumulated over years? It doesnt invalidate the point at all. France has a more socialist political and economic system than us with an increased role of the state. If anything France's position should sound as a warning to reduce our spending.

Edited yesterday at 15:26 by Sir Ralph

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The comment I made was that France and the Euro Zone has lower inflation than us at the current time. What relevance is that to their national debt which has accumulated over years? It doesnt invalidate the point at all. If anything France's position should sound as a warning to reduce our spending.

You were making a point against the Uk govt based on one metric. Economies are not that simple, and think I responded to that effect

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, whelk said:

You were making a point against the Uk govt based on one metric. Economies are not that simple, and think I responded to that effect

I said (oh and lots of economists) that inflation in the Euro Zone was much lower and the UK government policies has had a role in that.

Economies aren't simple (obviously) but it doesnt take away from the point about inflation specifically. Obviously if a country has a significant debt that it is struggling to repay (which has accumulated over years) then having a lower level of inflation for a year or so isnt going to resolve that as there are structural issues with the economy. Your point is a bizarre one, dont worry you havent had a eureka moment! France has a more socialist political and economic system than us with an increased role of the state. Maybe look at that....

Edited yesterday at 15:35 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

43 minutes ago, whelk said:

Shouldn’t you be worried about Thai politics and whatever the current issues are over there? Deserters should fuck off and stay out of shit that doesn’t involve them……and in your case they don’t understand

Does he live in Thailand? Blimey, only one reason old white English men go to Thailand 😬

[Farmer Saint]

44 minutes ago, whelk said:

Where’s Ralphie boy to laud it about France’s booming economy and low inflation?

I've heard he's got some rich friends who live in Port Grimaud (because Monaco and St Tropez are just so passe) that moved from the UK because of Labours huge income tax increases and IHT burdens on their assets and businesses in the UK.

[skintsaint]

25 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Does he live in Thailand? Blimey, only one reason old white English men go to Thailand 😬

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

I said (oh and lots of economists) that inflation in the Euro Zone was much lower and the UK government policies has had a role in that.

Economies aren't simple (obviously) but it doesnt take away from the point about inflation specifically. Obviously if a country has a significant debt that it is struggling to repay (which has accumulated over years) then having a lower level of inflation for a year or so isnt going to resolve that as there are structural issues with the economy. Your point is a bizarre one, dont worry you havent had a eureka moment! France has a more socialist political and economic system than us with an increased role of the state. Maybe look at that....

Yes, but for example raising the minimum wage - ideologically I would guess you say that is a bad thing. I would disagree and is helpful for tackling (in a very small part) wealth inequality

[whelk]

Just now, whelk said:

Your point is a bizarre one, dont worry you havent had a eureka moment

And guess what….. I don’t need a ‘eureka moment’ against a right wing cliche such as yourself. Loony left blah blah, wealth creators leaving the country….

[egg]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

I said (oh and lots of economists) that inflation in the Euro Zone was much lower and the UK government policies has had a role in that.

Economies aren't simple (obviously) but it doesnt take away from the point about inflation specifically. Obviously if a country has a significant debt that it is struggling to repay (which has accumulated over years) then having a lower level of inflation for a year or so isnt going to resolve that as there are structural issues with the economy. Your point is a bizarre one, dont worry you havent had a eureka moment! France has a more socialist political and economic system than us with an increased role of the state. Maybe look at that....

Why the focus on inflation? France are in a proper mess. Debt is at 114% of GDP and rising. The price of pommes going up slower than ours is neither here nor there. 

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Why the focus on inflation? France are in a proper mess. Debt is at 114% of GDP and rising. The price of pommes going up slower than ours is neither here nor there. 

I completely agree with you and we are saying the same thing - France's recent lower inflation is irrelevant to its debt. I was responding to the below thread.

[egg]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

I completely agree with you and we are saying the same thing - France's recent lower inflation is irrelevant to its debt. I was responding to the below thread.

I saw what you were responding to, but it doesn't detract from the point that low french inflation isn't anything to shout about given that they're screwed.

[Sir Ralph]

16 minutes ago, whelk said:

Yes, but for example raising the minimum wage - ideologically I would guess you say that is a bad thing. I would disagree and is helpful for tackling (in a very small part) wealth inequality

It depends on the specific circumstance of the country I would say. The point is that Frances public spending (as a %age of GDP) is higher than most other countries, which is a factor in its current debt crisis I suspect. 

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

I saw what you were responding to, but it doesn't detract from the point that low french inflation isn't anything to shout about given that they're screwed.

Well I agree - the points arent really relevant to each other though and I didnt make any link. The previous discussion was why was the Euro Zone inflation lower than ours and whether the differential between us and the Euro Zone was due to government policy. The two topics are quite separate. France's debt relates to structural economic issues, not inflation over the past year. We still want policies that lower our own inflation though so that point remains.

Edited yesterday at 17:25 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2023

•  
  United States
  36.28
•  
  France
  56.99
•  
  Japan
  41.16
•  
  United Kingdom
  44.17
•  
  Sweden
  47.49
•  
  Spain
  45.31
•  
  Italy
  53.8
•  
  South Africa
  32.62
•  
  India
  29.12

Above is percentage of GDP spent on public services. France's debt ratio is less than the US's. Japan is double that of France. Sweden's is half that of India and South Africa. If you put it in a table there is no link between public spending as a percentage of GDP, and national debt as a percentage of GDP. Sorry.

Edited 23 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

Public Spending Ratio EU Member States in 2024 (France, Belgium and Italy have top 5 highest public spending)

Government Debt in relation to GDP in 2024 (France, Belgium and Italy are also top 4). One of the reasons Greek debt is so high because of excessive public spending before the 2008 crisis.

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

10 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Public Spending Ratio EU Member States in 2024 (France, Belgium and Italy have top 5 highest public spending)

Government Debt in relation to GDP in 2024 (France, Belgium and Italy are also top 4). One of the reasons Greek debt is so high because of excessive public spending before the 2008 crisis.

 

All that proves is that Finland and Austria manage their economies far better than France, Italy and Belgium doesn't it? It doesn't prove causation at all. In fact, it proves the opposite, and shows that EU high tax economies tend to have a lower debt threshold:

"The countries with the highest income tax rates include Ivory Coast (60%), Finland (56.95%), Japan (55.97%), Denmark (55.9%) and Austria (55%)."

Edited 10 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

49 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

All that proves is that Finland and Austria manage their economies far better than France, Italy and Belgium doesn't it? It doesn't prove causation at all. In fact, it proves the opposite, and shows that EU high tax economies tend to have a lower debt threshold:

"The countries with the highest income tax rates include Ivory Coast (60%), Finland (56.95%), Japan (55.97%), Denmark (55.9%) and Austria (55%)."

You can pick out anomalies from the trend but most of them have an explanation (Japan's debt is high because of Government intervention in the 90s regardless of their public spending now being low - its not high because of general public spending, Finland's and Austria's debt is historically low but is now increasing very rapidly with public spending being one of the reasons, showing a direct link https://yle.fi/a/74-20174454 https://www.vol.at/shocking-figures-government-spending-causes-deficit-to-rise-to-4-7-of-gdp/9310835). Therefore both Finland and Austria are likely to have to consider reducing public spending. Whilst there are some countries where high tax and high public spending works with a lower debt (Scandinavia is always mentioned by any high tax proponent because they are lacking other examples) , in the majority of cases it doesnt. 

The below shows budget deficits in European countries in 2024. Finland, France, Austria, Belgium and Italy are 5 of the top 8 countries with the biggest deficit (contributing to increased debt) and are the top 5 public spenders. This shows another clear correlation.

Edited 9 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[east-stand-nic]

17 hours ago, whelk said:

Their, thick boy

You forgot the full stop, thick boy. See how easy you are?

[Farmer Saint]

40 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You can pick out anomalies from the trend but most of them have an explanation (Japan's debt is high because of Government intervention in the 90s regardless of their public spending now being low - its not high because of general public spending, Finland's and Austria's debt is historically low but is now increasing very rapidly with public spending being one of the reasons, showing a direct link https://yle.fi/a/74-20174454 https://www.vol.at/shocking-figures-government-spending-causes-deficit-to-rise-to-4-7-of-gdp/9310835). Therefore both Finland and Austria are likely to have to consider reducing public spending. Whilst there are some countries where high tax and high public spending works with a lower debt (Scandinavia is always mentioned by any high tax proponent because they are lacking other examples) , in the majority of cases it doesnt. 

The below shows budget deficits in European countries in 2024. Finland, France, Austria, Belgium and Italy are 5 of the top 8 countries with the biggest deficit (contributing to increased debt) and are the top 5 public spenders. This shows another clear correlation.

But this is the point, there are too many anomalies, which proves one thing, and one thing only, and it's the thing myself and @whelk have been trying to drum home. 

Economics is fucking complicated.

Therefore high tax, high public spending economies will not always have high public debts, because it's all about how it's covered. Our debt is rising because although our public spending isn't horrendous compared to other countries, we do not bring in enough through taxes. Reducing taxes isn't going to work, because our available spend is still the same, and in fact is still contributing to the economy through our more fixed spend, rather than the elastic spend we'd spend it on if tax rates were reduced. It's why taxation always contributes more to the economy than the delta.

Maybe we need to increase corporation tax to cover that delta. Germany are at 30%, perhaps that's what we should look to. Whatever happens, if we're going to continue to run a publicly run NHS, we need to be a high tax economy, and we're not.

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

But this is the point, there are too many anomalies, which proves one thing, and one thing only, and it's the thing myself and @whelk have been trying to drum home. 

Economics is fucking complicated.

Therefore high tax, high public spending economies will not always have high public debts, because it's all about how it's covered. Our debt is rising because although our public spending isn't horrendous compared to other countries, we do not bring in enough through taxes. Reducing taxes isn't going to work, because our available spend is still the same, and in fact is still contributing to the economy through our more fixed spend, rather than the elastic spend we'd spend it on if tax rates were reduced. It's why taxation always contributes more to the economy than the delta.

Maybe we need to increase corporation tax to cover that delta. Germany are at 30%, perhaps that's what we should look to. Whatever happens, if we're going to continue to run a publicly run NHS, we need to be a high tax economy, and we're not.

I'm aware that economics is complicated. I dont think there are many anomalies and I responded to the examples you gave with specific explanations as to why they werent anomalies and provided correlations between public spending and debt. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

I dont think most people would mind being taxed more if they were happy with the return in terms of improved services and that there was a priority to reduce inefficiencies where they exist. Conversations about 30% corporation tax and the long term sustainability of the NHS in its current function are entering into new grounds and that depends on an individuals priorities, of which we all have different ones. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

21 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I'm aware that economics is complicated. I dont think there are many anomalies and I responded to the examples you gave with specific explanations as to why they werent anomalies and provided correlations between public spending and debt. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

I dont think most people would mind being taxed more if they were happy with the return in terms of improved services and that there was a priority to reduce inefficiencies where they exist. Conversations about 30% corporation tax and the long term sustainability of the NHS in its current function are entering into new grounds and that depends on an individuals priorities, of which we all have different ones. 

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. What I will say is that the issue with debt is once you have it you have to work doubly hard to get rid of it, due to the interest paid on that debt - £16bn for us this year (4 times that of "illegal" immigrants).

As you have said previously, those inefficiencies need to be dealt with, absolutely, but that happens in behemoths of companies, and the NHS is one of the biggest in the world. It is very expensive to do and governments don't want that capital cost on their books, that's why it never properly happens. I also believe you were going to give us some examples of those inefficiencies in the public version of your industry?

Edited 5 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. What I will say is that the issue with debt is once you have it you have to work doubly hard to get rid of it, due to the interest paid on that debt - £16bn for us this year (4 times that of "illegal" immigrants).

As you have said previously, those inefficiencies need to be dealt with, absolutely, but that happens in behemoths of companies, and the NHS is one of the biggest in the world. It is very expensive to do and governments don't want that capital cost on their books, that's why it never properly happens. I also believe you were going to give us some examples of those inefficiencies in the public version of your industry?

You asked me to provide examples. In general terms the issues are too many people employed in roles created unnecessarily, which create additional unnecessary processes which essentially delay and prevent business growth. In many cases instead of helping growth it is hindered by these people.

I know this is not all parts of the public sector but the area I work in there are these issues and similar issues in other industries from people I know. In large companies they live or die by their financial success. Whilst inefficiencies occur, they will often be rooted out at some point due to the drive to create financial success, otherwise the company ultimately dies. With the NHS for example and some other public bodies, it feels like more and more taxpayer money will be thrown at it without addressing root causes and the inefficiencies, often because Government doesnt actually have a scobby of how to address the issues (whilst pretending they do) and politically its too sensitive to make cuts. The solution then it not to just tax, in my opinion. 

[egg]

34 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I'm aware that economics is complicated. I dont think there are many anomalies and I responded to the examples you gave with specific explanations as to why they werent anomalies and provided correlations between public spending and debt. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

I dont think most people would mind being taxed more if they were happy with the return in terms of improved services and that there was a priority to reduce inefficiencies where they exist. Conversations about 30% corporation tax and the long term sustainability of the NHS in its current function are entering into new grounds and that depends on an individuals priorities, of which we all have different ones. 

"Individual priorities" is an interesting phrase. I interpret that to mean an individual willingness to pay tax, which flows from our political leanings. Left leaning folk are more willing to pay tax and spend (sensibly) for the benefit of all, whereas right leaning folk want to pay as little as possible, often without much concern for all. Circling that back to "priorities", I spose it's whether we prioritise ourselves or society. 

[Sir Ralph]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

"Individual priorities" is an interesting phrase. I interpret that to mean an individual willingness to pay tax, which flows from our political leanings. Left leaning folk are more willing to pay tax and spend (sensibly) for the benefit of all, whereas right leaning folk want to pay as little as possible, often without much concern for all. Circling that back to "priorities", I spose it's whether we prioritise ourselves or society. 

I agree its about your priorities. Your view on people on the left being nice and kind and people on the right being selfish isnt correct though. Often people take a position because it is to their advantage - that is human nature. If I was a net taker from the state (paid for by the taxpayer) or employed by the state I would probably more likely vote to the left, as the outcome would be better for me. Please dont pretend otherwise. I also want my children and peers to grow up in an aspirational country where you can be successful without being unreasonably taxed for it - where your work reflects your reward. 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I agree its about your priorities. Your view on people on the left being nice and kind and people on the right being selfish isnt correct though. Often people take a position because it is to their advantage - that is human nature. If I was a net taker from the state (paid for by the taxpayer) or employed by the state I would probably more likely vote to the left, as the outcome would be better for me. Please dont pretend otherwise. I also want my children and peers to grow up in an aspirational country where you can be successful without being unreasonably taxed for it - where your work reflects your reward. 

 

I think a lot of people more on the right are happy to provide a level of assistance for those who really need it. What they don't want is people taking advantage of that generosity and taking the piss. There's also a British sense of fair play and it offends many that people can jump the queue, particularly if they perceive people who have just arrived here being given benefits that they or their relatives do not. A lot of our welfare and universal health care were designed decades ago when we didn't have ridiculous amounts of people generally. What we offer needs a rethink unless you want massively high taxes to pay for it all which I don't think the majority would prefer.

[Farmer Saint]

35 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I agree its about your priorities. Your view on people on the left being nice and kind and people on the right being selfish isnt correct though. Often people take a position because it is to their advantage - that is human nature. If I was a net taker from the state (paid for by the taxpayer) or employed by the state I would probably more likely vote to the left, as the outcome would be better for me. Please dont pretend otherwise. I also want my children and peers to grow up in an aspirational country where you can be successful without being unreasonably taxed for it - where your work reflects your reward. 

 

Hmmm, not sure that's true. I am not employed by the state. I am worth a decent wedge. I vote left because I believe society is broken in this country and to change it I think we need to lessen inequality. It's why I have such an issue with the tax burden for higher earners and asset holders. It's too low, and it's not about hard work, a lot of it comes down to your thoughts on biology, and whether it is nature v nurture. From having young children, and seeing what some people go through from all walks of life, to say that if you just work hard you will be rewarded is, frankly, horseshit.

Edited 4 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

39 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You asked me to provide examples. In general terms the issues are too many people employed in roles created unnecessarily, which create additional unnecessary processes which essentially delay and prevent business growth. In many cases instead of helping growth it is hindered by these people.

 

I mean, any of us could have written that, there is nothing groundbreaking there, hence why we wanted actual examples. Which departments and roles have you seen that are not needed and increase bureaucracy. We're having a decent debate here, so I think it would be good if you could backup your assertions, unlike what happened previously.

[Sir Ralph]

23 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I mean, any of us could have written that, there is nothing groundbreaking there, hence why we wanted actual examples. Which departments and roles have you seen that are not needed and increase bureaucracy. We're having a decent debate here, so I think it would be good if you could backup your assertions, unlike what happened previously.

I'm not going to tell you this for obvious reasons - if you dont think there are inefficiencies in the public sector then fine, dont believe it.

[Sir Ralph]

37 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Hmmm, not sure that's true. I am not employed by the state. I am worth a decent wedge. I vote left because I believe society is broken in this country and to change it I think we need to lessen inequality. It's why I have such an issue with the tax burden for higher earners and asset holders. It's too low, and it's not about hard work, a lot of it comes down to your thoughts on biology, and whether it is nature v nurture. From having young children, and seeing what some people go through from all walks of life, to say that if you just work hard you will be rewarded is, frankly, horseshit.

Well I disagree with that - most people I know who have done well have come from lower class backgrounds and grafted, taken risks and built businesses from scratch. They deserve everything they get. Your experience is obviously different to mine.

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

58 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I'm not going to tell you this for obvious reasons - if you dont think there are inefficiencies in the public sector then fine, dont believe it.

What are those obvious reasons? It's an anonymous forum? I expect there are inefficiencies, absolutely, what I want is for you to tell me some, because, and I quote:

"We all also speak from our experience. Whilst I work in the private sector, I also work alongside the public sector in some instances and I see inefficiencies and unnecessary beau acracy which informs my views."

Just asking for one for example.

Edited 3 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

51 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Well I disagree with that - most people I know who have done well have come from lower class backgrounds and grafted, taken risks and built businesses from scratch. They deserve everything they get. Your experience is obviously different to mine.

Class has nothing to do with it, and it's odd that you've brought that up. Does that mean that from your experience the lower classes are harder working and more deserving than upper classes?

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What are those obvious reasons? It's an anonymous forum?

 

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Class has nothing to do with it, and it's odd that you've brought that up. Does that mean that from your experience the lower classes are harder working and more deserving than upper classes?

I'm not going to start talking about roles and departments. Like I said, you can take my experience for what it is or dont. Its fine.

The conversation about class is a different issue now - I think we started at public spending and debt. In summary, it doesnt matter if your lower or upper class origins. We all start of with different positions. If you achieve through hard graft, regardless of social status origin, you deserve the benefits that come your way.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

 

I'm not going to start talking about roles and departments. Like I said, you can take my experience for what it is or dont. Its fine.

The conversation about class is a different issue now - I think we started at public spending and debt. In summary, it doesnt matter if your lower or upper class origins. We all start of with different positions. If you achieve through hard graft, regardless of social status origin, you deserve the benefits that come your way.

But if you just live off mummy and daddy, do they deserve to be taxed more as they haven't grafted?

You said your opinions were informed based off of your experience working with the public sector. I am just asking for one example, just one. You can dress it up how you like. Otherwise, like your poorly advised Dubai mates, I calling bullshit, again.

[Farmer Saint]

And one last thing, personally, I think every person in the country that works full time should be able to ascertain the very basic level of Maslow's hierarchy, of food, water, and shelter. Unfortunately in this country that cannot be done a lot of the time without the welfare state.

That, is a society and economy that DOES NOT WORK, and it is down to wealth inequality.

Edited 3 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

ut if you just live off mummy and daddy, do they deserve to be taxed more as they haven't grafted?

And mummy and daddy make £50m a year off their investments. Now they also want to buy any property going as other investments. Can’t pay the same rate of tax a ward nurse does on her income though. Wealth creators!

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, whelk said:

And mummy and daddy make £50m a year off their investments. Now they also want to buy any property going as other investments. Can’t pay the same rate of tax a ward nurse does on her income though. Wealth creators!

Exactly #wealthtax

[Sir Ralph]

Ahhhh, the politics of envy. Terrible look.

[Sir Ralph]

11 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But if you just live off mummy and daddy, do they deserve to be taxed more as they haven't grafted?

You said your opinions were informed based off of your experience working with the public sector. I am just asking for one example, just one. You can dress it up how you like. Otherwise, like your poorly advised Dubai mates, I calling bullshit, again.

Your opinion means a lot to me so its a sad day for me.

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ahhhh, the politics of envy. Terrible look.

You seem stuck in the eighties. Do you still think Derek Hatton is an influence in politics?

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

You seem stuck in the eighties. Do you still think Derek Hatton is an influence in politics?

As much as I like you on here, you do come across to me as someone who has a dislike of people with wealth. 

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, whelk said:

You seem stuck in the eighties. Do you still think Derek Hatton is an influence in politics?

You must be quite old, whos that?😉

[whelk]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

As much as I like you on here, you do come across to me as someone who has a dislike of people with wealth. 

I have friends who are incredibly wealthy. One is almost certainly worth over £100 million and someone I see probably every other week so a very good mate.  I also have a fair few friends who probably view me as the wealthy one.  So no dislike of people with wealth. however I loathe the greed of some wealthy, not generally the people i associate with,  who should have more humility and reflect with a ‘There by the grace of God go I’ approach rather than the selfish ‘it’s all mine’ outlook.

[whelk]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You must be quite old, whos that?😉

Do you know who Winston Churchill is?

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, whelk said:

Do you know who Winston Churchill is?

Does he do the insurance ads?

[whelk]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

Does he do the insurance ads?

Quite good for you

[Farmer Saint]

19 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Your opinion means a lot to me so its a sad day for me.

Again, just asking for an example. Really easy to do as you have a lot of examples apparently.

[Farmer Saint]

13 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

As much as I like you on here, you do come across to me as someone who has a dislike of people with wealth. 

Wealth is fine as long as they pay their fair share, percentage wise. That doesn't tend to happen.

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Again, just asking for an example. Really easy to do as you have a lot of examples apparently.

No I don’t - I made it all up. I thought that saying I knew about public sector inefficiency would make me cool. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

I have friends who are incredibly wealthy. One is almost certainly worth over £100 million and someone I see probably every other week so a very good mate.  I also have a fair few friends who probably view me as the wealthy one.  So no dislike of people with wealth. however I loathe the greed of some wealthy, not generally the people i associate with,  who should have more humility and reflect with a ‘There by the grace of God go I’ approach rather than the selfish ‘it’s all mine’ outlook.

Right but if someone takes an issue with a policy - friends I have for example who sacrificed a lot to send their children to private school who have really found things difficult with the sudden Vat rise -that's not really something to mock or suggest they aren't deserving of some empathy. Yes their initial position could be viewed as privileged but it doesn't mean they don't have real world concerns like anyone else. Thays just one example by the way , it's the same for things like farmers with some genuinely fretting about how they will continue to operate their farm without packing it in.