The Labour Government

[blueinsa]

Starmer and co are guilty of contracting a disease all politicians get when anywhere near power and sadly there isn’t and never will be a cure for it.

Liarbetes.

 

[bluenova]

I'm fully reserving judgement till the budget is announced, if they go in with pure doom and gloom mode I won't be happy. You can be realistic about the state of the country without making us all feel miserable and hopeless. So please have some positives Reeves fs.

I'm hopeful, but they do seem to have gone bigger than most expected on the "things are bad" narrative, and it would not totally shock me if they keep that up for the budget.

They know what their plans are, and they know they have five years, so they may be thinking longer term. After all, it's easier to say "our changes worked and now we can spend more", if you've had a budget that appears tough. Saying that, I'm hoping that the 'tough' parts will be wealth taxes, and a "reframing" of the borrowing rules.

 

[Paul1970]

So let’s give our pensioners fuck all and make themfreeze to death while we keep allowing these fuckers on boats to come in and milk the country dry . What a state we are in

 

[BayernMan]

I'm hopeful, but they do seem to have gone bigger than most expected on the "things are bad" narrative, and it would not totally shock me if they keep that up for the budget.

They know what their plans are, and they know they have five years, so they may be thinking longer term. After all, it's easier to say "our changes worked and now we can spend more", if you've had a budget that appears tough. Saying that, I'm hoping that the 'tough' parts will be wealth taxes, and a "reframing" of the borrowing rules.

I can endorse this pov and I really hope you are right but I just can’t shake the feeling this is wishful thinking that creates a pit on my stomach.

 

[KS55]

I can endorse this pov and I really hope you are right but I just can’t shake the feeling this is wishful thinking that creates a pit on my stomach.

If there are wealth taxes, I suspect they will be limited to inheritance. Tax on high earnings is a different matter.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

They did however promise not to do them didn't they? The very policies that they called the Tories out on they are keeping, but they are getting a free run at this aren't they?

Most of what you mention in the first paragraph is nonsense and you know it, a free breakfast and build more houses? Well most of the kids wouldn't get there early enough for a breakfast which will probably be funded down to the bone and if you bother to look everywhere in this country we are building houses of every kind on every available plot.

However we can't keep up with the net migration we can't build them fast enough or for the right people ie the people with no money to buy them.

2 child policy
Bedroom tax

Start with those 2 but they wont will they?

You've misspelled White


tell me your a racist ... without actually saying the word ''Racist''


Please tell us which Government introduced the 2 Child policy and the Bedroom Tax.....and which party you support

 

[hampshireblue]

So somebody's else's problem then, even though the government points out that people retiring early is a big part of the problem as these are typically the higher skilled individuals who generate more wealth for the UK.

As regards spending its no different an argument to someone worth a few tens of millions spending money by buying bottles of Dom Perignon RD from the local wine merchants, employing a local gardener to do their topiary and booking their luxury holidays through the local travel agents.

In reality you dont need to spend it in the economy now, in fact you saving it is like a nice long term investment for the government, ensuring that you will have enough money to pay for your care and what's left they will be able to strip the bones to take as inheritance tax or the pension provider will pocket and return as a healthy profit which in turn will be subject to tax.

I am of course saying this all in jest and apologies for picking on you.

No single group is the answer or all the problem. Yet some would have you believe that there is very much an us and them argument to be had where one group should pick up the tab and the rest remain untouched.

With getting people into employment, its maybe less about the jobs being ones that nobody wants to do and more about the salary on offer for doing it, this being particularly the case with care providers who whilst making very healthy profits pay their staff derisory wages.

As you pointed out the other issue is training, historically the public sector had a conveyor belt of people who were trained to a very high standard, back in the days of public owned utilities and railways, their training was second to none. What this did, was create a highly skilled workforce. Whilst the tax payer might have been footing the bill, when they left to work in the private sector, as many inevitably did, those skills and knowledge drove profitability for private businesses which is what you need if you want to fix the GDP conundrum. Maybe thinking long term with skills strategies rather than the continual roundabout of 5yr political cycles might just set us on a better path.

No need to apologise. It's amazing how people on here are so entrenched and can't go anywhere near the centre ground, or even common sense.

 

[hampshireblue]

I agree entirely. But then don’t blame the previous government for the costs involved. Be honest with people. The winter fuel payment sleight of hand trick should have been in the manifesto. Plain and simple. It wasn’t even mentioned. That’s deceitful.

How could it have been in the manifesto if they didn't know about the extent of the deficit? Plain and simple question-answer it for once!

 

[hampshireblue]

Train Drivers are not that skilled, £45k would be fair, my mates SIL was on £65k before the pay rise, it's not a difficult job and the training was 6 months, absolute fucking joke.

And you know that how? Are you one?

What do you do for a living-just so all of us who don't do your job can decide if you're worth it or not. and I'm serious, share with us what you do, don't be shy. Unless you run a county lines OCG of course!!

Surely you can see that this is exactly what, certainly the last government wanted, turn worker against worker-it seems to have worked perfectly.

 

[mexico1970]

You've misspelled White


tell me your a racist ... without actually saying the word ''Racist''


Please tell us which Government introduced the 2 Child policy and the Bedroom Tax.....and which party you support

Tell me you're a Labour voter without telling me you're not a tory in disguise.

And by right people I meant poor people that need council houses, but you froth on with your race baiting garbage you non Labour Labour voting manifestation of a Turnip.

 

[hampshireblue]

And if everyone did claim, it would cost the government WAY more than they saved. Not least because the claims can be backdated. My mother-in-law went through it and got thousands, not a piddling £300.

Do you not see that this is not really about saving money? This is about sending a message that the whole benefit system is in need of a shake up(@PPT wil be delighted) ? Having done this,and I agree it's a clumsy way to do it, come the budget, they can now tax the wealthy more whilst being able to point out the removal of the universal WFA. Even the unions are getting in a mess by trying to defend their members subsidising wealthy people who don't actually need the payment.

 

[hampshireblue]

How about reigning in public service pensions?
Just sayin' like.

Yep that's right, have a race to the bottom. Why would you want to see part of the workforce worse off? Jealousy, chip on the shoulder( I could have said @chippyboy lol).

 

[mexico1970]

Yep that's right, have a race to the bottom. Why would you want to see part of the workforce worse off? Jealousy, chip on the shoulder( I could have said @chippyboy lol).

When cuts are announced that doesn't affect one demographic it's fine, but when one is proposed for them all of a sudden it's a race to the bottom.

Mostly used by the better off working class punching down like they usually do.

 

[hampshireblue]

When cuts are announced that doesn't affect one demographic it's fine, but when one is proposed for them all of a sudden it's a race to the bottom.

Mostly used by the better off working class punching down like they usually do.

Well that a way of looking at it! There are cuts in the offing and tax rises that will affect every single person in the country in some way or other. Bringing class into it just further muddies the debate-says the council estate bloke from Ashton!

 

[mexico1970]

Well that a way of looking at it! There are cuts in the offing and tax rises that will affect every single person in the country in some way or other. Bringing class into it just further muddies the debate-says the council estate bloke from Ashton!

Class becomes an issue when the well off working class seem to not care that the poor working class shoulder the burden. People have a short memory of where they came from in my opinion.

Again, Labour should be fucking everyone except the poor but that isn't going to happen is it?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Starmer and co are guilty of contracting a disease all politicians get when anywhere near power and sadly there isn’t and never will be a cure for it.

Liarbetes.

And it’s getting worse. In some ways mind, it’s our fault as most people don’t want to hear the truth.

When that’s coupled with a media that only has a passing acquaintance with the truth and often actively encourages the lies, we end up in the state we’re in.

Lying for ideology and or self interest are the ones that really gets me though. “Paying billions n subsidy to train companies and letting water companies pour shit into out waters, to ‘prove privatisation is better’.

Pretending that the British economy is like a normal persons credit card debt, Allowing MP’s to pass laws that directly affect themselves, allowing them to take donations from very rich men, putting them in their debt, all the while making a pile of cash.

Student loans are a brilliant example of lying by government, for no benefit whatsoever. All it does is move debt from one side of the balance sheet to the other, whilst allowing yet another private company to make millions (just like the care industry, all owned by off shore venture capitalists, asset stripping and paying no taxes).

Then, Labour get in and do nothing about any of the above, but just carry on with the same old shit. The fact Reeves thinks austerity is the way to go, after Osborne proved it was exactly the wrong way to go, is more worrying than ever.
It’s almost like they all want a Reform government………

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Do you not see that this is not really about saving money? This is about sending a message that the whole benefit system is in need of a shake up(@PPT wil be delighted) ? Having done this,and I agree it's a clumsy way to do it, come the budget, they can now tax the wealthy more whilst being able to point out the removal of the universal WFA. Even the unions are getting in a mess by trying to defend their members subsidising wealthy people who don't actually need the payment.

Yeah, we can argue about the level at which the winter fuel allowance is brought in, and that might be a legitimate issue, but I don't get how anyone could argue in principle that this bloke should get the winter fuel allowance, for example:

I get the argument that it potentially costs more to administer a big means testing scheme than you actually save, but surely the same argument could be made about every benefit. Why is housing benefit means tested? Or working tax credit? Should we also make those benefits universal to avoid the expensive and complex process of means testing? I know some people are in favour of universal basic income, but I've not heard many of the people bemoaning the loss of a universal fuel allowance arguing for that recently.

To be fair, they could have simply done what the do with child benefit, which is also universal, and charge people over a certain income an additional tax so they don't technically get it, even though they actually do.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Do you not see that this is not really about saving money? This is about sending a message that the whole benefit system is in need of a shake up(@PPT wil be delighted) ? Having done this,and I agree it's a clumsy way to do it, come the budget, they can now tax the wealthy more whilst being able to point out the removal of the universal WFA. Even the unions are getting in a mess by trying to defend their members subsidising wealthy people who don't actually need the payment.

No, I don't see that.

I see it as a balls up by incompetent idiots who were great at shouting criticisms from the side lines but then when faced with actually having to DO anything, their lack of experience and judgement is plain to see.

 

[bluethrunthru]

How about reigning in public service pensions?
Just sayin' like.

a post devoid of knowledge but big on R/W press rhetoric. Public service pensions aren't the golden ticket you believe they are. Every pension reflects contributions and length or service. My brother-in-law 9 years in the Army qualifies for a small pension. My wife 10 years in the Civil Service with a similar return. I was astonished when speaking to 2 friends a few weeks ago when on holiday one has long service in local govt one central govt - compared to my pensions in the private sector they are looking at no big deal.

My nieces husband retired from the Fire and Rescue Services at 50 a couple of years ago - long service and with contributions that would make the eyes of most of us water have at least left him sitting pretty.

The press will always find someone - probably left leaning or in what they consider a "non-job" like health and safety who get a decent payoff but the one's who get the big bucks are in Parliament - mostly those who tell you to hate other people rather than encourage you to ask your employer "why can't I have that" - example would be Liz Truss is 14 years my junior and is getting 10x my pensions for life for 49 days "service"

 

[Blue Maverick]

a post devoid of knowledge but big on R/W press rhetoric. Public service pensions aren't the golden ticket you believe they are. Every pension reflects contributions and length or service. My brother-in-law 9 years in the Army qualifies for a small pension. My wife 10 years in the Civil Service with a similar return. I was astonished when speaking to 2 friends a few weeks ago when on holiday one has long service in local govt one central govt - compared to my pensions in the private sector they are looking at no big deal.

My nieces husband retired from the Fire and Rescue Services at 50 a couple of years ago - long service and with contributions that would make the eyes of most of us water have at least left him sitting pretty.

The press will always find someone - probably left leaning or in what they consider a "non-job" like health and safety who get a decent payoff but the one's who get the big bucks are in Parliament - mostly those who tell you to hate other people rather than encourage you to ask your employer "why can't I have that" - example would be Liz Truss is 14 years my junior and is getting 10x my pensions for life for 49 days "service"

Many don’t realise it was Labour who fundamentally changed public service pensions back in 2006, work longer pay more get less, it was Labour who implemented further increases in state pension ages.
Let’s face it most will have to work until 70, then even though you may live till 90, is it really living, you arent exactly going bungee jumping in your days off then, the money you have saved will be for your very expensive care home, I think if I got to 70, I’d sell up go and rent for the next 20 years and blow the fucking lot.