The Labour Government

[BobKowalski]

Utter rubbish and you know it.

Still, I suppose you needed a deflection from my point that state of the country is in large part due to COVID and Ukraine.

So distinguished biographer and ex-Chancellor and former colleague of Truss vs Chippy.

Who to believe? Tricky one.

 

[metalblue]

‘Kwarteng, who stood down at the general election, told the paper: “I wasn’t involved in any conversations about restricting healthcare, but that doesn’t mean the prime minister and her team didn’t discuss this.”

Translation: Yes, the daft bat suggested it.

Alternative translation…. “I have no idea” but I needed to fill some words in?

I guess everyone will draw their own interpretation.

She was bat shit crazy though

 

[hilts]

"So, Mr Hilts, I'm looking at your CV. What have you been doing between your last job and now?"

Working for my uncle, he is self employed with a van we did a lot of removals house clearances

So you're healthy and spent a lot of time on your feet

Yes

That's a big plus for this job

Never thought of that.;-)

 

[west didsblue]

No, that must be another Liz Truss because she never suggested such a thing. It's ludicrous to suggest so.

Hardly anyone would have been able to afford it and deaths would have gone through the roof. If you genuinely think she was suggesting that, you're much drafter than I thought.

Maybe you should take it up with the author of the book that said it could well have happened. Eminent historian Sir Anthony Francis Seldon FRSA FRHistSFKC who also wrote well received biographies of the previous four or five Prime Ministers. Maybe he made it up?

 

[hilts]

So distinguished biographer and ex-Chancellor and former colleague of Truss vs Chippy.

Who to believe? Tricky one.

I'm not sure using any politician and believe should ever be in the same post tbh:-)

 

[Brewster's millions]

I agree. I find it bizarre when I hear of someone whose applied for say 200 jobs and is still out of work.

I think anyone who doesn't have "Hitler" tattooed on their forehead could get a job at Lidl or Tesco or Amazon or somewhere in a week or two if they really put their mind to it and were prepared to accept compromises. And from there, being IN employment, your CV is infinitely improved and when you go for the interview for a job you actually want, and the employer asks you what you've been doing for the last 18 months, you don't have to say "fuck all". Instantly you are much more employable, much more likely to get the job.

My wife's Mum's partner doesn't have a GCSE or any other qualification to his name, but is a grafter and has always found work. He's cleaned windows, worked at a caravan park, in restaurants, and god knows where else. Then more recently got himself an HGV licence and has driven buses, vans and lorries. He's refused to be unemployed and has taken any job he can get. He's also worked whatever overtime he can and has had a decent income.

I understand being a refuse collector (say) may not be appealing but at least it's paid work and gives you a sense of purpose, some discipline to actually get up in the morning. And it's a stepping stone. I'm sure this doesn't apply to everyone but I wonder if some people are perhaps just being too picky?

There have been roughly a million job vacancies on average in the UK since the end of the pandemic, a historically high level, so it’s difficult to believe that any lack of demand across the economy explains the rise in worklessness.

If the pandemic really has impacted mental wellbeing to the extent that people can’t work, then simply paying them to remain out of the workforce doesn’t appear to be a particularly effective or indeed compassionate approach.

Given the scale of the problem and the associated costs, you would hope that a new government with such a large majority would be able to develop and implement a plan to tackle the issue, and crucially, stick with that plan during any initial push back. But now it seems that maintaining the status quo on welfare is required in order to keep a lid on things across the Labour Party.

All a bit ironic given Starmer’s ‘country first, party second’ shtick before the election.

 

[hampshireblue]

Oh, and another thing that REALLY pisses me off about this lot. They seem to take great pride in boasting about how they are spending X on this and Y on that, as if it's some marvellous achievement. Any **** can take more and more money off people and spend it. It's nothing to boast about.

There is absolutely nothing new in this. Under the last lot, when asked for a radio/news article, the reply was often a statement merely stating what they were spending already.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Maybe you should take it up with the author of the book that said it could well have happened. Eminent historian Sir Anthony Francis Seldon FRSA FRHistSFKC who also wrote well received biographies of the previous four or five Prime Ministers. Maybe he made it up?

I suspect someone with an agenda has taken something with a whiff of truth about it, and distorted it beyond recognition for political gain. For example, I can conceive that perhaps Truss suggested the NHS stop providing some forms cancer treatment and instead provide funds to the private sector to undertake some work more efficiently.

To suggest that Liz Truss - or indeed anyone! - would simply countenance denying millions of people free cancer treatment is utterly preposterous. And yes, if someone did suggest that Truss said it, they made it up. It is not remotely credible.

What's more, I am sure you agree really. Something like 50% of us now get cancer at some point in our lives and denying us all treatment would result in excess deaths on the scale of the holocaust. You cannot possibly think this was considered or proposed.

 

[BobKowalski]

Alternative translation…. “I have no idea” but I needed to fill some words in?

I guess everyone will draw their own interpretation.

She was bat shit crazy though

I read it as code for ‘yes it was discussed but I left the room as quickly as possible’

That was one weird month or so. Still, it had its funny side.

 

[Chippy_boy]

So distinguished biographer and ex-Chancellor and former colleague of Truss vs Chippy.

Who to believe? Tricky one.

Not really. One is talking completely unbelievable bollocks and I am just laying out sensible argument.

 

[hampshireblue]

Not really. One is talking completely unbelievable bollocks and I am just laying out sensible argument.

Or maybe you were laying Liz? After all she was a bit of a shag around.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Alternative translation…. “I have no idea” but I needed to fill some words in?

I guess everyone will draw their own interpretation.

She was bat shit crazy though

Actually, I don't think she is/was.

The country today is in an absolutely dire state, teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and an IMF bailout. There is no growth, wealth creators leaving the country in droves, millions not working, skyrocketing health costs, record high taxes already and nowhere to go. We're on the brink of being completely fucked.

Truss recognised this and decided she had to do SOMETHING to kick start the economy and get growth moving. Growth is the only thing that can fix things. Even Labour recognise that.

But instead of taxing people even more - Labour's approach - and hoping that Labour spending it will drive growth (a policy doomed to failure IMO), she decided to cut taxes to drive growth. Where she went wrong was not first selling the plan to the markets which understandably got spooked. That was the bad mistake.

Had she said "look, we're going to have to take the unprecented move to borrow temporarily to fund day to day spending whilst we cut taxes, BUT we will pay that back as growth kicks in and tax receipts rise", then the bond markets would perhaps have supported it. I happen to think it was actually the right policy. Raising taxes further and further - when they are already at record highs - is not.

Can anyone be happy that more millionaires are leaving the UK than any other country except China - a country with 20x our population? It's diabolical. We need these people to bankroll our public services and squeezing them until the pips squeak is just idiotic.

 

[BobKowalski]

Not really. One is talking completely unbelievable bollocks and I am just laying out sensible argument.

Well, it was two actually and one of them worked with her.

Truss is panicking, markets are melting and she was desperate. You can see how easily we get to suggesting the NHS stop providing free cancer care.

If it’s any consolation, the author does say Truss was better than Johnson. Which, given Truss was a lunatic, isn’t doing Johnson any favours.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Well, it was two actually and one of them worked with her.

Truss is panicking, markets are melting and she was desperate. You can see how easily we get to suggesting the NHS stop providing free cancer care.

Nonsense mate, and you know it. Absolute nonsense. Don't lower yourself further by continuing to suggest such drivel. I am sure you know as I do, that not even Truss would have suggested a policy that would result in millions of excess deaths per year. It's plain silly.

Frankly it says more about the journalists who have thought we might be stupid enough to believe such tripe.

 

[west didsblue]

Strange hill to die on defending Truss’s sanity.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Strange hill to die on defending Truss’s sanity.

Well I wouldn't have bothered other than the utter nonsense that was posted about her. Unsurprising she's not exactly popular on the "Labour Government" thread however.

 

[metalblue]

Actually, I don't think she is/was.

The country today is in an absolutely dire state, teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and an IMF bailout. There is no growth, wealth creators leaving the country in droves, millions not working, skyrocketing health costs, record high taxes already and nowhere to go. We're on the brink of being completely fucked.

Truss recognised this and decided she had to do SOMETHING to kick start the economy and get growth moving. Growth is the only thing that can fix things. Even Labour recognise that.

But instead of taxing people even more - Labour's approach - and hoping that Labour spending it will drive growth (a policy doomed to failure IMO), she decided to cut taxes to drive growth. Where she went wrong was not first selling the plan to the markets which understandably got spooked. That was the bad mistake.

Had she said "look, we're going to have to take the unprecented move to borrow temporarily to fund day to day spending whilst we cut taxes, BUT we will pay that back as growth kicks in and tax receipts rise", then the bond markets would perhaps have supported it. I happen to think it was actually the right policy. Raising taxes further and further - when they are already at record highs - is not.

Can anyone be happy that more millionaires are leaving the UK than any other country except China - a country with 20x our population? It's diabolical. We need these people to bankroll our public services and squeezing them until the pips squeak is just idiotic.

Respectfully you’re looking at the idea not the execution.

I’m going to put human on mars … good idea…….By sending them in a cardboard box … mental execution.


Trump “I’m gonna cure COVID….”… good idea …. “By making people drink bleach”… mental execution.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Respectfully you’re looking at the idea not the execution.

I’m going to put human on mars … good idea…….By sending them in a cardboard box … mental execution.


Trump “I’m gonna cure COVID….”… good idea …. “By making people drink bleach”… mental execution.

Fair comment. It was abysmally executed, granted.

 

[Norbert D]

He made these pledges when he went for leadership of Labour Party. He made others too and some he’s sort of followed through on. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that Starmer is no where near 3 u turns if that x post was counting stuff other politicians said when going for leadership.

As others have mentioned, Starmer is a technocrat, a policy wonk, he doesnt arrive at decisions through Daily Mail headlines or inbuilt cruelty, but logic. On occasion that logic doesnt account for the human side and that’s what his MPs should and have pointed out and ask for a change of direction. It’s how a democracy should work.

 

[Brewster's millions]

As others have mentioned, Starmer is a technocrat, a policy wonk, he doesnt arrive at decisions through Daily Mail headlines or inbuilt cruelty, but logic. On occasion that logic doesnt account for the human side and that’s what his MPs should and have pointed out and ask for a change of direction. It’s how a democracy should work.

Don’t you have to be vaguely competent in order to be considered a technocrat? Or at least sufficiently competent so that policy decisions have a shelf life of longer than six months?

A lack of clear ideology or political vision doesn’t automatically lead to someone being a technocrat. The disingenuous nature of Labour’s tax and spending plans ahead of the election are another factor to consider.