The Labour Government

hilts said:
I wouldn't defend his politics because he is just dead wrong imho but comparing a speech with a post on a forum is a tad silly.
It's usually a good sign someone has lost the argument and as you're on solid ground here there really is no need to go down that route.

*I haven't proof read this post even though I have fat thumb syndrome and also think ahead of my typing ability
Click to expand...
It was a comment on his idiotic criticism of Rayner’s intelligibility using a barely intelligible post that struck me as ironic. Nothing to do with his politics which, as you say, are just bizarre.
 
How on earth can anything be expected of this Labour government if they've already said they are sticking to the previous government fiscal rules and spending targets??!?! It seems to me that Starmer's and Reeves only hope is that magic word 'growth' and yet not explaining how the majority of population would benefit from that without some serious redistribution plan. And I still need a politician to come out and explain how the average annual growth of 70s 'basket case Britain' was 3% and the last 14 years it was barely 1%.
 
Been pleasantly surprised by how swift and positive the new government has been so far. I voted Labour as I always have, but was a little cautious about how much things will change. Naturally it all has to happen still, but so far the policies announced have all felt so considered. It feels like we have actual grown ups back in charge and it's a good feeling. Hopefully it carries on.
 
west didsblue said:
It was a comment on his idiotic criticism of Rayner’s intelligibility using a barely intelligible post that struck me as ironic. Nothing to do with his politics which, as you say, are just bizarre.
Click to expand...
I would have gone with Eton must be one shit school if we are comparing usefulness with qualifications.
 
About 27-28 committees to be filled, the chairs are divided according to the Commons divisions.

By rule, Public Accounts and Standards Committees will be 2 of those the Conservatives get as Opposition.
They only get 3 or 4 more, I think - exact numbers and selection to be confirmed after the Speaker's election.

I wonder who will be chasing those senior committee positions!
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Being reported that the renationalisation of the rail companies will be announced in the King's Speech. I assume this means that contracts won't be renewed when they expire.

Water companies next, please.
Click to expand...
The regulation on water companies by Ofwat has been nothing short of shambolic, they have allowed investors to run up huge leveraged loans against assets, alot of which was used to pay dividends to holding companies and not used for investment. Scandalous. Hopefully the new government will instruct Ofwat to not allow Thames Water to increase customers bills and then the private investors will have to contribute more investment. Or the company fails and at that point the company can come back into national ownership at no cost to the tax payer.

Also going forwards the companies should be fined for single polution events just like any other industry. This will need to be phased in.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
The regulation on water companies by Ofwat has been nothing short of shambolic, they have allowed investors to run up huge leveraged loans against assets, alot of which was used to pay dividends to holding companies and not used for investment. Scandalous. Hopefully the new government will instruct Ofwat to not allow Thames Water to increase customers bills and then the private investors will have to contribute more investment. Or the company fails and at that point the company can come back into national ownership at no cost to the tax payer.

Also going forwards the companies should be fined for single polution events just like any other industry. This will need to be phased in.
Click to expand...
I am clicking like there @Churchlawtonblue but thinking about it, with the water pollution why phase it in. Fine the lot of them now, that's our lives and our children's lives they are putting at risk, not to mention the nature infrastructure as well. JMHO :-) So make them buck themselves up and sort it out without messing about. :-)
 
west didsblue said:
It was 7940 3 months ago. It had a brief rise to 8400 2 months ago but the general trend has been up since it became clear that the country was going to see sense.
Click to expand...

There is an ounce of truth in what you say. We have a less political uncertainty now - Sunak was facing a rising call for a vote of no confidence in the days leading up to calling an election. Markets don’t like uncertainty.

It’s just a little bit though in the overall scheme of things. UK indices have long underperformed other global indices, primarily as it’s so weighted to resources rather than booming stocks in luxury goods, AI, and the obsession with anti obesity drugs.

These have started to drop off now and the UK shares look good value particularly against a back drop of better economic data that show us returning to growth. The UK economy has proven resilient and so long as that can be sustained it’s fair to consider the UK stocks might be entering a period of rises.

Certainly nothing negative in the UK being under new management but it’s not all down to that fact. Not at all.
 
Eccles Blue said:
I am clicking like there @Churchlawtonblue but thinking about it, with the water pollution why phase it in. Fine the lot of them now, that's our lives and our children's lives they are putting at risk, not to mention the nature infrastructure as well. JMHO :-) So make them buck themselves up and sort it out without messing about. :-)
Click to expand...
Because in no particular order, some of the companies won't be able to sustain the fines and will collapse financially, in many instances massive investment in infrastrature will be needed to avoid the pollution events.

Unsurprisingly there currently isn't the Environment Agency staff to police these events.

Legislation will possibly need to be changed as many of these companies have loop holes in discharge consents therefore allowing them to legally pollute.

I think it's fair that in any industry you give warning of changes and ramp up the requirements and allow the industry to change and invest appropriately, tied in with bringing in fines, so far this hasn't happened anywhere on the scale needed.

If you move the goal posts too quickly and the companies fold then its likely the taxpayer will just be picking up the fines.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Because in no particular order, some of the companies won't be able to sustain the fines and will collapse financially, in many instances massive investment in infrastrature will be needed to avoid the pollution events.

Unsurprisingly there currently isn't the Environment Agency staff to police these events.

Legislation will possibly need to be changed as many of these companies have loop holes in discharge consents therefore allowing them to legally pollute.

I think it's fair that in any industry you give warning of changes and ramp up the requirements and allow the industry to change and invest appropriately, tied in with bringing in fines, so far this hasn't happened anywhere on the scale needed.

If you move the goal posts too quickly and the companies fold then its likely the taxpayer will just be picking up the fines.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I'm afraid as I get older I get more impatient to have these sort of wrongs put right. Sorry. Patience is a virtue...... one I'm afraid I have lost over the years. :-)
I totally understand your explanation and accept it wholeheartedly. Thanks. :-)
 
hilts said:
There you go deflecting again, your post was a we need more people because of the increasing number of elderly people as a % in our society. It's been mentioned a million times so you ain't teaching anyone anything.

Wrapping it up in a long winded post with a link doesn't change that. If you can give me an answer to the obvious flaw in an ever growing population that damages the home we all live in but don't own please do it would be very comforting.

I had enough of we need people to serve us at Pret a decade ago tbh.
Click to expand...
OK, I give up.

You are getting sillier than Mexico.
 
inbetween said:
Why would it not be social housing? The government does not build social houses, housebuilders do.

If the government wants more social housing then they'll get a housebuilder to build the houses, they'll pay the housebuilder for the house and the council/housing associations take over management of the stock.

The biggest obstacle to this is land values, especially in the south. A 2-bed terrace can go for £500k near London, if even 100,000 minimum council houses are built near London then that's £50bn gone already...
Click to expand...
Local authorities built the council estates not private house builders. Most house builders stay away from social housing as the profit margins are too thin , but will sell to housing associations if offered full market value either off plan or on completion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top