The Labour Government

KDB Fan said:
Given how critical Cleverley was of this deal, I highly doubt he negotiated anything like the current terms. But even if he did, you do realise the current Gov't have the power to not just go along with whatever the previous Gov't do?

They've done nothing but rip up the previous Sunak Government deals so why haven't they done the same and/or negotiated a deal that is far worse?

With all the hardship people face in this country, is this really the reason you voted Labour?
Click to expand...

KDB Fan said:
If the Conservative Party negotiated this deal in exactly the same terms, I'd be absolutely as critical of them and would call it an utter waste of money. But we don't know what they negotiated because they never signed anything off. They could have negotiated a deal that was far better or, if that's possible, far worse. So, as much as the Labour fan club on here don't want to admit it and start to have their little tantrums about it, the book stops with Labour if and when they sign off on this deal.

So my question to the fan club (that no-one has yet answered) is whether the billions spent on the Chagos Islands is worth the hardship people are having to put up with in mainly Labour voting areas?
Click to expand...
'Fan club', 'tantrums' ??

As for your question, i dont know anything about the 'value' of the Islands, internationally, militarily or diplomatically.
What's 19billion divided by 99?
Looking at VFM i'd prefer the the 11billion a year nuclear defence budget to be spent on the poor and needy.
 
KDB Fan said:
If the Conservative Party negotiated this deal in exactly the same terms, I'd be absolutely as critical of them and would call it an utter waste of money. But we don't know what they negotiated because they never signed anything off. They could have negotiated a deal that was far better or, if that's possible, far worse. So, as much as the Labour fan club on here don't want to admit it and start to have their little tantrums about it, the buck stops with Labour if and when they sign off on this deal.

So my question to the fan club (that no-one has yet answered) is whether the billions spent on the Chagos Islands is worth the hardship people are having to put up with in mainly Labour voting areas?
Click to expand...

The question is whether you'd pay for the base, or give it up. If that's what you're asking then, I'd probably spend the money elsewhere, but frankly, given the way the US is under Trump, I suspect it would cost us a lot more if we pissed off the US by doing that.

The reason the Tories were negotiating in the first place is that they knew they were in a situation where legally they'd ultimately lose, and have to give up any claim on the islands.

Apparently both deal and no deal would be a betrayal. Which is typical of politics these days.
 
bluenova said:
The question is whether you'd pay for the base, or give it up. If that's what you're asking then, I'd probably spend the money elsewhere, but frankly, given the way the US is under Trump, I suspect it would cost us a lot more if we pissed off the US by doing that.

The reason the Tories were negotiating in the first place is that they knew they were in a situation where legally they'd ultimately lose, and have to give up any claim on the islands.

Apparently both deal and no deal would be a betrayal. Which is typical of politics these days.
Click to expand...

Why would you have to give it up? The option seems to be, do we either borrow to pay Mauritius £9-18 billion or do we keep it and not pay a penny and spend those billions in the UK? I'd go for the latter.
 
KDB Fan said:
Why would you have to give it up? The option seems to be, do we either borrow to pay Mauritius £9-18 billion or do we keep it and not pay a penny and spend those billions in the UK? I'd go for the latter.
Click to expand...

Because we've already lost a case at the ICJ, and a UN resolution went against us something like 115-5. That's when the Tories started negotiating properly, as it was made clear that the writing was on the wall.

Given that we're talking about money over a 100 year period, and it's what the US wanted at the time, it's not a huge amount, and clearly made sense to the Tories as mitigating the risk. If both the Tory and Labour Governments have accepted that there needed to be an agreement, then saying just 'keep it' isn't realistic.
 
Lucy Powell absolutely lost it with Richard Holden on Politics live after PMQs - He was a complete dick, but he got her to react with his dickishness.
 
bluenova said:
The question is whether you'd pay for the base, or give it up. If that's what you're asking then, I'd probably spend the money elsewhere, but frankly, given the way the US is under Trump, I suspect it would cost us a lot more if we pissed off the US by doing that.

The reason the Tories were negotiating in the first place is that they knew they were in a situation where legally they'd ultimately lose, and have to give up any claim on the islands.

Apparently both deal and no deal would be a betrayal. Which is typical of politics these days.
Click to expand...
Common sense says we should just give it up, we don't have a military presence on the islands apart from a handful of administrators.

If the US want to lease it as a bomber base let them pay the lease.
 
Vic said:
I said never mind the black hole. I meant ignore it.

Consider these lost billions: Councils are getting about half the central funding they were getting in 2010 (a cut of £20bn a year).

"The fall in councils' spending power is largely because of reductions in central government grants. These grants were cut by 40% in real terms between 2009/10 and 2019/20, from £46.5bn to £28.0bn (2023/24 prices). This downward trend was reversed in 2020/21 and 2021/22 as central government made more grant funding available to local government in response to the pressures of the pandemic. Though even including Covid grants, the fall in grant income was still 21% in real terms between 2009/10 and 2021/22; without, the fall was 31%.

"While grants from central government were cut, rates of council tax, set by individual councils, were allowed to increase. Local authorities raised 30% more council tax, in real terms, in 2021/22 compared to 2009/10.

"The Localism Act 2011 – which came into effect in 2012/13 – included a clause that prevented local authorities from raising council tax rates by more than 2% annually without holding a referendum. Theresa May’s government increased this to 3% for 2018/19 and 2019/20. Most recently, the government allowed local authorities to raise this again, to 5%, for authorities with social care responsibilities – with 2% from the social care precept and the remaining 3% for discretionary spending."

From https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england

Someone was complaining about Trafford council tax increasing by 7+ % - after the Truss budget sent inflation into double figures.

See also:
Key findings
1. Taking the period 2010–11 to 2024–25 as a whole, councils’ overall core funding is set to be 9% lower in real terms and 18% lower in real terms per person this year than at the start of the 2010s. The reduction is set to be larger for councils serving deprived areas (e.g. 26% per person for the most deprived tenth) than for the less deprived areas (e.g. 11% for the least deprived tenth). This reflects the fact that the funding increases seen since 2019–20 have offset only part of the overall cuts seen in the 2010s, which fell hardest on poorer areas. Average council tax bills are around 2% higher in real terms than in 2010–11, and little changed since 2019–20, with high inflation offsetting high nominal increases over the last few years. This compares with a real-terms increase of over 60% between 1997–98 and 2010–11.

2. During the 2010s, councils’ overall core funding per person fell by 26% in real terms, on average, with higher council tax revenues only partially offsetting a 46% fall in funding from central government. But these cuts affected areas differently: in the most deprived tenth of councils, funding per person fell by 35%, compared with 15% in the least deprived areas. Councils in the North and London were also relatively harder hit. Councils responded by prioritising statutory services: while spending per person on children’s social care rose by 11% in real terms, per-person spending on culture and leisure, housing, planning and development, and transport fell by over 40%. Councils also offset some of these pressures by raising more from sales, fees and charges on service users.

From https://ifs.org.uk/publications/how-have-english-councils-funding-and-spending-changed-2010-2024


And I remember the sinking feeling when I first saw the Graph of Doom:
Click to expand...
OK I don't dispute any of that.

But my point still stands , the Government now has an opportunity to start to change things if they want to but seemingly are just following the same course as the previous one.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Common sense says we should just give it up, we don't have a military presence on the islands apart from a handful of administrators.

If the US want to lease it as a bomber base let them pay the lease.
Click to expand...

Part of the payback is clearly because of the awful way we treated the people who lived there.

I would agree about the US bit - it seems odd that we're paying, although I assume there's more to it - whether the US is contributing in some roundabout way, or whether we see it as giving us some kind of diplomatic sway with the US. Clearly they have the power in almost any situation, so is it a useful bargaining chip?

Starmer has also just suggested at PMQs that Badenoch should be aware of the reasons, that aren't in the public domain, as to why it's vital we come to some sort of deal. Will be interesting to see what she comes back with, if she either was unaware, or if she was aware, had considered the full picture, and will still double down.
 
bluenova said:
Part of the payback is clearly because of the awful way we treated the people who lived there.

I would agree about the US bit - it seems odd that we're paying, although I assume there's more to it - whether the US is contributing in some roundabout way, or whether we see it as giving us some kind of diplomatic sway with the US. Clearly they have the power in almost any situation, so is it a useful bargaining chip?

Starmer has also just suggested at PMQs that Badenoch should be aware of the reasons, that aren't in the public domain, as to why it's vital we come to some sort of deal. Will be interesting to see what she comes back with, if she either was unaware, or if she was aware, had considered the full picture, and will still double down.
Click to expand...
That was 55 years ago. No reason to pay much if anything at all, why should we pay for our ancestors crimes.

If we as a country go down this route we will be bankrupt in a couple of years given the ammount of people the British Empire offended, dispossessed and killed. Slavery compensation will be back on the agenda soon.

I dont care what the last lot was going to do, Starmer need to grow a pair and put the UK and it's citizens first.
 
bluenova said:
Because we've already lost a case at the ICJ, and a UN resolution went against us something like 115-5. That's when the Tories started negotiating properly, as it was made clear that the writing was on the wall.

Given that we're talking about money over a 100 year period, and it's what the US wanted at the time, it's not a huge amount, and clearly made sense to the Tories as mitigating the risk. If both the Tory and Labour Governments have accepted that there needed to be an agreement, then saying just 'keep it' isn't realistic.
Click to expand...
The problem isnt the money if it was over a 100yr period, in their infinite wisdom they appear to have agreed to front load it and for any future payments link it to inflation. The agreement to front load and inflation link has been done under Labour's watch unfortunately, at a time when it seems we dont have a pot to piss in.

I dont know, maybe Trump is gonna give us the money back so he can keep his base at Diego Garcia.

The job of the government is to get the most favourable terms they can, but at the moment the leader of the mighty nation of Mauritius seems to just be getting what he wants and is frankly making us look a like a laughing stock.
 
Kompany Car said:
The problem isnt the money if it was over a 100yr period, in their infinite wisdom they appear to have agreed to front load it and for any future payments link it to inflation. The agreement to front load and inflation link has been done under Labour's watch unfortunately, at a time when it seems we dont have a pot to piss in.

I dont know, maybe Trump is gonna give us the money back so he can keep his base at Diego Garcia.

The job of the government is to get the most favourable terms they can, but at the moment the leader of the mighty nation of Mauritius seems to just be getting what he wants and is frankly making us look a like a laughing stock.
Click to expand...
He's taking the piss out of Starmer.
 
Kompany Car said:
The problem isnt the money if it was over a 100yr period, in their infinite wisdom they appear to have agreed to front load it and for any future payments link it to inflation. The agreement to front load and inflation link has been done under Labour's watch unfortunately, at a time when it seems we dont have a pot to piss in.

I dont know, maybe Trump is gonna give us the money back so he can keep his base at Diego Garcia.

The job of the government is to get the most favourable terms they can, but at the moment the leader of the mighty nation of Mauritius seems to just be getting what he wants and is frankly making us look a like a laughing stock.
Click to expand...

Why would Mauritius agree to terms that didn't include inflation on a 100 year lease?

Only a fool would accept that when they have a strong hand we have 3 of clubs and a panini collectible sticker of David Batty.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
OK I don't dispute any of that.

But my point still stands , the Government now has an opportunity to start to change things if they want to but seemingly are just following the same course as the previous one.
Click to expand...
Debating it in Parliament today. Next year promising a three-year-settlement which councils wanted.

www.gov.uk

Over £69 billion confirmed for council budgets

Final Settlement confirms over £69 billion government funding for councils, a 6.8% cash-terms increase in Core Spending Power
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
 
stonerblue said:
'Fan club', 'tantrums' ??

As for your question, i dont know anything about the 'value' of the Islands, internationally, militarily or diplomatically.
What's 19billion divided by 99?
Looking at VFM i'd prefer the the 11billion a year nuclear defence budget to be spent on the poor and needy.
Click to expand...
19billion. Lol.

That would pay for yet another extension to London Underground! The north west sure as hell wouldn't see any of anyway.
 
bluenova said:
Part of the payback is clearly because of the awful way we treated the people who lived there.

I would agree about the US bit - it seems odd that we're paying, although I assume there's more to it - whether the US is contributing in some roundabout way, or whether we see it as giving us some kind of diplomatic sway with the US. Clearly they have the power in almost any situation, so is it a useful bargaining chip?

Starmer has also just suggested at PMQs that Badenoch should be aware of the reasons, that aren't in the public domain, as to why it's vital we come to some sort of deal. Will be interesting to see what she comes back with, if she either was unaware, or if she was aware, had considered the full picture, and will still double down.
Click to expand...
Starter saying she hadn't asked for a security briefing. Obviously it's harder to ask awkward questions for public consumption if you've already been told the answers in a private briefing.

It happens locally. All-party senior briefings that the Tories don't attend so they can criticise decisions rather than influence them.
 
bluenova said:
Because we've already lost a case at the ICJ, and a UN resolution went against us something like 115-5. That's when the Tories started negotiating properly, as it was made clear that the writing was on the wall.

Given that we're talking about money over a 100 year period, and it's what the US wanted at the time, it's not a huge amount, and clearly made sense to the Tories as mitigating the risk. If both the Tory and Labour Governments have accepted that there needed to be an agreement, then saying just 'keep it' isn't realistic.
Click to expand...

Nobody, other than Starmer, cares about those resolutions or judgments, they're advisory for a reason and that's why most countries ignore them which is what we should have done here.

Instead British taxpayers are having to borrow billions to pay off a sum when their quality of life is being decimated at home with tax rises, bill rises, and spending cuts. Absolute madness.
 
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