The Labour Government

BigJoe#1 said:
Because it counts for..... nothing, meaningless.

Its not like we are drafting proposals for ministers to consider. The focus should be on what the government said they would do as opposed to what they are actually doing.

If I had my way I would nationalise the energy businesses and the water companies. I would introduce a wealth tax, the richest people could forego say 10% of their assets above... what £20m? I would increase corporation tax. Raise the upper limit of income tax on earnings over £100k to 60%,...... and so it goes on. Trouble is, like many others on here I have zero influence on government policy.

Th e main difference is I never made any commitments in a fully costed manifesto, ergo I don't have to come up with answers, but if the government don't deliver to what they committed and decide to extend the scope of their manifesto... yeah damn right I'll complain, just as I did when Cameron took over from Labour. I think it was two, to two and a half years he was banging on about the mess he inherited from the previous government.

They are all as incompetent as each other.
Click to expand...
As long as it doesn't affect you then?
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Fair play to your points.... provided shareholders will be held responsible for the debts that the Business incur and pay them up in full?

They seem for quite a while now, to be drawing dividends from a loss making company... not even United are that bad... are they?
Click to expand...
Shareholders get dividends, or not. The dividends may increase, or gown down, or they may not get any at all. And the value of their shares may go up, or down.

But there's no company on earth that requires the shareholders to chip in more money to cover a businesses losses if they make losses. No-one would invest in such a company. Doesn't matter if they are providing public services or not.

And I might add, whilst you and I agree on many things, I do find your suggetion somewhat ironic. i.e. people complain when privatized companies make profits when providing public services, and now you're complaining when they don't. What do you want, for them to just barely break even every year, not a penny more or a penny less?

And regards debts, what happened to the money the government trousered when selling off these formerly nationalized businesss? That's right, they used the money to pay for public services whilst keeping our taxes down.

In today's money the government has received around £350 billlion in cash directly from the the sale of these businesses. And it hasn't spent all of it on expensive suits and glasses for Starmer ;-)
 
Last edited:
BigJoe#1 said:
If I had my way I would nationalise the energy businesses and the water companies. I would introduce a wealth tax, the richest people could forego say 10% of their assets above... what £20m? I would increase corporation tax. Raise the upper limit of income tax on earnings over £100k to 60%,...... and so it goes on. Trouble is, like many others on here I have zero influence on government policy.
Click to expand...
Thank God, with policies like the above. ;-)

1. What spare money does the government have to pay for the nationalization of those businesses? It would probably cost around £500 billion to do that, and Reeves couldn't get a £5bn saving through, to put things into perspective. The government has no spare money.

2. If you tried to raise that sort of money through wealth taxes and increased income tax, you'd spectacularly fail. Income tax receipts barely go up at all when you increase the rate from 45% to 50% and they would probably come down if you went to 60%. And it's well established that wealth taxes don't raise the expected revenues, as evidenced the many countries who tried them and then gave up.

So all you would achieve is piling another £400 to £500bn onto the currently already enormous national debt.

And for what? Because it was so much better when the government ran things? Give me a break.
 
Last edited:
More good news:

  • UK pledges up to £70 million to support Singapore’s FAST-P initiative to support clean energy transition and regional energy security
Singapore and London, 14 July 2025…Singapore and the United Kingdom (UK) announced a collaboration on 12 July 2025 to drive clean energy transition and advance the development of sustainable infrastructure across Southeast Asia. During his official visit to Singapore on 12 July 2025, the UK Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, David Lammy, announced a landmark pledge of up to £70 million to Singapore’s Financing Asia’s Transition Partnership (FAST-P) initiative, as part of the collaboration.

Well done David! Singapore, a country with no national debt and average pay 2.5x that of the UK, and WE are giving THEM £70m.

Marvellous.

1752675214796.png
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
More good news:

  • UK pledges up to £70 million to support Singapore’s FAST-P initiative to support clean energy transition and regional energy security
Singapore and London, 14 July 2025…Singapore and the United Kingdom (UK) announced a collaboration on 12 July 2025 to drive clean energy transition and advance the development of sustainable infrastructure across Southeast Asia. During his official visit to Singapore on 12 July 2025, the UK Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, David Lammy, announced a landmark pledge of up to £70 million to Singapore’s Financing Asia’s Transition Partnership (FAST-P) initiative, as part of the collaboration.

Well done David! Singapore, a country with no national debt and average pay 2.5x that of the UK, and WE are giving THEM £70m.

Marvellous.

View attachment 163096
Click to expand...
This does seem bizarre. There has to be more to it-I hope.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Because it counts for..... nothing, meaningless.

Its not like we are drafting proposals for ministers to consider. The focus should be on what the government said they would do as opposed to what they are actually doing.

If I had my way I would nationalise the energy businesses and the water companies. I would introduce a wealth tax, the richest people could forego say 10% of their assets above... what £20m? I would increase corporation tax. Raise the upper limit of income tax on earnings over £100k to 60%,...... and so it goes on. Trouble is, like many others on here I have zero influence on government policy.

Th e main difference is I never made any commitments in a fully costed manifesto, ergo I don't have to come up with answers, but if the government don't deliver to what they committed and decide to extend the scope of their manifesto... yeah damn right I'll complain, just as I did when Cameron took over from Labour. I think it was two, to two and a half years he was banging on about the mess he inherited from the previous government.

They are all as incompetent as each other.
Click to expand...
See,we are alike after all in that we can both post bollocks. At least mine was only one line long :-)
 
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