The Labour Government

west didsblue said:
It’s a bit of a basic thing to be unaware of considering you say you’ve read the agreement in detail. Unlike you I’m not going to pretend that I understand all the intricacies of this agreement but I’m reasonably sure that we wouldn’t be spaffing that much away for absolutely no reason, and all it would take is someone playing hardball to get a zero cost deal.
Click to expand...
It's a commercial agreement, it doesn't go into Mauritius' history, and neither would you expect it to. And, being pedantic, I didn't say I had read in "in detail". I was interested in the financial aspects at the time.

We will never know, but were I on the Mauritius side of the table and I thought I could get all the islands back apart from a military base, for nothing, I'd be thinking that was a pretty good result. It stinks to high heaven that a senior official from the UK was telling them otherwise!

All agreements are of course based upon a compromise and a reasonable one would have been OK, you can have the islands but in return you need to guarantee us access to our military base. Not, oh, and you can have £50bn quid thrown in. Whoever actually negotiated that needs firing.
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
It's a commercial agreement, it doesn't go into Mauritius' history, and neither would you expect it to. And, being pedantic, I didn't say I had read in "in detail". I was interested in the financial aspects at the time.

We will never know, but were I on the Mauritius side of the table and I thought I could get all the islands back apart from a military base, for nothing, I'd be thinking that was a pretty good result. It stinks to high heaven that a senior official from the UK was telling them otherwise!

All agreements are of course based upon a compromise and a reasonable one would have been OK, you can have the islands but in return you need to guarantee us access to our military base. Not, oh, and you can have £50bn quid thrown in. Whoever actually negotiated that needs firing.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should have read the explanatory memorandum that does go into the history of the situation. It’s quite easy to find. There’s a link to a download directly below the agreement. Maybe you should read that before making judgments based on zero knowledge of the background.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...o-including-diego-garcia-cs-mauritius-no12025
 
What is the next step beyond condemning Israel's actions in the strongest possible terms? Is it summoning their ambassador to the foreign office to explain what on earth they are doing shooting civillians who are just queuing for food every day?

Can we expect David Lammy to do this or is that a step too far?
 
Chippy_boy said:
Interesting. So you completely disagree with Keir Starmer, then? Just for the record.
Click to expand...


I agreed with him originally that a further inquiry was not needed but the right aren't bothered about an enquiry are they ? they just want to make political capital out of others misery ... they sense that there's some scalps and scandal to be had ....... do I agree with him that a further enquiry is needed ? Not really but I accept that he was in a no win situation so accept his decision .

The recommendations outlined in the original report should be put into force with immediate effect though,
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
What is the next step beyond condemning Israel's actions in the strongest possible terms? Is it summoning their ambassador to the foreign office to explain what on earth they are doing shooting civillians who are just queuing for food every day?

Can we expect David Lammy to do this or is that a step too far?
Click to expand...
Words simply aren't enough anymore are they? It's gone way beyond that now

Saying that, as much as I despise Trump he is arguably the one person who could put a stop to all this with a single phone call.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Maybe you should stop being a sanctimonious prick?
Click to expand...
Haha.

All I’ve done is call you out on your faux outrage about a deal just because it was signed up to by a Labour government, even though most of it was negotiated by the previous government and even though you know absolutely fuck all about the background. It’s just another example of your total lack of credibility when discussing pretty much anything.

I think that’s enough on this topic. Now jog on.
 
M18CTID said:
Words simply aren't enough anymore are they? It's gone way beyond that now

Saying that, as much as I despise Trump he is arguably the one person who could put a stop to all this with a single phone call.
Click to expand...
Clearly words aren't enough anymore. I was being a little sarcastic.

Ie we haven't even got to the stage of summoning their ambassador!
 
west didsblue said:
Haha.

All I’ve done is call you out on your faux outrage about a deal just because it was signed up to by a Labour government, even though most of it was negotiated by the previous government and even though you know absolutely fuck all about the background. It’s just another example of your total lack of credibility when discussing pretty much anything.

I think that’s enough on this topic. Now jog on.
Click to expand...
That you think I lack credibility, I regard as a compliment. I must be on the right track. And since you are not my shrink, I don't think you're in any position to decribe my genuine outrage, as "faux".

The ONLY thing I was prepared to accept from your attacks was that Mauritius having never owned the islands, was effectively misleading, albeit true. The rest of my assertions stand. And not a word from you about Hermer advising them I note.

So, jog on yourself pal.
 
Chippy_boy said:
That you think I lack credibility, I regard as a compliment. I must be on the right track. And since you are not my shrink, I don't think you're in any position to decribe my genuine outrage, as "faux".

The ONLY thing I was prepared to accept from your attacks was that Mauritius having never owned the islands, was effectively misleading, albeit true. The rest of my assertions stand. And not a word from you about Hermer advising them I note.

So, jog on yourself pal.
Click to expand...
As you know nothing of the historical context, your assertions mean absolutely nothing.

You have lacked any credibility since you transitioned from Tory boy to Nigel Farage’s parrot.
 
Brewster's millions said:
That really is a poorly written summary from the NIESR.

The negative impact of Brexit, according to their analysis, does not escalate over time. It reduces, and becomes less significant. But it remains a negative influence in marginal terms, and therefore over time the level of GDP still moves gradually further away from the alternative, assumed profile of GDP, which is based on the UK remaining in the EU.

According to their analysis, in the five years following the end of the transition period - by 2025 - the level of GDP would be 3.2% below the no Brexit hypothesis. It then takes a further ten years for the level of GDP to be 5.7% below the no Brexit profile. So the impact on the economy is not escalating over time, it is diminishing.

Also it’s worth noting that the NIESR analysis incorporates the OBR’s estimates of how Brexit is seen to reduce productivity growth, and as such it’s not really a true alternative to the OBR analysis . Given how terrible the OBR has proved at forecasting productivity growth - utterly useless in fact - I would tend to disregard anything they have to say on the matter, including their Brexit impact estimates.
Click to expand...
Two things come to mind when I read reports about economic brexit impact. Firstly they never compare actual UK economic performance since leaving with other comparable nations.

And secondly if you spent years predicting dire economic consequences, it's hard to admit you were wrong. This especially seems so of most government departments and the civil service regardless of the area of expertise.
 
west didsblue said:
As you know nothing of the historical context, your assertions mean absolutely nothing.

You have lacked any credibility since you transitioned from Tory boy to Nigel Farage’s parrot.
Click to expand...
Lacking credibility with you is not exactly an insult

Were we legally obligated to give the islands back? No.
Were we legally or morally obliged to bung them £50bn? No.
Was it appropriate that a UK senior legal figure was advising THEM? No.
And, I'll add, are the governments claims regarding the true costs an outright lie? Yes.

Now, I suppose you'll try to rubbish my post because of a spelling mistake or some other distraction. Knock yourself out.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
I agreed with him originally that a further inquiry was not needed but the right aren't bothered about an enquiry are they ? they just want to make political capital out of others misery ... they sense that there's some scalps and scandal to be had ....... do I agree with him that a further enquiry is needed ? Not really but I accept that he was in a no win situation so accept his decision .

The recommendations outlined in the original report should be put into force with immediate effect though,
Click to expand...
Did you actually read Baroness Casey’s National Audit? If not, I suggest you do so.


Or perhaps the government's reponse, here:

www.gov.uk

Government response to the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse report

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
Lacking credibility with you is not exactly an insult

Were we legally obligated to give the islands back? No.
Were we legally or morally obliged to bung them £50bn? No.
Was it appropriate that a UK senior legal figure was advising THEM? No.
And, I'll add, are the governments claims regarding the true costs an outright lie? Yes.

Now, I suppose you'll try to rubbish my post because of a spelling mistake or some other distraction. Knock yourself out.
Click to expand...
Opinions dressed up as facts straight from Farage’s preferred media outlets.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Lacking credibility with you is not exactly an insult

Were we legally obligated to give the islands back? No.
Were we legally or morally obliged to bung them £50bn? No.
Was it appropriate that a UK senior legal figure was advising THEM? No.
And, I'll add, are the governments claims regarding the true costs an outright lie? Yes.

Now, I suppose you'll try to rubbish my post because of a spelling mistake or some other distraction. Knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

We would have been obligated in the near future, even the conservatives realised that, and it would likely have cost a shedload more had we gone down that route.
 
Brewster's millions said:
According to their analysis, in the five years following the end of the transition period - by 2025 - the level of GDP would be 3.2% below the no Brexit hypothesis. It then takes a further ten years for the level of GDP to be 5.7% below the no Brexit profile. So the impact on the economy is not escalating over time, it is diminishing.
Click to expand...
The rate of the negative impact is diminishing in the next 10 years compared to the first 5 years but the overall negative impact is still increasing. According to those figures GDP still drops by 2.5% in those 10 years.
In other words the boat is still sinking, just not as fast as was. Hardly a success.
 
west didsblue said:
I did.
That’s why I know.
You should try it.
Click to expand...
Oh, so you are now saying you'd read the Agreement? Strange for you to have not mentioned that before. Perhaps it was an oversight.

And since you're so read up on the subject, what do you make of the Labour stating that the cost to the UK is £3bn to £4bn?

It would be interesting to see how you support that "fact", given that the aggregate sum of the payments is circa £50bn (assuming RPI at 3%) and then taking a 3% discounted cash flow = £9bn.

Or you can assume 2% indexation and a 2% DCF rate, and get £30bn gross and £10bn NPV. Any which way you cut it, the £3-4bn claim is a lie.
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
And you’re a fine upstanding young fellow, I’m sure.

You can find the sources that tell you how many people will leave, just as well as I can. It took me 20 seconds. But we all know whatever I post you will just say is rubbish, so what’s the point. It’s like a school playground

Still here goes, knock yourself out:

How many non-doms are expected to leave the UK after Reeves' tax changes?

The number of non-doms expected to leave the UK after Rachel Reeves’ tax changes is uncertain, but current estimates from major analysts and surveys suggest a significant outflow, potentially between 25% and 40% of the non-dom population:
• The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) estimates that if 25% of non-doms leave, the Treasury would make no net gain from the changes. Their scenarios suggest that the departure rate could be higher: 33%, 40%, or even 50%—with each scenario increasing the fiscal loss to public revenues.
• A survey from Oxford Economics and other published research indicates that about 40% of current non-doms are considering leaving within two years of the policy change.
• The UK’s fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), offers a more conservative estimate that 12% of the 74,000 non-doms would leave due to the reforms, which equates to roughly 8,900 individuals.
Companies House data (as reported by Bloomberg) shows more than 4,400 company directors left the UK in the past year, with a 75% increase in departures in April 2025 alone, notably in sectors popular with non-doms

Putting these numbers together:
• 12% (OBR estimate): ~8,900 non-doms
• 25% (CEBR scenario): ~18,500 non-doms
• 32% (Oxford Economics survey): ~23,700 non-doms
• 40% (high-end surveys/analyst view): ~29,600 non-doms
Click to expand...

A wealth tax is a bad idea and being championed by someone twice rejected by the electorate.

However public finances are in a complete mess and getting worse under Labour so something needs to be done.

If I was Reeves I’d give it a proper roll of the dice. Pension funds in this country benefit from tax breaks and then off your fund managers trot and invest in non UK companies - I would bring forth a policy that mandated a certain amount of UK pension funds must be invested in UK companies/ government projects. The government projects pay back model could be along similar lines of PFI funding but with far less punitive terms but other models are available.

They could slsp mandate the wealthy invest a certain amount of their wealth in similar schemes rather than tax them, they don’t get less wealthy but do make their wealth available for use.

The pension one is likely to be the one that is politically the most palatable due to the tax breaks received.

I’d say that’ll bring a much needed boost to growth and help the government of the day with investment.
 
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