The Labour Government

[hampshireblue]

So what's your alternative? Just spend more money we haven't got?

Today is the first day of the rest of your life, so it's somewhat academic how we got here. It might make you feel better having a good rant about a system and people you don't like, but that changes nothing.

Fact is we are spending £125bn per year on debt interest as it is. Increasing that further would be utter madness. And also the fact is, you cannot just keep increasing taxes and expect it to not have a negative effect upon an economy that is not even growing as it is. And finally, Reeves has ruled out breaking her fiscal rules.

We have 3 options: Spending cuts, tax even more or borrow even more. Given the humungous size of the welfare bill, which is expected to balloon even further, spending cuts (and efficiency improvement wherever possible) has to be the focus no matter how unpalatable. The other two options won't work, no matter how much you wish otherwise.

So what are you, or, more importantly, others prepared to go without?

 

[Kompany Car]

We wonder what a lot of the welfare budget is spent on, well the BBC have an article this week saying that for each child in care it costs an average of £318k per year.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gj93d57pjo

Now children in care deserve all the support they can get because it must be terrible, but at that cost per year someone is making an awful lot of money.

To put that into perspective, you could put them up in the Savoy Hotel in London 365 days of the year, pay a full time carer 80k per year to be with them and still have enough to take them on a few continental holidays and still have enough left for top notch food and clothing. Or alternatively a Royal Carribbean 274 day round the world cruise all inclusive in a premium suite and still have 120k to spare.

Yes I know my statement above is superficial and its not that simple as some have very complex needs but it does put into perspective the sums of money involved.

Someone is getting rich on the misery of others as per usual.

 

[Chippy_boy]

We wonder what a lot of the welfare budget is spent on, well the BBC have an article this week saying that for each child in care it costs an average of £318k per year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyw8jw11jwo

Now children in care deserve all the support they can get because it must be terrible, but at that cost per year someone is making an awful lot of money.

To put that into perspective, you could put them up in the Savoy Hotel in London 365 days of the year, pay a full time carer 80k per year to be with them and still have enough to take them on a few continental holidays and still have enough left for top notch food and clothing. Or alternatively a Royal Carribbean 274 day round the world cruise all inclusive in a premium suite and still have 120k to spare.

Yes I know my statement above is superficial and its not that simple as some have very complex needs but it does put into perspective the sums of money involved.

Someone is getting rich on the misery of others as per usual.

Incredible.

TBH I think although anecdotal, this sort of inefficiency and waste is rife across pretty much everything the state does. I don't blame the state entirely though - in many cases I think they are just being ripped off. Perhaps (I say perhaps, not definitely) because when you are spending someone else's money, maybe you aren't so precious about it.

Another silly anecdote, I drove along to my local Morrisons yesterday and noticed the council had put up "Yate, a Fair-Trade Town" signs. This is a council that is completely broke, puts up the council tax by the maximum every year, and yet finds several hundred pounds (thousands perhaps) to put up these signs. They just can't help themselves. They have spending Diarrhoea. They spent £3,500 on a new sign which says "Badminton Road Office" on their office on Badminton Road. I think we could have figured that out without them wasting £3.5k on a sign. That's £3.5k that could have been books for kids, or gone towards some special needs budget. But no. This sort of shite, is EVERYWHERE.

 

[Chippy_boy]

BTW, this a day for great celebration. Not only has this wondeful £150bn investment deal been done, even more remarkably, we have today returned 1 illegal small boat migrant to France. Hurrah. I don't know how many replacements will be arriving from France tomorrow though. More than 1 I believe.

 

[mosssideblue]

BTW, this a day for great celebration. Not only has this wondeful £150bn investment deal been done, even more remarkably, we have today returned 1 illegal small boat migrant to France. Hurrah. I don't know how many replacements will be arriving from France tomorrow though. More than 1 I believe.

Genuinely, why do you always feel the need to wum?

 

[Jimmieblue]

Apart from after the Crash, Labour governments finished their term with a lower national debt.

Harold Wilson’s Government! Sorry loved through that, tried to raise my kids through that “The pound in your pocket….”

 

[hampshireblue]

Incredible.

TBH I think although anecdotal, this sort of inefficiency and waste is rife across pretty much everything the state does. I don't blame the state entirely though - in many cases I think they are just being ripped off. Perhaps (I say perhaps, not definitely) because when you are spending someone else's money, maybe you aren't so precious about it.

Another silly anecdote, I drove along to my local Morrisons yesterday and noticed the council had put up "Yate, a Fair-Trade Town" signs. This is a council that is completely broke, puts up the council tax by the maximum every year, and yet finds several hundred pounds (thousands perhaps) to put up these signs. They just can't help themselves. They have spending Diarrhoea. They spent £3,500 on a new sign which says "Badminton Road Office" on their office on Badminton Road. I think we could have figured that out without them wasting £3.5k on a sign. That's £3.5k that could have been books for kids, or gone towards some special needs budget. But no. This sort of shite, is EVERYWHERE.

So a county council in the leafy Cotswolds spends money telling everyone from delivery drivers to constituents that this is the council office. I agree £3500 sounds a bit high, but the principle surely is correct? As for them being Completely broke:

"No, South Gloucestershire Council is not reported to be in debt; in fact, recent evaluations and financial information describe it as financially well-run with a sound financial narrative and a robust financial standing. While other councils' debt has increased, a 2025 assessment of South Gloucestershire Council indicated a commitment to financial health through sound management practices and ongoing improvement efforts."

 

[Chippy_boy]

Genuinely, why do you always feel the need to wum?

It's only a bit of sport mate. Don't take it to heart ;-)

 

[mosssideblue]

It's only a bit of sport mate. Don't take it to heart ;-)

Just find it silly

 

[metalblue]

We're not in this mess because of fiscal irresponsibility. It cannot be fiscally irresponsible to spend money on education or health for example. Both of these have only faced effective cuts versus inflation over the years so there's no possible way that spending could be judged to be irresponsible.

Let's get this right, we're in this mess because in 2008 a ton of greedy bankers and financial companies committed fraud and crashed the global economy. None of them went to prison and taxpayers had to bail them out and we are paying for that fraud through the massive fiscal debt.

We therefore are not living outside of our means in terms of spending and have you seen the state of our public services? What we are really doing is paying for one of the biggest frauds in history plus wars, COVID and so on too. The last thing that we are paying too much for is the very things that people need.

What you're really saying is that we should cut our public services to remain fiscally responsible and enable tax cuts for the very people who are responsible for this mess. No thanks!

It cost the UK government about £25bn bailing out an industry that contributes about 10% of GDP to the UK.

 

[We've got Guardiola]

It cost the UK government about £25bn bailing out an industry that contributes about 10% of GDP to the UK.

That was the cost of the bailout but what was the wider impact? Thousands lost their jobs, homes and the recession meant that businesses went bust which means less tax too.

GDP debt was less than 40% in 2007 so we weren't living beyond our means. Thanks to the recession by 2010 it climbed to 60% and subsequent events have brought it to what is now 100%. In that period spending has fallen in real terms and it directly explains why public services have fallen behind the curve with a growing population.

Successive years of rot and underinvestment is why the country isn't growing. The elites have taught people to blame immigrants or anyone but them because all they want are tax cuts and wealth, they don't want public resources to get spent on people instead.

If new tax cuts were to come in then the average joe will be the one paying for it with even more decreased spending. There's no other choice and I don't see why that is beneficial to anyone except for the people who already have more than enough. It isn't even socialism, it's just common fairness.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

We wonder what a lot of the welfare budget is spent on, well the BBC have an article this week saying that for each child in care it costs an average of £318k per year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyw8jw11jwo

Maybe I'm being thick, but I can't see where it says that in that article. Are you sure that's the right link?

Nevermind, here it is.

It's worth mentioning the utterly appalling life outcomes that this sum of money gets you for most children in care too. On average, they do terribly in education, in employment, are far more likely to end up homeless, etc etc. For £318k a year, they should be in the equivalent of a world class boarding school. But no doubt the majority of this money is lining the pockets of some private provider as yet again, successive governments wash their hands of the problems they were elected to solve, because as we all know, the private sector is far more efficient.

People act like raising taxes, cutting spending or increasing borrowing are the only options. How about cutting out the leeches in the private sector profiteering off tax money while providing the bare minimum 'service' to those they claim to be helping?

 

[Kompany Car]

Maybe I'm being thick, but I can't see where it says that in that article. Are you sure that's the right link?

Nevermind, here it is.

It's worth mentioning the utterly appalling life outcomes that this sum of money gets you for most children in care too. On average, they do terribly in education, in employment, are far more likely to end up homeless, etc etc. For £318k a year, they should be in the equivalent of a world class boarding school. But no doubt the majority of this money is lining the pockets of some private provider as yet again, successive governments wash their hands of the problems they were elected to solve, because as we all know, the private sector is far more efficient.

People act like raising taxes, cutting spending or increasing borrowing are the only options. How about cutting out the leeches in the private sector profiteering off tax money while providing the bare minimum 'service' to those they claim to be helping?

Yeah sorry about that the link when you use the share feature on the BBC site seems a bit bust.

But wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Gray]

BTW, this a day for great celebration. Not only has this wondeful £150bn investment deal been done, even more remarkably, we have today returned 1 illegal small boat migrant to France. Hurrah. I don't know how many replacements will be arriving from France tomorrow though. More than 1 I believe.

Another one gone today.

 

[M18CTID]

It does apply to every election with this last one being particularly bad, I dont think I said it was just this time, in fact I even mentioned the last lot, the lower the vote that wins the less democratic our system becomes.

Fair enough mate. What I would add is that not everybody who votes for a party that doesn’t win the election will disagree with every policy the winning party implements. Most people in this country just want a stable and competent government, even if it’s one they didn’t vote for.

 

[hilts]

Fair enough mate. What I would add is that not everybody who votes for a party that doesn’t win the election will disagree with every policy the winning party implements. Most people in this country just want a stable and competent government, even if it’s one they didn’t vote for.

I agree but remember I was just replying to a poster who basically said(paraphrasing) if your party dont win an election then accept you lost and the majority of the people dont agree with you. It was nonsense.

Because of our voting system and the way the votes are getting split the governing party need to try and judge the mood of the country, I think they tend to think more in terms of demographics and what minority groups they need to keep onside. The changing attitude of voters has made things quite a bit more complicated than it used to be.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It does apply to every election with this last one being particularly bad, I dont think I said it was just this time, in fact I even mentioned the last lot, the lower the vote that wins the less democratic our system becomes.

Agreed. A majority of 170 when 4 people out of every 5 didn't vote for them, was always going to be "tricky".

Whatever decisions the government makes, there will be a great number of people who are not supportive of it.

 

[mosssideblue]

Agreed. A majority of 170 when 4 people out of every 5 didn't vote for them, was always going to be "tricky".

Whatever decisions the government makes, there will be a great number of people who are not supportive of it.

And surely, a great number who are.
We don't know the reasons why there was a piss poor turn out at the election

 

[bluethrunthru]

And surely, a great number who are.
We don't know the reasons why there was a piss poor turn out at the election

14 years of the previous lot.

14 years of Toryism where people measurably got poorer, where services were diminished, where some side roads resembled the Somme, where your kids school or local hospital started to fall down, where your bills continually went up and where despite lobbying your MP it became clear he/she could do fuck all about any of it.

It just alienated people from politics - something the Tories thought actually favoured them to the point where they tried to exclude young people from voting by messing with the system. Thankfully, despite a low turn out, there was enough to get them out. So what if it was an anyone but Tories vote? People wanted rid of them and thankfully the last 14 months have shown they are not this "winning machine" we were led to believe in. Labour has two jobs now - one to make things measurably better for people and two to re-engage with the electorate. That is what they should be judged upon.

 

[hilts]

And surely, a great number who are.
We don't know the reasons why there was a piss poor turn out at the election

There was nothing that made them want to make the effort of going to a voting booth i guess, as depressing as that is.