The Labour Government

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Like many, I don’t mind reasoned debate as it’s usually based on what we actually know rather than on wild opinion or, in some cases, mis or disinformation. That’s where you have to question the logic of your own response as one is only feeding further speculation and falsehoods as the position will no doubt be defended.

I now find it easier, and much better for your mental health, to drive past these would be encounters and allow others to look at what has been posited and make their mind up about who/what that person is.

Totally the same. No one believes the other person’s source, so debate has died and it’s just a slanging match as a result.

It’s not even a right and left thing. It’s positivity vs negativity.

If your glass is always less than half full, then there will never be a bright side to anything, whatever the subject.

Once you’ve tried to pull people out of that doom loop a few times without success, there’s not much that can be done outside of scrolling on past.

 

[maxwellblue]

How disabled do you have to be to be able to ask for help in Maxwellland?

We all know that there are those that are genuinely deserving of help and we all know that there are those that are milking the system. If you're happy to fund those that don't need help then more fool you.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

We all know that there are those that are genuinely deserving of help and we all know that there are those that are milking the system. If you're happy to fund those that don't need help then more fool you.

Think you need to realise that certain people will milk the system however draconian you make it.

Each time you make it more difficult to claim, it’s the genuinely disabled that suffer, not the tiny percentage of scroungers.

Scroungers play up their disabilities, the genuinely infirm don’t.

 

[hampshireblue]

You’re happy with Reeves deliberately lying to the media then, stating that investment would need to be significantly reduced without tax rises?

A straight up lie and you’re making excuses for it.

Oh, come on, BKB, we all know you've got the hots for her really. You were very much the same when it came to Rayner too. Maybe there's a hint of mysogyny going on in BKB land? Oh no that can't be right because you've never had a go at the likes of Michelle Mone.

 

[Brewster's millions]

I’m not making excuses, where did she lie?

Do you know the plan for investment and the costs involved?

We’re at a point where our public services need investment, and turn around the austerity and mismanagement of public services. That costs, and although you personally don’t want to support these measures, I do. I want to see public services support the next generations, giving them a decent start in life, covering their educational needs, supporting them where needed throughout life, and giving them dignity in their later years.

I see that as fundamental to a decent society, and without it, you get where we were only a couple of years back.

I’ve already outlined what she said to the BBC, and when she said it (10 November).

We did know the plan for investment, as it was outlined in the first two fiscal statements delivered by Reeves, and further detail was provided by the Comprehensive Spending Review in June. The cost of providing this and indeed all other borrowing was already projected in the October 24 and March 25 forecasts and was of course due to be updated in the Budget.

Reeves stated on 10 November that capital spending would need to be significantly reduced if manifesto pledges on tax were to be kept. This wasn’t the case in March, and so the only logical conclusion to draw from such a statement is that the fiscal position had deteriorated significantly, and that action would be required to avoid breaching the fiscal rules.

However we now know that Reeves was told by the OBR on 20 and 31 October that this wasn’t the case, and that the fiscal rules would in fact still be met with the existing profile of resource and capital spending, and indeed without any further increases in tax of any kind.

This is all on the record and fact, regardless of what some desperate sorts on here suggest. The only conclusion to draw is that Reeves lied about the state of the public finances and deliberately misled markets.

Given that you’re so keen to see government spending increased, and more funding provided for public services, I find it odd that you’re defending a Chancellor who deliberately provided a misleading, pejorative picture of the public finances for selfish political gain.

The OBR’s assessment of debt servicing costs have already increased by £41bn over the past year, money that could be spent elsewhere. But you seem happy defending behaviour that contributes to higher borrowing costs and weaker growth, putting further pressure on public spending.

I do find that surprising, at least with regard to yourself, if not for others on here.

 

[hampshireblue]

We all know that there are those that are genuinely deserving of help and we all know that there are those that are milking the system. If you're happy to fund those that don't need help then more fool you.

I don't think any one is happy to fund those "milking" the system. But actually having a humane method of determining those not in that group is key. I think there a few posters on here that are genuinely in need and are subjected to quite intrusuve and rigorous assessments.

 

[hampshireblue]

I’ve already outlined what she said to the BBC, and when she said it (10 November).

We did know the plan for investment, as it was outlined in the first two fiscal statements delivered by Reeves, and further detail was provided by the Comprehensive Spending Review in June. The cost of providing this and indeed all other borrowing was already projected in the October 24 and March 25 forecasts and was of course due to be updated in the Budget.

Reeves stated on 10 November that capital spending would need to be significantly reduced if manifesto pledges on tax were to be kept. This wasn’t the case in March, and so the only logical conclusion to draw from such a statement is that the fiscal position had deteriorated significantly, and that action would be required to avoid breaching the fiscal rules.

However we now know that Reeves was told by the OBR on 20 and 31 October that this wasn’t the case, and that the fiscal rules would in fact still be met with the existing profile of resource and capital spending, and indeed without any further increases in tax of any kind.

This is all on the record and fact, regardless of what some desperate sorts on here suggest. The only conclusion to draw is that Reeves lied about the state of the public finances and deliberately misled markets.

Given that you’re so keen to see government spending increased, and more funding provided for public services, I find it odd that you’re defending a Chancellor who deliberately provided a misleading, pejorative picture of the public finances for selfish political gain.

The OBR’s assessment of debt servicing costs have already increased by £41bn over the past year, money that could be spent elsewhere. But you seem happy defending behaviour that contributes to higher borrowing costs and weaker growth, putting further pressure on public spending.

I do find that surprising, at least with regard to yourself, if not for others on here.

It took 2 minutes for that reply of 8 paragraphs. BKB is a bot!!!!

 

[Brewster's millions]

Oh, come on, BKB, we all know you've got the hots for her really. You were very much the same when it came to Rayner too. Maybe there's a hint of mysogyny going on in BKB land? Oh no that can't be right because you've never had a go at the likes of Michelle Mone.

You can’t handle the truth, and you can’t debate the actual issue, so you end up throwing around silly insults.

How embarrassing.

 

[blueinsa]

You can’t handle the truth, and you can’t debate the actual issue, so you end up throwing around silly insults.

How embarrassing.

It’s a common theme.

Some seem only able to try and steer the debate around other posters.

Usually a sign they don’t feel on solid ground tbh.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

And the ad hominem insulters are back.

Time to leave them to it.

 

[maxwellblue]

I don't think any one is happy to fund those "milking" the system. But actually having a humane method of determining those not in that group is key. I think there a few posters on here that are genuinely in need and are subjected to quite intrusuve and rigorous assessments.

I don't disagree with what you say. But the cost of welfare is at a all time high. We have more on sickness benefits than ever, all because it's too easy. The country can't sustain it and it's totally unfair for those that pay the taxes

 

[maxwellblue]

Think you need to realise that certain people will milk the system however draconian you make it.

Each time you make it more difficult to claim, it’s the genuinely disabled that suffer, not the tiny percentage of scroungers.

Scroungers play up their disabilities, the genuinely infirm don’t.

I actually don't disagree with you but just letting them get away with isn't the answer, nor is it fair yo the genuine cases and those that work to fund it.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I actually don't disagree with you but just letting them get away with isn't the answer, nor is it fair yo the genuine cases and those that work to fund it.

If you can come up with the solution that’s fair to the disabled, then you’d do what no government has done up until now.

The outsourcing of decision makers to people that are only judging on a form has made it nigh on impossible to sort the scroungers from the genuine.

I guess if they could link it back to their doctor making the decision, it’d be easier to sirt, but there isn’t the manpower to do that.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Just a little joke, mate.

At the time, I asked the question why many in the media were going ballistic regarding a supposed rise in income tax. I’d already listened to an expert who’d stated that the ‘black hole’ had shrunk to a negligible level and Reeves would be setting the budget for future spend, not trying to clear the past.

Personally, I just didn’t understand the uproar, and still don’t. If I understood that the media furore was a load of bollox, why didn’t they?

No offence mate but the logic here is confusing. Why do you think the government briefed significant tax rises when it knew there was no need for them an no black hole to fill?

 

[mosssideblue]

Haha, a spin right out of the Rachel Reeves playbook. So you can ask a question but I can't ask a similar one.

Keep digging

 

[Norbert D]

I’ve already outlined what she said to the BBC, and when she said it (10 November).

We did know the plan for investment, as it was outlined in the first two fiscal statements delivered by Reeves, and further detail was provided by the Comprehensive Spending Review in June. The cost of providing this and indeed all other borrowing was already projected in the October 24 and March 25 forecasts and was of course due to be updated in the Budget.

Reeves stated on 10 November that capital spending would need to be significantly reduced if manifesto pledges on tax were to be kept. This wasn’t the case in March, and so the only logical conclusion to draw from such a statement is that the fiscal position had deteriorated significantly, and that action would be required to avoid breaching the fiscal rules.

However we now know that Reeves was told by the OBR on 20 and 31 October that this wasn’t the case, and that the fiscal rules would in fact still be met with the existing profile of resource and capital spending, and indeed without any further increases in tax of any kind.

This is all on the record and fact, regardless of what some desperate sorts on here suggest. The only conclusion to draw is that Reeves lied about the state of the public finances and deliberately misled markets.

Given that you’re so keen to see government spending increased, and more funding provided for public services, I find it odd that you’re defending a Chancellor who deliberately provided a misleading, pejorative picture of the public finances for selfish political gain.

The OBR’s assessment of debt servicing costs have already increased by £41bn over the past year, money that could be spent elsewhere. But you seem happy defending behaviour that contributes to higher borrowing costs and weaker growth, putting further pressure on public spending.

I do find that surprising, at least with regard to yourself, if not for others on here.

Bring back Liz Truss, BoJo and Lulu Little!

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

No offence mate but the logic here is confusing. Why do you think the government briefed significant tax rises when it knew there was no need for them an no black hole to fill?

Not sure why I’d take offence, mate, we’re on here to debate. This is probably where I’m at cross-wires. I don’t accept, because there has been no source to confirm the detail, the premis that the ‘government briefed’ the detail.

If there is evidence out there to confirm that premis then I am all ears/eyes, but nobody in government, or the media, has given real detail of where it came from. A couple of points:

1. Was there an actual briefing by anybody or was it an assumption due to her pre-budget speech?

2. If the government briefed what the media reported, why were the government still stating that their manifesto pledge to not raise income tax, was ‘Iron clad’?

All very confusing but can only go off what we see and hear, or the lack of, in some cases.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Bring back Liz Truss, BoJo and Lulu Little!

Please, no.

 

[hampshireblue]

You can’t handle the truth, and you can’t debate the actual issue, so you end up throwing around silly insults.

How embarrassing.

YOu and the right wing press believe she lied and have a timeline to prove it. Maybe she did and if so, deserves whatever sanctions are appropriate. As did Rayner. But your position as seemingly being a "guardian" of all that is wrong only appears to be in one direction and therefore stinks of hypocrisy. Apologies if you have ever criticised Mone, but I'm sure you'll enlighten us all if you have.

 

[maxwellblue]

Keep digging

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzthud