The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, egg said:

I agree re complacency. Reliance on the US for so long was daft, ditto reliance on Russia for gas. Europe needed a wake up call and Donny has done that, but done it in a ridiculous way. 

The GDP comparison point is a bit misleading and compares apples with cabbages. Our GDP buys us overpriced military gear from the US with a shit pound. It doesn't go as far as it should or once did. We also don't produce much. Russia's cash stretches so much further buying from North Korea and god knows where, and they have the ability to produce much more than us, and probably the rest of Europe. 

Being ridiculous is the one way to force European hands. Much the same was as - who ever it was - destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline.

 

[egg]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Being ridiculous is the one way to force European hands. Much the same was as - who ever it was - destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline.

 

He could have got European attention without empowering Putin. 

[AlexLaw76]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

He could have got European attention without empowering Putin. 

Tried that last time, no one listened.

He literally told the Germans to their faces that they were in putins pocket and they don't spend enough on Defence. They were laughing at him.

 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Why shouldn’t your Mum treat herself to a holiday wherever she chooses? Attitudes such as you display here are despicable

Don’t be so silly. The average pensioner is far better off under triple lock and the overall rise. Like farmers inheritance tax people become irrational and emotive with their arguments- it isn’t a pension or not, it is about non-means tested additional handouts going to those who very much don’t need the handout.

And be under no illusion that most pensioners are net contributors and only getting what their contributions deserve.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It’s not free money. These pensioners have made contributions over their working lives. I have had many friends, colleagues and relatives who never even lived long enough to receive a state pension.

To describe pensioners as either needy or greedy is deeply insulting. Those whom you describe as ‘needy’ have not made their own provision for their old age. Those whom you call ‘greedy’ have made sacrifices when younger just to be punished for doing so now. Why not describe it as taking from the thrifty to give to the shifty?

The fuel allowance was part of the state pension. Removing it amounts to a cut of over 3%. By all means add it to the basic pension when it would be subject to Income Tax but in no way is it a ‘free gift’.

In any case, UK pensions are among the lowest in the industrialised world. Successive governments have recognised this and encouraged people and employers to make their own provisions for their old age. Having done so pensioners are seen as a source of ‘free money’.

Why shouldn’t your Mum treat herself to a holiday wherever she chooses? Attitudes such as you display here are despicable.

I'm afraid that I do struggle to feel too much sympathy for elderly people given that no elderly people will ever have it so good again in our lifetimes. When young people now get old they will have fuck all by comparison. That's not to say you can't feel individual sympathy for someone going through hardship but let's not pretend that on average they have got it comparatively great. 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Don’t be so silly. The average pensioner is far better off under triple lock and the overall rise. Like farmers inheritance tax people become irrational and emotive with their arguments- it isn’t a pension or not, it is about non-means tested additional handouts going to those who very much don’t need the handout.

And be under no illusion that most pensioners are net contributors and only getting what their contributions deserve.

Agree about pensioners but I still think the farmers thing is silly. It would be really easy in that case to have just said that the new rules about inheritance tax apply only if the farm is sold or is no longer in use for food production. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, egg said:

Tory and Reform supporters seem to have forgotten the last 14 years

Ridiculous 😂😂

Surely if Reform supporters had forgotten the last 14 years they’d be Tory supporters. They’re Reform supporters because of the last 14 years. Just as they’ll pick up people from labour because they’re just as incompetent & corrupt. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It’s not free money. These pensioners have made contributions over their working lives. I have had many friends, colleagues and relatives who never even lived long enough to receive a state pension.

To describe pensioners as either needy or greedy is deeply insulting. Those whom you describe as ‘needy’ have not made their own provision for their old age. Those whom you call ‘greedy’ have made sacrifices when younger just to be punished for doing so now. Why not describe it as taking from the thrifty to give to the shifty?

The fuel allowance was part of the state pension. Removing it amounts to a cut of over 3%. By all means add it to the basic pension when it would be subject to Income Tax but in no way is it a ‘free gift’.

In any case, UK pensions are among the lowest in the industrialised world. Successive governments have recognised this and encouraged people and employers to make their own provisions for their old age. Having done so pensioners are seen as a source of ‘free money’.

Why shouldn’t your Mum treat herself to a holiday wherever she chooses? Attitudes such as you display here are despicable.

We fundamentally disagree on this Whitey. 

The fuel allowance was free money. Nobody, absolutely nobody, worked and contributed on the promise of an annual lump of cash, regardless of need. They latterly got it, but they never contributed expecting it. To suggest otherwise is dishonest. 

Anyone who needs state help is needy. It's not offensive to say that. Anyone who feels an entitlement to it, but does not need it, is being greedy. You can feel otherwise, and as I say, we fundamentally disagree. 

UK pensions are a separate issue, but I don't accept that the fuel allowance was a state pension bolt on as such. I'd love the state pension to be higher, but my retirement planning is by responsibility, and I'm a realist and acknowledge that what I'd like isn't how it works.

Simply, we're skint, and cannot afford to give bigger pensions, and/or fuel allowances to every person of retirement age. 

As for my mum, I'm delighted that she's financially secure enough to be doing road trips and living her best life. She deserves it. That financial security means that she does not need state support that this country cannot afford and quite rightly are spending where it's actually needed. Indeed, had she had her fuel allowance this year it may well paid for a day out at Dollywood - nobody is persuading me that's a good use of my taxes. 

 

 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Ridiculous 😂😂

Surely if Reform supporters had forgotten the last 14 years they’d be Tory supporters. They’re Reform supporters because of the last 14 years. Just as they’ll pick up people from labour because they’re just as incompetent & corrupt. 

Reform voters seem mostly to be Tory voters with even more fanciful expectations, and a lesser grip on reality. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm afraid that I do struggle to feel too much sympathy for elderly people given that no elderly people will ever have it so good again in our lifetimes. When young people now get old they will have fuck all by comparison. That's not to say you can't feel individual sympathy for someone going through hardship but let's not pretend that on average they have got it comparatively great. 

It’s the fact they lied to people about them and even criticised the Tories, claiming they were going to cut it. Just like they promised farmers they wouldn’t change inheritance tax, told the Waspi birds they’d compensate them, “not a penny extra on your council tax”, £300 saving on energy bills. They literally said anything to get elected, I’ve never known a Government go directly against so many promises or do a complete volte-face on so many issues so quickly. Even the Lib Dem’s only did it on one issue. 
 

The mental gymnastics of some on here is a sight to see, and there will be even more of it when Reeves runs out of headroom and starts to cut spending..
 

New Broom 😂😂

[Gloucester Saint]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Reform voters seem mostly to be Tory voters with even more fanciful expectations, and a lesser grip on reality. 

There’s Red Wall ex-Labour lower educational attainment in there, quite a bit in fact, and disenfranchised rural, see Boston where Tice won. Although the penny has dropped a bit with harvests well down with nobody to pick the stuff.

In the main though, Reform does have a core like Duck that are a bit more senior, that didn’t find Cameron, May, Boris or Sunak right wing enough for them. Gengis Khan probably wouldn’t be either having said that. 

Trying to bring those together in opposition far away from an election - doable as we see. Nearer an election? Far more difficult with more scrutiny, which will happen next time, and Farage is weak on health and economy.

Trump is going to be a drag anchor as the implosion from DOGE and internationally over Ukraine and tariffs carries on.

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s the fact they lied to people about them and even criticised the Tories, claiming they were going to cut it. Just like they promised farmers they wouldn’t change inheritance tax, told the Waspi birds they’d compensate them, “not a penny extra on your council tax”, £300 saving on energy bills. They literally said anything to get elected, I’ve never known a Government go directly against so many promises or do a complete volte-face on so many issues so quickly. Even the Lib Dem’s only did it on one issue. 
 

The mental gymnastics of some on here is a sight to see, and there will be even more of it when Reeves runs out of headroom and starts to cut spending..
 

New Broom 😂😂

How much of that nonsense reform manifesto could they have delivered? The answer is to nex to none. How many promises did the Tories break? 

You could argue that labour have broken promises. Or, more sensibly, you could argue that they've taken sensible courses by rowing backwards where necessary. As a non labour man, it's obvious where you'll go with that. 

[sadoldgit]

28 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Ridiculous 😂😂

Surely if Reform supporters had forgotten the last 14 years they’d be Tory supporters. They’re Reform supporters because of the last 14 years. Just as they’ll pick up people from labour because they’re just as incompetent & corrupt. 

How you can compare the two is beyond belief, even for you.

[egg]

18 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 The mental gymnastics of some on here is a sight to see, and there will be even more of it when Reeves runs out of headroom and starts to cut spending..
 

New Broom 😂😂

Just picking up on this Duck.

You criticise Labour for not delivering on things that will have cost a lot of money. You then highlight that spending will have to be cut, which suggests that you acknowledge that we're overspending. 

No wonder you're loving reform's "spend more and tax less approach".

Madness. 

 

[whelk]

38 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s the fact they lied to people about them and even criticised the Tories, claiming they were going to cut it. Just like they promised farmers they wouldn’t change inheritance tax, told the Waspi birds they’d compensate them, “not a penny extra on your council tax”, £300 saving on energy bills. They literally said anything to get elected, I’ve never known a Government go directly against so many promises or do a complete volte-face on so many issues so quickly. Even the Lib Dem’s only did it on one issue. 
 

The mental gymnastics of some on here is a sight to see, and there will be even more of it when Reeves runs out of headroom and starts to cut spending..
 

New Broom 😂😂

Soppy old twat 

[sadoldgit]

17 minutes ago, whelk said:

Soppy old twat 

That is quite restrained from you Whelk.

[east-stand-nic]

1 hour ago, egg said:

How much of that nonsense reform manifesto could they have delivered? The answer is to nex to none. How many promises did the Tories break? 

You could argue that labour have broken promises. Or, more sensibly, you could argue that they've taken sensible courses by rowing backwards where necessary. As a non labour man, it's obvious where you'll go with that. 

Ah OK, got it now. So when Labour break election promises it is sensible rowing back. When the Tories do it, it is because they are evil right wing Nazi's who care nothing about working class people. Couldn't make it up. It's such a child like view.

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, east-stand-nic said:

Ah OK, got it now. So when Labour break election promises it is sensible rowing back. When the Tories do it, it is because they are evil right wing Nazi's who care nothing about working class people. Couldn't make it up. It's such a child like view.

No one said anything about Nazis you stupid fool...

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

No wonder you're loving reform's "spend more and tax less approach".

Madness. 

 

Not least the Reform/Red Wall wanting less tax and far more public spending, when we are missing 6% off the economy, which is huge, by being out of the Single Market.

[Gloucester Saint]

13 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Ah OK, got it now. So when Labour break election promises it is sensible rowing back. When the Tories do it, it is because they are evil right wing Nazi's who care nothing about working class people. Couldn't make it up. It's such a child like view.

He didn't vote Labour Nic and neither did I.

This isn’t the US where every single thing is one or the other in extremis.

[egg]

13 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Ah OK, got it now. So when Labour break election promises it is sensible rowing back. When the Tories do it, it is because they are evil right wing Nazi's who care nothing about working class people. Couldn't make it up. It's such a child like view.

I've never voted Labour mate. Not my party. The rest is too stupid to acknowledge. 

[east-stand-nic]

4 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

He didn't vote Labour Nic and neither did I.

This isn’t the US where every single thing is one or the other in extremis.

What difference does that make? The statement made was still child like, end of.

[Gloucester Saint]

1 minute ago, east-stand-nic said:

What difference does that make? The statement made was still child like, end of.

It’s called an opinion or perspective, backed up with some examples. Other perspectives are available. 

[AlexLaw76]

Despite a very small uplift in defence spending, more cuts to major assets are just around the corner...

At least the Government have a justifiable pot of money to pay for the Chagos islands when we do our best to give them away. 

[whelk]

21 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Ah OK, got it now. So when Labour break election promises it is sensible rowing back. When the Tories do it, it is because they are evil right wing Nazi's who care nothing about working class people. Couldn't make it up. It's such a child like view.

And this fucking idiot whinges that he gets treats with derision? Sees left wingers  everywhere and in everyone  - helps with his arguments he is largely having in his own head

[egg]

2 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

What difference does that make? The statement made was still child like, end of.

Let's get this straight. You're saying that it's "child like" to believe that a ruling party is being sensible rowing backwards on a pledge when they deem it unaffordable? 

Feck me. 

[whelk]

47 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

That is quite restrained from you Whelk.

He is a sensitive little soul when all said and done. Snowflake generation 

[CB Fry]

28 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Ah OK, got it now. So when Labour break election promises it is sensible rowing back. When the Tories do it, it is because they are evil right wing Nazi's who care nothing about working class people. Couldn't make it up. It's such a child like view.

Man who posts nothing but child like views accuses others of having child like views. In a post which contains his own very clear child like views.

Well done.

Edited February 26 by CB Fry

[egg]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

He is a sensitive little soul when all said and done. Snowflake generation 

I'll continue the theme.

That is quite restrained from you Whelk.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s the fact they lied to people about them and even criticised the Tories, claiming they were going to cut it. Just like they promised farmers they wouldn’t change inheritance tax, told the Waspi birds they’d compensate them, “not a penny extra on your council tax”, £300 saving on energy bills. They literally said anything to get elected, I’ve never known a Government go directly against so many promises or do a complete volte-face on so many issues so quickly. Even the Lib Dem’s only did it on one issue. 
 

The mental gymnastics of some on here is a sight to see, and there will be even more of it when Reeves runs out of headroom and starts to cut spending..
 

New Broom 😂😂

I agree with that but to be fair every party bullshit to get into power. I think where it's different for this lot is that they were so veciferous in their attacks and with a holier than thou attitude about things like the waspi women only to disavow it all once they got in. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I agree with that but to be fair every party bullshit to get into power. I think where it's different for this lot is that they were so veciferous in their attacks and with a holier than thou attitude about things like the waspi women only to disavow it all once they got in. 

Was the waspi support not more implied by supporting the campaign, rather than a pledge or commitment? I agree with the sentiment though. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Was the waspi support not more implied by supporting the campaign, rather than a pledge or commitment? I agree with the sentiment though. 

I'd say it was a bit more than an implication when you stand behind a sign saying what you will do and then do the opposite. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I'd say it was a bit more than an implication when you stand behind a sign saying what you will do and then do the opposite. 

As is said, they supported the campaign. What did they pledge to do as a government? Regardless, we can't afford to address the issue. 

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

As is said, they supported the campaign. What did they pledge to do as a government? Regardless, we can't afford to address the issue. 

You can't seriously believe that supporting a campaign prior to being in power and then not supporting it once you've won an election is not going to be viewed as duplicitous. Essentially that would mean you have carte blanche to agree with everything and anything and then do the opposite once in power. He'd have been better off being far more non committal prior to getting in power if he didn't want to be seen as untrustworthy. 

Edited February 26 by hypochondriac

[whelk]

58 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You can't seriously believe that supporting a campaign prior to being in power and then not supporting it once you've won an election is not going to be viewed as duplicitous. Essentially that would mean you have carte blanche to agree with everything and anything and then do the opposite once in power. He'd have been better off being far more non committal prior to getting in power if he didn't want to be seen as untrustworthy. 

Even I’d give you that. Fuck knows why they even bothered giving it support in the first place as  least deserving cause in the history of man. Labour should have generally given themselves more wiggle room with tax rises but were seemingly terrified of losing potential votes or by allowing media to label them the high tax party. 

[CB Fry]

There were no commitments to the Waspi women in the manifesto they were actually elected on.

And quite right too. Never has there been a campaigning group I have disagreed with more. Absolutely self entitled and full of it.

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

There were no commitments to the Waspi women in the manifesto they were actually elected on.

And quite right too. Never has there been a campaigning group I have disagreed with more. Absolutely self entitled and full of it.

I’d have more respect if one of them threw themselves under a racehorse on Derby Day to highlight their grievance.

[badgerx16]

30 minutes ago, whelk said:

I’d have more respect if one of them threw themselves under a racehorse on Derby Day to highlight their grievance.

Don't drag the animal rights people into it.

[egg]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

You can't seriously believe that supporting a campaign prior to being in power and then not supporting it once you've won an election is not going to be viewed as duplicitous. Essentially that would mean you have carte blanche to agree with everything and anything and then do the opposite once in power. He'd have been better off being far more non committal prior to getting in power if he didn't want to be seen as untrustworthy. 

Angela Rayner gave her support in 2019. 6 years ago. The world has changed a wee but since then, and our economy has slumped. 

6 years ago my missus wanted us to retire by now and enjoy life more. I supported that. 6 years on we can't afford to, so we won't. 

Things change, so decisions need to change accordingly. That's life. 

[egg]

54 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

There were no commitments to the Waspi women in the manifesto they were actually elected on.

And quite right too. Never has there been a campaigning group I have disagreed with more. Absolutely self entitled and full of it.

Amen to that. 

We want equality. But we don't. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, egg said:

You criticise Labour for not delivering on things that will have cost a lot of money. You then highlight that spending will have to be cut, which suggests that you acknowledge that we're overspending. 

 

I’m criticising them for lying to people, and doing the same things they criticised the Tories for. Employing vanity photographers, flying around in private jets, cronyism. 
 

Whether they were right to limit Winter fuel payments is debatable, saying you’ll protect it and then not doing so, isn’t. It’s especially hypocritical when they attacked the Tories and claimed it wasn’t safe with them.
 

There plenty of other issues, where the hard reality of government has clashed with their soft arsed view of the world. But the fact is that didn’t stop them attacking the Tories when they had to make difficult choices.

 

Same as posters on here, had the Tories done a lot of things they have, people would be condemning it, no acknowledgement we were overspending, no excuses, just heartless tories. It’s funny as fuck, and I look forward to the excuses, when Rachael from accounts brings us Austerity MK2. 

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, egg said:

No wonder you're loving reform's "spend more and tax less approach".

point me in the direction of where I’m loving Reforms economic program. 

[whelk]

15 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’m criticising them for lying to people, and doing the same things they criticised the Tories for. Employing vanity photographers, flying around in private jets, cronyism. 
 

Whether they were right to limit Winter fuel payments is debatable, saying you’ll protect it and then not doing so, isn’t. It’s especially hypocritical when they attacked the Tories and claimed it wasn’t safe with them.
 

There plenty of other issues, where the hard reality of government has clashed with their soft arsed view of the world. But the fact is that didn’t stop them attacking the Tories when they had to make difficult choices.

 

Same as posters on here, had the Tories done a lot of things they have, people would be condemning it, no acknowledgement we were overspending, no excuses, just heartless tories. It’s funny as fuck, and I look forward to the excuses, when Rachael from accounts brings us Austerity MK2. 

 

What is actually funny as fuck, is you getting yourself so worked up petal.  Don’t ever give up on the catchphrases you funny man you.

[egg]

17 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

point me in the direction of where I’m loving Reforms economic program. 

If you're a reform supporter, it follows that you support their program. If you're not a reform supporter, I've lost track of who/what you support. Apart from waspi 'birds'. 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

If you're a reform supporter, it follows that you support their program. If you're not a reform supporter, I've lost track of who/what you support. Apart from waspi 'birds'. 

Since when is that the case? I know for a fact that many Labour supporters have taken issues with a lot of their current political programme. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, egg said:

If you're a reform supporter, it follows that you support their program. If you're not a reform supporter, I've lost track of who/what you support. 

That’s a bit child like, It’s not a football team. 
 

There’s millions of floating voters, who vote for a particular party, doesn’t mean “it follows” they support “the program”. I’m sure there’s millions of Labour voters who oppose their Winter fuel cut, or the NI rise, and there will be even more who won’t support the cuts coming down the track. 
 

Where’s this loving you talk about, because I don’t even recall discussing Reforms economic ideas, yet alone loving them…
 

[Gloucester Saint]

31 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That’s a bit child like, It’s not a football team. 
 

There’s millions of floating voters, who vote for a particular party, doesn’t mean “it follows” they support “the program”. I’m sure there’s millions of Labour voters who oppose their Winter fuel cut, or the NI rise, and there will be even more who won’t support the cuts coming down the track. 
 

Where’s this loving you talk about, because I don’t even recall discussing Reforms economic ideas, yet alone loving them…
 

You have been a long-term fan of Farage’s, don’t know if you still are or not.

Bottom line, there’s no need for cuts if we restore 6% of our economy through re-joining the Single Market. Brexit simply hasn’t worked, the trade deals have been pitiful and anything with the US would have strings attached British people would never sign up for on food standards and health insurance, plus it wouldn’t be in our favour for at least 4 more years assuming their opposition party and electorate get their act together.

I just don’t buy the ‘we never did Brexit properly line’ from Farage because our politicians knew the public wouldn’t wear Singapore on Thames or what we are seeing in America. Based on the latter, very wise too. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That’s a bit child like, It’s not a football team. 
 

There’s millions of floating voters, who vote for a particular party, doesn’t mean “it follows” they support “the program”. I’m sure there’s millions of Labour voters who oppose their Winter fuel cut, or the NI rise, and there will be even more who won’t support the cuts coming down the track. 
 

Where’s this loving you talk about, because I don’t even recall discussing Reforms economic ideas, yet alone loving them…
 

First you jumped on the 'equivalence'' bandwagon, now the 'child like '. You're better than that. Possibly. 

You've talked up reform, ergo you're a supporter. The economic policies of a political party affect us all every day if they are elected. Why you'd vote for that if you don't want it only you know. 

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

First you jumped on the 'equivalence'' bandwagon, now the 'child like '. You're better than that. Possibly. 

You've talked up reform, ergo you're a supporter. The economic policies of a political party affect us all every day if they are elected. Why you'd vote for that if you don't want it only you know. 

Maybe he values other policies to a greater degree? Come on this is basic stuff that you know. Plenty of people voted for Labour at the last election but didn't agree with all their policies. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Maybe he values other policies to a greater degree? Come on this is basic stuff that you know. Plenty of people voted for Labour at the last election but didn't agree with all their policies. 

He's constantly moaning about labours broken promises, but champions the cause of a party who's financial policies are so mental they will have to be broken. There's a logic there which is illogical.