Jump to content

The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

sadoldgit

By sadoldgit,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

So basically you have just said the same moronic double standards crap again.

Tories don't lift cap, they don't care about the working class, only their own.

Labour don't remove the cap, they have done their sums and realise it is not affordable.

Maybe that is why the Tories did not remove the cap, because they did their sums and it was not affordable, no?

Have you ever seen a shrink as you are totally nuts.

The Tories brought in the cap and didn’t lift it while they were in power.

Labour have said they disagree with the cap but can’t afford to lift it at the moment but will look at lifting it in the future when they can. In the meantime they are dealing with child poverty through other measures such as breakfast clubs.

Hope that helps?

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Firstly he will kill-off a few pensioners, then he doubles down with swift justice, now he is considering deporting people to a 3rd country.

New broom, like the old broom but with better PR

image.thumb.png.bf94ee6edfbbf38157461ca68f734577.png

The Falkland Islands are British.

Rwanda isn’t.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The Falkland Islands are British.

Rwanda isn’t.

 

Is it a safe place though? There is a threat of invasion from a foreign nation.

The Rwanda scheme was always a deterrent so that the illegals would look elsewhere. Once they knew they would be sent to a African country without the handouts the lure of the UK would reduce. Then the people already here would be able to integrate and the angst against them would reduce in time. I dont get this about Muslims, they just follow a different god/prophet, the majority are good law abiding citizens, what I dont want is people who are illegally coming into our country, they arrive breaking the law and so already they have no qualms about doing it and so may carry on when they are here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The Tories brought in the cap and didn’t lift it while they were in power.

Labour have said they disagree with the cap but can’t afford to lift it at the moment but will look at lifting it in the future when they can. In the meantime they are dealing with child poverty through other measures such as breakfast clubs.

Hope that helps?

 

So feeding rich & middle class kids breakfast deals with child poverty better than giving the poorest more money?  
 

What happens when they leave primary school, do they automatically get lifted out of poverty? 
 

If you accept a 2 child cap for the very poorest, why isn’t family allowance capped at 2 children for the middle classes? 
 


 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted

Starmer playing a blinder. Nice to have a government that are actually tough on crime. Tories very soft on it and let it get out of control by decimating the courts, police, probation and prisons.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So feeding rich & middle class kids breakfast deals with child poverty better than giving the poorest more money?  
 

What happens when they leave primary school, do they automatically get lifted out of poverty? 
 

If you accept a 2 child cap for the very poorest, why isn’t family allowance capped at 2 children for the middle classes? 
 


 

 

Are the poorer children not to get breakfasts too? That was one of many plans to help under privileged children. Again, they did say that they would act in the cap when they can.

Just for the record, did you speak out about it when the Tories cut it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

Are the poorer children not to get breakfasts too? 

Yes, by giving poorer parents extra money to feed their kids. 

You are happy for the poorest to have a 2 child cap on their welfare, whilst not limiting child benefit for middle class parents. I’m not.
 

I guess that’s one of the fundamental differences between us….

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mixedkebab

Mixedkebab

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, whelk said:

Starmer playing a blinder. Nice to have a government that are actually tough on crime. Tories very soft on it and let it get out of control by decimating the courts, police, probation and prisons.

Bit early to tell that, early releases even for violent and sex offenders so we’ll see if the rehab works over the coming years.

This is due to overcrowding which got worse under the tories of course so another thing they have to do is reform the prison system 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Wasn’t Sunak proposing to ban smoking all together?

At one point yes, but we haven't got a Tory government so it's academic. 

Pubs, restaurants and clubs were hit hard by the smoking ban, then COVID.  Taking away the ability of punters to have a fag in the garden or out the front will spell the death of many of those businesses. I hate smoking, but let me choose whether I want to sit in a garden where people are smoking. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, whelk said:

Proposing an outdoor smoking ban - wtf? Sort of shit is totally unnecessary and will put people off however trivial it is

It's one of those tangible things that people will point to come election time of the hectoring and nabbying that Labour are capable of at their worst. A poor move to be honest and likely to cost them in the long run. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

Understandable, who wants that old vindictive witch looking over you

The competition is tough and it is not quite " Hoorah for the Blackshirts" but is this one of the Iworst ever Daily Mail headlines? 

I suppose "Man chooses what pictures to have in his study" wouldn't trigger so many gammon. 😁😁

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, whelk said:

How can Rayner dare do this so soon after the Thatcher portrait was taken down? No respect

https://news.sky.com/story/deputy-pm-angela-rayner-spotted-raving-in-ibiza-superclub-with-dj-fisher-13205971

 

Why do they need to contact the Labour Party 'for a comment' ?

Hopefully the reply will be "Fuck off you touchy bastards, it's a private holiday".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I'm sure they'll be b-anning smoking in the HoC before they consider anywhere else though, won't they?

If they did you can bet that Nige would spend more time supporting his good friend Donald and even less time on the concerns of the people of Clacton. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I wonder what old Gordy Brown thinks, seeing as he put it there in the first place. Still, different PM’s different priorities. Maybe they could give it to a couple of pensioners without Winter fuel payments to burn this winter. 
 

 

It is still hanging in number 10, just not where Maggie can stare down at Starmer as he works. Maybe it is in the understairs meter cupboard.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mixedkebab

Mixedkebab

Posted
Posted

Amazes me there are still gimps who seem to hold today’s politicians in any sort of esteem, or anything other than comedic terms.
What sort of dangleberry do you have to be to have any respect for 2024 house of commons helmets?

“Hey, Ange is a raver, good lass lol”

“LMAO at Ange clubbing guys, slay queen!” 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Mixedkebab said:

Amazes me there are still gimps who seem to hold today’s politicians in any sort of esteem, or anything other than comedic terms.
What sort of dangleberry do you have to be to have any respect for 2024 house of commons helmets?

“Hey, Ange is a raver, good lass lol”

“LMAO at Ange clubbing guys, slay queen!” 

 

Don’t tell me, you voted for a genuine politician like Nigel Farage?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted

Interesting that the gammon and the Daily Mail are all for increasing welfare benefits with no means test for wealth. Greedy old pensioners wanting money that isn’t there thanks to Truss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

"progress" 

 

Screenshot_20240903_130225_X.jpg

Screenshot_20240903_130234_X.jpg

Whilst I’m not a fan of Ed Miliband’s at all, I’m even less of a fan of Andrew Neill. Neill is voluable on some issues and quiet as a church mouse on others. Especially when it involves colleagues/friends. Personally, I’d be keeping better company as that wiki link is horrific.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/street-of-shame

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taki_Theodoracopulos

 

Edited by Gloucester Saint
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Whilst I’m not a fan of Ed Miliband’s at all, I’m even less of a fan of Andrew Neill. Neill is voluable on some issues and quiet as a church mouse on others. Especially when it involves colleagues/friends. Personally, I’d be keeping better company as that wiki link is horrific.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/street-of-shame

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taki_Theodoracopulos

 

So it's a case of shoot the messenger? What here has he said that is incorrect?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So it's a case of shoot the messenger? What here has he said that is incorrect?

The point is that the messenger isn’t particularly honest either. If it’d come from someone like Tim Montgomerie, a Conservative pundit I respect, I’d take it more seriously.

Addressing Neil’s opinion, there is much truth that Miliband is claiming credit for others’ work in the previous government, and I don’t like that. David could tell you all about his brother’s ethics.

However, I don’t agree with the last bit that it’s a zero sum game that we shouldn’t be getting the renewables market going again and the fact it has been that must mean that the winter fuel allowance shouldn’t be means tested given the very challenging economic picture.

Summary - Ed M is a grifting pillock, Neill is a climate dinosaur with a questionable past. Braverman and Hunt hiding over £6bn of spending on asylum and Rwanda (today’s tragedy is another reason that’s a boiling hot priority) has not helped with the winter fuel decision. That said, the extra military aid Sunak committed to Ukraine is worth every single penny because stopping Putin and pushing him back as it’s turned out, is imperative to social and economic stability. People will point to the rail and health deals but the productivity cost, especially hospitality, was killing us and the NHS is in an awful position on waiting lists, further hindering economic activity.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/article/2024/sep/03/nice-auction-but-ed-miliband-is-still-a-long-way-from-his-2030-targets-for-offshore-wind

Edited by Gloucester Saint
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

The Government have started the process of introducing legislation to remove the remaining 92 hereditary peers from the HoL.

LD will be along to say that will just mean they go to another country to be a Lord and result in net revenue loss to the UK so ultimately it will be the hungry kids that lose out

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Does that mean more can be given out?

Will Lettuce Liz get the nod?

I assume they will be replaced with life Peers in the short term, unless the overall number in the HoL is to be reduced, together with an enforced retirement at age 80 across the HoL. Ultimately the whole Upper House to be replaced with an elected chamber, probably on a PR basis, with the Lords Spiritual removed to their Cathedrals and Bishops' palaces and the separation of Church and State finally completed.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, harvey said:

I see this thread has become rather silent .......a disastrous week for Labour?

Not especially, it’s actually good to have some governance without the constant infighting and lurching all over the place we had since 2015. 

There’s a reason as a Lib Dem why my seat has it’s first ever Lib Dem MP on a substantial majority having overturned 24k - as a party if you don’t understand why that it is, it will be an even longer road back for you. 

FWIW I don’t agree with the outdoor smoking plans, but the NHS initial approach sounds sensible albeit needing more flesh on the bones and there needs to be more focus on social care to stop the hospitals from clogging which the Lib Dem’s are rightly pushing Labour on. I’m sure you’ll be honest enough to admit the Conservatives failed dreadfully on this with 5 ministers in less than 5 years. The emphasis on preventative health is also sensible. Streeting is quality and I wish we had him (Lib Dems). 

The winter fuel allowance issue is trickier but overall I think the burden needed to shared across the generations, I just hope the means testing is done properly. But I do respect that not everyone will agree. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, harvey said:

I see this thread has become rather silent .......a disastrous week for Labour?

2 months into fixing a Tory mess 14 years in the making, I think we should wait a while longer before passing critical judgement.

Also, watching Victoria Atkins getting shredded by Wes Streeting was particularly enjoyable.

Edited by badgerx16
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, harvey said:

I see this thread has become rather silent .......a disastrous week for Labour?

I’d have thought the sight of labour MP’s cheering as winter fuel payments were taken from pensioners on 12k a year  may have got some comment, it certainly would of done if the Tories had done so. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...