Westminster Politics 2024-2029

That'sHernandez said:
So the energy suppliers secure their future supply at X date and their rate is fixed at that price?
Click to expand...
Yes, they are running an energy supply business to make a profit.
In theory there is supposed to be competition for customers, but since all energy suppliers dip into the same energy resource provisions, then scope for competition is low.
Until the government takes control for the provision of the total energy supply chain, nothing will change, including reaching 'net zero'
 
Another normal day in Britain.
GVxSwIPWwAANW0t

GVxse1cWYAAQu1j




 
Sweet Square said:
Another normal day in Britain.
GVxSwIPWwAANW0t

GVxse1cWYAAQu1j




Click to expand...

There's no chance this prick and his Tory lite cronies are getting a second term. They had an opportunity for real change and decided to be corrupt, neolib wankers instead. Britain will be fecking hellscape in a decade.
 
Maticmaker said:
You could say the government has just made private education part of its wider plans for education with the VAT proposals. The income from this VAT will be used to recruit more teachers into the state system. This is one of the (few) promises that were made pre GE by Starmer.
Click to expand...

You could say that. It would be incredibly dumb. But yes, you could say it.

Applying a tax to the private sector as means to evidence a desire for the current government to have greater private sector involvement in education.

It’s a bold strategy Cotton.
 
Raven said:
There's no chance this prick and his Tory lite cronies are getting a second term. They had an opportunity for real change and decided to be corrupt, neolib wankers instead. Britain will be fecking hellscape in a decade.
Click to expand...
I take issue with that.

You should have said "even more of a fecking hellscape."
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
You could say that. It would be incredibly dumb. But yes, you could say it.

Applying a tax to the private sector as means to evidence a desire for the current government to have greater private sector involvement in education.

It’s a bold strategy Cotton.
Click to expand...

Yes, for some people it would seem dumb, I could see how that would be an assumption by those who can see no further than the end of their noses.

However, for a new government out of office for 14 years It signals two things, first to the community at large it is way of raising money directly from private education 'coffers' to funding recruitment of teachers in state education, (a sort of 'quid pro quo') Also, it sends a signal to the private education sector in total (those who use the sector as well as those who profit from it) that it is no longer under the protection of a sympathetic government and hence no longer 'untouchable' as it was under the Tories, or indeed because a number of Labour MPs use the private sector for their children, often seen by the public, as 'not practicing what they preach'.

Beyond the above, it is indicating perhaps the way forward would be a compromise, of some sort, i.e, extending the new 'quid pro quo' into other areas of mutual support, i.e. the state education sector would see more benefit from operating alongside a private education sector, than it does at present where it's often assumed by many to be in direct competition and therefore diverting resources....e.g. such as teachers!

There are already links of course between both sectors, grants, bursaries, teacher/pupil exchange projects etc. these perhaps need to be extended, in some cases massively. The private sector as a whole (not just the private schools) will need to service the needs of a much wider group/cohort of pupils and parents and the government is signalling that, right now.

Of course given all the other issues the new government is struggling with at the moment, it maybe sometime until it can get around to concentrating in detail on 'dove-tailing' properly and mutually beneficially, the state and private education into one sector, hence this VAT 'tax play', is just a 'shot across the bows', a signal of intent, etc.
 

Labour donor quits Treasury role amid ‘cronyism’ claims​

Ian Corfield resigns as official to Rachel Reeves as ministers deny giving preferential treatment to funders

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...onor-quits-treasury-role-amid-cronyism-claims

A Labour donor has stepped down from his role as a civil servant at the Treasury, while the party comes under fire for granting a No 10 pass to another, as ministers deny they are giving preferential treatment to their funders.

Ian Corfield has resigned as an official to the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, the Sunday Times reported this weekend, becoming a temporary unpaid adviser instead after days of controversy over his role.


The paper also revealed that Waheed Alli, one of Labour’s biggest fundraisers, had been given full access to Downing Street, where he organised a post-election garden reception for others who contributed to the party’s campaign.

Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office minister, said on Sunday he did not think Lord Alli still held a pass, but could not say why he had been granted one in the first place.
 
Its not austerity lite that's coming then, it's going to be full on. Pathetic.
 

Attorney general intervenes in Foreign Office review of weapons sales to Israel​

Exclusive: Richard Hermer tells officials he can’t approve decision to ban arms without knowing if their use would breach international law

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...eign-office-review-of-weapons-sales-to-israel

Keir Starmer’s most senior legal adviser has intervened in the contentious decision over whether to ban UK arms sales to Israel, the Guardian has learned, as officials struggle to distinguish between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons.

Sources say Richard Hermer, the attorney general, has told Foreign Office officials he will not approve a decision to ban some weapons sales but allow others, until they can say for sure which could be used to break international humanitarian law.

The legal wrangling at the top of government is understood to be the principal cause of the delay to the decision, which has become even more sensitive in recent weeks as the crisis in the Middle East escalates.

A Foreign Office spokesperson would not comment on Hermer’s role but said: “This government is committed to upholding international law. We have made clear that we will not export items if they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
 
Sweet Square said:
:lol:

I wouldn’t trust Starmer around Larry the cat. I haven’t forgot about his views on Geronimo the alpaca!
Click to expand...
His handling of that situation was the perfect allegory for the rest of his career
 
Pexbo said:
His handling of that situation was the perfect allegory for the rest of his career
Click to expand...
Definitely. As a attempt to appear more electable to blood drenched British ruling class
he demanded the murder of healthy animal.

I always assume there is a dehumanising trial system which people like Starmer have to go through in order to become PM. There’s very high chance Starmer shared his wife at a Eyes Wide Shut style party with both Jacob Rees Mogg and Mogg butler. All because he wanted to get 30% off the meal deal at NATO summits.
 
Sweet Square said:
Definitely. As a attempt to appear more electable to blood drenched British ruling class
he demanded the murder of healthy animal.

I always assume there is a dehumanising trial system which people like Starmer have to go through in order to become PM. There’s very high chance Starmer shared his wife at an Eyes Wide Shut style party with both Jacob Rees Mogg and Mogg butler. All because he wanted to get 30% off the meal deal at NATO summits.
Click to expand...
:lol: I’d agree but there’s no way Jacob Rees Mogg isn’t as smooth as a Ken doll down there
 
Sweet Square said:


What!
Click to expand...

To be fair he's going for the Ten Hag approach. Says he needs years to fix problems so he can kick the can down the road, speaks like English is a second language, has plenty of options on the left wing but refuses to use them properly...
 
Sweet Square said:


What!
Click to expand...

Well let’s take the NHS for example, how long do you think it would take to:
- restock the beds that have been closed
- rebuild / restock / reopen the A&E wards lost since 2010
- modernise the NHS IT systems
- train / hire the staff to properly service the ward
- repair the damaged / worn-down buildings, or rebuild where needed

Then apply that to:
- schools and teaching
- the police services
- the Crown Prosecution Service
- public transport
- the Home Office

And every other service that has been decimated by the Tories, privatisation and austerity. Then throw in crises such As the waterways pollution, energy, exploitative employers, housing and rental markets etc.

If you think anyone, even with the political will to do so and a united country behind them, could do that in less than a decade then you’re delusional.
 
The PM doesn’t buy his own clothes



Alli, whose fortune has been estimated at £200 million, and who chaired Asos, the online retailer, has also made large donations to Starmer personally. He gave the Labour leader £16,200 of “work clothing”, thought to be suits, “multiple pairs of glasses” worth £2,485, and £36,400 for private office costs and accommodation during the election campaign.
Click to expand...
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Well let’s take the NHS for example, how long do you think it would take to:
- restock the beds that have been closed
- rebuild / restock / reopen the A&E wards lost since 2010
- modernise the NHS IT systems
- train / hire the staff to properly service the ward
- repair the damaged / worn-down buildings, or rebuild where needed

Then apply that to:
- schools and teaching
- the police services
- the Crown Prosecution Service
- public transport
- the Home Office

And every other service that has been decimated by the Tories, privatisation and austerity. Then throw in crises such As the waterways pollution, energy, exploitative employers, housing and rental markets etc.

If you think anyone, even with the political will to do so and a united country behind them, could do that in less than a decade then you’re delusional.
Click to expand...
You could give him 100 years and he'd fix feck all, he's reimposing austerity which is a proven scam.
 
Raven said:
You could give him 100 years and he'd fix feck all, he's reimposing austerity which is a proven scam.
Click to expand...
I did say even if you had the political will.

You can argue about his intentions all you want, are the facts wrong?
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Well let’s take the NHS for example, how long do you think it would take to:
- restock the beds that have been closed
- rebuild / restock / reopen the A&E wards lost since 2010
- modernise the NHS IT systems
- train / hire the staff to properly service the ward
- repair the damaged / worn-down buildings, or rebuild where needed

Then apply that to:
- schools and teaching
- the police services
- the Crown Prosecution Service
- public transport
- the Home Office

And every other service that has been decimated by the Tories, privatisation and austerity. Then throw in crises such As the waterways pollution, energy, exploitative employers, housing and rental markets etc.

If you think anyone, even with the political will to do so and a united country behind them, could do that in less than a decade then you’re delusional.
Click to expand...
Exactly! If he gets through half that lot in ten years he will be a hero.

With 170 majority it's important he doesn't get blown off course, by his opponents, (inside) as well as outside the Labour party.

Overcoming the inertia (that there is already building) within the country against 'future-proofing' will however be his main obstacle to overcome, because the likelihood of 'events' over which he has seemingly no control occurring, e.g.on such issues as rampant/uncontrollable immigration, and those which he definitely has no control, natural disasters, wars etc. will do for him.

To have any chance he will need to become ruthless (with everybody) in particular the next 2-5 years in order to keep his government 'in the game', and ultimately being in a position able to eventually 'move the dial' for ordinary folk.... at all.
 
VorZakone said:
Can someone explain this? Why would Starmer need donations for clothes?
Click to expand...
He doesn't, but if someone's giving him decent clothes why would he turn them down? I'm pretty sure none of us would
 
undoing a decade of austerity by another decade of austerity is a new one on me.
 
Frosty said:
Reading into this, I think Starmer does believe it will take 10 years to improve the country. Given his age, this is a way to ensure an approved successor actually gets approved and doesn't run the risk of losing to someone popular.
Click to expand...
Yeah this likely to be true. One of the main goals of the PLP since the Corbyn win in 2015 has been trying to make sure it can never happen again.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Well let’s take the NHS for example, how long do you think it would take to:
- restock the beds that have been closed
- rebuild / restock / reopen the A&E wards lost since 2010
- modernise the NHS IT systems
- train / hire the staff to properly service the ward
- repair the damaged / worn-down buildings, or rebuild where needed

Then apply that to:
- schools and teaching
- the police services
- the Crown Prosecution Service
- public transport
- the Home Office

And every other service that has been decimated by the Tories, privatisation and austerity. Then throw in crises such As the waterways pollution, energy, exploitative employers, housing and rental markets etc.

If you think anyone, even with the political will to do so and a united country behind them, could do that in less than a decade then you’re delusional.
Click to expand...
I don't recall "we need 10 years" to have been their election campaign slogan. Am pretty sure they promised results and to make a difference.

Oh, you will point to them having said that they had "no idea things were this bad"...despite having said for years that things were just this bad.

Very convenient that for them.
 
swooshboy said:
I don't recall "we need 10 years" to have been their election campaign slogan. Am pretty sure they promised results and to make a difference.

Oh, you will point to them having said that they had "no idea things were this bad"...despite having said for years that things were just this bad.

Very convenient that for them.
Click to expand...
Like @DanH said, it's pretty much all they were saying!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.