Westminster Politics 2024-2029

Maticmaker said:
So, Brexit no longer the original sin, with no coming back from.... now are you saying it will take a long time, but you seem to suggest, it's 'do able'?

Have to wait to see how innocuous and/or diplomatic only this treaty is? Governments have the power to change how they do business and it starts with diplomacy.

Time.... if only we had it!!!

Before Brexit ... all was 'simple and easy'.... but that's not strictly true, trade rules aside, the long term aim of'ever closer integration'was never accepted in the UK. Also Britain had all sorts of opt outs and refunds etc.that would not have stood the test of time and we were, in truth' a 'poor European'

Starmer is not kidding himself, but he knows there is no use in both sides getting back on the same horses, so alternative beast are needed.... maybe those illusive... 'Unicorns' ;)
Click to expand...

If people wanted to do extreme damage to their own country they would have voted for Brexit but obviously most of them had no idea what they voted for.

The Uk was always a poor European but the objectives of the EU/EEC/EC or whatever people wanted to call it have not really changed since its inception in the 50s despite the misleading British media.
And Starmer has always thought he could have the same benefits inside and outside. No amount of diplomacy is going to change how the EU operates.

Furthermore any hint at him or any UK government trying to cherrypick again will cause more friction with the EU.

The question is what happens as the inevitable happens over the next few years and thereafter. Unicorns excluded.
 
TwoSheds said:
Could you have seen a Tory government of the day behave so maliciously incompetently and corruptly for 14 years straight?
Click to expand...
Oh, yes in those days it was staple diet on which we were fed on. Your average conservative was as "twisted as cork-screw," "only in it for themselves" "keep the working man down"... etc. according to Labour 'grass roots leaders' anyway.

The problem was Labour it's self, for years it couldn't, as an organisation/political party, find its way out of a paper bag. Too much in fighting ... parties within a party, all struggling to work together and basically when it came to the punch...failing.

The Tories continually brought destruction upon themselves, even after Maggie Thatcher who opened up a new Tory vision. creating a massive increase in house ownership (mostly selling off Council houses) and shareholder society selling off national assets, even the boost she gave to 'working man conservatism' got sabotage.... by guess who, yes, those 'ba****d Euro-skeptics, ( as referred to by John Major) of which Maggie in the end seem to become one herself.

I would personally like to think this moment has been coming all my life, when at last a Labour Party arrives that are not just 'in government', they are 'in power'. This opportunity all though arriving on the back of 14 ruinous Tory years, where everything needs 'seeing to', it must not be wasted... "the dial....... you know the rest!
 
Red in STL said:
And that is in part due to the huge salaries they pay some of their administrators
Click to expand...
It is one part of a whole. Cutting the salaries of executive groups would be great, but does not cover the loss of funding in fees since the 9k tariff was introduced. Successive government's blame poor management, which is true in cases, but even if institutions were well managed they would still be up a creek.
 
Frosty said:
It is one part of a whole. Cutting the salaries of executive groups would be great, but does not cover the loss of funding in fees since the 9k tariff was introduced. Successive government's blame poor management, which is true in cases, but even if institutions were well managed they would still be up a creek.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing but the biggest reason was the 'need' for more kids to go to university in the first place, no idea what it is now but if I recall correctky it was something like 50%, that led to an expansion of places that were never funded in the first place and TBH are and probably always will be unaffordable
 
Red in STL said:
Not disagreeing but the biggest reason was the 'need' for more kids to go to university in the first place, no idea what it is now but if I recall correctky it was something like 50%, that led to an expansion of places that were never funded in the first place and TBH are and probably always will be unaffordable
Click to expand...
The 50% target is problematic because there is no connection between the courses being studied and the needs of the economy. T levels and apprenticeships are a response to this, but they are piecemeal and not yet bedded in.

You can go back even further to the new universities in 1992 and the removal of polytechnics from local authority control. Now you do not have universities being run to benefit the local economy and area.

There are plenty of ways of solving the funding issue in the short term. Redistributing funds is one. The richest universities are piling up surpluses. Reinstituting student limits is another that would provide security to the at risk institutions.

OUP and CUP haven't paid a penny of tax since the reign of Henry VIII so that could be low hanging fruit.

The problem now is that many small towns have one or two universities that dramatically boost the local economy. There needs to be some idea of what will replace them in the short term, apart from a government bailout.

Ultimately I haven't seen a political proposal reducing access to HE that won't massively impact poorer students. And I have seen kids from poorer parts of the UK come to university and end up in good jobs and with better life prospects. Can we reform HE without returning to the 1950s?

Sorry for the ramble.
 
Frosty said:
The 50% target is problematic because there is no connection between the courses being studied and the needs of the economy. T levels and apprenticeships are a response to this, but they are piecemeal and not yet bedded in.

You can go back even further to the new universities in 1992 and the removal of polytechnics from local authority control. Now you do not have universities being run to benefit the local economy and area.

There are plenty of ways of solving the funding issue in the short term. Redistributing funds is one. The richest universities are piling up surpluses. Reinstituting student limits is another that would provide security to the at risk institutions.

OUP and CUP haven't paid a penny of tax since the reign of Henry VIII so that could be low hanging fruit.

The problem now is that many small towns have one or two universities that dramatically boost the local economy. There needs to be some idea of what will replace them in the short term, apart from a government bailout.

Ultimately I haven't seen a political proposal reducing access to HE that won't massively impact poorer students. And I have seen kids from poorer parts of the UK come to university and end up in good jobs and with better life prospects. Can we reform HE without returning to the 1950s?

Sorry for the ramble.
Click to expand...
Not a ramble, there's plenty for a valid discussion, I never went to university, I would never have passed the exams at that time and I had no interest in going
 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...gling-gangs-with-tactics-used-to-jail-rioters

Keir Starmer vows to stop people-smuggling gangs with tactics used to jail rioters​

Asked by the BBC if he might consider opening more safe routes for asylum seekers – a majority of those who cross the Channel are subsequently granted asylum – Starmer dismissed the suggestion.
“I think the priority has to be on taking down the gangs that are exploiting vulnerable people … That has to stop now,” he said.

Another lurch into an alternative universe.
 
Last edited:
Red in STL said:
Not a ramble, there's plenty for a valid discussion, I never went to university, I would never have passed the exams at that time and I had no interest in going
Click to expand...
To be fair, my sister and I benefited from Tony Blair's expansion of university places. Also I have ended up working for one so I do have skin in the game.
 
Frosty said:
To be fair, my sister and I benefited from Tony Blair's expansion of university places. Also I have ended up working for one so I do have skin in the game.
Click to expand...
One of my brothera who did go to Uni also ended up working for one, though in his case it was pre-Blair when he went

Expansion of university places in itself wasn't a bad policy, just the numbers, all that has happened is essentially a plethory of irrelevant degrees, the right policy would have been ensuring that everyone with the right quaifications could go even if they didn't have the financial resources to do so
 
Last edited:
Sweet Square said:
.
Click to expand...

So virtually 1,000,000 people currently in receipt of winter fuel payments will remain eligible but have that payment withdrawn because they're currently not claiming the pension credits they're due. Have I got that right?

(From the article 1500 non-claimant average per constituency, 650 constituencies).
 
V.O. said:
That's a shame. They really should have considered the relative costs of freezing the elderly to death or not.
Click to expand...
Freezing them to death is probably the most cost-effective solution really. It's all those that cheat the system and end up with a chronic condition made worse or who hang around in hospital who spoil it.

Personally, I'm not particularly opposed to means testing benefits. I'm even in favour of some wealth movement being conducted through the tax and benefits system.

A problem they've got this time is that by tying it to pension credit they've exposed the problems with pension credit. It comes with a lot of form filling and delays, but when it's awarded it means people are often entitled to other benefits (like rate rebates, housing benefits, free glasses etc). If everyone entitled does claim it there probably won't be a saving from the cold weather payment cut. Plus, if you're just the wrong side of the eligibility boundary it really is a cliff edge.

They could have set a different sort of boundary given that income tax exists. The least politically painful one would have been a "no higher rate tax payers gets it" as a starting point, but even a "no one who pays income tax" would still avoid the form filling.

It doesn't address the cliff edge effect on pension credit of course or the paperwork that acts along with pride and lack of knowledge to act as a barrier to people who are eligible.

But politically? What they did got them one cheap set of headlines about "tough choices" and not much credit.
 
You have a take home 12k or less to get pension credit. That's a very sad number.,
 
M16Red said:
You have a take home 12k or less to get pension credit. That's a very sad number.,
Click to expand...

Some people could easily be paying more than half of that on bills alone. £2k on council tax, £2k on gas and electricity, £1k on whatever the next ludicrous water bill is going to be, if you're in a flat you've got service charge, potentially ground rent, then you've a phone / internet bill to pay, home insurance...

Having less than £100 per week to spend on food, clothes, travel etc (ok it should be free with a bus pass but still) would be very very difficult.
 
Best case scenario for labour witht he winte rpayments is saving around 1.6 billion quid.

It sounds a lot of money, which is why they are shouting that not doing it would create a run on the pound.

But put it in context, that government spending per year is around 1200 billion, and suddenly it doesn;t look like a lot of money, and you would have to be a raging moron or utterly dishonest to claim it would cause a run on the pound.

The entire thing is reliant on the media not giving that context. The scary thing for this country is that so far, none of them have.
 
Adisa said:
But it’s true.
Click to expand...

It is, but it shouldn't be her saying it. The Tories went 10 years before any of it started to be their fault and she is a Tory lizard creature to her core. I wouldn't mind so much if there were anybody else at the BBC who ever seemed to be asked their opinion about politics but if you're meant to be an impartial broadcaster, having one flesh creeping opinion mouthpiece just isn't right. If Gary Lineker said the equivalent sort of thing he'd be clapped in the thought police irons.
 
Jericholyte2 said:


Don’t ever stop shilling Laura!
Click to expand...

The Tories were still blaming the previous Labour government for everything wrong with the country right up to the last election. So you would assume at least 14 years in power before they even start to have any accountability.
 

Prime Minister David Cameron has warned of "difficult decisions" on pay, pensions and benefits as he set out the case for "painful" cuts ahead.
Dealing with the deficit would affect "our whole way of life" but not in a way that hits the vulnerable or "divides the country", he said.
Click to expand...
 
There's going to be years of Labour enacting Tory lite policy, policy that they previously criticised, whilst demanding the electorate understand that this time it's necessary (which the Tories also did).

It's a sad state of affairs.
 
Smores said:
There's going to be years of Labour enacting Tory lite policy, policy that they previously criticised, whilst demanding the electorate understand that this time it's necessary (which the Tories also did).

It's a sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...

The difference, which he apparanetly doesn;t see coming, is that the tory supporting press, which is most of it, are going to be running stories about how the wealthy are making out like bandits, on a loop, while he stands there and says 'we are all in it together'.

Everyone joined in with cameron, they won;t this time. Even the guardian have a few articles pointing out where the money is already. He'll be lucky to get to christmas 2025, then we get reeves or streeting. Who are both worse.
 
Bert_ said:
The Tories were still blaming the previous Labour government for everything wrong with the country right up to the last election. So you would assume at least 14 years in power before they even start to have any accountability.
Click to expand...
They also kept resetting the clock. Cameron talked about the coalition years as if he wasn't the PM. Boris talked about everything pre-2019 as if it was a foreign country. Truss thought that the Tory government started when the lettuce was sold. Rishi was a fresh start who couldn't be judged on the basis of the failed policies of past governments.

That's before we get to blame COVID, the Ukraine, aftermath of the 2008 crash, Brexit, remainers, small boats, experts, woke snowflakes, health workers recruited overseas who want to bring their kids with them etc etc.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
Best case scenario for labour witht he winte rpayments is saving around 1.6 billion quid.

It sounds a lot of money, which is why they are shouting that not doing it would create a run on the pound.

But put it in context, that government spending per year is around 1200 billion, and suddenly it doesn;t look like a lot of money, and you would have to be a raging moron or utterly dishonest to claim it would cause a run on the pound.

The entire thing is reliant on the media not giving that context. The scary thing for this country is that so far, none of them have.
Click to expand...
Nogbadthebad said:
The difference, which he apparanetly doesn;t see coming, is that the tory supporting press, which is most of it, are going to be running stories about how the wealthy are making out like bandits, on a loop, while he stands there and says 'we are all in it together'.

Everyone joined in with cameron, they won;t this time. Even the guardian have a few articles pointing out where the money is already. He'll be lucky to get to christmas 2025, then we get reeves or streeting. Who are both worse.
Click to expand...
Nailed it

 
Smores said:
There's going to be years of Labour enacting Tory lite policy, policy that they previously criticised, whilst demanding the electorate understand that this time it's necessary (which the Tories also did).

It's a sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...
I think it's a throwback, we're hearing Thatcher-lite terminology about the public purse and what "every household knows".

A lot of vague talk about productivity, growth, training, targets, innovation, throw in a few platitudes about supporting hardworking families and a funding model that talks about balancing the books.

Stir in something about protecting the most vulnerable - aka "the deserving poor" - but with a two child limit, an imaginary back to work program for the disabled, others on sick leave and the older ones who could still fit in a few shifts in Tescos around caring responsibilities or doctors appointments.

I get they can't fix everything this year, but right now they're planning to do the Tories dirty work and they're going to do it the same way the Tories did. They promise a pay rise to teachers then tell schools it has to come from the existing budget - same old pass the blame on game. So the signs are they'll do the same with the local authorities - give them a whole bunch of tasks to do and no money.

Things can only get better?
Yes, we can?
No - we're being told they're planning to use our huge majority to say things can only get worse and that no we can't.

I'd like to imagine it's the political equivalent of under promising and over delivering - but they seem to be talking about what they're doing as if it's a selling point.
 
Sweet Square said:
We have a deeply stupid and entitled/selfish political class.
Click to expand...
They are all corrupt. I don't think it starts like that, they just get people offering holidays or money for time with them and it skews there out look.

The reason I'm not a fan, is things like is below they are doing in the back ground.

Its tax payers money and while moan about the Torries doing it - It does set a precedent where as releasing could not be seen as in the public interest.


it's probably cheaper too house them like this rather than hotel them, but to hide the cost? Nah...that's a comie move.
 
jojojo said:
They also kept resetting the clock. Cameron talked about the coalition years as if he wasn't the PM. Boris talked about everything pre-2019 as if it was a foreign country. Truss thought that the Tory government started when the lettuce was sold. Rishi was a fresh start who couldn't be judged on the basis of the failed policies of past governments.

That's before we get to blame COVID, the Ukraine, aftermath of the 2008 crash, Brexit, remainers, small boats, experts, woke snowflakes, health workers recruited overseas who want to bring their kids with them etc etc.
Click to expand...
It's the age old tactic of blaming all the problems you face on the previous people in charge. That used to be the former party in power. The tories and their media partners manged to disassociate party from the PM, and lay any and all failings on them rather than the party itself. It was the same company, just a different CEO.
 
Bert_ said:
Go back 10 years and switch the words around, "Labour" and "Tories", and you have a prominent minister in the Cameron cabinet and potential future leader of the Conservative party.
Click to expand...
I don't know how old you are, but back then 2008 when we bailed out the banks our deficit was huge.

uk-net-borrowing-93-22-marks-1000x705.png.webp


In other words the Torries was left with a credit card bill of an ungodly amount and gap of funding of 10% for the bill, when Labour talk about a black hole - it's not a black hole it's a gap, because it's Q3 of the financial year meaning the end of year isn't even over.

I'm sure Labour will fix a lot of things, but the lies they are using isn't a good look so early.

By the way that pandemic jump down the year after is very interesting, because it an Indicator of quantitative easing (printing money) which in turn lead to Inflation because of the supply and demand of money we had more of it.
 
M16Red said:
By the way that pandemic jump down the year after is very interesting, because it an Indicator of quantitative easing (printing money) which in turn lead to Inflation because of the supply and demand of money we had more of it.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect.

Post pandemic inflation was caused by two things

1) supply side inflation due to scarecety - Price of imported goods rose significantly because the pandemic stopped factories and transport. It is the scarecety of real resources that causes inflation.

2) Profiteering - Distributors put up prices because they could. Furloiugh and no travel costs meant people had increased disposable income and more time to kill, businesses simply upped prices for everything as a result. Many are now going bust because they expanded to need those profit levels, and now the prices are not sustainable. EK Engineering, who make PC water cooling equipment, are a great example of this.

We printed more money in the aftermath of the financial crash, around 1.2 trillion quid in a decade. Inflation stayed below 2% for all of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.