Westminster Politics 2024-2029

Smores said:
Incredible really and just goes to show how this is Labour making a rushed political choice. They thought by doing something extremely unpopular and blaming the Tories for it somehow it would turn out to be a massive win for them.

The budget will be full of policy aimed purely at kicking the Tories record rather than trying to do what's best for the country. It worked for the Tories but the difference is their enacted policy was exactly what people expected of them.
Click to expand...

If you have to make a budget 3 months after taking office, and are following the last 14yrs, how would you want it to be presented?

"Here are a bunch of unpopular, hard-hitting policies that we're implementing because we have no money, but we can't really talk about why."

Is that about right?
 
Jericholyte2 said:


Someone's been on the sauce again. Anyone know any good defamation lawyers?
Click to expand...


“Yool never guess oo I ad in the back of me cab once”
‘Do go on’
“That Leesa Nandy. It was lockdown too”
‘So you were out, and she was out?’
“Yeah but it’s the principle en it? Lockdown means lockdown. I’m an essential worker. She was just an MP”
‘You dropped her off at a party, didn’t you? Do spill’
“Nah, political offices. But it’s the principle en it? And she was drunk”
‘Never! Do you know the exact rules and restrictions on the day in question?’
“Naaaah. It’s the principle en it? Lockdown means lockdown. And lemme tell you somefing, she was not locked down. Tried to pay with the wrong card”
‘Thank you good sir. Without checking anything further, I will shout loudly on Xittter’
“Nice won. It’s the principle en it”

The woman is a Fcuking ghoul.
 
Really need someone to list all of the disasters that Labour are having to find money for.

Grenfell, WASPI women, Post office scandal, concrete buildings, water, backdated public sector pay, asylum backlog etc etc etc
 
From Private Eye -
GXQoPYiXIAA0ACp
 
Drainy said:
Really need someone to list all of the disasters that Labour are having to find money for.

Grenfell, WASPI women, Post office scandal, concrete buildings, water, backdated public sector pay, asylum backlog etc etc etc
Click to expand...
Blood scandal is one of the worst things I have ever heard.

Until 2022, no compensation had ever been paid to victims of the contaminated blood scandal in the UK. In 2022 Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, made an interim recommendation that interim compensation of £100,000 should be paid to everyone currently registered on a UK infected blood support scheme. This was accepted by the government and payment was made in October 2022
 
Jericholyte2 said:
If you have to make a budget 3 months after taking office, and are following the last 14yrs, how would you want it to be presented?

"Here are a bunch of unpopular, hard-hitting policies that we're implementing because we have no money, but we can't really talk about why."

Is that about right?
Click to expand...

My central point seems to have gone over your head, these aren't policies enacted out of need because 'we have no money'. It's playing politics to damn the Tories economic record (largely covid) and try build Labours economic credentials.

Hence the simple lines for the simple masses like 'no money' or the ridiculous lie of having to take away winter fuel payments or face a run on the pound. The last one really does take stupidity of the highest level.
 
thisisnottaken1 said:
I hate how it looks likely that we’ll be getting American style healthcare.

What alternatives are there?
Click to expand...
Mainly to do with making sure our existing tax system can be made more effective, making it simpler and closing loopholes (as a tax lawyer, he's well placed to know about them). He's also positive on land value tax (which I don't know enough about to comment on). There are wealth related taxes which can be made more effective, eg capital gains and inheritance taxes. Not a sexy answer, isn't going to make our resident communists happy, but maybe they will actually raise some money.
 
Smores said:
My central point seems to have gone over your head, these aren't policies enacted out of need because 'we have no money'. It's playing politics to damn the Tories economic record (largely covid) and try build Labours economic credentials.

Hence the simple lines for the simple masses like 'no money' or the ridiculous lie of having to take away winter fuel payments or face a run on the pound. The last one really does take stupidity of the highest level.
Click to expand...
"Pressed over whether she agreed with Ms Powell's comments about "a run on the pound", Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson told BBC Breakfast: "Had we not got to grips with the public finances overall then there could have been serious consequences for the economy."

However, she added that the Commons leader was "making a wider point about the need to get the public finances under control and the winter fuel allowance was element of that". Source.

That's how I interpreted it when I heard it but I suppose we hear what we want to hear.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
I did read it but we're talking about 5.4 million rental homes not in the single digits. In practice it cannot work for the wider market for reasons aforementioned.



Not in the real word, it would be months before they could even be rendered homeless. Meanwhile the landlord has to pay the mortgage every month or risk getting into arrears and screwing up their credit score among other things.
Click to expand...
I can tell you right now I'd rather a roof over my head than having a bad credit score (which you can also achieve through going into arrears on your rent).
 
Ultimate Grib said:
I did read it but we're talking about 5.4 million rental homes not in the single digits. In practice it cannot work for the wider market for reasons aforementioned.



Not in the real word, it would be months before they could even be rendered homeless. Meanwhile the landlord has to pay the mortgage every month or risk getting into arrears and screwing up their credit score among other things.
Click to expand...
Heaven forbid!
 
nickm said:
"Pressed over whether she agreed with Ms Powell's comments about "a run on the pound", Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson told BBC Breakfast: "Had we not got to grips with the public finances overall then there could have been serious consequences for the economy."

However, she added that the Commons leader was "making a wider point about the need to get the public finances under control and the winter fuel allowance was element of that". Source.

That's how I interpreted it when I heard it but I suppose we hear what we want to hear.
Click to expand...

Even if we ignore Powell's blunder interview no one of any credibility agrees that a run on the pound was possible though. The markets didn't signify it, the IFS called it silly.

It's just another example of Labour talking absolute bollocks.
 
M16Red said:
Blood scandal is one of the worst things I have ever heard.

Until 2022, no compensation had ever been paid to victims of the contaminated blood scandal in the UK. In 2022 Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, made an interim recommendation that interim compensation of £100,000 should be paid to everyone currently registered on a UK infected blood support scheme. This was accepted by the government and payment was made in October 2022
Click to expand...

Shit, can't believe I forgot about that one!
 
M16Red said:
Blood scandal is one of the worst things I have ever heard.

Until 2022, no compensation had ever been paid to victims of the contaminated blood scandal in the UK. In 2022 Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, made an interim recommendation that interim compensation of £100,000 should be paid to everyone currently registered on a UK infected blood support scheme. This was accepted by the government and payment was made in October 2022
Click to expand...
It's nothing short of villainy. My brother has Haemophilia B and was infected with Hep C in the late 80s.

Some payouts were made, but these were largely facilitated by the MacFarlane/Eileen Trust. What horrifies me is these trusts were set up in 88', and the scandal continued into the early 90s. They only began routine screening for Hep C in 1991!
 
Raven said:
I can tell you right now I'd rather a roof over my head than having a bad credit score (which you can also achieve through going into arrears on your rent).
Click to expand...

Why should someone's line of credit be affected as a result of your actions? If there's a CCJ against you you should absolutely get bad credit, but a landlord getting it through no fault of their own isn't quite the same thing.

If you want a roof over your head move to somewhere you can afford. Don't just stop paying rent.

Dobba said:
Heaven forbid!
Click to expand...

The cost of people falling behind on their rent isn't always a zero sum game. People seem to forget that.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
Why should someone's line of credit be affected as a result of your actions? If there's a CCJ against you you should absolutely get bad credit, but a landlord getting it through no fault of their own isn't quite the same thing.

If you want a roof over your head move to somewhere you can afford. Don't just stop paying rent.



The cost of people falling behind on their rent isn't always a zero sum game. People seem to forget that.
Click to expand...

Yes it really is just that simple, to up sticks and move immediately to a cheaper part of the country.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
Why should someone's line of credit be affected as a result of your actions? If there's a CCJ against you you should absolutely get bad credit, but a landlord getting it through no fault of their own isn't quite the same thing.

If you want a roof over your head move to somewhere you can afford. Don't just stop paying rent.



The cost of people falling behind on their rent isn't always a zero sum game. People seem to forget that.
Click to expand...
If you can't afford a mortgage unless someone else is paying it for you, you're a parasite. Stop whining and sell the thing you can't afford.
 
Dobba said:
If you can't afford a mortgage unless someone else is paying it for you, you're a parasite. Stop whining and sell the thing you can't afford.
Click to expand...

It does also seem to get forgotten that if renters can't afford their rent, the landlord can get insurance for that and price it into the rent. And if the landlord can't afford their mortgage, they also have the right to negotiate with their bank about repayments while they try to sell the place. Obviously it's not a fun process for anyone involved and definitely best avoided, but it's not automatically going to ruin a landlord's life.

And finally and most importantly, what gets forgotten by both sides is that most rental properties aren't owned by the type of people who have one or two flats where the rent constitutes a form of pension or supplement to their income, they're more often owned by large companies or wealthy individuals who own vast numbers of properties and don't always take great care of them. The big landlords are the type that we ought to be aiming to get rid of, or at least limit, not the little ones who generally take reasonable care of their tenants. A stronger regulator that is there to help tenants and landlords alike wouldn't hurt though anyway. Or even a nationalised letting agency/property maintenance company might be useful to try to avoid cowboy behaviour.

According to Google:
Five or more properties
In 2021, 18% of landlords owned five or more properties, which represented almost half (48%) of tenancies.

And I'd bet the numbers have only inceased since.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
If there's a CCJ against you you should absolutely get bad credit, but a landlord getting it through no fault of their own isn't quite the same thing.
Click to expand...

It’s the landlords mortgage. If they can’t afford to pay it and need someone else’s money in order to do so, it absolutely IS the same thing.

The number of people that get this back to front will never not surprise me.
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...


Not particularly surpising. Starmer wasn't exactly starting from a good place, was he? We all know these kind of stats, large swathes of the poplulation fed up with the big 2 parties.

Major - 14.1m votes, 42% vote share, 78% turnout, 33% of registered voters
Wilson - 13.1m votes, 44% share, 76% turnout, 36% of registered voters
May - 13.6m votes, 42% share, 69% turnout, 29% of registered voters
Thatcher 13.7m votes, 36% share, 76% turnout, 33% of registered voters
Johnson - 14m votes, 44% share, 67% turnout, 29% of registered voters
Brown - N/A
Blair - 10.7m votes, 41% share, 59% turnout, 24% of registered voters

Starmer - 9.7m votes, 34% share, 60% turnout, 20% of registered voters

He's just happened to be leader of the opposition at a time when the Tories collapsed and the public are turned off from politics. Nothing to do with him/Labour being particularly popular or having great support. He's going to trend badly historically on lots of things, for him not to would be a miracle.
 
Last edited:
Chipper said:
He's going to trend badly historically on lots of things, for him not to would be a miracle.
Click to expand...
Also, he's not going to 'sugar coat' things either... for all those who want someone to tell it as it is, Starmer's your man.
Given all the size and range of problems facing the country, many self inflicted, we are going to need someone who is not going to be frightened off or 'not for turning' as PM. "Talk softly and carry a big stick" is likely to be the epitome of this man.
 
Maticmaker said:
Also, he's not going to 'sugar coat' things either... for all those who want someone to tell it as it is, Starmer's your man.
Given all the size and range of problems facing the country, many self inflicted, we are going to need someone who is not going to be frightened off or 'not for turning' as PM. "Talk softly and carry a big stick" is likely to be the epitome of this man.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Ultimate Grib said:
Why should someone's line of credit be affected as a result of your actions? If there's a CCJ against you you should absolutely get bad credit, but a landlord getting it through no fault of their own isn't quite the same thing.

If you want a roof over your head move to somewhere you can afford. Don't just stop paying rent.



The cost of people falling behind on their rent isn't always a zero sum game. People seem to forget that.
Click to expand...

If you can't afford the mortgage without someone paying it for you then you are a fecking parasite leeching off of someone else's hard work and you should not own the property
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Very miserable. Here's a link to the full report

It has to be said, though, that it's a model with many many assumptions used as inputs, minor changes in which radically alter the model's outcomes. It's therefore inherently unreliable. Reading through it, for instance, you get snippets such as this:



and



The problem is, of course, that these inputs aren't necessarily worst case, and could just as easily be optimistic as pessimistic.
Click to expand...
Miserable yes, but it is following the trajectory the debt has been on for the last 20 years or so.
 
TwoSheds said:
Which has been fairly terrible tbf and we should be trying to invert...
Click to expand...
It would involve a degree of shock treatment which political parties just aren’t going to engage in. Absent that it requires long term vision to deliver a fundamental realigning of the economy and the state itself. Can you see that happening any time soon?
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Seriously?

The short-term memory of some is absolutely shocking. Do we need to make a list?
Click to expand...

It's no where near as bad and hopefully, never will be. But the bar for holding the government to account needs to be set far higher than the Tories lowered it to. If Labour don't raise it, then the Tories will just drag it down further when they next seize power.
 
Kinsella said:
It would involve a degree of shock treatment which political parties just aren’t going to engage in. Absent that it requires long term vision to deliver a fundamental realigning of the economy and the state itself. Can you see that happening any time soon?
Click to expand...
What does this 'shock treatment' or 'realignment of the economy and state' even mean in reality?
 
F-Red said:
Are you sure?
Click to expand...
Like I said do we need a list?

- Lebedev
- Owen Patterson
- Illegally prorogued parliament
- Covid contracts & Partygate
- Ignoring recommendations from ethics advisers forcing them to quit
- Wallpapergate
- Ministers conducting business on private WhatsApp group then destroying phones etc
- A general contempt for committees, investigations and accountability
- David Cameron lobbying
- Jenrick helping a buddy save £46m in tax
- Zavawi’s tax issues
- Boris’s loans

And that’s literally without even thinking too hard about it!

Yes we absolutely have to hold government to higher standards than we let the Tories fall into, but to even think about comparing the two at this point is short-sighted at best and deliberately ignorant at worst.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.