Westminster Politics

Maticmaker said:
Unless Starmer gets a large majority a Labour government wont be able to deliver anything of note. Even with a large majority he will have to be ruthless with party discipline and it will take at least two terms to start to move the dial.



Key point - how many average commuters will be voting Labour if it's going to take 5 years?
Click to expand...

Why do you constantly bang on about a large majority? Outside of really contentious policy like Brexit and culture war nonsense it's very rare for a government not to get its own motions backed even with a small majority.

It feels like a canned line we were given as canvassers.
 
Matt Varnish said:
Time
Look at the way defence contracts are awarded and the money wasted there.
Click to expand...

No argument from me that procurement needs to be massively improved. That will be one of the challenges that takes time to resolve. I don't believe that public procurement is inherently terrible though. I wouldn't pretend to know the ins and outs of the rolling stock contracts or the feasibility of creating new publically owned stock.
 
F-Red said:
So I used to run a retail business, 20 stores and about 150 staff, so I can talk with some personal experience of the change over the last 2 years really. It was employee owned, so the staff had some skin in the game for preventing shoplifting and in all cases were excellent in managing it. The core factor is a drop off in police activity to actually doing something about shoplifting and actually coming out to investigate and an increase in abuse (both verbal and physical) of store staff, meaning challenging any one shoplifting isn't recommended. It's a vicious cycle because the shoplifters know full well that they won't get chased as it's deemed as low level crime, and they can do anything to store staff and know that little action will be taken. The more this happens, then unfortunately the more brazen it becomes. On one site we had a Tesco Express adjacent to us (run down part of the Wirral) and you just saw people walking in and taking beer off the shelf and just walking straight out, not even running as they know no one is even going to stop them.

The financials of between 0.3-0.5% of revenue as shrinkage (retail term for stock loss) from those articles is pretty accurate, but there was definitely increases in shoplifting since 2022. From my own experience and anecdotal feedback is that most shoplifting that we saw was professional shoplifters and have been doing it for some time, as opposed to some recent demand in new criminals coming to the fore.

The main bug for retailers though is definitely the police not doing anything about it or at the minimum coming out to take information. The amount they pay in business rates is significant and for the police to do very little is what's changed here. Any policy that begins to address can only be a good thing, especially for the people on the shop floor.
Click to expand...
This data confirms the spike in shoplifting, but doesn't indicate how many of the cases the police actually responded to. It's crazy that the police are not giving a shit about this stuff- it all contributes to the place being a shithole.

Shoplifting hits highest level in at least 20 years
A total of 430,104 offences were recorded in England and Wales last year, up 37 per cent on the 315,040 in the previous 12 months.
Click to expand...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shoplifting-hits-highest-level-in-at-least-20-years-pvspgzbj3
 
Frosty said:
We have literally just announced spending an extra £75bn on defence over the next six years: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...et-to-increase-defence-spending-to-25-by-2030.

The money spent on the rolling stock would be paid for and then some when you are not held over the barrel by a cartel.

And you cannot get true privatisation in this sphere (another fallacy of the argument for competition) against established businesses (all foreign), when you need billions in start up costs just to get a share in the market which you have no guarantee of holding on to.
Click to expand...

£10b is still £10b. What they spend on other stuff isn't really relevant. It's a lot of money that would need to be added to the debt pile that any incoming government needs to get control of. £12b (eg) spread over years is a lot more palatable than £10b upfront.
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I was walking behind a couple of women who were talking about this the other day and one of them said “see they don’t have any drinking problems in France because they have lots of wine with every meal”.

Think they heard me laugh.
 
Pexbo said:
Disagree. People traditionally become more conservative because they become home owners, have children, build savings etc etc and it’s about protecting what they have. The Tories have gone a long way to fecking up that natural progression and more and more people in their 30s, 40s and beyond will have no natural inclination to become more conservative because they have no wealth to protect.

I’m nearing my 40s, a homeowner with children and savings and I have absolutely zero inclination to move to the right because I can see how damaging the lack of socialism has been to the foundations of this country. It’s about a few getting rich and the rest getting nothing. feck that and feck you.
Click to expand...
Frosty said:
We have literally just announced spending an extra £75bn on defence over the next six years: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...et-to-increase-defence-spending-to-25-by-2030.

The money spent on the rolling stock would be paid for and then some when you are not held over the barrel by a cartel.

And you cannot get true privatisation in this sphere (another fallacy of the argument for competition) against established businesses (all foreign), when you need billions in start up costs just to get a share in the market which you have no guarantee of holding on to.
Click to expand...


A policy that will last for the length of the next governments stay in power. Hm.
 
Jippy said:
It's crazy that the police are not giving a shit about this stuff- it all contributes to the place being a shithole.
Click to expand...
It's probably a knock on effect from the massive cuts dealt to policing between 2010 and 2020, even with the police uplift, the National Police Chief Council says they're still facing real terms cuts of 3.2 billion and many of the new police officers are doing the job of police staff made redundant over a ten year period rather than actual policing on the streets.

The Tories have so much to answer for.
 
Pexbo said:
Funnily enough I was walking behind a couple of women who were talking about this the other day and one of them said “see they don’t have any drinking problems in France because they have lots of wine with every meal”.

Think they heard me laugh.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Typical french parenting

1036718.jpg
 
The Boy said:
It's probably a knock on effect from the massive cuts dealt to policing between 2010 and 2020, even with the police uplift, the National Police Chief Council says they're still facing real terms cuts of 3.2 billion and many of the new police officers are doing the job of police staff made redundant over a ten year period rather than actual policing on the streets.

The Tories have so much to answer for.
Click to expand...

Plus 12 officers being devoted to checking each and every Council Tax and Capital Gains issue of course.
 
Smores said:
Why do you constantly bang on about a large majority? Outside of really contentious policy like Brexit and culture war nonsense it's very rare for a government not to get its own motions backed even with a small majority.

It feels like a canned line we were given as canvassers.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that the larger the majority the more quickly a Labour government can move to 'moving the dial' significantly for the majority of people. I suspect a smaller seat majority will mean more disruption internally for the Labour government with individuals wanting their 'pound of flesh' to support certain issues they might otherwise not have agreed with. That's internally, externally lots of 'bear-traps' are set for those with small majorities, not to mention other mishaps that can occur.

Its not that legislation won't get passed, but it will take longer and cause more problems with only a small majority to rely on and Starmer will need a strict timetable to present to the nation especially if he seeks to go for a second (or even third) term. This timetable will be where his enemies come for him, slow that down and promises in the future, start to look further away every day.

No, its a large majority if Labour requires or really wants to develop and sustain a vibrant welfare state into the future.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Farage goes there every day. The more he shouts , the more people come.

Has anybody told him that less than 0.5% of immigrants come by small boats?
Click to expand...

Spot on Paul that is exactly Farage's plan for leveraging in discontented Tory votes.

He knows that those arriving in small boats are a small part of both legal and illegal immigration, but it is (at least to the majority of the public) the 'high-viz', part. Farage also knows a Conservative government would never consider opening up legal routes, for fear of being snowed under with application's from all those (0.5%) who are currently paying around 3,000 Euro's to arrive by boat and they would also likely be accompanied probably by at least a million more, who cannot afford 3,000 euro's. Hence those (still in) the Tory government that took such a decision, would risk being 'tarred-and-feathered' by the faithful on the Tory right.

Our Nigel knows exactly where and when to press the Tory panic button, as he has demonstrated many times before, the Tories were running scared of him them, and now they no longer have the 'buffoon in waiting' (guess who) to turn to, to rescue them, with an 'oven ready Brexit'.
 
Last edited:
Zen86 said:
Don’t taxpayers basically pay for the infrastructure anyway? My understanding was the private sector mostly just operates the services and takes a profit, with minimal responsibility for the actual infrastructure.
Click to expand...
The government owns the tracks and other infrastructure, and so has to pay for the upkeep, they also charge the operators for using the network. The contracts to be an operator are also tendered by the government.
Theoretically they could just let the contracts run down and buy the engine stock (Loco's carriages etc), it would still cost billions, and a lot of the stock is way past it's best before date (nearly 20yrs old), and needs replacing,
 
Maticmaker said:
Spot on Paul that is exactly Farage's plan for leveraging in discontented Tory votes.

He knows that those arriving in small boats are a small part of both legal and illegal immigration, but it is (at least to the majority of the public) the 'high-viz', part. Farage also knows a Conservative government would never consider opening up legal routes, for fear of being snowed under with application's from all those (0.5%) who are currently paying around 3,000 Euro's to arrive by boat and they would also likely be accompanied probably by at least a million more, who cannot afford 3,000 euro's. Hence those (still in) the Tory government that took such a decision, would risk being 'tarred-and-feathered' by the faithful on the Tory right.

Our Nigel knows exactly where and when to press the Tory panic button, as he has demonstrated many times before, the Tories were running scared of him them, and now they no longer have the 'buffoon in waiting' (guess who) to turn to, to rescue them, with an 'oven ready Brexit'.
Click to expand...

None of them really want the boats to stop, it's a weapon they use to rile up and distract the public from other matters. It could be solved very quickly if they wanted to. Not Rwanda obviously, which unless the government are completely insane will never happen.

How Farage has lasted so long is very strange. Born liar and obvious charlatan but still keeps on being fed to the British public by the media.
Any decent journalism should destroy him, any decent politician of a different view should destroy him but he survives. Because the politicians are so weak and the journalism pathetic for the most part.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
None of them really want the boats to stop, it's a weapon they use to rile up and distract the public from other matters. It could be solved very quickly if they wanted to. Not Rwanda obviously, which unless the government are completely insane will never happen.

How Farage has lasted so long is very strange. Born liar and obvious charlatan but still keeps on being fed to the British public by the media.
Any decent journalism should destroy him, any decent politician of a different view should destroy him but he survives. Because the politicians are so weak and the journalism pathetic for the most part.
Click to expand...
How?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Legal routes. It's amazing how quickly they managed to deal with the Ukranian refugees, because it was good propaganda.
Click to expand...
There are legal routes, in all airports and seaports for people that want to claim asylum.
Ukranians were given a fast track because they had been cleared for asylum in other neighbouring countries like Poland. I worked with a charity that helped them get food and clothes once they reached here.
 
Matt Varnish said:
There are legal routes, in all airports and seaports for people that want to claim asylum.
Ukranians were given a fast track because they had been cleared for asylum in other neighbouring countries like Poland. I worked with a charity that helped them get food and clothes once they reached here.
Click to expand...

Please not this again, there aren't. So if a refugee goes up to the British passport control at Calais they're going to treat his asylum claim and let him through?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Please not this again, there aren't. So if a refugee goes up to the British passport control at Calais they're going to treat his asylum claim and let him through?
Click to expand...
I've never had to show my passport to leave a country, ticket yes, passport no, and I travel a fair bit
Asylum is claimed at the border control of the country you are entering, not leaving.
You are confusing the legal route with the controls that are supposed to have been set up for those in camps.
 
Matt Varnish said:
I've never had to show my passport to leave a country, ticket yes, passport no, and I travel a fair bit
Asylum is claimed at the border control of the country you are entering, not leaving.
You are confusing the legal route with the controls that are supposed to have been set up for those in camps.
Click to expand...

I have to show my passport before boarding the plane in the UK on every single flight.

Edit: removed a bit as can't be arsed getting into an argument
 
Matt Varnish said:
I've never had to show my passport to leave a country, ticket yes, passport no, and I travel a fair bit
Asylum is claimed at the border control of the country you are entering, not leaving.
You are confusing the legal route with the controls that are supposed to have been set up for those in camps.
Click to expand...

It's not illegal to leave a country. The British border control is in Calais, not in Dover. The French one is in Dover not Calais.
If you enter the EU after October you're going to be in for a shock. That's for you to discover later this year.

For the Ukranian refugees that came through France, they were turned away at the ports and told to go to the British embassy in Paris.

How do refugees get on a plane. To get a ticket you need to quote a passport or ID card number and I've usually had to show a passport and I've travelled far more than I really wanted to.
The refugees are transported to the coast and put on a small boat, they're not controlled by anyone. Only those that are intercepted which is approximately 50%
 
Paul the Wolf said:
It's not illegal to leave a country. The British border control is in Calais, not in Dover. The French one is in Dover not Calais.
If you enter the EU after October you're going to be in for a shock. That's for you to discover later this year.

For the Ukranian refugees that came through France, they were turned away at the ports and told to go to the British embassy in Paris.

How do refugees get on a plane. To get a ticket you need to quote a passport or ID card number and I've usually had to show a passport and I've travelled far more than I really wanted to.
The refugees are transported to the coast and put on a small boat, they're not controlled by anyone. Only those that are intercepted which is approximately 50%
Click to expand...
So, how did these people get into France or the EU without a passport, ID or a ticket?
Asking because I genuinely don't know.
 
Matt Varnish said:
So, how did these people get into France or the EU without a passport, ID or a ticket?
Asking because I genuinely don't know.
Click to expand...

Smuggled. Before Brexit they used to try to get into lorries but as the lorries are supposed to be checked now (little do they know that the UK still haven't really started checking). In cars in lorries all different methods, I presume. They could come across the Med, lots of different ways. Some want to go to the UK because of different reasons, language, family, whatever. If British embassies would accept them in any safe country this would solve a great deal. France offered to let the British set up a centre for processing in Calais. The British government refused. Britain take very few in comparison with other European countries but the government use them as a weapon.
 
Matt Varnish said:
I've never had to show my passport to leave a country, ticket yes, passport no, and I travel a fair bit
Asylum is claimed at the border control of the country you are entering, not leaving.
You are confusing the legal route with the controls that are supposed to have been set up for those in camps.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? You have to show a form of identification ALWAYS to leave a country and if it is outside the EU if you are in the EU, has to be a passport (I guess exceptions within other organizations like the EU passport is not needed)
 
mitChley said:
I have to show my passport before boarding the plane in the UK on every single flight.

Edit: removed a bit as can't be arsed getting into an argument
Click to expand...

Not strictly related to the asylum discussion but that passport check is not because of immigration controls on leaving a country, its because the airlines dont want to get fined if they deliver you to a country's border without the proper paperwork.
 
11101 said:
Not strictly related to the asylum discussion but that passport check is not because of immigration controls on leaving a country, its because the airlines dont want to get fined if they deliver you to a country's border without the proper paperwork.
Click to expand...

And that is why you need the passport. It doesn't mean that the government requires. But try to fly without a passport to a foreign country and you will find out quickly enough. Or visa, or ESTA, etc... if required
 
TwoSheds said:
Tbf the majority of it probably belongs to those who inherited great wealth from their parents because inequality is rife. But yes, the people who would get clobbered would almost certainly not be those people.
Click to expand...

I understand that.
A lot is made of inherited wealth.
My point is that the people who had that so called wealth would have paid tax at whatever rate was required during their lives.
And having paid taxes that were due, it would be up to them what they chose to do with their money.
And if most of their so called wealth was in their house, then they would have paid Council Tax for it.
And those who inherited that money would have had to pay IHT should it be due
And in the case of a house or houses being the subject of the inheritance and were then sold for whatever reason, CGT would have been due.

So my point is that after we have been taxed and taxed and taxed, it is up to the individual to decide what they want to do with their money.
 
Matt Varnish said:
There are legal routes, in all airports and seaports for people that want to claim asylum.
Ukranians were given a fast track because they had been cleared for asylum in other neighbouring countries like Poland. I worked with a charity that helped them get food and clothes once they reached here.
Click to expand...
You are full of sh1t. I travelled today from Calais to Folkestone. Had to show my passport to French Passport control and UK passport control on French side.
 
Buster15 said:
I understand that.
A lot is made of inherited wealth.
My point is that the people who had that so called wealth would have paid tax at whatever rate was required during their lives.
And having paid taxes that were due, it would be up to them what they chose to do with their money.
And if most of their so called wealth was in their house, then they would have paid Council Tax for it.
And those who inherited that money would have had to pay IHT should it be due
And in the case of a house or houses being the subject of the inheritance and were then sold for whatever reason, CGT would have been due.

So my point is that after we have been taxed and taxed and taxed, it is up to the individual to decide what they want to do with their money.
Click to expand...

But that's my point. You might have been taxed and taxed and taxed. But the Duke of Westminster hasn't. And he is probably (literally) 10,000 times richer than you. Which is proof he hasn't been taxed and taxed and taxed.
 
Matt Varnish said:
The government owns the tracks and other infrastructure, and so has to pay for the upkeep, they also charge the operators for using the network. The contracts to be an operator are also tendered by the government.
Theoretically they could just let the contracts run down and buy the engine stock (Loco's carriages etc), it would still cost billions, and a lot of the stock is way past it's best before date (nearly 20yrs old), and needs replacing,
Click to expand...

From what I gathered, they’re just not going to renew the service contracts. The rail providers are terrible anyway. Nothing more than a middle man taking profits.
 
Zen86 said:
From what I gathered, they’re just not going to renew the service contracts. The rail providers are terrible anyway. Nothing more than a middle man taking profits.
Click to expand...
The Tories were looking at a conceesion arrangement, but I think that has been scrapped
 
Matt Varnish said:
I's been known
Click to expand...
Like I said, you are full of sh1t. You could, of course, retract your earlier position with a mea culpa, but you choosing to keep going. You do realise people can read your responses?
 
Mart1974 said:
Like I said, you are full of sh1t. You could, of course, retract your earlier position with a mea culpa, but you choosing to keep going. You do realise people can read your responses?
Click to expand...
I don't know you.
You do not know me
You do not know anything about me, but I can assure you I have entered this country, and others without having to show a passport going through border control
Just take a moment from your busy life, and consider who would be able to do that?
 
Matt Varnish said:
Fact check says he does
https://www.grosvenor.com/about-us/how-we-work/tax-policy/the-facts-about-our-ownership#:~:text=Grosvenor family members are all,entitled to the same exemptions.
Click to expand...

Does what? Pay his fair share of taxes? How do you explain the fact he's a multi-billionaire? If he pays 6% every 10 years that means he only needs to earn a profit of 0.75% above inflation every year on his assets in order to break even. Does that sound difficult for a multi-billionaire to you?
 
TwoSheds said:
Does what? Pay his fair share of taxes? How do you explain the fact he's a multi-billionaire? If he pays 6% every 10 years that means he only needs to earn a profit of 0.75% above inflation every year on his assets in order to break even. Does that sound difficult for a multi-billionaire to you?
Click to expand...
It's not his fault he came from a different pair of legs to you.
Like you he pays tax
I'm not saying I agree with it, but as the law stands he pays whats due, which is totally different to your original claim that he pays none.

If you want to direct your anger of tax evasion, it would be better directed toward off shore corporations like Amazon, who last year got a tax rebate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.