[fishini]

Mr Mercury, on 25 July 2024 - 06:58 PM, said:

Had to have a wry smile over the nickname the Corbyn supporters and those who want the two child benefit cap removing and support those who?ve had the whip removed over opposing the government have given the PM.
For Keir Starmer read Kid starver

Just remind me who introduced the two child cap. Was he a kid starver too? My opinion on child benefit is that it should be raised but only for those that need it. My family have never needed it I would rather those that need it get it and more of it. If this means being means tested then so be it

[Mr Mercury]

fishini, on 26 July 2024 - 07:51 AM, said:

Just remind me who introduced the two child cap. Was he a kid starver too? My opinion on child benefit is that it should be raised but only for those that need it. My family have never needed it I would rather those that need it get it and more of it. If this means being means tested then so be it

Had to have a wry smile at the nickname given to Keir Starmer. Kid Starver. That?s all.

[fishini]

Mr Mercury, on 26 July 2024 - 08:31 AM, said:

Had to have a wry smile at the nickname given to Keir Starmer. Kid Starver. That?s all.

Thought it was a product of your witty mind

[Wooden Spoon]

Monday will be interesting.

There?s 2 ways of looking at Monday

1) Labour will say the economy isn?t as strong as we thought so to achieve our aims we need to address shortfall in revenues by raising money from X


2labour, having full access to the OFN data knew what the date on the nations finances was and the accusations from the tories of a ?20 billion un costed whole had some value



Are Labour going to say we knew we had only ?10k to buy a new car so planned to buy a de ent used one, or or will they say we thought we had ?10 k to buy a new car but didn?t realise the credit wasn?t there to buy it

[turrhall]

Unfortunately Tory austerity has left Labour with no choice but to do more austerity, or something.

If someone as stupid as me could have repeatedly predicted this then it should obviously come as no surprise to anyone else

This post has been edited by turrhall: 29 July 2024 - 08:43 AM

[isleaiw1]

Its worse than we expected, even though the OBR publishes all the data... although I imagine there are things that are costing more than predicted that havent been factored in...

We need to cut back and potentially raise taxes to pay for it - but here, have a 5.5% pay rise in the meantime (dont get me wrong, I think if the body recommends it then its right to pay it but its a bit against the grain)...

Oh, high pay settlements might delay interest rate cuts, which will impact confidence and disposable income, which may harm growth - which is Labour's big solution to everything....

turrhall, on 29 July 2024 - 08:42 AM, said:

Unfortunately Tory austerity has left Labour with no choice but to do more austerity, or something.

If someone as stupid as me could have repeatedly predicted this then it should obviously come as no surprise to anyone else

If we are going to blame the other party, wasnt it Labour's profligacy that caused the Tory austerity?

[turrhall]

isleaiw1, on 29 July 2024 - 09:12 AM, said:

Its worse than we expected, even though the OBR publishes all the data... although I imagine there are things that are costing more than predicted that havent been factored in...

We need to cut back and potentially raise taxes to pay for it - but here, have a 5.5% pay rise in the meantime (dont get me wrong, I think if the body recommends it then its right to pay it but its a bit against the grain)...

Oh, high pay settlements might delay interest rate cuts, which will impact confidence and disposable income, which may harm growth - which is Labour's big solution to everything....



If we are going to blame the other party, wasnt it Labour's profligacy that caused the Tory austerity?

I'm not supporting the Labour position here.

As we've discussed before, if you think that austerity solves anything then how come after 14 years of it, everything is fucked?

[isleaiw1]

turrhall, on 29 July 2024 - 09:15 AM, said:

I'm not supporting the Labour position here.

As we've discussed before, if you think that austerity solves anything then how come after 14 years of it, everything is fucked?

I do know that spending what you dont have doesnt work either - see Greece for an example. Wouldnt it be good if they all took a sensible long term view to things, which of course wont happen whilst we have first past the post 5 year terms. PR might mean we got more long term views as the parties making up the coalition may be part of a coalition for longer and its harder to say the last lot were sh1t if you were part of it...

I dont think you can build your way to success either, especially when we dont have enough builders to build the extra homes... maybe they needed to solve that problem first before making it such a cornerstone of their policies...

[turrhall]

isleaiw1, on 29 July 2024 - 09:28 AM, said:

I do know that spending what you dont have doesnt work either - see Greece for an example. Wouldnt it be good if they all took a sensible long term view to things, which of course wont happen whilst we have first past the post 5 year terms. PR might mean we got more long term views as the parties making up the coalition may be part of a coalition for longer and its harder to say the last lot were sh1t if you were part of it...

I dont think you can build your way to success either, especially when we dont have enough builders to build the extra homes... maybe they needed to solve that problem first before making it such a cornerstone of their policies...

There's a difference between "spending what you don't have" and not spending anything at all. Once again it's the poorest who will have to tighten their belts and suffer through more austerity, which always just happens to be the way that things 'have to' go.

Why not do something like large infrastructure projects like, but not necessarily HS2, creates jobs and benefits the country, and then you get the added benefit of having some modern infrastructure afterwards which will literally make you money? Unless of course you sell if off to be mismanaged by the private sector immediately after its finished ofc.

This post has been edited by turrhall: 29 July 2024 - 11:30 AM

[isleaiw1]

turrhall, on 29 July 2024 - 11:30 AM, said:

There's a difference between "spending what you don't have" and not spending anything at all. Once again it's the poorest who will have to tighten their belts and suffer through more austerity, which always just happens to be the way that things 'have to' go.

Why not do something like large infrastructure projects like, but not necessarily HS2, creates jobs and benefits the country, and then you get the added benefit of having some modern infrastructure afterwards which will literally make you money? Unless of course you sell if off to be mismanaged by the private sector immediately after its finished ofc.

Speculate to accumulate is always a good way forward, it is after all what the private sector does everyday. Sadly the public sector seem to be crap at it, look at the public private finance initiatives used to pay for new schools and hospitals etc that are currently crippling the country due to the crap deals put in place. It may be of course because when people in the private sector sign off big investment, they know they are accountable for the overspend, delays and future returns, whereas public sector projects are under costed, under allowed for time from day 1 and then its someone else's problem when they fail....

Austerity is bad for everyone, we should never have got to the stage where we needed it... but the idea is you save money in the good years to spend in the bad times. The Blair admin, much as I approved of him and his approach generally, committed in the good years to things we couldnt afford when the economy turned down, as it always would, whatever Brown said about abolishing boom and bust...

What we need to do is get people learning the skills to be able to deliver these projects and not rely on imported labour to deliver. Then we can push forward and build the infrastructure projects, build the houses and move forward... but for now we have not got the resources to do it and so saying we will is setting up to fail...

20% pay rise for junior docs, better plan for them retiring even earlier when they have enough in their pensions

[isleaiw1]

Comments on Reeves statement today...

I agree with means testing winter fuel allowance, could never understand why my Mum got it and def didnt understand why my in laws got 3x it, both parents and son who was of an age to qualify living at home... at that time it paid their years fuel bill!

lots of "its their fault" - so the OBR isnt doing its job in keeping the books in line and open? not sure we need an office for value for money, wouldnt everyone be trying to spend the public purse as carefully as they could (was going to say as carefully as their own but many MPs arent poor so perhaps they are a bit free with the cash?)


Not sure that saying strikes cost money is the justification to pay rises we cant afford, the cost is one off but the rise if indefinite. And of course, it tells the unions that threatening strikes gets you what you want, like rewarding a spoilt child.

Looking forward to seeing which tax rises come in the budget, the restriction of tax relief on pensions will be interesting when they are saying how people arent saving enough, plus how does it work when the employer pays most of your contribution? Mine is salary sacrifice which therefore means it looks like a company contribution, just like a defined benefit scheme. Be very politically dangerous to distinguish the treatments...

No spending on consultants, wonder how that is defined...

oh yeah, we are going to build our way to growth but not if they were Tory sanctioned capital projects like new roads and hospitals... apparently we dont have the money for those, but we will for Labour proposed ones...

oh, and that includes the rail improvement projects that we so desperately need....

This post has been edited by isleaiw1: 29 July 2024 - 03:30 PM

[turrhall]

isleaiw1, on 29 July 2024 - 03:20 PM, said:

Comments on Reeves statement today...

I agree with means testing winter fuel allowance, could never understand why my Mum got it and def didnt understand why my in laws got 3x it, both parents and son who was of an age to qualify living at home... at that time it paid their years fuel bill!

lots of "its their fault" - so the OBR isnt doing its job in keeping the books in line and open? not sure we need an office for value for money, wouldnt everyone be trying to spend the public purse as carefully as they could (was going to say as carefully as their own but many MPs arent poor so perhaps they are a bit free with the cash?)


Not sure that saying strikes cost money is the justification to pay rises we cant afford, the cost is one off but the rise if indefinite. And of course, it tells the unions that threatening strikes gets you what you want, like rewarding a spoilt child.

Looking forward to seeing which tax rises come in the budget, the restriction of tax relief on pensions will be interesting when they are saying how people arent saving enough, plus how does it work when the employer pays most of your contribution? Mine is salary sacrifice which therefore means it looks like a company contribution, just like a defined benefit scheme. Be very politically dangerous to distinguish the treatments...

No spending on consultants, wonder how that is defined...

And yet many pensioners actually do require that help, regardless of your anecdotal evidence.

Everyone is aware of the power of strikes, they have always been effective, that's not news, it's why previous govts have made such an effort to reduce their effectiveness with legislation.

[isleaiw1]

turrhall, on 29 July 2024 - 03:31 PM, said:

And yet many pensioners actually do require that help, regardless of your anecdotal evidence.

Everyone is aware of the power of strikes, they have always been effective, that's not news, it's why previous govts have made such an effort to reduce their effectiveness with legislation.

it will still be paid to those on benefits..

they are good at causing damage and meaning those who can cause most damage get the best return, whereas it would be better if those most deserving got the best return.

Might account for why coppers and firemen get paid so abysmally versus others, as they either cant strike or the govt replaces them with the army....

I'd rather pay the deserving than the militant and disruptive, call me old fashioned...

[turrhall]

Plenty who aren't on benefits who will need it - unless you intend on means testing it which itself is hardly the model of efficiency that you love.

Rights don't just get handed out for free, if workers didn't fight for them then we'd still be working 6 days a week in slum conditions.

[isleaiw1]

turrhall, on 29 July 2024 - 04:01 PM, said:

Plenty who aren't on benefits who will need it - unless you intend on means testing it which itself is hardly the model of efficiency that you love.

Rights don't just get handed out for free, if workers didn't fight for them then we'd still be working 6 days a week in slum conditions.

Would they, or would the world have moved on and the conditions improved because they had to to get staff? Have unions driven the D&I agenda or has that happened because its the right thing, and because social media these days means those that dont conform can be dealt with by public pressure...?

It needs to be paid to those who need help, that is currently defined as those on pension benefits. Better than wasting lots on millionaires and those not in need... although no doubt some will claim its in their contract, cant be changed and they made their decisions based on it....

And yes, lets not complicate who gets it so the system costs as much to administer as it saves....

Waiting for the legal case to start on VAT on school fees, and the applications to flood in to our already over full school...

[Mr Mercury]

Surprise Surprise..

Sam Coates analysis: New policies have appeared as if from nowhere
Surprise!
That's the overriding theme of the public spending announcements the chancellor has made this afternoon, according to our deputy political editor Sam Coates.
While Rachel Reeves was aiming to "tell the public her inheritance was worse than expected", it also saw her announce "a lot of things not in the Labour manifesto" less than a month after the election.
This includes scrapping the Tory plan for 40 new hospitals, cutting the winter fuel payments for some pensioners, and making changes to ministerial severance pay in a bid to cut government spending.
"New policies that have appeared as if from nowhere," says Sam.
The challenge now is to "justify them to the British public".
"This is about things they have decided to do today, and they're explaining why they needed to do it without any notice," he says.
"The question is does that work with voters."

[turrhall]

isleaiw1, on 29 July 2024 - 04:28 PM, said:

Would they, or would the world have moved on and the conditions improved because they had to to get staff? Have unions driven the D&I agenda or has that happened because its the right thing, and because social media these days means those that dont conform can be dealt with by public pressure...?

It needs to be paid to those who need help, that is currently defined as those on pension benefits. Better than wasting lots on millionaires and those not in need... although no doubt some will claim its in their contract, cant be changed and they made their decisions based on it....

And yes, lets not complicate who gets it so the system costs as much to administer as it saves....

Waiting for the legal case to start on VAT on school fees, and the applications to flood in to our already over full school...

Advancement, in any sense, doesn't just happen. We have rights, that we now view as inalienable, because unions and working people fought for and won them through action, including strikes.

I don't care if millionaires get WFA if it means that a poor person who actually needs it also gets it. Means testing sucks, is expensive and people fall through the cracks.

This post has been edited by turrhall: 29 July 2024 - 06:40 PM

[azul]

Mr Mercury, on 29 July 2024 - 06:01 PM, said:

Surprise Surprise..

Sam Coates analysis: New policies have appeared as if from nowhere
Surprise!

This includes scrapping the Tory plan for 40 new hospitals, cutting the winter fuel payments for some pensioners, and making changes to ministerial severance pay in a bid to cut government spending.

Boris? 40 new hospitals (that weren?t really new) - as long as they cancel spending that wasn?t ever going to take place, well that is relatively bloodless

Scrapping winter fuel allowance for well off pensioners - got my vote and Im one of them.

Scrapping golden handshakes for sacked ministers who have been in the job 10 minutes - can?t imagine many tears apart from your crocodile tears

[Mr Mercury]

azul, on 29 July 2024 - 07:11 PM, said:

Boris? 40 new hospitals (that weren?t really new) - as long as they cancel spending that wasn?t ever going to take place, well that is relatively bloodless

Scrapping winter fuel allowance for well off pensioners - got my vote and Im one of them.

Scrapping golden handshakes for sacked ministers who have been in the job 10 minutes - can?t imagine many tears apart from your crocodile tears

No tears from me I didn?t vote for either, just keeping folk abreast of the news.

[Bonnyman]

isleaiw1, on 29 July 2024 - 03:39 PM, said:

it will still be paid to those on benefits..

they are good at causing damage and meaning those who can cause most damage get the best return, whereas it would be better if those most deserving got the best return.

Might account for why coppers and firemen get paid so abysmally versus others, as they either cant strike or the govt replaces them with the army....

I'd rather pay the deserving than the militant and disruptive, call me old fashioned...

Not sure where you get your information from but firefighters can strike I have been involved in two industrial disputes and also the army don?t man fire trucks anymore and have not for years

This post has been edited by Bonnyman: 29 July 2024 - 07:27 PM