FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Tax rises and spending cuts expected in 'grim' first Labour budget
Tax rises and spending cuts expected in 'grim' first Labour budget
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*****Politics latest: Tax rises and spending cuts expected in 'grim' first Labour budget Sky's Ed Conway is hearing there will be "a lot of bad news" when Labour's Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers her first budget in October. Meanwhile, the government has detailed measures it hopes will drive up the removal of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers.***** Wednesday 21 August 2024 11:00, UK" They have been preparing the ground for this since day one. The main taxes have been ruled out so the axe will fall somewhere else. I read today that government borrowing was much higher than expected despite high income tax receipts and lower debt interest payments. Apparently the big increase in public sector costs more than outweighed those gains hence the bad figures. It also reiterated that the impact assessment on the pensioners winter fuel payment removal still has not been published. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*****Politics latest: Tax rises and spending cuts expected in 'grim' first Labour budget Sky's Ed Conway is hearing there will be "a lot of bad news" when Labour's Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers her first budget in October. Meanwhile, the government has detailed measures it hopes will drive up the removal of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers.***** Wednesday 21 August 2024 11:00, UK" Shock horror, labour government raising taxes ... who would of thought that  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*****Politics latest: Tax rises and spending cuts expected in 'grim' first Labour budget Sky's Ed Conway is hearing there will be "a lot of bad news" when Labour's Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers her first budget in October. Meanwhile, the government has detailed measures it hopes will drive up the removal of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers.***** Wednesday 21 August 2024 11:00, UK" Finally got some responsible people at the top table then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*****Politics latest: Tax rises and spending cuts expected in 'grim' first Labour budget Sky's Ed Conway is hearing there will be "a lot of bad news" when Labour's Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers her first budget in October. Meanwhile, the government has detailed measures it hopes will drive up the removal of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers.***** Wednesday 21 August 2024 11:00, UK They have been preparing the ground for this since day one. The main taxes have been ruled out so the axe will fall somewhere else. I read today that government borrowing was much higher than expected despite high income tax receipts and lower debt interest payments. Apparently the big increase in public sector costs more than outweighed those gains hence the bad figures. It also reiterated that the impact assessment on the pensioners winter fuel payment removal still has not been published." Yeah it's the highest since...wait for it... 2021 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*****Politics latest: Tax rises and spending cuts expected in 'grim' first Labour budget Sky's Ed Conway is hearing there will be "a lot of bad news" when Labour's Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers her first budget in October. Meanwhile, the government has detailed measures it hopes will drive up the removal of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers.***** Wednesday 21 August 2024 11:00, UK They have been preparing the ground for this since day one. The main taxes have been ruled out so the axe will fall somewhere else. I read today that government borrowing was much higher than expected despite high income tax receipts and lower debt interest payments. Apparently the big increase in public sector costs more than outweighed those gains hence the bad figures. It also reiterated that the impact assessment on the pensioners winter fuel payment removal still has not been published. Yeah it's the highest since...wait for it... 2021" It's far higher than the analysts were predicting which is the problem. In 2021 I would expect a lot of that expense was from covid so not a normal situation for comparing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*****Politics latest: Tax rises and spending cuts expected in 'grim' first Labour budget Sky's Ed Conway is hearing there will be "a lot of bad news" when Labour's Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers her first budget in October. Meanwhile, the government has detailed measures it hopes will drive up the removal of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers.***** Wednesday 21 August 2024 11:00, UK They have been preparing the ground for this since day one. The main taxes have been ruled out so the axe will fall somewhere else. I read today that government borrowing was much higher than expected despite high income tax receipts and lower debt interest payments. Apparently the big increase in public sector costs more than outweighed those gains hence the bad figures. It also reiterated that the impact assessment on the pensioners winter fuel payment removal still has not been published. Yeah it's the highest since...wait for it... 2021 It's far higher than the analysts were predicting which is the problem. In 2021 I would expect a lot of that expense was from covid so not a normal situation for comparing" On the one hand it's typical labour politics on the other.....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we want improvements to public services the money has to come from somewhere " That's the problem, some people want Scandinavian style services from American style taxes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we want improvements to public services the money has to come from somewhere That's the problem, some people want Scandinavian style services from American style taxes." There's a choice isn't there. Fund it yourself directly at point of delivery or fund it centrally. Whichever you choose you as an individual have to pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we want improvements to public services the money has to come from somewhere " Brexit was supposed to make the UK economy the envy of the world. Prosperity for all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we want improvements to public services the money has to come from somewhere Brexit was supposed to make the UK economy the envy of the world. Prosperity for all. " it doesn’t help when £460bn+ was spanked on Covid measures pretty much as soon as the UK finally left the EU and the economy was basically shutdown for the best part of 18 months. Mind you, have a look at the economies in Europe (Germany, Spain, Italy, France etc) and you will notice they are not doing so well either…. And they haven’t left the EU! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If we want improvements to public services the money has to come from somewhere That's the problem, some people want Scandinavian style services from American style taxes. There's a choice isn't there. Fund it yourself directly at point of delivery or fund it centrally. Whichever you choose you as an individual have to pay. " There’s many other ways. Here it’s a legal requirement that employers provide healthcare insurance for all staff, even the lowest paid. Cash plans are very rare | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be surprised at this news. "Ho no look what the tories have done, we will have to make tough choices now, look over there we are attempting to lower immigration". Same old sh1t just a different bunch, very very very glad I did not vote for this as I saw it coming." Who could you have voted for to 'avoid' this then? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be surprised at this news. "Ho no look what the tories have done, we will have to make tough choices now, look over there we are attempting to lower immigration". Same old sh1t just a different bunch, very very very glad I did not vote for this as I saw it coming. Who could you have voted for to 'avoid' this then? Mrs x" As I stated I did not vote for anyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one should be surprised at this news. "Ho no look what the tories have done, we will have to make tough choices now, look over there we are attempting to lower immigration". Same old sh1t just a different bunch, very very very glad I did not vote for this as I saw it coming. Who could you have voted for to 'avoid' this then? Mrs x As I stated I did not vote for anyone." Neither did I. There was no Reform candidate in my ward, and nobody I could possibly vote for. Labour are not an upgrade on the Tories. We are deep in the do do! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well anyone who voted for Labour are getting what they voted for which I did warn about but you Labour lovers were too stubborn to listen which I'm sure you now how much worse they really are but please don't moan about something that you're also complicit for" Reeves said her priority was economic growth - to generate the tax income Six weeks on we have higher taxes coming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well anyone who voted for Labour are getting what they voted for which I did warn about but you Labour lovers were too stubborn to listen which I'm sure you now how much worse they really are but please don't moan about something that you're also complicit for Reeves said her priority was economic growth - to generate the tax income Six weeks on we have higher taxes coming. " How can Labour foster economic growth? This can only be done through promoting private sector business & commerce. Labour MPs have no specialist knowledge nor experience in this field. Their instincts are towards public sector expansion, which is a drain on public funds and a brake on growth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well anyone who voted for Labour are getting what they voted for which I did warn about but you Labour lovers were too stubborn to listen which I'm sure you now how much worse they really are but please don't moan about something that you're also complicit for Reeves said her priority was economic growth - to generate the tax income Six weeks on we have higher taxes coming. How can Labour foster economic growth? This can only be done through promoting private sector business & commerce. Labour MPs have no specialist knowledge nor experience in this field. Their instincts are towards public sector expansion, which is a drain on public funds and a brake on growth. " Have you considered that having a functioning public sector might contribute to economic growth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well anyone who voted for Labour are getting what they voted for which I did warn about but you Labour lovers were too stubborn to listen which I'm sure you now how much worse they really are but please don't moan about something that you're also complicit for Reeves said her priority was economic growth - to generate the tax income Six weeks on we have higher taxes coming. How can Labour foster economic growth? This can only be done through promoting private sector business & commerce. Labour MPs have no specialist knowledge nor experience in this field. Their instincts are towards public sector expansion, which is a drain on public funds and a brake on growth. " It is the governments responsibility to create the conditions to enable a prosperous economy. And Starmer will need to repair the damage caused by Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well anyone who voted for Labour are getting what they voted for which I did warn about but you Labour lovers were too stubborn to listen which I'm sure you now how much worse they really are but please don't moan about something that you're also complicit for Reeves said her priority was economic growth - to generate the tax income Six weeks on we have higher taxes coming. How can Labour foster economic growth? This can only be done through promoting private sector business & commerce. Labour MPs have no specialist knowledge nor experience in this field. Their instincts are towards public sector expansion, which is a drain on public funds and a brake on growth. Have you considered that having a functioning public sector might contribute to economic growth?" I have, and indeed investment in the public sector (e.g infrastructure) can support growth in the economy. But the real engine house of economic strength is the private sector. I'm doubtful Labour can or will get private industry booming. Let's see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lol, most of these comments that are out bashing labour. I would love to know how so many of you have crystal balls that can see with any other party how the situation is going to be any different? Country would still have issues from be it; overpopulated, a struggling economy, crippled public services, aging population and that huge national debt means there's nothing any responsible government can do but raise tax." Overpopulated... have more migration. Struggling economy... fuck over private business. Crippled public services... throw some money at it. Aging population... freeze them to death. National Debt... raise tax on workers. All easily fixed  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lol, most of these comments that are out bashing labour. I would love to know how so many of you have crystal balls that can see with any other party how the situation is going to be any different? Country would still have issues from be it; overpopulated, a struggling economy, crippled public services, aging population and that huge national debt means there's nothing any responsible government can do but raise tax." In isolation the national debt cannot be fixed 1997. £434bn 2010. £876bn 2024 £2.6 trn Add PFI and it would be over £3trn. Six fold increase in debt over 27 years. Equivalent to £100,000 for every person in the country. £4000 interest cost for every household, every year. Sub prime on steroids | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lol, most of these comments that are out bashing labour. I would love to know how so many of you have crystal balls that can see with any other party how the situation is going to be any different? Country would still have issues from be it; overpopulated, a struggling economy, crippled public services, aging population and that huge national debt means there's nothing any responsible government can do but raise tax." Stop wasting money would be a good place to start Brexit HS2 £70bn over budget £8bn a year on immigrants Get the country on a diet to help to nhs; £20bn obesity Selling off half of social housing at one time discounts to tenants 10,000 empty MOD homes costing £25M annually to maintain while spending £2bn on hotels for homeless Starbucks et all offshoring profits I’m sure others can add more examples of our wasted tax’s | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Overpopulated... have more migration. " Unemployment levels fell by around 25,000 over the last year, and the unemployment rate remained at a similar level. 9.41 million people aged 16-64 were economically inactive, and the inactivity rate was 22.2%. Inactivity levels increased by around 350,000 over the last year and the inactivity rate increased. 13 Aug 2024 Parliamentary research briefing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Overpopulated... have more migration. Unemployment levels fell by around 25,000 over the last year, and the unemployment rate remained at a similar level. 9.41 million people aged 16-64 were economically inactive, and the inactivity rate was 22.2%. Inactivity levels increased by around 350,000 over the last year and the inactivity rate increased. 13 Aug 2024 Parliamentary research briefing " Huh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well anyone who voted for Labour are getting what they voted for which I did warn about but you Labour lovers were too stubborn to listen which I'm sure you now how much worse they really are but please don't moan about something that you're also complicit for Reeves said her priority was economic growth - to generate the tax income Six weeks on we have higher taxes coming. How can Labour foster economic growth? This can only be done through promoting private sector business & commerce. Labour MPs have no specialist knowledge nor experience in this field. Their instincts are towards public sector expansion, which is a drain on public funds and a brake on growth. " They do seem to acknowledge that growth comes a lot from the private sector and seem to working to attract it. The test will be if the private sector increase investment in any significant way under Labour. The last 2 quarters of financial figures are possibly not what they wanted as their message is they inherited the economy that is terrible, when in fact it is the second fastest in the G7. The attack on pensioners has not gone down well even amongst Labour MP's and even worse now the fuel prices are going up again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have, and indeed investment in the public sector (e.g infrastructure) can support growth in the economy. But the real engine house of economic strength is the private sector. I'm doubtful Labour can or will get private industry booming. Let's see." Building 1,500,000 new homes will generate a lot of jobs for the economy Jury is out on how they will enable 300,000 of those to be built at cost by the private sector. “Figures show housing associations started just 33,000 social homes last year, a fall of 30%” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Overpopulated... have more migration. Unemployment levels fell by around 25,000 over the last year, and the unemployment rate remained at a similar level. 9.41 million people aged 16-64 were economically inactive, and the inactivity rate was 22.2%. Inactivity levels increased by around 350,000 over the last year and the inactivity rate increased. 13 Aug 2024 Parliamentary research briefing Huh?" Saying we are not overpopulated ? But more people reported inactive . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Overpopulated... have more migration. Unemployment levels fell by around 25,000 over the last year, and the unemployment rate remained at a similar level. 9.41 million people aged 16-64 were economically inactive, and the inactivity rate was 22.2%. Inactivity levels increased by around 350,000 over the last year and the inactivity rate increased. 13 Aug 2024 Parliamentary research briefing Huh? Saying we are not overpopulated ? But more people reported inactive . " Are people inactive because there are no jobs for them, or is it for health reasons? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Overpopulated... have more migration. Unemployment levels fell by around 25,000 over the last year, and the unemployment rate remained at a similar level. 9.41 million people aged 16-64 were economically inactive, and the inactivity rate was 22.2%. Inactivity levels increased by around 350,000 over the last year and the inactivity rate increased. 13 Aug 2024 Parliamentary research briefing Huh? Saying we are not overpopulated ? But more people reported inactive . " I was replying to someone who said we were overpopulated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Overpopulated... have more migration. Unemployment levels fell by around 25,000 over the last year, and the unemployment rate remained at a similar level. 9.41 million people aged 16-64 were economically inactive, and the inactivity rate was 22.2%. Inactivity levels increased by around 350,000 over the last year and the inactivity rate increased. 13 Aug 2024 Parliamentary research briefing " This article covers the reasons for economic inactivity: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68534537 Apparently 1-3rd of the 9 million are not working because of long term illnesses. Not sure what kind of long term illnesses are covered here. The remaining are - students, people who look after family or a home, people with disabilities, and early retired and discouraged workers. I think students, people looking after family and people with disabilities are fine. Early retired people will probably be pushed back into work as cost of living and labour goes up, which throws their retirement plans into tatters. "Discouraged workers" - I wonder what that meand  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuel duty, fuel tax that's just for starters ... transport companies pass it on, leading to high inflation. Labour and inflation? Laurel and hardy, Morecombe and wise, cannon and ball etc just rolls of the tongue " Pension contribution tax relief and restrictions on tax free cash reported as other tax grabs reported today. Sunak was right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will target people that cannot fight back. Pensioners have already had a taste and can expect more unfortunately." How will the others fight back exactly? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lol, most of these comments that are out bashing labour. I would love to know how so many of you have crystal balls that can see with any other party how the situation is going to be any different? Country would still have issues from be it; overpopulated, a struggling economy, crippled public services, aging population and that huge national debt means there's nothing any responsible government can do but raise tax. In isolation the national debt cannot be fixed 1997. £434bn 2010. £876bn 2024 £2.6 trn Add PFI and it would be over £3trn. Six fold increase in debt over 27 years. Equivalent to £100,000 for every person in the country. £4000 interest cost for every household, every year. Sub prime on steroids " I was reading an economic forum (sad I know) and the question came up, "Who is all this debt owed to ?" . This list was : UK pension funds/insurance companies (29%) Private corporations / other financial institutions UK building societies. (e.g. building societies buy government gilts to invest their savings to get a decent return.) UK Banks UK Private investors Foreign investors (foreign banks and foreign investment firms (2018 approx 20%) Bank of England Asset Purchase facility (Quantitative easing). . The figures were from approx 2013. . The general consensus as the forum thread got longer and longer, was essentially, "Er...no one really knows with 100% certainty. Definitely those people over there. Oh and those companies over there too. And a few other people here and there. The rest ? Fuck knows." . Isn't that a little bit worrying ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was reading an economic forum (sad I know) and the question came up, "Who is all this debt owed to ?" . This list was : UK pension funds/insurance companies (29%) Private corporations / other financial institutions UK building societies. (e.g. building societies buy government gilts to invest their savings to get a decent return.) UK Banks UK Private investors Foreign investors (foreign banks and foreign investment firms (2018 approx 20%) Bank of England Asset Purchase facility (Quantitative easing). . The figures were from approx 2013. . The general consensus as the forum thread got longer and longer, was essentially, "Er...no one really knows with 100% certainty. Definitely those people over there. Oh and those companies over there too. And a few other people here and there. The rest ? Fuck knows." . Isn't that a little bit worrying ?" Why is it worrying that a bunch of people on an internet forum don't know the exact details of who owns all of the government debt? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises..." So that will be pensioners, the disabled and those on benefits the poorest and most at risk great stuff . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises..." What promises? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x" Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. " They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x" The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government." So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x" You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conservatives are saying that the economy is in good health, so if that’s the case it makes you wonder why they went for an early election. If the economy was improving surely they would have delayed it to the autumn, I wonder why they didn’t." Poor judgement by Sunak | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conservatives are saying that the economy is in good health, so if that’s the case it makes you wonder why they went for an early election. If the economy was improving surely they would have delayed it to the autumn, I wonder why they didn’t. Poor judgement by Sunak" Or he knew the truth about the financial situation was going to become apparent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conservatives are saying that the economy is in good health, so if that’s the case it makes you wonder why they went for an early election. If the economy was improving surely they would have delayed it to the autumn, I wonder why they didn’t. Poor judgement by Sunak Or he knew the truth about the financial situation was going to become apparent." What financial situation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so?" You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conservatives are saying that the economy is in good health, so if that’s the case it makes you wonder why they went for an early election. If the economy was improving surely they would have delayed it to the autumn, I wonder why they didn’t. Poor judgement by Sunak Or he knew the truth about the financial situation was going to become apparent. What financial situation? " Energy price rises, we've known they were coming, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conservatives are saying that the economy is in good health, so if that’s the case it makes you wonder why they went for an early election. If the economy was improving surely they would have delayed it to the autumn, I wonder why they didn’t. Poor judgement by Sunak Or he knew the truth about the financial situation was going to become apparent." Spot on Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x" You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. " Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder what the economic state would be if Covid had not happened. The Tories enforced austerity for years to reduce spending only for the government to throw out money during Covid to reverse all controls on spending. " Covid is deflection , the tories added £1.7trn to the national debt, after austerity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conservatives are saying that the economy is in good health, so if that’s the case it makes you wonder why they went for an early election. If the economy was improving surely they would have delayed it to the autumn, I wonder why they didn’t. Poor judgement by Sunak Or he knew the truth about the financial situation was going to become apparent." Inflation down First interest rate cut Positive growth Highest growth in G7 (Q1 this year) A clown for an early election. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conservatives are saying that the economy is in good health, so if that’s the case it makes you wonder why they went for an early election. If the economy was improving surely they would have delayed it to the autumn, I wonder why they didn’t. Poor judgement by Sunak Or he knew the truth about the financial situation was going to become apparent. Inflation down First interest rate cut Positive growth Highest growth in G7 (Q1 this year) A clown for an early election. " The story I saw was that enough of his MPs had submitted letters of no confidence that his only choice was either a leadership contest or an early election. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conservatives are saying that the economy is in good health, so if that’s the case it makes you wonder why they went for an early election. If the economy was improving surely they would have delayed it to the autumn, I wonder why they didn’t. Poor judgement by Sunak Or he knew the truth about the financial situation was going to become apparent. Inflation down First interest rate cut Positive growth Highest growth in G7 (Q1 this year) A clown for an early election. " I don't think any of that could have saved Sunak. Could it have reduced the margins of defeat? Probably. My guess is that he bet a lot on the Rwanda plan and realised he couldn't pull it off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conservatives are saying that the economy is in good health, so if that’s the case it makes you wonder why they went for an early election. If the economy was improving surely they would have delayed it to the autumn, I wonder why they didn’t. Poor judgement by Sunak Or he knew the truth about the financial situation was going to become apparent. Inflation down First interest rate cut Positive growth Highest growth in G7 (Q1 this year) A clown for an early election. " It's still wouldn't have saved him or the Tories. People utterly fed up with their bullshit, lies and corruption. This is to little too late. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x" How can we discuss policies of the present day labour party if your view is based on individual tory ministers and Mp's behaviour or interactions with the brexit remain and leave campaigns. That is not discussing the issues of today, that is you voicing your disapproval of certain politicians and whataboutery. Going back to the current government and its awful first 2 months of over spend and cuts, is this how you expected Starmer and his government to have be performing, if you are honest it can't be, surely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conservatives are saying that the economy is in good health, so if that’s the case it makes you wonder why they went for an early election. If the economy was improving surely they would have delayed it to the autumn, I wonder why they didn’t. Poor judgement by Sunak Or he knew the truth about the financial situation was going to become apparent. Inflation down First interest rate cut Positive growth Highest growth in G7 (Q1 this year) A clown for an early election. I don't think any of that could have saved Sunak. Could it have reduced the margins of defeat? Probably. My guess is that he bet a lot on the Rwanda plan and realised he couldn't pull it off." Hunt told him to hold off as the economic forecasts were good, I think he knew it was over and threw the towel in. The only positive to come out of the last 4 years was labour not being in control, can you imagine the carnage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conservatives are saying that the economy is in good health, so if that’s the case it makes you wonder why they went for an early election. If the economy was improving surely they would have delayed it to the autumn, I wonder why they didn’t. Poor judgement by Sunak Or he knew the truth about the financial situation was going to become apparent. Inflation down First interest rate cut Positive growth Highest growth in G7 (Q1 this year) A clown for an early election. The story I saw was that enough of his MPs had submitted letters of no confidence that his only choice was either a leadership contest or an early election." Thats exactly what I heard reported that he was facing a revolt, and then next I hear he has called an election. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x How can we discuss policies of the present day labour party if your view is based on individual tory ministers and Mp's behaviour or interactions with the brexit remain and leave campaigns. That is not discussing the issues of today, that is you voicing your disapproval of certain politicians and whataboutery. Going back to the current government and its awful first 2 months of over spend and cuts, is this how you expected Starmer and his government to have be performing, if you are honest it can't be, surely." So by settling the rail strike alone the Labour party has saved the country an astronomical figure. It costs £25 million a week day and half that at weekends. So just from last June to December it cost the country close to a billion. By negotiating a deal quickly ensures this will save money. The Tories knew this and did nothing. Add the estimated cost to the economy from the doctors strikes and you have saved 1.5 billion. So by doing this quickly Labour have seemed to have acted prudential. So rather than just looking at the figures paid to the striking parties you should be looking at the bigger picture and looking at what the costs are to the economy by not settling these disputes. Stop with this narrow narrative of Labour giving in to the demands etc and look at how they dealt very well with a bigger issue of the cost to the economy. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x How can we discuss policies of the present day labour party if your view is based on individual tory ministers and Mp's behaviour or interactions with the brexit remain and leave campaigns. That is not discussing the issues of today, that is you voicing your disapproval of certain politicians and whataboutery. Going back to the current government and its awful first 2 months of over spend and cuts, is this how you expected Starmer and his government to have be performing, if you are honest it can't be, surely. So by settling the rail strike alone the Labour party has saved the country an astronomical figure. It costs £25 million a week day and half that at weekends. So just from last June to December it cost the country close to a billion. By negotiating a deal quickly ensures this will save money. The Tories knew this and did nothing. Add the estimated cost to the economy from the doctors strikes and you have saved 1.5 billion. So by doing this quickly Labour have seemed to have acted prudential. So rather than just looking at the figures paid to the striking parties you should be looking at the bigger picture and looking at what the costs are to the economy by not settling these disputes. Stop with this narrow narrative of Labour giving in to the demands etc and look at how they dealt very well with a bigger issue of the cost to the economy. Mrs x" I see, you would like the government to rollover and pay out our cash on the say so of the unions. Interesting, you got what you wanted, lets chat again in 12 and 24 months, to see how that worked out... Poor decisions and so early on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x How can we discuss policies of the present day labour party if your view is based on individual tory ministers and Mp's behaviour or interactions with the brexit remain and leave campaigns. That is not discussing the issues of today, that is you voicing your disapproval of certain politicians and whataboutery. Going back to the current government and its awful first 2 months of over spend and cuts, is this how you expected Starmer and his government to have be performing, if you are honest it can't be, surely. So by settling the rail strike alone the Labour party has saved the country an astronomical figure. It costs £25 million a week day and half that at weekends. So just from last June to December it cost the country close to a billion. By negotiating a deal quickly ensures this will save money. The Tories knew this and did nothing. Add the estimated cost to the economy from the doctors strikes and you have saved 1.5 billion. So by doing this quickly Labour have seemed to have acted prudential. So rather than just looking at the figures paid to the striking parties you should be looking at the bigger picture and looking at what the costs are to the economy by not settling these disputes. Stop with this narrow narrative of Labour giving in to the demands etc and look at how they dealt very well with a bigger issue of the cost to the economy. Mrs x I see, you would like the government to rollover and pay out our cash on the say so of the unions. Interesting, you got what you wanted, lets chat again in 12 and 24 months, to see how that worked out... Poor decisions and so early on. " And the converse is you'd love to lose days to strike action and in the process billions of pounds to the economy. If the Tories had looked after workers, their pay and conditions then maybe they wouldn't have gone on strike. But hey ho,maybe you and those Tories that were in power were right to treat workers how they did. After all it's the function of the workers to serve the Tories and they should be grateful to do so. Or maybe thousands of disgruntled workers cannot all be wrong. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x How can we discuss policies of the present day labour party if your view is based on individual tory ministers and Mp's behaviour or interactions with the brexit remain and leave campaigns. That is not discussing the issues of today, that is you voicing your disapproval of certain politicians and whataboutery. Going back to the current government and its awful first 2 months of over spend and cuts, is this how you expected Starmer and his government to have be performing, if you are honest it can't be, surely. So by settling the rail strike alone the Labour party has saved the country an astronomical figure. It costs £25 million a week day and half that at weekends. So just from last June to December it cost the country close to a billion. By negotiating a deal quickly ensures this will save money. The Tories knew this and did nothing. Add the estimated cost to the economy from the doctors strikes and you have saved 1.5 billion. So by doing this quickly Labour have seemed to have acted prudential. So rather than just looking at the figures paid to the striking parties you should be looking at the bigger picture and looking at what the costs are to the economy by not settling these disputes. Stop with this narrow narrative of Labour giving in to the demands etc and look at how they dealt very well with a bigger issue of the cost to the economy. Mrs x I see, you would like the government to rollover and pay out our cash on the say so of the unions. Interesting, you got what you wanted, lets chat again in 12 and 24 months, to see how that worked out... Poor decisions and so early on. And the converse is you'd love to lose days to strike action and in the process billions of pounds to the economy. If the Tories had looked after workers, their pay and conditions then maybe they wouldn't have gone on strike. But hey ho,maybe you and those Tories that were in power were right to treat workers how they did. After all it's the function of the workers to serve the Tories and they should be grateful to do so. Or maybe thousands of disgruntled workers cannot all be wrong. Mrs x" That all sounds very dated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x How can we discuss policies of the present day labour party if your view is based on individual tory ministers and Mp's behaviour or interactions with the brexit remain and leave campaigns. That is not discussing the issues of today, that is you voicing your disapproval of certain politicians and whataboutery. Going back to the current government and its awful first 2 months of over spend and cuts, is this how you expected Starmer and his government to have be performing, if you are honest it can't be, surely. So by settling the rail strike alone the Labour party has saved the country an astronomical figure. It costs £25 million a week day and half that at weekends. So just from last June to December it cost the country close to a billion. By negotiating a deal quickly ensures this will save money. The Tories knew this and did nothing. Add the estimated cost to the economy from the doctors strikes and you have saved 1.5 billion. So by doing this quickly Labour have seemed to have acted prudential. So rather than just looking at the figures paid to the striking parties you should be looking at the bigger picture and looking at what the costs are to the economy by not settling these disputes. Stop with this narrow narrative of Labour giving in to the demands etc and look at how they dealt very well with a bigger issue of the cost to the economy. Mrs x I see, you would like the government to rollover and pay out our cash on the say so of the unions. Interesting, you got what you wanted, lets chat again in 12 and 24 months, to see how that worked out... Poor decisions and so early on. And the converse is you'd love to lose days to strike action and in the process billions of pounds to the economy. If the Tories had looked after workers, their pay and conditions then maybe they wouldn't have gone on strike. But hey ho,maybe you and those Tories that were in power were right to treat workers how they did. After all it's the function of the workers to serve the Tories and they should be grateful to do so. Or maybe thousands of disgruntled workers cannot all be wrong. Mrs x That all sounds very dated " You mean like 'last week' dated when Labour sorted out the shit show they left behind. The 2billion per annum cost to the economy just because they couldn't be arsed even sitting in a room with the parties to find a solution. 2 billion a year and they didn't even try and we are picking up the bill. That's OK for you, good government? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x How can we discuss policies of the present day labour party if your view is based on individual tory ministers and Mp's behaviour or interactions with the brexit remain and leave campaigns. That is not discussing the issues of today, that is you voicing your disapproval of certain politicians and whataboutery. Going back to the current government and its awful first 2 months of over spend and cuts, is this how you expected Starmer and his government to have be performing, if you are honest it can't be, surely. So by settling the rail strike alone the Labour party has saved the country an astronomical figure. It costs £25 million a week day and half that at weekends. So just from last June to December it cost the country close to a billion. By negotiating a deal quickly ensures this will save money. The Tories knew this and did nothing. Add the estimated cost to the economy from the doctors strikes and you have saved 1.5 billion. So by doing this quickly Labour have seemed to have acted prudential. So rather than just looking at the figures paid to the striking parties you should be looking at the bigger picture and looking at what the costs are to the economy by not settling these disputes. Stop with this narrow narrative of Labour giving in to the demands etc and look at how they dealt very well with a bigger issue of the cost to the economy. Mrs x I see, you would like the government to rollover and pay out our cash on the say so of the unions. Interesting, you got what you wanted, lets chat again in 12 and 24 months, to see how that worked out... Poor decisions and so early on. And the converse is you'd love to lose days to strike action and in the process billions of pounds to the economy. If the Tories had looked after workers, their pay and conditions then maybe they wouldn't have gone on strike. But hey ho,maybe you and those Tories that were in power were right to treat workers how they did. After all it's the function of the workers to serve the Tories and they should be grateful to do so. Or maybe thousands of disgruntled workers cannot all be wrong. Mrs x That all sounds very dated You mean like 'last week' dated when Labour sorted out the shit show they left behind. The 2billion per annum cost to the economy just because they couldn't be arsed even sitting in a room with the parties to find a solution. 2 billion a year and they didn't even try and we are picking up the bill. That's OK for you, good government? Mrs x" It cost 9.5 billion to sort out that 2billion, way to go!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x How can we discuss policies of the present day labour party if your view is based on individual tory ministers and Mp's behaviour or interactions with the brexit remain and leave campaigns. That is not discussing the issues of today, that is you voicing your disapproval of certain politicians and whataboutery. Going back to the current government and its awful first 2 months of over spend and cuts, is this how you expected Starmer and his government to have be performing, if you are honest it can't be, surely. So by settling the rail strike alone the Labour party has saved the country an astronomical figure. It costs £25 million a week day and half that at weekends. So just from last June to December it cost the country close to a billion. By negotiating a deal quickly ensures this will save money. The Tories knew this and did nothing. Add the estimated cost to the economy from the doctors strikes and you have saved 1.5 billion. So by doing this quickly Labour have seemed to have acted prudential. So rather than just looking at the figures paid to the striking parties you should be looking at the bigger picture and looking at what the costs are to the economy by not settling these disputes. Stop with this narrow narrative of Labour giving in to the demands etc and look at how they dealt very well with a bigger issue of the cost to the economy. Mrs x I see, you would like the government to rollover and pay out our cash on the say so of the unions. Interesting, you got what you wanted, lets chat again in 12 and 24 months, to see how that worked out... Poor decisions and so early on. And the converse is you'd love to lose days to strike action and in the process billions of pounds to the economy. If the Tories had looked after workers, their pay and conditions then maybe they wouldn't have gone on strike. But hey ho,maybe you and those Tories that were in power were right to treat workers how they did. After all it's the function of the workers to serve the Tories and they should be grateful to do so. Or maybe thousands of disgruntled workers cannot all be wrong. Mrs x That all sounds very dated You mean like 'last week' dated when Labour sorted out the shit show they left behind. The 2billion per annum cost to the economy just because they couldn't be arsed even sitting in a room with the parties to find a solution. 2 billion a year and they didn't even try and we are picking up the bill. That's OK for you, good government? Mrs x It cost 9.5 billion to sort out that 2billion, way to go! "It's being going on since 2022 over 2 years so that's 4 billion. What's the 9.5 billion your taking about based upon? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x How can we discuss policies of the present day labour party if your view is based on individual tory ministers and Mp's behaviour or interactions with the brexit remain and leave campaigns. That is not discussing the issues of today, that is you voicing your disapproval of certain politicians and whataboutery. Going back to the current government and its awful first 2 months of over spend and cuts, is this how you expected Starmer and his government to have be performing, if you are honest it can't be, surely. So by settling the rail strike alone the Labour party has saved the country an astronomical figure. It costs £25 million a week day and half that at weekends. So just from last June to December it cost the country close to a billion. By negotiating a deal quickly ensures this will save money. The Tories knew this and did nothing. Add the estimated cost to the economy from the doctors strikes and you have saved 1.5 billion. So by doing this quickly Labour have seemed to have acted prudential. So rather than just looking at the figures paid to the striking parties you should be looking at the bigger picture and looking at what the costs are to the economy by not settling these disputes. Stop with this narrow narrative of Labour giving in to the demands etc and look at how they dealt very well with a bigger issue of the cost to the economy. Mrs x I see, you would like the government to rollover and pay out our cash on the say so of the unions. Interesting, you got what you wanted, lets chat again in 12 and 24 months, to see how that worked out... Poor decisions and so early on. And the converse is you'd love to lose days to strike action and in the process billions of pounds to the economy. If the Tories had looked after workers, their pay and conditions then maybe they wouldn't have gone on strike. But hey ho,maybe you and those Tories that were in power were right to treat workers how they did. After all it's the function of the workers to serve the Tories and they should be grateful to do so. Or maybe thousands of disgruntled workers cannot all be wrong. Mrs x That all sounds very dated You mean like 'last week' dated when Labour sorted out the shit show they left behind. The 2billion per annum cost to the economy just because they couldn't be arsed even sitting in a room with the parties to find a solution. 2 billion a year and they didn't even try and we are picking up the bill. That's OK for you, good government? Mrs x It cost 9.5 billion to sort out that 2billion, way to go! It's being going on since 2022 over 2 years so that's 4 billion.
What's the 9.5 billion your taking about based upon?
Mrs x"I'm assuming you are talking about the pays rises awarded so far to the public sector, as you only refer to workers? The total bill to date is 9.5 billion this year, with 11 billion for others that are yet to be finalised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x How can we discuss policies of the present day labour party if your view is based on individual tory ministers and Mp's behaviour or interactions with the brexit remain and leave campaigns. That is not discussing the issues of today, that is you voicing your disapproval of certain politicians and whataboutery. Going back to the current government and its awful first 2 months of over spend and cuts, is this how you expected Starmer and his government to have be performing, if you are honest it can't be, surely. So by settling the rail strike alone the Labour party has saved the country an astronomical figure. It costs £25 million a week day and half that at weekends. So just from last June to December it cost the country close to a billion. By negotiating a deal quickly ensures this will save money. The Tories knew this and did nothing. Add the estimated cost to the economy from the doctors strikes and you have saved 1.5 billion. So by doing this quickly Labour have seemed to have acted prudential. So rather than just looking at the figures paid to the striking parties you should be looking at the bigger picture and looking at what the costs are to the economy by not settling these disputes. Stop with this narrow narrative of Labour giving in to the demands etc and look at how they dealt very well with a bigger issue of the cost to the economy. Mrs x I see, you would like the government to rollover and pay out our cash on the say so of the unions. Interesting, you got what you wanted, lets chat again in 12 and 24 months, to see how that worked out... Poor decisions and so early on. And the converse is you'd love to lose days to strike action and in the process billions of pounds to the economy. If the Tories had looked after workers, their pay and conditions then maybe they wouldn't have gone on strike. But hey ho,maybe you and those Tories that were in power were right to treat workers how they did. After all it's the function of the workers to serve the Tories and they should be grateful to do so. Or maybe thousands of disgruntled workers cannot all be wrong. Mrs x That all sounds very dated You mean like 'last week' dated when Labour sorted out the shit show they left behind. The 2billion per annum cost to the economy just because they couldn't be arsed even sitting in a room with the parties to find a solution. 2 billion a year and they didn't even try and we are picking up the bill. That's OK for you, good government? Mrs x It cost 9.5 billion to sort out that 2billion, way to go! It's being going on since 2022 over 2 years so that's 4 billion.
What's the 9.5 billion your taking about based upon?
Mrs x"Little bit of spin is it? The figure you quoted is that for ALL public sector employees, or just the railways? Also it hasn't cost that much has it because they were going to get a raise as they hadn't in over 5 years under the Tories. The issue is how much over the top have Labour given them? So do you have the figures for just the railways, rather than try and lump all the costs under this one banner. Bit ingenious if you ask me. After all I haven't mention the 3.5 billion the hospitality sector claims it's lost due to these strikes. If I add the doctors cost to the economy there's another 1.5 billion, that's 9 billion in total. I could use a tactic from you and say that Labour have spent 9.5 billion but saved 9 billion so it's cost 500 million. Well done Labour and they've got all the other public sector pay rises for that 500 million considering there include already in the figure you quoted. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x How can we discuss policies of the present day labour party if your view is based on individual tory ministers and Mp's behaviour or interactions with the brexit remain and leave campaigns. That is not discussing the issues of today, that is you voicing your disapproval of certain politicians and whataboutery. Going back to the current government and its awful first 2 months of over spend and cuts, is this how you expected Starmer and his government to have be performing, if you are honest it can't be, surely. So by settling the rail strike alone the Labour party has saved the country an astronomical figure. It costs £25 million a week day and half that at weekends. So just from last June to December it cost the country close to a billion. By negotiating a deal quickly ensures this will save money. The Tories knew this and did nothing. Add the estimated cost to the economy from the doctors strikes and you have saved 1.5 billion. So by doing this quickly Labour have seemed to have acted prudential. So rather than just looking at the figures paid to the striking parties you should be looking at the bigger picture and looking at what the costs are to the economy by not settling these disputes. Stop with this narrow narrative of Labour giving in to the demands etc and look at how they dealt very well with a bigger issue of the cost to the economy. Mrs x I see, you would like the government to rollover and pay out our cash on the say so of the unions. Interesting, you got what you wanted, lets chat again in 12 and 24 months, to see how that worked out... Poor decisions and so early on. And the converse is you'd love to lose days to strike action and in the process billions of pounds to the economy. If the Tories had looked after workers, their pay and conditions then maybe they wouldn't have gone on strike. But hey ho,maybe you and those Tories that were in power were right to treat workers how they did. After all it's the function of the workers to serve the Tories and they should be grateful to do so. Or maybe thousands of disgruntled workers cannot all be wrong. Mrs x That all sounds very dated You mean like 'last week' dated when Labour sorted out the shit show they left behind. The 2billion per annum cost to the economy just because they couldn't be arsed even sitting in a room with the parties to find a solution. 2 billion a year and they didn't even try and we are picking up the bill. That's OK for you, good government? Mrs x It cost 9.5 billion to sort out that 2billion, way to go! It's being going on since 2022 over 2 years so that's 4 billion.
What's the 9.5 billion your taking about based upon?
Mrs xLittle bit of spin is it? The figure you quoted is that for ALL public sector employees, or just the railways?
Also it hasn't cost that much has it because they were going to get a raise as they hadn't in over 5 years under the Tories. The issue is how much over the top have Labour given them?
So do you have the figures for just the railways, rather than try and lump all the costs under this one banner. Bit ingenious if you ask me. After all I haven't mention the 3.5 billion the hospitality sector claims it's lost due to these strikes. If I add the doctors cost to the economy there's another 1.5 billion, that's 9 billion in total.
I could use a tactic from you and say that Labour have spent 9.5 billion but saved 9 billion so it's cost 500 million.
Well done Labour and they've got all the other public sector pay rises for that 500 million considering there include already in the figure you quoted.
Mrs x"Incorrect, and I'm out on that.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer today: Budget in October is "going to be painful", the prime minister said, adding he has no other choice and those with the broadest shouldest "should bear the heavier burden". He is going to continue this drip feeding of doom and gloom to manage expectation, and then say I told you so to avoid it looking like he has gone back on his promises...What promises? Mrs x Shall we start with not raising tax on working people, the above indicates that might not be the case. We can come back to this after the budget and see what has happened, eyes wide open and fingers out of ears. They only pledged not to raise three areas of taxation. Do you mean they are going to increase these directly or are they going to raise tax revenue elsewhere? Mrs x The actions of this labour government have become clear so early into their tenure. They are already spending a lot more than the tories, do you find that a strange outcome, when they promised not to spend what they haven't got. We need to wait until the budget to be sure how this is going to play out, however if he sticks to his word and there are no hikes on income tax, NI and VAT, where are the funds coming from? I can see Pensions, stamp duty, inheritance tax, and fuel duty being hit. My nervousness comes from the over spending, increased borrowing, and grabbing winter fuel payments as some sort of comfort blanket. I did not want to have these reservations so early on, and I think that is what is making me feel we could be about to enter the mire with this government.So nothing concrete yet then? So if the don't increase these 3 areas like they have pledged not to, will you feel better then? So judging by the poor state of the countries finances how do you think the Tories would have coped, given that they got us into this mess in the first place. As individuals we have never been taxed more than by anyone before. So where do you think the Tories would have raised the money needed to repair this mess, or is this all down to Labour now they have been in power for these last few weeks. As for Labour spending more, every Tory government has borrowed more and repaid less than any Labour Party since WW2. Blair led the longest period of economic growth by any party in modern history, until it was halted by the global crash. So Labour are not the party of poor fiscal responsibility I'll think you'll find it's the Tories but you'll try and spin this no doubt. Mrs x You have missed the fundamental point of labour are spending much more than tories and borrowing more. The tories would not have awarded the pay rises labour sanctioned, knowing they haven't got the money. You say we are being taxed more as individuals, you will shortly find out we are being taxed eve n more under labour. Going back to your point that the tories got us into this mess, how so? You are missing the fundamental point that spending on one area or in one moment of time is not the be all and end all. It's the amount that's spent over the term of a parliament that's important. As for overpaying, you are not taking into account the huge amount of costs that's placed upon the economy when such strikes occur. Strikes are called to withdraw one's labour because everyone should have the right to do this when feeling genuinely aggrieved. The reasons strikes are sometimes effective is because of the impact of cost it has on the wider community. I'm not saying I agree with this it's just a fact. You say the Tories may not have paid these demands due to lack of funds. Pity they didn't think of this before handing out multi million contracts to their friends and cronies during Covid. Did they think of this lack of funds before paying out 40 million on their Uber Helicopter service. So don't give me that rubbish that the Tories wouldn't authorise pay deals with the strikers on the grounds of moral fiscal responsibility. The Tories have no morals. A cynic might even say that not negotiating with the Doctors and railways was a tactic of the Tories. Knowing they had no chance of winning an election, they thought to put this problem on to Labour but I think it's back fired. Labour have dealt with this quickly and decisively. And even if generous with their negotiations, they have reduced the huge costs to the country from further industrial action and have actually given money into the hands of the workers, who will spend within our economy, rather than like the Tories who gave away millions to cronies fir PPE that never existed or was, what's the technical term, oh yeah shite. As for the mess, Tories failed us with austerity, Brexit, if you want to talk about lies 350 million per week to the NHS, 70 million Turks to come flooding into the UK, Covid and their failed policies which was actually responsible for causing more deaths than it should have and the massive personal taxation on the ordinary citizens. Is that a big enough mess or do you need more. Mrs x You’ve really mixed it up, the problem here it is way out of sync with the reality. The Tory party never said 350 million per week savings to the NHS, or Turks would come here, austerity was introduced to get us back on track after the Labour Party left office, the pay rises were never on the table until labour entered the room and awarded their left wing unions for their crushing impacts on the British people. I could go on but you’ve not mentioned anything that indicates the tories got us into a mess, your dislike for the Tory party is clouding your views. Brexiteers Johnson and Gove told the nation 350 million would go to the NHS on a weekly basis. Johnson was also recorded saying you are welcome, to a disabled lady who thanked him for stopping the 70 million Turks coming to the UK if Brexit took place. So ok not all Tories but the future leader of the Tories said this. As for austerity, it was brought in due to help after the aftermath of a global crash, nothing to do with Labour. However those countries choosing not to use austerity did significantly better than the UK, came out of the crisis quicker than us and had more essential services still intact. As already mentioned the Tories never even entered the room to negotiate with the strikers. They had no intention of, they were deliberately kicking the can down the road for Labour to deal with. So what about Covid then? We locked down later. We killed pensioners at an alarming rate, sending those infected in hospital back to their care homes on masses to infect their friends, this action alone is unforgiveable. People are complaining about the winter fuel allowance being taken from pensioners which isn't great losing £300 a year. But it pales in comparison to things like the 2 child benefit cap, which sees families with more than 2 kids lose hundreds of pounds a month, £1000s of pounds a year and has put more kids into poverty than at any time since WW2. Messy enough now? Your love of the Tories has clouded your judgement far more. Mrs x How can we discuss policies of the present day labour party if your view is based on individual tory ministers and Mp's behaviour or interactions with the brexit remain and leave campaigns. That is not discussing the issues of today, that is you voicing your disapproval of certain politicians and whataboutery. Going back to the current government and its awful first 2 months of over spend and cuts, is this how you expected Starmer and his government to have be performing, if you are honest it can't be, surely. So by settling the rail strike alone the Labour party has saved the country an astronomical figure. It costs £25 million a week day and half that at weekends. So just from last June to December it cost the country close to a billion. By negotiating a deal quickly ensures this will save money. The Tories knew this and did nothing. Add the estimated cost to the economy from the doctors strikes and you have saved 1.5 billion. So by doing this quickly Labour have seemed to have acted prudential. So rather than just looking at the figures paid to the striking parties you should be looking at the bigger picture and looking at what the costs are to the economy by not settling these disputes. Stop with this narrow narrative of Labour giving in to the demands etc and look at how they dealt very well with a bigger issue of the cost to the economy. Mrs x I see, you would like the government to rollover and pay out our cash on the say so of the unions. Interesting, you got what you wanted, lets chat again in 12 and 24 months, to see how that worked out... Poor decisions and so early on. And the converse is you'd love to lose days to strike action and in the process billions of pounds to the economy. If the Tories had looked after workers, their pay and conditions then maybe they wouldn't have gone on strike. But hey ho,maybe you and those Tories that were in power were right to treat workers how they did. After all it's the function of the workers to serve the Tories and they should be grateful to do so. Or maybe thousands of disgruntled workers cannot all be wrong. Mrs x That all sounds very dated You mean like 'last week' dated when Labour sorted out the shit show they left behind. The 2billion per annum cost to the economy just because they couldn't be arsed even sitting in a room with the parties to find a solution. 2 billion a year and they didn't even try and we are picking up the bill. That's OK for you, good government? Mrs x It cost 9.5 billion to sort out that 2billion, way to go! It's being going on since 2022 over 2 years so that's 4 billion.
What's the 9.5 billion your taking about based upon?
Mrs xLittle bit of spin is it? The figure you quoted is that for ALL public sector employees, or just the railways?
Also it hasn't cost that much has it because they were going to get a raise as they hadn't in over 5 years under the Tories. The issue is how much over the top have Labour given them?
So do you have the figures for just the railways, rather than try and lump all the costs under this one banner. Bit ingenious if you ask me. After all I haven't mention the 3.5 billion the hospitality sector claims it's lost due to these strikes. If I add the doctors cost to the economy there's another 1.5 billion, that's 9 billion in total.
I could use a tactic from you and say that Labour have spent 9.5 billion but saved 9 billion so it's cost 500 million.
Well done Labour and they've got all the other public sector pay rises for that 500 million considering there include already in the figure you quoted.
Mrs x
Incorrect, and I'm out on that. "Ah please come out and play. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We're all gonna get mugged in October, but will we see any benefits? Or will it go into the NHS back hole and lavish public sector pay awards?" NHS is the scapegoat atm. People blaming it for everything while they tuck into next JustEats People need to start taking responsibility for their health 37% uk overweight Third children overweight 26% adults obese 6 million smokers costing nhs £20bn a year 3 million+ drug users Get the uk on a health and fitness regime and the nhs will cope adequately | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I distinctly remember hearing about this is the labour election campaign "‘Fixing the foundations’ on rostrum yesterday Build back better Builders not blockers He’s another stop the boats wanker with nothing to offer anyone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for " People who forgot what the last Labour period was like 👍 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We're all gonna get mugged in October, but will we see any benefits? Or will it go into the NHS back hole and lavish public sector pay awards? NHS is the scapegoat atm. People blaming it for everything while they tuck into next JustEats People need to start taking responsibility for their health 37% uk overweight Third children overweight 26% adults obese 6 million smokers costing nhs £20bn a year 3 million+ drug users Get the uk on a health and fitness regime and the nhs will cope adequately " yes it’s all our fault then not the increase in population in the U.K. lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We're all gonna get mugged in October, but will we see any benefits? Or will it go into the NHS back hole and lavish public sector pay awards? NHS is the scapegoat atm. People blaming it for everything while they tuck into next JustEats People need to start taking responsibility for their health 37% uk overweight Third children overweight 26% adults obese 6 million smokers costing nhs £20bn a year 3 million+ drug users Get the uk on a health and fitness regime and the nhs will cope adequately " Whilst I agree with all you say about people taking responsibility for their own health, the NHS is nonetheless a disaster zone. It's a second-rate healthcare service that is failing the people who fund it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We're all gonna get mugged in October, but will we see any benefits? Or will it go into the NHS back hole and lavish public sector pay awards? NHS is the scapegoat atm. People blaming it for everything while they tuck into next JustEats People need to start taking responsibility for their health 37% uk overweight Third children overweight 26% adults obese 6 million smokers costing nhs £20bn a year 3 million+ drug users Get the uk on a health and fitness regime and the nhs will cope adequately Whilst I agree with all you say about people taking responsibility for their own health, the NHS is nonetheless a disaster zone. It's a second-rate healthcare service that is failing the people who fund it. " NHS budget £179.6 bn Of which Obesity £6.5bn Smoking £17bn Alcohol treatment £27bn Drug mis use £20bn £70bn or 39% of nhs budget spent on self infliction by public. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for " I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands?" Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will " No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well anyone who voted for Labour are getting what they voted for which I did warn about but you Labour lovers were too stubborn to listen which I'm sure you now how much worse they really are but please don't moan about something that you're also complicit for Reeves said her priority was economic growth - to generate the tax income Six weeks on we have higher taxes coming. How can Labour foster economic growth? This can only be done through promoting private sector business & commerce. Labour MPs have no specialist knowledge nor experience in this field. Their instincts are towards public sector expansion, which is a drain on public funds and a brake on growth. Have you considered that having a functioning public sector might contribute to economic growth?" It is economically impossible to have a thriving public sector without a thriving Private sector. The private sector surplus is needed to pay for the key public sectors. Labour is snuffing out the green shoots of recovery and I have no idea why. The only hope I have is that the US lowers interest rates and the knock on effect that has here. Maybe they are banking on that to start a world economic recovery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too "Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well anyone who voted for Labour are getting what they voted for which I did warn about but you Labour lovers were too stubborn to listen which I'm sure you now how much worse they really are but please don't moan about something that you're also complicit for Reeves said her priority was economic growth - to generate the tax income Six weeks on we have higher taxes coming. How can Labour foster economic growth? This can only be done through promoting private sector business & commerce. Labour MPs have no specialist knowledge nor experience in this field. Their instincts are towards public sector expansion, which is a drain on public funds and a brake on growth. Have you considered that having a functioning public sector might contribute to economic growth? It is economically impossible to have a thriving public sector without a thriving Private sector. The private sector surplus is needed to pay for the key public sectors. Labour is snuffing out the green shoots of recovery and I have no idea why. The only hope I have is that the US lowers interest rates and the knock on effect that has here. Maybe they are banking on that to start a world economic recovery." It’s economically impossible to have a thriving private sector without an effective public sector. It’s required to educate the workforce and keep them healthy. As well as maintaining the infrastructure required by the private sector. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal"Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... pay per mile road fund licence changes" I'm amazed that I have to keep saying this, but - The Road Fund Licence was abolished in 1939. Car tax is just a simple tax that isn't specially saved for building or maintaining roads. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take?"Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing "Err doesn’t the £20/22bn include the cost of the recommended public sector pay rises the Tories had been sitting on and not declaring in the run up to the election as they knew it would not be their problem? Ironically reversing the NIC cut from earlier in the year plugs the entire £20/22bn. Funny that! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ironically reversing the NIC cut from earlier in the year plugs the entire £20/22bn. Funny that!" So Labour are making a fuss over nothing then. They could just put the NIC rate back where it was, and the whole problem goes away. Why aren't they proposing to do that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ironically reversing the NIC cut from earlier in the year plugs the entire £20/22bn. Funny that! So Labour are making a fuss over nothing then. They could just put the NIC rate back where it was, and the whole problem goes away. Why aren't they proposing to do that?" Because their election/manifesto pledge was to not raise Income Tax, National Insurance, and VAT. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing "Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ironically reversing the NIC cut from earlier in the year plugs the entire £20/22bn. Funny that! So Labour are making a fuss over nothing then. They could just put the NIC rate back where it was, and the whole problem goes away. Why aren't they proposing to do that? Because their election/manifesto pledge was to not raise Income Tax, National Insurance, and VAT." It also demonstrates that Sunak and Hunt’s NIC reduction was unfunded as there were other things that needed paying for. If the Tories had won the election, they would now be needing to make choices of what to cut, or how to raise revenue as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
"Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate."This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out. The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂 The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate.
This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out.
The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂
The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office."Are you sure? I would welcome any links to read about that. You focus on doctors but pretty certain it has been reported that the more modest recommendation for teachers was “sitting on the desk of the Minister for Ed prior to election and simply kicked into the long grass. Are you saying the strikes have had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive. Also the focus on 22.5% pay rise for doctors conveniently ignores the impact of years of under inflation rises or pay freezes giving real term pay cuts. The headline sounds huge but misses what has happened historically no? Much of this is about trying to catch back up to where they should have been right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate.
This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out.
The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂
The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office.
Are you sure? I would welcome any links to read about that. You focus on doctors but pretty certain it has been reported that the more modest recommendation for teachers was “sitting on the desk of the Minister for Ed prior to election and simply kicked into the long grass.
Are you saying the strikes have had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
Also the focus on 22.5% pay rise for doctors conveniently ignores the impact of years of under inflation rises or pay freezes giving real term pay cuts. The headline sounds huge but misses what has happened historically no? Much of this is about trying to catch back up to where they should have been right?"* Are you saying the strikes have NOT had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not only Labour are looking to cut winter fuel allowances from pensioners but also I'm hearing Labour are considering to get rid of the Council Tax discount for people who live alone? While I'm not sure if it's government policy, I hope it's hearsay for their sake otherwise because if it's not I will be an instigator to bring this government down by any means" CK here is going to bring back The Tooting Popular Front. “Power to the people” eh Wolfie! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate.
This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out.
The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂
The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office.
Are you sure? I would welcome any links to read about that. You focus on doctors but pretty certain it has been reported that the more modest recommendation for teachers was “sitting on the desk of the Minister for Ed prior to election and simply kicked into the long grass.
Are you saying the strikes have had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
Also the focus on 22.5% pay rise for doctors conveniently ignores the impact of years of under inflation rises or pay freezes giving real term pay cuts. The headline sounds huge but misses what has happened historically no? Much of this is about trying to catch back up to where they should have been right?
* Are you saying the strikes have NOT had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive."The impact of the doctors strikes comes from missed appointments and adding up peoples salaries that were sitting around and duplicating effort. The real impact was people not being treated, but let’s ignore that… However what the unions and left wing are doing is the usual BS that I can conjure up to present a compelling argument as to why something should or shouldn’t be done. Manipulation of data to prove a costing, oldest trick in the book and works every time
On another point you made I’m not focusing on the doctors, I’m focusing on the first round of public sector rises that cost 9.5 billion, that was labours decision alone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate.
This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out.
The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂
The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office.
Are you sure? I would welcome any links to read about that. You focus on doctors but pretty certain it has been reported that the more modest recommendation for teachers was “sitting on the desk of the Minister for Ed prior to election and simply kicked into the long grass.
Are you saying the strikes have had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
Also the focus on 22.5% pay rise for doctors conveniently ignores the impact of years of under inflation rises or pay freezes giving real term pay cuts. The headline sounds huge but misses what has happened historically no? Much of this is about trying to catch back up to where they should have been right?
* Are you saying the strikes have NOT had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
The impact of the doctors strikes comes from missed appointments and adding up peoples salaries that were sitting around and duplicating effort. The real impact was people not being treated, but let’s ignore that…
However what the unions and left wing are doing is the usual BS that I can conjure up to present a compelling argument as to why something should or shouldn’t be done.
Manipulation of data to prove a costing, oldest trick in the book and works every time
On another point you made I’m not focusing on the doctors, I’m focusing on the first round of public sector rises that cost 9.5 billion, that was labours decision alone."The economic impact of the junior doctors strike was the number of people not getting treatment, 7 million people at the last count, are either unable to return to work or getting towards the point they won’t be able to work. You can’t grow the economy with so many people unable to work. Resolving the junior doctor dispute was the sensible economic decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate.
This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out.
The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂
The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office.
Are you sure? I would welcome any links to read about that. You focus on doctors but pretty certain it has been reported that the more modest recommendation for teachers was “sitting on the desk of the Minister for Ed prior to election and simply kicked into the long grass.
Are you saying the strikes have had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
Also the focus on 22.5% pay rise for doctors conveniently ignores the impact of years of under inflation rises or pay freezes giving real term pay cuts. The headline sounds huge but misses what has happened historically no? Much of this is about trying to catch back up to where they should have been right?
* Are you saying the strikes have NOT had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
The impact of the doctors strikes comes from missed appointments and adding up peoples salaries that were sitting around and duplicating effort. The real impact was people not being treated, but let’s ignore that…
However what the unions and left wing are doing is the usual BS that I can conjure up to present a compelling argument as to why something should or shouldn’t be done.
Manipulation of data to prove a costing, oldest trick in the book and works every time
On another point you made I’m not focusing on the doctors, I’m focusing on the first round of public sector rises that cost 9.5 billion, that was labours decision alone.
The economic impact of the junior doctors strike was the number of people not getting treatment, 7 million people at the last count, are either unable to return to work or getting towards the point they won’t be able to work. You can’t grow the economy with so many people unable to work. Resolving the junior doctor dispute was the sensible economic decision."or they shouldn’t of whent on strike in the first place | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate.
This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out.
The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂
The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office.
Are you sure? I would welcome any links to read about that. You focus on doctors but pretty certain it has been reported that the more modest recommendation for teachers was “sitting on the desk of the Minister for Ed prior to election and simply kicked into the long grass.
Are you saying the strikes have had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
Also the focus on 22.5% pay rise for doctors conveniently ignores the impact of years of under inflation rises or pay freezes giving real term pay cuts. The headline sounds huge but misses what has happened historically no? Much of this is about trying to catch back up to where they should have been right?
* Are you saying the strikes have NOT had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
The impact of the doctors strikes comes from missed appointments and adding up peoples salaries that were sitting around and duplicating effort. The real impact was people not being treated, but let’s ignore that…
However what the unions and left wing are doing is the usual BS that I can conjure up to present a compelling argument as to why something should or shouldn’t be done.
Manipulation of data to prove a costing, oldest trick in the book and works every time
On another point you made I’m not focusing on the doctors, I’m focusing on the first round of public sector rises that cost 9.5 billion, that was labours decision alone.
The economic impact of the junior doctors strike was the number of people not getting treatment, 7 million people at the last count, are either unable to return to work or getting towards the point they won’t be able to work. You can’t grow the economy with so many people unable to work. Resolving the junior doctor dispute was the sensible economic decision."Agreed. @NotMe your argument feels thin. Regardless of which things account for the impact, the strike was having an (multiple) impact(s), which incidentally what strikes are supposed to do otherwise they have no power, so resolving it was/is prudent for the long term no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate.
This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out.
The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂
The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office.
Are you sure? I would welcome any links to read about that. You focus on doctors but pretty certain it has been reported that the more modest recommendation for teachers was “sitting on the desk of the Minister for Ed prior to election and simply kicked into the long grass.
Are you saying the strikes have had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
Also the focus on 22.5% pay rise for doctors conveniently ignores the impact of years of under inflation rises or pay freezes giving real term pay cuts. The headline sounds huge but misses what has happened historically no? Much of this is about trying to catch back up to where they should have been right?
* Are you saying the strikes have NOT had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
The impact of the doctors strikes comes from missed appointments and adding up peoples salaries that were sitting around and duplicating effort. The real impact was people not being treated, but let’s ignore that…
However what the unions and left wing are doing is the usual BS that I can conjure up to present a compelling argument as to why something should or shouldn’t be done.
Manipulation of data to prove a costing, oldest trick in the book and works every time
On another point you made I’m not focusing on the doctors, I’m focusing on the first round of public sector rises that cost 9.5 billion, that was labours decision alone.
The economic impact of the junior doctors strike was the number of people not getting treatment, 7 million people at the last count, are either unable to return to work or getting towards the point they won’t be able to work. You can’t grow the economy with so many people unable to work. Resolving the junior doctor dispute was the sensible economic decision.or they shouldn’t of whent on strike in the first place "Why? Why shouldn’t workers go on strike if they are unhappy with their treatment and remuneration by/from their employers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The usual playing with stats to form an argument to support profit or loss doesn’t hold water with people that know how easily stats are manipulated to show one side of an argument or the other. Bread and butter stuff and it is so easily misunderstood it is na industry standard tool to enrage the many that look for evidence to support their view." As is making statements like this which purport to say “I know stuff you don’t, I am brighter than you”. Can you disprove this cost to the economy? Has anyone successfully debunked it? If so please share the link. Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate.
This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out.
The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂
The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office.
Are you sure? I would welcome any links to read about that. You focus on doctors but pretty certain it has been reported that the more modest recommendation for teachers was “sitting on the desk of the Minister for Ed prior to election and simply kicked into the long grass.
Are you saying the strikes have had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
Also the focus on 22.5% pay rise for doctors conveniently ignores the impact of years of under inflation rises or pay freezes giving real term pay cuts. The headline sounds huge but misses what has happened historically no? Much of this is about trying to catch back up to where they should have been right?
* Are you saying the strikes have NOT had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
The impact of the doctors strikes comes from missed appointments and adding up peoples salaries that were sitting around and duplicating effort. The real impact was people not being treated, but let’s ignore that…
However what the unions and left wing are doing is the usual BS that I can conjure up to present a compelling argument as to why something should or shouldn’t be done.
Manipulation of data to prove a costing, oldest trick in the book and works every time
On another point you made I’m not focusing on the doctors, I’m focusing on the first round of public sector rises that cost 9.5 billion, that was labours decision alone.
The economic impact of the junior doctors strike was the number of people not getting treatment, 7 million people at the last count, are either unable to return to work or getting towards the point they won’t be able to work. You can’t grow the economy with so many people unable to work. Resolving the junior doctor dispute was the sensible economic decision.
Agreed. @NotMe your argument feels thin. Regardless of which things account for the impact, the strike was having an (multiple) impact(s), which incidentally what strikes are supposed to do otherwise they have no power, so resolving it was/is prudent for the long term no?"No it was not prudent and shows a lack of leadership and influence that will be exploited during tenure of this labour leadership team. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The usual playing with stats to form an argument to support profit or loss doesn’t hold water with people that know how easily stats are manipulated to show one side of an argument or the other. Bread and butter stuff and it is so easily misunderstood it is na industry standard tool to enrage the many that look for evidence to support their view. As is making statements like this which purport to say “I know stuff you don’t, I am brighter than you”. Can you disprove this cost to the economy? Has anyone successfully debunked it? If so please share the link. Thanks "You read it as that, however, I can disprove and prove the stats in equal measure, the spin machines do it all day every day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate.
This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out.
The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂
The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office.
Are you sure? I would welcome any links to read about that. You focus on doctors but pretty certain it has been reported that the more modest recommendation for teachers was “sitting on the desk of the Minister for Ed prior to election and simply kicked into the long grass.
Are you saying the strikes have had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
Also the focus on 22.5% pay rise for doctors conveniently ignores the impact of years of under inflation rises or pay freezes giving real term pay cuts. The headline sounds huge but misses what has happened historically no? Much of this is about trying to catch back up to where they should have been right?
* Are you saying the strikes have NOT had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
The impact of the doctors strikes comes from missed appointments and adding up peoples salaries that were sitting around and duplicating effort. The real impact was people not being treated, but let’s ignore that…
However what the unions and left wing are doing is the usual BS that I can conjure up to present a compelling argument as to why something should or shouldn’t be done.
Manipulation of data to prove a costing, oldest trick in the book and works every time
On another point you made I’m not focusing on the doctors, I’m focusing on the first round of public sector rises that cost 9.5 billion, that was labours decision alone.
The economic impact of the junior doctors strike was the number of people not getting treatment, 7 million people at the last count, are either unable to return to work or getting towards the point they won’t be able to work. You can’t grow the economy with so many people unable to work. Resolving the junior doctor dispute was the sensible economic decision.or they shouldn’t of whent on strike in the first place "They had been trying to get a pay rise for years but the government had refused to negotiate, strike action was the very, very last resort and was not done lightly. Withdrawal of labour is a legitimate negotiation tactic when all other options are exhausted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate.
This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out.
The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂
The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office.
Are you sure? I would welcome any links to read about that. You focus on doctors but pretty certain it has been reported that the more modest recommendation for teachers was “sitting on the desk of the Minister for Ed prior to election and simply kicked into the long grass.
Are you saying the strikes have had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
Also the focus on 22.5% pay rise for doctors conveniently ignores the impact of years of under inflation rises or pay freezes giving real term pay cuts. The headline sounds huge but misses what has happened historically no? Much of this is about trying to catch back up to where they should have been right?
* Are you saying the strikes have NOT had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
The impact of the doctors strikes comes from missed appointments and adding up peoples salaries that were sitting around and duplicating effort. The real impact was people not being treated, but let’s ignore that…
However what the unions and left wing are doing is the usual BS that I can conjure up to present a compelling argument as to why something should or shouldn’t be done.
Manipulation of data to prove a costing, oldest trick in the book and works every time
On another point you made I’m not focusing on the doctors, I’m focusing on the first round of public sector rises that cost 9.5 billion, that was labours decision alone.
The economic impact of the junior doctors strike was the number of people not getting treatment, 7 million people at the last count, are either unable to return to work or getting towards the point they won’t be able to work. You can’t grow the economy with so many people unable to work. Resolving the junior doctor dispute was the sensible economic decision.
Agreed. @NotMe your argument feels thin. Regardless of which things account for the impact, the strike was having an (multiple) impact(s), which incidentally what strikes are supposed to do otherwise they have no power, so resolving it was/is prudent for the long term no?
No it was not prudent and shows a lack of leadership and influence that will be exploited during tenure of this labour leadership team. "So you would not negotiate with striking workers? Your resolution would therefore be what? Wasn’t the starting point for the doctors 35% (or did I dream that) so 22.5% over a two year period (or whatever the details are, but certainly not a day one rise of 22.5%) is a win I’d say. A compromise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The usual playing with stats to form an argument to support profit or loss doesn’t hold water with people that know how easily stats are manipulated to show one side of an argument or the other. Bread and butter stuff and it is so easily misunderstood it is na industry standard tool to enrage the many that look for evidence to support their view. As is making statements like this which purport to say “I know stuff you don’t, I am brighter than you”. Can you disprove this cost to the economy? Has anyone successfully debunked it? If so please share the link. Thanks
You read it as that, however, I can disprove and prove the stats in equal measure, the spin machines do it all day every day. "So you can’t provide any link to anyone who has disproved it then? Disappointing! Thought you knew something and I was eager to understand, but it is gut instinct and the old “data can be manipulated” like no shit Sherlock! But is it ACTUALLY wrong not does it FEEL wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The usual playing with stats to form an argument to support profit or loss doesn’t hold water with people that know how easily stats are manipulated to show one side of an argument or the other. Bread and butter stuff and it is so easily misunderstood it is na industry standard tool to enrage the many that look for evidence to support their view. As is making statements like this which purport to say “I know stuff you don’t, I am brighter than you”. Can you disprove this cost to the economy? Has anyone successfully debunked it? If so please share the link. Thanks
You read it as that, however, I can disprove and prove the stats in equal measure, the spin machines do it all day every day.
So you can’t provide any link to anyone who has disproved it then? Disappointing! Thought you knew something and I was eager to understand, but it is gut instinct and the old “data can be manipulated” like no shit Sherlock! But is it ACTUALLY wrong not does it FEEL wrong?"you have the facts I assume or you wouldn't have an opinion? If you believe the over inflation rises and the 9.5 billion it cost was money well spent, there is no changing your view, so what is the point of me spending time digging out data that as I have said can be spun one way or the other. Take out the emotion that has been used by unions and this government and you are left with the raw data, consider if the facts of the payment, the implications of this decision on future pay rises, negotiations, inflation and taxes. Was it prudent, as you asked, no | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The usual playing with stats to form an argument to support profit or loss doesn’t hold water with people that know how easily stats are manipulated to show one side of an argument or the other. Bread and butter stuff and it is so easily misunderstood it is na industry standard tool to enrage the many that look for evidence to support their view. As is making statements like this which purport to say “I know stuff you don’t, I am brighter than you”. Can you disprove this cost to the economy? Has anyone successfully debunked it? If so please share the link. Thanks
You read it as that, however, I can disprove and prove the stats in equal measure, the spin machines do it all day every day.
So you can’t provide any link to anyone who has disproved it then? Disappointing! Thought you knew something and I was eager to understand, but it is gut instinct and the old “data can be manipulated” like no shit Sherlock! But is it ACTUALLY wrong not does it FEEL wrong?
you have the facts I assume or you wouldn't have an opinion? If you believe the over inflation rises and the 9.5 billion it cost was money well spent, there is no changing your view, so what is the point of me spending time digging out data that as I have said can be spun one way or the other.
Take out the emotion that has been used by unions and this government and you are left with the raw data, consider if the facts of the payment, the implications of this decision on future pay rises, negotiations, inflation and taxes.
Was it prudent, as you asked, no"Ok so you can’t supply a link to any credible source debunking the data. It’s fine to just admit it is only your opinion. So if we accept (I don’t) that ongoing striking was not going to negatively affect the UK (economically and other ways such as, in case of Doctors, the nation’s health), then what would YOU have done if you were the Government? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate.
This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out.
The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂
The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office.
Are you sure? I would welcome any links to read about that. You focus on doctors but pretty certain it has been reported that the more modest recommendation for teachers was “sitting on the desk of the Minister for Ed prior to election and simply kicked into the long grass.
Are you saying the strikes have had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
Also the focus on 22.5% pay rise for doctors conveniently ignores the impact of years of under inflation rises or pay freezes giving real term pay cuts. The headline sounds huge but misses what has happened historically no? Much of this is about trying to catch back up to where they should have been right?
* Are you saying the strikes have NOT had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
The impact of the doctors strikes comes from missed appointments and adding up peoples salaries that were sitting around and duplicating effort. The real impact was people not being treated, but let’s ignore that…
However what the unions and left wing are doing is the usual BS that I can conjure up to present a compelling argument as to why something should or shouldn’t be done.
Manipulation of data to prove a costing, oldest trick in the book and works every time
On another point you made I’m not focusing on the doctors, I’m focusing on the first round of public sector rises that cost 9.5 billion, that was labours decision alone.
The economic impact of the junior doctors strike was the number of people not getting treatment, 7 million people at the last count, are either unable to return to work or getting towards the point they won’t be able to work. You can’t grow the economy with so many people unable to work. Resolving the junior doctor dispute was the sensible economic decision.or they shouldn’t of whent on strike in the first place
Why? Why shouldn’t workers go on strike if they are unhappy with their treatment and remuneration by/from their employers?"weorkers should be able to strike but not all doctors nurses police no not for me imagine if all carrers went on strike be total carnage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why people who voted for Labour are still moaning about what they planning to do as you voted for it. Or is it that people didn't understand what they were voting for I’m not seeing the people on here who I suspect voted for Labour complaining though? I see Tory supporters and anti-Labour folk, and some open supporters of other parties, complaining about Labour. So not sure your point stands? Maybe you're not reading the room or surroundings too well but it's kool but all I know is people are regretting their decision to vote for Labour and sooner rather than later the government has to be brought down and it will No I agree with Birldn on that, I only see reform types slagging off Labour at the minute. Even after them being in government all of a few weeks... Political opinion is never going to be something you need to read the room about. If you have a stance, you don't have to take the one that most people shout the loudest about (although I know some do), you take the stance what you think is right. Talking down on people and using rhetoric like liberal lefty or right wing racists is always the most surefire way to bury someone deeper into their corner too. But I guess some people like trolling to keep that division too Ok if that's what you think, wait until the budget and then thats where the Labour voters will really be vocal
Honestly though, what else would be the outcome than a damming budget? Would there be any other option someone else could take? Sorry but something doesnt add up when they say there's a £22 billion black hole when at the same time they given double digit pay rises to people who already earn double the average salary. The math ain't mathing
Starmer and Labour had little choice but to cave-in to their trade union paymasters. You'll see the same with every major policy decision. The maths meant something had to give, and it turned out to be the elderly.
Pretty sure I saw some “maths” somewhere showing the cost of the strikes had been bigger than the cost of the pay rises, so long term finding a settlement rather than prolonging strikes was financially prudent? I’m not sure it is “caving in”! However, the unions need to be very careful not to push their luck further or any jot of public support they might have will evaporate.
This is just left wing union nonsense that was used to justify the 22.5% over 2 year increase for junior doctors and over inflation pay rises to other public sector workers. There is another £11 billion of pay rises still to be handed out.
The other thing that keeps being trotted out is the money paid was and part of the 22 billion and made up the recommendation for pay rises that the tories didn’t pay out on, really, it was recommended to pay 22.5% 😂
The size of the hole was labours doing, going against their fiscal policies, and basically it has opened the door for union extortion of the coffers. The constant anger and talk of tories giving handouts to their mates, well I be shocked that labour are rewarding their militants within days of taking office.
Are you sure? I would welcome any links to read about that. You focus on doctors but pretty certain it has been reported that the more modest recommendation for teachers was “sitting on the desk of the Minister for Ed prior to election and simply kicked into the long grass.
Are you saying the strikes have had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
Also the focus on 22.5% pay rise for doctors conveniently ignores the impact of years of under inflation rises or pay freezes giving real term pay cuts. The headline sounds huge but misses what has happened historically no? Much of this is about trying to catch back up to where they should have been right?
* Are you saying the strikes have NOT had economic impact? Seems counter-intuitive.
The impact of the doctors strikes comes from missed appointments and adding up peoples salaries that were sitting around and duplicating effort. The real impact was people not being treated, but let’s ignore that…
However what the unions and left wing are doing is the usual BS that I can conjure up to present a compelling argument as to why something should or shouldn’t be done.
Manipulation of data to prove a costing, oldest trick in the book and works every time
On another point you made I’m not focusing on the doctors, I’m focusing on the first round of public sector rises that cost 9.5 billion, that was labours decision alone.
The economic impact of the junior doctors strike was the number of people not getting treatment, 7 million people at the last count, are either unable to return to work or getting towards the point they won’t be able to work. You can’t grow the economy with so many people unable to work. Resolving the junior doctor dispute was the sensible economic decision.or they shouldn’t of whent on strike in the first place
Why? Why shouldn’t workers go on strike if they are unhappy with their treatment and remuneration by/from their employers?weorkers should be able to strike but not all doctors nurses police no not for me imagine if all carrers went on strike be total carnage "Why? Should the profession dictate right to strike and therefore passive acceptance of reducing remuneration and T&Cs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. “over-inflation pay rises” is such a misleading sentence. You need to factor in the longer period of time, inflation over that period, pay freezes, and below inflation rises to get a true picture. What was it you said about manipulating data "Absolutely. It was pay catch up not pay rises | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. “over-inflation pay rises” is such a misleading sentence. You need to factor in the longer period of time, inflation over that period, pay freezes, and below inflation rises to get a true picture. What was it you said about manipulating data "I didn't want to get into this level of detail... The pay rise % and package for the junior doctors was a mistake, the structure of their pay is based on a number of factors that this pay rise will now exploit at the cost of greater levels of tax burden. I'm not going to get into the structure it is readily available, if you take a reliable source you will find how pay rises as time and experience increases, plus extra work they do and x other payments. All of these levels will be uplifted, the starting figure of a junior doctor is a red herring. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I genuinely can’t fathom the sort of mind that doesn’t want doctors to be happy and well remunerated in their work. Doctors do one of the most important jobs in society, they aren’t an IT nerd or a banker or a tanning salon owner. They do a genuinely essential job." as anyone said that ? I want everyone to be happy but I also want them to do what they signed upto do save lives don’t tell us how important masks are in a pandemic them few yrs later strike for more money | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not only Labour are looking to cut winter fuel allowances from pensioners but also I'm hearing Labour are considering to get rid of the Council Tax discount for people who live alone? While I'm not sure if it's government policy, I hope it's hearsay for their sake otherwise because if it's not I will be an instigator to bring this government down by any means CK here is going to bring back The Tooting Popular Front. “Power to the people” eh Wolfie!" Mock me all you want but you will thank me later | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I genuinely can’t fathom the sort of mind that doesn’t want doctors to be happy and well remunerated in their work. Doctors do one of the most important jobs in society, they aren’t an IT nerd or a banker or a tanning salon owner. They do a genuinely essential job.as anyone said that ? I want everyone to be happy but I also want them to do what they signed upto do save lives don’t tell us how important masks are in a pandemic them few yrs later strike for more money " They are doing what they signed up to do. Whilst also exercising their right to withhold labour to secure a reasonable pay agreement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. “over-inflation pay rises” is such a misleading sentence. You need to factor in the longer period of time, inflation over that period, pay freezes, and below inflation rises to get a true picture. What was it you said about manipulating data
I didn't want to get into this level of detail...
The pay rise % and package for the junior doctors was a mistake, the structure of their pay is based on a number of factors that this pay rise will now exploit at the cost of greater levels of tax burden.
I'm not going to get into the structure it is readily available, if you take a reliable source you will find how pay rises as time and experience increases, plus extra work they do and x other payments. All of these levels will be uplifted, the starting figure of a junior doctor is a red herring.
"That’s how all jobs work? As you get more senior you get a higher salary/enter a higher salary band. Similarly longevity and experience. Not sure of your point? Obviously a higher base salary has a knock on effect to pay bands. So? You avoided my question though… What would YOU do with all these workers working for you wanting a pay rise? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. “over-inflation pay rises” is such a misleading sentence. You need to factor in the longer period of time, inflation over that period, pay freezes, and below inflation rises to get a true picture. What was it you said about manipulating data
I didn't want to get into this level of detail...
The pay rise % and package for the junior doctors was a mistake, the structure of their pay is based on a number of factors that this pay rise will now exploit at the cost of greater levels of tax burden.
I'm not going to get into the structure it is readily available, if you take a reliable source you will find how pay rises as time and experience increases, plus extra work they do and x other payments. All of these levels will be uplifted, the starting figure of a junior doctor is a red herring.
"What do you mean by ‘extra work they do’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. “over-inflation pay rises” is such a misleading sentence. You need to factor in the longer period of time, inflation over that period, pay freezes, and below inflation rises to get a true picture. What was it you said about manipulating data
I didn't want to get into this level of detail...
The pay rise % and package for the junior doctors was a mistake, the structure of their pay is based on a number of factors that this pay rise will now exploit at the cost of greater levels of tax burden.
I'm not going to get into the structure it is readily available, if you take a reliable source you will find how pay rises as time and experience increases, plus extra work they do and x other payments. All of these levels will be uplifted, the starting figure of a junior doctor is a red herring.
That’s how all jobs work? As you get more senior you get a higher salary/enter a higher salary band. Similarly longevity and experience. Not sure of your point? Obviously a higher base salary has a knock on effect to pay bands. So?
You avoided my question though…
What would YOU do with all these workers working for you wanting a pay rise?"id tell the doctors to wait we just got out of a pandemic and there last in line in the nhs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. “over-inflation pay rises” is such a misleading sentence. You need to factor in the longer period of time, inflation over that period, pay freezes, and below inflation rises to get a true picture. What was it you said about manipulating data
I didn't want to get into this level of detail...
The pay rise % and package for the junior doctors was a mistake, the structure of their pay is based on a number of factors that this pay rise will now exploit at the cost of greater levels of tax burden.
I'm not going to get into the structure it is readily available, if you take a reliable source you will find how pay rises as time and experience increases, plus extra work they do and x other payments. All of these levels will be uplifted, the starting figure of a junior doctor is a red herring.
That’s how all jobs work? As you get more senior you get a higher salary/enter a higher salary band. Similarly longevity and experience. Not sure of your point? Obviously a higher base salary has a knock on effect to pay bands. So?
You avoided my question though…
What would YOU do with all these workers working for you wanting a pay rise?id tell the doctors to wait we just got out of a pandemic and there last in line in the nhs "And when they tell you to go fish, what would you do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting debate on the doctor salaries. There is no way to rationalise what a "fair pay" is, when it comes to public sector. It's up to the whim of politicians. In private markets, it's determined by supply/demand. But if the government is going to run a service, there are so many factors like the current ruling party, people's sentiment, budget situation and so on. But if you think the pay should be increased, be ready to pay more taxes too. " The same people who are always against public sector pay rises are the same as those who moan about poor service in the public sector. That poor service is often, not always, due to budget pressures and a lack of staff or capacity. But God forbid we address that with investment! What is it with people who seem to imply that public sector workers should just accept their lot, after all “they work for us” right? Oh but “they have choices” yes of course but if significant numbers left it impacts on service levels, like teacher shortages, nursing shortages, doctors (GPs) shortages, “bastards don’t work hard enough!” So it goes around and around! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. “over-inflation pay rises” is such a misleading sentence. You need to factor in the longer period of time, inflation over that period, pay freezes, and below inflation rises to get a true picture. What was it you said about manipulating data
I didn't want to get into this level of detail...
The pay rise % and package for the junior doctors was a mistake, the structure of their pay is based on a number of factors that this pay rise will now exploit at the cost of greater levels of tax burden.
I'm not going to get into the structure it is readily available, if you take a reliable source you will find how pay rises as time and experience increases, plus extra work they do and x other payments. All of these levels will be uplifted, the starting figure of a junior doctor is a red herring.
That’s how all jobs work? As you get more senior you get a higher salary/enter a higher salary band. Similarly longevity and experience. Not sure of your point? Obviously a higher base salary has a knock on effect to pay bands. So?
You avoided my question though…
What would YOU do with all these workers working for you wanting a pay rise?id tell the doctors to wait we just got out of a pandemic and there last in line in the nhs
And when they tell you to go fish, what would you do?"I was asked one question and unlike some I answered and not with a question rare on here I know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. “over-inflation pay rises” is such a misleading sentence. You need to factor in the longer period of time, inflation over that period, pay freezes, and below inflation rises to get a true picture. What was it you said about manipulating data
I didn't want to get into this level of detail...
The pay rise % and package for the junior doctors was a mistake, the structure of their pay is based on a number of factors that this pay rise will now exploit at the cost of greater levels of tax burden.
I'm not going to get into the structure it is readily available, if you take a reliable source you will find how pay rises as time and experience increases, plus extra work they do and x other payments. All of these levels will be uplifted, the starting figure of a junior doctor is a red herring.
That’s how all jobs work? As you get more senior you get a higher salary/enter a higher salary band. Similarly longevity and experience. Not sure of your point? Obviously a higher base salary has a knock on effect to pay bands. So?
You avoided my question though…
What would YOU do with all these workers working for you wanting a pay rise?id tell the doctors to wait we just got out of a pandemic and there last in line in the nhs
And when they tell you to go fish, what would you do?I was asked one question and unlike some I answered and not with a question rare on here I know "That’s a lot of words to say ‘I don’t know’. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That’s how all jobs work? As you get more senior you get a higher salary/enter a higher salary band. Similarly longevity and experience. Not sure of your point? Obviously a higher base salary has a knock on effect to pay bands. So? You avoided my question though… What would YOU do with all these workers working for you wanting a pay rise?" Here's an interesting thought: Map out all take-home-salaries (after tax, NI, etc.) of everyone NOT in public sector in the UK. Discount the top and bottom 10%. Map everyone in any public service role to a point (percentile) on this bell curve. Agree it with all unions. Set and forget
OK, OK, it's not 100% that simple, but it works in principle. More people earning more = more tax and therefore higher public service pay; standards of living are in-line with the rest of the population. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting debate on the doctor salaries. There is no way to rationalise what a "fair pay" is, when it comes to public sector. It's up to the whim of politicians. In private markets, it's determined by supply/demand. But if the government is going to run a service, there are so many factors like the current ruling party, people's sentiment, budget situation and so on. But if you think the pay should be increased, be ready to pay more taxes too. The same people who are always against public sector pay rises are the same as those who moan about poor service in the public sector. That poor service is often, not always, due to budget pressures and a lack of staff or capacity. But God forbid we address that with investment! What is it with people who seem to imply that public sector workers should just accept their lot, after all “they work for us” right? Oh but “they have choices” yes of course but if significant numbers left it impacts on service levels, like teacher shortages, nursing shortages, doctors (GPs) shortages, “bastards don’t work hard enough!” So it goes around and around!" Agree with that. In general, if you are going to support public sector for something like healthcare, it will come with a baggage of inefficiencies and higher costs because of it. But the underlying thought process is that it's ok to be inefficient if it means everyone in the country is going to receive healthcare. Public sector workers getting pay rises through strikes is pretty much the norm everywhere, unless you are in an authoritarian country or a country with oil money. But there is also the question of how to make public healthcare sustainable over the long term given the budget constraints that have cropped up already. No politician wants to talk about it unfortunately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. “over-inflation pay rises” is such a misleading sentence. You need to factor in the longer period of time, inflation over that period, pay freezes, and below inflation rises to get a true picture. What was it you said about manipulating data
I didn't want to get into this level of detail...
The pay rise % and package for the junior doctors was a mistake, the structure of their pay is based on a number of factors that this pay rise will now exploit at the cost of greater levels of tax burden.
I'm not going to get into the structure it is readily available, if you take a reliable source you will find how pay rises as time and experience increases, plus extra work they do and x other payments. All of these levels will be uplifted, the starting figure of a junior doctor is a red herring.
That’s how all jobs work? As you get more senior you get a higher salary/enter a higher salary band. Similarly longevity and experience. Not sure of your point? Obviously a higher base salary has a knock on effect to pay bands. So?
You avoided my question though…
What would YOU do with all these workers working for you wanting a pay rise?id tell the doctors to wait we just got out of a pandemic and there last in line in the nhs
And when they tell you to go fish, what would you do?I was asked one question and unlike some I answered and not with a question rare on here I know
That’s a lot of words to say ‘I don’t know’."is that it no put down lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. “over-inflation pay rises” is such a misleading sentence. You need to factor in the longer period of time, inflation over that period, pay freezes, and below inflation rises to get a true picture. What was it you said about manipulating data
I didn't want to get into this level of detail...
The pay rise % and package for the junior doctors was a mistake, the structure of their pay is based on a number of factors that this pay rise will now exploit at the cost of greater levels of tax burden.
I'm not going to get into the structure it is readily available, if you take a reliable source you will find how pay rises as time and experience increases, plus extra work they do and x other payments. All of these levels will be uplifted, the starting figure of a junior doctor is a red herring.
That’s how all jobs work? As you get more senior you get a higher salary/enter a higher salary band. Similarly longevity and experience. Not sure of your point? Obviously a higher base salary has a knock on effect to pay bands. So?
You avoided my question though…
What would YOU do with all these workers working for you wanting a pay rise?"All jobs are not like the junior doctors structure… Take a look how quickly their base rises and where they end up. Once you have looked at that workout what the starting % increase will mean year on year, then we should talk more. As for losing them through poor pay, they start knowing the base and the where they can end up, if they’re about to quit because their demands are not met, they really should be looking for another profession. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. “over-inflation pay rises” is such a misleading sentence. You need to factor in the longer period of time, inflation over that period, pay freezes, and below inflation rises to get a true picture. What was it you said about manipulating data
I didn't want to get into this level of detail...
The pay rise % and package for the junior doctors was a mistake, the structure of their pay is based on a number of factors that this pay rise will now exploit at the cost of greater levels of tax burden.
I'm not going to get into the structure it is readily available, if you take a reliable source you will find how pay rises as time and experience increases, plus extra work they do and x other payments. All of these levels will be uplifted, the starting figure of a junior doctor is a red herring.
That’s how all jobs work? As you get more senior you get a higher salary/enter a higher salary band. Similarly longevity and experience. Not sure of your point? Obviously a higher base salary has a knock on effect to pay bands. So?
You avoided my question though…
What would YOU do with all these workers working for you wanting a pay rise?
All jobs are not like the junior doctors structure…
Take a look how quickly their base rises and where they end up.
Once you have looked at that workout what the starting % increase will mean year on year, then we should talk more.
As for losing them through poor pay, they start knowing the base and the where they can end up, if they’re about to quit because their demands are not met, they really should be looking for another profession. "But let’s be honest here, who are YOU to determine the value of what a doctor contributes to society? If they saved your life or your loved ones would you quibble and resent a few £000? Pretty certain you are a freelance (management) consultant and seem to recall you work in the healthcare sector (could have that last bit wrong). I suspect you are very well remunerated. But what real actual tangible value do you add to society? That isn’t a dig. My expertise and sector could easily have the same argument put against it and I earn considerably more than most doctors, including top level consultants/surgeons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well anyone who voted for Labour are getting what they voted for which I did warn about but you Labour lovers were too stubborn to listen which I'm sure you now how much worse they really are but please don't moan about something that you're also complicit for Reeves said her priority was economic growth - to generate the tax income Six weeks on we have higher taxes coming. How can Labour foster economic growth? This can only be done through promoting private sector business & commerce. Labour MPs have no specialist knowledge nor experience in this field. Their instincts are towards public sector expansion, which is a drain on public funds and a brake on growth. Have you considered that having a functioning public sector might contribute to economic growth? It is economically impossible to have a thriving public sector without a thriving Private sector. The private sector surplus is needed to pay for the key public sectors. Labour is snuffing out the green shoots of recovery and I have no idea why. The only hope I have is that the US lowers interest rates and the knock on effect that has here. Maybe they are banking on that to start a world economic recovery. It’s economically impossible to have a thriving private sector without an effective public sector. It’s required to educate the workforce and keep them healthy. As well as maintaining the infrastructure required by the private sector." No sorry. fundamentally you are wrong because of Reeves get this wrong the public sector will be unsustainable. Yes in due course there is a virtuous circle but if she gets it wrong we are finished . More decline, everyone suffering hyper inflation, the list goes on and on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting debate on the doctor salaries. There is no way to rationalise what a "fair pay" is, when it comes to public sector. It's up to the whim of politicians. In private markets, it's determined by supply/demand. But if the government is going to run a service, there are so many factors like the current ruling party, people's sentiment, budget situation and so on. But if you think the pay should be increased, be ready to pay more taxes too. The same people who are always against public sector pay rises are the same as those who moan about poor service in the public sector. That poor service is often, not always, due to budget pressures and a lack of staff or capacity. But God forbid we address that with investment! What is it with people who seem to imply that public sector workers should just accept their lot, after all “they work for us” right? Oh but “they have choices” yes of course but if significant numbers left it impacts on service levels, like teacher shortages, nursing shortages, doctors (GPs) shortages, “bastards don’t work hard enough!” So it goes around and around! Agree with that. In general, if you are going to support public sector for something like healthcare, it will come with a baggage of inefficiencies and higher costs because of it. But the underlying thought process is that it's ok to be inefficient if it means everyone in the country is going to receive healthcare. Public sector workers getting pay rises through strikes is pretty much the norm everywhere, unless you are in an authoritarian country or a country with oil money. But there is also the question of how to make public healthcare sustainable over the long term given the budget constraints that have cropped up already. No politician wants to talk about it unfortunately." So privately provided healthcare is cheaper and more efficient? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If people really think Labours fiscal policy of spending cuts and raising taxes is a good thing then you're crazy because doing that actually hinders economic growth " We can only hope that they are deliberately making it sound worse on purpose so when it is bad instead of terrible then we feel we have dodged a bullet. Then in the following years things improve (maybe wishful thinking), we will forget about these bad times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting debate on the doctor salaries. There is no way to rationalise what a "fair pay" is, when it comes to public sector. It's up to the whim of politicians. In private markets, it's determined by supply/demand. But if the government is going to run a service, there are so many factors like the current ruling party, people's sentiment, budget situation and so on. But if you think the pay should be increased, be ready to pay more taxes too. The same people who are always against public sector pay rises are the same as those who moan about poor service in the public sector. That poor service is often, not always, due to budget pressures and a lack of staff or capacity. But God forbid we address that with investment! What is it with people who seem to imply that public sector workers should just accept their lot, after all “they work for us” right? Oh but “they have choices” yes of course but if significant numbers left it impacts on service levels, like teacher shortages, nursing shortages, doctors (GPs) shortages, “bastards don’t work hard enough!” So it goes around and around! Agree with that. In general, if you are going to support public sector for something like healthcare, it will come with a baggage of inefficiencies and higher costs because of it. But the underlying thought process is that it's ok to be inefficient if it means everyone in the country is going to receive healthcare. Public sector workers getting pay rises through strikes is pretty much the norm everywhere, unless you are in an authoritarian country or a country with oil money. But there is also the question of how to make public healthcare sustainable over the long term given the budget constraints that have cropped up already. No politician wants to talk about it unfortunately. So privately provided healthcare is cheaper and more efficient?" Yes, and healthier | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If people really think Labours fiscal policy of spending cuts and raising taxes is a good thing then you're crazy because doing that actually hinders economic growth " Reeves electioneering message was that the tax’s needed would come from economic growth They have inherited an improving economy, and I agree the tax rhetoric which is all we hear atm will be a spoiler It’s only a couple of months in, and nothing but bad news messages from starmer. He has no ideas about stimulating the economy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting debate on the doctor salaries. There is no way to rationalise what a "fair pay" is, when it comes to public sector. It's up to the whim of politicians. In private markets, it's determined by supply/demand. But if the government is going to run a service, there are so many factors like the current ruling party, people's sentiment, budget situation and so on. But if you think the pay should be increased, be ready to pay more taxes too. The same people who are always against public sector pay rises are the same as those who moan about poor service in the public sector. That poor service is often, not always, due to budget pressures and a lack of staff or capacity. But God forbid we address that with investment! What is it with people who seem to imply that public sector workers should just accept their lot, after all “they work for us” right? Oh but “they have choices” yes of course but if significant numbers left it impacts on service levels, like teacher shortages, nursing shortages, doctors (GPs) shortages, “bastards don’t work hard enough!” So it goes around and around! Agree with that. In general, if you are going to support public sector for something like healthcare, it will come with a baggage of inefficiencies and higher costs because of it. But the underlying thought process is that it's ok to be inefficient if it means everyone in the country is going to receive healthcare. Public sector workers getting pay rises through strikes is pretty much the norm everywhere, unless you are in an authoritarian country or a country with oil money. But there is also the question of how to make public healthcare sustainable over the long term given the budget constraints that have cropped up already. No politician wants to talk about it unfortunately. So privately provided healthcare is cheaper and more efficient? Yes, and healthier" Can you provide an example where that is the case? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting debate on the doctor salaries. There is no way to rationalise what a "fair pay" is, when it comes to public sector. It's up to the whim of politicians. In private markets, it's determined by supply/demand. But if the government is going to run a service, there are so many factors like the current ruling party, people's sentiment, budget situation and so on. But if you think the pay should be increased, be ready to pay more taxes too. The same people who are always against public sector pay rises are the same as those who moan about poor service in the public sector. That poor service is often, not always, due to budget pressures and a lack of staff or capacity. But God forbid we address that with investment! What is it with people who seem to imply that public sector workers should just accept their lot, after all “they work for us” right? Oh but “they have choices” yes of course but if significant numbers left it impacts on service levels, like teacher shortages, nursing shortages, doctors (GPs) shortages, “bastards don’t work hard enough!” So it goes around and around! Agree with that. In general, if you are going to support public sector for something like healthcare, it will come with a baggage of inefficiencies and higher costs because of it. But the underlying thought process is that it's ok to be inefficient if it means everyone in the country is going to receive healthcare. Public sector workers getting pay rises through strikes is pretty much the norm everywhere, unless you are in an authoritarian country or a country with oil money. But there is also the question of how to make public healthcare sustainable over the long term given the budget constraints that have cropped up already. No politician wants to talk about it unfortunately. So privately provided healthcare is cheaper and more efficient? Yes, and healthier Can you provide an example where that is the case?" Almost anywhere that has a private or hybrid healthcare model. As a former ex-pat I've accessed superb healthcare in many countries. By comparison the NHS is slow, bureaucratic, inattentive and all too often poor in diagnosis/treatment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting debate on the doctor salaries. There is no way to rationalise what a "fair pay" is, when it comes to public sector. It's up to the whim of politicians. In private markets, it's determined by supply/demand. But if the government is going to run a service, there are so many factors like the current ruling party, people's sentiment, budget situation and so on. But if you think the pay should be increased, be ready to pay more taxes too. The same people who are always against public sector pay rises are the same as those who moan about poor service in the public sector. That poor service is often, not always, due to budget pressures and a lack of staff or capacity. But God forbid we address that with investment! What is it with people who seem to imply that public sector workers should just accept their lot, after all “they work for us” right? Oh but “they have choices” yes of course but if significant numbers left it impacts on service levels, like teacher shortages, nursing shortages, doctors (GPs) shortages, “bastards don’t work hard enough!” So it goes around and around! Agree with that. In general, if you are going to support public sector for something like healthcare, it will come with a baggage of inefficiencies and higher costs because of it. But the underlying thought process is that it's ok to be inefficient if it means everyone in the country is going to receive healthcare. Public sector workers getting pay rises through strikes is pretty much the norm everywhere, unless you are in an authoritarian country or a country with oil money. But there is also the question of how to make public healthcare sustainable over the long term given the budget constraints that have cropped up already. No politician wants to talk about it unfortunately. So privately provided healthcare is cheaper and more efficient?" Yes. But it won't cover every person like public healthcare does. There will always be people who could afford it. It's a matter of pick your poison. IMO we could get rid of NHS and every social welfare service that's run by the government and replace it with UBI based on the total tax collected every year. Old people will spend more of the money to get healthy insurance. Younger people will spend less on health insurance and more on savings for housing. Still not perfect. But at least you have a thriving competitive market. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting debate on the doctor salaries. There is no way to rationalise what a "fair pay" is, when it comes to public sector. It's up to the whim of politicians. In private markets, it's determined by supply/demand. But if the government is going to run a service, there are so many factors like the current ruling party, people's sentiment, budget situation and so on. But if you think the pay should be increased, be ready to pay more taxes too. The same people who are always against public sector pay rises are the same as those who moan about poor service in the public sector. That poor service is often, not always, due to budget pressures and a lack of staff or capacity. But God forbid we address that with investment! What is it with people who seem to imply that public sector workers should just accept their lot, after all “they work for us” right? Oh but “they have choices” yes of course but if significant numbers left it impacts on service levels, like teacher shortages, nursing shortages, doctors (GPs) shortages, “bastards don’t work hard enough!” So it goes around and around! Agree with that. In general, if you are going to support public sector for something like healthcare, it will come with a baggage of inefficiencies and higher costs because of it. But the underlying thought process is that it's ok to be inefficient if it means everyone in the country is going to receive healthcare. Public sector workers getting pay rises through strikes is pretty much the norm everywhere, unless you are in an authoritarian country or a country with oil money. But there is also the question of how to make public healthcare sustainable over the long term given the budget constraints that have cropped up already. No politician wants to talk about it unfortunately. So privately provided healthcare is cheaper and more efficient? Yes, and healthier Can you provide an example where that is the case? Almost anywhere that has a private or hybrid healthcare model. As a former ex-pat I've accessed superb healthcare in many countries. By comparison the NHS is slow, bureaucratic, inattentive and all too often poor in diagnosis/treatment." Could you name one of those systems which provides universal healthcare, is cheaper, more efficient, and more effective? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting debate on the doctor salaries. There is no way to rationalise what a "fair pay" is, when it comes to public sector. It's up to the whim of politicians. In private markets, it's determined by supply/demand. But if the government is going to run a service, there are so many factors like the current ruling party, people's sentiment, budget situation and so on. But if you think the pay should be increased, be ready to pay more taxes too. The same people who are always against public sector pay rises are the same as those who moan about poor service in the public sector. That poor service is often, not always, due to budget pressures and a lack of staff or capacity. But God forbid we address that with investment! What is it with people who seem to imply that public sector workers should just accept their lot, after all “they work for us” right? Oh but “they have choices” yes of course but if significant numbers left it impacts on service levels, like teacher shortages, nursing shortages, doctors (GPs) shortages, “bastards don’t work hard enough!” So it goes around and around! Agree with that. In general, if you are going to support public sector for something like healthcare, it will come with a baggage of inefficiencies and higher costs because of it. But the underlying thought process is that it's ok to be inefficient if it means everyone in the country is going to receive healthcare. Public sector workers getting pay rises through strikes is pretty much the norm everywhere, unless you are in an authoritarian country or a country with oil money. But there is also the question of how to make public healthcare sustainable over the long term given the budget constraints that have cropped up already. No politician wants to talk about it unfortunately. So privately provided healthcare is cheaper and more efficient? Yes. But it won't cover every person like public healthcare does. There will always be people who could afford it. It's a matter of pick your poison. IMO we could get rid of NHS and every social welfare service that's run by the government and replace it with UBI based on the total tax collected every year. Old people will spend more of the money to get healthy insurance. Younger people will spend less on health insurance and more on savings for housing. Still not perfect. But at least you have a thriving competitive market." How does that make healthcare more efficient? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
