• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

ricky2tricky4city said:
Er yeah. Agreed. Was someone not agreeing?
My point was we need to facilitate them making a good living farming for the greater good NOT commercial decisions


I'm not thinking that. Not even close to that... and nothing I said suggested that. Bizarre.


We will always have to import food.
The more we can produce ourselves the better.


No I don't...you would graze livestock on them (I wouldn't want my Welsh Hill Lamb disappearing :)).
I'm sure there is lots of arable land suitable for crops that are used for grazing.
Then there are the crops the farmer chooses to grow. (Animal feed and seed oils :()
Most of that will be based entirely by a commercial decision, hence the lack of vegetables.

And that was the basis of my post (wasn't hard to decipher), remove money as the deciding factor, and we have a chance to change the farming landscape (pun intended).
Click to expand...

One way we killed the agricultural sector was Brexit (I know its another story) but the Ed Balls doc on DP world and shipping was a real eye opener. With our trade deals in the EU we were getting cheaper but equal quality foods abroad in Amsterdam whilst exporting ours elsewhere because the British Standard on foods came with a premium. We have gone a long way to kill that profitable trade off. I know thats off topic as its not cattle but thought I would chime in.

For all the help Brexit was meant to give the farming and fishing industries, its actually killed alot of it
 
Grays_1890 said:
I think once the dust settles and Labour get a clear run he will be fine. He is having to handle OTT scrutiny on inherited actions like the prison system decision that the Tories never had to answer event to the end.
Click to expand...
Winter fuel allowance? Clothes from Lord Ali? An awful budget? David Lammy? Just off the top of my head.

This is an interesting read...

www.theguardian.com

‘We all hope it’s teething troubles – but worry it’s something worse’: the inside story of Labour’s first 100 days in power

Keir Starmer and other senior Downing Street figures on the new government’s bumpy start, from riots to rebellions
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
SpiderSpurs said:
Winter fuel allowance? Clothes from Lord Ali? An awful budget? David Lammy? Just off the top of my head.

This is an interesting read...

www.theguardian.com

‘We all hope it’s teething troubles – but worry it’s something worse’: the inside story of Labour’s first 100 days in power

Keir Starmer and other senior Downing Street figures on the new government’s bumpy start, from riots to rebellions
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

But in all honesty pales in significance in what the other mob did in their last 6 years let alone the 14, its incomparable mate

Boris would literally get caught breaking the law 14 times, they gave millions away to their mates and if Boris shat in peoples gardens they would be thanking him for fertiliser rather than deal with it, wasn't till his own party turned round and said "stone me this blokes a cnut" that anything happened.

Winter fuel is means tested and nowhere near as bad as people make out, the suits are a bad look but nowhere near anything of the magnitude being made out, the proof will be in the eating with the budget (Starmer leaving would not change that) and not sure the reference to Lammy?
 
Last edited:
Kompakted said:
I think the general consensus is that while it wasn't quite Truss/Kwartang (it didn't inspire panic), Starmer/Reeves first budget went down like a lead balloon....there's now very little confidence that the UK is in safe economic hands and most forecasts for the UK are being revised downwards.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure there’s much more to see other than ‘Wealthy people in not keen to pay more tax or see wealth redistributed’ shocker.

The Daily Mail , The Express and The Telegraph are in meltdown, the rest of the world has already moved on.

We’ll know in a three or four years if they’ve been successful in beginning to turn the state of the country around, and whether this and subsequent budgets have had that desired effect. It’s wait and see for a while to come.
 
Mikey10 said:
I’m not sure there’s much more to see other than ‘Wealthy people in not keen to pay more tax or see wealth redistributed’ shocker.

The Daily Mail , The Express and The Telegraph are in meltdown, the rest of the world has already moved on.

We’ll know in a three or four years if they’ve been successful in beginning to turn the state of the country around, and whether this and subsequent budgets have had that desired effect. It’s wait and see for a while to come.
Click to expand...
Exactly and as the end of the day the proof will be to come, if the moves improve the country and we come out the other end they would have been proved right, I am willing to wait
 
Mikey10 said:
I’m not sure there’s much more to see other than ‘Wealthy people in not keen to pay more tax or see wealth redistributed’ shocker.

The Daily Mail , The Express and The Telegraph are in meltdown, the rest of the world has already moved on.

We’ll know in a three or four years if they’ve been successful in beginning to turn the state of the country around, and whether this and subsequent budgets have had that desired effect. It’s wait and see for a while to come.
Click to expand...
It isn't The Daily Mail, The Express and The Telegraph I'm talking about, it's the OBR, international ratings agencies and international markets.

And it's not about wealthy people being taxed whatsoever:
- it's about hitting businesses, the vast majority of which are SMEs, with an increase in employers NI contributions and increase in minimum wage. Rachel Reeves herself and Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to The Treasury have accepted these changes will hit workers and result in lower wage rises across the board.
- It's also about creating a new definition of public sector debt just before the budget, in order to try and free yourself fron your own self imposed fiscal rules. This new metric wasn't well understood by analysts and hasn't been incorporated accurately into models. The OBR have had to revise their initial projections of government debt forecasts already due to an error in their initial analytical model. This revision means that the government have over 15 billion less headroom for investment related borrowing than they expected based on the OBR's initial analysis.
- The markets are jittery as a result as they see a government that has committed to a huge increase in borrowing, which they calculate will be paid for by growth in tax earnings over the next 5 years, but business confidence has fallen out of its arse over the last few weeks and most analysts are revising growth forecasts down - I.e. they think that Raxhel Reeves has just created a far bigger potential hole than any that she inherited and because the government are asking everyone to carry out calculations based on new metrics and definitions they've only just come up with, there is now a lot of uncertainty associated with UK economic projections or where Labour will land our economy at the end of the 5 year term.
 
Kompakted said:
It isn't The Daily Mail, The Express and The Telegraph I'm talking about, it's the OBR, international ratings agencies and international markets.

And it's not about wealthy people being taxed whatsoever:
- it's about hitting businesses, the vast majority of which are SMEs, with an increase in employers NI contributions and increase in minimum wage. Rachel Reeves herself and Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to The Treasury have accepted these changes will hit workers and result in lower wage rises across the board.
- It's also about creating a new definition of public sector debt just before the budget, in order to try and free yourself fron your own self imposed fiscal rules. This new metric wasn't well understood by analysts and hasn't been incorporated accurately into models. The OBR have had to revise their initial projections of government debt forecasts already due to an error in their initial analytical model. This revision means that the government have over 15 billion less headroom for investment related borrowing than they expected based on the OBR's initial analysis.
- The markets are jittery as a result as they see a government that has committed to a huge increase in borrowing, which they calculate will be paid for by growth in tax earnings over the next 5 years, but business confidence has fallen out of its arse over the last few weeks and most analysts are revising growth forecasts down - I.e. they think that Raxhel Reeves has just created a far bigger potential hole than any that she inherited and because the government are asking everyone to carry out calculations based on new metrics and definitions they've only just come up with, there is now a lot of uncertainty associated with UK economic projections or where Labour will land our economy at the end of the 5 year term.
Click to expand...
We shall see, as I said. Historically, there are frequently market jitters after a budget. It’s very obviously a medium to long term project to turn things around after 14 years of decline. It will be a while, and a couple more budgets at least, before any conclusions can really be reached.
 
Mikey10 said:
We shall see, as I said. Historically, there are frequently market jitters after a budget. It’s very obviously a medium to long term project to turn things around after 14 years of decline. It will be a while, and a couple more budgets at least, before any conclusions can really be reached.
Click to expand...
Everyone was content with what Sunak and Hunt were doing economically, they just didn't feel like the tories were stable enough internally to really relax. Business confidence in the UK was booming just after the election, with the UK expected to outperform all of it's peers and be a beacon of stability. Starmer and Reeves could have taken that, gone "thanks Rishi and Jeremy, you did a grand job clearing up Liz's mess, we will take it from here and increase public spending in a few years as growth conditions allow.

Instead they've decided to pretend they've been left with a disastrous inheritance and chosen to hurt ordinary people in the pocket to suit their own political agenda, all the while partying with Lord Ali and doing the rounds of festivals and concerts while the UK's business and investment confidence was on fire.

And you lot should be very angry about that.
 
Kompakted said:
Everyone was content with what Sunak and Hunt were doing economically, they just didn't feel like the tories were stable enough internally to really relax. Business confidence in the UK was booming just after the election, with the UK expected to outperform all of it's peers and be a beacon of stability. Starmer and Reeves could have taken that, gone "thanks Rishi and Jeremy, you did a grand job clearing up Liz's mess, we will take it from here and increase public spending in a few years as growth conditions allow.

Instead they've decided to pretend they've been left with a disastrous inheritance and chosen to hurt ordinary people in the pocket to suit their own political agenda, all the while partying with Lord Ali and doing the rounds of festivals and concerts while the UK's business and investment confidence was on fire.

And you lot should be very angry about that.
Click to expand...
That’s one analysis (although how anyone can argue against them being left with anything but a terrible inheritance is beyond me - massive waiting NHS lists, schools crumbling, transport a mess, the water system literally a s hitshow, strikes, wage stagnation, young people unable to afford a house…), but others are available.

It’s a different approach to the economy, and an attempt to move away from the Thatcherite model of the last 40 years which has now been shown to be deeply flawed.

I don’t expect the non-dom media and business barons, who have done very well out of a broken system, to love it; it is, though, the reality for the next four and a half years at least. And, once again, time alone will tell whether it will work.

You or I could be right; you or I could be wrong. We shall see.
 
SkipRat said:
Labour have already lost the next election.

They only one this becauae of the Reform vote against the Tories.

Traitor Starmer got less votes than Corbyn.
Click to expand...
But when the white working classes have education, healthcare and transport that work, plus better wages, they'll have far less interest in being racist. A bit of decent Keynsianism should deradicalise swayes of them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back