5 years hard labour ?

[Bper]

50 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

I well remember a story from my dad in his army days.

A "batman" thought it'd be a nice little earner to "acquire" so stuff from the officers. He was a rather "rotund" chap, a bit like Billy Bunter.

He was sent to"the glass house" and conditions were, apparently, a bit harsh. Everything was done "at the double" and was simply repeated, then repeated then repeated. The day started at 6am and finished at 9pm and there was no respite from "duties" for the whole time.

With his release he returned to camp and my dad, who was on guard duty, didn't even recognise the slim guy coming back to camp.

The batman vowed to never pinch so much as a paperclip ever again.

And this happened in a matter of weeks.......

So the consequence of being caught and "punished" most certainly did alter behaviour.

But whether we could do this with civilians is doubtless a matter for much discussion.

If you're skilful enough to commit crime then surely you're cleaver enough to do something that is lawful - but perhaps not as lucrative?

Good luck with that today. I once worked on a new build and refurbishment at a garrison, and I believe one of the buildings was a Military Corrective Training Centre. It was a world away from the old glasshouse, with its modern interior and facilities. These days, being locked up is likely a last resort, following a psychological evaluation and counselling. There's even a chance that if someone took legal action for 'hurt feelings,' they might not only win but get promoted within weeks.😂

[Haliotis]

The answer to that is, “never reward criminal or antisocial behaviour.”

[First_Toyota]

Having listened to what Keir Starmer had to say today, I agree with a few of the commentators who believe there will be quite a lot of ‘buyers remorse’ from some of those who voted Labour in July.

Brace yourselves for the October budget, and new taxes on pension funds, property, wealth…who knows what else?! 

Like many people, I have no objection to taxation - even increased taxation - if I can see what benefit is gained from it. I’m afraid I’m not holding my breath this time, as it seems it will mostly go on pay rises for public sector workers who, essentially, are seemingly able to shake the Labour Party very gently by the throat…

 

[AndyN01]

I think we all know and accept that if we're going to have a "decent" level of public services then they've got to be paid for and a "reasonable" amount of taxation is going to be levied.

The $64,000 question is what levels of services do "we" think is decent and what is a "reasonable" amount to pay for them? And what is a fair way of determining who pays how much?

I've posted before about infrastructure - which is very expensive but without which we are heading down a slippery slope for the future of our country so IMHO that needs to be well funded.

I'm sure we all have our areas to support and those that could be cut or scrapped?

 

[MC1216]

25 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

I think we all know and accept that if we're going to have a "decent" level of public services then they've got to be paid for and a "reasonable" amount of taxation is going to be levied.

The $64,000 question is what levels of services do "we" think is decent and what is a "reasonable" amount to pay for them? And what is a fair way of determining who pays how much?

I've posted before about infrastructure - which is very expensive but without which we are heading down a slippery slope for the future of our country so IMHO that needs to be well funded.

I'm sure we all have our areas to support and those that could be cut or scrapped?

 

Well one are would be migrants.

Home Office figures cited by the Financial Times in August last year showed that the annual asylum cost reached £3.96 billion in the year up to 2023

However for some reason i will be accused of being racist or far right and probably i will be arrested for posting this and spend 12 months in prison.

No wonder hard working people are fed up.

[Haliotis]

Surely Starmer can’t be stupid enough to tax pension funds?  Brown did just that when he introduced tax on dividends, and private pension funds went into catastrophic trouble and many pensioners-in-waiting permanently lost out badly.  I have never forgiven that man for his ignorant arrogance, and I am afraid I have a permanent hatred of him.

[Cyker]

The problem is they have no creativity, it's just taxes taxes.

Even schools have been forced to come up with creative ways to generate funding as they are all so badly underfunded. Some have rabid PTAs who are always organizing cake sales and fairs, some rent out parts of the building for training, birthdays, seminars etc.

As I always say, if successive governments hadn't sold off the country's infrastructure for peanuts to their private sector mates, they'd be able to leverage that as a revenue source and re-invest it into the country instead of what happens now, where all the money we pay goes into fatcats wallets or overseas while the infrastructure is left to decay.

I always cite Norway as a country to aspire to in how they run things, but rich people wouldn't like that as they'd get taxed a lot more. The other country is Canada - They went through an austerity phase to clear up their national debt and have been doing much better since then. We started doing that and then the government changed direction and flushed all our progress down the toilet.

[Haliotis]

Just been watching BBC News.  Starmer reiterates a 22bn black hole caused by the Conservative government, and which was supposedly covered up.  The Conservative reply is that it isn’t true and is being used to justify tax rises that were intended if Labour got into power.   So somebody has to be lying.  Are we to believe, as the doubt suggests, that the country’s finances are so sloppily run that the general public can be told blatant lies which they{the public] are under threat of enforced austeretry based upon a National debt that may, or may not, be true?

[Rhymes with Paris]

Aye,as always on a gubm't change,jam tomorrow gruel today.

Trouble is, tomorrow is when the next change happens.

 

[Eddie G]

3 hours ago, Cyker said:

The problem is they have no creativity, it's just taxes taxes.

Even schools have been forced to come up with creative ways to generate funding as they are all so badly underfunded. Some have rabid PTAs who are always organizing cake sales and fairs, some rent out parts of the building for training, birthdays, seminars etc.

As I always say, if successive governments hadn't sold off the country's infrastructure for peanuts to their private sector mates, they'd be able to leverage that as a revenue source and re-invest it into the country instead of what happens now, where all the money we pay goes into fatcats wallets or overseas while the infrastructure is left to decay.

I always cite Norway as a country to aspire to in how they run things, but rich people wouldn't like that as they'd get taxed a lot more. The other country is Canada - They went through an austerity phase to clear up their national debt and have been doing much better since then. We started doing that and then the government changed direction and flushed all our progress down the toilet.

Same here on Norway always said the same but we just swing from the Tories to Labour and repeat the cycle over and over.

[Cyker]

I always marvel at Norway's restraint and foresight, as we both had access to significant oil reserves, but while we couldn't resist flaunting our oil wealth and selling off the rights to private companies for a massive one-off windfall, Norway retained ownership and meted it out slowly, investing the proceeds. I feel they were the ants and we were the grasshopper, if you know the fable!

 

[AndyN01]

14 hours ago, Haliotis said:

Just been watching BBC News.  Starmer reiterates a 22bn black hole caused by the Conservative government, and which was supposedly covered up.  The Conservative reply is that it isn’t true and is being used to justify tax rises that were intended if Labour got into power.   So somebody has to be lying.  Are we to believe, as the doubt suggests, that the country’s finances are so sloppily run that the general public can be told blatant lies which they{the public] are under threat of enforced austeretry based upon a National debt that may, or may not, be true?

So, IMHO, this is the tip of the enormous iceberg which is part of the reason that we have the "society/country/etc." that we do.

If "those in charge" can and do behave like kids on a playground - and not only get away with it but get into positions of huge power (and wealth) then it's no great surprise that joe public follows suit. After all, what's the consequence?

So, IF there is a "cover up" then several (many?) former ministers (and top Civil Servants) should be facing gaol and IF NOT then the those who are claiming this should resign. Surely there must be an accounting system/audit trail that is open to inspection (or even in the public domain)? Maybe one for the National Audit Office to investigate?

Any MP involved in "wrong doing" should stand down and never be allowed to put themselves forward to be an MP again.

Isn't going to happen is it.......

 

[Bper]

26 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

So, IMHO, this is the tip of the enormous iceberg which is part of the reason that we have the "society/country/etc." that we do.

If "those in charge" can and do behave like kids on a playground - and not only get away with it but get into positions of huge power (and wealth) then it's no great surprise that joe public follows suit. After all, what's the consequence?

So, IF there is a "cover up" then several (many?) former ministers (and top Civil Servants) should be facing gaol and IF NOT then the those who are claiming this should resign. Surely there must be an accounting system/audit trail that is open to inspection (or even in the public domain)? Maybe one for the National Audit Office to investigate?

Any MP involved in "wrong doing" should stand down and never be allowed to put themselves forward to be an MP again.

Isn't going to happen is it.......

 

The idea that those in power can act without facing any real consequences is ridiculous. It’s no wonder people lose trust in the system when our leaders seem more interested in playground antics and self serving  than in doing what’s right. When those at the top behave like this and get away with it, it sets a dangerous precedent. If there’s a cover up, then those responsible, whether they’re former ministers or senior civil servants, should face the consequences, including prison time if necessary.Transparency is crucial. There should definitely be an audit trail that’s open to public scrutiny, and organisations like the National Audit Office should be involved in investigating these matters. The public has a right to know the truth, and it’s unacceptable for anyone involved in wrongdoing to continue in their role. MPs who engage in such behaviour should step down and be permanently barred from holding office again.However, as you rightly point out, the chances of this actually happening seem slim. The lack of accountability has been a longstanding issue, and it’s this very culture that allows misconduct to go unchecked. Until there’s a real shift towards holding our leaders accountable and demanding higher standards, we’re likely to see this cycle continue.It’s a sad state of affairs, but change is only going to happen if we, as a society, refuse to accept this kind of behaviour any longer.😠

[Haliotis]

Ministers are only figureheads anyhow.  When a PM shuffles his/her government, ministers get switched to totally different disciplines - making them Jacks-of-all-trades and masters of none.  They do have advisers but how much notice of them do they have to take?  And, if those advisers are that good, why are they not ministers instead?

I often watch PMQ, and am always appalled by the unruly and noisy behaviour of members of the house.  Despite the Speaker calling order and admonishing them, the rowdy behaviour still persists, so much so that I doubt if many of these noisy members even hear what is being said.  And then these rowdies cast their votes for or against a prospective decision, most likely being unaware of all the facts and simply going with their own preconceived ideas of what should or should not be passed.

[Haliotis]

The Conservatives claim that of the 22bn back hole, Labour have created obnoxious of that by pacifying the Union strikers.  Starmer says this was right because it was costing the country money.  Guess what!  This easy settlement will urge the Unions to press for more generous handouts in the future.  The Unions and their members do not care about the rest of the economy - the private sector can carry the burden - what does it matter if they [the private sector] end up being the paupers of UK society?  Prepare for the Unions to run the economy for the minimum of the next 5 years.  And pensioners will return to being the UKs poorest members.

The one bright spot is that today’s Unionists will become future members of the UKs poor - hanged by their own petard!

[Mjolinor]

I have the right idea. Keep the money under the mattress and tell no one. Leave all of them to their own devices and let them play their games. Now I jsut need some money to stick under the mattress.

Take what you can, when you can and do not make any waves.

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Mjolinor said:

I have the right idea. Keep the money under the mattress and tell no one. Leave all of them to their own devices and let them play their games. Now I jsut need some money to stick under the mattress.

Take what you can, when you can and do not make any waves.

Nice idea but you might have trouble stashing digital currency under the mattress when it  comes in. Or anywhere else when i come to think about it.😂

[Bper]

3 hours ago, Haliotis said:

Ministers are only figureheads anyhow.  When a PM shuffles his/her government, ministers get switched to totally different disciplines - making them Jacks-of-all-trades and masters of none.  They do have advisers but how much notice of them do they have to take?  And, if those advisers are that good, why are they not ministers instead?

I often watch PMQ, and am always appalled by the unruly and noisy behaviour of members of the house.  Despite the Speaker calling order and admonishing them, the rowdy behaviour still persists, so much so that I doubt if many of these noisy members even hear what is being said.  And then these rowdies cast their votes for or against a prospective decision, most likely being unaware of all the facts and simply going with their own preconceived ideas of what should or should not be passed.

You’re right that shuffling ministers around often seems like a political strategy rather than a genuine effort to fix things. Civil servants do a lot of the behind the scenes work and pass that information to ministers, who are the ones who make decisions and handle the public side of things. It’s true that ministers spin information to make problems look like someone else’s fault.As for the £20 billion black hole, it’s a complicated issue. This kind of problem often has roots in decisions made over many years. While Labour can be criticised for their handling of it, the Conservatives also have to answer for their part in creating and managing these issues over their time in power. After 14 years in government, any party is going to face criticism, especially when things don’t go well. but the reality is that financial problems and governance issues often build up over time and involve multiple administrations.☹️

[Bper]

British pensioners living in Europe are set to keep the winter fuel allowance this year while millions of the elderly at home are stripped of the payment. As many as 35,000 retirees on the Continent are in line to get the £300 handout even if they exceed the new wealth threshold set by Rachel Reeves.☹️

[Rhymes with Paris]

5 hours ago, Mjolinor said:

I have the right idea. Keep the money under the mattress and tell no one. Leave all of them to their own devices and let them play their games. Now I jsut need some money to stick under the mattress.

Take what you can, when you can and do not make any waves.

I find the new polymer 50s a bit crackly in big stacks under the mattress.

The old paper ones were better, but I had to put them into a bank account before they ceased to be legal tender.

I am not sure where to go for advice on offshore accounts for vast amounts of cash now, my accountant gets out in 2026.

[Mjolinor]

18 minutes ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

I find the new polymer 50s a bit crackly in big stacks under the mattress.

The old paper ones were better, but I had to put them into a bank account before they ceased to be legal tender.

I am not sure where to go for advice on offshore accounts for vast amounts of cash now, my accountant gets out in 2026.

The plastic ones are altogether too slippery for that job. Wake up on the floor most days.

 

[First_Toyota]

Let’s be honest, we all know there isn’t really a £22bn ‘black hole’ in the finances. This is simply political gaming.

Rachel Reeves, as Shadow Chancellor in an election year, was given privileged access to Treasury figures not in the public domain - standard procedure. The issue here is that the Conservatives had plans to spend public money to implement certain things, but once they left office the ‘how’ they were going to fund those things becomes irrelevant. Labour wouldn’t pursue those same policies - which were effectively null and void post election - but use the fact that ‘public spending’ was committed without budget as their ‘black hole.’

It’s disingenuous political gaming, nothing more, nothing less, but it IS what MOST politicians do. Various commentators are suggesting it is revenge for the infamous ‘there’s no money left’ note left by Labour after the 2010 election and they could be right. Civil Servants will probably produce a report that points out these things, but in such a way as it looks like somebody did something wrong without actually saying so. Thus both sides will be able to wave it and say, “…look, see, we told you…”

It’s interesting how everybody seems to have forgotten the scandal - and it is a scandal - of Sue Gray breaking the Civil Service code to join Labour pre-election. I think that’s Starmer’s first big issue, as when the going gets really tough, issues like that have a nasty habit of turning septic…

Ignore the smoke and mirrors. Government is at once very simple and very complex. The simple part is that they have revenue plus National Debt, and they can make spending decisions based on those elements. Labour have chosen - politically - to act as ‘fiscally responsible’ ie claiming during the election campaign that everything was ‘fully costed.’ The problem with that is it wouldn’t actually allow them to implement what they want to, thus they’ve created this ‘black hole’ as a way of soaking the middle classes in order to pay for large wage rises in the Public Sector. That is a choice, just a choice. They’ll also likely use inheritance tax to mobilise redistribution of wealth. There will naturally also be other things, but all in the ‘central dictat’ style Labour ALWAYS employs to a greater or lesser degree when in Government.

The more complex part of Government is the narrative. Labour are hoping that people will accept the constant refrain of ‘don’t blame us’ but I’m not so sure they will. Despite the majority, I feel already this is a single term Government, and that Starmer won’t last the full five years. As the Unions press for more concessions, the Labour left will reassert and there will be an internal battle of wills and doctrine. 

Meanwhile, Starmer will try to hold a party together with a large number of MPs holding very small majorities and having increasingly angry constituents attacking their policies, whether that be the Winter Fuel payment or planning, or immigration, or public sector pay. Once those MPs realise they’re going to lose their seats, they’ll look for a way NOT to lose…as happened with the ‘Red Wall’ and Boris Johnson. 

It’s not a pretty picture, but that’s how I see it I’m afraid.

 

[Bper]

30 minutes ago, First_Toyota said:

Let’s be honest, we all know there isn’t really a £22bn ‘black hole’ in the finances. This is simply political gaming.

Rachel Reeves, as Shadow Chancellor in an election year, was given privileged access to Treasury figures not in the public domain - standard procedure. The issue here is that the Conservatives had plans to spend public money to implement certain things, but once they left office the ‘how’ they were going to fund those things becomes irrelevant. Labour wouldn’t pursue those same policies - which were effectively null and void post election - but use the fact that ‘public spending’ was committed without budget as their ‘black hole.’

It’s disingenuous political gaming, nothing more, nothing less, but it IS what MOST politicians do. Various commentators are suggesting it is revenge for the infamous ‘there’s no money left’ note left by Labour after the 2010 election and they could be right. Civil Servants will probably produce a report that points out these things, but in such a way as it looks like somebody did something wrong without actually saying so. Thus both sides will be able to wave it and say, “…look, see, we told you…”

It’s interesting how everybody seems to have forgotten the scandal - and it is a scandal - of Sue Gray breaking the Civil Service code to join Labour pre-election. I think that’s Starmer’s first big issue, as when the going gets really tough, issues like that have a nasty habit of turning septic…

Ignore the smoke and mirrors. Government is at once very simple and very complex. The simple part is that they have revenue plus National Debt, and they can make spending decisions based on those elements. Labour have chosen - politically - to act as ‘fiscally responsible’ ie claiming during the election campaign that everything was ‘fully costed.’ The problem with that is it wouldn’t actually allow them to implement what they want to, thus they’ve created this ‘black hole’ as a way of soaking the middle classes in order to pay for large wage rises in the Public Sector. That is a choice, just a choice. They’ll also likely use inheritance tax to mobilise redistribution of wealth. There will naturally also be other things, but all in the ‘central dictat’ style Labour ALWAYS employs to a greater or lesser degree when in Government.

The more complex part of Government is the narrative. Labour are hoping that people will accept the constant refrain of ‘don’t blame us’ but I’m not so sure they will. Despite the majority, I feel already this is a single term Government, and that Starmer won’t last the full five years. As the Unions press for more concessions, the Labour left will reassert and there will be an internal battle of wills and doctrine. 

Meanwhile, Starmer will try to hold a party together with a large number of MPs holding very small majorities and having increasingly angry constituents attacking their policies, whether that be the Winter Fuel payment or planning, or immigration, or public sector pay. Once those MPs realise they’re going to lose their seats, they’ll look for a way NOT to lose…as happened with the ‘Red Wall’ and Boris Johnson. 

It’s not a pretty picture, but that’s how I see it I’m afraid.

 

I see what you’re saying about the "£22bn black hole" being more of a political tactic than an actual financial crisis. It’s true that politicians from all sides often use these kinds of strategies to frame the debate in their favour.

I agree that Labour, like any party, is trying to balance looking fiscally responsible with the need to deliver on their promises. It's a tricky act, especially when decisions around things like taxes and public spending directly affect so many people.

Your point about the internal challenges within Labour, and how that might play out, is interesting too. If Starmer can’t keep everyone on the same page, it could definitely lead to some turbulence down the road. Personal I do not think he will last long and can't see Angela Rayner taking over.

In the end, it’s important to keep an eye on what’s really happening, beyond the headlines and political spin. It’s going to be interesting to see how all of this develops.🙂

 

[AndyN01]

Maybe some integrity, openness and honesty from ALL politicians would help.....

Oh, and having manifesto's as a legally binding, fully detailed and costed document.

More flying pigs.....

[Johnold]

Unfortunately I am old enough to remember the Winter of discontent which followed Labours victory in February 74 with a minority 

The first thing labour did was to increase the miners wages by 35%

In October 74 Labour was re-elected and in February 75 again gave a large wage increase to the miners when further industrial action was threatened.

In late 1978, strikes began again as trade unions demanded pay rises which the government was unable to give whilst simultaneously controlling inflation.

Strikes began with Ford workers, and resulted in public sector workers also striking. Binmen, nurses, gravediggers, lorry drivers and train drivers, to name but a few, went on strike over the winter of 1978-9. The mass disruption and freezing conditions of those months earned this period the title of the ‘Winter of Discontent’ and a powerful place in collective memo

Unions trying to wag the government tail?

You can read the full history at

https://www.historyhit.com/when-the-lights-went-out-in-britain-the-story-of-the-three-day-working-week/

I also recall that Gordon Brown raided private pensions

“Gordon Brown, the last Chancellor in a Government with a huge majority, raided pension tax relief in his first budget in 199712. He removed dividend tax credits from pension schemes, which has been called one of the major contributors to the demise of Britain’s gold-plated Defined Benefit schemes1. The decision cost Britain's pension savers at least £100 billion”

History repeating itself ????