5 years hard labour ?

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

In this parliament the Liberals got record seats - I think it is 32.  The Conservatives suffered huge losses of seats and the Country has shown them how bad they think they are.

Now, if Labour make a hash of this parliament - and the rumblings are already noticeable - I wonder which party will get elected next time?  I don’t believe in abstaining from voting, but I found it very difficult to decide in this election - the next one will, I think, be even harder to decide.

Perhaps Reform are the way forward,what do they say,“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." How many times do we have to vote for either A or B and realise that it doesn't work. You have to give change a chance or you will never know if it would have worked.👍

 

[First_Toyota]

33 minutes ago, Bper said:

Perhaps Reform are the way forward,what do they say,“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." How many times do we have to vote for either A or B and realise that it doesn't work. You have to give change a chance or you will never know if it would have worked.👍

 

At this point I’d say the most rational decision would be to vote for Count Binface…sensible policies for a modern Britain! I mean, who doesn’t want to bring back Ceefax?

 

[Haliotis]

1 hour ago, Bper said:

Perhaps Reform are the way forward,what do they say,“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." How many times do we have to vote for either A or B and realise that it doesn't work. You have to give change a chance or you will never know if it would have worked.👍

 

Bob, I did consider voting for the Reform party.  Our Conservative MP actually knocked on my door, and we had quite a cordial chat.  I told him that I normally vote Conservative, but this latest government (the recently ousted Conservatives), was the worst one I had ever witnessed.  He said he appreciated my views, but that voting Reform increased the strength of Labour, which he honestly said he believed would win.  He held his seat by a much reduced minority, and I’m glad that he did because he  does work hard for his constituents.

[Cyker]

I wonder if political parties should just be abolished. So many times MPs are forced to vote against what they believe in by the party whip.

I've always been of the opinion that in whatever it is, parties, groups, businesses, it's the person that matters, not the company.

If we voted for *people* instead of parties, how different might things be?

 

[Bper]

15 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Bob, I did consider voting for the Reform party.  Our Conservative MP actually knocked on my door, and we had quite a cordial chat.  I told him that I normally vote Conservative, but this latest government (the recently ousted Conservatives), was the worst one I had ever witnessed.  He said he appreciated my views, but that voting Reform increased the strength of Labour, which he honestly said he believed would win.  He held his seat by a much reduced minority, and I’m glad that he did because he  does work hard for his constituents.

When a party stays in power for a long time, it often faces the risk of becoming complacent or out of touch. We've seen this happen in British politics before. For example, after the Conservatives were in power from 1979 to 1997, they were seen by many as having lost their way, which helped Labour win big in 1997. The same thing happened with Labour after their long run from 1997 to 2010, leading to the Conservatives taking over.For MPs, this can be particularly challenging. They're often stuck between their personal beliefs and the need to support their party’s policies, even when they don’t agree with them. This tension can be difficult to manage. We've seen examples of this, like when some Labour MPs were uncomfortable with Tony Blair’s decision to support the Iraq War but felt pressured to go along with it.In the UK, party discipline is strong, so MPs usually have to vote with their party. But there are times when MPs rebel because they feel they have to stand by their convictions, even if it causes political fallout.🙂

[Bper]

12 minutes ago, Cyker said:

I wonder if political parties should just be abolished. So many times MPs are forced to vote against what they believe in by the party whip.

I've always been of the opinion that in whatever it is, parties, groups, businesses, it's the person that matters, not the company.

If we voted for *people* instead of parties, how different might things be?

 

I agree,there are many individuals who have more business accument and empathy along with IMO the most important thing common sense that could get this country running the way It should be.👍

[Haliotis]

16 hours ago, Cyker said:

I wonder if political parties should just be abolished. So many times MPs are forced to vote against what they believe in by the party whip.

I've always been of the opinion that in whatever it is, parties, groups, businesses, it's the person that matters, not the company.

If we voted for *people* instead of parties, how different might things be?

 

What would you put in its place if political parties were abolished?  Voting time flyers, regardless of party, all centre on the individuals vying for a particular constituency.  And the voting slips we have to mark at the polling station all carry the names of the candidates.

So we do vote for individuals.  But, collectively, they have to  relate to intended principles (hence the manifestos), and ultimately they end up in agreement as a group (Party).

In the House of Commons there are 600+ seats - if everyone voted individually there could be 600+ different points of view.  This means that MPs have to be broken down into groups, under a leader.  One thing that it may be good sense to abandon is the party whips. This would give MPs more freedom in the voting lobbies to vote against their party leader if they felt that a proposed piece of legislation was morally wrong.

[AndyN01]

53 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

........In the House of Commons there are 600+ seats - if everyone voted individually there could be 600+ different points of view......

So, there would have to be discussion and maybe, just maybe, the MP's would have to think about what principles they put forward to the folks that voted for them and go with what their constituents expect them to do rather than what "The Party" expects them to do. They might even find a way to ask their constituents - some form of mini referendum?

Perhaps "we" could vote for the PM at the same time as voting for our local MP? A straight first past the post for the entire country gives us our leader.

It'll never happen. Too much power at stake.

 

[Cyker]

That's along the lines I'm thinking; What we have currently is not a democracy, it's a choose-your-own-dictator - Party gets a majority of seats from a minority of voters (I don't think any party has gotten in with more than 30% of the entire country's vote, admittedly because so many people don't vote, but it still irks me the party in power always claims they have the mandate of the people when in reality it's only a small fraction), and once in they do whatever the heck they like regardless of promises they've made with no comeback or consequence.

Dissension is quashed and bills rammed through by hell or highwater. We've gotten to the point where the House of Lords of all places has been the moderating influence from unpopular bills being forced through, and in return they've been threatened with dissolution if they didn't allow them to pass!

This is not how a democracy is supposed to work.

When I was writing to my MP about all the ULEZ expansions, because they are Labour, they'd just brush it off rather than address any of my concerns. I feel if they were more independent there would have been more engagement.

 

[Haliotis]

3 hours ago, AndyN01 said:

So, there would have to be discussion and maybe, just maybe, the MP's would have to think about what principles they put forward to the folks that voted for them and go with what their constituents expect them to do rather than what "The Party" expects them to do. They might even find a way to ask their constituents - some form of mini referendum?

Perhaps "we" could vote for the PM at the same time as voting for our local MP? A straight first past the post for the entire country gives us our leader.

It'll never happen. Too much power at stake.

 

Getting new legislation into law is protracted enough already.  Some of what you suggest has merit, Andy.  Perhaps abolishing the House of Lords might help.

[Cyker]

No! New legislation SHOULD take a long time to be passed - So much bad legislation has been 'fast-tracked' in, bypassing normal checks and balances - That's part of the argument I'm making for why maybe Parties should be dissolved, because they abuse their majority to force things through any dissent.

This is a tangent, but it is that sort of thing that allowed the Post Office scandal happen in the first place - All those convictions were fast-tracked using special governmental loopholes that the Post Office, as a government entity, has access to, bypassing all the checks and balances that would have prevented such a disgusting miscarriage of justice, all because the people in charge wanted it all done quickly because they couldn't be bothered and didn't care.

[Bper]

7 hours ago, Haliotis said:

What would you put in its place if political parties were abolished?  Voting time flyers, regardless of party, all centre on the individuals vying for a particular constituency.  And the voting slips we have to mark at the polling station all carry the names of the candidates.

So we do vote for individuals.  But, collectively, they have to  relate to intended principles (hence the manifestos), and ultimately they end up in agreement as a group (Party).

In the House of Commons there are 600+ seats - if everyone voted individually there could be 600+ different points of view.  This means that MPs have to be broken down into groups, under a leader.  One thing that it may be good sense to abandon is the party whips. This would give MPs more freedom in the voting lobbies to vote against their party leader if they felt that a proposed piece of legislation was morally wrong.

A lot of people wonder if the usual politicians are really the right leaders. What if we could pick leaders who are sensible, understanding, and down-to-earth? Sensible leaders make decisions based on what really works in the long run, not just short-term gains or party lines. For example, they’d handle economic policies in a balanced way, avoiding extreme measures.Understanding leaders genuinely care about people's struggles and needs, rather than just sticking to their party’s agenda. They’d push for fair policies that help everyone, like better healthcare.Leaders with common sense make practical decisions that actually work in real life, cutting through red tape and focusing on what matters.To find these kinds of leaders, we should look for practical wisdom and empathy during evaluations. Public debates and interviews can show how candidates handle real issues. We need more transparency and detailed plans from candidates. Getting input from ordinary people can ensure leaders stay true to these values. Educating voters about these qualities is key, and changing our voting system to better reflect these traits could help too.By following these steps, we can elect leaders who are truly sensible, empathetic, and practical, leading to better, more effective governance. It's got to be better then what we have.🙂

[AndyN01]

It's just finding some leaders rather than what we have at the moment.....

[Big_D]

Wouldn’t it be interesting if the Minister of Education was a Teacher, or if the Minister of Health was a Doctor, and so on. 
at least they would then have an idea of what the real world is like

 

[Bper]

The economy could have crashed had the government not found savings by cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners. Lucy Powell, Leader of the House of Commons, said that the loss of the benefit, which will now be means-tested, was necessary because of a £22 bn black hole left behind by the Conservatives.So what's next? If we don't remove the state pension,It will affect climate change? And these people are running the country.🤬

[Mjolinor]

They would easily bet most of it back if they took a 50% wage cut and they got shut of all the ministers. Minister for everything nowadays and they are not necessary, the increased wages are huge for a minister. I do wonder what percentage of MPs have ever actually worked in a real job.

[Haliotis]

3 hours ago, Bper said:

The economy could have crashed had the government not found savings by cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners. Lucy Powell, Leader of the House of Commons, said that the loss of the benefit, which will now be means-tested, was necessary because of a £22 bn black hole left behind by the Conservatives.So what's next? If we don't remove the state pension,It will affect climate change? And these people are running the country.🤬

I understand that, of this 22bn black hole, 9 Bn of it was caused by Labour shelling out to the public sector to satisfy wage demands and prevent more strikes.  Starmer said it was essential because the strikes were damaging the economy.   Opened the door for future demands and “or else” threat of strikes, hasn’t it?

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

I understand that, of this 22bn black hole, 9 Bn of it was caused by Labour shelling out to the public sector to satisfy wage demands and prevent more strikes.  Starmer said it was essential because the strikes were damaging the economy.   Opened the door for future demands and “or else” threat of strikes, hasn’t it?

Agreeing to these wage demands might have been necessary to avoid the economic damage caused by strikes, but it has opened the door to future strikes and further wage demands.The risk now is that public sector workers may feel empowered to push harder, knowing that strikes can lead to concessions. This could create a cycle where the government is repeatedly forced into a corner, having to find more money to satisfy demands, even when the budget is already stretched. It’s understandable to worry that this approach could make it harder to say no in the future. The worrying issue is where is the money going to come from.

Labours October budget may well shock the country with the levels of likely increased taxation.Keir Starmers short period as prime minister has already led to problems within his own party.The scapping of the winter fuel payment being one of the key ones.☹️

[Cyker]

I can't begrudge them the pay rise as public sector pay has been mostly frozen (Except for MPs of course...) for many years now, that's why we've been seeing an increase in public sector strikes.

 

[Haliotis]

14 hours ago, Cyker said:

I can't begrudge them the pay rise as public sector pay has been mostly frozen (Except for MPs of course...) for many years now, that's why we've been seeing an increase in public sector strikes.

 

The public sector pay rises may arguably be morally right, but the ease with which they were achieved could encourage future demands beyond what is reasonable.  The Labour Party was born out of action by the Unions and, at the time, it was a justifiable situation.

But, in subsequent years, the Unions have behaved in a greedy and selfish manner - certainly giving the appearance that they own the Labour Party, and that their public sector membership have priority in sharing out any surpluses from the economy.   It is incumbent on Starmer and his Party to ensure beyond all doubt that the whole of the UK population receive equal consideration - whether members of the Trades Unions or not.

[AndyN01]

17 hours ago, Bper said:

.......The worrying issue is where is the money going to come from.

Labours October budget may well shock the country with the levels of likely increased taxation.

Is this a classic example of choices leading to consequences? But, I'll bet, not for those at the top of the greasy pole making the decisions. 😉

[Bper]

15 hours ago, Cyker said:

I can't begrudge them the pay rise as public sector pay has been mostly frozen (Except for MPs of course...) for many years now, that's why we've been seeing an increase in public sector strikes.

 

Pay rises for public sector workers may have been overdue and it does help to boost morale, but there are potential long-term economic downsides that should be considered .One risk is inflation. When a large group of workers gets a pay increase, they tend to spend more, which can push up prices. This can create a cycle where wages and prices rise together, leading to broader inflation.These pay rises also strain the government’s budget. To cover the costs, the government might need to cut spending elsewhere, raise taxes, or borrow more. Borrowing adds to national debt, which eventually has to be paid off, potentially limiting future spending or forcing tax hikes, which could slow down the economy.

The private sector might feel the effects too. If the government borrows heavily, interest rates could rise, making it more expensive for businesses to borrow and invest, which could hinder growth.Public perception is another concern. If public sector wages rise much faster than those in the private sector, it might seem unfair. Plus, if the pay increases don’t lead to better services, taxpayers feel they’re not getting good value for money.The funds for these pay rises are likely coming from current taxes, potential tax increases, and government borrowing. In some cases, other budget areas might be cut or delayed to free up money. While this approach might work now, it could cause problems later, like higher taxes or more debt.In short, while these pay increases are necessary, they need careful management to avoid long term economic issues like inflation, increased debt, and slower growth.🙂

[AndyN01]

I know it's really old fashioned but.....

I was always brought up to understand that the only things you can have are those you can pay for.

I completely accept that "big" purchases, such as, say, a house cannot be funded as a single payment from normal earnings/savings but surely, day to day purchases should be paid for from day to day income?

It'd a piece of cake to take out a mortgage on a phenomenal mega £££'s property secure in the knowledge that "you" might not be responsible for funding the payments in 5 years time.

[Bper]

26 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

I know it's really old fashioned but.....

I was always brought up to understand that the only things you can have are those you can pay for.

I completely accept that "big" purchases, such as, say, a house cannot be funded as a single payment from normal earnings/savings but surely, day to day purchases should be paid for from day to day income?

It'd a piece of cake to take out a mortgage on a phenomenal mega £££'s property secure in the knowledge that "you" might not be responsible for funding the payments in 5 years time.

Like many of our generation we were brought up with the same values.The idea of only buying what you can afford upfront is something a lot of us were brought up with, and it makes a lot of sense, especially for day to day purchases. Living within your means and avoiding unnecessary debt is a good way to stay financially secure.But today, things can be a bit more complicated. While it’s definitely ideal to pay for most things from your regular income, some big purchases like a house are almost impossible to make without some form of financing. A mortgage, for example, isn’t just about taking on debt; it’s a way to invest in a home and gradually pay it off over time, rather than waiting forever to save up the full amount. Of course, it’s crucial to make sure the debt is manageable and that future payments won’t be a burden.The real trick is knowing when taking on debt makes sense like for something that can grow in value over time and when it’s better to stick to paying for things outright.

Financial discipline isn’t about avoiding debt completely; it’s about knowing when debt can help you and when it can hurt you.😀

[Haliotis]

A lot of young, and not so young, people want everything NOW, and are loath to wait patiently if that can be avoided.  Many working people in Union membership are in this “will not wait” group - some possibly influential shop stewards -  are ready to stir up and organise strike action to force employers (particularly in the public sector) into giving pay rises which may often be in excess of reasonable.

The public sector employees form a very large percentage of the UK workforce, so exorbitant pay rises, which are financed by the taxpayer, can result in private sector employees being artificially held back in the pay scales, because their bosses have the conflict of enforced price rises causing loss of business, so they have to resist anything but minimal rises, and even give zero increases if they can get away with that.