Thread 36 Starmer - Triggered by ads and Da iawn, Caerffili.

[DuncinToffee]

Pull up a chair for some friendly chit chat about politics, cats, dogs and much more

Taxes optional but greatly appreciated.

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5427394-thread-35-starmer-old-and-smelling-of-roses?page=40&reply=148165782

B r exiteers are extremely touchy when it comes to reminding them that this is exactly what they voted for.

Is it me or has MNHQ changed the shape of posts? They seem to have slightly rounded corners now, I am sure they used to be more square?

My previously expressed opinion of the prick still stands.

Of course what he fails to understand is that working people on the bones of their arse are probably on benefits of some kind anyway. Maybe he should have kept the council tax down like he promised. I bet that’s costing those people a lot more than £10. Having said that I wouldn’t object to it being abolished.

The £10 'bonus' was never scrapped in 14 years of a Tory led government.

He’s not old enough to know that. This kind of idiocy is what happens when you put children in charge of £ multi million organisations. Isn’t he the one who wanted to spend council tax payers’ money on political advisors or was that another one?

My post still stands ?

That was Master Finch

Reform councillors criticised after voting to spend £150,000 on political advisers | Reform UK | The Guardian https://share.google/ZEXuBzneSZiygqDZs

And, yes, band A council tax here in Durham will be going up around £10 per month. The council has also proposed cutting its council tax reduction scheme for those on low incomes. Champions of the working poor they are not.

Was that the guy who wrote to the government asking them to change the rules just for them ?

Yes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgzkyk7knzo

I concur.

Gilt yields down, Ftse up...

Some might disagree with that assessment.

Reeves doesn't act alone, if you think Reeves is terrible, then so is Starmer et al, which i don't believe they are.

Hunt left them with a £11bn per year cost with his NI cuts.

I wish people would look at the wider economic picture, not least our debt, built up under the Tories and down grading of previous levels of productivity, again under the Cons.

I would also add that the LibDems contributed to the austerity measures introduced by the fragrant and often happy Osborne.

Or they watered them down from what the Tories would have done unchecked.

Given history (before and since) I know which version I'd go with.

Ministerial propriety means we can't know.

I mean, they probably could have been more subtle but does anyone seriously think he wasn’t inciting a riot?
Falls into the same category as it having been judged not libel to suggest Fox is a racist because it can’t damage his reputation…

They held the balance of power though. If they didn’t vote for it, it wouldn’t happen. I can’t see a way they couldn’t have done more and I find it very hard to forgive.

I thought we'd been here before ?

The LibDems did not "hold the balance of power". Because if they had even tried the Tory party would have exploded.

The split was 306/57 - so the LDs were 1/6th, not 1/2 the coalition. Very much the tail to the dog.

Also, to help with a stable government they agreed the coalition in writing so the world could rely on the UK. They could have offered a S&D arrangement, and we know how strong and stable that proved for Theresa May.

Anyway it seems we have moved on from then (I am guessing the childeren have grown up) and the LibDems are encroaching on former Tory sacred round, so revenge is definitely best served cold for them.

Really it's all an argument over how to split a bill. And as MN shows, that is far from a settled science.

Yes . When I read this it pleased me more than anything.

I hope people change their minds but I doubt he’ll be given the credit he’s due.

I think we may have. I still don’t accept it. They didn’t need to be half the coalition. They just needed to vote against shit policies. If that meant doing a confidence and supply agreement instead of going into full coalition, that’s what they should have done.

A stable government wasn't needed though and that's the lie.
A stable government could have been made with Gordon Brown but Nick Clegg clearly had $ signs in front of his eyes and feathered his nest.

Should they have opted for the 'coalition of losers' - yes of course they should have. I'd have chosen Brown over Cameron/Osborne any day of the week. But we dont actually know how that would have panned out. Brown may well have had to resign as a starting point. I dont think we can declare it would have automatically been a success.

Once in Cabinet they had 5 seats to the Conservatives 18.

And then we have to acknowledge that the public tastes often run puritanical when given a push by the Toffs. And Osborne managed that quite skillfully. Vibes not facts. Exactly the same emotions Farage and Badenoch are trying to tap in to now.

I still have an axe to grind with Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM so we all have our grievances.

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/bbc-right-capitol-riots-sane-world-trump-jail-4020343

Even if it had been bad for the UK (which it would have) ?