Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
The USA also has local govt and state law which we do not have, I am sure the number of politicians is not that different per 100,000 to here.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?
- Thread starter Flounce
- Start date
Well loads of yanks hate 'big government', simply government and taxes, it's in their DNA. They're not going to bankroll layers and layers of highly paid politicians do little for a low capita population in terms of a state.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Government finances in surplus but miss forecasts
"However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which monitors the government's spending plans and performance, had predicted that the surplus would be higher at £20.5bn.
The smaller figure has added to growing speculation that Reeves will either have to cut public spending or raise taxes further to meet her self-imposed rules for the economy."
"However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which monitors the government's spending plans and performance, had predicted that the surplus would be higher at £20.5bn.
The smaller figure has added to growing speculation that Reeves will either have to cut public spending or raise taxes further to meet her self-imposed rules for the economy."
UK hiring on the rise as confidence lifts, research suggests
Companies increase hiring for first time since June, and households more optimistic about their finances
www.theguardian.com
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Regarding the old gnashers:
"Government pledges to get NHS dentistry back on its feet will mean just two extra slots a month for each dentist, experts have said.
Ministers have started the rollout of 700,000 extra urgent appointments pledged in the Labour manifesto, seven months after being elected.
It comes just a week after Sir Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, said the previous Government’s dental recovery plan had “clearly failed” to create more appointments.
Meanwhile, data published last week showed as many as six in 10 children in some areas have rotting teeth by the age of five, with clear differences between poorer regions of England and the more affluent.
The British Dental Association (BDA) claims the extra appointments would translate into each of the 24,200 dentists recorded as carrying out NHS services last year seeing the equivalent of a little over two extra urgent cases a month"
"Government pledges to get NHS dentistry back on its feet will mean just two extra slots a month for each dentist, experts have said.
Ministers have started the rollout of 700,000 extra urgent appointments pledged in the Labour manifesto, seven months after being elected.
It comes just a week after Sir Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, said the previous Government’s dental recovery plan had “clearly failed” to create more appointments.
Meanwhile, data published last week showed as many as six in 10 children in some areas have rotting teeth by the age of five, with clear differences between poorer regions of England and the more affluent.
The British Dental Association (BDA) claims the extra appointments would translate into each of the 24,200 dentists recorded as carrying out NHS services last year seeing the equivalent of a little over two extra urgent cases a month"
Presumably to get more money to flow towards the NHS dentists to increase the number and the appointments it would involve higher tax levels. Something I think you're not keen on?
I think the ‘Gnasher bird ‘ has flown and I really cannot see NHS dentistry making a marked comeback.
Thatcher was saved by the Falklands and Reeves will be saved by Trump.
The gov are going to (rightly) have to find £ hundreds of billions to re arm the nation and this will give Reeves the excuse she needs to make more cuts, raise taxes and break her own self imposed rules. She will have no choice and I think most people will understand this, but it will also let her off the hook for the economic ineptitude she has so far displayed.
mejonaNO12 aka riskit
Well-known member
"The surplus - the difference between what the government spends and the tax it takes in - was £15.4bn in January, the highest level for the month since records began more than three decades ago."
Boooooooo
There's a huge surplus every January because of all the income tax which has to be paid in the month. This year it was huge but, interestingly, not as huge as was forecast.
But biglier than other Januaries?
SweatyMexican
Well-known member
- Mar 31, 2013
- 4,205
You can’t walk multiple decades into the woods expecting to turn around in one term.
The best we can hope for is to stem the bleeding… and to still be here in 5 years.
The best we can hope for is to stem the bleeding… and to still be here in 5 years.
I hear the waspi women are at it again.
On Nicky Campbell now....
Apparently they were never told about an announcement made by john Major in 95
And never had a chance to change their life plans.
Apparently it is undemocratic to disregard the recommendations of a parliamentary ombudsman...
"Not fair on women who did not have a private pensions"
Er......?
"We thought we knew our retirement age. We thought it was 60"
Er......?
"I paid my money and expected I would be taken care of"
"We were promised....."
"We were told that everything would be better once we'd left the EU".
(She didn't say that but.....)
Unfortunately Rachel Reeves (when in opposition) apparently promised to give the waspi women what they wanted.
Then changed her mind when she saw the state of the nation's finances.
Oh dear.
I find it hard to admire a Home Secretary who was wrong and became right for the wrong reasons after being elected.
Hang on...."How would Rachel from accounts get on if she went 6 years without a salary?"
Oh, OK. That's what it's about. Labour-hate.
On you trot, then
On Nicky Campbell now....
Apparently they were never told about an announcement made by john Major in 95
And never had a chance to change their life plans.
Apparently it is undemocratic to disregard the recommendations of a parliamentary ombudsman...
"Not fair on women who did not have a private pensions"
Er......?
"We thought we knew our retirement age. We thought it was 60"
Er......?
"I paid my money and expected I would be taken care of"
"We were promised....."
"We were told that everything would be better once we'd left the EU".
(She didn't say that but.....)
Unfortunately Rachel Reeves (when in opposition) apparently promised to give the waspi women what they wanted.
Then changed her mind when she saw the state of the nation's finances.
Oh dear.
I find it hard to admire a Home Secretary who was wrong and became right for the wrong reasons after being elected.
Hang on...."How would Rachel from accounts get on if she went 6 years without a salary?"
Oh, OK. That's what it's about. Labour-hate.
On you trot, then
Last edited:
Britain’s net zero economy is booming, CBI says
Green sector growing at triple the rate of the UK economy, providing high-wage jobs and increasing energy security
www.theguardian.com
Ah, that renowned bunch of Woke Guardian-reading Lefties, the Confederation of British Industry!
Silverhatch
Well-known member
Many voted for a government not populated by ideological ****s
In short, yes she has. Having made her stated primary objective as growth, she has down absolutely nothing to promote growth but everything to stifle it. She started by talking down the economy immediately after the election to the extent that it measurable damaged business and consumer confidence and halted the fragile growth that she inherited. As you well know, her budget has been labelled as an anti growth budget by almost everyone, even some Labour MPs. One would of course expect this from opposition parties but not from every part of the business world (from SMEs to PLCs) and ( right and left) media, whilst she has, incredibly, even managed to unite economists on this. As one, I can tell you this is a remarkable achievement! Even her 'big growth projects' such as Heathrow will either never get off the ground or if they do, not for decades. The housebuilding plan (which I support in principal) is equally inept because there are simply not the skill resources to deliver it (let alone the money) and the planned changes to employment law will hit honest businesses further at at time when most are really struggling (thanks to the ineptitude of the last gov).
Putting everything together, there is a wide consensus that her (and her government's - not all her fault) actions thus far will increase inflation, slow down the expected fall in interest rates and reduce growth. Yes, inept is a good description of Rachael Reeves as a Chancellor. She also shows no sign of changing course.
I am not coming at this from a party political perspective, merely an economic one. I have been equally critical of Starmer but I will also say he is showing superb world leadership at the moment. Credit where it due, criticism the same.
Disappointingly, there is no such work as 'ept' (though it does stand for excess profit tax). With one other obvious exception, I don't think any past chancellors truly deserve to be called inept; I have disagreed with all of them plenty of times but I think they were all competent economists . But yes, I think Brown stands out in recent times and I wonder if Jeremy Hunt had been given the job a decade ago, whether he might have delivered a very different economic outlook (though probably not given the leaders at the time)
I take note of your assessments. Balanced and insightful.
I won't 'but whatabout' with respect to Reeves. I have seen strong posts criticising her, and others suggesting it is a bit early to decide....
I am aware of the rebukes over the 'change' in policy over the offer in opposition to inquire over the womens' pensions age change rollout,
and the fact she apparently exaggerated the number of years she was employed as an economist (only 6.5 not 10?)...
and while the latter (not so much the former) cause me to raise an eyebrow....that's it.
I am insufficiently expert to know what a growth budget and an anti-growth budget look like.
I remember that Truss was 'for' growth and tanked the economy, so I guess that there is some nuance,
as there is with 'performance-enhancing' drugs. To take or not to take?
But you are the economist, not me.
So all I can really say for certain is that I don't like the way she speaks. Her voice is annoying.
Probably not the best measure of fiscal eptitude, if you'll forgive another neologism
