The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[DSM10000]

I very very rarely comment on political topics in real life or online, however I can’t help but notice the significant and negative reaction to this new Government from voters (and non-voters) of all political persuasions, including those who voted Labour.

Personally, I can’t recall there having been such a strong and universally negative public reaction, however it might just be that it’s more visible with the widespread use of social media and general anti-Government sentiment being prevalent.

It might also be that the key figures in the new Government appear to have l become used to making bold claims which they would never have to make a reality whilst in opposition, and are now struggling with the concept of making them happen.

A concise and accurate view held by many no doubt.

 

[Tonye]

Would you trust many of them to run a small business

Maybe a brewery

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Ies agree with what you say. Given the fiasco of the Tories I think many wanted and expected more. Labour have come in and proved as equally useless and possibly as venal.

What is possible riling so many is the general lack of competence of our MPs. Unable or unwilling to effect the necessary changes to change the trajectory of the country. They all look second rate. Would you trust many of them to run a small business, let alone a country!?

My hunch is that many of the senior Government positions are now filled by people who have only served as MPs whilst there has been a Conservative Government, without the benefit of serving in more junior positions and building based upon experience. If true, the no wonder they’re struggling, they’re learning under the media spotlight.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

My hunch is that many of the senior Government positions are now filled by people who have only served as MPs whilst there has been a Conservative Government, without the benefit of serving in more junior positions and building based upon experience. If true, the no wonder they’re struggling, they’re learning under the media spotlight.

In fairness the Cabinets of ‘97 and 2010 faced the same issues.

But Labour in ‘97 had been an effective Opposition, and the Tories in 2010, either had people with business experience, or some kind of fancy education AND a grounding in Junior political roles.

But we get what we voted for. Folks voted Reform and Liberal and gave the keys to Number 10 to the Barrister. Let’s enjoy his journey

 

[Gollom]

Ies agree with what you say. Given the fiasco of the Tories I think many wanted and expected more. Labour have come in and proved as equally useless and possibly as venal.

What is possible riling so many is the general lack of competence of our MPs. Unable or unwilling to effect the necessary changes to change the trajectory of the country. They all look second rate. Would you trust many of them to run a small business, let alone a country!?

I think that is part of the point. I understand that not a single member of the current cabinet has ever run a business (or indeed worked in a business?) So how the hell do they dare to say they know what the 'working (wo)man" needs or wants?

 

[st13phil]

With our government already rewarding their public sector chums with substantial pay increases with no strings attached, and the public sector now representing roughly 50% of our economy, this chart sums up the scale of the problem we face:

For me, the big question is how on earth can the public sector register zero growth in productivity over a quarter century when there's been an unprecedented increase in the availability of productivity-enhancing technologies?

 

[MrGreedy]

For me, the big question is how on earth can the public sector register zero growth in productivity over a quarter century when there's been an unprecedented increase in the availability of productivity-enhancing technologies?

One or two poor results is unfortunate.
A multi decade trend can only lead to one conclusion. It's actually on purpose. And I think that's the case here.

It's exactly this sort of analysis that in my view proves that Government and it's spending should be as small as possible. However, we've been so gullible that we've let, er, Government, tell us how much more money, er, the Government needs to be better. Next time. They promise.

But, I hear you say, that's the same plan that they used last time and the seventeen times before that!?
Exactly! And that is what is so brilliant about it! It will catch the sleepy voter totally off guard!

 

[st13phil]

One or two poor results is unfortunate.
A multi decade trend can only lead to one conclusion. It's actually on purpose. And I think that's the case here.

I think it’s on purpose only in the sense that a lack of performance is tolerated - either through incompetence or outright laziness.

Just think: If public sector productivity had grown by the almost 40% that private sector productivity has over the same period, we would have public services that actually delivered, and save a few bob too.

 

[ChrisHGTV]

One or two poor results is unfortunate.
A multi decade trend can only lead to one conclusion. It's actually on purpose. And I think that's the case here.

It's exactly this sort of analysis that in my view proves that Government and it's spending should be as small as possible. However, we've been so gullible that we've let, er, Government, tell us how much more money, er, the Government needs to be better. Next time. They promise.

But, I hear you say, that's the same plan that they used last time and the seventeen times before that!?
Exactly! And that is what is so brilliant about it! It will catch the sleepy voter totally off guard!

From what I can see the Public Sector is an insatiable sponge. IVF on the NHS for instance, to my mind completely wrong.

 

[m80]

View attachment 163169

Bl**dy sex maniac.
Mind, can't say I'm surprised he can't get it outside.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

From what I can see the Public Sector is an insatiable sponge. IVF on the NHS for instance, to my mind completely wrong.

It’s all part of the medicalisation of life. Unfettered over diagnosis and meddling with health while bigger issues go unaddressed.

“You’re eating badly and drinking too much”

“tell you what, let’s throw a lot of tests at you, followed by meds and more tests, and then we’ll do some tweaks.”

Because telling you not to eat five curries a week won’t work. And you won’t want to stop drinking five bottles of wine a week. And no-one has time to exercise three times a week, or even to walk for 30 minutes five days a week

And even in the late teens, one in four Cambridge students is now diagnosed with mental health issues or learning difficulties. Ridiculous? You might very well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.

 

[MSG2004]

Speaker of the House slaps down Reeves and her master.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Dryce]

I think it’s on purpose only in the sense that a lack of performance is tolerated - either through incompetence or outright laziness.

Just think: If public sector productivity had grown by the almost 40% that private sector productivity has over the same period, we would have public services that actually delivered, and save a few bob too.

I think there is a danger in this when the evaluation (or calculation) of 'productivity' may be suspect.

So I'm assuming the measurement of productivity is by the difference in 'output' and 'input'.

The problem with this is that it makes some people who shuffle money about and make money from that shuffling about look very very productive. But those actually doing the work to earn the money that is being shuffled about are seen as relatively less productive.

Add in trying to measure the public sector and you add yet another set of problems dealing with 'output'.

My suspicion is that public sector is not productive - but I'm not so sure that the private sector measurement is entirely tangible - and that our national fetish for financial services and productivity from that sector distorts it. The IT sector is another that is 'productive' but I think a lot of the computing effort and the effort of those programming and operating the computers is not all taht it might be on paper.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Not convinced about the Financial Services complaint.

Yes, it entertains the Tabloids, and the “I could have done that, I just didn’t have the Maths A level brigade.”

At the end of the day, it’s still only 8% of GDP, 2.3 million jobs (in the sector and related professional services), contributing £100 billion pounds in tax.

We taxed manufacturing out of the UK (and EU), but at heart our young people want to work in daft professions like Finance, IT, Video games, Retail, Fashion and Communications, so that’s where we go.

As for measuring productivity of IT, how do you measure the productivity of people when so much of the gain is driven by the IP in genuinely global IT organisations? The wooden dollar transfer values tell you nothing about where value is really added.

 

[markjay]

I think it’s on purpose only in the sense that a lack of performance is tolerated - either through incompetence or outright laziness.

Just think: If public sector productivity had grown by the almost 40% that private sector productivity has over the same period, we would have public services that actually delivered, and save a few bob too.

Many many years ago, someone I knew told me that when he worked in the public sector, he always had a half-empty cup of tea on his desk. Whenever someone came up to him and asked if this or that was ready, he'd point at the cup and say "its been very busy today, I didn't even get a chance to have my tea yet!".

 

[Bellow]

It’s all part of the medicalisation of life. Unfettered over diagnosis and meddling with health while bigger issues go unaddressed.

“You’re eating badly and drinking too much”

“tell you what, let’s throw a lot of tests at you, followed by meds and more tests, and then we’ll do some tweaks.”

Because telling you not to eat five curries a week won’t work. And you won’t want to stop drinking five bottles of wine a week. And no-one has time to exercise three times a week, or even to walk for 30 minutes five days a week

How many of those who will fall into the system as outlined because of self inflicted poor health and will cost the NHS considerable sums for a considerable period are the ones lambasting those who didn't quite save enough for retirement but are healthy and will overall be a much lower financial burden to the state then the unhealthy 'savers'?

 

[NOMONEYBUTAMERC]

Still trying to work out how the hell we landed up with a chancellor that had a credit card taken off her 9 years ago because she couldn’t account for £4,000 of unauthorised purchases, and claimed £1200 expenses for help in compiling her tax return ( something that you and I can’t claim for). And to quote her yesterday “I have never been more excited about the future than I am today “. Should be bloody certified.

 

[Dryce]

I see it is being reported by several sources that the Sir Starmer is now defining working people on the basis 'they know exactly who they are'.

So I'm wondering of this he is now actually saying that people can self identify as a working person - maybe they get some pronoun combination to help with that - or perhaps it's a secret cabal of working people who know each other but nobody knows them or what they do - perhaps a secret handshake or something.

 

[markjay]

From the Daily Mail:

"Critics have dismissed claims from ministers that ordinary 'working people' will not see the impact in payslips, because most of the pain will be initially targeted at businesses"

So Labour ministers claim that businesses will see an increase in tax burden... but this won't affect their employees. How does this work, then?

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

How many of those who will fall into the system as outlined because of self inflicted poor health and will cost the NHS considerable sums for a considerable period are the ones lambasting those who didn't quite save enough for retirement but are healthy and will overall be a much lower financial burden to the state then the unhealthy 'savers'?

I can’t see the correlation. Do explain.

I described over-medicalisation. The people jumping into the NHS for depression, food intolerance, completely unnecessary prostate interventions etc etc

Are hardworking people who haven’t saved enough for retirement all chiselled whippets from a lifetime of hard work and modest appetites? Seems unlikely.

The essence of the NHS is that its free stuff for those who rock up. Double the budget and medics will find a way to spend it.