Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The cost of living in London is rather higher than Burnley.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Yes, supply and demand.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

For Pay levels, yes indeed.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

NIMBYs strike again: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ves-sadiq-khan

Just push it though. London is a city of 9 million people and Heathrow is a key connecting airport between the Americans and Eurasia. It's absurd it was two runways. It's the busiest airport in Europe (or was, haven't checked recently) and yet it has two fewer runways than Charles de Gaulle's four.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

There should have been a real crackdown the last time Labour were in government.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

But not in the last 14 years?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Fraud was rife during Labour last government and it was political points scoring not to go after it.

The condoms were the bigger person in all affairs. There was no need to.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Any links verifying that benefit fraud was higher under Labour than the Tories?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I wasn't comparing. I was just pointing out fraud was high when the last labour government was in power. I don't have links.

I found this funny...

his human being couldn't :confused:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

To be fair you could do it, it's just not really AI. I would be surprised if they're not already doing it.

It would be similar to how banks look for fraud. You look for suspicious patterns. It just depends on what they're scanning.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

How does banning them from driving help prevent benefit fraud ?

They would likely ignore the ban anyway, but I still dont quite see the point.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Saudi Arabia in disguise :LOL:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

So you don’t have any proof of it, but you know it’s true?

Have I got that right? :confused:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I can't find any links that far back. They did lose the plot with public finances. It was being exploited at every opportunity.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Again, any links for that? Or just your recollection?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

If I remember correctly that is all.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

In 2010, when labour were ousted, it was estimated to be £1 Billion, last year it was estimated to be £7.4 Billion.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

7.4 billion that's a lot of fraud and half of it was under the Tory's

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

All relative. The cost of covid fraud was more than that (£10.5 billion), most of it to Bozzas pals.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Common...20commissioner

Or the £23 billion of benefits unclaimed. https://policyinpractice.co.uk/missi...med-each-year/
What proactive action are the Govt taking about that?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I was just pointing out that labour are only responsible for £3.7 billion of last years fraud, why so defensive you should be happy

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Not defensive, just agreeing with you, nice isn't it :)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The fraud isn’t the issue. It’s just the amount of people on benefits.

It’s bad enough, without letting in all the cultural enrichment individuals………
that go straight onto benefits …………..

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

You wish fraud wasn't an issue but unfortunately it is.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It is….

But it’s irrelevant when you’re inviting hundreds of thousands to come in and take benefits.

That have contributed nothing. They’re a net loss immediately

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It's what you get from an ageing population. Too expensive to have kids. Those with young with any talent or sense, emigrate from this decaying backwater.I blame everything that has happened since 2016. No point in blaming politicians its what some of us voted for.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It was the last Fiscal Year - April 2023 to March 2024…

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...it-expenditure (published 16th May 2024)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

An aging population that, in the main, have paid into the system. So at least have funded U.K. Plc.

Depends what model you’re looking at. You can either have two working parents, in which it’s generally doable…..or you can have no working parents, in which its doable, because the two working parents as well paying for their kids, pay for these ones too.

And as well as paying for the indigenous population that don’t contribute to the economy, what seemed like a good idea was import a load of Middle Eastern/sub-continent/ North African immigrants that will also contribute nothing to the economy.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The problem is they paid for the generation above them. An 'ageing population', i.e a population where the retired population is higher relative to the working population than previous generations, is a bigger cost to the state.

The ideal for the government is for immigrants who come in to work, are already fully educated, and then return home before they retire.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

and how many of them do that ?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Quite a few from the EU do: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u...d-from-the-uk/

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I specifically omitted EU/ western migration, I said:

You could also throw Albanians into that mix too.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Sainsbury's to cut over 3,000 jobs as budget tax hikes loom

The supermarket said the move was a bid to save money ahead of a £140m leap in costs from budget tax measures, due to come into force within weeks.

so this is what growth looks like


https://news.sky.com/story/sainsbury...-loom-13294853

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The lady from accountants said this wouldn't happen and is optimistic about the economy, so that OK then. Clearly business leaders don't understand how to run a business. :shocked:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

In the meantime ...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1we3re197po

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

That’s because all the millionaires are leaving, and it’s the millionaires that pay most of the taxes in the U.K.

And Rachel has realised that 45% of £1million is £450,000. Whereas 45% of nothing is nothing.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Rumours that santander is thinking of pulling out of UK see sky news

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

That's different really. It's always been hard to make money from retail banking in the UK because there isn't a culture of paying for your current account as there is in some other countries. UK regulation post-2008 crash required consumer money to be protected from the investment part of a bank's business as well which is what they're unhappy about.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

You ignore totally the devastating impact of Covid and the Ukraine war. What would have been done differently under Labour? Longer lockdowns for a start, which would have been even more expensive.

However, I agree that Sunak was a disappointing Prime Minister. It seemed as if he’d given up, which is certainly not what I expected from him.

As for Truss, whatever your view on her short record, even you must be realising that the Starmer/Reeves team is doing far more damage to the economy than was the case after her mini-budget (and I won’t go into the real cause of that as the argument has already been aired many a time).

By the end of the next 4.5 years, the UK will be in a sorry state indeed.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It already is in a sorry state OB, as a result of everything that has happened since 2010. Blaming the new incoming Govt that has only had a few months is silly, even for you.

An ageing population, Brexit, young that have no hope of housing or a decent life is the problem. The electorate have to take some of the blame for the way things have gone.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Er, and did you not notice that increasing the NI contributions for employers would also impact on public services (which also employ a shedload of people); and create difficulties for the private sector which would then have to cut investment and, of course, jobs? Did you notice that Reeves was now having to row back on their stupid non-Doms legislation? Then there’s the farmers…

I won’t go on, but I see you are saying nothing about Starmer’s pillow woman’s negative impact on the economy. That’s on them, and on them alone.

As for 2010 - do you actually remember why austerity was needed in the first place? Our expenditure had been far exceeding our income under Labour, which of course is nothing new.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The 14 yrs of the Tories had a coalition term, COVID, Brexit and the Ukraine war to screw them and it was 14 yrs.

Labour have had none of that, and have screwed it even worse in 6 months……….

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

What about them, how the former government screwed them with awful trade deals and bungled the payment transition system

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Oh, the whataboutery argument is now deployed - things must be getting desperate.

This thread is about Starmer, not the Conservatives, and whatever your arguments about what the other lot did or didn’t do, the Starmer and Reeves love-in team are doing real damage to farmers and making our economic prospects far worse. Interesting that you don’t want to talk about that.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

You see the Labour Party can only deal with the economy they inherited from - yep that’s right, the Tories - so it’s impossible to not mention them.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Trump says Keir Starmer doing 'very good job'
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqjvyyn7k99o

Bestest of buddies :)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Real damage to rich people who were advised to buy farm land as a way of avoiding tax and then boasted about doing so in a national newspaper

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

No better recommendation than that of a convicted felon, and as mister lammy called him a neo nazi sociopath...

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Except that you ignore what THEY inherited from Labour, Covid and the Ukraine war. Circumstances beyond their control caused the problems the Conservatives had to put up with. Labour under Starmer and Reeves are creating problems of their own and that is what we are talking about.

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 20:24 ----------

Kidology. Do you see what he’s doing there?:D

---------- Post added at 20:27 ---------- Previous post was at 20:25 ----------

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Look at all the small farmers caught up in this.

The Labour lot have let their envy for the rich cloud their judgement.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Cool, if you want to ignore the austerity years (which didn’t improve the economy), the £32bn given to their mates, the tax cuts for the millionaires etc to help keep any talk of the Tories out of this, go you. All the power to you.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Taxes were going to have to go up whoever took power as spending did not match income and borrowing and public services were at their knees.

Labour backed themselves into a corner and hiked employer's NI. They should have increased income tax and been honest that we were living beyond our means but they weren't and we'll all pay the price indirectly through higher prices.

The only positive unintended consequence it might have is to encourage more automation and therefore help Britain's poor productivity.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

There are no small farmers affected by this, 75% of farms aren't even eligible for this. You really have let a lack of knowledge of facts cloud your judgement, was it nige turning up in wellies and a stupid grin that swayed you or was it Clarksons column in the sun that made you such an authority :rolleyes:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

it hasn't stopped you.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Those in the City were left aggrieved after Reeves touted herself as a safe pair of hands in the Treasury because of her long history as an ‘economist’, which turned out to be embellishment of her CV as Guido* first revealed. As co-conspirators will know, Reeves was handling complaints at Halifax rather than actual economic policies – helpful experience in hindsight…

Turns out Reeves has never been great with numbers. Back in 2012, two years into her time as an MP, she was featured in a documentary called “Britain’s Trillion Pound Horror Story” about the UK’s ballooning national debt—and how MPs didn’t even know what it was. Reeves was one of those interviewed who didn’t know. Asked for the figure, she confidently answered, “about £156 billion.” Wrong. That was the deficit (the difference between government revenue and spending), not the national debt, which was around £1.43 trillion at the time. A giant red cross helpfully appears on screen to mark her blunder. Liz Truss also answered incorrectly. Not the only thing the two have in common. from favourite web site*

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Having worked in the City, I know it does its homework on these things and Reeves's background would have been no surprise. Unlike some government decisions, the City makes its decisions on tons of research.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Doesn't mean that they were happy

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Equally, it doesn't mean they were unhappy.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Not a great reflection on the government. The country and that region in particular can do with the investment.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ness-live-news

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

He says, totally ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the small farmers.

The words babies and at water come to mind, but Labour doesn’t care as long as it takes a few wealth creators down a peg or two.

The class war lives on, it seems. Old habits die hard.

---------- Post added at 23:16 ---------- Previous post was at 23:12 ----------

The austerity years were the means by which we corrected the imbalance in our economy, which was costing a fortune in servicing the rapidly increasing debts that resulted. That imbalance was created by Labour.

You have a very short memory.

---------- Post added at 23:18 ---------- Previous post was at 23:16 ----------

Do you really believe that the electorate would have let Labour in if they said they were going to raise taxes?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Generally, they would not, but last year I'm pretty sure they would have.

Labour did not win because people wanted Labour, they won because they didnt want the Conservatives, and didnt fancy any of the other options.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

There is no elephant in the room, 72% of farms aren't affected, full stop, wealth creators more like wealth hoarders in this particular case, Clarkson even admitted it in his column that you seem to have got most of your information on this from

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The UK economy is forecast to improve more slowly than previously predicted after stagnant growth late last year.

The EY ITEM Club expects UK gross domestic product (GDP) to grow by 1% in 2025, down from a previous estimate of 1.5%.

The economic forecaster is the latest influential group to cut its predictions amid continued pressure on businesses, which face further tax and wage rises in April.


The outlook is a mixed picture

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-growth...eeves-13301978

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The elephant in the room is Brexit which has reduced farmer's income.

Whilst you're happy to bleat on and on about an inheritance tax loophole being closed, you weren't there for the majority of hard-working British farmers who are worse off thanks to Brexit.

Your sudden support for farmers is plain cynicism as you don't like the party that closed this tax planning loophole.

---------- Post added at 11:56 ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 ----------

Bit too early to celebrate this as a Brexit benefit so posting it here.
https://x.com/HugoGye/status/1886365496871702930

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Well i suppose there isn't an arse kissing thread to put it in :shocked:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I've had a look, but I can't see a thread on Zuckerberg yet. ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

We need a bigger room, its getting crowded with all these Elephants. :erm:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Surely that depends on if they African or Asian ? :erm:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

What's the difference between an African and an Asian room?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

About 4500 miles ?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Awesome

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-a...covid-13302244

In any event, he should get his money back.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

"strong public interest" ? Really ?
There is no "strong interest" here, much like all the fuss about "parties".
It was 4/5 years ago now, there are vastly more important things to care about.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

:D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Just another case of do what say not what I do:p:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

What he did was permitted. Plenty of genuine areas to criticise Starmer on than this.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Acting lessons :shocked:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Nope, speaking lessons.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

If you believe that’s what he was doing on Christmas Eve, 50 miles from home, in the middle of a lockdown, I have a bridge to sell you.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Well Starmer did think that new suits and pairs of glasses were merely office supplies.:rolleyes:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Starmer lives in north London and the article says his lessons were at the Party's HQ in London. That's not 50 miles! If you're selling bridges, buyer beware! :)

24 December though sounds either dedicated or suspicious.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

He's either Santa clause or full of shyte my monies on the latter

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

She travelled 50 miles from Brighton.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

From a tier 3 lockdown area to a tier 4 lockdown area

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Link

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Perhaps she was going for an eye test?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I don't think the police will get involved. Even if they would bother investigating that far back - and I doubt they want to go back 5 years - the rules were you could travel for work if unable to work from home.

People will debate if a speech coach can't work from home but I doubt that's a decision the the police will want to wade into. It would then open up all the other advisors that would have been hanging around Starmer and other senior politicians at the time to possible retrospective action.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I was responding to what Chris's post said, namely "...what he was doing, 50 miles from home..."
But that makes sense as to where the 50 miles came from.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

He was still her "employer", so had responsibility for her making the journey.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The 24th is because that's when Starmer was giving his speech about Brexit. It was filmed at Labour HQ and she was in attendance.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Yeah, I misread some details about it earlier.

The point is, a 50-mile journey was made. That is not trivial, especially not on Christmas Eve, particularly not during a pandemic when there are legal restrictions on movement.

Starmer caused that journey to be made, apparently just so she could give him a hand.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Ah, that makes sense.

---------- Post added at 23:03 ---------- Previous post was at 23:00 ----------

I'm not condoning the 50 miles, just knew that figure made no sense as Starmer lives in London.

---------- Post added at 23:07 ---------- Previous post was at 23:03 ----------

He wouldn't employ her, just contract her services. She's doubtless got her own company and it would be her responsibility to adhere to the laws of the land. But those who contracted her services must have considered the implications of employing someone based outside London.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I don't there are legal issues here. As I mentioned previously I think a speech coach to the Leader of the Opposition being there on the day of a speech will qualify as work. She could have done it via conference call, as it appeared she had done previously with him, but I would be surprised if the police would bother trying to decide that.

It's a political issue for him. He is morally responsible because nobody cares what a speech coach does otherwise. She is also unlikely to have been to only person in Labour HQ helping him with that speech as well so I suspect the media have more names to drop.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

People couldn't attend funerals, see their loved ones in care homes, with many other harsh restrictions due to the pandemic, but bullshiting Starmer does what ever he pleases after calling for tighter restrictions and longer lockdowns.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Up to 30 people could attend funerals at this point in the lockdown. You could also visit relatives in care homes as long as there were COVID measures in place.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The use of scare quotes in my use of "employer", means not to be taken literally. He still employed her services. She was there at his request. She didn't turn up unexpectedly.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

could you cross from tier3 to tier 4 to do this or was it still against the law

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I think so but the laws were never that clear. You weren't allowed to travel between tiers generally without a reasonable excuse. If you did you were subject to the rules of either the tier you moved from or the tier you were in, whichever was higher.

But funerals and care homes had the same rules for all tiers so you would have been able to travel between them as it was a reasonable excuse and permitted whichever tier you were in.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Any care homes had to have "substantial screens, visiting pods, and window visits.".
Regardless, you couldn't travel from a Tier 3 area(Eg Brighton) to a Tier 4 area(Eg London).

Link

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

exactly
even mediocre lawyers with a nasal problem had to abide by the LAW

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

There were exemptions to this: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1611/made

One of them is funerals:

care homes:

and work:


There are other exemptions there but these are only the ones called out explicitly as beyond that a 'reasonable excuse' was left up to the police I guess to interpret.