I have seen you mention your allotment mate. I noticed because I have one too. For complete transparency I was cracking a joke, maybe badly, but was a bit of light hearted banter about being taxed. I seem to have caused some offence
Something that bugs me even more is when a married couple are stinking rich ( multi millionaires ) and one takes ill and claims a new car on mobility. I know the wife is ill and I wouldn’t wish her condition on anyone but they could buy 10 cars and not miss the money.
Powell is playing to the gallery. Reeves is not making the decisions now, the bond markets are making them.She has absolutely no choice but to raise taxes, as Labour cannot even contemplate reducing spending at all. Debt is debt, and must be secured and serviced. At one point, you have to do what the bloke lending you the money tells you to do. That is where we are now. Reeves' first budget was meant to demonstrate some sort of fiscal continence, but the money raised, (almost £30bn in prospect but, as with almost all tax increases will be a less), was all blasted away within a few weeks. Cue many jitters in the markets and rises to record levels in many critical gilt yields. The UK is way over budget. Spending has to be cut. The state has to be reduced. It is as simple as that really and sooner or later it will happen anyway, as it did in the seventies. As for Powell, she is just letting off hot air to appeal to the party faithful. Reeves has no choice now, and I really mean no choice.
You may be right on having no choice but I'm pleased Powell is calling them out on the ridiculous promise they made in the first place.
I agree. I was interested in Phillipson simply for Sunderland to have a high profile but I’m glad Powell is kicking Morgan McSweeney in the knackers publicly. He’s the biggest problem.
This is your opinion marra, and we are all allowed to have different views depending upon our political leaning. However, I believe you are being a tad disingenious towards Powell. For what reason are you doing this? Just to justify your opinions on Reeves?
Well as they are criticised for not having any, no one can say. But I can tell you this. The state has become too big. The debt is out of control, and if government doesn't do something about it, the bond markets will . That is why there is a huge tax hike coming. Reeves is not making this decision, the markets are. All institutions are now bloated out with needless layers of bureaucracy. It feeds itself and consumes money at an astounding rate, meaning (the often very sound) purposes for which they were designed become hopelessly ineffective. I have had dealings with a couple of these on practical matters and it is astonishing to see the way they slow things down, take no responsibility, absorb resources. Take the latest fiasco with the prisons. Lammy is not directly to blame for this. The prison and probation service is awash with non functioning bureaucrats, nearly 8,000 of them. We might think a governor is in charge of a prison? No. There are Chief Operating Officers, and Directors General. There are Area Executive Directors and Prison Group Directors. There is an Executive Director for Standards, and an Executive Director for Security, and an Executive Director for "Transformation" and even another Executive Director for "Change". They all have their own little kingdoms of bureaucracy, and the Governor answers to them all. It is inconceivable that all this multi tiered management is needed, but this applies everywhere, including the NHS. This means that the quality of the service being provided is hugely impacted by there being less money available and endless and ever increasing interference. People meant to be doing their jobs spend too much time justifying why they are doing it or bending to the whim of a remote dictat, and they have to do it with less money. When some party, any party, really attempts to look at that and sort it out, (rather than set up yet another QUANGO to "look at it") then I'll consider them. But I do not see one.
Well I don't have "political leanings" really. Not in the party way certainly. I think it helps me to see things a bit clearer than I used to. I think I've been reasonable regarding Powell. She is saying things now to keep onside with the people who put her where she is. She is grandstanding. No party wants to break such a loudly made manifesto promise. But as no move can be made whatsoever to look at cutting the size of the state, there is no choice. And as I've said, the markets make these decisions at this stage.
He might want to mate. But he won' be able to, his party won't allow him to. Depends on who follows him, but I don't see anyone in their wings who'll take the necessary steps.
Frightening in some respects how these institutions have been mismanaged. Starmer is going to need a bigger straight bat.
