OT Reeves spring statement

[Trickytreesreds]

I don?t ?like? her and never will, she?s got an unfortunate dismissive tone although she looks better in that red suit than Gordon Brown ever did, one thing that surprises me is that we haven?t had 100 posts complaining about her policy/policies

Had she been a tory slashing benefits and.attacking the vulnerable, the howls in here would have sounded like a wolf pack in Alaska

Seems being left wing, makes some folks bite their tongue

[Andy_Faber]

Had she been a tory slashing benefits and.attacking the vulnerable, the howls in here would have sounded like a wolf pack in Alaska

Seems being left wing, makes some folks bite their tongue

MA?s often repeated observation is yet again relevant, the only difference between the two major parties is the colour of their rosettes

[swaledale]

MA?s often repeated observation is yet again relevant, the only difference between the two major parties is the colour of their rosettes

Yet even a cursory examination would see thats not actually true. But then why let the facts get in the way of an opinion?

For what its worth, at least we aren't having government by 3 word slogan. There does at least appear to be grown ups in charge, though depending upon ones point of view the actions and policies can be questioned.

On the plus side, NHS waiting lists falling, we don't have a plethora of strikes ****ing up services and they have pissed off wealthy land owners. Starmer at the moment seems to be handling the conundrum of Trump reasonably well, putting the interests of the government and country before his personal views. Though I would question how much blowing smoke up the man child's arse is going to work but hey ho we live in interesting times.

We do seem to be deporting significant numbers of failed asylum seekers/migrants with no qualification to stay, something the last lot seemed incapable of doing.

The lack of concern for environmental issues is worrying, as is the fallacy that excessive regulation or having regard to the environmental impact of development is whats holding things back.

If they can persuade, help or force back into work some of the lazy *******s that aren't currently contributing to the UK economy then that wil be a plus. I'll believe when it happens.

Attacking the vulnerable? Yeah maybe some, but there are a heck of a lot of people who aren't vulnerable and anyway I thought our Red friend approved of societies whereby life chances are down to ones self reliance and hard work or does that only apply to other countries like Thailand where everyone is deliriously happy that they work 6 or 7 day weeks and have few paid holidays, sick pay or a meaningful welfare state?

Also unreported is the measures taken to crack down on tax avoidance, by making it a criminal offence for those who run schemes aimed at avoiding tax, instead of just penalising those who use them. A fair few layers, consultants and accountants are going to be out of pocket there.

Renationalisation of the railways is proceeding, not fast enough for me and a simplification of the fares system could be achieved relatively quickly.

I'm disappointed that greater steps aren't being taken to tax the wealthy, maybe that will come later, who knows?

For me its not a government that entirely suits my left of centre views, but it is one that is taking bold steps which it knows could be unpopular and of course one has to recognise that ultimately we have an electorate that is right of centre.

There is a world of difference between the Tories, who over 14 years ****ed up everything and achieved bugger all and Labour who have at least taken action to get things moving again.

Despite aiming for growth, the biggest single obstacle which is closer cooperation with the EU, through single market or customs union is still being ignored, despite overwhelming evidence that this has been extremely detrimental to the UK economy.

Those who waffled on about an EU army are looking stupid now that it seems the US cannot be relied upon to support the defence of Europe still I guess sovereignty is all important when one has less than 80,000 troops an inadequate air force and a united European armed force is the only realistic way of defending Europe.

Its a truism that welfare and benefits requires sorting, its clearly unsustainable to have an ever increasing welfare bill, there are winners and losers in the announcement.

Its the classic curates egg, good in parts.

[Andy_Faber]

On the plus side, they have pissed off wealthy land owners.

If they can persuade, help or force back into work some of the lazy *******s that aren't currently contributing to the UK economy then that wil be a plus. I'll believe when it happens.

Its a truism that welfare and benefits requires sorting, its clearly unsustainable to have an ever increasing welfare bill, there are winners and losers in the announcement.

.

The comment about land owners just comes across as petty jealousy unless you have a particular subset in mind

On Welfare and benefits I agree, and I spent time with a family of three yesterday, three generations, ‘nice’ people, who have simply talked themselves out of being employable for totally tenuous reasons - fiddling with their welfare allowance won’t shift them, they are too ‘comfortable’ on welfare, but maybe personal counselling on the benefits of work rather than in how to avoid it and maximise their ‘take’ would. The focus in terms of professional, public sector, help, in their case at least, seems massively geared to the latter

[ramAnag]

Yet even a cursory examination would see thats not actually true. But then why let the facts get in the way of an opinion?

For what its worth, at least we aren't having government by 3 word slogan. There does at least appear to be grown ups in charge, though depending upon ones point of view the actions and policies can be questioned.

On the plus side, NHS waiting lists falling, we don't have a plethora of strikes ****ing up services and they have pissed off wealthy land owners. Starmer at the moment seems to be handling the conundrum of Trump reasonably well, putting the interests of the government and country before his personal views. Though I would question how much blowing smoke up the man child's arse is going to work but hey ho we live in interesting times.

We do seem to be deporting significant numbers of failed asylum seekers/migrants with no qualification to stay, something the last lot seemed incapable of doing.

The lack of concern for environmental issues is worrying, as is the fallacy that excessive regulation or having regard to the environmental impact of development is whats holding things back.

If they can persuade, help or force back into work some of the lazy *******s that aren't currently contributing to the UK economy then that wil be a plus. I'll believe when it happens.

Attacking the vulnerable? Yeah maybe some, but there are a heck of a lot of people who aren't vulnerable and anyway I thought our Red friend approved of societies whereby life chances are down to ones self reliance and hard work or does that only apply to other countries like Thailand where everyone is deliriously happy that they work 6 or 7 day weeks and have few paid holidays, sick pay or a meaningful welfare state?

Also unreported is the measures taken to crack down on tax avoidance, by making it a criminal offence for those who run schemes aimed at avoiding tax, instead of just penalising those who use them. A fair few layers, consultants and accountants are going to be out of pocket there.

Renationalisation of the railways is proceeding, not fast enough for me and a simplification of the fares system could be achieved relatively quickly.

I'm disappointed that greater steps aren't being taken to tax the wealthy, maybe that will come later, who knows?

For me its not a government that entirely suits my left of centre views, but it is one that is taking bold steps which it knows could be unpopular and of course one has to recognise that ultimately we have an electorate that is right of centre.

There is a world of difference between the Tories, who over 14 years ****ed up everything and achieved bugger all and Labour who have at least taken action to get things moving again.

Despite aiming for growth, the biggest single obstacle which is closer cooperation with the EU, through single market or customs union is still being ignored, despite overwhelming evidence that this has been extremely detrimental to the UK economy.

Those who waffled on about an EU army are looking stupid now that it seems the US cannot be relied upon to support the defence of Europe still I guess sovereignty is all important when one has less than 80,000 troops an inadequate air force and a united European armed force is the only realistic way of defending Europe.

Its a truism that welfare and benefits requires sorting, its clearly unsustainable to have an ever increasing welfare bill, there are winners and losers in the announcement.

Its the classic curates egg, good in parts.

Very balanced and sensible post, imo. Even AF only appears able to disagree with about seven words and I’d love an explanation from anyone as regards what is actually so wrong with the plans regarding land owners and inheritance.

More than that, RR seems to have won the simultaneous approval of both GP and Swale! Possibly her greatest achievement yet.

[Andy_Faber]

Very balanced and sensible post, imo. Even AF only appears able to disagree with about seven words and I?d love an explanation from anyone as regards what is actually so wrong with the plans regarding land owners and inheritance.

More than that, RR seems to have won the simultaneous approval of both GP and Swale! Possibly her greatest achievement yet.

No not ?only able?, you seem to associate quantity with quality but I prefer to focus on issues I have some first hand knowledge of.

There?s no point offering a response regarding ?landowners? when the word could mean so many things, I?ve asked Swale to clarify so cool your boots (probably not muddy) until that is forthcoming. I?m a ?landowner? so maybe I have greater insight than yourself or Swale on the subject, maybe not

[ramAnag]

No not ?only able?, you seem to associate quantity with quality but I prefer to focus on issues I have some first hand knowledge of.

There?s no point offering a response regarding ?landowners? when the word could mean so many things, I?ve asked Swale to clarify so cool your boots (probably not muddy) until that is forthcoming. I?m a ?landowner? so maybe I have greater insight than yourself or Swale on the subject, maybe not

What nonsense. I associate the quality of a reply with the content. Swale provided reasoning for both his approval and concerns. You, in comparison, apparently dislike RR because of the tone of her voice, which I accept can be irritating, although you approve of her in a red suit. How very insightful.

So you’re a landowner, me too at a very small level, and therefore might have greater insight. Another very debatable assertion but let’s go further.
How much land do you own and what is it used for?
In brief I’m all for proper farmers on family farms being able to hand down their legacies - although I’m not sure (or knowledgeable enough) to understand why they should appear to get a different set of tax breaks. Sure GP can help on that one.
I'm entirely against wealthy individuals - such as the vociferous Mr. Clarkson - buying up land as a means of avoiding inheritance tax if that is, as it appears, what has been going on

[Andy_Faber]

What nonsense. I associate the quality of a reply with the content. Swale provided reasoning for both his approval and concerns. You, in comparison, apparently dislike RR because of the tone of her voice, which I accept can be irritating, although you approve of her in a red suit. How very insightful.

So you?re a landowner, me too at a very small level, and therefore might have greater insight. Another very debatable assertion but let?s go further.
How much land do you own and what is it used for?
In brief I?m all for proper farmers on family farms being able to hand down their legacies - although I?m not sure (or knowledgeable enough) to understand why they should appear to get a different set of tax breaks. Sure GP can help on that one.
I'm entirely against wealthy individuals - such as the vociferous Mr. Clarkson - buying up land as a means of avoiding inheritance tax if that is, as it appears, what has been going on

The RR comments provided balance, you should try it some time.

Regarding ?landowners?, for the subset which means farmers I defer to GPs comments and would add for emphasis that profit margins are ridiculously low and they for the most part work bloody hard for it. We all love our hardworking nurses but in terms of graft there?s no comparison
I?m a landowner of a different sort, and could feel aggrieved that while mines been accumulated through farmer-style graft, I?m taxed the same as those who do little more that acquire, dispose and charge. But I don?t as it happens, life?s not fair in that regard but it?s more than fair in others

[swaledale]

Had she been a tory slashing benefits and.attacking the vulnerable, the howls in here would have sounded like a wolf pack in Alaska

Seems being left wing, makes some folks bite their tongue

Left wing, are you having a laugh?