First cabinet minister gone - Jess Philips.....

Sorry, i know how you all love memes... this isnt farage so hopefully you still find it funny:

 

8 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

>>When odious people call for less public spending<<

 

Classic progressive authoritarian hypocrisy there. I thought you lot wanted to limit freedom of speech to try and ensure nobody got upset about anything ?

 

But to the facts :

1 - This country is living way beyond its means

2 - The tax take is at near record peacetime levels

3 - The cost of that borrowing is high and due to get even higher as the bond markets lack confidence in this government.

 

Bearing the above indisputable facts in mind, how do you square your comment that [only] odious people call for less public spending ? Is it a classic case of burying your head in the sand ?

 

PS :

 

I accept that even those massive figures are relatively small compared to £400 Billion which is how much we splurged during the Covid madness..... But I seem to remember you progressive authoritarians were all very much in favour of that (as well as all the other spending) ? Still, we can always tax the rich a bit more hey ? No harm done there surely ?

 

 

When I referenced 'odious people' calling for spending cuts, my first thought was actually that parasite known as Jim Ratcliffe, head of INEOS and part owner of Manchester United. He doesn't want to pay his tax here but wants benefit cuts so WTF has it to do with him anyway. As far as you are concerned, I was merely giving you the opportunity of joining the 'odious people' if you chose to do so, which you seem to do.

 

I note you haven't actually identified where these spending cuts should be made, I pointed out that only 1% of the welfare bill goes to the unemployed, as opposed to the 42% that goes to the State Pension, so what are you asking for? cuts to the State Pension? that won't go down well. How about cutting public spending on the roads even further? we can all then get Quad bikes to get around on. How about further cuts to the Policing budget? what do we need Police for anyway? Likewise the military, cut their budget further after all who needs a military? How about further cuts to the Judiciary? close a few more Courts and see if we can get the backlog of cases above 5 years. The usual choice of you right wingers is to go for those at the bottom of the society, as though our ills are all their fault. Since unemployment benefit only represents 1% of the welfare budget, even abolishing it would make naff all difference to anything. 

 

Yes, we can tax the rich more. and if Ratcliffe fecks off to Monaco, where he pays his derisory taxes anyway, who will miss him? I certainly wont. Some of the more Socially minded millionaires actually agree with paying more taxes (https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/) to try to undo the wreckage caused by the last time a Government attacked Public Spending (austerity), which has directly led to the dire situation of this country today. Selfish b*stards such as Ratcliffe (and Tice and a mere millionaire) who don't wish to pay their taxes here, we would be better off if they left the country altogether. Tice, who pays his taxes in Jersey but lives half his time in Dubai, prides himself on paying the least amount of UK tax he can get away with, and yet he wanted our military to become involved in Trump's idiotic war with Iran because his interests in Dubai were under threat. Perhaps he should have approached the Government of Dubai to do more to take care of his Dubai interests, they have nothing to do with this country.

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 

I note you haven't actually identified where these spending cuts should be made

Pandemic preperation! 🤪

32 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Pandemic preperation! 🤪

To be honest we could save 60 billion a year in one hit. Fifty years ago I was in the military and although much reduced after ww2 we still had a formidable armed forces. I attended the 1977 Spithead review for silver jubilee and if you look online you will see how many warships were in attendance, we now have about 100? Less, I have not looked at figures but we had intakes joining the navy weekly, today its the odd few. The army is similarily greatly depleted in numbers. Now whilst I am a big believer in having our armed forces its pointless not having enough to carry out the job, its like having a roof with half the slates missing you aren't going to stop the rain. If anyone attacks us today we are goosed anyway so stop spending the 60 billion a year. 

Edited May 12May 12 by mrsmelly

27 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Pandemic preperation! 🤪

That sounds a bit like the 'savings' proposed by Reform where they were going to get rid of all Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Officers in the Councils that they run........then found that there weren't any (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/13/reform-uk-savings-cutting-diversity-and-equity-roles-councils)

2 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

To be honest we could save 60 billion a year in one hit. Fifty years ago I was in the military and although much reduced after ww2 we still had a formidable armed forces. I attended the 1977 Spithead review for silver jubilee and if you look online you will see how many warships were in attendance, we now have about 100? Less, I have not looked at figures but we had intakes joining the navy weekly, today its the odd fre. The army is similarily greatly depleted in numbers. Now whilst I am a big believer in having our armed forces its pointless not having enough to carry out the job, its like having a roof with half the slates missing you aren't going to stop the rain. If anyone attacks us today we are goosed anyway so stop spending the 60 billion a year. 

Bear in mind that this reduction is a direct result of public spending cuts that another poster suggests that we should have more of. I do however notice that he hasn't commented on making further public spending cuts to our roads, so it would seem his position is that spending cuts should be made in areas that don't affect him personally.

11 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I do however notice that he hasn't commented on making further public spending cuts to our roads, so it would seem his position is that spending cuts should be made in areas that don't affect him personally

I thought on a canal forum, we would be in favour of cutting road maintenance. Thst way, the canals would be used for freight transport again. If it was good enough for Josiah Wedgewood moving his crockery around and not losing half his produce to potholes, then it will work for us. Apologies for mentioning canals in Politics and Current Affairs. I'll try not to let it happen again. 😀

 

11 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

To be honest we could save 60 billion a year in one hit. Fifty years ago I was in the military and although much reduced after ww2 we still had a formidable armed forces. I attended the 1977 Spithead review for silver jubilee and if you look online you will see how many warships were in attendance, we now have about 100? Less, I have not looked at figures but we had intakes joining the navy weekly, today its the odd few. The army is similarily greatly depleted in numbers. Now whilst I am a big believer in having our armed forces its pointless not having enough to carry out the job, its like having a roof with half the slates missing you aren't going to stop the rain. If anyone attacks us today we are goosed anyway so stop spending the 60 billion a year. 

It is a common thing to consider the world of our young adulthood as being normal, the way things have always been and always should be. As the world changes from that, it looks increasingly alien to us. 

 

Looked on a longer timescale, 1977 was a very odd time. The British Empire had by then largely gone to independence movements and governments deciding the cost of keeping it was too high, yet the navy was still sized to patrol that empire and quickly bring one of it's hundreds of gunboats to any seaward part of it. Instead the UK was now part of the American empire, locked in a struggle for world domination with the Soviet Union and it's empire. Less than fifteen years later, the Soviet Union and it's empire collapsed, so the reason for NATO disappeared, yet NATO and the American empire persisted. 

 

Britain doesn't really know what it's armed forces are for. Are they there to expand and  defend a British empire that doesn't exist? Expand and defend an American empire that does exist? Humanitarian bombing of populations ruled by dictators? Somewhere for youngsters to learn a trade? Defend the home islands if the evil Belgians decide to invade? Pretend Britain is still a world power because we've got the Bomb? Look impressive when lined up at Spithead? Provide a steady market for the most expensive products of our arms industry and directorships in those industries for retired armed forces top brass and MoD civil servants? Assorted combinations of the above? What? Depending on whst you think it's purpose is, then different sizes and forms of armed forces look sensible and others look inadequate, over stuffed, or just plain wrong. 

With the brief meeting this morning with Streeting and Starmer I'd guess that once the Royal bits are out of the way we'll hear Wes has resigned.... tonight or  maybe tomorrow?   place your bets!

4 hours ago, robtheplod said:

With the brief meeting this morning with Streeting and Starmer I'd guess that once the Royal bits are out of the way we'll hear Wes has resigned.... tonight or  maybe tomorrow?   place your bets!

Given that Streeting's approval rating is barely above Starmer's it would be a foolish move to replace Starmer with Streeting. If they are looking to 'turn the page' the only politician with a positive approval rating is Burnham. That would obviously change if he became PM, but at the moment all other politicians are trailing in his wake (including Farage). Even Sadiq Khan has a higher approval rating than Wes Streeting. 

7 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Given that Streeting's approval rating is barely above Starmer's it would be a foolish move to replace Starmer with Streeting. If they are looking to 'turn the page' the only politician with a positive approval rating is Burnham. That would obviously change if he became PM, but at the moment all other politicians are trailing in his wake (including Farage). Even Sadiq Khan has a higher approval rating than Wes Streeting. 

Interesting that both Burnham and Khan are metropolitan mayors. It is a job where a politician can do stuff that can directly make resident's lives better, or at least different and point the publicity to themselves alone. Burnham was a standard Blairite clone as an MP, yet seemed to blossom as a metro mayor. Boris Johnson was another. 

57 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Given that Streeting's approval rating is barely above Starmer's it would be a foolish move to replace Starmer with Streeting. If they are looking to 'turn the page' the only politician with a positive approval rating is Burnham. That would obviously change if he became PM, but at the moment all other politicians are trailing in his wake (including Farage). Even Sadiq Khan has a higher approval rating than Wes Streeting. 

I always find it interesting that when it comes to Burnham, everyone just assumes he would automatically win any by-election....

25 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

I always find it interesting that when it comes to Burnham, everyone just assumes he would automatically win any by-election....

No guarentee these days. I'd expect both Reform UK ltd and the Greens to put up a strong campaign in whatever seat he is parachuted in to fight. Assuming the current leadership would even let him stand. 

28 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

I always find it interesting that when it comes to Burnham, everyone just assumes he would automatically win any by-election....

I think he would probably have won Gorton and Denton, a Manchester Constituency where Burham is apparently quite popular, but that moment has now passed.There isn't any certainty of him being elected in any non-Manchester by-election.

2 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I think he would probably have won Gorton and Denton, a Manchester Constituency where Burham is apparently quite popular, but that moment has now passed.There isn't any certainty of him being elected in any non-Manchester by-election.

Possibly not even a Manchester one, now the Greens have shown themselves capable of winning. There is much less sense of a Green vote being wasted for those wanting to stop Reform UK Ltd. 

I liked Kemi's comment about all the front bench ladies using the same hairdresser....   i think she's onto something - its called 'lego hair'...

Edited May 13May 13 by robtheplod

So Ange is now all clear with HMRC and looks ready to enter the race.... Wes or Ange, what a choice.... anyone care to guess how long the winner will last?

39 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

So Ange is now all clear with HMRC and looks ready to enter the race.... Wes or Ange, what a choice.... anyone care to guess how long the winner will last?

Starmer's Mini Me, Wes as PM will make no one happy but Wes. The mere thought of Angela as PM will give all the misogynists an aneurysm. Other than that, little difference.

7 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Starmer's Mini Me, Wes as PM will make no one happy but Wes. The mere thought of Angela as PM will give all the misogynists an aneurysm. Other than that, little difference.

Labour have the same problem as with most other parties in that they do not have any leadership material in their ranks. Has Wes challenged yet? 

10 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Has Wes challenged yet? 

Don't know. Don't care much. 

Keep your distance.  Vacuums can be dangerous.

11 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Don't know. Don't care much. 

They are all a joke though these days. Conservatives change weekly, labour looking like a change. When we had real leaders they did not get removed. Even as recently as 2 big names, Blair managed 13 years and Maggie the best part of 16 years as party leaders. Its all gone tits up. 

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Labour have the same problem as with most other parties in that they do not have any leadership material in their ranks. Has Wes challenged yet? 

Nope, think he's done a Portillo and bottled it?

He is apparently less popular then Starmer within the party🤣

18 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

Nope, think he's done a Portillo and bottled it?

The ginger growler it is then!! 

From Election maps.

 

Labour Leadership Voting Intentions:

Starmer Vs Burnham:
Burnham: 61%
Starmer: 28%

 

Starmer Vs Miliband:
Miliband: 46%
Starmer: 39%

 

Starmer Vs Rayner:
Rayner: 45%
Starmer: 41%

 

Starmer Vs Streeting:
Starmer: 53%
Streeting: 23%

Looks like Burnham has found someone to stand down so he can get in via a by election!

9 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

He is apparently less popular then Starmer within the party🤣

thats quite an acheivement!