Labour Party politics

[Nutmegyeti]

Not strictly Labour Party's fault but as they are the government.

'£280K fraud' civil servant 'didn't need performance review'

Kashim Chowdhury, 55, allegedly juggled a string of taxpayer-funded roles while repeatedly lying to his employers, with one manager claiming he had to be told what to do.

www.dailymail.com

This is unreal. Many of us have criticised public servants as being inefficient and incompetent. This case says more about them than the actual person on trial. A skiver and cheat can happen in any work place, 5 jobs, 5 different lines managers c'mon. That yells us the system is broken.

Quite frankly it's pathetic and heads should roll.

With their vote on a 4 day week, he could have got a 6th

 

[silvertop]

I told you how to fund it! How about giving absolutely no support to the arrivals and using the money saved. It has the added benefit of the boats stopping within a couple of weeks of it being implemented.

And I told you your money sources were nonsense, like the cobblers regularly splashed by both parties about raising countless £billions from tax avoidance. Completely unachievable.

What you actually told me was that you wanted the problem to be resolved in your way but were not prepared to pay a penny towards that.

 

[georgenorman]

And I told you your money sources were nonsense, like the cobblers regularly splashed by both parties about raising countless £billions from tax avoidance. Completely unachievable.

What you actually told me was that you wanted the problem to be resolved in your way but were not prepared to pay a penny towards that.

I've given you two or three ways of raising money, along with a solution to stopping the boats coming, how is that not being prepared to pay a penny towards it? Another idea - don't pay, for a couple of years, the £226 million a year we spend in subsiding fat people shouting at each other in Italian in grants for opera, and use it on stopping the boats.

 

[silvertop]

You are referring to pensions?

We all know that's coming, it's all welfare and it's all going to be cut to some extent, worthy or unworthy.

No one should be looking forward to any of it, but that's the situation that's been created especially since Blair.....Not just here, all over the western world.....The EU especially, which is even worse.

I'll believe it when I see it.

You will recall the winter fuel allowance. Still heralded as one of the silliest policies from the Starmer era where he had to perform an humiliating U-turn, but...

There was no intention to withdraw this benefit from the 2.1 million pensioners in poverty who actually deserved it.

Only from those pensioners with (and I accept there is always guesstimates and cliff edge margins in this world) a disposable income greater than those of the working population. But...

It impacted the VOTING pensioner. That is, the policy was based on fairness, but the U-turn was based on politics.

You only need to look at George Norman on here baulking at the prospect of paying more towards a policy of properly resourced immigration control to see what is likely to be a standard response of those of pension age to any attempt to touch their income source.

Given the damage this caused the Starmer regime, I suspect Burnham will play lip service to appeal to those of working age, but nothing will happen.

 

[silvertop]

I've given you two or three ways of raising money, along with a solution to stopping the boats coming, how is that not being prepared to pay a penny towards it? Another idea - don't pay, for a couple of years, the £226 million a year we spend in subsiding fat people shouting at each other in Italian in grants for opera, and use it on stopping the boats.

And I have told you they're nonsense.

On culture funding, drips. The days of subsidizing piles of bricks as "art" installation is long gone. Not even close to enough to cover even a sensible wage increase for the existing staff to encourage recruitment.

Any other government spending that YOU don't like YOU would cut to avoid using some of YOUR pension to achieve the policy aims YOU want?

How about scrapping our independent nuclear deterrent; or a massive push to insurance-led private medicine to substantively cut back the NHS? At least they would produce the right level of revenue needed to get the job properly done.

 

[georgenorman]

And I have told you they're nonsense.

On culture funding, drips. The days of subsidizing piles of bricks as "art" installation is long gone. Not even close to enough to cover even a sensible wage increase for the existing staff to encourage recruitment.

Any other government spending that YOU don't like YOU would cut to avoid using some of YOUR pension to achieve the policy aims YOU want?

How about scrapping our independent nuclear deterrent; or a massive push to insurance-led private medicine to substantively cut back the NHS? At least they would produce the right level of revenue needed to get the job properly done.

Yes, quite happy with scrapping the so called nuclear deterrent and happy for more private support of the NHS. Why don't you support my cash-saving ideas?

 

[silvertop]

Yes, quite happy with scrapping the so called nuclear deterrent and happy for more private support of the NHS. Why don't you support my cash-saving ideas?

Because they are wishful thinking and not achievable savings.

Why won't you sacrifice some of your state pension and other pension eligible benefits like eye tests and prescriptions?

 

[georgenorman]

Because they are wishful thinking and not achievable savings.

Why won't you sacrifice some of your state pension and other pension eligible benefits like eye tests and prescriptions?

All of my suggestions are achievable, and desirable. How much do you want to raise for whatever ideas you have to stop the boats?