Do you want to discuss boring politics? (28 Viewers)

chiefdave · Jun 29, 2025

Nick said:
I thought they were getting eleventy billion from the VAT?

This is literally why a lot of parents of SEND kids sent them to private schoo while working their arses off and making sacrifices.

Doesn’t seem a great solution that 1 in 5 children, and rising, has to go to private school. Although the stats don’t seem to back that up. The percentage of SEND kids in public and private education seems to be roughly the same.

And I’m sure the parents of non-SEND kids aren’t going to be too happy if they’re paying a small fortune for private education and having a huge percentage of classes being SEND kids.

Unless you’re suggesting some sort of segregation and all the SEND kids being sent off on their own which surely then worsens their prospects of being able to cope when they enter the workplace.

Ccfcisparks · Jun 29, 2025

I still think school examinations should mainly practice based and not time pressured.

I would have panic attacks the morning of exams I feared them that much.

Nick · Jun 29, 2025

chiefdave said:
Doesn’t seem a great solution that 1 in 5 children, and rising, has to go to private school. Although the stats don’t seem to back that up. The percentage of SEND kids in public and private education seems to be roughly the same.

And I’m sure the parents of non-SEND kids aren’t going to be too happy if they’re paying a small fortune for private education and having a huge percentage of classes being SEND kids.

Unless you’re suggesting some sort of segregation and all the SEND kids being sent off on their own which surely then worsens their prospects of being able to cope when they enter the workplace.

I just said that's why some people do it, which they do.

shmmeee · Jun 29, 2025

Ccfcisparks said:
I still think school examinations should mainly practice based and not time pressured.

I would have panic attacks the morning of exams I feared them that much.

This is never happening now we’ve got ChatGPT. Everywhere will go back to written exams as the main assessment method.

shmmeee · Jun 29, 2025

Nick said:
I just said that's why some people do it, which they do.

Seemingly at about the same rates as anyone else, so about 3%. Clearly it’s an important matter for you personally, but in reality it’s a tiny fringe matter when talking about this stuff.

Nick · Jun 29, 2025

shmmeee said:
Seemingly at about the same rates as anyone else, so about 3%. Clearly it’s an important matter for you personally, but in reality it’s a tiny fringe matter when talking about this stuff.

I know a few parents who did it for that reason so I can comment. That's all.

shmmeee · Jun 29, 2025

Nick said:
I know a few parents who did it for that reason so I can comment. That's all.

That’s fair, just saying that it’s very much a fringe issue for parents who can afford that. The vast majority need proper SEN care from the state.

shmmeee · Jun 29, 2025

Some good news. No doubt someone will tell me they hate trees. Think this is from Boris’ time but not 100%

A year of growth: tree planting rates hit their highest level in over 20 years – Forestry Commission

News and updates from the Forestry Commission

forestrycommission.blog.gov.uk

skybluetony176 · Jun 30, 2025

shmmeee said:
Some good news. No doubt someone will tell me they hate trees. Think this is from Boris’ time but not 100%

A year of growth: tree planting rates hit their highest level in over 20 years – Forestry Commission

News and updates from the Forestry Commission

forestrycommission.blog.gov.uk

Boris certainly pledged to plant more trees at the 2019 GE but largely because Corbyn had put it in his manifesto and it was proving to be a popular pledge especially amongst young voters. It was widely reported that they were failing early doors although to be fair we did have the pandemic. Labour set up a task force in Nov 2024 but too late in the year to make the difference to those figures.

Either way like you say it’s good news. The UK is the most biodiverse depleted country in the world, mostly down to a programme of deforestation and draining peat bogs after WW1 as we had an obsession to create more farm land. Fortunately restoring woodlands and peat bogs is now widely accepted as a viable solution to tackling climate change with the added bonus of restoring biodiversity.

CCFCSteve · Jun 30, 2025

shmmeee said:
Some good news. No doubt someone will tell me they hate trees. Think this is from Boris’ time but not 100%

A year of growth: tree planting rates hit their highest level in over 20 years – Forestry Commission

News and updates from the Forestry Commission

forestrycommission.blog.gov.uk

It’s great news. Ahead of his time…

Farage hoping to enlist help of Trump in Brexit party tree-planting plan

Focus on environment in upcoming manifesto seen as attempt to broaden appeal

www.theguardian.com

not sure Trump would’ve been the right ally when it comes to environmental side of things though, he’s making a right pigs ear on solar/renewable stuff in US.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jun 30, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
It’s great news. Ahead of his time…

Farage hoping to enlist help of Trump in Brexit party tree-planting plan

Focus on environment in upcoming manifesto seen as attempt to broaden appeal

www.theguardian.com

not sure Trump would’ve been the right ally when it comes to environmental side of things though, he’s making a right pigs ear on solar/renewable stuff in US.

Drill baby drill!

CCFCSteve · Jun 30, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Drill baby drill!

I actually don’t disagree with that so much in the immediate future, he wants oil price to stay low as it helps keep inflation in check. Fuck knows what he’s thinking when it comes to longer term planning though, especially when it comes to solar, half the US should be ideal. Thought musk might’ve been able to get the message across, obviously not

shmmeee · Jun 30, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
It’s great news. Ahead of his time…

Farage hoping to enlist help of Trump in Brexit party tree-planting plan

Focus on environment in upcoming manifesto seen as attempt to broaden appeal

www.theguardian.com

not sure Trump would’ve been the right ally when it comes to environmental side of things though, he’s making a right pigs ear on solar/renewable stuff in US.

It’s a cheap thing you can do any claim you’re doing something about carbon. Tory environmentalists like animals and countryside so ticks those boxes too.

Funny take from a man who claims this though:

Nigel Farage says it is ‘absolutely nuts’ to call carbon dioxide a pollutant - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

In this news article Bob Ward responds to the claim by Reform UK leader that it is wrong to call carbon dioxide a pollutant.

www.lse.ac.uk

shmmeee · Jun 30, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
I actually don’t disagree with that in the immediate future, he wants oil price to stay low as it helps keep inflation in check. Fuck knows what he’s thinking when it comes to longer term planning though, especially when it comes to solar, half the US should be ideal. Thought musk might’ve been able to get the message across, obviously not

Reforms backers are mostly financial and fossil fuel interests so hardly surprising.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/reform-uk-funders-nigel-farage-5-million-donations-fossil-fuels-tax-havens/

CCFCSteve · Jun 30, 2025

shmmeee said:
It’s a cheap thing you can do any claim you’re doing something about carbon. Tory environmentalists like animals and countryside so ticks those boxes too.

Funny take from a man who claims this though:

Nigel Farage says it is ‘absolutely nuts’ to call carbon dioxide a pollutant - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

In this news article Bob Ward responds to the claim by Reform UK leader that it is wrong to call carbon dioxide a pollutant.

www.lse.ac.uk

My post was part tongue in cheek although remembered him being a big advocate of tree planting from years ago

Brighton Sky Blue · Jun 30, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
I actually don’t disagree with that so much in the immediate future, he wants oil price to stay low as it helps keep inflation in check. Fuck knows what he’s thinking when it comes to longer term planning though, especially when it comes to solar, half the US should be ideal. Thought musk might’ve been able to get the message across, obviously not

Crediting Trump or indeed Farage with being a rational good faith actor is the first mistake

wingy · Jun 30, 2025

Under the yoke, how long will Canada hold out,to a bankrupt nation in effect!

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Jun 30, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
It was the right thing to bail out the banks at the time and ultimately cost very little in the grand scheme of things (think around £10bn was the loss on RBS). It was disgusting that internationally very few of any bankers/senior bankers paid for this (sued, jail etc) though. The problem with GFC though though was the start of massive QE globally !

QE started around GFC but continued in the intervening years, totally unnecessarily for a lot of it. Some was required for Covid but probably nowhere near £450bn. There’s been almost £1trn overall.

I’ve explained before that by debasing the currency we all have less purchasing power, those with hard, tangible assets benefit ie the rich because assets appreciate in value (or at least stay still as the currency debases so it gives the illusion they’re increasing) and those people can borrow more at artificially low rates to buy even more assets. Those with limited tangible assets/only cash lose out because the value of that money depreciates and the prices of everything increases.

We’ve not been living in the real world with suppressed interest rates and available cash sloshing around the system. Then suddenly rates had to be increased due to inflation and we’re paying £100bn pa in interest just to service government debt

Disagree about bailing out the banks being the right thing to do.

They caused their own problems, so why should the taxpayers bail out an industry that supposedly believes in free market and 'dog eat dog'? It basically told them they can do what they like and fuck everyone over with no consequences.

At best it should have been loaned with ridiculous interest or basically a hostile takeover with the shares being bought for a pittance. See how they like it when their own rules are applied to them.

People with money in the banks had a decent amount of it secured by the government anyway (I think it was 80k) so for the vast majority of people they would have been fine.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Jun 30, 2025

fatso said:
Taxing wealth more is never the way to generate more income.

The wealthy just up sticks and move abroad ,
Hence why places like Monaco and Dubai are full of millionaires.
They take their money else where and the jobs that money creates goes with them.
We are currently experiencing a wealth exodus at the moment, and those people are being replaced by immigrants who are penniless (in a lot of cases) and will need financial support for years to come.

Also, if you increase the tax burden on the population, you stifle productivity, why should I work overtime and extra shifts. when I'm losing 40% of that income to tax?
(We are seeing that happen now where I work, people are asking for time off in lieu rather than payment, which is fine, but the tax man is missing out)

Having had a lot of work done on my property recently, it was amazing to see how many trades people wanted cash in hand! Of course this has always been the case, but the high tax burden for many of these people means that the tax man is now losing 40% not 25%

You've really fallen for the nonsense the rich have peddled so they can have more money haven't you?

You talk about the jobs their money creates. Firstly, the argument was that the vast majority of their wealth is non-tangible and doesn't really exist so that money isn't getting spent anywhere.

The second is that if we ignore that point and say they do have loads to spend, they already don't spend all of what they have. It gets added to the pile and turned into other intangible assets.

If you want people spending money and creating jobs, then put the money in the hands of the less affluent. There are loads of people struggling or unable to even afford the essentials, so imagine if those people had a larger share of the pot? There'd be a big increase in spending and job creation across a wide variety of industries as a large number of people would be able to afford more of the things they want. Which IMO is far better than a small number of people hoarding it and maybe spunking the occasional fortune on a superyacht.

shmmeee · Jun 30, 2025

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Disagree about bailing out the banks being the right thing to do.

They caused their own problems, so why should the taxpayers bail out an industry that supposedly believes in free market and 'dog eat dog'? It basically told them they can do what they like and fuck everyone over with no consequences.

At best it should have been loaned with ridiculous interest or basically a hostile takeover with the shares being bought for a pittance. See how they like it when their own rules are applied to them.

People with money in the banks had a decent amount of it secured by the government anyway (I think it was 80k) so for the vast majority of people they would have been fine.

Id still like to know what the issue would have been with bailing out the people rather than the banks. The cash would go straight to the banks anyway, but you’d have had people without a millstone around their neck during an economic recovery. Banks would have tightened up lending criteria anyway so it’s not like the worst creditors could just go out and run it back up.

shmmeee · Jun 30, 2025

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
You've really fallen for the nonsense the rich have peddled so they can have more money haven't you?

You talk about the jobs their money creates. Firstly, the argument was that the vast majority of their wealth is non-tangible and doesn't really exist so that money isn't getting spent anywhere.

The second is that if we ignore that point and say they do have loads to spend, they already don't spend all of what they have. It gets added to the pile and turned into other intangible assets.

If you want people spending money and creating jobs, then put the money in the hands of the less affluent. There are loads of people struggling or unable to even afford the essentials, so imagine if those people had a larger share of the pot? There'd be a big increase in spending and job creation across a wide variety of industries as a large number of people would be able to afford more of the things they want. Which IMO is far better than a small number of people hoarding it and maybe spunking the occasional fortune on a superyacht.

Demand creates jobs. You can be the most brilliant businessman on the planet with all the capital in the world but if you’ve got no customers who can afford your product at a profit then you haven’t got a business.

A billionaire still only has one body, can only be in one place, only has 24 hours in a day. A single humans consumption has a hard limit. Jeff Bezos has a million times my wealth but doesn’t own a million times as many pairs of trousers or even houses as I do. Even a very expensive pair of trousers isn’t providing the equivalent amount of work and income as a million people buying normal trousers.

And besides, if they’re such great businessmen with such inherent talent then they’ll make it all straight back from the proles won’t they?

wingy · Jun 30, 2025

shmmeee said:
Id still like to know what the issue would have been with bailing out the people rather than the banks. The cash would go straight to the banks anyway, but you’d have had people without a millstone around their neck during an economic recovery. Banks would have tightened up lending criteria anyway so it’s not like the worst creditors could just go out and run it back up.

Until the next time!
Opportunity missed.

CCFCSteve · Jun 30, 2025

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Disagree about bailing out the banks being the right thing to do.

They caused their own problems, so why should the taxpayers bail out an industry that supposedly believes in free market and 'dog eat dog'? It basically told them they can do what they like and fuck everyone over with no consequences.

At best it should have been loaned with ridiculous interest or basically a hostile takeover with the shares being bought for a pittance. See how they like it when their own rules are applied to them.

People with money in the banks had a decent amount of it secured by the government anyway (I think it was 80k) so for the vast majority of people they would have been fine.

Genuinely not being nasty but you and shmmeee are deluded if you think the big Uk banks could’ve been allowed to fail. There would’ve runs on banks (see what happened to northern rock and Icelandic banks - small in the grand scheme of things in terms of Uk).

Have a look into fractional banking. The banks don’t hold everyone’s cash and there would’ve been a unravelling of the financial system, the economy and civil unrest before the government would’ve been able to get control of the situation.

Gordon brown, whilst a flawed character, is not some capitalist idiot. He wouldn’t have taken that decision lightly

The bigger issue, as mentioned previously, is nobody seemed to pay the price for the damage done…bit like China with Covid…the culprit(s) gets away with it and the rest of us pay the price

Either way, what’s done is done

fatso · Jun 30, 2025

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
You've really fallen for the nonsense the rich have peddled so they can have more money haven't you?

You talk about the jobs their money creates. Firstly, the argument was that the vast majority of their wealth is non-tangible and doesn't really exist so that money isn't getting spent anywhere.

The second is that if we ignore that point and say they do have loads to spend, they already don't spend all of what they have. It gets added to the pile and turned into other intangible assets.

If you want people spending money and creating jobs, then put the money in the hands of the less affluent. There are loads of people struggling or unable to even afford the essentials, so imagine if those people had a larger share of the pot? There'd be a big increase in spending and job creation across a wide variety of industries as a large number of people would be able to afford more of the things they want. Which IMO is far better than a small number of people hoarding it and maybe spunking the occasional

U.K.'s wealth exodus has only just begun, as the effects of dismantling its multi-billion dollar non-dom tax regime kick in

Official data suggests some 74,000 people claimed non-dom status in 2023, accounting for £8.9 billion in tax revenues for the U.K.

fortune.com

Also your 100% wrong in your assumption that people given more money would spend more in the economy, what actually happens is they do less hours at work.
I'm a case in point, as I'm getting more financially secure I'm looking at lowering my hours, and spending more time on holiday abroad, not buying more stuff I dont need.

Grendel · Jun 30, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
Genuinely not being nasty but you and shmmeee are deluded if you think the big Uk banks could’ve been allowed to fail. There would’ve runs on banks (see what happened to northern rock and Icelandic banks - small in the grand scheme of things in terms of Uk).

Have a look into fractional banking. The banks don’t hold everyone’s cash and there would’ve been a unravelling of the financial system, the economy and civil unrest before the government would’ve been able to get control of the situation.

Gordon brown, whilst a flawed character, is not some capitalist idiot. He wouldn’t have taken that decision lightly

The bigger issue, as mentioned previously, is nobody seemed to pay the price for the damage done…bit like China with Covid…the culprit(s) gets away with it and the rest of us pay the price

Either way, what’s done is done

It’s delusional.

If Uk banks had collapsed - and they would have - the country would have run out of money. Credit systems failed, mortgages bought by foreign investors, mass overnight unemployment - it would have been a fiscal Armageddon

Sick Boy · Jun 30, 2025

fatso said:
Having had a lot of work done on my property recently, it was amazing to see how many trades people wanted cash in hand!

Wow, that's a shock.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Jun 30, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
Genuinely not being nasty but you and shmmeee are deluded if you think the big Uk banks could’ve been allowed to fail. There would’ve runs on banks (see what happened to northern rock and Icelandic banks - small in the grand scheme of things in terms of Uk).

Have a look into fractional banking. The banks don’t hold everyone’s cash and there would’ve been a unravelling of the financial system, the economy and civil unrest before the government would’ve been able to get control of the situation.

Gordon brown, whilst a flawed character, is not some capitalist idiot. He wouldn’t have taken that decision lightly

The bigger issue, as mentioned previously, is nobody seemed to pay the price for the damage done…bit like China with Covid…the culprit(s) gets away with it and the rest of us pay the price

Either way, what’s done is done

So we just wait for them to do it again?

Cos they will. Like a naughty child given what they want they'll just keep on dong it knowing they'll get a way with it. Given them a smack and they stop. So do you want to put up with the short term problems now or have this same situation going on endlessly, getting worse and worse each time as they push how much they can get away with.

And we have a system that can't cope with that, then all that shows is that the system isn't fit for purpose and needs changing immediately. We've tried tinkering around the edges and gently trying to push and nudge them in the right direction with regulation etc but it never works. If they won't take the hint then a big shock is the only option.

With that we've got a chance of coming back. As it is we're fucked completely.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Jun 30, 2025

fatso said:
U.K.'s wealth exodus has only just begun, as the effects of dismantling its multi-billion dollar non-dom tax regime kick in

Official data suggests some 74,000 people claimed non-dom status in 2023, accounting for £8.9 billion in tax revenues for the U.K.

fortune.com

Also your 100% wrong in your assumption that people given more money would spend more in the economy, what actually happens is they do less hours at work.
I'm a case in point, as I'm getting more financially secure I'm looking at lowering my hours, and spending more time on holiday abroad, not buying more stuff I dont need.

So if they do less hours those hours become available and we have more people in work do we not?

Brighton Sky Blue · Jun 30, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
Genuinely not being nasty but you and shmmeee are deluded if you think the big Uk banks could’ve been allowed to fail. There would’ve runs on banks (see what happened to northern rock and Icelandic banks - small in the grand scheme of things in terms of Uk).

Have a look into fractional banking. The banks don’t hold everyone’s cash and there would’ve been a unravelling of the financial system, the economy and civil unrest before the government would’ve been able to get control of the situation.

Gordon brown, whilst a flawed character, is not some capitalist idiot. He wouldn’t have taken that decision lightly

The bigger issue, as mentioned previously, is nobody seemed to pay the price for the damage done…bit like China with Covid…the culprit(s) gets away with it and the rest of us pay the price

Either way, what’s done is done

The point stands to reason that when the uber capitalists fucked up, they got not only no punishment but were allowed to go back to their old ways.

This is the whole problem with financial services, the profits are privatised, the losses are socialised.

CCFCSteve · Jun 30, 2025

Grendel said:
It’s delusional.

If Uk banks had collapsed - and they would have - the country would have run out of money. Credit systems failed, mortgages bought by foreign investors, mass overnight unemployment - it would have been a fiscal Armageddon

People forget very quickly….there was a run on bog rolls during Covid FFS !

Brighton Sky Blue said:
The point stands to reason that when the uber capitalists fucked up, they got not only no punishment but were allowed to go back to their old ways.

This is the whole problem with financial services, the profits are privatised, the losses are socialised.

Don’t disagree which is why I said the issue was the lack of punishment, doesn’t mean the governments actions at the time weren’t correct though

Brighton Sky Blue · Jun 30, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
People forget very quickly….there was a run on bog rolls during Covid FFS !

Don’t disagree which is why I said the issue was the lack of punishment, doesn’t mean the governments actions at the time weren’t correct though

I agree the bailout was necessary, but the lack of punishment was inexcusable

wingy · Jun 30, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
People forget very quickly….there was a run on bog rolls during Covid FFS !

Don’t disagree which is why I said the issue was the lack of punishment, doesn’t mean the governments actions at the time weren’t correct though

Well they've just received their last installment from one .of the guilty parties in the form of £8.5B

wingy · Jun 30, 2025

wingy said:
Well they've just received their last installment from one .of the guilty parties in the form of £8.5B

Hopefully enough to sort the @PO, Grenfell and contaminated blood et al.

Captain Dart · Jun 30, 2025

Brighton Sky Blue said:
I agree the bailout was necessary, but the lack of punishment was inexcusable

Fred the shred should've been hung drawn and quartered, instead he has a £500k pension.

mmttww · Jun 30, 2025

Captain Dart said:
Fred the shred should've been hung drawn and quartered, instead he has a £500k pension.

Hector Sants summed it up. Is at the FSA from 2004 and his reward for the mess that unfolded on his watch was £2m pa at Barclays straight after. Jobs for the boys.

Do you want to discuss boring politics? (28 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency