Re: Starmer
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2025 1:17 pm
AbsolutelyEl Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Sep 14, 2025 5:22 pm This whole thing is so f.cking depressing. f.cks sake.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... t-messagesmonkey wrote: Thu Sep 11, 2025 1:49 pm My prediction is that more things are going to be noticed until Starmer quits.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-watchdogmonkey wrote: Thu Sep 11, 2025 1:49 pm My prediction is that more things are going to be noticed until Starmer quits.
It's hard to imagine any conversation in which Starmer could have persuaded Reeves to do that. I am trying, but my mind keeps going back to a Beyond the Fringe sketch from over sixty years ago.bob sterman wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 6:47 pm Since this is relevant to the future of Starmer...
Some very interesting word choices by Rachel Reeves today - that suggest Starmer will be ditching her soon to take the fall for a range of things.
"I will make the choices necessary to deliver strong foundations for our economy"
"There is a lot of speculation about the choices that I will make."
"the choices I make in the Budget this month"
Throughout the speech - all the choices about stuff people won't like were hers alone - and all the good stuff (building houses, infrastructure, bearing down on NHS waiting lists) were collective - things "we" are doing.
I don't think this is coincidental - I reckon Starmer has told her to create some distance between them.
War's a psychological thing, Perkins, rather like a game of football. You know how, in a game of football, ten men often play better than eleven?
Yes sir.
Perkins, we're asking you to be that one man.
I doubt that's it. The treasury makes decisions on the budget. That's her job. The good stuff (building houses, fixing the NHS etc.) is delivered by others in government.bob sterman wrote: Tue Nov 04, 2025 6:47 pm Since this is relevant to the future of Starmer...
Some very interesting word choices by Rachel Reeves today - that suggest Starmer will be ditching her soon to take the fall for a range of things.
"I will make the choices necessary to deliver strong foundations for our economy"
"There is a lot of speculation about the choices that I will make."
"the choices I make in the Budget this month"
Throughout the speech - all the choices about stuff people won't like were hers alone - and all the good stuff (building houses, infrastructure, bearing down on NHS waiting lists) were collective - things "we" are doing.
I don't think this is coincidental - I reckon Starmer has told her to create some distance between them.
Yes - but most politicians, if they knew they were about to serve up something likely to be unpopular would try to share the blame with plenty by using "we" as much as possible.Tristan wrote: Wed Nov 05, 2025 10:44 am I doubt that's it. The treasury makes decisions on the budget. That's her job. The good stuff (building houses, fixing the NHS etc.) is delivered by others in government.
Yeah. Disappointing.Grumble wrote: Fri Nov 14, 2025 6:47 am The briefing, counter briefing and reversals from Reeves and Starmer are extraordinary. Although rather depressingly reminiscent of the last Tory government.
I agree. I didn't vote for Labour to get vaguely the same sh.t we had before. The changes aren't coming fast enough, change costs money, so raise the money and make the changes already.Tristan wrote: Fri Nov 14, 2025 8:10 am And FFS just put up income tax on us all. Take the pain now, make the fixe, and run on improved services/country in 3-4 years time.
Why stop at big companies? And why prioritise focusing on them at all? Small businesses (turnover under £10m, fewer than 20 employees) account for far more of the tax gap than big companies do. It was estimated that they accounted for 60% of the tax gap in '23-'24.TopBadger wrote: Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:31 am Also, beef up HMRC and go after big company tax avoidance...
Fair enough - go after them all.Tristan wrote: Fri Nov 14, 2025 10:34 am Why stop at big companies? And why prioritise focusing on them at all? Small businesses (turnover under £10m, fewer than 20 employees) account for far more of the tax gap than big companies do. It was estimated that they accounted for 60% of the tax gap in '23-'24.
Because you get a greater return on investment by investigating and prosecuting a big company than for a small company.
Your last point undermines your first one. If most of the small company gaps is incompetence, mistakes and lack of admin staff then you don't need difficult prosecutions to start addressing it. Providing support and streamlining processes are more likely to yield results here, assuming the small companies are acting in good faith.dyqik wrote: Fri Nov 14, 2025 12:34 pmBecause you get a greater return on investment by investigating and prosecuting a big company than for a small company.
Small companies might make up more of the gap, but each one has to be dealt with separately, is probably a small sum evaded, and doesn't result in much deterrence. A big headline splash of a big company getting prosecuted does quite a bit for deterrence.
Also with small companies, gaps are more likely to be due to incompetence, mistakes, or lack of admin staff. That makes it harder to get a prosecution, and causes negative PR. Going after a large corporation with a large accounting staff is going after deliberate evasion.
You keep saying that, but you haven't said how many more small companies are involved than big companies. If it's 100 times more (and I'd expect it's more than that given the likely scalings), then you're not making sense.Tristan wrote: Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:41 pm Small companies account for 5x the gap that large companies do.
You’re assuming that the effort required grows at the same rate as the number of companies. Perhaps that would be the case if it was all the gap needed prosecutions to fix. But if it’s more likely down to errors etc. (as you claim) then solutions could be put in place that help many more companies meet their tax obligations.dyqik wrote: Sat Nov 15, 2025 2:11 amYou keep saying that, but you haven't said how many more small companies are involved than big companies. If it's 100 times more (and I'd expect it's more than that given the likely scalings), then you're not making sense.Tristan wrote: Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:41 pm Small companies account for 5x the gap that large companies do.
Eh? That's not what I'm talking about at all.Tristan wrote: Sat Nov 15, 2025 2:24 pmYou’re assuming that the effort required grows at the same rate as the number of companies. Perhaps that would be the case if it was all the gap needed prosecutions to fix. But if it’s more likely down to errors etc. (as you claim) then solutions could be put in place that help many more companies meet their tax obligations.dyqik wrote: Sat Nov 15, 2025 2:11 amYou keep saying that, but you haven't said how many more small companies are involved than big companies. If it's 100 times more (and I'd expect it's more than that given the likely scalings), then you're not making sense.Tristan wrote: Fri Nov 14, 2025 1:41 pm Small companies account for 5x the gap that large companies do.