Printable View
Well, it's relevent because I am not sure the IFS have the influence you think, as evidenced by the 2017 reference!Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
And yes, my saying it's a pretty daft policy would be an expression of asking serious questions! 👍
Ah, didn't quite understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
The Labour Manifesto of 2017 and the Tory one that got implemented, both were pilloried by the IFS, but only one got implemented. It was as bad as the IFS predicted.
Yet the Reform 2024 manifesto, obviously didn't get too much attention but they seem to be selling the main bits of it now. Massive tax cuts with (foggy) savings. Good to see that you are sticking to the view that Farage is selling snake oil though!
I wouldn't say that. I think all parties have the capability to produce wildly unrealistic manifestos and I think the reality is that such manifestos probably aren't as it unappealing to people as perhaps they should be. No question, any future manifesto will be far more scrutinised, which is a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
That doesn't show what you suggest at allQuote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
But would you accept that a party miles away from power can promise the earth and that Reform was such a party in 2024, so that perpetuating with 20k tax free seductive noises (not promises) with no clue on how it would be funded is selling snake oil to the gullible?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Of course it is and it's on the back of a fag paper. But many people are stupid enough to lap it up before coming back down to the real world with a crash. Bang goes the public services for the least well off. It will sober them up when they realise the most vulnerable amongst them will be forced to pay for things we take for granted; or worse, they'll have to go without.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
It wouldn't say that, no. Id say it's politics, or populist politics of parties unlikely to get elected. I wouldn't use that term for the Green party either.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
Its very different when you get closer to power. My point is, few people are that bothered by what the IFS. Or more to the point. Enough people dont care
It kinda does. You would have labelled such a policy as far right about 18 months ago! Or even 12 months ago..or even last week!Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
The Green Party can be a bit fanciful but have many good , sensible policiesQuote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
If you are comparing the idiots running reform with the greens you are clearly a paid up member
I think you are on quicksand here
It's accepted immigration has to be tackled head on but come on have a word with yourself
It kind of doesn't at all
You are leaning further to the right with every post these days
Are you getting a tickle from Nigel ?
Fair enough, what is your go-to point to form your views? Or more to the point, are you one of enough people that don't care?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
But that's my point. It absolutely is the same. The IFS have criticised every major party, and yet every major party will still get millions of votes. Just like me, ou, Dorcus and Cyril will all have voted for parties whose manifestos were heavily criticised by the IFS. I bet it influenced your decision a relatively small amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
Although some of the tax plans may initially work, the IFS said it is “unlikely that the specific tax-raising measures they propose to help achieve all this would raise the sorts of sums they claim – and certainly not without real economic cost”.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...lans-explained
Changes each election, just as the problems the country, or me personally, my family or my community faces changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
It clearly isn'tQuote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
You can defend the rubber neckers and angry tv shooters if you like but it's all cobblers
The Senedd Commission is requesting a significant increase to its budget for 2025-26, totaling £84.3 million, to manage the upcoming expansion of the Senedd from 60 to 96 members. This increase is expected to cost an extra £1.2 million, bringing the total cost of the expansion to £6.5 million. Additionally, the Senedd building itself cost £69.6 million to construct.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Expansion Costs:
The Senedd Commission anticipates needing £6.5 million to accommodate the additional 36 members in the Senedd chamber and related facilities, an increase of £1.2 million from previous projections.
Overall Senedd Budget:
The Commission is seeking a 16% increase in its budget for 2025-26, taking the total to £84.3 million.
Building Construction:
The Senedd building, completed in 2006, cost £69.6 million, including £49.7 million in construction costs.
Running Costs:
The Senedd's annual running costs are estimated to be between £15 million and £20 million.
Cost per Member:
The average cost of a Member of the Senedd (MS) in 2020-21 was £264,000, and in 2021-22 was £262,000, including pension contributions. The average cost of all expense claims was £20,426.55 in 2020-21 and £21,979.73 in 2021-22.
A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY.
It will be intriguing what Reform will be proposing in their manifesto for Wales. I don’t feel immigration is a big issue here compared to parts of (6 fingered) England. We value the NHS more than anything here, Reform don’t support it. They will almost certainly hint at doing away with the WG, something the Tories floated for years than fell in line when it was a non starter with the public.
Then there’s Reform DOGE-like cuts. There’s nothing left to cut in local government, it’s on its knees already.
High Immigration is definitely a big issue here, though I agree, it's probably less so than in parts of England. But it is a huge issue and rightly so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Blue
It's not true about Reform and the NHS. Their last manifesto (which see above is unrealistic) proposed a £17bn increase in NHS funding. I know Farage has put out ideas on some of the models used on the continent. As long as it's free at the point of use, I think we should be all ears on that. The NHS isn't a holy order that must never change how it delivers services.
Local govt is a strange one. Services have been cut but the inefficiencies are in how it's run and how it procures things in particular. I could tell a few stories believe me. And mass working from home has been (and still is) an utter disaster for service delivery.
My dad had a new shower fitted two weeks ago (he's significantly disabled so needed an even more walk in one, with no lip at all) and the cost was £7,000. For a new shower. That's part of the problem, the use of consultants, the fact that contractors can so easily rip off because they know councils will pay anyway, even the fact that depts spend budgets or lose budgets means there is an encouragement to get money out the door.
Local government isn't flushed with cash but there are way better ways to run things. That's why Im intrigued to see how Reform do in the councils they run. I don't think they will come even close to fixing the issues -many of which are beyond local authorities controls - but I'm interested to see.
At it stands we have rising bills and declining services. It's hardly an argument for the status quo.
Given your stance on most issues, I’m amazed you didn’t tell your Dad to buy his own shower.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
So to paraphrase.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
The Reform NHS proposals using models from the continent (and US) involving outsourced private consultants and contractors are innovative ideas as long as the service is free at the point of use and funded from national taxation.
Based on recent experience the outsourced use of consultants and contractors from the private sector providing services free at the point of use via local taxation is a scandalously inefficient waste of money.
Your father is in council accommodation?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
If the cost of a new shower is 7 grand due to using outside contractors then that's down to the removal of in house labour
And that's a way of working brought in by free market conservative government ....to save money
Reform are unlikely to do anything about that
Now that's witty ��Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Blue
No, I would like the maximum number of people to benefit from the finite resourceQuote:
Originally Posted by Dave Blue
Do you think the NHS is markedly better at delivery than say Germany, France, Netherlands etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
You seem to be arguing for the status quo?
I agree entirely that more things should be brought in house where possible. But that's not always viable and the point remains in the real world that councils are being ripped off.Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
Why wouldn't Reform want to do something about that?
Because reform are a right wing capitalist party where cash and profit is kingQuote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
It's part of their DNA
Farage is even further to the right than your hero Maggie