Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Yeah but we're spending 100 million a year.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 5:44 pm Yeah but we're spending 100 million a year.

That's the cost of a sandwich at Gatwick.

If the UK can splash the same amount on a humungous landing strip within spitting distance of Chinese shipping routes and a hop-skip from all manner of other adversaries, that looks like a pretty decent deal.

Defence has a price.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Richard Tice gets inflation completely the wrong way round. This would require unprecedented deflation to be true,

Any conceivable downside of tearing up agreements?

Richard Tice says 'when' Reform UK win next election, they will rip up Chagos Islands deal and cancel further payments
Back in the Commons Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, says this is “the worst ever deal in history by this country”. He claims that, allowing for inflation, the £101m annual cost means the deal will cost £40bn, taking into account inflation. He goes on:

When reform win the next general election, we will rip up this deal and tear it up and stop all future payments.
Healey says Tice is talking “total rubbish”.

Kemi speaks. She's not quite come up with £40bn but she's had a good go. Allies might be less than impressed with the implication that they don't support this deal. As might Mauritius with the suggestion it's some sort of Chinese proxy. "The lawyers" is a funny representation of the votes at the UN.

I make no apology for opposing this disgraceful Chagos sell-out:
•At least £30 billion of taxpayers’ money thrown away in a Surrender Tax—and likely much more
•British territory handed over to a country aligned with China
•Our national security needlessly weakened All to appease the lawyers and activist elite
Keir Starmer surrounds himself with. Other countries may nod along, but behind closed doors, they must think we’ve lost our minds. Labour is turning Britain into a global laughing stock.

Who knows what the US will do, but I'd be surprised if Starmer didn't call in a few favors from NATO allies here. "Hi Kemi, it's Emmanuel/ Friedrich/ Pedro/ Mark/ Donald here. Can you stop lying about my country's position, please?"

I'm just amazed that the Leader of the Opposition thinks you can say things like that about Allies. Is there nobody who was in the government last year to point out "Actually, Kemi, we discussed this with allies ourselves. They actually don't think this is mad. They think the issue has been absolute gift to China in the region."

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 5:53 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 5:44 pm Yeah but we're spending 100 million a year.

That's the cost of a sandwich at Gatwick.

If the UK can splash the same amount on a humungous landing strip within spitting distance of Chinese shipping routes and a hop-skip from all manner of other adversaries, that looks like a pretty decent deal.

Defence has a price.

He was being sarcastic, I'm pretty sure. It's basically not very much money at all, just in terms of removing an easy propaganda win for China in the region, let alone in terms of security.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 5:53 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 5:44 pm Yeah but we're spending 100 million a year.

That's the cost of a sandwich at Gatwick.

If the UK can splash the same amount on a humungous landing strip within spitting distance of Chinese shipping routes and a hop-skip from all manner of other adversaries, that looks like a pretty decent deal.

Defence has a price.

As Tubbs points out I was being sarcastic. In fact I can remember when the right were screaming that it would cost 9 billion.

Oh ...

Dan Neidle on Angela Rayner's tax proposals.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/05/23/ang ... -assessed/

His view is that 4 of them are well thought out and could raise £2.5bn a year. He disagrees with some others, but they're not outlandish. Overall, not quite the leftist challenge the coverage has made it out. I'd be surprised if Reeves didn't do some of what she suggests.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri May 23, 2025 8:10 pm Dan Neidle on Angela Rayner's tax proposals.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/05/23/ang ... -assessed/

His view is that 4 of them are well thought out and could raise £2.5bn a year. He disagrees with some others, but they're not outlandish. Overall, not quite the leftist challenge the coverage has made it out. I'd be surprised if Reeves didn't do some of what she suggests.

I've heard that this was leaked to damage Rayner or Rayner leaked it herself to undermine Reeves.

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/ar ... find-money

Keir Starmer has told cabinet ministers that he wants to scrap the two-child benefit cap and has asked the Treasury to identify ways to fund the plan.

With Labour MPs threatening to rebel over the government’s welfare reforms, the prime minister has privately made clear that he is determined to axe the limit in order to drive down child poverty. “Keir wants to end the two-child cap – he thinks it’s the right thing to do,” one minister said. “It’s the best and most cost-effective way to reduce child poverty. The alternatives cost more and are less effective.”

The change, which would cost £3.5bn a year, would be the second big welfare U-turn after last week’s reversal on the winter fuel allowance.

Starmer’s endorsement will be seen as a victory for Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, and Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, who have been pushing for the cap to be abolished as the flagship policy in the government’s child poverty strategy.

That won't get as much coverage as the WFA.

Or it would garner a lot of negative coverage from the usual quarters:

"Labour cash bonanza to irresponsible ... and YOU will be paying!"

It'll be good if they do scrap it as it was another one of those vindictive policies cooked up by that snivelling little shit Osborne.

Of course, they will get no credit for this.

I'm guessing they won't "seize this opportunity. Is there any point in even reporting that a group of people who want a wealth tax support a wealth tax and make big claims for it? Get back to me when the IFS or somebody similar supports one.

Haven't forgotten John McD's legacy, losing Labour every election they fought when he was shadow chancellor. He's got some front.

Starmer and co are trashing Labour’s legacy. We must take back control of our party – before it’s too late
John McDonnell
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other

Over on Bluesky they're kicking Starmer for attacking Farage in a speech instead of governing.

Youngian wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 11:47 am Haven't forgotten John McD's legacy, losing Labour every election they fought when he was shadow chancellor. He's got some front.

Starmer and co are trashing Labour’s legacy. We must take back control of our party – before it’s too late
John McDonnell
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other

I'm old enough to remember when McDonnell was the Shadow Chancellor and didn't back a wealthy tax (apologies for going on about this). If it's a painless way of raising £24bn now, it was a painless way of doing it in 2019. He could have given basic rate payers a nicer tax cut to boot. Funny he didn't do that, isn't it?

This is positive. The Government will doubtless get no credit for it at all because bills are rising (quite substantially) to pay for it, and building reservoirs is apparently free when you nationalize water companies (also for free).