Is the U.K. really broken, or does it just need tinkering?

Where's that thread about people not understanding macro-economics?

It’s business that runs the economy...

If it's business that runs the economy David then perhaps they should let someone else have a go because they're making a bloody mess of it...

It’s business that runs the economy pays wages, invests in the UK and pay wages, that may not suit your leftwing view of the UK utopia where we get everything for nothing.

To nationalize utilities would cost hundreds of billions, with no guarantee of improvement, because more will be needed to make the changes needed. Probably more important to fix the NHS first

Ilovecheese

I agree MaizieD.

Me too.

Magenta8

On the subject of remarks about MPs personal appearance, does anyone else remember David Cameron telling Jeremy Corbyn to "get a decent suit".

I sure do.
Get a suit man! Is what Cameron said, then went on to say something about how over large Corbyns ill fitting jacket was.
Corbyn shrugged it off which is what politicians do.

I agree MaizieD.

Starmer has some redeeming qualities. His understanding of law, and real strengths as a statesman, in diplomacy and foreign affairs and handling Trump, that this country (and the world) cannot afford to lose right now.

Fine as far as it goes, but he has no understanding of how a country's economy works (neither does Reeves) and appears to have little rapport with his MPs or with disadvantaged groups. He also has too much rapport with big business.

Additionally, he appears to have depended too much on his advisors and his chief of staff, McSweeny is catastrophically focused on winning the next GE by making Labour more Reform than Reform to attract right wing voters.

Oh for an advisor who would tell him to nationalise the utilities, put some serious money into the NHS and get rid of the private companies which are milking it for profit, do something about making taxation far more progressive and stop deferring to the wealthy... Oh, and get rid of Reeves...(though who on earth would succeed her I don't know. I fancy Clive Lewis, at least he appears to know something about how a country's economy works...)

On the subject of remarks about MPs personal appearance, does anyone else remember David Cameron telling Jeremy Corbyn to "get a decent suit".

butterandjam

There is a lot to fix, but Conservatives had their chance and Reform will never be anything other than incompetent. You only have to look at Farage's ignominious "career" in politics.

Starmer has some redeeming qualities. His understanding of law, and real strengths as a statesman, in diplomacy and foreign affairs and handling Trump, that this country (and the world) cannot afford to lose right now.

The public agree with that view by the looks of it.
yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52251-who-would-be-the-best-prime-minister-may-2025

the UK is not broken. It is thriving given you guys are paying benefits to whomever comes no matter who they are. Not many other countries can just put their hand in the pocket and come up with billions for benefits alone. Leave alone all other expenses a country has got

Oreo

In any case, a remark about someone’s expression isn’t about her hair or clothes so hardly personal in that regard.It’s always a bit of a bear pit at PMQ’s.

Yes Oreo I have watched PMQs over the years. I have to say I don’t remember Johnson being seriously attacked for his appearance, but recollections may vary🤷‍♀️

You’re correct that Badenough focused on Reeves’ facial expression, repeating, more than once, that she looked miserable.

IMO this is even worse than commenting on clothes etc because it may be that the person truly is unhappy, for personal reasons … but I’ll kick her when she’s down anyway!

Maybe this demonstrates Badenough’s lack of empathy.

It matters not a jot that Reeves is a woman - she’s a human being.

I’m not sure how you work out that someone’s facial expression isn’t personal?

A root and branch reform is needed, starting with the lobbying system. The bigger the chequebook, the more lucrative the bribes and the more lavish the freebies the more influence on government decisions the "haves" can acquire.

The "have nots" simply get insincere promises about jam tommorrow.

There is a lot to fix, but Conservatives had their chance and Reform will never be anything other than incompetent. You only have to look at Farage's ignominious "career" in politics.

Starmer has some redeeming qualities. His understanding of law, and real strengths as a statesman, in diplomacy and foreign affairs and handling Trump, that this country (and the world) cannot afford to lose right now.

Oreo

Doodledog

escaped

Well if things need sorting, why not go the whole hog? No hesitating, just be radical. It may upset a few people along the way, but if the end product is better for it, then there's no point pussyfooting around.

That's what revolutionaries say .

I think it would go beyond upsetting a few people. Much would depend on what a new contract would involve, but as examples, to say to people who are used to living comfortably that they have to give what they have to others (as the far left might prefer), or to people who haven't paid tax that in order to use the NHS they have to pay (as Reform suggest) would be massively disruptive.

Huge changes are usually better when they are introduced gradually, so that people who have made plans in good faith don't have their lives ruined.

We would need, as a country, to decide what form a new society would take, and that sort of thing is fraught with danger, as the vested interests would be jostling for position, and it could get very ugly.

I think escaped is right.Starmer needs to have some vision.I also agree with Ilovecheese and Lathyrus 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I didn't say he doesn't . I said that a radical shake-up of how society works would go beyond upsetting a few people.

I would also like to see renationalisation of water and other utilities (including transport). This would be easier to implement than a total rethink of the welfare/benefits/pension system (which I also think the country needs), unless we really do want a multi-tier system with people on legacy benefits alongside those paying different levels of contribution.

There are already various different levels of state pension, claimed at different ages, with amounts depending on whether people paid full 'stamp', inherited their husbands' pension and/or SERPS etc, and that causes no end of resentment. Many women who had six years added to their retirement age have struggled to make the necessary adjustments. People work within the system in which they find themselves and plan accordingly - it's all any of us can do. Sudden and radical changes can ruin those plans, sometimes when it is too late for individuals to make new ones.

Things like increases to the NMW, building more housing, breakfast clubs and so on may seem small, but are all steps in the right direction, IMO, and can be built on and 'tinkered with' until they become larger ones that really have an impact without throwing people's lives into disarray.

I would like to see a 5 year plan from all incoming governments, with annual reports showing how close the aims are to being met. That way the population would understand the reasoning behind decisions that may seem arbitrary or misguided.

I agree with the Poster about re-nationalising the water supplies. Which other country has let such an important resource go to private 'investors'?

In any case, a remark about someone’s expression isn’t about her hair or clothes so hardly personal in that regard.It’s always a bit of a bear pit at PMQ’s.

LizzieDrip have you watched PMQ’s over the years? I ask as personal slights and insults happen with regularity.
Are you annoyed simply cos she’s a woman? Male MP ‘s and Ministers and leaders take it in their stride and so too usually do female ones.
Corbyn was regularly laughed at by Cameron as to his personal appearance ( after a while Corbyn def smartened up) and I daresay Johnson was too.

lizzie so do most of the Tory MPs as far as I can make out.

Badenoch actually said that she looks miserable which she usually does anyway as does Rayner. It’s PMQ’s and they all have a go at each other

Have a go at each politics and political performance by all means, but Badenough’s comment was a personal slight about Reeves’ appearance. Out of order and totally uncalled for.

What a nasty piece of work Badenough is. I despise her!

Doodledog

escaped

Well if things need sorting, why not go the whole hog? No hesitating, just be radical. It may upset a few people along the way, but if the end product is better for it, then there's no point pussyfooting around.

That's what revolutionaries say .

I think it would go beyond upsetting a few people. Much would depend on what a new contract would involve, but as examples, to say to people who are used to living comfortably that they have to give what they have to others (as the far left might prefer), or to people who haven't paid tax that in order to use the NHS they have to pay (as Reform suggest) would be massively disruptive.

Huge changes are usually better when they are introduced gradually, so that people who have made plans in good faith don't have their lives ruined.

We would need, as a country, to decide what form a new society would take, and that sort of thing is fraught with danger, as the vested interests would be jostling for position, and it could get very ugly.

I think escaped is right.Starmer needs to have some vision.I also agree with Ilovecheese and Lathyrus 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

LizzieDrip

Yes David I saw that.

Really no need for Badenough to make personal attacks on Rachel Reeves - how low can she go.

Reeves did look awful and so would I in her position, I think. She is human - unlike Ms Badenough who’s clearly perfect (in her own head).

Badenoch actually said that she looks miserable which she usually does anyway as does Rayner.
It’s PMQ’s and they all have a go at each other.

people who haven't paid tax that in order to use the NHS they have to pay (as Reform suggest) would be massively disruptive.
That should read 'people who haven't paid health insurance.

An edit button would be great.

Oh I didn’t see that. The pressure must be tremendous at times.

For my money, I do think that Reeves has locked herself into this fiscal conservatism, which she might have just got away with if times were good, but they aren’t, and we need far more imaginative and Keynsian thinking to tied us over the current situation.

Re-joining the CU and SM would be highly sensible, especially as growth was her target.

escaped

Well if things need sorting, why not go the whole hog? No hesitating, just be radical. It may upset a few people along the way, but if the end product is better for it, then there's no point pussyfooting around.

That's what revolutionaries say .

I think it would go beyond upsetting a few people. Much would depend on what a new contract would involve, but as examples, to say to people who are used to living comfortably that they have to give what they have to others (as the far left might prefer), or to people who haven't paid tax that in order to use the NHS they have to pay (as Reform suggest) would be massively disruptive.

Huge changes are usually better when they are introduced gradually, so that people who have made plans in good faith don't have their lives ruined.

We would need, as a country, to decide what form a new society would take, and that sort of thing is fraught with danger, as the vested interests would be jostling for position, and it could get very ugly.

Yes David I saw that.

Really no need for Badenough to make personal attacks on Rachel Reeves - how low can she go.

Reeves did look awful and so would I in her position, I think. She is human - unlike Ms Badenough who’s clearly perfect (in her own head).