Forum menu
Obviously if you don't agree with our basic economic understanding of how the world works then the rest of it wontmake any sense either.
I think this is the crux of where centrist thinking breaks down. You guys assume that 'the way the world works' is always the same and cannot be changed. It's nonsense. We've had many different systems and approaches to managing the world's economy. Since 1900 we've had laissez-faire monopolism, the gold standard, a command war economy, Keynesian redistribution and Bretton Woods, Monetarism, deregulated capital markets and fiat currencies, and quantitative easing supporting bailouts of banks and the wider economy during covid. These are all massively different to each other and were implemented in response to geopolitical events and the wishes of voters. We're at another inflection point again, and the way we manage the economy needs to be radically changed. But all we hear from establishment politicians and their apologists is 'it can't be done', 'it's too difficult', 'it won't work' or 'it's too expensive'. Well guess what? That's what they're elected to do! They need to get on with it or the voters will give someone else the responsibility.
And again, when a Daily Mail journalist is the voice of reason and expressing what the vast majority of working people think, you have to wonder WTF the Labour party is doing?
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1904839412296413248
Blimey, has this thread turned into a self-help vehicle for confused and demoralised centrists? Binners usually a man of so many words and opinions is reduced to posting just pictures, which I assume is some sort of hysteria, and now we're getting profound navel-gazing with talk of "I am still a centrist" or "I feel homeless".
How about discussing "the UK government" which is the subject matter ?
I guess you didn't bother to read my post then, fair enough it was probably a bit long and rambling, would have been nice if you'd engaged on some of the points though or heaven forbid admitted people who don't share your world view may actually have coherent arguments and beliefs that aren't instrincially nasty. Any wonder Binners resorts to donkey pictures.
Most people are of the opinion that the Starmer-Reeves government is screwing up in terms of their priorities
I don't think they are, I think they are trying to get onto some sort of stable footing are years of Tory vandalism and populist policy.
The idea that centrists haven't been shifted right just is demonstrably not true.
Sweeping statement is sweeping. Maybe I'm bucking the trend then as I'm happy to call myself a centrist and I'm pretty sure my political viewpoint has moved more towards the left, in part from reading more diverse opinions on here.
It could be that Starmer believes that by not bucking the system he can do a little bit of good in a seriously flawed system
Optimistic. The first step to clean up politics would surely be to rein in the tech giants, and he’s already signalling that he’ll give them our benefits money.
Looks like Rachel from accounts got her accounts all wrong. Ideological callousness and incompetence. You couldn't make it up. The sooner these shysters are out of office the better, whoever replaces them. My only question now is why those labour MPs who profess to give a shit are still in the party?*
*How they vote on these cuts is going to do for them like the tuition fee u-turn did for the libdems.
Any wonder Binners resorts to donkey pictures.
Binners posts donkey pictures because he's incapable of supporting his inconsistent opinions with arguments or ideology. Politics is just a game to him, where he wants 'his side' (news flash, they're not on your side binners!) to be the winners so he can gloat like any football fan does to their rivals. For someone who professes to want sensible discussion it's surprising that you side with binners when Ernie at least puts some effort into explaining why he thinks as he does.
I don't care if it is easy or not, the fact is they are not even trying
The biggest hurdle to collecting taxes based on wealth is the amount of resources (in comparison to taxing people based on their income) it takes. HMRC doesn't have the army of inspectors, valuers, and lawyers that it would need to asses peoples wealth annually and then apply taxation to that. Pragmatically it's not even 'not easy' it's probably well into 'not possible' territory and I think you make a convincing argument that it's not even a good use of the public purse. Besides which; there's plenty of tax reform within taxing people's income - based on their wealth, that could open new revenue long before you get into valuing paintings, race horses boats houses cars territory.
The biggest hurdle to collecting taxes based on wealth
So put a levy on the sale of assets over a certain value. We tax 'luxury' purchases with VAT, we can tax sales of property and investments. And of course do the other stuff like equalise capital gains tax with income tax (or make it quite a bit higher and reduce income tax for lower earners). There are any number of ways of redistributing wealth from rich to poor which are fairly easy to implement. We can't keep saying it's too difficult.
Most people are of the opinion that the Starmer-Reeves government is screwing up in terms of their priorities
I don't think they are, I think they are trying to get onto some sort of stable footing are years of Tory vandalism and populist policy.
Yes I get that you think Starmer's government has got their priorities right, but, yet again, I wasn't referring to the personal views of punters on this thread, obviously.
Most voters are of the opinion that the Starmer-Reeves government is screwing up in terms of their own personal priorities. All the opinion polls are showing precisely that and the local elections and by-elections in May will undoubtedly confirm it.
The centrist clique currently in government aren't simply not offering an effective alternative to 14 years of Tory rule, they are in fact very much part of the problem.
They are pursuing a continuation of the failed Tory policies of the last 14 years. Talk of wiping out the deficit within 5 years, the creation of the OBR, and the need for balanced budgets and austerity, was nonsense in 2010 and it is still nonsense in 2025.
With help from the very "centrist" LibDems David Cameron and George Osborne managed to convince sufficient voters of that nonsense but voters are not going to keep swallowing the same nonsense over and over again year after year.
Centrist is just a rebranding of the term "moderate". By definition moderates believe in tinkering with the situation as they find it without changing the status quo too radically. That is not what Britain needs and it is becoming increasingly obvious that is not what voters want.
Most voters are of the opinion that the Starmer-Reeves government is screwing up in terms of their own personal priorities. All the opinion polls are showing precisely that and the local elections and by-elections in May will undoubtedly confirm it.
I'm not even sure that's what the opinion polls show.
I suspect the average opinion poll responder sees currently what the media shows them, which is all the negative stuff and very little of the positive policies that have been implemented. The numbers don't lie, I accept, but are the voters in possession of a full understanding of the choices being made (I also accept, are they when election day comes round)
Additionally I'm not convinced PRIORITIES are wrong, rather the approach and solutions to those priorities are. As I said in my earlier commentary
I think welfare state needs revision. There, I said it. Do I think THIS revision is right - probably not. Do I think lifting the 2 child cap should have been done? Optically it would have been a (cheap) and easy win, but I can also defend the position that a broader review of poverty and child poverty would be more effective and make economic sense.
Additionally I'm not convinced PRIORITIES are wrong
You are a happier bunny than most then, lucky for you. I however think their priorities are completely wrong.
Tory and Reform priorities would also be wrong so nothing to benefit their either.
In fact
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/does-the-benefit-system-need-reform
That doesn't look like a rejection of priorities to me?
You are a happier bunny than most then, lucky for you. I however think their priorities are completely wrong.
You're in the minority by that poll. Most agree with me, that welfare needs reform. What would you have given as opinion?
It doesn't make me 'a happy bunny' however, as I said I think the reforms proposed are wrong.
There is little evidence that the reforms to the benefits were carefully planed, it looks more like panicky cuts and count the bodies later, the same is true of the foreign aid budget slashes, even removal of NHS England that everyone supported when the details were fully released was just a part of slashing budgets with little or no planning on where those roles would be reallocated and even revealed cuts to areas where they would be reallocated.
They are running the economy like adventure capitalists run down a business they have taken over, just cutting for short term gains expecting the already overworked workforce to just keep picking up the slack the cuts create, it is unsustainable economically and is just increasing the pressure on employees.
You're in the minority by that poll. Most agree with me, that welfare needs reform. What would you have given as opinion?
I am sure a lot of people think benefits need reforming, that is very different to believing benefits need slashing. I think the benefits system needs reform, that doesn't mean that it needs reducing I think it should actually increase especially for those most vulnerable recipients that labours reforms are victimising, you are confusing wanting reform with wanting the reform that has been delivered.
another interesting poll, that most Britons feel there is potential for cuts, albeit with some negative impact.
It's not as clear cut as "the overall opinion polls validate that their priorities are all wrong"
In fact
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/does-the-benefit-system-need-reform
That doesn't look like a rejection of priorities to me?
Are you seriously suggesting that the only priority which concerns voters is reform of the benefits system and what the current government are proposing is satisfactory?
Clearly Starmer doesn't appear to share the same priorities as the majority of voters otherwise support for Labour wouldn't have collapsed over a period of a couple of months following their historic landslide victory.
72% is well outside the 3-4% margin of error.
https://www.cityam.com/unhappy-new-year-72-per-cent-say-uk-going-in-wrong-direction/
The situation is unlikely to have changed dramatically over the last couple of months and if anything at all has changed it's that support for Reform has increased
And of course, the oligarchy owned media has long targeted benefits as a scapegoat for the failures of neoliberalism, you want to bemoan that the media is negative about this current labour government, but conveniently ignore the impact of their propaganda on groups it has attacked over many decades, benefits being a big one of those.
It's not as clear cut as "the overall opinion polls validate that their priorities are all wrong"
In that case the Runcorn by-election will be like a walk in the park for Labour.
Runcorn is after all one of the safest Labour seats in the country.
you want to bemoan that the media is negative about this current labour government, but conveniently ignore the impact of their propaganda on groups it has attacked over many decades
That is a very good point.
It’s a bit daft to have a summary before the announcement, but as this neatly brings together comments and opinions of most people still posting in this thread, I think it’s worth a quick read:
you are confusing wanting reform with wanting the reform that has been delivered.
I'm really not. As I said, I think reform is needed, but I think the reform being pursued is hitting in the wrong places. It's not an area of expertise but it feels to me that there are too many able to work that choose not to, and it needs reform to make work more attractive. I also think that those the genuinely need support need more. Would that overall cost more, less or about the same - IDK.
It's perfectly OK to have an opinion that includes IDK elements. Assuming you know everything rather than accepting you don't is not IMHO sensible.
There is little evidence that the reforms to the benefits were carefully planed, it looks more like panicky cuts and count the bodies later
I can't comment, we're not DWP aligned. The Depts we work with are planning and budgeting meticulously, which is why it is taking time.
Are you seriously suggesting that the only priority which concerns voters is reform of the benefits system and what the current government are proposing is satisfactory?
No. Where did I say or even insinuate that? It's a poll that says that about 2/3 of people think that benefits needs reforming.
In saying that "the Starmer-Reeves government is screwing up in terms of their own personal priorities", do you think that welfare reform isn't a priority then. What are then the areas you feel should be prioritised? Is defence a priority in this new landscape?
ignore the impact of their propaganda on groups it has attacked over many decades, benefits being a big one of those.
Fair challenge. I can't speak for all voters, or those polled above, and no doubt some of the responders will be of the 'all benefits claimants are scroungers' persuasion. But not all of them.
I can only repeat my personal view that "there are too many able to work that choose not to, and it needs reform to make work more attractive. I also think that those the genuinely need support need more"
My belief is a country generates it wealth from the labour of individuals within society, the more people economically productive the more resource and overhead a government has to redistribute surplus wealth generated
[...]
Like theotherjonv I don't buy into Rones take on MMT
My naive and oversimplified take is that MMT addresses precisely the problem you identify - that wealth creation requires resources to be used by workers, not an arbitrary thing called "money". Whether that can work in an interconnected world is something I haven't seen demonstrated, but I haven't looked that hard.
I said, I think reform is needed,
This is surely so obvious that it doesn't need to be said?
but I think the reform being pursued is hitting in the wrong places.
Which is the whole point. It's hitting in the places that Starmer and co have decided it should hit.
You're in the minority by that poll. Most agree with me, that welfare needs reform. What would you have given as opinion?
I would not have replied to such a stupid poll. Of course the benefits system needs reform as does pretty much everything else. As it doesn't ask what sort of reform then it is completely pointless.
As for most people be okay with benefits being cut, that is because they are not on benefits and couldn't;t give a shit about those that need them.
Are you seriously suggesting that the only priority which concerns voters is reform of the benefits system and what the current government are proposing is satisfactory?
No. Where did I say or even insinuate that? It's a poll that says that about 2/3 of people think that benefits needs reforming.
In saying that "the Starmer-Reeves government is screwing up in terms of their own personal priorities", do you think that welfare reform isn't a priority then.
You were insinuating precisely that. When I suggested that Starmer's government doesn't appear to share the same priorities as voters you challenged my comment but all that you mentioned was benefit reform.
And you didn't even provide any evidence that it is an important priority for voters.
Nevertheless of course the benefit system needs reforming, we have had 14 years of Tory governments ffs, have you not seen the film I, Daniel Blake? If you haven't I suggest that you do. If a pollster was a ask me if the benefit system needs reforming I would answer yes definitely.
And where in your opinion poll is the evidence that Starmer and Liz Kendall are delivering the benefit reforms which people actually want?
This poll suggests that only 26% of voters believe that people who are long-term sick are recieving too much support. A surprisingly low number not simply because it means that many voters are at odds with what they are being told by their Prime Minister, but also because bearing in mind that combined support for the Tories and Reform is currently approximately 45% it means that a great deal of Tory-Reform supporters don't believe that disabled people are recieving too much support.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2025/03/10/60624/1
Most people don't give a shit about people on benefits? Really?
In a pointed message to her cabinet colleagues and Labour backbenchers who have privately argued for the fiscal rules to be revisited, Reeves said they were “non-negotiable” and “an embodiment of this government’s unwavering commitment to bring stability to our economy”.
I don't know why she didn't just say those infamous words, I bet she wanted to......
"The lady's not for turning"
Is the City of London really stopping Rachel Reeves doing what she wants for us?
Richard Murphy is always worth a squiz
Most people don't give a shit about people on benefits? Really?
Yep, really.
The target for welfare reform should not be the long-term sick or the disabled. If 26% of people think that people in these categories are getting too much worries me, but maybe that is where we're at now. I'll go back to what I actually said which was "there are too many able to work that choose not to, and it needs reform to make work more attractive. I also think that those the genuinely need support need more" which I think is where the majority of the country is. Certainly not DGAS about those genuinely in need, because I don't think overall societally we are like that.
And where in your opinion poll is the evidence that Starmer and Liz Kendall are delivering the benefit reforms which people actually want?
There isn't any, that wasn't the question. Do people think they're getting it right - no, I don't think they do if opinion polls are to go by. Nor do I FWIW - "Do I think THIS revision is right - probably not"
I used Welfare as an example, and I'll accept that if you ask the electorate to list priorities, then IIRC welfare reform comes about 6th or 7th or something. So by that measure I'll accept that voters maybe don't see it as 'a priority' if not in the top 3 or 5 or whatever top means. Health, immigration, Defence, all are higher, etc.
But, that's the C of a CSR, that ALL spend is under review. So it's no surprise it's on the agenda even if (again, to quote myself) "better to have held back on some of the unpopular stuff announced which has undermined good work being done elsewhere"
Where we'll disagree is that you're probably going to say it was deliberate to send a message out to Reform and RW voters that they're going to be tough on 'benefit scroungers'. You might be right, it might be incompetence - to me whether deliberate or not optically it's a massive own goal and has swamped all the good stuff they are doing.
to me whether deliberate or not optically it's a massive own goal and has swamped all the good stuff they are doing.
That will be the good stuff that nobody knows about or makes no noticeable difference to their lives.
I'll go back to what I actually said which was "there are too many able to work that choose not to, and it needs reform to make work more attractive.
It is an odd choice when you look at how you will be living. Someone I know rents a bedsit for £600 per month (Southampton as that is where their only friends are). They get £400 universal credit and £380 to cover rent. That leaves them £180 per month to live on (electric, food etc,.). They have long term mental health issues and have been deemed unsuitable for work.
Not a 'choice' I would think many people who go for. They don't need work to be more attractive, they need a LOT of help in finding any work they could do with incentives and allowances provided by the employer. That is the sort of reform that I think is needed.
If 26% of people think that people in these categories are getting too much worries me
Well aren't people's perspectives different! Because in contrast I find it massively reassuring that apparently 74% of voters don't believe that support for the long-term sick is too great.
And not least because since the beginning of the welfare state right-wing newspapers have been churning out the relentless "benefit scroungers" shite. And now, an allegedly "Labour" prime minister and his cabinet, are coming out with very similar shite.
you're probably going to say it was deliberate to send a message out to Reform and RW voters that they're going to be tough on 'benefit scroungers'. You might be right....
Well no, not really, I made this point a couple of posts ago :
bearing in mind that combined support for the Tories and Reform is currently approximately 45% it means that a great deal of Tory-Reform supporters don't believe that disabled people are recieving too much support.
I doubt that appeasing Reform and RW voters was the primary driver. I suspect that the main attraction for Morgan McSweeney and Rachel Reeves in saving £5 billion by financially crippling disable people is that they are a soft target.
The long-term sick have no industrial clout, no great influence, don't provide large donations to political parties, they are small in number - 7% of the working population, etc.
Although I don't doubt that Morgan McSweeney is still pushing the pre-general election line that "this isn't the Labour Party that you previously knew". Starmer has claimed to have changed "the DNA" of the Labour Party so the "if you can't walk then crawl" attitude obviously plays into that narrative.
After all the Labour Party has always since its foundation been associated with concerns for the less advantaged in society so it would indeed require a change in its DNA.
https://twitter.com/BladeoftheS/status/1904594662356382179
https://twitter.com/garyseconomics/status/1904810176177135642
”edit - links not working….
That will be the good stuff that nobody knows about or makes no noticeable difference to their lives.
If you're going to characterise everything as 'either shit or irrelevant' I can't really engage much further. At least I'm trying to keep balanced and accept absolutely the **** ups that have been made rather than being a 'Starmer fanboi', but I'm not going to ignore that there has been some good stuff too. Worker rights, for example. Tax on farmland. It might not 'affect people directly' but by the same token nor would a wealth tax but of course indirectly it does - putting more in the purse to spend on stuff for us all. Are you saying none of this is any good?
We haven't done the CSR yet, but there is going to be stuff in there that is essential spends and underinvested in the past. As I said, keeping the power grid running vs here and now spend on transport or health or whatever.... how do you prioritise? You can say it makes no noticeable difference to their lives, if the timescale goes down you bet it will, and very fast. Directly and indirectly.
It is an odd choice when you look at how you will be living. Someone I know rents a bedsit for £600 per month (Southampton as that is where their only friends are). They get £400 universal credit and £380 to cover rent. That leaves them £180 per month to live on (electric, food etc,.). They have long term mental health issues and have been deemed unsuitable for work.
So not the kind of situation my comment is aimed at. This is where we need to redistribute the welfare bill so they have more than £180 to live on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001wq9x
https://twitter.com/BladeoftheS/status/1904594662356382179
https://twitter.com/garyseconomics/status/1904810176177135642
”edit - links not working….
Worked for me
https://twitter.com/BladeoftheS/status/1904594662356382179
Well aren't people's perspectives different! Because in contrast I find it massively reassuring that apparently 74% of voters don't believe that support for the long-term sick is too great.
I actually think you could start an argument with yourself I an empty room.
It is an odd choice when you look at how you will be living - have long term mental health issues and have been deemed unsuitable for work.
Which if you had read the otherjonv's post properly is exactly what he was getting at, people like your friend need more help, not less, it's the other end of the spectrum where the problem is.
there are too many able to work that choose not to
Not quite how I would put it, choice suggests a conscious decision, but the sentiment is accurate and clearly not applicable to your friends situation. The welfare budget has constantly been increased to cover more and more people who just struggle with life. Back in the early days of the welfare state councils would send around inspectors to check the moral rectitude of people who wanted to claim benefits which was a tad judgemental, but we do need an element of help yourself first. Sounds callous I know but I've been there myself, I lost 2 jobs in quick succession due to bullying and the resultant mental health issues, I got bugger all help from the state, I struggled to get up many mornings and look for work, I knew damn well I was in my own as I had a mortgage to pay and my wife's income whilst enough to kill any hope of state support was not enough for us to live on and pay our modest mortgage. Knowing I had to get another job was the only thing that kept me going through 9 painful months. Life is not easy, people need to accept that.
We have waited 14 years for this:
The official assessment of the impact of the benefits cuts – including a sharper-than-expected cut to universal credit payments – shows those eligible for disability payments will be hit the hardest. As a result the number of people living in relative poverty will rise to nearly 14.5 million, including an extra 50,000 children.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/26/more-than-3m-britons-to-lose-out-from-benefits-cuts
Not quite how I would put it, choice suggests a conscious decision, but the sentiment is accurate and clearly not applicable to your friends situation. The welfare budget has constantly been increased to cover more and more people who just struggle with life. ... Knowing I had to get another job was the only thing that kept me going through 9 painful months.
Call me terminally centrist but there is a halfway point between "workshy bastards are swinging the lead" and "there is a genuine explosion of sickness and the diagnoses reflect it". And that is around the unrewarding nature of many people's jobs. Rewarding work gives people structure, purpose and money (all of which help people deal with illness), and unrewarding work does the opposite. The less rewarding work is, the more people will go off sick.
And maybe I'm naive but I don't see relying on benefits as being attractive to many people - it seems pretty grim - so this problem is not going to be solved by sticks and shaming alone. I hope Labour has some practical ideas for improving the world of work too.
if you read the content of the Guardian article of course, this assessment contains all the downside and none of the upside of the help that will be provided for people to get into work. I'll take the beating over the 'couldn't do it because rushed' but the headline isn't the full story.
Officials say the real impact of the overall measures will be less severe because some of them will help more people back into work, something which was not measured by the OBR. In its statement, the OBR said it had not been able to do so in part because the announcement had been so rushed.
“The government did not provide us with a comprehensive and robust analysis of these potential effects, and we were not, in the very limited amount of time available, able to develop our own analysis of their net impact on labour supply,” it said.
Sorry if already posted but I've not read the thread today as yet and I'm guessing it's been busy.
This is from the Beeb.
But the government analysis suggests more than 3 million families will on average be £1,720 a year worse off by 2030 due to benefit cuts.
An extra 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, will be pushed into relative poverty by the government's changes, according to its own impact assessment.
And an estimated 800,000 people will lose out on personal independent payments (Pips) by 2030.
There are some modest "winners" in the UC announcements made today but what I've quoted are pretty eye watering numbers and hard to defend in my opinion. Over a million people including around 50,000 children are going to have a very tough time indeed.
I'm far from against most labour policies, broadly, I think there have been many good policies announced. Today's cuts to benefits and cuts to government departments already cut to the bone leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, however.
Labour have given other parties a very large stick to hit them with at the next election.
Today is likely to cancel out any positives in many people's minds and it will take a very long time for it to be forgotten. These are not Labour policies.
Frankly, it's rubbish having to post this. I'm a centrist or far left person, depending upon the policy (burn me later) and if like to think I'm pragmatic. These announcements are not left leaning, or centre, they are straight out tory policies and any pension is buried in the pain it will cause many. Hell, the Tories stepped back from going this far... Though their reasons were entirely self serving before an election it must be remembered!
I still have no remorse about voting Labour, the Tories had to go but Labour really are risking a loss at the next election and that is a bloody tragedy for the country if a Tory/reform government get in. In fact, it's unforgivable.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter, I'm not even against welfare reform, it's a mess and reform is needed. This however is plain and simple cuts with little real world evidence that the limited types of support that will be offered to get the able into work will actually, well, work.
Edit to above:
and any pragmatism is buried in the pain it will cause many.