UK Government Thread

You mean like one that’s just put a workers rights bill into law? That kind of thing?

If you mean the Employment Rights Bill, that's still with the Lords (see above) and isn't in law https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3737

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/one-million-britons-disability-benefits-cut-s5kj0z7fc

Cost-cutting reforms due to be ­announced next week are set to deny payments to many people with mental health conditions and those who ­struggle with washing, dressing themselves and ­eating.

So one million disabled people will be worse off under a so-called Labour government than they were 9 months ago under a right-wing Tory government.

Sadly I expected any government led by Starmer to be a disappointment but I certainly didn't expect this.

This latest stunt, along with all the other right-wing shite such as slashing international aid by 40% and permanently denying British citizenship to asylum seekers, Starmer is starting to make New Labour governments of Blair and Brown look far-left.

It is hard to believe that Starmer is the same man as the one who 5 years ago made 10 pledges based on "the moral case for socialism". He has no ideology, no integrity, no shame, and no morals. 

10 pledges? At least he does have a sense of humour, he was only joking.

Sadly I expected any government led by Starmer to be a disappointment but I certainly didn't expect this.

Yep, I had low expectations but this is very low.  Yeah, there will be a minority of people benefiting incorrectly but that will be a drop in the ocean compared to teh extremely weathly benefiting in the way they do.

I am sure there is a positive to it, come on Starmer fan boys, what have you to say on it?

Still have never met a “Starmer fan”. Anyway, personally I’m waiting to see the bill, and will be in the queue to speak to my MP about it as soon as the details are more than hearsay. PIP index linking being scrapped was reported as being expected yesterday, and allegedly rolled back on today. So, what will actually be put before parliament, and what will MPs seek to change? Lots of real discussion and argument to come.

Extension of free school meals

Free primary school breakfast club

VAT on private schools

Inheritance tax on wealthy land owners

The employment rights bill introducing significant improvements to workers rights

Nationalising railways

A record increase in the minimum wage for young people

The renters rights bill introducing new protections and improvements for tenants

Removing wasteful Tory quangos

Taking steps to address the outrageous number of young people not in employment, education or training 

Just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

And we're not even nine months in yet.

But sure, yeah, "they're no different to the tories"

yup looks like pip freeze will not be in the bill  after all

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9dgwe1q27o

Anyway, personally I’m waiting to see the bill, and will be in the queue to speak to my MP about it as soon as the details are more than hearsay.

Yup, my thoughts too. When I read "cost-cutting reforms due to be ­announced next week"  I thought they were clearly not going to drop a bombshell making that announcement, the media are going to be carefully tipped off concerning what to likely expect.

My immediate suspicion was that this might be an exercise in expectation management and the final proposal could be significantly watered down. With a final figure of maybe half a million disabled people having their benefits cut there will likely be a sigh of relief that it wasn't as bad as some had feared.

yup looks like pip freeze will not be in the bill  after all

That isn't the claim that the Times "a million people will have their disability benefits cut" article was making.

The claim was that Labour are going to change the eligibility criteria :

The changes to eligibility criteria have been estimated to hit about a million people and are set to be applied to new claims and reassessments of ­existing claimants.

Your BBC link backs up the claim that eligibility criteria be changed so that less people will qualify. From your link:

Initial reports had suggested Personal Independence Payments (PIP) would not rise in line with inflation for a year................The eligibility criteria for PIP will be tightened with the government expected to cut billions of pounds from the welfare budget

Posted by: roli case

↑

 

But sure, yeah, "they're no different to the tories"

 

If only it was only that. However some Labour government policies are actually worse than the last Tory government's policies, that's how depressing the situation is.

Keeping the two child benefit cap was as bad as the Tories but now Labour are talking of stopping pip payments to about a million people who were receiving it under the Tories.

The international aid budget will be 40% less than it was under the Tories. And asylum seekers who were able to secure UK citizenship under the Tories won't be able to now thanks to Starmer's government.

In some policy areas "no different to the Tories" would actually be better.

whether it goes through or not is not the point, lots of shit the tories said never went anywhere but it is the fact they said it that says all you need to know about how they are thinking their priorities, I.e how is the non dom thing turning out.  
And what exactly happens if there is next to no growth for 3 years, is that really going to dictate what Reeves can spend on as it is very likely there will be little growth (even if not caused by Labour) so she had better be planning on how to get around that fact   Or you could just do a bit of austerity of course…

Well I'm quite happy with what they are trying to. Will it work, who knows, Alastair Campell summed it up quite well on the last leg on Friday. We've got a soaring benefits bill as more and more people decide* they cant work, it's not sustainable or productive. I hope some of the money saved might actually be redirected into growth projects that will benefit the bulk of society. Most councils spend more on special educational needs transport than they do on their roads budgets (Guardian article last week). We've got our priorities seriously wrong.

* it's not that simple, people don't simply wake up and decide they can't work, it's a much more insidious shift in societal culture, in the past many people now eligible for support would have been forced to support themselves, its finding the balance between support and an individuals responsibility to contribute to society socially and economically.

Focus needs to shift back in the short term at least, to sort out the core issues in the country, infrastructure, energy and housing. We can't do everything unless you believe in the unrestricted spending Rone advocates (and even then I doubt we have the human resource) which the vast majority of people including the decision makers don't.

People are going to be left struggling but I don't see much of an alternative. People are struggling now anyway, our support systems are a lottery and its getting worse and will continue to do so. We need to halt the structural decline in this country, engender some growth (welfare spending won't do this), improve basic standards of living, improve the morale of the population as a whole, stop scapegoating minorities and then we may have the structure on place we need for a more inclusive society.

I await the barrage of criticisms and attacks on my integrity from the usual posters on this thread but you keep asking for engagement from people with differing views, I suspect mainly so you can pile on showing how caring you all are. The problem we face is extremely difficult and there will be casualties but that's the legacy of years of tinkering at best and total head in the sand from successive governments, compounded by the active vandalism of the Johnson years.

Stumpy.

So starve folk into taking shit exploitative jobs?

Much of the welfare “bill” is supporting people IN work, something even more true of people claiming help due to health or disability. So anything aiming to stop the amount spent rapidly increasing needs to be VERY carefully handled if the aim is more people working in future, not fewer. Arguably MORE money needs to be spent supporting disabled people in the workplace, both by the state and by employers (via regulation), for the good of those involved and wider society and the economy.

i agree with kelvin on the 'needs careful targetting' and i agree with a lot of what stumpyjon says, i dont think that the current benefits system is really working for those who really need it and i think its a disgraceful waste of money elsewhere

Well I'm quite happy with what they are trying to

Sure, but the problem for Starmer is that a lot of Labour voters and a growing number of Labour MPs are not. A poll back in January claimed that more than a quarter of Labour voters go as far as even regretting voting Labour at the last general election.

Alastair Campell summed it up quite well on the last leg on Friday. We've got a soaring benefits bill as more and more people decide* they cant work, it's not sustainable or productive. 

That is an opinion obviously but it is exactly the sort of opinion which you would expect to hear from a Tory minister. For a lot of people the idea that after 14 years of Tory rule we have an over generous benefits system which pampers the workshy is absurd. I am assuming that you never seen the film "I Daniel Blake"?

Most councils spend more on special educational needs transport than they do on their roads budgets (Guardian article last week). We've got our priorities seriously wrong.

Well it certainly seems that the priorities are wrong in that example but in which way are they wrong? As a cyclist in London I would like to see more spent on road maintenance. But I suspect that the point you are making is that too much is being spent on special educational needs transport?

I await the barrage of criticisms and attacks on my integrity from the usual posters on this thread but you keep asking for engagement from people with differing views, I suspect mainly so you can pile on showing how caring you all are. 

I find that comment double ironic. Firstly you seem to have a low tolerance of people with a different opinion to yours, and secondly you challenge the  integrity  of those who might not agree with you by suggesting that it is only to appear "caring".

Do you fancy posting pictures of donkeys to mock these "caring" lefties?

So starve folk into taking shit exploitative jobs?

I find that comment double ironic. Firstly you seem to have a low tolerance of people with a different opinion to yours, and secondly you challenge the  integrity  of those who might not agree with you by suggesting that it is only to appear "caring".

Do you fancy posting pictures of donkeys to mock these "caring" lefties?

Up until that point your post was actually quite engaging but you couldnt resist could you. Tell you what you drop the snidey caveats and I'll do the same, we might actually learn something from each other.

I do agree with you Starmer is losing support rapidly although at the moment he does have a grip on the party with a big majority. I'll start to worry if that falls apart. As for the priority thing, no I'm suggesting what money we have should be targeted at core issues that affect the majority, safety critical things like the roads being a priority, as you rightly point out they are lethal for cyclists at the moment. That doesn't mean we immediately defund all SEN transport, maybe have a look to make sure it is all needed but we need to find a lot more money for core infrastructue, in fact I doubt transferring all of the SEN transport budget to road maintenance would make much of an impact, the point is we've completely defunded road maintenance at the expense of other things and it's seriously impacting the country.

Making the target lowering the benefits bill is just illogical.

We have years of low growth and poor outcomes to prove that.

A benefits bill is literally a number that doesn't suddenly explode when it gets to x amount.

What the focus should be on is providing good outcomes and investment. All public spending is some form of investment.

If they choose to keep cutting I guarantee you that means less injection of new money and less growth.

They are,  as was the government before it obsessed with the wrong metrics at the expense  of successful societal outcomes.

If everyone wants low growth and poor communities. Then keep going on this path.

The benefits bill is simply not a real restriction and only if you ignore the mechanism of spending as an imaginary limit would that make sense.

The only thing that is different this time because Labour are doing it supporters are simply swinging behind it.

the mechanism of spending as an imaginary limit

You can create as much currency as you like, but that can reduce how much you can get done if it results in inflation and devaluation outrunning your “increased spending”. That’s where limits and control on the rate of currency creation matter so much for all but the USA and China. Yes, the government should be spending more… and you’ll be unsurprised it is doing exactly that… that doesn’t mean increases in spending, and the rate of increase of the spending, is genuinely limitless. Get carried away, and you’ll be spending more to achieve far less.  The argument should be about what targets the government should be setting itself, pretending that we’re living in a 2 Unlimited economy doesn’t help anyone when discussing what those targets should be.

We should also be talking about more tax increases on the rich and companies (although the continued negative coverage of wealth taxes on landowners, private education and employer NI is going to make it hard for the government to go further and take the public with them).

Up until that point your post was actually quite engaging but you couldnt resist could you. Tell you what you drop the snidey caveats and I'll do the same, we might actually learn something from each other.

Is this ironic Sunday or something? You started attacking people who might disagree with you before anyone has even responded! 

Your "snidey caveat", as you call it, was  : "so you can pile on showing how caring you all are".

There was no need for that, you could have made your point without adding that snidey remark. But you obviously fancied a preempt strike.

And yes I do care about those less fortunate than me, I'm not going to go on a guilt trip about it! Plus, 'but for the grace of God go I'.  I have no idea what will happen to me tomorrow - my luck might run out and a car driver might hit me whilst I am on my bike leaving me permanently disabled.

You can create as much currency as you like

And if you can do it without anyone else realising, you are quids in.

Unfortunately the real world doesn't work like that.

The BoE quantitatively eased hundreds of £billions during covid and it did not result in inflation or a devaluation of the pound. QE, 'growth' ie trickle down and austerity are all political decisions generally involving an upward redistribution of income and wealth. Funny how that £30bn to the private sector for dealing with covid seems to have been all but forgotten but much moaning occurs about the educational special needs budget which in part aims to deal with the problems of kids stuck indoors for a year.

quantitatively eased hundreds of £billions during covid and it did not result in inflation

It did result in inflation, and increased taxation later to reduce that inflation. [as per MMT]

In fact that corresponding taxation was linked to inflation to both disguise it and to scale it with inflation. [fiscal drag] 

the educational special needs budget

Which this government has put billions of extra money into.

• Inflation peeked at 11% in 2022

Why would you not expect a lag? If you think QE during Covid didn’t feed inflation, once restrictions were lifted, find an economist that agrees with that assertion.

Gary has a longer video than usual today, he delves deeper than his usual “tax wealth/assets” Sunday diatribe 

• Inflation peeked at 11% in 2022

Which was after the Ukraine war had rocketed energy and grain prices, and even the IMF said 50% of the inflation was cause by corporate gouging.

https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/news/corporate-profits-responsible-for-almost-half-of-europes-inflation-imf-report/

Why would you not expect a lag? If you think QE during Covid didn’t feed inflation, once restrictions were lifted, find an economist that agrees with that assertion.

How on earth can Q/E feed inflation?

It's a technical impossibility and a gross misrepresentation of what Q/E is.

Q/E is a swap of reserves for gilts. There is no net new money in the process entering the economy. (The make up of gilts v reserves changes but by and large gilts and reserves are both considered types of money. ) 

The reserves already existed originally to buy the gilts in the first place that were then purchased by the BoE - so the reserves then go back.

The whole system is either flush with reverses or gilts. One is interest bearing and the other not.

Really this whole process has been wildly spread around mostly by the right with Q/E and money printing bring conflated.

There are plenty of economists that know this only the confused ones say otherwise.

Q/E was originally designed to support low interest rates but adjusting the make-up of reserves v gilts.

Where people get confused is Q/E is often performed after a big spend of new money such as in COVID which simply exists to disguise the fact the government didn't borrow any money from the private sector.

Obviously a big government spend on the wrong things could cause inflation but it wouldn't be anything to do with Q/E which follows the process and is a choice.

COVID inflation was more or less all totally supply side and money issuance is largely thought to be responsible for approx 3% of the total inflation as  for the UK. Very little 

Most money in the pandemic replaced income not supplemented it. There are distributional issues of course but this is down to Neoliberalism in general rather than COVID support packages. Gary Stephenson believes people got rich in COVID - well some may have done but it was already entrenched. Not because of COVID. 

Let's not forget paying interest to people with money is just a form of deficit spending. Does anyone question how the government can afford to pay high interest rates to people with money?

Do you question why there's enough money for that process? Well you should. Payments for interest are created from the same account that payments for disability are made.

Paying interest on savings is the most regressive form of government spending. You are literally creating money to give to people with money, and it's probably inflationary too.

Let's not pretend anything other that there is money for some things and not others and your job is to inform yourself in this process instead of defending Reeves' insulting Tory led ideals.

A balanced economy not a balanced budget should be the aim 

I have no idea at all what Wes Streeting is doing in a Labour Party, though.

Posted by: rone

↑

Don't call it austerity!!

The Tories and LibDems called it austerity when they formed a government in 2010 but Starmer's government likes to call it "keeping to the fiscal rules".

Which sounds so much nicer and more sensible than austerity. Even though it's Rachel Reeves who makes up the fiscal rules and no one else.

I don't know if his history degree qualifies him to make the claim but Wes Streeting apparently reckons that there is an over diagnosis of mental health conditions.

And to add insult to injury Streeting claims that people who have been diagnosed with a mental health condition have been, quote, "written off".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/16/wes-streeting-there-is-overdiagnosis-of-mental-health-conditions.

I particularly liked this :

Asked whether he thought overdiagnosis of some conditions was a problem, he told the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg: “I want to follow the evidence and I agree with that point about overdiagnosis.

So why didn't he provide the evidence then? Trump style Streeting makes a contentious claim without providing any evidence to back it up. After claiming that he's following the evidence!!

See my above comment about Streeting.

What on earth he is doing in a Labour party is beyond me.

I guess he's more organised than an incompetent crook like Hancock. But a veneer of competence doesn't diminish the fact that's he's a Tory in a red tie. And in his hands the NHS is (to paraphrase John Major) about as safe as a pet hamster left in the care of a hungry python. The kettle in my kitchen has more socialist principles than Wes Streeting.

So why didn't he provide the evidence then? Trump style Streeting makes a contentious claim without providing any evidence to back it up. After claiming that he's following the evidence!!

Being interviewed by Kuenssberg will help. She will have got just a little bit frisky in the presence of a fellow Tory.

is largely thought to be responsible for approx 3% of the total inflation as  for the UK

Sounds right. About the same as Brexit. Less than fuel/energy shock due to Russia. But not zero.

but Wes Streeting apparently reckons that there is an over diagnosis of mental health conditions.

There probably is. If you at all interested in why Wes is more correct than you'd probably give him credit for, you could read this book.

Not aimed at you individually, nickc, but can we please stop the use of forenames only when identifying politicians. This faux familiarity/mateyness is quite American and a bit fake. It also has the whiff of 'Boris' about it.

How on earth can Q/E feed inflation?

There has a been asset inflation for the last 20 years  that has be almost entirely driven by QE which is in turn one of the major drivers of the wealth gap and partly why people like Musk are at the centre of the US govt. 

That is absolute nonsense, it isn't QE that had driven the wealth gap, it is that the whole economy has been based on inflating assets while suppressing wage growth since the 1980s. From privatisation and outsourcing public jobs for low wages and corporate profit, to relaxing mortgage rules to allow more banking profit and the changes in pension schemes to trick people into believing the markets had greater importance to their lives than is actually true. And then you have the suppression and removal of workers rights to fight for fairer pay, and the absolute media compliance to the right wing message that fair wages cause inflation.

Maybe if on the news every night instead of telling us about the markets and how good house price rises are (for those who already have them). They could say how many hours an average wage worker has to work to... buy a house, provide a healthy diet for a family of 4, and pay an annual energy bill. These would be much more meaningful and important metrics for most people and would likely lead to more QE and being directed to the right places instead of propping up an ever inflating asset bubbles that only serves the few.

If you at all interested in why Wes is more correct than you'd probably give him credit for, you could read this book.

Well I am sure that if I was interested in why the NHS is wrong to offer me an annual covid booster jab I could read a book about it. It wouldn't help me though because I lack the expertise for that to be a useful exercise.

I am prepared to accept that mental health conditions might be over diagnosed but not from a politically motivated politician with a history degree who is part of a government with a clear austerity agenda and who provides no evidence.

If I am going accept an evidence-free claim that mental health conditions are over diagnosed I at least want to hear it from someone who is qualified to make the claim and who doesn't have an obvious political agenda.

Let's be clear what we are talking about here.......the allegation is of widespread and systematic medical misdiagnoses, and a politician is saying "trust me".

did he not provide the evidence, or are you saying that he doesnt have/hasn't had any evidence (to support his assertion that mental health issues are overdiagnosed (with my assumption being that his point was that this one cause of growing spend (health) and /or reduced productivity)

sorry, didnt see the interview and news reports seemed to appear only briefly..

EDIT - stories now replaced with similar, but PM focussed, suggesting that the Sec of State for health might have had a telling off 🙂

Hm....a generation of children being locked away for months without social interaction (adults too of course but perhaps less developmentally significant for them), and a few years later, increasing mental health problems....

Slightly off the immediate topic, but I urge anyone with a bit of time to spend an hour listening to Classic FM, then an hour listening to Heart. Don't worry about the music. Pay particular attention to the adverts.

Classic FM - high(er) interest savings accounts, luxury cruises, premium car brands.

Heart - national lottery, loan sharking companies, budget supermarkets.

It tells you quite a lot about which generations are better off financially and have the spare time to spend that wealth, eh?

Posted by: MonkeySpacePilot

↑

Maybe if on the news every night instead of telling us about the markets and how good house price rises are

What channel news are you watching?

Doesn’t listening to Heart FM for an hour fall under the UN’s definition of cruel and unusual torture? 

both on the Global Player app.  I dont suppose the other stations are listed/ranked according to social equality?
basically, im too poor to jump straight to Classic FM and already to snooty to listen to Heart, how would you rate Capital (chill) or maybe  Smooth (Soul)?
/threadrift

I thought 6 Music was compulsory? 

I didn't post with the intention of starting a sub-thread on the individual listening choices of STW Forum members.

But the targeting of adverts on commercial stations aimed at very different sections of society provides some very obvious pointers as to who has the wealth (how to invest, how to spend, how to enjoy life) and who doesn't (how to borrow, how to spend (on credit), how to get by 'every little helps').