Chat Forum
4,667
Posts
182
Users
7059
Reactions
40.2 K
Views
I'm going to give the same answer as I gave to ernie. From the article you posted
But the government stresses there are limits to their estimates because they don't take into account of funding for measures
to support those with disabilities into employment.
They also do not take into account the new protections for those with severe lifelong conditions.
There's a process by which the OBR checks the Gov's sums, and the measures above weren't provided in time to enable the OBR to run their estimates of the impact. So what you have put is correct insofar as it goes, but only part of the effect of the changes has been calculated.
I'm not saying this to try to make it sound like there are no effects, or that I support the cuts as made, but it is important to realise that (as the Guardian put it)
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.
These are not Labour policies.
No of they are not which is why it is causing so much disquiet on the Labour benches, despite the current leadership doing their utmost to vet as many candidates as possible in the general election 9 months ago. Even many government ministers are apparently far from happy.
And it has been pointed out that even if the cuts introduced by the current government don't go quite as deep as the coalition cuts 15 years ago they are nevertheless likely to have even more devastating consequences.
The reason being that in 2010 the coalition cuts followed 13 years of Labour governments in which many departments had been reasonably funded, now the Starmer-Reeves cuts are taking place after 14 years of Tory governments, much of it characterized by years of austerity and underfunding.
Two years ago Starmer proudly pledged to change the "entire culture" and DNA of the Labour Party, very occasionally he actually sticks to his promises.
This is why he is now pursuing policies which don't appear to be Labour policies, they are not......he has effectively changed the entire culture and DNA of the Labour Party.
Posted : 26/03/2025 11:27 pm
Poopscoop reacted
https://twitter.com/theleftbible/status/1904454762830921940
https://twitter.com/theleftbible/status/1904454762830921940?s=61&t=27Xz8oI3pGlaNEQvowJBcg
arghhhhhh **** it I give up
Posted : 26/03/2025 11:46 pm
Poopscoop reacted
I'm going to give the same answer as I gave to ernie.
Yes but the bit of the article which you have picked out needs to be read in the context of the whole article.
"Less severe" when you are talking about relative poverty rising to nearly 14.5 million, including an extra 50,000 children doesn't paint a rosy picture. Maybe it won't be quite as bad as that but we are talking about a LABOUR government.
It would be normal to expect a certain amount of people to come out of poverty under a Labour government and in fact not expect any increase in poverty at all.
If there is any increase in UK poverty levels a lot of people would expect it to happen under Tory governments.
Here is another paragraph from that Guardian article which gives a bit of context to the situation :
The OBR said the £4.8bn cuts package was “the largest package of welfare savings since the July 2015 budget” which was presented by the former Tory chancellor George Osborne and included a four-year freeze to most working-age benefits and cuts to tax credits and universal credit.
Here's the whole article again :
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/26/more-than-3m-britons-to-lose-out-from-benefits-cuts
Posted : 26/03/2025 11:49 pm
Posted : 26/03/2025 11:53 pm
Wrong ruddy thread.
Posted : 27/03/2025 12:36 am
I see that binners favourite Guardian columnist, John Crace, was on full form today :
There were cheers from a small section of the Labour benches as Reeves began her emer-, sorry, spring statement. These were most definitely Rachel’s fanclub. Her Useful Idiots. They would continue to cheer throughout. Even when there was nothing to cheer about. Perhaps they didn’t understand the implications of what she was saying. Large sections of the backbenches remained silent for the full half hour.
Reeves began by saying Labour had been elected to bring change to the country. Yes. Sadly no one had told her that the change in question was meant to be for the better. But Rachel was not to be deterred. Everything was great, she insisted. The NHS had never been better. Interest rates were down. People had never had it so good. It wasn’t the government that needed to switch direction. It was voters who needed to re-educate themselves. Always look on the bright side of life.
Posted : 27/03/2025 12:37 am
somafunk reacted
Yes but the bit of the article which you have picked out needs to be read in the context of the whole article.
And vice versa.
I know the help to return to work, etc., has been delivered too late for inclusion in the OBR assessment, but to not reference that it is to come is misleading in my book. As you say, will it compensate for the cuts, I doubt it, I'm not going to say I think that the overall is or will be acceptable against my expectations of a labour government. But, and this is old ground, the headline creates an impression that these assessments are the final outcome, and the 'but there's other things to considered' is buried somewhere in the article.
Posted : 27/03/2025 1:13 am
Life is not easy, people need to accept that.
it is a lot easier for some than others which is mostly down to luck. I am not special and have done nothing other than been lucky when it comes to work and money whereas the person in my example has been very unlucky. People need to accept they have been lucky and be happy to spread wealth to those that haven’t been lucky.
Posted : 27/03/2025 6:48 am
kelvin reacted
I want it to show the actual content though, it was simple enough on the old forum as you merely copy/paste into thread
The easy fix is to not post twitter/X links, the world has moved on.
Posted : 27/03/2025 8:10 am
boriselbrus reacted
This is why he is now pursuing policies which don't appear to be Labour policies
The Labour party have always - and by that I mean in every govt they've ever been in, used reform to encourage people to work. Every single time. In fact, the the creation of the welfare state was "To slay the 5 giants; Want Disease Squalor Ignorance and Idleness"
Posted : 27/03/2025 8:15 am
Well that statement typfies the problem.
it is a lot easier for some than others
That's the point, that ot an excuse to give up ans succumb to being dependant on the state.
which is mostly down to luck.
That's a cop out, yes there is some luck in life but the way you behave and engage with the world around is a muchmore important part of doing well in life.
People need to accept they have been lucky and be happy to spread wealth to those that haven’t been lucky.
Lovely sentiment but naive I the extreme and nothing our society works, and I don't mean at a political level, again you can sit back and moan about your loti n life and expect others to support you or you can try and take the opportunities whe they arise.
The welfare state is there to pick up the pieces and support those who can't due to illness or life circumstances.
Alongside the welfare reform we do need to seriously tackle the cost of living, the two biggest costs, housing and energy are within this government's gift to seriously reduce if the will power is there. As for we need to make all jobs rewarding laudable as that is a sentiment it's not realistic. What we need is people to take pride in whatever they do and have some self worth from the fact they are working. All this talk of unfulfilling dead-end jobs just spreads the myth those jobs are necessary and valuable to society.
Posted : 27/03/2025 9:20 am
That's a cop out, yes there is some luck in life but the way you behave and engage with the world around is a muchmore important part of doing well in life.
And your ability in behaving and engaging with the world is down to luck (parenting, education, personality). Everything boils down to luck at some point.
Posted : 27/03/2025 9:25 am
What we need is people to take pride in whatever they do and have some self worth from the fact they are working
Why should they, just because you do?
Posted : 27/03/2025 9:27 am
The Labour party have always - and by that I mean in every govt they've ever been in, used reform to encourage people to work. Every single time. In fact, the the creation of the welfare state was "To slay the 5 giants; Want Disease Squalor Ignorance and Idleness"
By making it vastly more difficult to claim it's likely to actually force working claimants out of a work role. Due to the fact they might need extra support at work or be very limited in the range of jobs they can do, many people on PIP use it to supplement their poor wages or simply pay for necessaties they need in order to be able to work.
Those that claim the higher rate PIP mobility award pay a significant part of it towards a mobility car if they need to have one. Now the mobility component of PIP isn't changing BUT if a person loses the daily living component of PIP they won't be able to afford to forfeit a big chunk of the mobility component and will have to forgo the car. Again, that makes the likelihood of disabled people being able to find a suitable job even more difficult, or even give up the job they already have.
My friend with MS is likely to be having this very choice, having to give up her mobility car as it won't be affordable. She is now too poorly to hold down a job but the car allows her some modicum of independence. She knows she wont me able to drive for much longer anyway but she wanted that time to be decided by health limitations rather than benefit cuts.
The above is a good example of the reality of these cuts for many people and I've just limited the example to PIP and not even touched on the effects of the changes to UC.
Posted : 27/03/2025 9:30 am
ernielynch reacted
By making it vastly more difficult to claim it's likely to actually force working claimants out of a work role.
This is my biggest fear about the reforms. Let’s see what’s put in place to mitigate this before the cuts are actually in place at the end of next year. So far it looks bleak, and the next 20 months will have many people living in fear about what is or might be heading their way.
Posted : 27/03/2025 9:33 am
The point is that living on benefits are not an attractive option, it isn't a easy holiday with big screen TV's and everything paid for by the state as the right wing press claim and many people seem to believe, it is a shit horrible poverty existence and it isn't more stick that is needed to encourage people into work, it is decent jobs that make people feel valued and the help they need to get and keep them. Slashing benefits will not create new jobs for these people, it is nothing more than performative cruelty to appease right wing gammons who think a bit of national service will sort everyone out.
Posted : 27/03/2025 9:40 am
boriselbrus reacted
I want it to show the actual content though, it was simple enough on the old forum as you merely copy/paste into thread
The easy fix is to not post twitter/X links, the world has moved on.
But how else are our leaders going to convey important messages to British patriots?
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1904979630484045949
Posted : 27/03/2025 9:46 am
That's a cop out, yes there is some luck in life but the way you behave and engage with the world around is a muchmore important part of doing well in life.
That’s just rebranding “Conservative values” in a different way - spinning that your success is because you are better citizen than others. If there is truth in it, it ignores that the reason why some people are better at engaging with society and behaving the way you expect is itself based on luck - where they were born, who they were born to, when they were born, perhaps even which class teacher they got, who was allocated to sit next to them in a class, which social worker picked up their case file, which police officer stopped them and how they chose to speak to them, which GP they saw with a health condition etc etc. If you have ended up on the unlucky end of things in those - society, and successive governments have likely made it harder for you to do well, in no small part from the myth that peoples fortune is largely of their own making.
What we need is people to take pride in whatever they do and have some self worth from the fact they are working.
As someone who is starting to think about winding down towards retirement (long before the government would like me to) I have some issues with that sentiment. Are we saying that people who genuinely can’t work should have no self worth? Are we saying that if I retire completely my worth to society will be less than if I go part time? Are we saying that my contribution to society is measured on my job - which I think you actually mean the amount of tax I pay? Now I’m not advocating for subsidising people to do nothing, but it’s quite clear to me as an employer that a lot of the people who are not working but could work are not actually people I’d particularly want to employ - the reality is, in terms of productive contribution and tax contribution, welcoming EU nationals and getting asylum seekers off the benefit system and into work would probably have a far bigger impact than prodding the lazy to apply for jobs that the education system has failed to equip them for… and if our education system is failing to equip people for society, is that the people’s fault or the governments?
Posted : 27/03/2025 9:51 am
Poopscoop reacted
This is why he is now pursuing policies which don't appear to be Labour policies
The Labour party have always - and by that I mean in every govt they've ever been in, used reform to encourage people to work. Every single time. In fact, the the creation of the welfare state was "To slay the 5 giants; Want Disease Squalor Ignorance and Idleness"
Er, Starmer, Reeves, and Kendall, are actually attacking the welfare state. It is not something which people expect a government to do, maybe a post-1979 Tory government though.
Sir Keir Starmer would beg to differ that Labour hasn't fundamentally changed since he became leader. He claims to have changed Labour's "entire culture and DNA".
And lest you should not fully understand what exactly he meant he made it clear by saying :
"That’s why I say this project goes further and deeper than New Labour’s rewriting of clause IV"
Clause IV was of course a founding principle of the Labour Party so when Starmer was describing his project as "New Labour on steroids" he was talking about changing Labour's founding principles/DNA
It isn't just Poops who is claiming this isn't Labour, it is also a growing number of Labour MPs. There was a reason why pre-general election Starmer/McSweeney felt it was imperative to have as many handpicked Labour candidates as possible. As John Crace said in my link above:
There were cheers from a small section of the Labour benches as Reeves began her spring statement. These were most definitely Rachel’s fanclub. Her Useful Idiots. They would continue to cheer throughout. Even when there was nothing to cheer about.
What Morgan McSweeney has changed the Labour Party into is frankly grotesque imo. Still, they won a huge landslide victory, and for some people that's all that matters.
Posted : 27/03/2025 10:11 am
Poopscoop reacted
Without wanting to post an opinion of Dan Hodges again, he was 100% correct about the reasons for the downfall of Sunak's govt (cost of living basically) and he'll be right about Labour. Don't think I've ever seen a rightwing commentator criticise a labour govt because it's too right wing!
Posted : 27/03/2025 11:19 am
Grrr! Twitter links seem to work when first posting but not editing...
Edit: Nope! Totally random whether they work or not. 
Posted : 27/03/2025 11:22 am
Is it at all possible that Labour MPs might be finding a backbone?
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1905204631078138223
Posted : 27/03/2025 12:14 pm
Is it at all possible that Labour MPs might be finding a backbone?
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1905204631078138223
They sound like a bunch of miserable joyless placard-waving 6th formers to me, why aren't they celebrating?
As John Crace pointed out yesterday :
People had never had it so good. It wasn’t the government that needed to switch direction. It was voters who needed to re-educate themselves. Always look on the bright side of life.
Can someone post a still from The Life of Brian? I lack the analytical political skills to do so.
Posted : 27/03/2025 1:15 pm
BillMC reacted
Er, Starmer, Reeves, and Kendall, are actually attacking the welfare state
Given this labour govt's commitment to improving NHS and GP access and waiting times, a bill to strengthen workers rights, a house building programme, bringing unions back into schools pay negotiations and now a programme to get people back to work, I'd say that this govt understand its responsibilities to the entirety of the welfare state* better than you do.
* The welfare state isn't just benefits
Posted : 27/03/2025 1:37 pm
Er, Starmer, Reeves, and Kendall, are actually attacking the welfare state
Given this labour govt's commitment to improving NHS and GP access and waiting times, a bill to strengthen workers rights, a house building programme, bringing unions back into schools pay negotiations and now a programme to get people back to work, I'd say that this govt understand its responsibilities to the entirety of the welfare state* better than you do.
* The welfare state isn't just benefits
Wow, it is obvious from the examples which you offer that you don't understand what the welfare state actually is, ironically given that you accuse me of not understanding.
The NHS is indisputably part of the welfare state created by a Labour government but house building definitely isn't. The UK had massive house building programmes long before the creation of the welfare state, as indeed did many other countries.
Involving unions in school pay negotiations has nothing to do with the welfare state. Both trade unions and schools existed long before the creation of the welfare state.
Likewise "strengthen workers rights" has also nothing at all to do with the welfare state. Workers rights were repeatedly strengthen for hundreds of years before the creation of the welfare state.
Posted : 27/03/2025 2:11 pm
Have to say I'm quite shocked at attempts by self-identified centrists/moderates on here to excuse or justify these benefits cuts. This isn't a complicated issue, a Labour government is taking money from the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society to appease bond markets instead of raising taxes on those who can afford them. It seems many Labour MPs understand this and are very unhappy and angry about it, but not the 'grownup' Starmer/Reeves fan club on here it seems. You should all have a long word with yourselves.
Posted : 27/03/2025 2:33 pm
You should all have a long word with yourselves.
Yeah, because that kind of phrasing instantly makes people think "maybe I should question my own stance here"... 
And it also, rather arrogantly, assumes that people aren't questioning their own stances.
Very persuasive, I'm sure.
Posted : 27/03/2025 2:51 pm
Yeah, because that kind of phrasing instantly makes people think "maybe I should question my own stance here"...
Given the the effort being put into mental gymnastics to justify something that is plainly wrong I'm pretty sure none of the apologists are questioning their own position. Quite the opposite in fact, they seem to be doing everything possible to deny the obvious.
Posted : 27/03/2025 3:01 pm
I've written to my local Labour MP this morning saying I won't be voting for them again due to the statement yesterday.
They got in by the skin of their from Reform in what was a Conservative seat. Pile the pressure on those marginal Labour MPs and hopefully the pressure will be passed up the chain of command.
(I won't be voting Reform BTW - no idea who to vote for now!).
Posted : 27/03/2025 3:08 pm
(I won't be voting Reform BTW - no idea who to vote for now!).
You could go Lib Dem as I believe they would have been a better option than how Labour have turned out. Or just throw your vote away like I do and vote Green
Posted : 27/03/2025 3:13 pm
I've written to my local Labour MP this morning saying I won't be voting for them again due to the statement yesterday.
Me too. First time I've ever felt motivated to write to my MP. Said if he opposes the benefits cuts and votes against it I'll vote for him otherwise no chance. This is going to be Labour's tuition fee betrayal moment and I think many MPs know it. I hope my local MP hasn't burned his bridges because his parliamentary career is going to be very short.
Posted : 27/03/2025 3:35 pm
I've written to my local Labour MP this morning saying I won't be voting for them again due to the statement yesterday.
They got in by the skin of their from Reform in what was a Conservative seat. Pile the pressure on those marginal Labour MPs and hopefully the pressure will be passed up the chain of command.
(I won't be voting Reform BTW - no idea who to vote for now!).
mp’s get lots of letters with these “threats” or implications. It will be taken with a pinch of salt, because he knows the two main threats in the constituency would likely have done exactly the same, and the electoral system provides no useful benefit to you voting for one of the minor parties as a protest.
Im not happy with the proposed changes, im pretty sure that are economically nowhere near as beneficial as suggested. I would increase tax, not just on the rich - on everyone. I would also, and this would be massively controversial, apply NI to pensioners; when the rules about NI were introduced so that it stopped at retirement life expectancy was considerably lower. Their life expectancy has been massively extended because of societal improvements - time to contribute for that!
Posted : 27/03/2025 3:52 pm
Given the the effort being put into mental gymnastics to justify something that is plainly wrong I'm pretty sure none of the apologists are questioning their own position. Quite the opposite in fact, they seem to be doing everything possible to deny the obvious.
Oh, OK - keeping lecturing them, then.
Posted : 27/03/2025 3:52 pm
keeping lecturing them, then.
Not lecturing them, just calling them out for their transparent hypocrisy. We all know 100% if it was the tories doing this they would be sayng something completely different. I understand and respect that people have different opinions on things, what I can't stand is people changing or choosing their opinions to justify the unjustifiable.
Posted : 27/03/2025 4:09 pm
It's fantastic how many are now fans of shit outcomes.
The misunderstandings of the economy are laid bare in front of us.
I said last year and before; no real growth can magically appear especially with cuts and outcomes will be terrible.
But it is now cause for celebration:
Cuts
More poverty and inequality
No growth
Terrible services
And I guarantee they will not balance the books and if they managed it - we would a have severely contracted economy.
It really doesn't have to be this way but Reeves is literally clueless and Starmer totally lost.
https://twitter.com/ZackPolanski/status/1904896394583748654?t=s9mnZAPLDJP2voLR4UQnew&s=19
Posted : 27/03/2025 4:37 pm
If your self imposed rules are pushing children into poverty, disabled people worried about their survival and deepening inequality - maybe your rules are shit?
Not necessarily, it could be fine, it all depends on what your priorities are.
For example here is a typical Tory priority, to move money away from deprived areas and into more affluent areas :
Sir Keir Starmer claims to have changed the DNA of the Labour Party so it is difficult to be certain what Labour's priorities now are. Although there is some evidence to suggest that they are now very similar to that of the Tories.
Posted : 27/03/2025 6:08 pm
We all know 100% if it was the tories doing this they would be sayng something completely different.
I think it is hard coming to terms with seeing a Labour Party pull this sort of shit. I have always had a soft spot for Labour and I admit I am a bit shocked by it.
Posted : 27/03/2025 7:04 pm
rone reacted
That screeching noise you can hear? It might just be the government trying to avoid making contact with reality.
Trying to stick to the set script her advisers had prepared for any hostile questions. Everything was more or less normal, she said. Just tinkering round the edges. Global headwinds. Sticking to the fiscal rules. Look on the bright side. There was no longer a £22bn black hole and the changes to the welfare system were long overdue.
Rachel decided to answer a different question. NHS waiting lists were down. Why did everyone ignore all the wonderful things she had achieved?
Robinson suddenly realised the chancellor might he having a major meltdown. She didn’t seem to understand that the whole point of making benefits cuts was to save money. Just saying that everyone would suddenly have jobs that would make them richer was a fantasy.
Posted : 27/03/2025 8:18 pm
I like how they keep wheeling out spreadsheet embarrassment 'Treasury brain' Darren Jones to keep trying to give us terrible analogies about government book-keeping. An example based on pocket money? Really.
I mean, are these people for real?
Why are the right-wing loons back in charge again; the people that haven't got a clue about government finances - whose only point is money can only come from the private sector. That's their only argument, which totally feeds people like Tice.
Government cut - net drain from the economy (smaller deficit)
Government add - net flow to the economy (larger deficit)
(ONS)
Posted : 28/03/2025 9:39 am
This isn't a complicated issue, a Labour government is taking money from the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society to appease bond markets instead of raising taxes on those who can afford them.
The population of this country is largely (last time I looked it was still at about 70%) opposed to mass immigration, so that's that workforce gone, this govt promised in it's manifesto not to increase taxes on the 'working man' so any attempt to do that would go down like a bucket of cold sick with huge amounts of the electorate who're just managing to hold on by their finger tips, and a 2% rise in employers contributions has been either derided as too little, or otherwise castigated as a tax increase on the workers by the back door.
Where's the workforce coming from that'll drive some/any sort of increase in the economy if not from people who're currently claiming either sickness/PIP unemployment who could (with encouragement) get back into work. We're in Brexit reality, The US will at some point increase tariffs on all our exports, exporting to the EU is becoming increasingly uncompetitive and we're still paying for the results of 2008 and COVID furlough. Everybody expects this govt to put right all the wrongs of the last 14 of Tory bollocks in two mins flat with a click of their fingers and it's clear (outside fantasy politics) that's not possible.
I'm all for taxing wealth, but the pragmatic realities of that are that right now we don't have an HMRC capable of inspecting, valuing, and litigating that work annually at a cost that makes the collection of the wealth taxes worthwhile and there's no appetite that I can see from the electorate that would happy with funding an increase in the civil service that would be needed to do it, and the level at which you'd do that (^£10M) is at best a few hundred thousand folks, so the money raised would be insignificant [in the grand scheme of things] and growing the economy from the bottom up by encouraging people currently on hand outs is exactly the sorts of policies that progressive govts should be enacting.
It's clear there's no such thing as Starmerism, and he's at best a poor communicator, and a dull technocrat. I'd still have this over anything else that's currently on offer.
Posted : 28/03/2025 9:57 am
If your self imposed rules are pushing children into poverty, disabled people worried about their survival and deepening inequality - maybe your rules are shit?
Is the core point for me. The world has changed massively since Labour were elected. The amount they need to find to secure our future economically is tiny compared to what we need to secure it militarily. There is no better time or reason to change your position on spending, borrowing, taxation, trade and (whisper it) closer ties with Europe.
But no, the shit ****ing rules must be protected at all costs. It's calamitous, for the country and for Labour.
As others have pointed out, they have quietly done many good things. But it's loudly doing stupid stuff which will undo it all for them.
Posted : 28/03/2025 10:14 am
Del reacted
I'm all for taxing wealth, but the pragmatic realities of that are that right now we don't have an HMRC capable of inspecting, valuing, and litigating that work annually at a cost that makes the collection of the wealth taxes
Labour have committed to 5000 more HMRC staff. Every pound spent on HMRC staff brings in something like £10 in tax. No idea where the experienced staff to train them are.
Though investment in systems designed for the 21st century and a simplification of tax legislation would be just as important.
Posted : 28/03/2025 10:19 am
I don't disagree, two things: Thing one; Any UK govts track record of investing and creating "systems" isn't a happy one, and thing two: How long will that take? I don't think many folks are going to be impressed with Reeves announcing;
"In x number of years in the future [insert name of tax collection project who's budget will triple, estimated time before being in service quadruple, and ultimately not do the thing it set out to achieve here] will make wealth tax collection as easy as PAYE"
Pull the other one, it plays a merry tune...
Posted : 28/03/2025 10:48 am
The population of this country is largely (last time I looked it was still at about 70%) opposed to mass immigration, so that's that workforce gone
I accept that racist might like to claim otherwise but the UK has never experienced "mass" immigration. Here is the definition of mass immigration :
If you are going to ask a loaded question which doesn't reflect reality expect an answer which equally doesn't reflect reality. If I was asked if I supported mass immigration into the UK I would answer "no", despite being an immigrant myself.
Ask a sensible question which reflects reality, eg "do believe that immigration into the UK has had a positive effect?" and you get a sensible answer :
And I have no idea what "that's that workforce gone" means. Any European economy which could only function because of immigration into the country would be deeply flawed, and none exist imo.
The UK is currently experiencing record levels of immigration, in the year up to June 2024 1.2 million immigrants entered the UK, so your apparent claim** that the long-term sick need to have their personal independence payments removed so as to either force them into work or make them work harder, because of a lack of immigrants entering the country, is clearly nonsense.
** "Where's the workforce coming from that'll drive some/any sort of increase in the economy if not from people who're currently claiming either sickness/PIP unemployment who could (with encouragement) get back into work."
Posted : 28/03/2025 11:34 am
That's what I would expect... Brexit supporting immigrant supports past immigration but questions the need for more.
Anyway... some good coverage of powers (and funding) being proposed for HRMC as regard tax avoidance:
https://bsky.app/profile/danneidle.bsky.social/post/3llcbummrf22o
[ as an aside, I thought it was mentioned in the speech, just not in any meaningful detail... so this bsky thread is useful for that ]
Posted : 28/03/2025 12:01 pm
but questions the numbers coming in since they arrived.
Where have seen that? In the rejection of the racist term "mass" immigration?
What I saw was someone challenging the nonsense that the present government needs to take away money from the long-term sick to force them into work because of a lack of immigrants entering the UK.
The £5 billion benefit cuts has bugger all to do with a lack of immigrants or British voters being racist. It is about saving money and absolutely nothing else.
Edit : I see that you have edited your post kelvin but still maintain the baseless and frankly offensive claim that I am opposed to immigration
Edit 2 : It really is an act of desperation to try to suggest a link between cutting benefits to disabled people and Brexit. That level of dishonesty is worthy of a Tory politician
Posted : 28/03/2025 12:13 pm
Where's the workforce coming from that'll drive some/any sort of increase in the economy if not from people who're currently claiming either sickness/PIP unemployment who could (with encouragement) get back into work.
You really think the UK labour deficit is going to be filled by a few hundred thousand disabled people who can't wash themselves, cook for themselves or need support to go to the toilet? In fact it'll make the situation worse becaue those who are currently working are going to see reductions in financial support (like mobility vehicles) which will force them to give up work.
I'll repeat again, if Labour want to get people back to work I'm all for that. But you don't do that by cutting people's benefits, you do it by incentivising them and employers by spending more money not less. All Reeves is doing is what repeated Tory chancellors have done by reaching for the big stick and damn the consequences. Actually she's going much further than her tory predecessors, even George Osborne didn't possess the callousness and ruthlessness to punish the disabled.
Posted : 28/03/2025 12:14 pm
Where have seen that?
Apologies, I changed my post to be more clear. You must have seen it before the quick edit.
"Brexit supporting immigrant supports past immigration but questions the need for more."
Partly in reply to...
Any European economy which could only function because of immigration into the country would be deeply flawed, and none exist imo
We need immigration. Not just to "function", but to function as well as possible.
Edit 2 : It really is an act of desperation to try to suggest a link between cutting benefits to disabled people and Brexit. That level of dishonesty is worthy of a Tory politician
When you put it like that. Maybe. But when it comes to workforce planning, a reduction in immigration (don't pretend that wasn't what Brexit was about) means several things, including making sure fewer people are out of work due to disabilities. I've said several times that I think that probably requires spending MORE to help disabled people in the workplace, not less. The age of retirement needs to be increased as well... and age discrimination in the workplace dealt with... but I can't see that nettle being grasped any time soon.
Posted : 28/03/2025 12:33 pm
Yeah but the cut in PIP entitlement is about saving money and nothing else.
Obviously those who support the cut in disability benefits to disabled people would rather that people didn't think it was just about money because it sounds so cruel. Much better to pretend that it is to help disabled people get back into work. It's for their own good, apparently.
“I want to make everyone richer,” Rachel said. The denial was cutting in big time. “Everyone is going to be £500 richer.” The disabled people didn’t know how lucky they were to be made to work even if they couldn’t. Robinson suddenly realised the chancellor might he having a major meltdown. She didn’t seem to understand that the whole point of making benefits cuts was to save money. Just saying that everyone would suddenly have jobs that would make them richer was a fantasy.
John Crace
Posted : 28/03/2025 12:46 pm