But ultimately, our present predicament comes down to one thing, and that is welfare - the giant leach which is sucking all of the money and all of the life out of the country
Ah, yes, now I understand. Obviously the postwar welfare state was the Labour Party's little baby, I am assuming that by "welfare" you don't mean the 19th century Victorian workhouses?
So presumably your fondness for the idea of a Labour-Tory coalition is based on the idea that it would do as much damage to Labour that going into coalition with the Tories did to the LibDems.
My concluding sentence in my previous post seems to have hit the nail on the head :
Although to be fair it was a great result for the Tories, so perhaps that's the appeal? 💡
then you are detached from reality.
Says the person who thinks that the solution is to reward those who "make" money with even more money!
Odds are you'll get cancer one day, Jamz, probably a heart condition too, and may lose your marbles. Will you be refusing welfare? I assume you have "do not treat or resucitate" tatooed on your chest.
But ultimately, our present predicament comes down to one thing, and that is welfare - the giant leach which is sucking all of the money and all of the life out of the country
Don't be ridiculous.
Welfare is a net *add* to the economy.
And serves as a support mechanism for many who would otherwise be in a right mess.
Despite what you believe the problems are elsewhere.
Without government money the likes of the rich would be nowhere.
What's your take on my friend with MS, she gets PIP and UC and worked in a care home till she physically couldn't?
It’s her own fault for not being rich?
It’s her own fault for not being rich?
Or trying hard enough
Oh, yeah, silly me. Hard work always results in great wealth so that you'll never need help from the state. Silly, silly me.
Hate to point out the obvious, but this country has been in structural decline since some time in the late 19th century. That decline has been compounded by plenty of mistakes on all sides over the course of the last 100 years. But ultimately, our present predicament comes down to one thing, and that is welfare - the giant leach which is sucking all of the money and all of the life out of the country. If you think the answer to our problems is to punish the people who make money, whilst giving yet more money to the unproductive, then you are detached from reality.
I’m 100% unproductive due to SPMS on max SSS adult disability payment, on max Universal Credit, on max EESA.
I just love being a giant blood sucking leach taking all the money from hard working tax paying families to support my extravagant lifestyle with my feet up all day…….give me more of your money Jamz or I’ll send the boys round for your further education
If you think the answer to our problems is to punish the people who make money,
You see this logic is a stupid house of cards driven by Thatcher lies.
Simple truths: the only people that can 'make money' is the BoE and commercial banks(credit) under license from the BoE. So basically the state.
People and private business can't 'make money'. That's counterfeit. They can use government money and/or credit but can't make it.
So your beloved wealth creators are nothing more than leeches of the state. People who suck money from the state and drain it away from potential public purpose.
It's the exact opposite of what you were led to believe and why taxes exists to take control of that money away from people who hoard it.
Welfare recipients are nothing more than currency users that mostly recycle that money back into the economy at zero expense in reality to any tax payer.
That's a good thing because our society has mostly decided that a state creation (£) to help people who are less fortunate are better when they're included in the system, and don't have the same productive capacity as others.
See much of what the Labour party has tried to do through this lens, and got it wrong.
Welfare recipients are nothing more than currency users that mostly recycle that money back into the economy at zero expense in reality to any tax payer.
A very good point that needs to be made regularly enough so that people may start to understand it.
Clearly it would be better if welfare recipients who don't work at all could be more productive if/where possible and if the state is to 'profit' from that then they should be investing more in helping people by removing whatever obstacles are making it difficult/impossible to get work.
Reducing individuals welfare amounts is certainly not the answer and helps neither the country nor the person receiving welfare but that seems to be the Labour way.
zero expense in reality to any tax payer.
this is bollocks, the money is used to purchase and use real resources.
I'm with you on the general principle of welfare being a good and important thing, but pretending that there's no cost to the country if millions of people stop working is just silly.
Production is key, and pretending that is all down to the government issuing currency, and not down to people working (both public and private sectors) is a sleight of hand.
Your occasional reminder that a lot of welfare spending is helping people to work, and in work. And yet more is helping people who have worked, or are going to be working. The idea that benefits only go to the life long “unproductive” is nonsense. The idea that reducing spending in this area is automatically an economic good is also very blinkered. Look at the benefits not just the costs.
People and private business can't 'make money'...
Welfare recipients are nothing more than currency users that mostly recycle that money back into the economy at zero expense in reality to any tax payer
This is the macroeconomics equivalent of that guy that used to give out leaflets on Oxford St about the evils of protein. It's complete bobbins.
Edit: I don't mean to pick a fight or be needlessly insulting, but the poster in question is pretty "forthright" in their views, at great length.
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/50th-anniversary-of-oxford-streets-protein-man-25841/
but pretending that there's no cost to the country if millions of people stop working is just silly.
And it is equally silly to pretend that is how the welfare state operates.
The welfare state in reality doesn't work like that and is in effect self-financing.
For example healthcare provisions create a healthier and therefore more productive workforce, affordable childcare allows for more people to engage in their careers and professions, unemployment benefits during economic downturns stops individuals from losing their homes/dying so that they are available when there is an upturn in the economy, £1 given as benefit stimulates the economy more than £1 given in tax relief to the wealthiest, a welfare safety net encourages individuals to engage in innovation and risk taking, whilst taxation can be used to control inflation government investment in welfare projects such as school and hospital infrastructure projects can be used to stimulate the economy and the private sector, and so on....
You know those 'single mothers on benefits' that everyone hates? If you gave them free childcare, they could go to work like most of them want to. You know those people who give up work when they have kids because childcare is too expensive and it's not worth them working? They could continue to work if they had free childcare. If those groups (mostly women) work, they are doing economic activity and generating growth. I haven't done the sums, nor am I an economist, but I am pretty confident universal free childcare would be a decent investment.
I think the fact that we are now discussing the Victorian era issue of the "undeserving poor" reflects just how successful the Tories and Reform have been in dictating the political narrative.
Rich people are being punished? Lol, that's like saying Mercedes are punishing you by demanding £70k from you. Car? What car? Oh you mean this, that's just my car what are you on about?
Edit: I don't mean to pick a fight or be needlessly insulting, but the poster in question is pretty "forthright" in their views, at great length.
Well then maybe post a link to an article which illustrates why you believe he is wrong instead of a link to the Protein Man of Oxford Street, surely you could have found one?
What I love about these endlessly silly pro-Thatcher narratives is we've had the pro-wealth system in place for 45 years.
It's delivered for that few in spades; through low taxation and endless incentives to set up business here as well as amazing returns on assets - whilst everyone else has sucked up the downsides.
And it's never enough.
I mean if you're still complaining about cutting more benefits then I'd be saying you're a very selfish piece of work (that's probably needs the state every now and again) or you've not noticed that your economic model doesn't work and people are sick of it.
Neoliberalism should have been buried with Thatcher.
It is dying though but will take a while. Neoliberalism needs state money to function - it doesn't sustain itself. Truth is without the state propping it up this model falls apart.
"If you think the answer to our problems is to punish the people who make money, whilst giving yet more money to the unproductive, then you are detached from reality."
Wow. Really hope that none of your nearest and dearest fall on hard times.
"I think the fact that we are now discussing the Victorian era issue of the "undeserving poor" reflects just how successful the Tories and Reform have been in dictating the political narrative."
Getting definite Victorian vibes from jamz. I'm guessing that s/he would welcome the return of the workhouses so that the "unproductive" can be put to good use. However, what about those who can't work? Physically or mentally disabled? Children of the "unproductive? What of them jamz? Do you have a solution for them?
Just asking Jamz on behalf of my wife who has racked up 30 years in the NHS and turned down multiple opportunities to 'make money' for herself and a few others in the private sector...
Is she also considered 'unproductive' because she can't point to an increased share price?
I refer you to the last line of Coyote's post above.
What a mature selection of replies... This is the 'UK government' thread where one might expect to be able to discuss government policy/economics without degenerating into some sort of bleeding heart liberal point scoring game. After all, one of the stated aims of the current government is to reduce the welfare bill because they recognise that it has got far too large.
You may not have noticed but it is clear on this very thread that the majority of people do not think Labour are doing a great job or making good decisions. Blindly reducing welfare to deal a little bit with a 'black hole' is an example of how shit Labour are.
What a mature selection of replies... This is the 'UK government' thread where one might expect to be able to discuss government policy/economics without degenerating into some sort of bleeding heart liberal point scoring game. After all, one of the stated aims of the current government is to reduce the welfare bill because they recognise that it has got far too large.
Too large for what exactly? Can you give me a definite number where the UK government can't afford it?
You would do well to recognise how the government funds the state and not how rich people do.
Reducing welfare bills has been tried over and over it leads to dismal outcomes for most.
Pretending we have to close the numbers on a balance sheet is entirely arbitrary with no real-world outcome for the government. Whereas reducing people's means of income is devastating.
This is literally a balance sheet in Reeves' head - that bears no resemblance to real government financial operations. AKA they're not limited in spending power.
What a mature selection of replies...
Oh piss off Jamz. You're doing the usual rightwing bollocks of being deliberately provocative while slinging phrases like 'bleeding heart liberal' around and then pretending to be uber-offended when you get the response you expect.
Wanting to get rid of the welfare state in all its varied forms and showing no empathy for those it protects does nothing more than mark you out as a bit of a ####. Sorry if that's not mature enough for you but it's at about the same level as your idiotic opinions.
Hate to point out the obvious, but this country has been in structural decline since some time in the late 19th century. That decline has been compounded by plenty of mistakes on all sides over the course of the last 100 years.
Given that the single biggest contributor to the structural decline of this country since the late 19th century was the loss of the Empire, the solution is clear.
The United Kingdom must reclaim its colonies and resume extracting the wealth of these countries.
I'm not sure why you started going on about the welfare state. The costs of welfare pales in comparison to stealing legitimately extracting wealth from other countries.
Might be a bit tricky given that we are currently colonised by American corporations who are stealing extracting vast amounts of wealth from us but I'm sure Starmer can figure it all out.
After all, one of the stated aims of the current government is to reduce the welfare bill because they recognise that it has got far too large.
Yeah but they are talking bollocks**, probably to placate right-wing voters like yourself. Which is pretty disgraceful because firstly they know it is bollocks and secondly because they are supposed to be a social-democratic party which is committed to the cradle to grave universal welfare state, other parties exist if voters want to reject social-democracy .
**The average OECD spending on welfare as a percentage of GDP is 20.0%, UK spending on welfare as a percentage of GDP is 20.6% (2019 figures) so UK welfare spending is simply the OECD average, not "far too large".
The idea that the welfare bill after 14 years of Tory governments committed to austerity is too high is clearly ridiculous. And the idea that a so-called "Labour" government should make this false claim is frankly disgraceful.
Jamz - do you work in Sales, by any chance?
**The average OECD spending on welfare as a percentage of GDP is 20.0%, UK spending on welfare as a percentage of GDP is 20.6% (2019 figures) so UK welfare spending is simply the OECD average, not "far too large".
Just to chime in here also, for all the people who can't get doctors appointments, all the doctors who cant get jobs, people who can't get on an nhs dentist, the lack of beds available in crisis wards and a whole host of other issues that we often complain about, to fully overhaul and fix the current system you're talking you would have to increase the percentage of GDP on welfare spending to at least 53%. However, I also think the approved contractor list for places like the NHS being billed £90 for a lightbulb or £110 for a stack of a4 printer paper should be heavily looked at and addressed. These figures aren't publicised, just some I've heard from my wife who deals with stuff as a band 8C
Good point about the private sector contractors ripping off the NHS but to be fair, whilst I strongly agree with the sentiments behind the suggestion, eating more pizza would simply complicate matters and put yet further stress on the NHS! 😜
Jamz - do you work in Sales, by any chance?
Unlikely I would have thought, I get the impression that Jamz "makes" money. Selling a product which someone else has made and adding to the cost by also including your own wages doesn't sound much like "making money" to me.
Although nice work if you can get it.
The far right getting their knickers in a twist over the government bunging Kebatu £500 to go quietly is very funny. Surely this is perfectly Trumpian?
"Yeah, yeah, it's a great deal, one of the greatest, we throw him a bit of cash and that gets him out of our hair. Big deal, bigliest deal, that's the kind of deal only I can do".
Etc. Etc.
this country has been in structural decline since some time in the late 19th century
I don't even know what this means, what it refers to, what is supposed to have declined? The only thing I can think of for certain is natural space, open countryside, that kind of thing.
^^ (Just posting this as an interesting aside and hardly relevant to the actual points being discussed!)
I believe that America started to overtake us economically in that period but I doubt it's what Jamz was referring to. The reasons the US started to overtake us are interesting but also likely irrelevant to the current discussion.
In the late Victorian era, social responsibility started to become a political aim rather than a purely religious one, which might be what he is alluding to?
Rachel Reeves' latest headline 'cock-up' is amazing timing. At this stage it doesn't matter how bad or not it is but this is seriously not going to land well.
These people have really really pushed the public's patience and the budget is yet to land.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd04d0yxnrvo
They seriously need to pull something out of the hat that is not anything to do with black-holes or fiscal rules because the they've just given the press and public even more reason to be hated.
(3200 a month is also a nice chunk of change.)
Also i heard Starmer say in PMQs how high the stock-market currently is. Jeez. (Does he not realise that is because of high interest rates and money rotation from the wealthy.)
Burnham are you there?
Utterly doomed as a party for a long long time.
Also i heard Starmer say in PMQs how high the stock-market currently is. Jeez. (Does he not realise that is because of high interest rates and money rotation from the wealthy.)
I love the way that everyone seems to be scrambling around desperately trying to figure out why no one has any money.
Meanwhile, a quick glance at the S&P 500 will show them exactly where it is. Of course, property prices are also holding a fair chunk of the wealth.
The problem is that many people are able to get a small taste of these price increases but the reality is that the uber-wealthy are able to leverage theses prices so much more efficiently (who would have thought being able to ask politicians to make laws that make you even richer would actually work).
The problem is that the wealthy have vacuumed up so much money that the number of people who can 'benefit' from these particular price increases is being reduced all the time. So then it's on to plan B. 'Look, benefits scroungers and brown people are stealing all your money!'
Sadly, I'd say Jamz' views are closer to those of the majority of the population than most on here. Why do people always have to prove just how stupid the average person is?
Sadly, I'd say Jamz' views are closer to those of the majority of the population than most on here. Why do people always have to prove just how stupid the average person is?
Because the narratives are truly entrenched.
Fake lack of money > cut things for the public to save money > asset prices inflate because of high interest > high interest punish people with private debt.
Boom/Bust = socialise the losses.
The reasons the US started to overtake us are interesting but also likely irrelevant to the current discussion.
The real turbocharge was manufacturing weapons then sending us the bill for most of it as far as I can see.
Sadly, I'd say Jamz' views are closer to those of the majority of the population than most on here. Why do people always have to prove just how stupid the average person is?
Because unless it is understood, things like Brexit, Trump, Farage etc will continue to come as a shock.
Sadly, I'd say Jamz' views are closer to those of the majority of the population than most on here.
Jamz's views? The only opinion I have seen Jamz express is that Britain's alleged decline (it is the sixth wealthiest nation on earth) is the consequence of the welfare state, if this was an opinion shared by the majority of the population austerity would be a vote winner and Liz Truss's premiership would have given the Tories a massive electoral boost.
The NHS, which typifies the welfare state and provides universal free healthcare, is one of the most important electoral issues for voters. Every single political party in parliament is pledged to actually improve it, not to scrap it.
Sure, some people might believe the bollocks they are told by Daily Mail columnists that Britain is now a poor nation and it is all the fault of the welfare state, I'm looking at you Richard Littlejohn, but there isn't much evidence that it is the majority of the population. Just like Littlejohn's deeply offensive views on homosexuality might chime well with certain demographics but is completely at odds with the majority of the population.
Rachel Reeves' latest headline 'cock-up'
What next? Is the Daily Mail going to be conducting black ops on libraries to see if ministers have got any overdue books?
In this instance, quite rightly, Starmer has basically said "**** off" to the baying hypocritical mob.
In this instance, quite rightly, Starmer has basically said "**** off" to the baying hypocritical mob.
Agree it sounds like a cock-up rather than nefarious behaviour, however as mentioned above, £3,200 a month income from renting out the family home is not chicken feed and will probably feed the narrative.
The whole “benefits are the problem” line was always going to be the other twine in the “foreigners are the problem” pitchfork. The Tories have now tied them together and promise to remove benefits from anyone not a UK citizen. Effectively that means EU citizens with settled status, as those are overwhelming the non-UK citizens entitled to and/or in receipt of benefits.
What next? Is the Daily Mail going to be conducting black ops on libraries to see if ministers have got any overdue books?
Well it is an excellent result for the Daily Mail, they have forced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to "sincerely" apologise for screwing up her personal financial asset, not a great look for a Chancellor who is already deeply unpopular with voters.
I doubt that the average voter will be so dismissive, why shouldn't the Chancellor be aware of the rules which apply to everyone else and can result in fines in cases of non-compliance?
What a mature selection of replies...
Oh piss off Jamz. You're doing the usual rightwing bollocks of being deliberately provocative while slinging phrases like 'bleeding heart liberal' around and then pretending to be uber-offended when you get the response you expect.
Wanting to get rid of the welfare state in all its varied forms and showing no empathy for those it protects does nothing more than mark you out as a bit of a ####. Sorry if that's not mature enough for you but it's at about the same level as your idiotic opinions.
Charming. I'm not remotely offended - thankfully I am capable of discussing different view points without getting my y-fronts in a twist. Shame the same can't be said of yourself. Not that there's much conversation to be had between the insults and the hysterics.
I would just like to point out that at no point in this thread have I said that I want to get rid of the welfare state.
Anyway, I will gladly do as I'm told and piss off now - this is not really productive enough for my liking (joke).
Jamz - do you work in Sales, by any chance?
Now that is offensive.
I doubt that the average voter will be so dismissive, why shouldn't the Chancellor be aware of the rules which apply to everyone else and can result in fines in cases of non-compliance?
Especially when she was championing the selective thing only two weeks ago. While she can try and blame her letting agents, if I was championing something that I think should apply to all private landlords it would lead me to check that I had done it on my own property that I was renting out. Still, I bet the books of the rent balance perfectly.
I would just like to point out that at no point in this thread have I said that I want to get rid of the welfare state.
This is true. What you said was, quote :
But ultimately, our present predicament comes down to one thing, and that is welfare
So since our present predicament is just down to "one thing", welfare, then the obvious solution is to get rid of it.
Then presumably everything will be hunky dory.
The problem is that the wealthy have vacuumed up so much money that the number of people who can 'benefit' from these particular price increases is being reduced all the time.
Sorry bit off topic now... My three year flirtation in crypto witnessed that. I managed to keep probably 3/4 of what I invested, potentially I could have easily trebbled what I invested, but there was no way for someone like me to know what was coming (or not coming). Lost the gainzzz also partly due to inexperience. When Trump got involved, it really made me realize who the type of people running it are. Sold it all off with the price increase his second presidency brought and accepted the losses. Washed my hands of it!
. When Trump got involved, it really made me realize who the type of people running it are. Sold it all off with the price increase his second presidency brought and accepted the losses. Washed my hands of it!
Probably wise given the liquidations that recently happened.
Crypto is full of people that think the economy can be replaced by Bitcoin. Looks like they're about to get a rude-awakening.
So since our present predicament is just down to "one thing", welfare, then the obvious solution is to get rid of it.
My first reaction when something when is broken is to y'know... try and fix it?! Even if I wanted to, it's not really feasible to get rid of something that makes up over half of government expenditure. Some of us do like to try and inhabit the real world.
The far right getting their knickers in a twist over the government bunging Kebatu £500 to go quietly is very funny. Surely this is perfectly Trumpian?
I think people are entitled to look at the Kebatu affair and think it is shocking, and it doesn't make them "far right".
A man crosses the border on a small boat run by organised crime groups that the British and French governments allow to operate. He then commits a series of sexual offences (including against a child) and is imprisoned, with some notoriety. Despite being a high profile child sex offender, he was wrongly released from prison, given £70 and sent on a train to London. He is recaptured not because law enforcement found him but because a member of the public spotted him. He is then detained again and lined up for deportation - at which point he threatens to disrupt his own deportation, and he's given another £500 at the discretion of some junior official before being put on a plane for freedom in Ethiopia where he may well commit further sexual offences.
A normal person would look at this and say "this is an absolute ****ing shambles, the state is failing in its most basic responsibilities, apparently there's enough money to hand out £500 to sex offenders because they're feeling a bit stroppy, and the government is accountable in a democracy".
I really don't think that makes people some kind of far right apologist or activist. Neither is it going to be enough to say "ohh, this is all the Tories' fault, nothing to do with us, guv".
A “normal person” should keep it all in context, and remember that most sex offenders look just like them, grew up near them, speak just like them.
My first reaction when something when is broken is to y'know... try and fix it?!
But you didn't say anything at all about welfare being "broken".
These are your exact words :
"this country has been in structural decline since some time in the late 19th century. That decline has been compounded by plenty of mistakes on all sides over the course of the last 100 years. But ultimately, our present predicament comes down to one thing, and that is welfare"
Which very clearly suggests that the big "mistake" of the last 100 years has been welfare.
So now that you appear to be backtracking and suggesting it could in fact be fixed, despite apparently being a problem for the last 100 years, how exactly do you propose to do that?
And I will remind you again that UK spending on welfare is exactly the same as the average for the 38 advanced economies in the OECD.
Some of us do like to try and inhabit the real world.
Quite.
A man crosses the border on a small boat run by organised crime groups that the British and French governments allow to operate.
That is quite a bold statement, in fact it is the sort of conspiracy theory which you might associate with the far-right. Have you got any evidence that the British and French governments allow organised crime groups to operate?
Is it part of the "Great Replacement Theory" ?
A “normal person” should keep it all in context, and remember that most sex offenders look just like them, grew up near them, speak just like them.
Well, quite. And yet the state can't even deal with the high profile sex offenders that are convicted, imprisoned and supposed to be deported. So what ****ing hope is there for the state to effectively manage sex attackers that haven't yet been convicted, aren't in custody, and can't just be put on a plane to Ethiopia so the UK can wash its hands of the problem?
I probably should have added "yeah but there's loads of non-immigrant sex offenders" and "the context is that these ****ups happen all the time" to the list of unconvincing responses to the Kebatu affair.
He was only a "high profile sex offender" because the far-right decided to go on the rampage over his crime. The crime itself wasn't considered particularly serious by the courts which is why he only received 12 months that he wasn't even expected to fully serve in custody anyway.
I am not convinced that the state should attach particular importance to an individual criminal just because the far-right and criminal elements do.
Even if they hanker for those halcyon days when paedophiles and sex offenders were all white Anglo-Saxons like Jimmy Savile.
I probably should have added "yeah but there's loads of non-immigrant sex offenders" and "the context is that these ****ups happen all the time" to the list of unconvincing responses to the Kebatu affair.
Unconvincing... but true. The prison and probation services have been wrecked in recent decades, and mistakes happen all the time. A white sex offender getting a few days on the loose by mistake isn't news though, is it. That this one offender has been in the news every day recently is because he was from abroad... and the media giving the case and its handling so much attention just adds into the feedback loop of hate. Focus in on a rare case from a group... make that group the "problem".
Unconvincing... but true. The prison and probation services have been wrecked in recent decades, and mistakes happen all the time.
And a normal person who sees that and thinks it's an unacceptable state of affairs - even if their attention was drawn to it through a cause celebre with dubious proponents - is not a right wingers (necessarily).
That isn't the "story" though, is it... it's "the women in your life need protecting from asylum seekers... deport them all... and we can't trust this government to deport anyone"... there is zero attention on the state of the UK's prison and probation services by the "normal person"... and definitely no focus on how those services got that way.
Deporting all the foreign criminals would free up some prison space for our home grown nonces. It’s a win win scenario.
Deporting all the foreign criminals would free up some prison space for our home grown nonces. It’s a win win scenario.
Some of them require a 30 room mansion, rent free, though...
Deporting all the foreign criminals would free up some prison space for our home grown nonces. It’s a win win scenario.
Are you suggesting that homegrown nonces aren't going to prison because foreigners are taking up prison space?
That's a new one on me.......bleedin immigrants, taking our jobs, homes, women, and now prison spaces.
According to Nigel Farage immigrants are also coming over here taking up all the space on motorways and causing traffic jams which are making our man late for appointments.
Will this madness ever end?
and definitely no focus on how those services got that way.
Probation service being a fine example of failing Grayling in action plus the problems with an ideological belief that the private sector is always better.
Even four years after being brought back into public management its struggling to recover
https://twitter.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058?t=SnO2Ev2P_QubFk8QkXrNbg&s=19
Go further right Starmzy.
Labour in danger of splitting the left vote now must stand aside at the next election. 😉
No one could have seen this one coming 2 years ago .
48% expressing support for parties to the right of Labour. That’s more than a little bit concerning at this stage. It doesn’t suggest to me that the country is ready to tack left from here in any meaningful way, even if Labour could be persuaded to push more of their left wing policies and stop chasing the right on migration and benefits… could they take more people with them? Yes, plenty of people ready to vote Green… some might come back if Labour drop the right wing stuff… but how many more could they still lose to Reform in the process? Is Reform + Tory support going to tip over to 50% once the Conservatives change leader and the future tax rises all the parties know are needed have finally kicked in? Bleak times.
I think people are entitled to look at the Kebatu affair and think it is shocking, and it doesn't make them "far right".
Why? Most people are used to encountering 'ethnically pure' Brits on the make via the so-called welfare state and cash-in-hand white van men. The only difference is the ethnicity.
🤷♂️
https://twitter.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1983928827643388058?t=SnO2Ev2P_QubFk8QkXrNbg&s=19
I see that the Tories have dropped one point since the previous poll which means that Labour are now level pegging with them.
Sir Keir Starmer must welcome some positive news like that among all the other doom and gloom he has to contend with.
I think people are entitled to look at the Kebatu affair and think it is shocking, and it doesn't make them "far right".
Why? Most people are used to encountering 'ethnically pure' Brits on the make via the so-called welfare state and cash-in-hand white van men. The only difference is the ethnicity.
This is genuinely one of the silliest statements I have ever read. Not just on the internet, but in any written form. It really manages to pack in an amazing amount of silliness into a small number of words. I mean - "the only difference between welfare claimants and sex offenders is ethnicity" as a response to the state freeing and paying off a convicted child sex offender. Incredible work. 10/10. AI could never replicate it.
AI could never replicate it.
It could if it had been fed too much ale yesterday evening, like I had...
You're quite right, it is utter drivel.
😳
AI could never replicate it.
It could if it had been fed too much ale yesterday evening, like I had...
Fair play, but you may have stumbled onto a brilliant idea: real ale-cooled AI machines. Someone get me Sam Altman on the phone!
Fair play, but you may have stumbled onto a brilliant idea: real ale-cooled AI machines.
The way I felt first thing this morning, I would much rather have stumbled onto a hangover cure.
Honestly are Labour really going to try to raise taxes on people earning more than 45k by pretending they're not 'working people'? I doubt even they could be that stupid but if so they'll be on single figure poll ratings and Starmer and Reeves will be toast.
A normal person would look at this and say "this is an absolute ****ing shambles, the state is failing in its most basic responsibilities, apparently there's enough money to hand out £500 to sex offenders because they're feeling a bit stroppy, and the government is accountable in a democracy".
Under the previous administration the bung was thousands (£3000) for a no-fuss departure by the deportee, he could have appealed the decision. I suspect the £70 is the normal prison release payment because we're not savages and need to demonstrate to the recidivist that society will have their back if they behave.
Honestly are Labour really going to try to raise taxes on people earning more than 45k by pretending they're not 'working people'? I doubt even they could be that stupid but if so they'll be on single figure poll ratings and Starmer and Reeves will be toast.
I am convinced they are trying to deliberately lose the next election, everything they do is so ****ing ridiculous. Loads of working people earning more than £45K would have voted for them and although may not have objected to a tax raise for the right reasons (i.e making public services better for majority of people) they are probably not so happy about tax being raised for nothing (i.e to fill a black hole/make 'books balance')
Starmer and Reeves will be toast.
Starmer, Reeves and indeed the Labour party are toast. This was their last chance and they've blown it. As in many other European countries the parties that were once the major players have ****ed up to the point they are all but irrelevant.
Top of NHS band 6 is 46,580. That's a lot of nurses, therapists, paramedics, radiographers etc. Not dr's and consultants.
Exactly. What they should have said was lower paid working people and yes they should not only have no tax increases they should have tax reductions offset by tax increases on wealthy non working people.
Trying to define what a working person is will just annoy people even more as people are clued up enough to know that a working person is someone that works and has to pretty much work to live whereas a non-working (weathly) person is someone who doesn't have to work to get income.
This isn't policy yet - nothing is until the budget is announced, or more accurately until the Finance Bill that supports the budget is passed (although that isn't going to be an issue with Labour's majority)
It was from "sources" - so could be
Government flying a kite to gauge reaction;
Govt putting out already rejected bad ideas so that what is actually announced seems more reasonable;
Someone in Govt or Treasury who thinks it's a terrible idea leaking it to prove the point and influence decision;
Or just speculation based on a broad range of ideas that the Treasury will be working on and it's been picked up through Whitehall/Westminster gossip.
It is interesting that there is so much briefing/leaking, speculation and general frenzy in the media about this budget - a sign that this budget is key to Govt and that the Govt is performing really badly and so is really weak internally
Starmer and Reeves will be toast.
Starmer, Reeves and indeed the Labour party are toast. This was their last chance and they've blown it. As in many other European countries the parties that were once the major players have ****ed up to the point they are all but irrelevant.
Totally.
It's been downhill since the first few months and each bit of political capital that is lost with the public is twice as hard to get back.
My real interest lies when/if the big economic global (Ai) crunch materialises - It's going to happen. Probably under their watch and they will have no plan, or support ideas. Trump's tariffs are draining the economy in the USA. What goes around comes around.
Also re: budget - tossing random daft tax and spend ideas around just proves they have no plan and are out of their depth. It's not a way to fix a country. Until they realise they don't need to 'get money" things will continue downwards.
(They really should go radical now they have nothing to lose. It's probably their absolute last chance.)
Any ideas as to who or what should replace Starmer and Reeves?
Optics, innit? A decade or so ago anyone earning £45k earned the equivalent of close to £90k today. I struggle to track gentle changes over a long period of time and I assume other people are the same.
Why not just scrap tax relief on ISAs entirely? There must be huge amounts of money loitering there that the treasury could grab a percentage of the interest on.
I struggle to track gentle changes over a long period of time and I assume other people are the same.
It's bullshit. As I've said before, if the high tax band had tracked inflation since 2021 instead of being frozen it would now be at around 64k. In 2028 when it is due to be unfrozen it should be at around 71k. And now it looks like they might be thinking of taking it down to 45k? That's a huge extra tax hit for everyone earning 50k or more. If they're going to take an extra 1k a year off me I want it spent on hospitals and schools not filling a blank space in their balance sheet because the OBR f##### up it's forecasts.