UK Government Thread

Not nit picking, just honestly clarifying, which policies do you mean?

Continuing deregulation, privatisation, continuation of marginalisation of trade unions and increase in “labour flexibility” and a strong liking for centralised power for starters.

And you think the (short) record of this Labour government can be described like that?

I would agree that the Labour government at the turn of the century could be.

Should you receive extra money to heat your million pound home? Should pensioners with million pound homes, full state pension, and either a private pension or savings (ie no pension credits)?

Nope, pity you didn’t make it to my second paragraph – especially as although I talk crap I do at least keep it short.

Ah, I missed your point. Sorry. I thought you were arguing that property wealth doesn’t make you wealthy.

And you think the (short) record of this Labour government can be described like that?

Sorry, is that directed at me? Since I used “new labour” in the previous comment doesnt that answer your question?

It describes Blair&Brown’s time in government, in my opinion. Do you think that it also applies to what the current UK Government are doing? I don’t (so far).

You can argue that Starmer isn’t great and some of your argument might even be compelling in places. Try and tell me Jenrick or Kemi are better than him though, then no sorry, you’re wrong. They aren’t in the same league as Starmer. Convince yourselves otherwise at your peril.

— Nick Tyrone (@NicholasTyrone) September 24, 2024

This is the reality. This is the choice you have to make.

Continuing deregulation, privatisation, continuation of marginalisation of trade unions and increase in “labour flexibility” and a strong liking for centralised power for starters.

I don’t recognise that this govt is pursuing any of those policies. Only a couple of days ago Rayner was speaking at conference about repealing laws of strike vote turnout, and min service levels during strikes, and a Worker’s rights bill, all of which are Union proposals. Unions have just today led a vote at conference to reject the means testing of Winter Fuel Allowance, that doesn’t shout “marginalised” If I’m honest

It makes for a snappy response in a thread, but it really doesn’t stand any scrutiny.

Who do you mean by the middle?

I suppose a good example is people who are just over the 40p tax threshold who have seen their marginal tax rates increase over the past 10 years due to the threshold not rising with inflation. They are paying a lot more tax than they used to, but are not rich enough to not have to worry about it. In fact I’d class anyone who earns significantly above the average salary who still has to work as being ‘in the middle’. That will vary depending on people’s circumstances but people who work generally pay far more in tax than those who don’t have to, and that needs to be corrected.

How do you justify someone on 50k having to pay 40% on everything over that when there are people with 10s of millions in the bank who pay <20% (or much less if they take advantage of various avoidance opportunities)?

It describes Blair&Brown’s time in government, in my opinion.

Ermmm yes, since after all that was who I was talking about aka “new labour”. The current bunch dont seem to have acquired a name yet beyond maybe new new labour which isnt overly catchy.

For Starmer, well its hard to tell. Currently he does seem to be buying into the deregulation and market approach (see housing and planning “reform”) but beyond that he doesnt seem to have much in play beyond broad statements and an unwillingness to really move away from the failed tory policies in all but a handful of easy cases.

It makes for a snappy response in a thread, but it really doesn’t stand any scrutiny.

Whereas your response wasnt snappy but was answering a wildly different point. Perhaps rather than just reacting actually bother to read the context?

Perhaps rather than just reacting actually bother to read the context?

well, explain how this government is perusing policies that trace their history back to Thatcher then rather than a random laundry list. Given that the very first piece of legislation this govt hopes to pass has trade union proposals all the way through it, the claim that the “continuation of marginalisation of trade unions” is obviously incorrect.

This is the reality. This is the choice you have to make.

So labour get a free pass because the alternative is much worse? It’s the other way round, the alternative is so much worse that labour can’t afford to f*** this up and let them back in again (or even worse Farage), so they need to start doing the things that will make working people’s lives easier and start addressing some of the structural inequalites and injustices in our society and economy. Far from giving them a free pass, they need to feel the pressure and be held to account every step of the way.

So labour get a free pass because the alternative is much worse?

Of course not. But talking as if Starmer is the anti-Christ and his party are the legions of hell really isn’t helping. Politics, like economics, is just one big confidence trick, and undermining that confidence is a very dangerous thing to do. By all means indulge in some constructive debate, but this relentless slagging off is not that.

But talking as if Starmer is the anti-Christ and his party are the legions of hell really isn’t helping.

I don’t think anyone’s doing that. Those of us who are being critical are not doing so because we want Starmer and labour to fail, it’s the very opposite. We can see the direction this is all heading and know what the result will be, a tory govt in 5 years or earlier.

well, explain how this government

No I dont need to because I wasnt referring to the current government. I tell you what I will leave an empty line and then you can invent something else new I said so you can come up with a superior argument.

“”

Enjoy.

@Poopscoop

Not nit picking, just honestly clarifying, which policies do you mean?

There you have it. There are none, one completely debunked, the rest is just word salad, so there are no actual policies or ideals that this Govt are perusing that @dissonance can directly trace back to Thatcher or the hard right.

No I dont need to because I wasnt referring to the current government.

Apologies. It was me that was wondering if you were making a point about the current government. In my defence, my reason for asking was because… well… I thought this thread was about the current government.

Damn, that now reads like I’m making a snide comment, rather than apologising for the confusion. It’s not meant that way. Sorry.

Continuing deregulation, privatisation, continuation of marginalisation of trade unions and increase in “labour flexibility” and a strong liking for centralised power for starters.

Cheers for clarifying and sorry as I had also assumed it was a comment in regard to the current Labour government hence my self inflicted confuzzlement!

If I’m reading this correctly,  the government are in the wrong for not doing things that should be covered in a budget that hasn’t happened yet?

If I’m reading this correctly,  the government are in the wrong for not doing things that should be covered in a budget that hasn’t happened yet?

also, this makes them as bad as the Tories. Or possibly worse.

But talking as if Starmer is the anti-Christ and his party are the legions of hell really isn’t helping.

I don’t think anyone’s doing that

You might not think anyone is doing that. That’s not always how it comes across to some of the rest of us.

Some of Starmers critics on here do come across as approaching desperation or hysteria for a government that has not had three months yet nor had a chance to deliver a budget. While directing the criticism very much at Starmer as an individual, rather than at the government as a whole. While cherry picking the policies they disagree with and not mentioning those that they presumably do agree with.

While directing the criticism very much at Starmer as an individual, rather than at the government as a whole

Tbf his personal decision making has been questionable at best.

Tbf his personal decision making has been questionable at best.

Yeah don’t understand why this is such a sticking point for many.

It’s been a rubbish start for Labour and Starmer.

I don’t think it’s just a few of us on a forum who are frustrated too. Take a look out of the window.

Some of Starmers critics on here do come across as approaching desperation or hysteria for a government that has not had three months yet nor had a chance to deliver a budget.

That’s because things keep turning out worse than expected, not better.

I don’t think we need to hold back there’s too much resting on it all.

I mean with gems like this …

Liz Kendall this morning: “Let me tell you conference, this Labour govt has done more to help the poorest pensioners in the last 2 months than the Tories did in 14 years”

https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1838886518720479560?t=i0N7zIYUnjmCQufG_XW0lQ&s=19

Every party needs a Truss screaming guff down a mic.

(It’s a total and flat out lie.)

Anyone got an 18 million flat to lend me?

You seem to have a good grasp of “legal’ and ‘illegal’ Mr Starmer, but not a clue on ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Your moral compass is taking you into the cess pit and Labour’s popularity with you. Fool.

And .

Keir Starmer’s promised tax crackdown on non-doms could yield no extra funds for the Treasury, leaving a £1bn hole in the government’s planned spending for schools and hospitals.

Lol you lot started the junk about black-holes.  It’s just a greatest hits of how to make everything worse because didn’t think much through did you?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/sep/25/labour-crackdown-on-non-doms-may-raise-no-money-officials-fear

Keir Starmer’s promised tax crackdown on non-doms could yield no extra funds for the Treasury, leaving a £1bn hole in the government’s planned spending for schools and hospitals.
Lol you lot started the junk about black-holes.  It’s just a greatest hits of how to make everything worse because didn’t think much through did you?

“He should crack down on non-doms”

“Oh, he’s cracking down on non-doms, what a loser”

FFS – he could cure cancer, create world peace and lift the entire world population out of poverty and some of you would still be “Ah, but….”

FFS – he could cure cancer, create world peace and lift the entire world population out of poverty and some of you would still be “Ah, but….”

Paying for his own stuff would be a start.

If I’m reading this correctly,

I am not sure how you managed to reach the conclusion you did. Which brings us neatly onto.

Some of Starmers critics on here do come across as approaching desperation or hysteria

Given your inability to do anything than massively misrepresent people perhaps its you suffering from desperation and hysteria.

I don’t think it’s just a few of us on a forum who are frustrated too. Take a look out of the window.

Public seems to be confused; undoubtedly Ernie will be along soon to remind us that in number terms a minority of people voted for them and since then Starmer’s popularity has fallen badly, and I’m not denying that optics have been poor.

Yet at the same time – there’s general consent, even among you lot* that we shouldn’t just be paying WFA to rich pensioners, and when it comes to the 2CBC, a majority of people actually support that too.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50140-public-support-retaining-the-two-child-benefit-limit-as-starmer-gears-up-for-first-rebellion

So while they seem to be screwing up the optics, they’re not getting the policies as badly wrong as the rhetoric on here and in the press would make you believe. Noting too that these policies aren’t actually enacted yet; the 2CBC or an alternate solution is still on the table potentially when the child poverty taskforce makes recommendations; the WFA is there for nearly a million more of the poorer pensioners if they claim it (and if ‘you lot’ stop putting them off claiming it by persisting with the myth that it’s ridiculously hard), etc.

Plans are still being drawn up, until we’ve seen the budget and the spending review outcomes it’s still too early to say if they’ve got the big decisions right.

* I know I’m not allowed to say that but Rone started it.

Public seems to be confused; undoubtedly Ernie will be along soon to remind us that in number terms a minority of people voted for them and since then Starmer’s popularity has fallen badly, and I’m not denying that optics have been poor.

No, I’m having a little holiday from this thread ATM, I am finding the level of hypocrisy shown by some quite staggering. Wardrobegate was an eye-opener and made me realise that for a some individuals there is absolutely nothing that the politicians currently in power now can do which they think is worthy of criticism, because apparently the Tories are worse.

Although in the case of Wardrobegate v Wallpapergate, a perfectly legitimate comparison, the moral implications are absolutely identical. And the only practical difference is that two different extremely wealthy Lords paid for different luxury items to two different greedy party leaders, all within the rules. The same people who are dismissing Wardrobegate now as an alleged non-story were castigating Tory greed over Wallpapergate.

How can you have any sort of sensible debate when you are confronted with that level of hypocrisy? How can you have any sort of sensible debate with individuals who castigate the Tories for being racist in their attitudes towards asylum seekers in small boats, and yet praise Starmer’s alleged pragmatism in asking for advice from far-right Italian racists who are happy to see asylum seekers in small boats drown?

I will no doubt add links and comments to this thread in the future but for now at least I can’t arsed to engage with the weapons grade hypocrisy of so-called centrists.

I think most would agree that the optics are dreadful and Starmer should be making efforts to be whiter than white. I said in a post before that daft spat a couple of nights ago, that IME – genuine and verifiable – gov with a small g, the junior ministers, advisors, CS are being badly let down by their leadership but on the ground are actually doing a very thorough and professional job, that will see the light in the budget and SR.

There is however one major difference, and that’s that one took money and hid it/where it came from until found out and exposed; one declared it according to the rules.

Donations, tickets, loans of flats – are all in the rules; I disagree with at least some of the rules and it’s particularly annoying when espousing being careful with spending. Not declaring it – that’s what the problem was and is morally quite different, definitely not “absolutely identical”

Debate with the reasonable, skip past those whose opinions you don’t respect. Is that not the usual advice?

the moral implications are absolutely identical

Nah, one was part of a campaign, to get a Labour government. The other was hidden from the public and about making himself feel special.

I will no doubt add links and comments to this thread in the future but for now at least I can’t arsed to engage with the weapons grade hypocrisy of so-called centrists.

Nailed it 🙂

Always amazed how so much derision is directed at the so called ‘sixth formers’ on here when the supposed grownups are transparently tribal and unmoving in their opinions. And then they post comments about how they’re can’t be bothered posting because no one agrees with them. It’s infantile.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1839052676530627038

Looks promising. There’s a big but though.

v

v

v

I’ve checked and he can get a Flixbus for about £25, any more than that and he’d better be paying for it himself.

No rules were broken in the case of Wallpapergate, although that didn’t make it acceptable.

Here is another example of where no rules were broken, but it’s not really acceptable and if she was a Tory, not Labour minister, can you imagine reaction?

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by BBC Newsnight (@newsnightbbc)

Sarah Jones won her seat from the Tories in 2017, I actually helped in that campaign. And to be fair imo Sarah Jones’s problem stems mostly from poor judgement rather than being an arsehole, unlike her fellow Croydon MP Steve Reed who puts the “C” in centrists. Sarah Jones actually helped me with a case concerning a young Bangladeshi girl in an unhappy marriage. I doubt that I would have approached a Tory MP, or Steve Reed for that matter.

And then they post comments about how they’re can’t be bothered posting because no one agrees with them. It’s infantile.

If that’s at me. I said I wasn’t posting not because you don’t agree with me, but because all ‘you lot’ were posting was the same stuff over and over and then all agreeing with each other. There was no debate and as above, when I’ve tried to talk about how small g government is going, it just comes back to the same stuff again.

And then the other night, you started taking already bad optics stuff and then twisting it further out of shape where frankly, I think some of you were deliberately and knowingly misrepresenting. So I challenged on it, and TBH you still haven’t actually addressed the challenge (ignoring it for 4 days and then going ‘but that was 4 days ago’ doesn’t address the issue and just gets backs up, as does the deny, divert, deride tactic)

And so yes, I decided to start doing it back, and then you got all annoyed and started name calling, as per above.

If you want a playground argument, then you’re infantile too. If you want to debate points, then let’s do that.

No rules were broken in the case of Wallpapergate,

Apart from the one about declaring it.

What a weird thing to be chasing her for on Newsnight*. Are we doing Glastonbury MPs next?

My view? MPs should be turning down offers of tickets, seats, boxes, upgrades, whatever if it can be seen as just for their own private entertainment. Yes, that includes Starmer as opposition leader getting an upgrade to a safer but more expensive seat at football matches. He should have had the sense not to do that. Something key in an MP’s seat or the area (local show etc) is different, they should be attending public events. Same goes for national stuff where they can speak to the public. More so for ministers with a relevant brief.

[ *Newsnight is dead, no team of journalists, no deep dive, it’s just a chat show now ]