The Labour Government

meltonblue said:
I’m allergic to chocolate so that’ll be me gone as a burden straight away :)
Click to expand...

feel for you blue - I am the same with coconut so its the same with Bounty bars but I can at least enjoy all the other chocolates. Gets a bit awkward around Indian curries and cakes though
 
west didsblue said:
I think Starmer has to have the balls to be unpopular for a year or so, and has to be ruthless enough to take most MPs with him. If not, he’s toast along with Reeves.

Personally I think that Rayner is the best bet for Labour and the country in the medium term. I get the impression she’s ruthless enough to get things done. Would upset all the snobs and most of the press who think she’s too common. She would be a great example of how anyone, whatever their background, get get to the top.
Click to expand...

On balance I would take Raynor, I feel Starmer isn't the sort to give up his legacy this quickly. I think a few on here would react rather interestingly with Ange in charge.

It would be entertaining for sure.
 
johnny crossan said:
bit late on some accounts

www.bbc.co.uk

Rachel Reeves doing excellent job, PM tells BBC after Commons tears

Rachel Reeves was visibly upset as Keir Starmer came under attack from Kemi Badenoch over welfare bill U-turn.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
It’s not just today her eyes were swollen, she was crying a couple of days and I don’t think we have a right to pry into her personal life but the media won’t give up because it’s what they do.
The party should have sorted out behind the scenes before the vote, very inexperienced
 
hilts said:
On balance I would take Raynor, I feel Starmer isn't the sort to give up his legacy this quickly. I think a few on here would react rather interestingly with Ange in charge.

It would be entertaining for sure.
Click to expand...

Starmer isn’t ideological, he’s doing what’s best for the country and that means pissing off the left and right wing - which will be his downfall. It’s a shame the public don’t seem to understand this, don’t seem to understand that Labour are doing there best to avoid tax rises, are trying there best to pick up the mess 14 years of Tories and Brexit has left us in. Labour have actually achieved so much yet none of that is reported. Fuck it.
Let Reform and Farage have a go and see how we get on. We never learn.
 
Postman Pep said:
Same. If it was Rayner I'd be similarly ambivalent, unlike others in here with their "sympathy on a human level" takes.

Her heavily manufactured 'first woman iron chancellor" career path is basically had the bin lid shut on it that's all. I'm sure she'll be OK in the long run.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised not one newspaper headline says; "The Cryin' Chancellor"
 
west didsblue said:
We’re one year in to a five year term. Hopefully the fuck ups of the last few months will be a learning experience for the government and things will settle down. They’ve certainly got a challenge when three quarters of the media ignore anything positive and just jump on any perceived problems.
Click to expand...
The media is funded by views and clicks and it's a fact that people are more likely to watch, read or click on something they agree with. So the media just try to say what they think the public want to hear. It's simple, they make more money that way.

So they are on Labour's back because the nation is on Labour's back. 80% of the electorate didn't vote for them and I'll bet some of the 20% wish they hadn't. They only got in because people were sick to death of the Tories and even then because the vote on the right was split.

They have a huge parliamentary mandate but bugger all popular mandate. Most of the country hate them and there's no way this is ever getting turned around.

EDIT: I might add the Tories are similarly fucked.
 
Chippy_boy said:
True - I was referring to legal migration.
Click to expand...

BigJoe#1 said:
Good question and Politics aside there has been no improvement IMO. I know we have inflation figures regularly issued but quite frankly I believe them to be questionable.

In fairness oil (petrol) prices seem to have stabilised even maybe fallen slightly... but everything, and I mean everything in the Supermarket seems to have risen remarkably. I can safely say that what I would have spent £80 on last year now costs around £95.... cans of beans, butter, bread, meats, biscuits (have shot up).

Personally I put a lot of that down to the increase in Employers increased NIC, no evidence of this except to say I am not expecting business profits to have fallen. Every link in the food chain will have endured increased costs. As an aside to this I think the prices were increasing before April when the Employers NIC increases kicked in.

I know many on here will reject and deny this, but this is my lived experience.
Click to expand...
The fact is higher food prices were embedded in the economy over 2 years ago when CPI peaked at 11% but food inflation actually peaked at over 19% in early 2023. Obviously other price rises are then on that higher figure. We have all experienced higher prices but the vast majority of these were already in the system before last July. And you know what, if you want a well paid workforce, those additional costs may well be passed on to the consumer. Whether you're affected and can afford it depends on how sensitive you are to be able to absorb such price rises eg. on a fixed income or not.

Many would say they have seen an improvement with changes to minimum wage, improved child care, free school dinners, triple lock on pensions, interest rates down.

So, you're right in that it probably has little to do with NIC increases, but you know you really want to blame someone for it and who better than those you detest?
 
Ohrodneyrodney said:
That’s a really strange take. Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for an obviously over promoted lady who has been broken by her boss, I struggle to blame her political opponent for making the most of the situation.
If you can’t stand the heat…
Click to expand...

I’ve already posted I didn’t enjoy seeing her in such a state, she is a human being and it wasn’t nice but let’s not kid ourselves here. If that had been a Tory crying on the front bench, the vast majority of the morally outraged on here would have been pissing their sides and lapping it up.

It’s the dishonesty that’s gets you on here.
 
meltonblue said:
That still makes no sense! Reeves was trying to scale back borrowing, what would Cooper or McFadden have done differently?
Click to expand...
If Starmer had replaced Reeves before the Spring Statement (and the Spending Review) then the government could have outlined a lower profile of spending and borrowing than Reeves outlined last October, and crucially satisfied the fiscal mandate by a bigger margin.

Reeves’ big and likely fatal mistake is that she’s only ever given herself a margin or buffer of around 8 or 9 billion versus the main fiscal mandate, which is to have a balanced current budget in 2029-30. This size of buffer is essentially nothing when you consider what can happen to the public finances over a four or five year period, and so when borrowing costs unexpectedly rise or planned savings fail to materialise, the focus has fallen on what taxes will need to increase or where spending can be cut in order to make the numbers add up again.

This speculation has been pretty constant - last night is a prime example- and it’s meant that the government has secured little to no credit or political gain for what is still a large increase in public expenditure relative to the plans of the last government. Doing daft things like removing the WFA, which saved very little cash, has again meant that the political chatter has focused on cuts to very minor, specific areas of government spending rather than the broader uplift.

I firmly believe that had Reeves opted for a smaller increase in spending and borrowing than she outlined last October, and given herself more of a margin against the mandate, then the government would have been able to deliver a more consistent, durable message around spending. This of course would have required greater discipline across the Party, but it would have avoided this constant pressure on Reeves and the government more generally.

Chiefly due to Starmer’s shortcomings, we’re now in a situation where the Party won’t countenance any reduction in spending and Reeves will have to put up taxes quite significantly in November, if of course she’s still in a job. Either way policy will move to the left.
 
hilts said:
So you have sympathy for someone who wanted to take money off the disabled but have no sympathy for someone who has no sympathy for someone who wanted to take money off the disabled.

That is morally rather odd. Who decided that you should have empathy for people without empathy.

Are you Hitler?

Err no

Okay you mustn't be too bad then and an adult to boot.
Click to expand...

I think you have got yourself in a bit of a tizz. I didn't say I didn't have sympathy for anyone apart from mass murderers.

Cannot be bothered responding to a ridiculous post that lacks any understanding of logic. An epistemologist, you are not.
 
Manc in London said:
I think you have got yourself in a bit of a tizz. I didn't say I didn't have sympathy for anyone apart from mass murderers.

Cannot be bothered responding to a ridiculous post that lacks any understanding of logic. An epistemologist, you are not.
Click to expand...

You just did respond:-) it wasn't the best explained post I'm sure you didn't mean it to come across like it reads, no problemo.
 
hilts said:
On balance I would take Raynor, I feel Starmer isn't the sort to give up his legacy this quickly. I think a few on here would react rather interestingly with Ange in charge.

It would be entertaining for sure.
Click to expand...
She’s got her knockers…
 
The Stockport Iniesta said:
The DWP own report itself said that the original proposed changes to benefits would push 250,000 people into poverty. Other reports suggest that the figures could be much higher.

Damn right I have no empathy for her. She's a wolf in sheep's clothing targeting the most vulnerable in our society.

If you and the people who liked your post think putting that many people through mental turmoil is acceptable then you crack on. Where's your empathy for those people?
Click to expand...

Okay, I will address the issue of empathy....I have volunteered at various points in my life. Including, giving up my time to working for or with MIND, a disability organisation and a member of a learning difficulties partnership board. I have a fairly good understanding of issues faced by people with disabilities and mental health issues, as well as there parents, carers and dependents. I thought I would clear that up first. Not so long ago, mum died after being housebound for a couple of years or so, receiving bugger all support or any financial help. That caused her a lot of turmoil. Did I find that acceptable? No. Do I still need to tell you if I have empathy or not?

Like I said, I don't know much about the recent proposed changes to PIP eligibility issues as I have been very busy and had a lot of personal stuff to deal with.

As i said earlier, what choice was Reeves making? It's not just "save xx by reducing PIP". Such decisions are not made in isolation. The planned savings will have to come from elsewhere. Someone has to pay. Personally, I would rather they target the most wealthy but no party in power in this country is doing that any time soon. Now I am not wealthy but I would pay more tax to improve public services and protect the most vulnerable. Is this further evidence that I have some empathy?

What makes you think she is targeting vulnerable people? That's such a strong statement to make. You honestly think that? Is it because think she hates people with a disability or wants to see them suffer?
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Starmer isn’t ideological, he’s doing what’s best for the country and that means pissing off the left and right wing - which will be his downfall. It’s a shame the public don’t seem to understand this, don’t seem to understand that Labour are doing there best to avoid tax rises, are trying there best to pick up the mess 14 years of Tories and Brexit has left us in. Labour have actually achieved so much yet none of that is reported. Fuck it.
Let Reform and Farage have a go and see how we get on. We never learn.
Click to expand...

Mistakes have been made fella, you think more of him than others do. The rest is just the usual games of politics. Johnson wasn't ideological didn't stop him being a twat. My view is the most important thing in Johnson and Starmers world is Johnson and Starmer. They had to pick a side and it was probably strategic for both of them.

Streeting is another, its obvious to me, Raynor however in my view is a socialist and for me a ideological socialist is what i think is needed.

A few years back I would shudder at the thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top