[Politics] The Labour Government

[Weststander]

From the Guardian/Observer today:​

Honeymoon over: Keir Starmer now less popular than Rishi Sunak​

Opinium poll for the Observer finds a 45-point drop in the prime minister’s approval rating since he won the election

Keir Starmer has suffered a precipitous fall in his personal ratings since winning the election, according to a new poll for the Observer that comes before his first Labour conference as prime minister.
The latest Opinium poll reveals that Starmer’s approval rating has plunged below that of the Tory leader Rishi Sunak, suffering a huge 45-point drop since July. While 24% of voters approve of the job he is doing, 50% disapprove, giving him a net rating of -26%. Sunak’s net rating is one point better.

The prime minister is not alone in suffering from a major drop in personal support since the election. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, who has cut winter fuel payments for all but the poorest pensioners and promised tough decisions on welfare and tax in the forthcoming budget, has seen a 36-point drop in her net approval since July.

Far right rags. Why do people read that fiction?

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Er, hardly being loyal to anyone. That is not my MO - I have criticised a number of Labour Government policies on the boards in recent months. I course I believe what I post - I am not in the habit of posting lies so “admit” nothing but thanks for the really patronising attitude.

You seem to not have a clue what point I was making (now about 4 pages back!) - if you knew, you would realise the research backed up what I have been saying.

Please point me to a single post on this thread where I have said this is a good idea or unequivocally supported the Government for implementing it or said that it won’t cause severe hardship or even the possibility of causative mortality.

Where have I said anywhere that cold homes does not cause excess mortality? All I have said in response to your distastefully hyperbolic proposition that ‘1,000s WILL die‘ is that we cannot predict the number with any certainty, because it is a future event contingent on a number of sequential factors. - My criticism of your statement has been taken completely out of context and re-interpreted as me supporting Starmer and blown up into an almighty and ridiculous side discussion ! @Bozza’s links to the Labour research backs my point up. No where in that research did the authors predict with certainty what the mortality rate would be - they said “could” and “possibly ”

I can’t believe your English is not good enough to know the difference between measured, scientific reports and partisan hyperbole.

AGAIN

My position is this and remains unchanged:

Removing the WFA from pensioners except those on means-tested benefits (ie those who do not qualify for pension credit) is going to result in financial hardship for millions of pensioners and could possibly cause additional mortality for those on very low incomes who may not use their heating as a consequence - that is a no brainer - however, is not right to continue to give public handouts to those that do not need it but the threshold for determining that need is set too low.

I have (repeatedly) posted alternative suggestions too that in my view would be better, including using the windfall tax this winter to subsidise fuel bills for everyone. I have also several times posted links to a fund that those experiencing hardship in paying their fuel bills can apply for that is not means tested which I think is a constructive suggestion..

HtF is that different from what the majority of us on this thread are saying about the withdrawal of the WFA?

Why are you trying to position me in opposition to that by twisting my posts?

Bloody hell Zeberdi. Is posting enormous replies on NSC your day job or do you just not have anything to do since deposing Liz Truss and Labour are now in power?