[Politics] The Labour Government

[BadFish]

Er no thank you, the electorate in majority voted for a Labour Government, if their performance to date is anything to go by regrettably i’m not sure if that is what they got, it’s going to be a very long 5 years for the fan boys on here!

IMHO the fan boys of both sides are the problem. If you are prepared to vote for a party in spite of what they do then they aren't going to bother to win your vote and be much better than the other lot, they get to hover just above them. Add to this the UK's habit of keeping them in power for long periods and you end up with a race to the bottom (or just above the bottom).

For me, the UK electorate have a long way to go to get the political parties they deserve and it should start with kicking the fuckers out when they come up short (and not replacing them with the opposition for 10+ years).

By the time they lost the election to Call Me Dave the Labour party was probably at about 4/10, Call me Dave came in at a 5/10 . . . . then by the time Sunak stumbled into the job they were a 2/10*. Labour only had to be a 3/10 to get in by the time the electorate finally had enough of the shit they were being served up.

*Of course, having Corbyn as a choice for some of that time didn't help.

Anyway, just a theory.

 

[fly high]

He and his cabal have done the right thing

PM will no longer accept donations to pay for clothes https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyvpv1lzq6o

If he'd had his brain in gear he'd have known it was a bad idea in the first place.

 

[Bozza]

So you keep saying.

So where are you moving the goalposts to, how do you administrate it and what is the net new financial impact that you have to get from somewhere else?

Dead easy being in opposition, isn’t it?

I'm not trying to move the goalposts anywhere - I just don't think we should knowingly take money away from poor and vulnerable people who need it to keep warm in the winter. It's interesting that some see this as a controversial aspiration.

Is opposition easy? You'd need to ask the Tories. They're currently undertaking a leadership contest, and I'm not sure anyone has noticed, nor does anyone care. If it is easier, I suspect they'd trade that for greater visibility and some relevance. They're going to be in the political wilderness for some considerable time.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I think most of them seem to be experiencing internet connection issues. Which must be deeply frustrating because for the last few years they’ve been on the political threads non-stop. Odd.

> insert shrug emoji, laugh emoji, wink emoji

Maybe they don't want to disturb your moment in the sun

 

[Weststander]

Maybe they don't want to disturb your moment in the sun

It could well be a long stay, 5 years.

Government is tricky, especially in this age. Gaffs, injustices and perceived gaffs mocked, discussed to the nth degree. Loyal Labour supporters are palpably hating this. No one thought the mocking would start within weeks.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I'm not trying to move the goalposts anywhere - I just don't think we should knowingly take money away from poor and vulnerable people who need it to keep warm in the winter. It's interesting that some see this as a controversial aspiration.

Is opposition easy? You'd need to ask the Tories. They're currently undertaking a leadership contest, and I'm not sure anyone has noticed, nor does anyone care. If it is easier, I suspect they'd trade that for greater visibility and some relevance. They're going to be in the political wilderness for some considerable time.

But you’d acknowledge that a flat rate benefit that gave a millionaire the same as someone on 14k a year, that gave a couple in a small, well insulated flat more than a single person heating a bigger, older home is fundamentally unfair?

And that if Labour didn’t do something about the debt they inherited, this thread would, instead, be full of people saying “fiscally irresponsible Labour”? And if, they instead, spent their way out of things, this thread would be in meltdown?

I’ve put forward an alternative idea on here. Labour need to get the energy companies to drop bills for vulnerable customers either by legislation and toughening up the regulator or by taxing them heavily if they don’t. That plus the triple lock would mean they could then reform WFB more fairly next year. But something else would then have to pay the inherited debt.

And, after reading that, I can hear keyboards being warmed up to say that idea would be anti business and irresponsible. Or, in one case, probably just an emoji.

 

[LamieRobertson]

It could well be a long stay, 5 years.

Government is tricky, especially in this age. Gaffs, injustices and perceived gaffs mocked, discussed to the nth degree. Loyal Labour supporters are palpably hating this. No one thought the mocking would start within weeks.

….and some don’t seem to be taking it too well.

 

[pocketseagull]

And, after reading that, I can hear keyboards being warmed up to say that idea would be anti business and irresponsible. Or, in one case, probably just an emoji.

and the people who'd write such things have just (in theory) lost their go at having their party in Government. I don't think many Left leaning would be complaining about the solutions that a Labour government should be offering.

 

[LamieRobertson]

But you’d acknowledge that a flat rate benefit that gave a millionaire the same as someone on 14k a year, that gave a couple in a small, well insulated flat more than a single person heating a bigger, older home is fundamentally unfair?

And that if Labour didn’t do something about the debt they inherited, this thread would, instead, be full of people saying “fiscally irresponsible Labour”? And if, they instead, spent their way out of things, this thread would be in meltdown?

I’ve put forward an alternative idea on here. Labour need to get the energy companies to drop bills for vulnerable customers either by legislation and toughening up the regulator or by taxing them heavily if they don’t. That plus the triple lock would mean they could then reform WFB more fairly next year. But something else would then have to pay the inherited debt.

And, after reading that, I can hear keyboards being warmed up to say that idea would be anti business and irresponsible. Or, in one case, probably just an emoji.

🫡

 

[Weststander]

and the people who'd write such things have just (in theory) lost their go at having their party in Government. I don't think many Left leaning would be complaining about the solutions that a Labour government should be offering.

You haven’t properly looked at these threads. People who were openly anti Tory the last many years, damning of the WFP cut off.

 

[Guinness Boy]

It could well be a long stay, 5 years.

Government is tricky, especially in this age. Gaffs, injustices and perceived gaffs mocked, discussed to the nth degree. Loyal Labour supporters are palpably hating this. No one thought the mocking would start within weeks.

I did. When the Farage riots, caused by online lies were successfully quelled and the participants, including nonces and people with multiple violent convictions, jailed, the right’s response wasn’t “well done”. It was “two tier Kier”.

So if he’s going to get stick for the things he’s done well, it’s inevitable he’ll get it when he cocks up, which he has, and he will.

It needs to be judged on five years, rather than 8 weeks, especially given the mess inherited.

Although. If the Tories mark him with this new leader he’ll be able to get away with anything.

 

[pocketseagull]

You haven’t properly looked at these threads. People who were openly anti Tory the last many years, damning of the WFP cut off.

Sorry, you've lost me. I don't understand what this means.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It could well be a long stay, 5 years.

Government is tricky, especially in this age. Gaffs, injustices and perceived gaffs mocked, discussed to the nth degree. Loyal Labour supporters are palpably hating this. No one thought the mocking would start within weeks.

As I've said all along the WFA needs to be focused, but the cut off is too low and that is a bad mistake. As you've already said, I certainly hope they amend this to something higher in the actual budget and, if they don't, that is a huge mistake.

But if that happens, Sue Gray is still in post (because it's not the salary but the fact that 'the cabinet' wants her out, that is apparently the story), and with Starmer going beyond any PM in the last 50 years by restricting gifts further, what is left of the last 50 pages of this thread ?

It's a little frustrating that this new Government couldn't reverse the two reductions in NI that Hunt was panicked into this year as that £10B dwarfs the savings from WFA, but then they wouldn't have got elected. (I still think WFA means testing should have gone ahead, but with a higher cut off).

We'll have to wait and see what other gaffs, injustices and perceived gaffs come up

 

[Zeberdi]

I’ve put forward an alternative idea on here. Labour need to get the energy companies to drop bills for vulnerable customers either by legislation and toughening up the regulator or by taxing them heavily if they don’t. That plus the triple lock would mean they could then reform WFB more fairly next year. But something else would then have to pay the inherited debt.

You have and so have I - numerous times since my first post on this issue - even posting a bullet pointed list of ideas that was completely ignored - We do have the money to pay for subsidising WFA from the £20 billion windfall tax being levied currently in energy companies - but it seems to fall on deaf ears - so coming to the conclusion that nothing short of making grandstanding anti-Labour Government position will satisfy some folk here - they will just keep repeating ad nauseam that Starmer is planning to “kill 1,000s of pensioners“. There seems to be a greater appetite on this thread for a polarised rant against Labour and political mudslinging than genuine debate.

But perhaps that is where are generally with political debates these days on social media.

 

[LamieRobertson]

As I've said all along the WFA needs to be focused, but the cut off is too low and that is a bad mistake. As you've already said, I certainly hope they amend this to something higher in the actual budget and, if they don't, that is a huge mistake.

But if that happens, Sue Gray is still in post (because it's not the salary but the fact that 'the cabinet' wants her out, that is apparently the story), and with Starmer going beyond any PM in the last 50 years by restricting gifts further, what is left of the last 50 pages of this thread ?

It's a little frustrating that this new Government couldn't reverse the two reductions in NI that Hammond was panicked into this year as that £10B dwarfs the savings from WFA, but then they wouldn't have got elected. (I still think WFA means testing should have gone ahead, but with a higher cut off).

We'll have to wait and see what other gaffs, injustices and perceived gaffs come up

Hunt?

 

[WATFORD zero]

You haven’t properly looked at these threads. People who were openly anti Tory the last many years, damning of the WFP cut off.

Being anti Johnson, Truss and Sunak (or just not defending them) is NOT being anti Tory

A certain mod was highly critical of Johnson, Truss and Sunak and is a fair, balanced and mature conservative party member, although unsurprisingly absent from this particular thread.

 

[pocketseagull]

@Zeberdi I remember you talking about a energy windfall tax as an alternative - a great idea! - but also saying that was 'a plan for another day'

Why not now?

 

[Bozza]

But you’d acknowledge that a flat rate benefit that gave a millionaire the same as someone on 14k a year, that gave a couple in a small, well insulated flat more than a single person heating a bigger, older home is fundamentally unfair?

I've acknowledged multiple times that there are a lot of people who have been receiving this allowance who have absolutely no need for it at all. Some will be so wealthy that they don't even notice it hitting their bank accounts each year, and some will be living a very comfortable life, and look forward to it arriving so they can buy themselves a treat or stick it away in their holiday fund.

Clearly, those people don't need it, and shouldn't get it.

Tackling the universality of the payment, and putting a chunk of that money to better use, is a worthy endevaour.

Starmer told us those with the broadest shoulders will take a greater share of the burden. Once again - it's hard to disagree with that intent, and I personally don't.

The problem with the current implementation is that as well as taking the payment away from those who don't need it, it's also highly punitive to people who desperately need it to get through the cold months.

The criteria, essentially...

IF oldperson in (SELECT * FROM pensioncreditpayees)
THEN

PAY WFA​

ELSE

DO NOTHING​

ENDIF

​

...is too blunt/ill-considered/lazy/stupid (delete as applicable)

And that if Labour didn’t do something about the debt they inherited, this thread would, instead, be full of people saying “fiscally irresponsible Labour”? And if, they instead, spent their way out of things, this thread would be in meltdown?

I'm delighted the country is in the hands of people determined to put things right.

I spent 6-8 hours a day, every day, in hospital for over three months. Numerous times I provided hands-on care to old ladies suffering with post-operative delirium and/or dementia because there were no nurses available to help them. The nurses were, without exception, wonderful caring human beings, but there weren't enough of them and they were massively stretched.

That needs fixing, and we have the best people able to try and do that.

I’ve put forward an alternative idea on here. Labour need to get the energy companies to drop bills for vulnerable customers either by legislation and toughening up the regulator or by taxing them heavily if they don’t. That plus the triple lock would mean they could then reform WFB more fairly next year. But something else would then have to pay the inherited debt.

And, after reading that, I can hear keyboards being warmed up to say that idea would be anti business and irresponsible. Or, in one case, probably just an emoji.

I'm a layman sitting on the outside of government departments. I have no idea what data is held, and how it can be used to assess need and provide mitigation.

Maybe what you're proposing is a viable solution - I have no idea. But it sounds like big, chunky legislation that would take a long time to work through Parliament, and not something that could be put in place in the next few weeks to ensure that as temperatures drop, people have the money they need to have confidence they can heat their homes.

 

[Weststander]

I did. When the Farage riots, caused by online lies were successfully quelled and the participants, including nonces and people with multiple violent convictions, jailed, the right’s response wasn’t “well done”. It was “two tier Kier”.

So if he’s going to get stick for the things he’s done well, it’s inevitable he’ll get it when he cocks up, which he has, and he will.

It needs to be judged on five years, rather than 8 weeks, especially given the mess inherited.

Although. If the Tories mark him with this new leader he’ll be able to get away with anything.

Last things first, genuinely, I‘ve now completely switched off from anything Reform or Tory. For now, yesterday’s chip paper. To me Badenoch and Braverman are, politically, IDS or William Hague figures. Irrelevant. Although long term Reform would be a concern. Mass migrant from Africa and Asia is a thing that will dominate European politics from now on. Rwanda, Albania, Meloni …. will barely touch the sides. An Italian professor at Kings College London mocked the Meloni strategy this week on LBC.

Who would I still want to govern the UK for the next 5 years? I voted Green for this constituency, but it has to be Labour. For the same big picture reasons as in July …. mental health services, homebuilding, NHS.

The recent gaffs:
- I was surprised to find out about all the gifts and not so the hospitality. Labour spent the last 14 years painting a picture of being paragons of virtue. It all has to stop, perhaps outlawed. There should be no bought influence or perceived influence. Freebie expensive tickets, fck off, get to the back of the queue, join the others making calls on repeat at 6am for tickets. This isn’t an anti Labour thing, always galling to see politicians and minor royals in the front row at much sought after events.
- WFP. When this was first announced, I posted I was for it (based on comfortable pensioners I know who don’t need it such as my parents). But then my view flexed on hearing real stories here, on LBC and R5 of pensioners in the bracket above pension credit who absolutely do need it. Watch the first 5 minutes of Newsnight last night, there was an expert (Political Economics?) who was clear on why this drip-drip-drip of uncoordinated policies was doomed. Reeves needed to get the ducks in a row first with safeguards.

 

[Zeberdi]

As you've already said, I certainly hope they amend this to something higher in the actual budget and, if they don't, that is a huge mistake.

I don’t think there will be a u-turn on this in the budget (I honestly can’t see Starmer caving when he has the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party behind him) but I am thinking we may get an announcement of an offset measure - for example the Government recently extended the Household Support Fund by giving

• £421 million boost for local authorities in England to help people most in need with the cost of their energy, food and water, with £79 million for devolved administrations

Vulnerable people who are struggling financially can apply for up to a £250 payment which is administered through local Council it is not means tested - apart from having less than £500 savings and proof you are in financial hardship.

We may hear a further boost to that or even changes to the threshold/criteria in pension credits or increase/extend the criteria for cold weather payments or something - there is plenty that could be done without losing face on a u-turn.