[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?

 

[Chicken Run]

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?

I predict three things, he will publicly announce he’s putting you on ignore, followed by publicly stating that he’s putting this thread on ignore for the second time and you won’t get a response till later as he sleeps in most days till noon.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

I predict three things, he will publicly announce he’s putting you on ignore, followed by publicly stating that he’s putting this thread on ignore for the second time and you won’t get a response till later as he sleeps in most days till noon.

Hope he doesn't overreact. I posted with a smile, not malice.

 

[Zeberdi]

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?

I don’t work on Saturday evenings, I have a weekday job, and despite me managing my own hours, prefer not to go in at weekends thanks.

Trying to make political points by criticising the length of my posts when the posts I have been responding to have been posting equally if not more longer posts than I have in this discussion is a little passé and unimaginative dont you think?

This is your thread and several times you have tried to bully me off it because I do not share your anti-Labour politics - it may be your thread but it isn’t a private thread for you to pick and chose who posts according to your personal political preferences.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Hope he doesn't overreact. I posted with a smile, not malice.

I don’t work on Saturday evenings, I have a weekday job, and despite me managing my own hours, prefer not to go in at weekends thanks.

Trying to make political points by criticising the length of my posts when the posts I have been responding to have been posting equally if not more longer posts than I have in this discussion is a little passé and unimaginative dont you think?

This is your thread and several times you have tried to bully me off it because I do not share your anti-Labour politics - it may be your thread but it isn’t a private thread for you to pick and chose who posts according to your personal political preferences.

You do take yourself incredibly seriously. It was a jokey comment. You have even replied directly under the comment where I said I posted with a smile, not malice. Having a laugh. A bit of fun.

 

[The Clamp]

Does it really matter? This is the Labour thread now. Can we stick to the topic rather than replaying gripes and boring grudges?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You do take yourself incredibly seriously. It was a jokey comment. You have even replied directly under the comment where I said I posted with a smile, not malice. Having a laugh. A bit of fun.

Ah, the old “It was only a joke” line.

 

[Seagull58]

Hope he doesn't overreact. I posted with a smile, not malice.

But you didn't include a smiley emoji so he had no way of knowing that.

 

[Machiavelli]

£2000 for an afternoon at the football? Ordinary football fan?

Bollocks. He’s a grifter.

What planet are you living on?

If it is 2k for an afternoon at the football, then we're looking at about 60k a season and, given his salary is about 150k (before tax, etc), that amounts to more than half of his income.
I called him a genuine football fan not an ordinary one. There seem to be three options here:
1, he doesn't go to the football any more
2, he goes in his 2k a game box (if this is the accurate amount)
3, he pays his season ticket as he has done for decades and the taxpayer stumps up for security
I suspect that you and most will go for option 1. I don't. I think that politicians ought to be able to relax -- something that you seem to think is otherworldly.

 

[The Clamp]

If it is 2k for an afternoon at the football, then we're looking at about 60k a season and, given his salary is about 150k (before tax, etc), that amounts to more than half of his income.
I called him a genuine football fan not an ordinary one. There seem to be three options here:
1, he doesn't go to the football any more
2, he goes in his 2k a game box (if this is the accurate amount)
3, he pays his season ticket as he has done for decades and the taxpayer stumps up for security
I suspect that you and most will go for option 1. I don't. I think that politicians ought to be able to relax -- something that you seem to think is otherworldly.

£2000 for an afternoon at the footy.

I reckon he’s relaxing like a motherfucker.

Yes. He needs to give up going to football. Without question. He needs to lead by example.

He’s a scrounger.

 

[nevergoagain]

If it is 2k for an afternoon at the football, then we're looking at about 60k a season and, given his salary is about 150k (before tax, etc), that amounts to more than half of his income.
.

I don't really care about the tickets but I think he can afford a box fairly easily. Net worth north of £7m. His basic PM salary maybe 150k but just 2022/23 he declared earnings of over 400k, his mate Lord Alli could probably go halves with him.

 

[Frutos]

Personally, I just don’t see the point of getting all morally outraged on a football forum when it’s not going to make a blind bit of difference

Wow...just...wow.

I can't come up with anything more than that to respond to such a staggering lack of self-awareness.

 

[Your Mum]

I can't come up…

Your Mum

 

[Weststander]

Yvette Cooper .... impressive speech.

Hopefully words become effective policy.

 

[Zeberdi]

Wow...just...wow.

I can't come up with anything more than that to respond to such a staggering lack of self-awareness.

Took my comment completely out of context.

I was responding to the implication that I agreed with the removal of the WFA from those that needed it because I question the need or usefulness of overly hyperbolic language in resolving conflicting political opinion.

I have limited energy - the full sentence which you edited out was that I would rather spend the little emotional energy I have in effecting change in real life. For me that means campaigning for change, lodging protests etc

It is entirely possible for me (anyone tbh) to state a political point of view, be critical of, even be in complete antithesis to something without ranting and raging and posting highly emotive comments in response.

I am autistic - just because I am not posting pages of emotive rants about something, doesn’t mean I don’t care or agree with it - I respond perhaps in a more measured and less ‘outraged’ way than the average bear.

(edit - I would also add based on years of political activism for NGOs, various political parties etc - I have found in my own experience, it has been far more constructive to use reason and rational argument than trying to shout or personally attack people with emotional tirades for their beliefs.

 

[Frutos]

Took my comment completely out of context.

I was responding to the implication that I agreed with the removal of the WFA from those that needed it because I question the need or usefulness of overly hyperbolic language in resolving conflicting political opinion.

I have limited energy - the full sentence which you edited out was that I would rather spend the little emotional energy I have in effecting change in real life. For me that means campaigning for change, lodging protests etc

It is entirely possible for me (anyone tbh) to state a political point of view, be critical of, even be in complete antithesis to something without ranting and raging and posting highly emotive comments in response.

I am autistic - just because I am not posting pages of emotive rants about something, doesn’t mean I don’t care or agree with it - I respond perhaps in a more measured and less ‘outraged’ way than the average bear.

(edit - I would also add based on years of political activism for NGOs, various political parties etc - I have found in my own experience, it has been far more constructive to use reason and rational argument than trying to shout or personally attack people with emotional tirades for their beliefs.

Not out of context at all - I've been on NSC for over 18 years and you are the most easily and frequently morally outraged person on here that I've ever encountered.

 

[Withdean South Stand]

I think Sir Keir is probably handling all this noise very well. The media is largely right wing driven so of course they're going to make big scandals out of everything that happened, and pretend that Boris Johnson's premiership didn't happen at all. Nothing Labour are being accused of so far is even a blip on the radar compared to the obvious corruption that went on under BoJo.

I was listening to a talking head yesterday saying how Sir Keir is going to lose re-election because of how unpopular he is right now... as if it matters, 5 years out from the next election! This is exactly the time for the hard choices, take benefits and entitlements away from the people who don't need them and re-design the system to support those who do. Cut some of the wastage, the fraud and the cheats and try to drive improvements wherever possible. Realistically, this whole term will be spent undoing the failed policies of the previous government.

 

[Zeberdi]

Not out of context at all - I've been on NSC for over 18 years and you are the most easily and frequently morally outraged person on here that I've ever encountered.

I have absolutely no idea why you are attacking me like this.

Apart from the fact I have not commented on this thread for several days, the comment about me not posting repeated morally outraged posts about this policy was because I personally don’t have the energy to be and don’t see the point of getting morally outraged on an internet forum when I could expend the energy challenging my local MO to take this uo in Prime Ministers questions etc. (All of which takes energy )

Please read my comments again about the WFA - not once have I agreed with the way it has been implemented

You cant possibly contradict the position I have taken on this because it it the same position 99% of us have taken.

We all agree that assistance for fuel bills should exclude those in top income brackets. We all agree that pensioners need the help because they are vulnerable but the cut off threshold for benefits is too low. We also all agree that cold homes increases the likelihood off excess winter mortalities.

I have also consistently come up with alternatives including suggestions to extend the Warm Home grants, using Windfall Tax to subsidise fuel bills for everyone, reforming OfGen (which the Labour Party has pledged to), raising the income threshold for means-tested benefits and ensuring all pensioners are claiming the benefits they are entitled to.

Perhaps these can be discussed instead.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Have to say @Super Steve Earle , this is a cracking thread. It has it all