Starmer the non charmer

If only they could spell his name properly…

I take it you wasn’t one of the millions of people who had relied on furlough to hellp them through the nightmare that was Covid….

Yeah, some of these comments are a bit unhinged lol

Do you not want a change from the self serving weasels who stole billions from us over Covid? Lining their pockets as they glided down the fur lined corridors of power? I know- -lets pretend nothing is wrong and everything is ok
Nothing is ok. How do you fix a country that has been left to rot like the Tories have done?
I have no problem in paying taxes to fix the country and help us back on track

What a disgusting thing to say.

@Buddenbruchs - I'm from the South Wales Valleys, the mining community I come from has still not recovered. But Blair didn't come straight after Thatcher & it remains a fact that the situation facing the Starmer government is far worse than the one Blair faced.

Ah must be right then. Did you ever travel further than the Watford gap ?

I didn't say he was, I just thought he had a deal like DHs which I understand is unusual, his state pension takes up most of his tax allowance and then his other pension he doesn't have to pay tax on. My pension is smaller and I pay tax so I am jealous.

sticking it to the shitty social club type of whom Rayner is so fond

Nowt wrong with social clubs.
Makes you sound like a total snob.

Oh, from your list, I disagree with burger and chips, curry, barbecues and pizza are also good food, again, if cooked with good ingredients, they are good. If full of preservaties, bad fats and other rubbish, then yeah, heart issues and obesity in the making.

That will be rather " problematic" for me, but, yet same as with smoking, if the government is going to regulate food and drinks that are bad for our health, including the ingredients used in UPF, then I will not complaint. Also, the pollutants that are released to the environment...
I will suffer, but it will be on my own interest and my children, in the long run.
They will need to make fresh ingredients and energy to cook nice food affordable and available to everyone though. That will be challenging indeed.

Thing is, if it were valid criticism then it wouldn't be an issue. But most of the time it isn't. It's either:

• catastrophising about policies that haven't been announced and weren't in the manifesto
• baseless accusations ('two tier Keir', abolishing freedom of speech)
• criticism of shallow things like appearance, charisma, tone of voice

As it happens, I do think Labour are getting some things wrong, chiefly in their absolute unwillingness to do anything radical about the UK's relationship with the EU. It's cowardly and weak. I'd like a serious adjustment to the WFA plans too, though not a full reinstatement of universality.

But amid all the shallow sneering about appearance, voice and other stuff, I'm not terribly inclined to engage.

@Buddenbruchs - I lived then too. The economy was much stronger than now.

Do you think all the anti-Tory threads over the last few years were written by Labour Party HQ?

Honestly, as a Labour voter I’m getting irritated at these comments. Why on earth should people not criticise the current government or leader? I may not agree with the comments, but just because they are raising the issue does not mean they are some kind of bot.

I lived then. No it wasn’t. Most of the north was de industrialised due to Thatchers policies, many of which have influenced how the country is nowadays. Might have been quids in in London but not in Barnsley or Middlesbrough.

It might sound cold but you're right. I think the research I vaguely remember reading (about smoking saving more money than it costs) included this - people likely to die younger so saving on pensions and health and social care.

Poverty does the same. Kills people younger.
However unlike smoking (or junk food VAT) poverty doesn't bring in tax revenue. It's also obviously a much crueler way to kill people. At least whatever preferred vice (smoking, junk food, dangerous sport, or whatever) is a choice.

I was saying half jokingly on a couple of Elderly Bashing threads about a month ago, that given the attitudes of some on those threads, me and DH are thinking of taking up smoking, upping our booze intake, and binging on junk food when we hit 50 or 60, so we'll die young of massive heart attacks instead of being "burdens on society". I thought of that again when I saw a more recent thread. I didn't post on it as been busy but noticed the awful title - something along the lines of "old people should be murdered aka 'euthanised' to save care costs". Appalling sentiment.

Really though if the concern was about either health or economy or both, the priority would be increasing (asap) provision of social housing and tackling poverty, rather than restricting smoking.

Bad housing and poverty are by far the bigger killers, and much more costly for the NHS and the wider economy.

I suppose the argument could be, smoking is bad and kills you, end of. Drinking in moderation or the odd Macdonald's doesn't do any harm.

Four day weeks and outdoor smoking bans. Concentrating on the big stuff. Those that smoke and eat themselves into oblivion are actually cost saving on the whole. They die young and therefore require no care as they age. Not sure if this takes into account reduced productivity over their shortened lifetime though. More equal societies are healthier societies. They need to be focusing on POVERTY.

I can agree with that.

What I can't agree with is the banning of one particular thing while there are plenty of other things that could also be banned or taxed in the name of saving the NHS money to me.

Smokers cost the NHS money, but there is also a lot of tax revenue from them.

Fast food should at the very least be taxed in the same way.

This whole policy just seems about politics. We can attack smokers because there aren't that many of them and justify it with "saving the NHS". We can't attack fast food even though it causes equal damage because more people like it and it would cause uproar.

Banning stuff is fine until the government starts banning stuff I like in the name of "saving the NHS".

Once they start banning one thing where does it actually stop ?

Nope

The two things that should be banned (or rather tackled) are:

Insufficient social housing
Poverty

Poverty, bad or insecure housing, and stress. All three go hand in hand with ill health and stress, and the three are interrelated.

Ending the false economy approach would save the NHS, improve health including reducing obesity, and reduce cost to the economy:

Well-funded and effective public services including:

Social services
Mental health services (and the NHS in general)
Non punitive benefits system and decent pension
Improved child maintenance system
More social housing
Probation services and the criminal justice system
Policing
Youth services including clubs and mentoring
Sports, libraries, parks, playgrounds
Job, education, and training opportunities

People will say it costs money but it saves money longer term, and good health and a more happy and cohesive society and community is priceless.

@Againname - we should do both