We know all the anti Labour posts are really just about VAT on school fees!

Well I don't have a little Arabella and my son is in state school. I still wouldn't vote for Keir Starmers Labour Party if someone paid me.

People on here dined out on stuff like that previously. What goes around comes around and all that

It was a deeply unfortunate gaffe, but he's not the first PM to mis-speak and he won't be the last.

Eh? He was being accused of being a dictator 5 mins ago over the response to the riots. He’s neither weak nor spineless - why do you think that? What defeat are you referring to here? I’m not aware of one. Have you never slurred a word a bit so it comes out wrong? Do you really think he doesn’t know the difference between a sausage and a hostage?

@YouOnlyHateStarmerForVATOnSchoolFees If you really believe this, why have you name changed to start this thread?

Who knows what the state will want access to? If someone isn't guilty or being investigated for a crime, they shouldn't have people looking through their bank statements.

Some people have disabilities and have no choice but to depend on the state. They already have to provide excruciating levels of personal detail in order to keep a roof over their heads and now they're not entitled to financial privacy.

You obviously believe that because you're claiming benefits you're not entitled to privacy and you should be investigated for crimes for which there's no evidence. I'm not of the same opinion.

However there are already powers to allow access to bank account details if there is sufficient grounds to warrant it - the government and/or other bodies having unlimited access to everyone's bank accounts or other personal information is not acceptable. Those who try to commit fraud can be investigated and found guilty or innocent, everyone else should not have their privacy removed.

The BMA is a problematic union. They put caps on the number of doctor training places as well as on new medical schools being opened. It is a protectionism racket.

With respect the contents of your underwear drawer isn’t in the public interest. It is however in the interest of the public to ensure people aren’t dishonestly claiming and redirecting funds from those genuinely in need. If you’re reliant on benefits then you have to accept that will come with certain terms and conditions. Due to so many people dishonestly claiming benefits this is a result as it’s not easy to detect. Millions of pounds a year are lost due to benefit fraud. It’s not a victimless crime.

I don't want the state in my house looking through my underwear yet I don't have anything to hide.

I'm angry because I've lost my winter fuel allowance. I'm too old to worry about schools

@YouOnlyHateStarmerForVATOnSchoolFees. Oh dear, if you are in any way affiliated to the Labour Party and were hoping to start a vibe that "it's just posh people sore about VAT fees" I think it's backfired..... 🤔 apparently there's WAY more than that to moan about, and you've brought it all together here 😁

I agree. It's about dignity isn't it. "Well you're getting a handout so you don't get to keep your privacy"

Honestly, all (or very nearly all) our politicians are not fit for purpose: representing us and running the country. We are governed by career politicians, many of whom have never run a business or have little commercial experience. How do they know how to grow our economy? Answer: they don't.

They put forward policies they think will be popular with their key voting contingent and then enact them very poorly.

None of the parties represent my views. I don't have faith in any of them. I, like many others, voted for the party I viewed as the least bad option. This is a terrible state of affairs. I voted because I think it's very important to exercise my right to vote (as a woman, especially) but seriously thought about spoiling my ballot paper or not voting at all.

Who'd be an MP?!
I accept that many become one for all the right reasons but the characters that rise to the top move beyond that motivation and are guided by self-interest and power.

I work in the corporate world and many people I know earn 6 figures plus. I say this not to show off but to make the point that they earn more than MPs (and the PM), retain their (and their families') privacy, don't have to travel between home and an office potentially at the other end of the country (depending on where an MP's constituency is based vs Westminster), can live their life to suit themselves, rather than the perceptions of voters, etc. and don't have to compromise on a mass scale to get their work done (political horse-trading).

No, I don't envy an MP's job. But I think we, as a society, get the political class we deserve. We're doooommmmeeeddddd. (Slight overstatement for levity!)

So, posting to pick holes in the other 'team' just to score points is a pointless exercise and continues to polarise opinion, rather than engenders helpful debate. Tribalism isn't working out very well in the US, is it? And we're following the same path here.

I don't think Starmer has done much of anything yet. He's doom-mongered to cover his arse for the budget. I await the budget to see what's what.

That's awful @Meadowfinch ! I had no idea it worked like that for pupils on scholarships. That's just wrong.

Stuck
Farmer.

That is all.

Why? If you haven’t got anything to hide why would this be a problem? 🤷🏻‍♀️

I disagree. I can see why people would feel targeted

Not everyone feels ok with the state having access to their bank accounts regardless of being totally legit

Good post - this is where a Labour government heads into the large state issues - part of this is the opinion they can snoop on everything at the expense of ones privacy.

People should not try and commit fraud in order, for example, to obtain any benefits, but that behaviour should not lead to others losing privacy due to free rein being given to access everyone's bank accounts.

That was just a continuation wasn't it?

I agree generally but Streeting seems to be causing issues with the 'broken' line today

I don’t think a suspicion should have to be present.

So the poorest and most vulnerable to have less rights than criminals?

The police need a suspicion before being allowed to arrest someone. Or perhaps you want the police to just start arresting loads of random people - including maybe you, just in case they're committing a crime?

The only Arabella I know goes to our local state school. You don’t help your cause by being obnoxious.

I couldn’t give a toss about VAT on school fees, I still think Starmer’s lost control and his cabinet are worryingly inept. Possibly bar Streeting, who’s done very well banning puberty blockers.

It's violating and degrading. Takes away people's dignity and privacy. Worth thinking about DV victims. Many will be on benefits if they manage to leave. Coercive control is a major part of DV in many cases. I don't even want to imagine the psychological distress this proposal (monitoring bank accounts) will cause DV victims, who've already experienced similar from their abusers. Of course it's not only DV victims who need and deserve dignity. All benefits recipients need that.

I understand people already need to show bank statements when making a claim? So it's not as if they're hiding income/wealth.

I can see an argument for check-ups, as in requesting recent statements, especially if someone's disabled or has learning difficulties and struggles to remember or know about notifying re changes in circumstances. Perhaps every couple of years. That's not the same as intrusive blanket access at any time though.

The checkups though could be the answer. As well as checking nobody's getting more than entitled, they could be used to help the many people who aren't getting as much as they should be.

Also fair enough if bank account checks if genuine fraud concerns (as is already the case, I understand?).

But not blanket access for all claimants and not without letting the person know.

To the OP. This poster makes an excellent point But it seems so odd to me that politics in England is always presented a two horse race

Also it's perfectly possible to think some government policies are good, whilst also being critical of others. Does anyone agree with every single policy from any government?

As an example of thinking one policy is bad but another good - from the same government/political party, I mentioned DV earlier in this post, to note a highly damaging consequence of one planned policy. At the same time not everything Starmer has suggested is bad. He spoke yesterday, I believe, about a very good and much needed policy - regarding rehousing for DV victims.

The information you keep copy and pasting isn't complete. The new powers allow the DWP to access bank accounts at any time. They can issue information notices which check all accounts. Banks have to inform the DWP if the account goes over the limit as well as report on eligibility criteria.

Why? If you haven’t got anything to hide why would this be a problem? 🤷🏻‍♀️

I voted YABU as I can't believe there are that many people that care about VAT on school fees more than the WFA and Starmer accepting dubious gifts. If you are right though then it makes the VAT policy even more baffling from a political perspective. It raises hardly any money, has really riled a group of probably quite powerful people that will be looking to bring Labour down and ultimately the appeal of such a policy is pretty narrow . Most people just want to improve their lot and access at least an adequate standard of state education and this really won't make any meaningful difference towards this ambition.