To wonder what could Starmer do, to turn things around?

Because their popularity has massively plummeted?

@PandoraSox

"I am (mostly) "economically inactive". I draw no unemployment benefits, nor am I registered as unemployed, nor am I looking for work. There are millions like me."

Absolutely there are millions like you - 9 million to be exact.

It should also absolutely be your choice whether you choose to work or not. But by not working you do become an unfair cost to other taxpayers. These taxpayers pay for the NHS that you use, they pay for the schools, the police, the military and even the roads you travel on.

I'm sure many people are in jobs that they would rather not do on Monday morning but they still do and as a result they pay income taxes to the government to pay for these things.

Can you see how some of these people going to work early on Monday morning might resent the fact that you chose not to but are benefiting from the taxes they pay.

Say what a woman is & update the equality act.

They couldn’t be blocked by Labour. They had a 80 seat majority for five years. They could have done anything they wanted to.

Then it would have only achieved 60 to 80% of the savings. The simplest solution is precisely what’s been done. The threshold should have been at the same level as that for paying income tax.

I am (mostly) "economically inactive". I draw no unemployment benefits, nor am I registered as unemployed, nor am I looking for work. There are millions like me.
Quote
ReactThanksAgreeLoveFunny
Add post

I am similar to this, I don't work the 70 hours a week I used to work when I was full on and self-employed. I retrained as a teacher but no school wanted to employ me at 50. So I run family life and pension funds. One pension (NEST) for the company and another for the family.

Some people work flat out to succeed in life; others don't. Who can judge which is the better path?

Exactly- we need to think about being as self sufficient as possible. We need to be adjusting our lives now to survive the future.

Good points. The latter should include food and energy security as a priority, the former is being hindered, the latter needs the full mix of energy which has been pulled back

Oof. The shark was jumped very early!

Assisted dying. Just in time. Pensioners won’t starve. They’ll be euthanised.

Starmer really doesn’t give a fuck about UK citizens. He cares about aid for Ukrainian (oligachs), admitting huge numbers of illegal migrants, money for Chagossians, aid to Africa, compensation for Irish terrorists. None of this was mentioned at the election. British pensioners and workers are beneath his contempt.

The next four years are about implementing the transfer of wealth abroad, the destruction of what is left of our industrial base (oil and gas, auto-motives especially) and the ruination of our energy and food security.

If the children don't like this then they can look after their elderly parents instead and avoid the charge.

That’s what happens now. Social care in care homes and at home is means tested. The only thing not taken into account at home is the value of the house because you’re living in it.

We need to move away from being a service industry economy. We need more concentration on being a self sufficient country. The world over the next 50-100 years is going to get increasingly hostile we need to be able to be as self sufficient as possible

I absolutely agree. We need to undo the damage that Thatcher did when she destroyed all our industries. I don't know how that can be done, though.

How were they blocked by Labour? The Tories had a majority.

You might be willing to write off 9 million economically inactive citizens as unemployable but I'm not

9 million economically inactive does not mean 9 million unemployed!

Latest figures:

In August to October 2024, the number of people aged 16+ in employment was 33.77 million, and the employment rate for people aged 16-64 was 74.9%. Employment levels increased by around 409,000 over the last year, with the employment rate remaining at the same level.

The UK unemployment rate was 4.3%, and 1.51 million people aged 16+ were unemployed. Unemployment levels increased by around 110,000 over the last year, and the unemployment rate also increased.

9.34 million people aged 16-64 were economically inactive, and the inactivity rate was 21.7%. Both inactivity levels and the inactivity rate fell slightly in the last year.

I am (mostly) "economically inactive". I draw no unemployment benefits, nor am I registered as unemployed, nor am I looking for work. There are millions like me.

As I said, they tried and were blocked by Labour.

We need highly selective immigration in the short term. In the long term whilst we have so many long term unemployed/sicknwe need to address this. Where things can be done to get long term sick back into work like metal health support that should be prioritised. We need to refocus the education system to stone people wasting thousands on shit like “gender studies” and incentivise qualifications in high need jobs/increase straight from school training in these areas.

We need to move away from being a service industry economy. We need more concentration on being a self sufficient country. The world over the next 50-100 years is going to get increasingly hostile we need to be able to be as self sufficient as possible

@PandoraSox

"We need immigration. The Tories had 14 years to improve infrastructure and services to accommodate that fact. They failed to do so"

Can you tell me why we need immigration when there are 9 million economically inactive people in the UK. It is insane to pay people benefits to be economically inactive and then import labour to do the jobs instead.

The country would benefit economically, socially and environmentally from having less people in it through greatly reduced immigration and a lower than replacement birth rate.

You might be willing to write off 9 million economically inactive citizens as unemployable but I'm not.

@Alexandra2001

"Agree, it has to be the no1 priority for the Govt, they say it is....... but again, it requires huge amounts of money.... the objectors to the NI rises, wont say where the money comes from, just spout DM scare headlines."

Social care would indeed require huge amounts of money. Personally I would have preferred it to be a charge on a person's estate when they die.

It's unfair in the taxpayer to pick up the cost of social care of an elderly person only for when they are deceased for the value of the estate to pass to say their children.

If the children don't like this then they can look after their elderly parents instead and avoid the charge.

We need immigration. The Tories had 14 years to improve infrastructure and services to accommodate that fact. They failed to do so.

the left wingers in the UK & EU are destroying their respective countries with ridiculous immigration policies

Eta: So why didn't the Tories do something about this?

Yes it is Labour's fault. This problem was created by Tony Blair, that's well documented. When Labour were in opposition, they blocked every attempt to deal with the issue.

I'm not a Tory supporter BTW, but the left wingers in the UK & EU are destroying their respective countries with ridiculous immigration policies.

Maybe not the current Labour government, but Brown/Blair opened the flood gates for Eastern European immigration when they didn't impose the same kind of controls/limits that other major European economies imposed 20 years ago.

@BIossomtoes

"My criticism with Labour is the WFA, that was just stupid and is something they should reverse and bring in for higher rate tax payers only.

That would have made it pointless. It wouldn’t have raised enough money."

The simpler solution would have been to make the WFA a taxable benefit. A lot easier to implement and with no cliff edge changes.

@Alexandra2001

"I agree on benefits but pensions are not a "Benefit" they are not a safety net, the NIC may not be a savings scheme as such but the implication has always been that you pay your NI and in return get a pension.

You cannot suddenly just take this away...."

I agree that you cannot simply take away the state pension via means testing. Besides it will be the biggest disincentive to saving in a private pension that will mean that ultimately the it costs the state more (a secondary impact that Labour are woefully incapable of spotting).

The easier solution is to put up the state pension age quicker. One solution I saw in Denmark is that they put up the pension age by 3 months every year rather than the cliff edge changes seen in the UK.

This makes sense.

Well, the number of immigrants in your town is not Labour's fault, is it?

Which town are you in?

In what way do think Starmer is a plague on the UK? I am not his no.1 fan, but "plague" seems harsh.