To think Labour is not the party of the working people.

Well Labour are definitely trying to curry favour with those people. They will have to, to have any hope. There aren't enough elites left here. Doesn't mean the left behinds will fall for it obviously. We shall see.

Plus the PLP aren't really reflective of society and what the British people want.

Labour MPs vote on issues around benefits, they must get pressure from constituents to vote as they do.

Because they care more about a fair society than themselves. I was an ambitious high earner for years.

Thanks for posting this. It is really interesting and puts paid to the theory that some like to push about Labour being the party of benefit claimants.

Indeed.

Or anyone really.

Thats a bit of a generalisation and probably wrong. We all live in the same country. Everyone will use the NHS is some form or other but some people might go private for certain things. Most reasonable people just want the NHS to be run better and not be a bottomless pit where the country's money is spaffed. Similarly a lot of people use both private and state during the course of their child's schooling. And have more than one child at each type at any given time

I don’t understand this, why would ambitious high earners be supporters of Labour?

Not suffer per say..but transition to a more private model where you pay out of pocket (and have more money to pay for them due to lower taxes).

People say we have the lowest taxes in Europe. Our tax burden has been disproportionately affecting the higher incomes for many years.

Perhaps those at the bottom should "pay their fair share", especially since they use them the most.

All the ones they’re unlikely to use, I guess. People who pay for their kids’ education tend not to care about state schools and people who can afford private healthcare tend not to care about the NHS. Until they need an ambulance and A&E and need the NHS as much as the rest of us.

A new survey by the Telegraph is interesting. I will attach the findings ...two pictures as I couldn't screenshot the entire table in one. Look how Labour's support has entirely flipped. It is now the party of high earners and the elite. This answers the question of this thread in my opinion.

It's also useful to bear that in mind too when Labour supporters opine on issues such as immigration. Their lives are affected in different ways from everyone else.

Which public services would you be OK with being left to suffer?

I'd rather live in a low tax, free market economy that is a hub for business and investment. If that means some "public services" suffer. So be it.

Did I say that those in need should not be supported or that public services do not need to be funded?
My comment was in response to the PP (not sure if that was you) saying there is a lack of resilience and crying out for more - most people are not getting more and are very much being resilient. They have less but are being asked to provide more and perhaps to those that are not really in need or the need has been created due to government policy (e.g. business NI, NMW etc resulting in more young people out of work).

It’s not a subsidy, it’s the price we pay for having a civilised society. We have some of the lowest taxes in Europe. Better public services do all of us a favour but they have to be paid for.

Well, the result seems to be that more and more people are just paying cash. I see it a lot with tradespeople and building materials etc. Small retailers are happy to not put it through the books in a lot of cases with regular customers.

And the majority of working people cannot afford to subsidise the welfare state especially as costs and expenses rise but income doesn’t at the same rate - this is what I mean by the government crying out for more (or getting through stealth and spinning to seem they are doing us a favour).

Unfortunately, our tax take does not represent what we all want from public services, overall, one of the lowest in Europe.

My point is we cannot afford universal help, the welfare state was never set up for this, why should people who can afford energy rises get tax payer support?

Whatever happened to our resilience? instead at every cost increase, the cry, usually from the (well off) 'right, is "Give me more"

At every cost increase it seems to be “we will take more” cried by the government to most earners.

Reeves has just said any will help will be targeted, not just for those on benefits and too right...

Can you explain why anyone eg above 50k pa should get help with energy costs?

Even if energy cap goes up £500 (we don't know the amount yet and its coming down over £100 next month) thats around £10 per week, so 3 coffees, 2 pints of beer, 1 bottle of wine.

Whatever happened to our resilience? instead at every cost increase, the cry, usually from the (well off) 'right, is "Give me more"

The poster I was responding to owns a commercial property. Judging by the reports of tenants most residential landlords don’t lift a finger.

Presumably work was undertaken to buy the property in the first place. I work in construction and know quite a few people that have done up houses for profit etc. They put in a bloody hard graft spending their weekends renovating a rundown property and turning it into somewhere desirable. And that's after already working at least 10 hours more than most office workers during the week.

Nothing wrong with passive wealth or inherited wealth at all. I merely mentioned that we are high earners with income generated by working right now in the context of current Labour policies making us feel like “it doesn’t pay to work”, even though we are in a better position financially than many.
It wasn’t to imply that lower earners don’t work or to say passive income/inheritance was lazy or unearned in any way. Obviously in the passive income/inheritance scenario, the “it doesn’t pay to work” isn’t relevant currently- at some point in the past, maybe quite distant past, the money was obviously earned (if legal!) .

So why some and not others?
The two biggest benefits are pensions (which are taxed) and UC (which are not).
We need parity across the board. As soon as your income reaches £12,570, you are taxed.
This would also mean it would be easier to means test for things such as extra fuel payments rather than using the blanket 'on benefits' criteria, which covers a vast difference in income.

It was our home till we moved to the UK. Then we rented it out. We have some other flats abroad we rent out as well.