Half the country seems to be anti Starmer, anti Rayner, anti Labour, so…

[Lenelovich]

If they’re so bad, who’d genuinely do a better job and why has the honeymoon been so short ?
Most of the Tory leadership candidates are guilty of much worse plus the UK is in an absolute state unless you live in Tunbridge Wells or Guildford so logically they really should not be having another turn.
Farage hasn’t got a clue and most of his plans, although popular, in reality are economically unviable and would bankrupt the country.
Leaves Ed Davey and the Lib Dems who like Labour are on the whole untried and untested but relatively untainted.
Any ideas ? Or is this criticism just a SM thing and most folk are willing to give them a chance ?

It will take years and years. At least two parliamentary terms I reckon.

He does not have that. He has five years.

This is what is wrong with the political system. As I said upthread or on another thread, a system where a generation vote for the policies first then the people who want to fix those problems are then elected could be a better way. It would inject some longevity into decisions and a custodianship. Scrap gifts. Large salaries and bonuses for financial management, social outcomes and sustainability targets. Get rid of short-termism and move to public cross party support. We may not have had the Brexit shitshow as emphasis would have been on the votes (possibly weighted) from the younger generations, 20's and 30's.

Other countries that don't have our long term problems don't have FPTP.

Thats the issue, our system is adversarial, no party will work with the other, they are all too different & they don't have too.

Tories want a small state, fewer regulations and rights, even less public services, with people or those who can, buying their education, health etc.

Labour want a bigger state, better rights, better public services.

People who say Starmer is no better than the others re gifts aren't seeing the wood for the trees. What's got him into trouble is not that he's broken any rules, or that there's any suggestion of corruption, but that he's been given a few things, including gifts in kind, and he's studiously declared them.

I don't think there's anything at all wrong with politicians recieving gifts as long as they are declared and there's no conflict of interest. Why should there be? There have also long been restrictions on what they can choose to keep. This is all a massive beat-up of a non-issue. Just as the matter of Angela Rayner's house was a massive smear. Desperate stuff.

I’m sick to the back teeth of it all tbh.

The new Government hasn’t had a chance to do anything yet, but they’re getting criticism for not doing enough. They’ve only had a couple of months and half of that was recess. They’re not magicians after all.

I absolutely don’t care that someone bought Keir Starmer’s clothes. It’s not a new thing. Donors bought the Cameron’s clothes, when he was leader of the opposition and new PM, it wasn’t declared, yet no one cared. Just like no one cared when David Cameron and George Osbourne cut disability benefits, which killed many, many disabled people, after millionaire David Cameron had claimed DLA for his DS. The right wing media, and the Tories, have been hollering for years that benefits should be cut but as soon as they touch the one’s of their core voters’ the sky falls in. It’s ridiculous. WFA should have gone years ago.

This country is in an absolute mess. Nothing works anymore because of the Tories mismanaging and breaking it all for 14yrs. They gave billions away to their mates. Michelle Mone is loving her life on her super yacht paid for by us, yet people are losing their minds over a lad using a quiet flat to study for his GCSEs and some Taylor Swift tickets. It’s mind boggling, it really is.

Politicians make the decisions that affect everyone in this country. They have the power to make life harder or easier for the population.

One of the first things they did was target the elderly who are a vulnerable group and they didn't do it in a fair way. Of course people are going to be worried thinking well if they can target the elderly then they can target the disabled, single parents with young children etc.

Then we find out that Rachel Reeves has claimed something like £4000 on expenses for heating in her second home and you think people shouldn't be angry about that? It's one rule for them and another for everyone else.

Add to that the free gifts and people are sick of the whole lot of them. People had had enough of the Tories and thought Labour would be better, that maybe they might be good for this country and help us get out the mess we're in, but no they're just as greedy and hypocritical.

This Labour Government are more right wing than the last Conservative Government.

I’m disabled, I’ve watched the Tories hit us left right and centre for the past 14yrs. They even suggested they give us vouchers instead of paying us money, but there was no screaming and shouting about that. We were all labelled as scroungers.

Most pensioners don’t need WFA, that’s the truth. They’re not poor anymore, they’re one of the richest groups. Of course people will fall through the cracks, but that’s always the case with every benefit. We coukd talk about Esther McVey, who brought in the Bedroom Tax, she claimed for a second home when her husband has a flat 1 mile away from Westminster, but I don’t remember any hooha about that.

People of privilege always take advantage. The hypocrisy here is how it’s been dealt with.

Age U.K. puts it at 2.5m facing hardship

So you’re not happy about any kind of means testing for benefits then ?
Maybe there needs to be discussion about the cut off point for WFA, hopefully it will arise in the budget. The fact that 20 odd % of pensioners are millionaires tells me that not all will be living in penury with this change.

So you’re not happy about any kind of means testing for benefits then ?

This is your post not mine, your paraphrasing is off

Well you seem to be selective. Funny that. And I thought right wingers were financially prudent.

He hasn’t taken bribes, and saying he has is likely libellous.
He’s declared gifts. No admitting. That’s the system.

Had I known you were inclined to post like this I’d have avoided your thread

Just incase you’re mistaken you don’t know me, tf

Does that 2.5m figure take into account pensioners who are entitled to WFA on another basis?

To bring this sort of back on track, perhaps we shoudl reflect on Starmer's statement on July 5th this year after winning and see how he's doing... to see why there is so little trust in his own party...

"We said we will stop the chaos. And we will.
We said we will turn the page. And we have.
The work of change begins today"

What will you think of Labour if the disabled are next?

I don't like any of the parties I also have lost faith in any of them actually doing what they say they will.
Only thing any of them are good at is lying and deceiving.

Wouldn't be the first time, they were the ones who shut the Remploy centres and forced thousands of disabled people on to benefits. Disabled people who wanted to work couldn't.

Remploy helped over 20,000 disabled people annually into work.

Absolutely
Unfortunately Labour hasn't been careful enough to avoid giving them something to jump on.
Just watch the Conservative party conference to remind yourself of the alternative, then get behind this current government to give them the best chance of success, holding your nose if you must.

Thatcher closed 10, Labour closed 29 and the Tories closed/sold them closed, over 50 in the early 2010's.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good ole labour bashing thread.

The fact is labour closed them. 🤷 They aren't out to help the disabled and never have been, they wanted to shut 42 factories in 2007, then halfed it and slowly closed the rest.

The fact that Tories are fuckers isn't the issue here.

That's the fact. Labour are and always have been hypocrites.

The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band put it best;
Oh, great slumbering nation
Awake! Set yourself free!
Oh, smell the comforting bacon
Taste the bromide tea
An' give a little chirrup
as I ladle on the syrup
Promises are cheap
Let me bear your crosses
Make me Boss of Bosses
Then you go back to sleep!

Heigh ho! Don't worry Pop your cross in the bin

No matter who matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in!

That isn't entirely true. In 2008 the Labour government closed 29 Remploy factories. The rest were closed under the coalition government. Facts matter.

Couldn't agree more. Jenrick with his £75k dodgy donation, Badenoch saying the NMW holds back business - there's your other option.

@TomPinch You don't seem to understand about the WFA under Rachel Reeves. Not everybody who needs it will get it as you seem to think. The cut off point is anyone who is eligible for pension credit. Pension credit takes a pensioner's weekly income up to £218 a week. If a pensioner receives the full state pension of £220 a week they won't qualify for the WFA. How is that fair? The difference of a measly £2 a week.

I think everyone is in agreement that well off pensioners who can afford cruises etc don't need the WFA. Nobody is disputing that. People are angry because the cut off point is too low. Age Concern UK are saying that over 2 million pensioners will struggle because of this. Add to this Rachel Reeves claimed £4000 or thereabouts in expenses for heating on her 2nd home and people are rightly pissed off.

Oh and what's with "the adults are back in the room" nonsense.