Thread 14 Starmer - The Starmeristas Strike Back

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5224857-thread-13-starmer-facts-are-for-lefties?page=40&reply=141063174

Under shiny new names.

Aye. And saying they voted Labour but have been betrayed.

I won’t. But then I support the removal of WFA. I just oppose Labour’s hypocrisy about WFA (and much else).

But TBF to inconsistent right-wingers, all the regulars on here should be vociferously condemning any welfare or other public spending cuts or more stringent testing, just as you would have done if the changes were Tory changes (see WFA again).

On a more general note, if the commentators are right that Reeves’s borrowing headroom has now evaporated, and if she won’t raise taxes again, there’ll have to be very significant spending cuts or the markets will lose all confidence.

The next few months will be interesting - and that’s not a euphemism.

They haven’t. There’s also a difference between cutting the welfare bill in the long term and cutting benefits. How you do it e.g. carrot vs stick makes a difference.

Having said that I tried to claim DLA in the days of ATOS and the last Labour government so I’m not letting them off the hook.

Fair point.

I posted before the election that I was opposed to cuts to benefits. I even said I wasn't sure if I could vote Labour if that was the direction of travel.

Many of us have said that we think Labour got it wrong re:WFA.

But do carry on with your fantasy that we are all airheads, incapable of criticising Labour.

The problem is that half of our welfare budget is spent on on pensions. However, touching that would be political dynamite although I think the triple lock will go.

That leaves Labour limited wriggle room on everything else - and the next biggest items are disability benefits, social & family (including UC top-up, I presume) and housing benefit. The smallest amount is spent on unemployment.

If they want to create savings, they need fewer sick and disabled people and fewer HB claims. Oddly enough, if councils had enough housing stock, we could probably kill off most of the housing bill in one generation as we could set realistic rent-to-wages ratio. Likewise mental health services that worked.

So I'm on the side of greater local government powers, housing retention and a lot more homes built. We also need to look at the empty investment portfolio properties.

Tories didn't just go after disability claiments on a whim - they were the most politically palatable choice as pensioners are their vote base and most families will object if the UC top-up was withdrawn.

The question is; what will Labour pick?

Is attacking your own country not some sort of a crime?
If you collaborate with someone else to disrupt your country too surely that is a crime ?
I think I must be so naive that I just don't see how doing down the country you live in is a sensible way to go.
How does it keep lining the rich people's pockets if all the citizens go to hell in a handcart and have no money left to spend?
Why won't people give Labour a decent time scale to try and fix what the Cons. party did?
So many questions .

Rent controls would help the HB bill. But that is too left wing I fear!

I may have mentioned that on the benefits thread. I’ve had enough of it so I haven’t been to check how that has gone down.

I would look, but I can't stomach it.

I would be very wary about where you draw the line on the first. Criticising your country should always be allowed, even if its (in my opinion) complete nonsense. When the country is at actual war, deliberately siding with the enemy to demoralise citizens has been considered treason (lord haha) but even then its really nuanced (being able to criticise the war in Iraq or Guantanamo bay for example during the war on terror. The US Republicans seem to have forgotten the Dixie Chicks when they accuse the left of inventing cancel culture). Plus, America is not a country we are at war with it is an "ally". And Musk is a citizen of that country and also a legitimate businessman and the richest man in the world. You can't easily say that repeating what he says is the same as repeating the propaganda of an enemy country even though he has said he wants to bring disruption. Interesting times.

I think there is a danger, in reacting to Musk etc, that Europe or the UK end up bringing in restrictions on free speech that would have other consequences. I also think there is a big difference between speech and algorithms, which should be scrutinised a lot more.

It’s my turn to be brave and take one for the team today.

Sniffs and coughs

Excuse me - what does that mean?

That Jane has something in her eye? But not sure.

I think it's Jane saying she is there as well

Ah, I see. Sorry Jane, I missed you in all the froth.

Oh! I see.

@Bagpussnotbothered

The problem is that half of our welfare budget is spent on on pensions

And the problem is that we see that as a problem! Governments should always be planning around demographics - it's not like they don't have the information in advance, so should be able to plan for it.

We know, years in advance, if the country is going to have an ageing population, so things should be put in place before it becomes 'a problem'. It shouldn't come as a surprise - short of wars/pandemics, a 'bulge' in the population at an early age is always going to move through to the point where welfare is required.

Oh, I agree with you @BIWI!

Pensions should have been ringfenced off a long time ago and the demographic changes have been hurtling down the line like a vengeful steam train.

However, here we are paying them out from current taxation on a shrinking worker base.

Did you listen to the Business report on R4 this morning? fixed income expert from Frankfurt, said that yields have risen across the world and its tracking USA interest rates & there is little Reeves can do about.
EU lower because the ECB has lower interest rates.

But the point here is rates have risen from approx 4.5% in December, 4.84% now.
Yes not great at all but it is not the disaster the media/Tories are portraying.

Why should people on the left oppose all spending cuts? not all spending is good value for money eg weight loss drugs, apparently if given to most of the 3.5m obese people in the country, would bankrupt the NHS... is that good VFM ?

Is it great to pay perfectly fit people to sit at home on benefits, when they could be given training and support to find work?

Is it good VFM to give private operators of childrens homes 100s of 1000s each year per child???

A huge waste is housing benefit element of UC, billions passed into LLs hands, more council housing reduces this but who got rid of council houses?

I want any Govt to ensure money is spent wisely, the Tories spent £28 billion on HS2 but then cancelled it, all that money down the drain... in your opinion, good VFM ?

I'm not particularly left wing and I agree with this.

I live in social housing.

The one thing that allows me to have a quality of life and spend in the economy (and not claim UC) is cheaper rent. It's 50% of current private rent on the same property.

I think increasing social rents as I've heard before isn't the way to go. It's to decrease private rents. Maybe the way to go to go is to look at mortgage rates for BTL or the number of years of term etc.

Social housing stock is a problem and will continue to be a huge problem all the time mortgage rates are so high and wages are so so competes to CoL and private rentals. It's a trap they needs to release.

I agree with this too. I'm definitely not left wing but rent is far too high. A one bedroom flat where I live in the south east (not London) was recently up for rental at £1200 a month. That is a ridiculous amount.

Edit: removed because I hadn’t quoted the post I was answering. I’ll re-post.