Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Labour isn't working Thread 2

990 replies

TheNuthatch · 05/04/2025 22:18

A chat thread for those who don't like this Labour government.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
47
EasternStandard · 04/05/2025 18:42

Bluebellwood129 · 04/05/2025 18:39

Labour inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7 and Reeves successfully destroyed it in a matter of weeks. Quite some accomplishment...but then given the number of lies she told to deliberately hide her unimpressive background, perhaps unsurprising

@ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetterthis. It’s hardly living up to pp of ‘Rachel Reeves pro growth agenda’

MyNameIsX · 04/05/2025 18:43

@ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter

‘The market hasn’t gone back to normal since Truss’
I assume you refer to the bond markets, yes?

It’s true that yields are higher now, than during the Truss mini-budget, but that has more to do with inflationary pressures owing to Reeves increasing borrowing, slowing growth, and public sector settlements etc. There’s also the small issue of the ongoing global tariffs, of course.

Seeking to pin all this on Truss from 2.5 years ago, is lame.

Investor confidence? Be serious please. I am in the sector, and trust me, Labour have cause capital to flee, (with their non-dom reforms and PS VAT raid etc). I could talk about private equity carried interest etc.

Meanwhile, SME’s are not hiring because of the NI increase and a general lack of certainty as to further fiscal increases.

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 04/05/2025 18:43

ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter · 04/05/2025 18:39

It wasn't illegal, but it was immoral. She had strong ties to the UK, including having a family and being married to RS, PM. She basically used a non-dom status to only be taxed on her UK income, not her overseas earnings, which were substantial. She saved herself 2.1 million in UK taxes during the cost of living crisis. She then decided to back track and change her status, only after she was called out on it.

You were accusing them of being crooked.

As for immoral, you can look closer to your political home and find a lot of immoral there.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

TheNuthatch · 04/05/2025 18:48

ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter · 04/05/2025 18:39

It wasn't illegal, but it was immoral. She had strong ties to the UK, including having a family and being married to RS, PM. She basically used a non-dom status to only be taxed on her UK income, not her overseas earnings, which were substantial. She saved herself 2.1 million in UK taxes during the cost of living crisis. She then decided to back track and change her status, only after she was called out on it.

Bollocks. She didn't save herself 2.1 million during a cost of living crisis. She also isn't immoral ffs. You don't like her because she's wealthy. I'd have more respect if you just admitted that. I'm sure you're also happy that the non doms are leaving the UK.
Starmer (the millionaire) and his harem take every freebie they can get their hands on, and are adding to the cost of living crisis with their incompetence. That's immoral!

OP posts:
TheNuthatch · 04/05/2025 18:56

Why do you keep leaving a laughing emoji? @ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter
Are you on a wind up?

OP posts:
ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter · 04/05/2025 18:56

TheNuthatch · 04/05/2025 18:48

Bollocks. She didn't save herself 2.1 million during a cost of living crisis. She also isn't immoral ffs. You don't like her because she's wealthy. I'd have more respect if you just admitted that. I'm sure you're also happy that the non doms are leaving the UK.
Starmer (the millionaire) and his harem take every freebie they can get their hands on, and are adding to the cost of living crisis with their incompetence. That's immoral!

Are you actually saying it is right what she did? It is absolutely nothing to do with wealth, it is about not playing the system. Loads of people do play it, which is a problem with the system in itself. You would just hope somebody in that position would do the right thing, especially when the UK was in such a dire state.

MyNameIsX · 04/05/2025 18:59

ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter · 04/05/2025 18:56

Are you actually saying it is right what she did? It is absolutely nothing to do with wealth, it is about not playing the system. Loads of people do play it, which is a problem with the system in itself. You would just hope somebody in that position would do the right thing, especially when the UK was in such a dire state.

I think that you have been spoiled, and that a number of us on this thread have evidently over-indulged you.

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 04/05/2025 19:02

ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter · 04/05/2025 18:56

Are you actually saying it is right what she did? It is absolutely nothing to do with wealth, it is about not playing the system. Loads of people do play it, which is a problem with the system in itself. You would just hope somebody in that position would do the right thing, especially when the UK was in such a dire state.

Is it just Sunak’s wife you are holding to these high standards?

Again, she didn’t do anything she should not have.

And I suppose that even as a non dom
she had paid quite a lot in tax.

ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter · 04/05/2025 19:03

MyNameIsX · 04/05/2025 18:59

I think that you have been spoiled, and that a number of us on this thread have evidently over-indulged you.

I'm still waiting for the substance to the fancy titles you threw at me earlier. It is actually laughable that this is what you have came back with. Yes please, don't indulge me, information overload! Bye bye.

EasternStandard · 04/05/2025 19:06

ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter · 04/05/2025 19:03

I'm still waiting for the substance to the fancy titles you threw at me earlier. It is actually laughable that this is what you have came back with. Yes please, don't indulge me, information overload! Bye bye.

I don’t think her posts were missing anything. But thanks for dropping by.

It was like a brief flash back to June 24

ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter · 04/05/2025 19:07

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 04/05/2025 19:02

Is it just Sunak’s wife you are holding to these high standards?

Again, she didn’t do anything she should not have.

And I suppose that even as a non dom
she had paid quite a lot in tax.

No, I would hold anybody to that same account, including Labour. She paid £30,000 instead of 2.1 millions. If Starmer, or his wife did that, I would think the same.

MyNameIsX · 04/05/2025 19:07

EasternStandard · 04/05/2025 19:06

I don’t think her posts were missing anything. But thanks for dropping by.

It was like a brief flash back to June 24

It’s all rather surreal…

MyNameIsX · 04/05/2025 19:08

ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter · 04/05/2025 19:03

I'm still waiting for the substance to the fancy titles you threw at me earlier. It is actually laughable that this is what you have came back with. Yes please, don't indulge me, information overload! Bye bye.

Thank you for your valuable input to the OP’s thread.

ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter · 04/05/2025 19:10

EasternStandard · 04/05/2025 19:06

I don’t think her posts were missing anything. But thanks for dropping by.

It was like a brief flash back to June 24

Likewise, they were titles with no information to go with them, but you do you. I can see this thread is full of mainly far right idiots. Bye bye, don't let the door hit you on 'my' way out!

Pedallleur · 04/05/2025 19:14

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 04/05/2025 19:02

Is it just Sunak’s wife you are holding to these high standards?

Again, she didn’t do anything she should not have.

And I suppose that even as a non dom
she had paid quite a lot in tax.

Only if she has UK income. If she receives a share of the family wealth and keeps it overseas then she doesn't pay tax on that money. Of course it's available to any who claim that status.

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 04/05/2025 19:26

ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter · 04/05/2025 19:07

No, I would hold anybody to that same account, including Labour. She paid £30,000 instead of 2.1 millions. If Starmer, or his wife did that, I would think the same.

At least I presume she paid for own frocks and glasses.

MyNameIsX · 04/05/2025 19:37

ChangeisntalwaysfortheBetter · 04/05/2025 19:10

Likewise, they were titles with no information to go with them, but you do you. I can see this thread is full of mainly far right idiots. Bye bye, don't let the door hit you on 'my' way out!

Edited

How can the door hit someone else, if you are the only one exiting through said door?

Actually, don’t answer that...

Ciao, thanks for coming etc.

TheNuthatch · 04/05/2025 20:02

<Puts fly spray on shopping list>

Are the lefties particularly unhinged at the moment, or is it me? I've read some seriously batshit posts today on MN.

OP posts:
MyNameIsX · 04/05/2025 20:19

TheNuthatch · 04/05/2025 20:02

<Puts fly spray on shopping list>

Are the lefties particularly unhinged at the moment, or is it me? I've read some seriously batshit posts today on MN.

For sure.

BTW, are you able to impose a minimum IQ requirement on your thread? There are some seriously stupid people on MN, (one in particular was as sharp as a beachball), and we could all save ourselves a lot of time and energy.

TheNuthatch · 04/05/2025 20:19

MyNameIsX · 04/05/2025 18:13

No trouble, Nuthatch, he we are -

It is now or never for Labour and the working class
by Jonathan Hinder

Can you hear that familiar sound? The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.

More in Common, a polling company, recently asked Reform UK voters why they would vote for them, and 81 per cent said immigration, with the next most popular reason being “I like their leader”, down at 31 per cent.

The primary reason for Reform’s rise is staring us all in the face, but from the moment the declaration was made at Runcorn, one of Labour’s safest seats just ten months ago, the cognitive gymnastics began to explain why this was down to anything but politicians’ unwillingness to listen to voters on immigration.

Of course, it is clear that our economy is not working as it should for ordinary people in the small towns like those I represent in Pendle & Clitheroe.

I want profiteering multi-nationals to pay their fair share of tax, public services run for the common good, not for private profit, and much greater investment in our crumbling infrastructure. On this, I find agreement with those who refuse to acknowledge the immigration issue.

But the voters know instinctively what the Left often refuses to acknowledge – immigration is fundamentally an economic issue as much as it is anything else, and working-class people are generally the losers.

Imagine for a moment, hard as it may be, that Labour pivoted sharply on immigration. A goal of roughly balanced migration – equal numbers emigrating as immigrating – was communicated and steadily delivered by the end of this Parliament. This would return us to the more or less balanced net migration levels we had for decades until the mid-1990s.

Imagine too that every legal obstacle to tackling the small boats crisis was systematically removed, so that there was no incentive for migrants to make the dangerous channel crossing in the first place, all asylum hotels could be shut, and instead a set number of refugees could be accepted from abroad in a controlled manner each year.

What would Reform have left if the immigration issue were resolved in this way? Their domestic policy programme is utterly incoherent, not that it matters because few voters know or care what it is. They would have nothing left to say if one of the two main parties finally listened to what the voters have been telling them at every opportunity for the last twenty years.

Dame Andrea Jenkyns recently called for migrants to be put in tents instead of hotels in her Lincolnshire victory speech
Meanwhile, what could the Conservatives do in response but hang their heads in shame?
With freedom of movement gone, they had the opportunity to deliver the low levels of immigration sought by the vast majority of the electorate. Instead, they stuck two fingers up at their new voter coalition in the most spectacular way, unleashing the “Boriswave” of non-European migration, with net migration peaking at nearly one million in a single year.

In 2019, it looked like Labour as a party of the working class may be gone forever, but the Conservatives’ implosion under Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss gave us one last chance.

Many voters were so keen to rid the country of the chaotic Conservatives that we squeaked home in hundreds of constituencies across the country, with a very efficiently spread vote share of 33.7 per cent, just a smidge higher than we had scored in the drubbing of 2019 (32.1 per cent).

So, this week’s results should be the wake-up call we need. But Labour has morphed into a hyper-liberal party more than a socialist party, such that secure borders and low immigration are seen as “Right-wing” within its ecosystem of city-based activists, think tanks and associated organisations. No matter that high immigration is, of course, the capitalist’s dream.

This is existential for the Labour Party now. Our drift away from our working-class base has been decades in the making, and goes far deeper than the tenure of any one leader.

Platitudes about “listening” and “learning” will not do. It is now or never for Labour and the working class.

Anyway, back to Hinder.

He's right, and it is existential.

OP posts:
StarDolphins · 04/05/2025 20:29

caringcarer · 02/05/2025 23:06

Reform now have overall control in Staffordshire. The first thing they are going to do is check contracts with a fine tooth comb to cut back on waste and overpayment. I have a foster child. A taxi comes to get him to take him to his special school. Instead of having a local taxi to collect him to drive him to his school then return to their base which is 40 miles round trip the previous councillors gave a contract to a taxi firm 18 miles away. So every morning they drive 18 miles to us, collect DC then take 20 miles to school, then drive 29 miles back to their base and the same in reverse in afternoon. So basically driving an additional 47 miles twice each day which is so unnecessary, and they are often late because of traffic. It cost about £43k each year to pay for this taxi contract when they could easily shave at least £10k off of it. If they do this with other DC too just think how much wasted money is being spent. The Reform councillors are going to scrutinise waste like this and put a stop to it. Pot holes is a top priority.

This is interesting. What a massive saving that will be, imagine other kids will have this too! I’m over the hill in High Peak and it’s the same here for LA financial waste. They recently send a 4 man team to trim back a ground level hedge on a path that dragged out for a whole week! I could’ve done that in 3 days on my own and that would’ve been with plenty of breaks!

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 04/05/2025 20:31

In the meantime Louise Haight is opining in the Guardian,

Just why? Who cares about her?

MyNameIsX · 04/05/2025 20:37

Sir Keir Starmer is facing fresh pressure from his Labour MPs to reverse cuts to the winter fuel allowance after the government’s welfare decisions were partly blamed for the party’s setbacks in Thursday’s local elections.

The removal of the winter fuel subsidy from 10mn pensioners was a key reason voters told Labour activists they would not support the party in the run-up to last week’s elections, MPs and party figures said.

The policy, which limits the up to £300-a-year benefit to only the poorest pensioners, was announced just weeks after Labour took power last year. Labour MPs and party figures said the move, along with a more recent decision to cut disability benefits, had contributed to the party losing in some of its traditional heartlands to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

Some have privately predicted that Starmer will be forced into a partial U-turn on the winter fuel cuts before the end of the year.

FT

TheNuthatch · 04/05/2025 20:39

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 04/05/2025 20:31

In the meantime Louise Haight is opining in the Guardian,

Just why? Who cares about her?

Is she? Is she trying to make a come back? Unless she's finally confessing her guilt, I don't know why anyone, left or right, would be interested tbh.

OP posts:
RipleyJones · 04/05/2025 20:47

TheNuthatch · 03/05/2025 23:34

Lucy Powell has referred to the rape gangs scandal as a little trumpet, a dog whistle. Repulsive woman. She was being asked about the C4 documentary if anyone hasn't watched it.
C4 Groomed: A National Scandal.
https://news.sky.com/story/conservatives-call-for-labours-lucy-powell-to-resign-over-grooming-gang-remarks-13361129

Starmer needs to sack her. Yet another Labour Party disaster. Totally unacceptable. Disgusting statements she’s made.

As usual Labour excels in hating women. Especially white working class girls in this instance.

Powell isn’t bothered about the Pakistani / Asian child rapist male adults.

The fact 12yr old girls were turning up at home covered in bite marks and with knickers full of semen. Apparently a little trumpet. A dog whistle.

We see you Labour. Labour are the Nasty party.

Cuts to disability benefits, removal of heating allowance for pensioners, tax on education, and above all hatred of women and girls. That’s the Labour Party of today.

Sooner they’ve gone the better. It may well take a coalition but I’d sooner have that than this lying hypocritical group of champagne socialists.