Thread 25 Starmer - Cheers for a falling out among thieves

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5338688-thread-24-starmer-casting-the-net-wider?

It's such a personal thing isn't it but a choice that needs to be made a some point.

Same on Facebook. Ranting about it not being in the Labour Party manifesto. It seems to have escaped their notice that a good few Labour MPs voted against, some Conservative MPs including Sunak and Philp voted for, and Tice plus Reform's newest MP voted for as well. The concept of a free vote seems to be beyond them.

@bentneckwine1 I just want to say I absolutely, wholeheartedly support that you should have the right to die at a time of your own choosing.

My DH has a rare disease too. It doesn't affect life expectancy, but it does affect so many other aspects of life. I worry about whether people like him may be coerced into ending their life. I want the bill to have safeguards to prevent this and at the moment I am not convinced it has.

@PandoraSocksThank you for your understanding - I totally understand that other people feel differently and it's a difficult conversation to have.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jun/20/all-babies-in-england-to-get-dna-test-to-assess-risk-of-diseases-within-10-years

I'm not sure about this. It would definitely rule out insurance for holidays in the USA for example and I wouldn't allow it for my baby. It's not like a Vitamin K injection.

Times reporting that members of the government might quit over PIP changes and up to 80 MPs might rebel. There is a chance the vote on 1st July might be pulled.

https://archive.ph/yimQ1

Performative ignorance. Also available (in matching colours with prosecco) on selected cuts of MN.

Now that is a media fault that is demonstrable. (Gives BBC a hard stare).

I hope it is pulled. Connor Naismith is a good MP and he certainly does the work in Crewe and Nantwich.

Echos of 2019-2024.

The Tories must feel nostalgic.

They should just do the impact assessments and then review the situation. Works either way - low impact, MPs come back on side. High impact - they have the data to say they need to look more closely before taking decisions.

There is an IA. The impact is high, though the IA downplays it. 370,000 people could lose their PIP and 150,000 unpaid carers could lose the measly amount they are paid for caring. There have been suggestions that in reality these figures will be much higher.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0267/hcb267_ia_no22025.pdf

Also, the IA states that even with these changes it is expected that 750,000 more people will be on PIP by the end of this Parliament.

Which rather begs the question: why are they not looking at why this is expected to happen and how it could be prevented via better healthcare etc. rather than putting the boot into vulnerable people.

Unless there is an agenda.

How many times were sensible measured and critical amendments suggested to Tory legislation that were dismissed out of hand ? Clearly signalling that the legislation had nothing to do with whatever it claimed.

If we learned but one thing from the documentary "Yes Minister", it's that the answer is always prepared before the question. And that is a perpetual comment on the operation of government. Any government. All governments.

Shit smells. Whether it's Labour, Tory, LibDem or Reform

Apologies - I read something the other day that suggested they hadn’t done one.

And yes @PandoraSocks - it calls to mind Tutu’s comment (which was regarding refugees I believe, and is relevant to that too) - “There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river.
We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in.”

Good. Their plans need a from the ground up rethink. Stop punishing people and start supporting them to find and stay in work.

What annoys me most about the PIP changes proposed is that they keep saying they will support more people into work.

PIP isn’t an out of work benefit.

DS gets 4 points for both cooking and support with medication and therapy so he’d be ok and 2 points on loads of other stuff. Also 12 points for moving around.

He works. Will always be able to work in software development which is his job.

Yes, he’s limited to what jobs he can do - but with the right support he could be in work but that’s not going to suddenly make him able to do the things he can’t do - or walk when he can’t!

The supporting people into work should be a given.

What annoys me most about the PIP changes proposed is that they keep saying they will support more people into work.

The disgusting truth behind this is the total and utter disregard by the private sector of their obligations under the EA. If they did what the law required, then there would be far less disabled people imprisoned in their homes.

Accessibility should go without saying. Instead it goes silently without.

My employer is generally very good at making reasonable adjustments, and is a model to follow.

Mostly reasonable adjustments are working to have more diverse and inclusive teams.

I had one challenge recently with one team member who definitely did have a serious disability which would have strongly affected their work. He didn’t disclose that one, which was his prerogative, but it has been very very hard to explain that his wants in the office can’t be accommodated and he’s not suited for the role he obtained. It’s been a horrendous experience frankly, but as a manager I almost felt like he lied to us, and he’s now had to be placed somewhere totally different.

but as a manager I almost felt like he lied to us

Something to bear in mind when other people get uppity about people exercising their rights and freedoms maybe ?

It’s certainly been an eye opener, because there was just no way he could have done the job he applied for, but we found him another role, which he can do, with reasonable adjustments.

Basically his needs were pretty extensive and he didn’t tell me! So I ended up asking him to do things that he couldn’t possibly have done, which were part of the role he applied for. This made him very stressed, but then we had no idea of the need he had. In the end, we realized that perhaps he hadn’t really thought through what it would mean- he needed a very predictable and stable environment and home working, where he had chosen a role that was anything but and required a lot of travel!

Basically his needs were pretty extensive and he didn’t tell me!

Is it possible that the 20 previous employers he did tell always managed to find someone else "more suited for the role ?"

Imagine if someone had written

but as a manager I almost felt like she lied to us

If a new hire disclosed their pregnancy on their first day ?

Part of the genius of the past half century has been the way women have been slowly turned into female men when it comes to their engagement in the workplace. The paradigm is Mrs Thatcher. The Spitting Image puppet of her was pitch perfect on so many levels.

Just FTAOD this post isn't intended as a one to one attack. I'm just using your post - with it's everyday phrasing - to highlight how insidious some attitudes are.

In every fight against discrimination, women should always get involved. Because no matter what the discrimination, you can guarantee women will suffer it worst.

It was hugely difficult, but the issue was that he claimed we hadn’t accommodated his needs. We didn’t know he had any needs! So as a manager really impossible to handle. It turned out that he had some very complex needs which you couldn’t adjust for reasonably, so we gave him a different role on the same pay, so we retained his expertise.

This why I quit the Brexit board - the only way is back

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52410-nine-years-after-the-eu-referendum-where-does-public-opinion-stand-on-brexit

Great news to wake up to.

I renewed my fixed energy deal this morning, just in case all this affects prices and the energy companies start pulling deals.