Labour isn't working - Thread 7

[TheNuthatch]

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

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Previous thread
www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5396643-labour-isnt-working-thread-6?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Especially with the new Left pressure group.......

Thanks for the insights.

Miliband telling Starmer to boil his head (figuratively speaking)! Glorious.

What’s that noise? Oh, yes, it’s the sound of thin ice cracking under Starmer.

The left will go absolutely beserk if employment rights legislation is watered down. And if welfare cuts reappear. There’s also the associated difficulty of union funding being cut off.

I think we can be sure that Starmer and Reeves now realise that the economy is in peril because of their tax policy and that they have to slam the brakes on anything that will obstruct employment or worsen the national debt.

Labour civil war ahoy!

‘Welfare in numbers: The facts behind Britain’s soaring benefits bill

The UK's expenditure on welfare amounts to £303.3bn in the 2024/5 year; making up 23.8 per cent of the government's total annual budget. Much of this is spent on pensions and other benefits for the elderly, such as an attendance allowance for those who need help with personal care, and housing benefits.’

Starmer et al have Got to address this, got out of hand post COVID.. He had the right idea before, PIP fraud (yeah yeah only ‘1% fraud’ data is BS, we all know of people claiming ‘disability benefits’ when they aren’t disabled), but much more needs to be addressed.

Def Not saying they take away benefits from those that need it, (taking away from pensioners and people who need personal care / are carers should not be an option at all), but they have to find an approach whereby those that don’t need it, aren’t getting it. Tricky but needs sorting out. He tried but his party are loons who think (other peoples’) money grows on trees. Rather than commit, he capitulated.

Then there’s the tax payers money spent on immigration costs. Perfectly good deterrent started by Sunak. They could’ve continued with that. Again wasted more money by cancelling it all. They’ll go back to it at some point.

To end on a positive, at least they’re looking at the ‘student’ ‘family’ scam. 🤷‍♀️

Such a shower.

https://archive.md/i4xmB Archive link

As a very general long-term point, I do think the Tories would benefit in time from saying straightforwardly that the country cannot go on with welfare so out of control. Reform shy away from it because they’re chasing votes in areas with high welfare dependency.

If we hit a point where national debt is crippling everything else - the IMF bail-out scenario - a party that talked honestly and openly about necessary pain would benefit enormously.

Sadly, I think cutbacks will have to include downward pressure on state pension entitlement.

Yes agree with that and they usually aren't afraid of saying so.

They will and do if the media pick it up much. They will be the only party really to do it. Whether the electorate and media will realise it’s required is another thing.

There’s an average IQ level for a reason. That being the normal distribution of intelligence levels. This means there’s a significant proportion of any population with below average intelligence levels. This doesn’t bode well for democracy but it’s unavoidable.

So where a Tory party could feasibly say the unsayable, it won’t go down well and would almost certainly be a nail in their coffin.

The fact is that All parties need to make grown up agreements / cross party intervention and state unanimously, the benefit system has to change, and this is how. Sadly certain people within the parties are bonkers / low IQ too.

I’d add the growing issue of state dependency. The higher that is the less likely people will vote against it. At some point you’d slide into non affordability with only an economic shock as correction.

TUC conference on TV atm, the leader is banging on about making sure people pay their taxes. The irony!

🤣🤣🤣 oh the irony

And it begins

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/sep/08/labour-deputy-leadership-election-contest-keir-starmer-angela-rayner-uk-politics-live

Urgh I can’t read that. Switched off. They can’t make an Aston Martin, or even a VW Golf (that’d do), out of a knackered old Reliant Robin.

🤣

They also said that there is an expectation that the Workers Rights legislation will be watered down (Kyle is perceived as more pro business than others) and that McFadden will try to push through Welfare Reform again.

This Workers Rights thing is another thorn in Starmer's side. Sharon Graham of Unite was on the Today programme this morning shouting, as usual, but she's going to poll her members on whether to keep supporting the Labour party if they water down the Workers Rights Bill. According to Google AI, Unite didn't give any money to Labour for their 2024 campaign, because they didn't support Labour's manifesto, so whether that will mean much to Labour, I don't know. But together with the article in the Grauniad about the formation of a new centre-left group, it's New Labour all over again isn't it.

Except without New Labour enthusiasm

Or talent.

Workers’ Rights is probably going to be another welfare cuts situation for Labour. SMEs are watching closely and they’re needed for growth, the left will push it through.

Yeh missed that, also missed "or public support"

Haha at last few posts. Yep

The govt know how damaging this will be for SMEs, that why they are dawdling with it. Just the threat of it has damaged the jobs market.

Just me sitting back and watching 👀

Love the bit about the unelected OBR hampering the govt. The irony after what they said about Truss ignoring the OBR.

There is a democratic argument at the heart of this as well. A Labour government with a landslide majority in parliament cannot – and should not – be stopped from delivering the change we clearly set out in our manifesto simply because of assumptions made by the OBR [Office for Budget Responsibility]. If we let unelected institutions dictate the limits of change, we betray the people and communities who put their trust in us.

The issue for Labour with any of this though is that the points you make are vote-winners for Tory voters, not so much of the average Labour/Reform voter, who (I'm guessing) is much more likely to be welfare dependent.

Well no, but then the New Labour brand was tainted by Blair's support of the Iraq war. But New Labour was a very successful Labour-lite that had mass appeal, whereas the more left wing iterations of the party, from the 1970s to now, have been deeply unpalatable to large sections of the population.

Labour was only electable in 2024 because 1) the Tories had much such a bloody mess of things and gone through 4 PMs in 14 years and 2) Starmer was seen as a relatively centre-left and sensible-ish option - certainly more so than any of the other morons who ran for the Labour leadership after Corbyn got ousted. But their 'loveless landslide' victory in 2024 was much more about getting rid of the Tories than it was a resounding mandate for Labour.

So Louise Haigh’s potential pitch for DPM is saying ignore the OBR !

I guess that’s what they did when they brought in the tax on education. Just ignore actual stats and plough on regardless 🤯

Mindless and verging on authoritarianism