Labour isn't working - Thread 16

[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:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5433563-labour-isnt-working-thread-15?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Speaking of militancy.

If we agree that Labour lied to gain power, and that they are constantly telling deliberate untruths with respect to fiscal policy, and have terrible ethics regarding their personal affairs. And if we agree that the welfare state, and immigration system is being gamed and abused.

Then I would say with absolute certainty that the covenant between state and tax payer has been well and truly broken.

It naturally falls to the individual how they address that breach.

I feel powerless beyond withdrawing my own labour.

But open to (legal) suggestions.

What are your thoughts?

I feel a Labour isn't working Jarrow March coming on

I have wondered about a march. On a weekday, so that businesses notice the loss of their workers, and put pressure on the government.

I'm also thinking of the 1975 Icelandic women's march.

The problem is that industrial action law is around protest against the employer, not the government. So there's no protection - even though the government's taxes have as much impact on us financially as most pay demands which lead to industrial action!

We need to be able to go on strike against the government!

Governments tend to protect their ability to make tax law more strongly than they would ever protect business - or anyone else - though.

I haven't forgotten how the Human Rights challenge against the private schools VAT was unsuccessful, because they ruled that although children's human rights were indeed harmed, that was allowed because the government can basically do anything they like to raise taxes.

So I can't see us ever getting industrial action protection to strike in protest at taxation.

We are not free.

But maybe the early activists pushing for labour laws felt that it was an impossible challenge too.

It does feel like we need the equivalent of Trade Unions, but against the government. There is a similar difference in power as there was between employees and industry 200 years ago, and a similar need for people to protect themselves from exploitation by banding together to leverage the only power we have - the value of our labour.

This could be the only way out of the doom-loop of an ever-growing state, funded by an ever-shrinking minority.

I think we can do whatever we want - if we have the courage.

Remember, they lied and continue to lie - this budget will not be the final word - they will come back for more and more and more.

I use the language of conflict, because that’s what this is.

Just because we do not wish it, it does not mean it will not happen.

I am crystal clear about it.

We need the numbers though, to leverage collective power. But employers can refuse leave if it inconveniences them - where they can't refuse industrial action.

But of course you're right that we can do anything we want if we have the courage.

We are free-thinking, autonomous human beings.

I'd just like the power and protection the Unions have - but against the government - but that protection didn't exist 200 years ago, and was hard won by people with courage.

Yes and the most pitiful thing is, that this all comes down to Starmers’ use of the term ‘working person’ in the run up to the election and afterwards. It made no sense then and they knew that. Sadly as time moved on they had to provide a definition of a term to which they were continuously referring. And shocker - for ‘working person’ no definition apart from ‘a person who works’, makes any sense whatsoever.

If they anger the narrower of the broadest shoulders.. (which frankly are hardly the Rock in the first place) they may find it to be their undoing.

The only sensible option they’ve got is to increase income tax For All and tax state benefits (25%, that way they’re not cutting benefits…just adding tax to them. That’s the way they like to reason isn’t it). They need to make it more attractive to work than to claim benefits. Shocking that currently a person can be paid more in benefits than actually working. Stop immigration by making the uk undesirable for people who won’t add anything to Uk society, the ones who only take. Ie. Don’t give benefits / housing / school places / free health care to anyone who has not lived here for min 10years.

Thx for new thread!

My other concern is digital ID is a response to the conflict between us and the gov. They show us contempt, we respond so they go for further control.

Yes - it’s exactly what they are aiming for - it’s open warfare.

People need to wake up as to what is happening.

When Starmer says the rationale for his ID ‘initiative’ is to control immigration, he lies - no question.

As @NoWordForFluffy said earlier - Starmer ‘thinks’ that some women have penises, and that many people who work, aren’t ’working people’.

And that is the current PM of the UK.

Anyone might think he’s a nutjob.

When our council last rerated all properties in the borough they used estate agents, architecture practices,, surveyors and a lot of temporary staff to physically check properties. Extensions, bathrooms, etc were discovered. It was an enormous undertaking.

They can and do use drones now. As well as Google earth, planning, water and energy boards.

It is going to cost. Zoopla isn't accurate enough

I'm almost sure I've seen this before; does anyone know if there's any element of truth or whether it's simply mischievous?

I remember this at the time, and recall that it had checked out.

The credit card issue is in the public domain too.

In that case, and in the light of recent events, it's probably safe to assume Integrity isn't Reeves's strong suit - pretty much like her grasp of economics.

Absolutely.

It’s probably worth introducing a sticky, detailing all her transgressions to date.

I name changed failed. But lutonsgirl tells me it checks out

I was wondering who you were! 🤣

Sorry!!! I wanted a Halloweeny name

The only sensible option they’ve got is to increase income tax For All and tax state benefits (25%, that way they’re not cutting benefits…just adding tax to them. That’s the way they like to reason isn’t it)

It would certainly be 'closing a tax loophole'. I don't have high hopes though.

I've been busy all day, so just going to cook dinner and try and catch up on the thread

Bit of randomness for you

Apparently, Matt Goodwin was on question time and a lady spoke about her anxiety. I don't like to comment without knowing the whole story. I am someone who was medicated for years and years for depression and anxiety and the doctor actually said to me about benefits, was concerned about my capability to work, I ignored it and I've been through some really shit times. I think now some people would consider them to be PTSD, particularly the experience of losing friends in a terror attack.

I totally accept that everyone is different, but benefits was really not for me, even if the doctor did think it was a good idea. I also noticed that the lady who asked the question said the applying was traumatic. I can't help wondering if that's an exaggeration.

sorry, I waffled there, anyway, I was thinking - Matt Goodwin is very attractive! I suspect he has a girlfriend or a wife or a boyfriend or husband. Anyway. Got that out of my system 😂

It was probably on my mind today because I was talking to mum about the Bridget Jones film, which I haven't seen, and when I explained the story (younger man) she said "oh dear, you're not going to do that again are you?" Which made me laugh. I said "why not?" And she said "because you'll just get sick of them and drop them again". Which made me laugh even more. Sadly, I've aged a lot in the last two years so I don't think it's going to happen again!

Next totally random side bar, just catching up with MN today, and some of the thread titles are pretty mad! No TATs though obviously. 🤐

According to the Daily Telegraph yesterday, a source close to Mainstream - a Labour group backed by Mr Burnham - compared Sir Keir's reaction to Ms Reeves with how ex-Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner had had to quit for failing to pay the correct stamp duty on a new flat.

The source said: 'There's a reason Rayner was turfed out as soon as possible but support for Reeves is robust.

'It's always one rule for their people and another for anyone who threatens to loose their grip on control.'

Last year, it emerged that Ms Haigh had admitted telling police in 2013 that she had lost her work mobile phone in a mugging but later found that it had not been taken.

She was given a conditional discharge by magistrates following the incident which happened before she became an MP.

Last night on HIGNFY, Ms Haigh was challenged by Mr Hislop to admit that her own behaviour 'wasn't a mistake - it was a conviction for fraud'.
She replied: 'It was and it was... obviously humiliating, embarrassing.'
She added: 'It was wrong. I made a mistake - I held my hands up.
'I got my conditional discharge.'

But asked 'did Keir know though' about the conviction, Ms Haigh replied: 'He did. I told him about when I was appointed.'