Labour isn't working - Thread 26

[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/5475321-labour-isnt-working-thread-25?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

I can't even begin to say how fucking angry I am at this change.

Either they want us all to save for retirement or they don't. This change means that private sector workers are shat on even more in how well they can save for retirement. If you can't afford to seriously up your own contribution (and let's face it, many can't), then you've already no hope of a decent pension, without these reforms (and any employer changes as a result) kicking in.

What a fucking stupid idea.

ETA: I do appreciate some private sector firms maybe make it easier to save by offering a decent contribution, but I imagine the majority offer the bare minimum of 3%, or at least not much more.

It really is appalling: not least the 'nudge' that £2k per year is enough to be saving for retirement. It absolutely isn't!

It also rather depressingly hammers low and middle earners on basic rate income tax hardest - since basic rate NI is 8% then drops to 2% alongside higher rate income tax. And that's exactly the group who need to be encouraged to save more in pensions.

Although the cynic in me says that this is only the frst step, and they'll use that 'unfairness' which they've created themselves to hammer higher tax payers pensions next. Possibly by setting tax relief at a fixed amount - rather than marginal tax rate - as they've hinted at in the past. Which (given that pension is taxed on the way out as well) would effectively remove pensions as a savings vehicle for higher earners.

God, Labour are so depressingly shit. Seemingly incapable of anticipating even the most obvious consequences of their ridiculous policies.

No, £2k isn't enough. But it's the reality for low paid private sector workers who can't afford to pay more than their 5% minimum, with an employer who pays the minimum 3%.

There's a huge disparity with the civil service 28% contribution.

Punishing people for paying into a pension is utterly utterly stupid. (Or at the very least discouraging it.)

If a worker paid in £2k absolutely consistently over a 45 year working life, with decent stock market returns they should reach about £250-300k, which would buy them an annuity of about £10k. Alongside the state pension, for a single person that doesn't even reach a 'Moderate' income for a single person (£30k). It just reaches 'Moderate' if both partners in a couple get that (£40k for a couple).

But it isn't very realistic that both partners on low/medium income could manage that every single year for 45 years without interruption. How about maternity leaves, the expensive time when kids are small, temporary unemployment, family difficulties? But with this new policy, they can't make up those payments a few years later when things are easier without being hit for 8% NI.

It's a disgraceful new tax on working people, discouraging them from making sensible provision for their old age.

And discouraging people from making sensible provision for their own old age is blindingly stupid for our country.

TBH, if Lammy is sticking his oar in I suspect Starmer’s chances of clinging on have just gone up considerably.

I mean ik he’s bad but I still don’t think this is true. The more who break rank the harder it is for him.

I agree. I wasn’t being entirely serious.

My suspicion is that Lammy is a joke within Labour as much as outside it. But any senior cabinet minister who puts the skids under a PM is notable, as you say, however inept that minister may be.

Lammy is an interesting one. He must be good at something but I’m not sure what it is. Yet he is a senior politician. I suspect that the main problem with him breaking rank is that he is someone people have heard of and is still in the cabinet, not out in the wilds (like Rayner).

Agree. And if they do go for an interim PM it’d better not be Lammy

Thats interesting because at the time Lammy said Mandleson was the right man for the job.

https://news.sky.com/video/mandelson-is-right-man-for-the-job-says-foreign-secretary-13292874

I suppose the two positions aren’t necessarily incompatible: Lammy could have said privately to Starmer that Mandelson would be a mistake, but publicly that it was a good appointment.

But that article is a good spot, and just makes Lammy look even stupider.

I’d love to see Lammy chuck his hat in for a Labour leadership fight. That would be hilarious.

I wonder if the (even more) loony left of Labour will put up a candidate like they’ve always done on rotation. Burgon perhaps: he’s a gobby half-wit with horribly misplaced ambition, no brains and an amazing lack of self-awareness - perfect.

Yes I think someone would have to do the gov line on Mandelson and it was him, but privately he might have warned Starmer.

I don’t think he should bother on the leadership though, not enough bandwidth for that one!

O.M.G he's deputy prime minister so that's possible!

It looks really unfortunate now.

McSweeney has gone.

And he resigned as well, never even gave Starmer the theatre of firing him.

Will that save Starmer?

So pleased Kemi got that gushing response at last PMQs

Starmer can’t hide how much he needed McSweeney after that.

Just saw ‘rats leaving a sinking Starmer’ comment which made me laugh.

No. It will hasten his departure. Not only was Starmer’s judgement appalling in appointing Mandelson but also in being persuaded by McSweeney. Doubly useless.

What a shame Starmer’s biggest fan said this morning it’d make no difference.

During an interview with the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Mr McFadden was asked whether replacing Mr McSweeney would be “the way forward”.

He responded: “I see no point in that whatsoever. In fact, I think if the Prime Minister stays ...”

At this point, Ms Kuenssberg challenged Mr McFadden on his use of the word “if”, but he continued: “... there with that, I don’t think that would make any difference at all.

“And to call for changes of staff, I’ve seen this before, I don’t think it makes a difference.

Although it’ll probably do something, weaken Starmer considerably against circling sharks as @DenizenOfAisleOfShamepp

Unless he has just been released from the powers of Wormtongue, regains his colour, and can act purposefully with a clear plan, a bit of vigor and determination to turn the tide. Then no, he is a lame duck.

I suppose that short term it will help, but he'll be gone anyway soon.

I think they’re overlooking it’s Starmer in the dispatch box not McSweeney and Kemi will keep making him stumble and shake

And the electorate and media will still tie Starmer to the Mandelson affair as the files are exposed.

That is a quite brilliant image. I expect to see it repeated - with laughter - in the near future. 👍