Defence Secretary John Healey resigns and calls out Rachel Reeves

[Fillies4DeclanRice]

John Healey has become the latest government minister to resign, basically saying he cannot do the job of keeping the UK safe because Labour's economic model is in such a mess.

His resignation letter effectively says the government needs to spend far less on welfare benefits and net zero, and start taxing less and spending more on defence.

This is total chaos now.

How many war-age young men and women do you have at home, exactly?

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with passive income but I do think it’s wrong that income tax from working is higher. À la Sunak.

It’s an easy thing to say that benefits shouldn’t give someone more than they could get from working, but perhaps we could say similar for passive income - it should generate less tax take than working.

If taxation from all sources were taxed more equally, there should be less division and targeting particular groups, as this would be fairer. And those who object to pensioners using their savings to draw down and use interest till they die or it has to pay for care, would also pay tax at the same level.

I would also look at clawing back money from corporations that make over a certain amount of profit where their profits have been benefited via the in work benefits their employees claim because said high profit making company doesn’t pay a livable wage. I wonder how much this adds to the benefits bill.

I think I misunderstood the information about professions. As you say more women are employed in those professions. However, this was the source I had for overall incomes
https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-babies-for-the-rich-the-relationship-between-status-and-children-is-changing

Also, while fertility levels have dropped across the board, fertility levels for those from a lower SE class or lower education level have dropped the most sharply.

I just don't see the thinking behind the cap. If it is because the government shouldn't be supporting people to raise their children why the cut of at 2. If it's because it is irresponsible/reckless/not ideal to have more than 2 children than fine but that feels a bit out of step with modern discussions.

I agree. Op, you shouldn't start a post with made up stuff. Just stick to the facts.

It will be very unequal though and quite random. You can have two families of the exact same income and wealth who have both worked hard and saved and in one the children will inherit their whole estate. In the other, it will all be eaten up in care home fees and social care. A lot of the wealth transfer will be to asset management companies or investment firms that own the nursing homes not the next generation. This is much worse in America where health care is privatised and massively more expensive (every single item of medical equipment even bandages seems to cost a huge amount). Older people usually don't have sufficient insurance and Medicaid only comes in once their assets are depleted by a very low level. This means most of the money they thought their children would inherit goes to large firms instead.
I am not a socialist however, this causes problems:

• it is a very uncomfortable feeling if you are young and work hard to know that no matter how well you do realistically the biggest impact on your own families wealth is likely to be how much you inherit/receive from your parents. Even decent incomes are dwarfed by house prices now. It's not great for someone struggling to get on the housing ladder with no help. It also isn't a great feeling for the children who did have significant help or inherit assets to know they wouldn't have been able to build their life by themselves. Of course parents want to give their children as much as possible. But the older generation could more easily feel as if they had made it themselves by working hard. By creating a system where it matters more what you inherit you take that opportunity from younger people
• it's icky that how a parent dies has such a massive impact on the future prospects of their children. More than their own hard work and of course raises the likelihood of family falling out over wills and who gets what etc
• It disrupts social mobility and social cohesion
• Land prices being so high means that it makes more sense to invest in land than risky new businesses or the stock market. So potential investment is diverted

This also does relate to the NHS because if, as some people say must happen, it is privatised/changes structure, far more older people will be using their assets to pay for healthcare than now. If it's done badly and health companies are allowed to charge what they like you will see huge asset transfers from the older generation to private equity NOT their children. Played out at scale this will have consequences and is why I really don't like the narrative around how the NHS needs to change.

It would be better, surely, to either increase inheritance tax to pay for healthcare or tax wealth/land than to let this happen. Otherwise it's deciding that instead of some of the inheritance goes to the government all of it will be taken by private health care/care home companies.

Even taking about the older generations "assets" feels entitled and uncomfortable. But an aging population (with the health and welfare spending associated) and growing land prices is creating some strange situations. And it's dividing people.

@Araminta1003 I agree with you about defence bonds being a good idea!

It makes me think of the James Town colony in the 1600 on the brink of starvation, too many “gentlemen” relying on the work of others to keep them fed. John Smith had to invoke Paul’s epistle to the Thessalonians: He who does not work, neither shall he eat.

There aren’t enough billionaires with enough money to appropriate to save us. We all have to put our shoulders to the wheel. We cannot consume things we don’t produce. The government cannot conjure up resources by fiat.

Our pensions are some of the lowest in Europe, and the people with the biggest private pensions have paid in the most to prop up everyone else. The state pension needs to be controlled, but it’s not a magic bullet.

I hate the inequality shtick. The UK’s gini coefficient is lower than Germany or Italy or Spain and is within a point of France. It’s gone down since Gorden Brown’s premiership. Basically, we aren’t hard done by. After some of the world’s most progressive income tax, we are even more equal. Arguably, targeting inequality aggressively has made things worse for the average Brit by holding back productivity. Stop a few outliers from getting really rich from founding world beating companies and the stats look even better. Instead of new jobs and opportunities, we have stasis. Stagnation. We shouldn’t worry about a few outliers who pull us all up with them.

Since no one wants to take the tough medicine, our only option is to try to do more with less. Efficiency in the public sector would really help and be almost painless. It would require innovation. We have Palentir being kicked out if the NHS were it is working and barred from the Met. This is political showboating for a special interest group. Palantir works with Israel. No surprise, a lot of the most effective tech companies do. We don’t have sanctions on Israel. Personally blocking effective firms in order to virtue signal is making the choice to allow more crime and to leave more people untreated. It will cost lives.

Nail on the head, a very good summary of the current situation.

The issue with Palantir isn't just that they work with Israel. The owner has some crazy ideas that are quite opposed to the UKs self interest and he.is open about thinking tech company owners should have influence/a say. Israel works with many tech firms but would likely not give a firm owned by someone who openly states that they don't think Israel has a right to exist/has anti-Semitic links access to all of Israel's health, security or police data. Most countries wouldn't. The UK shouldn't. Plus Palantirs main selling point seemed to be offering sticking plasters/fudged solutions to problems that actually needed sorting out at the root. They appeal to and encourage civil service lazy thinking.

So, a liar and a fool.

Sir Keir Starmer has declared he will take on Andy Burnham in a future Labour leadership contest.

The Prime Minister is fighting for his political survival after John Healey resigned as defence secretary and Al Carns quit as armed forces minister in protest against a lack of funds for the military.

Mr Burnham, Labour’s candidate at the Makerfield by-election next Thursday, has said he will seek to oust the Prime Minister if he is elected to the Commons.

Asked if he was “determined” to take part in any future contest, Sir Keir told the BBC: “Well, I don’t think it should happen, but if it does then I will fight.

“And let me just be clear with you. That’s not about personal vanity. It’s not about stubbornness. It’s out of a very deep sense of duty. I was elected to serve this country notwithstanding the difficult circumstances that is what I am doing.

“And in the last few weeks others have made their own case. I’ve been concentrating on the job I was elected to do which is to deliver for this country.

“This is about a sense of service and duty. It is not vanity, it is not stubbornness.”

@Persephonia1966

Plus Palantirs main selling point seemed to be offering sticking plasters/fudged solutions to problems that actually needed sorting out at the root. They appeal to and encourage civil service lazy thinking.

But we've been trying for 2 or 3 decades to get public sector bodies, like the NHS, to change their ways/procedures to fit with IT solutions, but it's just never happened, i.e. the billions wasted on NHS systems. Perhaps it IS time to accept that we need tailored IT solutions to fit around the way the public sector bodies want to operate, as we may actually get systems that actually work. Sometimes trying to get the public sector to change is like pushing water uphill, so maybe it's time to think differently and accept things for what they are and try to make the best of it.

Yes but if two different police forces for example, are using different systems to record stats on crime they will also be using different criteria for defining/grouping things. Different fields. So even if you get a computer system to make those two databases "talk to each other" it wont fix those other issues. It hides the problem rather than fixes it.

Peter Thiel is coo coo bananas. So is Elan Musk. Star Link, Tesla and Palantir are still effective. A business is a lot more than one person.

Arguing that Palantir isn’t perfect, isn’t any argument at all. Nothing is perfect, but it is better to move forward than to keep sinking. We are in real, serious trouble. Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Since no one wants to take the tough medicine, our only option is to try to do more with less. Efficiency in the public sector would really help and be almost painless.

Have you ever worked in the public sector? This has been tried over and over again. Cuts due to austerity. Cuts due to the pressure the social care crisis has put on local government. Cuts due to mergers, then a further merger and further cuts.

Organisational restructure by expensive, trendy consultants. A doomed partnership with a corporation which was supposed to save a fortune, but didn’t. Commercial investments which sometimes paid off and sometimes didn’t. An increase in WFH to free up office space for rent or redevelopment. Selling off assets. Outsourcing some services. You name it, the public sector has tried it.

No but given the government wants to encourage the growth of the tech sector here and invest in British businesses including British tech saying "we have no option but to use this foreign company that hates us" isn't a great sell. Why should I invest in/buy services from UK tech companies when the government won't? And the UK isn't bad at creating innovative companies. We just always lose them to America when they become successful.

Also it's not imperfect as in "morally grey" it's someone who has said they don't believe in democracy, they think people like themselves need to take form decisions to "save the West" and actively dislike a lot of UK policies. Being given vast amounts of security data. I like China. I wouldn't want a Chinese firm being given that access though Im happy to buy other products from them. Switzerland aren't bleeding heart types. They are pretty pragmatic when it comes to dealing with the morally gray. But they opted not to use Palantir because of the security risk.

There's already huge public mistrust in institutions and a huge suspicion of large data projects. This will only compound that mistrust which if nothing else will hamper future data quality.

Yes, the IT system should fit the requirements of the job, not the other way around. Changes of system are inevitable, but once staff have learned them, they should enable them to work more efficiently, not make everything take longer!

Yes, I’ve worked in the public sector. That’s why efficiency improvements through innovation are attractive, rather than cutting.

If we had a competitor to Palantir, we could use it. We don’t have one.

Palantir is a public company. Peter Thiel owns 4.5%.

But if the central problem is different services/trusts/forces etc using different incompatible systems the solution is to get people using the same system. That is indeed like pushing water up hill. A big reason for this is because the systems will have slightly different recording requirements, prioritise recording different things etc. there will be someone in charge somewhere that really wants something done a certain way. Palantir is easier to implement because it doesn't involve lifting those rocks at all. It's a lazy, bad solution.

Yes, I know, but as I said, we've been trying for best part of 30 years to standardise these systems, spent billions, and still havn't achieved it. So we have to be pragmatic and work with what we do have and what the civil service will allow!

Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results!

But my concern would be it looks like it's fixed the problem but hasn't. Arguably bad data that looks good is worse then patchy data that you know is bad. Especially if it's used to make decisions.

Is it possible the "spent billions" happened as a result of decision makers getting starry eyed at the promises of external IT companies promising their system will fix all the issues. The systems not doing what they were needed to do so not getting used/getting implemented patchily and rinse and repeat?

Mr van fan our old COVID guy said the NHS is needlessly clunky and wasting money. He said they wanted to pay for a taxi to deliver him one pill.

It needs a ruthless over haul everyone should be charged 20 to go to hospital initially and to see a doctor with the promise of improved care.

I don't disagree, but they have to move somewhere else, smaller. But the choices open to them are unattractive. I am a classic example, as I don't need to live in our family size house now that it's just DH and I. But we would want a big eat in kitchen, a cosy space to watch Tv in the warm, and two bedrooms so we can have friends or family to stay for brief periods. Plus some outside space. Which is exactly the same as our DC wants. Hence the pressure on starter homes.

The two up two down Victorian house is difficult to beat as a standard property model.

There are a "fair few" old people with £2.5 million in assets and wealth suggests @Araminta1003 . Just not enough to change the landscape, even if you raped them of everything. A few thousand people at most. Would you like your 20p now?