We know all the anti Labour posts are really just about VAT on school fees!

[YouOnlyHateStarmerForVATOnSchoolFees]

Day in day out whining about Labour and looking for any reason to moan about Starmer, I’m honestly expecting to see a “Starmer ate my dog” post soon! 🙄

We all know you’re just upset as you’ll be charged VAT on little Arabella’s school fees!

So my AIBU…

YABU - It is not just the school fees, honest! I preferred ‘honest Boris’ and ‘man of the people’ Rishi. Or that lovely Liz, we were so much safer with them!

YANBU - The posts are so blatantly motivated by the VAT on school fees that it has becoming utterly boring. Jog on ‘disgusted of Hampstead’ and join the local comp!

😘

Labour settled disputes with the unions by paying what the pay review boards recommended. All these pay disputes racked up because of the Tories.

Unions advocating for their members is what they do. It's negotiation.

Public sector and private sector pay has now had about the same growth in real terms since the recession. Private sector wages are always more volatile.

Don't you see the difference between having unfettered access to millions of people's bank accounts at any time and investigating fraud?

We could also make the argument that the state should collect everyone's DNA in case they commit an offence.

Where does state intrusion into your private life end?

I really would like to see the UK attitude to this focussed grouped. I do think the majority of Brits put the protection of the revenue much more important than anyone’s right to privacy

Looking at the pp on what it covers it looks like it applies to UC not child benefit etc

I think if it did include CB people wouldn't be keen. Basically if it's impacting someone else then ok

My point to you is that the government already has the power to request your bank statements if they suspect fraud.

Now they propose to ask the bank to check in real time your account if they suspect fraud.

Why should it be that paper statements are a better way to manage fraud? It isn’t. Correct me if I am wrong, but the proposal is not to proactively monitor - the request must still made on suspicion

A very childish and simplistic view of politics. "Our team are great, your team are rubbish." "No your team are the rubbish ones, we're the best".

Many will agree with VAT on school fees but oppose the removal of WFA. Some will agree with the removal of the WFA allowance, but oppose VAT on schools. Some will think the WFA cut off income is far too low, and VAT should only be applied to school fees above a certain threshold, i.e. elites, not lower middle class target market schools, or perhaps levied at a different rate.

Some will think Labour freebies are not that bad, but given their attack lines on the Tories they are hypocrites.

Urgh, in a grown up political landscape we should be able to play the ball, not the man.

Which will then reduce year on year as pupils have to move into the state schools bulge classes as their parents can no longer afford independent schooling. Then independent schools start to close down as there is very little surplus margin in most, which in turn snowballs the pupils moving into state.

Remember, these are the state schools that will get on average less than 1 extra teacher to deal with the influx from the mythical £1.6B. The ones that people already complain about.

But don’t worry, it’s all been costed, just like Labours claims before they came into power.

i think they’ll only manage 1 term if they continue as they’ve started.

Totally agree!!

Happy for you to report this. I did not mean it to be transphobic, or offensive, but having reviewed the definition of transphobic - "having or showing a dislike of or strong prejudice against transgender people" - I don't think it is. However, if it offended you, I apologise - that was never my intention.

You're wrong, the banks have to allow the state access to your bank accounts at any time with no evidence of fraud. The state shouldn't have unfettered access to people's bank accounts.

I don’t think a suspicion should have to be present. What an unnecessary administrative faff. Why not just give HMRC the ability to scan bank accounts for what looks like undeclared income or savings. If AI picks up some regular payments into your bank from someone other than your employer, or one off large transactions these could be probed further.

The amount of people that don’t declare rental income from a 2nd property etc is really high.

So my AIBU…
YABU - It is not just the school fees, honest! I preferred ‘honest Boris’ and ‘man of the people’ Rishi. Or that lovely Liz, we were so much safer with them!
YANBU - The posts are so blatantly motivated by the VAT on school fees that it has becoming utterly boring. Jog on ‘disgusted of Hampstead’ and join the local comp!

This transparently manipulative "YABU/YANBU" dichotomy has all the skill, engagement, self-awareness and credibility of those pop-ups that try to force you to say "No thanks; I HATE saving money!" when you decline to give your email and mobile number to get some paltry savings code and instead simply want to proceed to site content.

People are allowed to dislike Labour for any or no reason. And the Conservatives are not the only other party in the UK, especially the parts of it that secretly aren't England.

Banks will be required to tell the benefit system if people have savings of more than £16,000, the cut-off point for claiming benefits, or have been abroad for more than the four weeks allowed for universal credit claimants. Inspectors will then investigate and seek to recover overpayments.

I voted YABU as I can't believe there are that many people that care about VAT on school fees more than the WFA and Starmer accepting dubious gifts. If you are right though then it makes the VAT policy even more baffling from a political perspective. It raises hardly any money, has really riled a group of probably quite powerful people that will be looking to bring Labour down and ultimately the appeal of such a policy is pretty narrow . Most people just want to improve their lot and access at least an adequate standard of state education and this really won't make any meaningful difference towards this ambition.

Why? If you haven’t got anything to hide why would this be a problem? 🤷🏻‍♀️

The information you keep copy and pasting isn't complete. The new powers allow the DWP to access bank accounts at any time. They can issue information notices which check all accounts. Banks have to inform the DWP if the account goes over the limit as well as report on eligibility criteria.

It's violating and degrading. Takes away people's dignity and privacy. Worth thinking about DV victims. Many will be on benefits if they manage to leave. Coercive control is a major part of DV in many cases. I don't even want to imagine the psychological distress this proposal (monitoring bank accounts) will cause DV victims, who've already experienced similar from their abusers. Of course it's not only DV victims who need and deserve dignity. All benefits recipients need that.

I understand people already need to show bank statements when making a claim? So it's not as if they're hiding income/wealth.

I can see an argument for check-ups, as in requesting recent statements, especially if someone's disabled or has learning difficulties and struggles to remember or know about notifying re changes in circumstances. Perhaps every couple of years. That's not the same as intrusive blanket access at any time though.

The checkups though could be the answer. As well as checking nobody's getting more than entitled, they could be used to help the many people who aren't getting as much as they should be.

Also fair enough if bank account checks if genuine fraud concerns (as is already the case, I understand?).

But not blanket access for all claimants and not without letting the person know.

To the OP. This poster makes an excellent point But it seems so odd to me that politics in England is always presented a two horse race

Also it's perfectly possible to think some government policies are good, whilst also being critical of others. Does anyone agree with every single policy from any government?

As an example of thinking one policy is bad but another good - from the same government/political party, I mentioned DV earlier in this post, to note a highly damaging consequence of one planned policy. At the same time not everything Starmer has suggested is bad. He spoke yesterday, I believe, about a very good and much needed policy - regarding rehousing for DV victims.

The only Arabella I know goes to our local state school. You don’t help your cause by being obnoxious.

I couldn’t give a toss about VAT on school fees, I still think Starmer’s lost control and his cabinet are worryingly inept. Possibly bar Streeting, who’s done very well banning puberty blockers.

I don’t think a suspicion should have to be present.

So the poorest and most vulnerable to have less rights than criminals?

The police need a suspicion before being allowed to arrest someone. Or perhaps you want the police to just start arresting loads of random people - including maybe you, just in case they're committing a crime?

That was just a continuation wasn't it?

I agree generally but Streeting seems to be causing issues with the 'broken' line today

Good post - this is where a Labour government heads into the large state issues - part of this is the opinion they can snoop on everything at the expense of ones privacy.

People should not try and commit fraud in order, for example, to obtain any benefits, but that behaviour should not lead to others losing privacy due to free rein being given to access everyone's bank accounts.

Why? If you haven’t got anything to hide why would this be a problem? 🤷🏻‍♀️

I disagree. I can see why people would feel targeted

Not everyone feels ok with the state having access to their bank accounts regardless of being totally legit

Stuck
Farmer.

That is all.

That's awful @Meadowfinch ! I had no idea it worked like that for pupils on scholarships. That's just wrong.

Honestly, all (or very nearly all) our politicians are not fit for purpose: representing us and running the country. We are governed by career politicians, many of whom have never run a business or have little commercial experience. How do they know how to grow our economy? Answer: they don't.

They put forward policies they think will be popular with their key voting contingent and then enact them very poorly.

None of the parties represent my views. I don't have faith in any of them. I, like many others, voted for the party I viewed as the least bad option. This is a terrible state of affairs. I voted because I think it's very important to exercise my right to vote (as a woman, especially) but seriously thought about spoiling my ballot paper or not voting at all.

Who'd be an MP?!
I accept that many become one for all the right reasons but the characters that rise to the top move beyond that motivation and are guided by self-interest and power.

I work in the corporate world and many people I know earn 6 figures plus. I say this not to show off but to make the point that they earn more than MPs (and the PM), retain their (and their families') privacy, don't have to travel between home and an office potentially at the other end of the country (depending on where an MP's constituency is based vs Westminster), can live their life to suit themselves, rather than the perceptions of voters, etc. and don't have to compromise on a mass scale to get their work done (political horse-trading).

No, I don't envy an MP's job. But I think we, as a society, get the political class we deserve. We're doooommmmeeeddddd. (Slight overstatement for levity!)

So, posting to pick holes in the other 'team' just to score points is a pointless exercise and continues to polarise opinion, rather than engenders helpful debate. Tribalism isn't working out very well in the US, is it? And we're following the same path here.

I don't think Starmer has done much of anything yet. He's doom-mongered to cover his arse for the budget. I await the budget to see what's what.

I agree. It's about dignity isn't it. "Well you're getting a handout so you don't get to keep your privacy"