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!

😘

@YouOnlyHateStarmerForVATOnSchoolFees. Oh dear, if you are in any way affiliated to the Labour Party and were hoping to start a vibe that "it's just posh people sore about VAT fees" I think it's backfired..... 🤔 apparently there's WAY more than that to moan about, and you've brought it all together here 😁

I'm angry because I've lost my winter fuel allowance. I'm too old to worry about schools

I don't want the state in my house looking through my underwear yet I don't have anything to hide.

With respect the contents of your underwear drawer isn’t in the public interest. It is however in the interest of the public to ensure people aren’t dishonestly claiming and redirecting funds from those genuinely in need. If you’re reliant on benefits then you have to accept that will come with certain terms and conditions. Due to so many people dishonestly claiming benefits this is a result as it’s not easy to detect. Millions of pounds a year are lost due to benefit fraud. It’s not a victimless crime.

The BMA is a problematic union. They put caps on the number of doctor training places as well as on new medical schools being opened. It is a protectionism racket.

However there are already powers to allow access to bank account details if there is sufficient grounds to warrant it - the government and/or other bodies having unlimited access to everyone's bank accounts or other personal information is not acceptable. Those who try to commit fraud can be investigated and found guilty or innocent, everyone else should not have their privacy removed.

Who knows what the state will want access to? If someone isn't guilty or being investigated for a crime, they shouldn't have people looking through their bank statements.

Some people have disabilities and have no choice but to depend on the state. They already have to provide excruciating levels of personal detail in order to keep a roof over their heads and now they're not entitled to financial privacy.

You obviously believe that because you're claiming benefits you're not entitled to privacy and you should be investigated for crimes for which there's no evidence. I'm not of the same opinion.

@YouOnlyHateStarmerForVATOnSchoolFees If you really believe this, why have you name changed to start this thread?

Eh? He was being accused of being a dictator 5 mins ago over the response to the riots. He’s neither weak nor spineless - why do you think that? What defeat are you referring to here? I’m not aware of one. Have you never slurred a word a bit so it comes out wrong? Do you really think he doesn’t know the difference between a sausage and a hostage?

It was a deeply unfortunate gaffe, but he's not the first PM to mis-speak and he won't be the last.

People on here dined out on stuff like that previously. What goes around comes around and all that

Well I don't have a little Arabella and my son is in state school. I still wouldn't vote for Keir Starmers Labour Party if someone paid me.

I'm more worried about my Mam who has lost her winter fuel allowance and is too proud to let me help her. Fortunately she won't be one of the pensioners at risk of dying as a result - as is the real fear of a raft of charities who help vulnerable pensioners just outside the threshold of pension credit. So glad the nasty party aren't in charge anymore 🤔

‘Dined out’? Really?
I remember laughing about Johnson waffling on about Peppa Pig and losing his place in a speech, but that’s a bit different from the sort of momentary lapse of concentration/coordination which leads to saying the wrong word.
What exactly do you think it says about Starmer’s abilities?

Starmer so far according to Everanewbie...

General message - seems to be intent on squaring the public finances as fairly as possible. He recognises problems with the NHS but doesn't seem to be taking the easy option of blaming the tories and chucking money at it, he seems intent on reform and wont be bullied by unions. Of course he has more wriggle room in this department being a red rather than a blue. Cautiously optimistic that he won't rinse middle earners and will instead target those who who get their income from investments. I am slightly concerned that will mean hard working retirees who have saved diligently will be disproportionately targeted by reducing pension allowances/exemptions and increasing CGT at the lower end of the spectrum.

WFA - In theory the right thing to do. We can't, and shouldn't, give state handouts to those who don't need it. But the threshold is cruelly low.

VAT on school fees - atrocious. Vindictive and counter-productive. Will raise peanuts that will be squandered in bureaucracy and designed to get the left wing of his own party on board. Political expediency rather than beneficial real world outcomes.

Scandal - I don't think the clothing and Arsenal stuff is that bad by comparison, but goodness did they attack the Tories at any faint whiff of impropriety so will need to stay squeaky clean to avoid the hypocrite label.

Israel - Seems to be standing up against the loony left on this one, and won't let antisemitism plague the party any more. Good work. But some not so subtle messages that we don't give Israel carte blanche to do what they want without objection.

So I'm never going to agree with everything he does. Indeed I strongly disagree re: VAT on school fees. But I think he's made a strong start and seems to have some good ideas. But I don't hate him. All in all I quite like him and think he'll be good for the country if he can ward off the left wing of his party.

I don't give a monkeys about school fees. My DC have left school and they all went to state schools anyway. I am, however, being kept entertained by the government's daily PR blunders. It's entirely possible to be exasperated by politicians from all parties at the same time.

Some people with specific perversions steal other people's underwear.

So by your argument, because some people steal underwear and might store it in their own underwear drawers, the police should rummage through everyone's underwear drawers.

Btw re money and benefits. More benefit money goes unclaimed by people who're entitled - and need it but instead struggle - than is lost to benefit fraud. I'm not saying that benefit fraud is ok but nor is taking away the dignity of the majority of claimants because of the minority who commit fraud.

The tories put the legal framework in place before they left.

HTH

Is the HTH passive aggression? Irrespective of who put it in place, Starmer shouldn't be implementing it.

I understand your feelings on this, did you vote Labour out of interest?

I have no time for Starmer at all, but it becomes pointless criticising them for every little thing when all politicians, of all colours, can make gaffes like this. It ends up looking churlish.

I must admit to an impulse of horror at the prospect of the state snooping in my bank account. But I also have an impulse of disgust at someone fraudulently obtaining taxpayer money to fund their lifestyle when not entitled. I suppose if it is used when there is other evidence and suspicion, I can just about get on board, but would want reassurances it isn't a thin edge of the wedge.

I voted Labour but have never liked Starmer and can't believe his behaviour. I thought he'd get rid off the two child cap and didn't think he'd come after the elderly and disabled. Although I agree with cutting the WHA, it leaves too many struggling.

If the media learn that people love a gaffe headline, which they did when Johnson made them then I can't really care that Labour supporters are up in arms over the same

They were all for it previously presumably as it made power easier to get

I'd get rid of all that stuff if I had a choice, but what's good for one comes back to bite the other

Rachel Reeves had been all aboard the two child cap limit fan train for years on end, she said a hundred times that it wouldn't change.