To think incompetent hypocrite Starmer has lost the respect of the people and his own party in record time?

[TealTraybake]

An excoriating letter from Rosie Duffield who resigned today..

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rosie-duffield-resignation-letter-starmer-labour-b2620603.html#comments-area

Been bad enough for her to resign, I wonder what will happen next. Does she know something we don’t?

Just checked our new labour mp FB page. She states that hard things have to be done to fill in the conservative black hole so she was voting to abolish the WFA. All comments are scrutinized and deleted people are blocked. The only post left was how to apply for pension credits.

Her office hasn't posted since 10th September.

So no dissent allowed from the voters. Her twitter account has been inactive since 5 July.

I'm guessing advice from central office.

They signalled their intentions with the WFP cut. It’s happening despite the backlash so the sick and disabled will be next. My prediction is that eligibility for long term sickness benefits will be tightened and those who were previously considered too sick or disabled to work will be expected to do exactly that by way of the same tired old compulsions and sanctions which previously didn’t apply to them, and which Labour were so vociferously opposed to before they came to office.

And PIP/child DLA will either be means tested at similar levels for eligibility to child benefit, or replaced by a two tier system which mainly supports the more severe conditions, cutting loose those with lower level needs and almost certainly making those with mental health disorders ineligible. Not sure how they can cut attendance allowance without it looking like a wholesale attack on pensioners, given that it offers another route to pension credit eligibility.

Oh, and l wouldn’t rule out replacing regular disability benefit payments with vouchers and one off payments. After all why should disabled people be trusted to spend that benefit money in a way that benefits them most ? They only live with the disability, what do they know ?

I don't think he's real anything, I think he is showing he has equal contempt for all, except his select circle.

Of course a few will fall short, likely by a few quid which is unfortunate but there has to be a cut off somewhere.

A ‘few’ ??!! The cut off had to come somewhere, yes. But the fact that it came at pension credit level was cold, calculating and unconscionable.

God, I hope it's not that bleak. On that note, I am backing out of the thread. That's about my fill of doom and gloom for one day.

@Didimum

The threshold is too low, why not means test it but make sure the cut off for it is high and realistic

Benefits levels currently don’t cover the costs of basic essentials such as housing, food and energy. How do you suggest they be further cut without incurring huge knock-on costs?

Nobody believes everything should be free, that’s hyperbole. Some of us believe there’s a better way of distributing what we have though. Inequality is expensive.

On top of the lack of legal or economic analysis undertaken before the ludicrous (but vote winning) tax was announced, there are now 2 legal actions being taken against it.

https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/labours-vat-on-private-school-fees-faces-high-court-challenge-over-human-rights-concerns/?amp

I didn’t say it was Starmer, I said the policy behind not including a mobility component to AA rests with central government. And the legislation for disability benefits is DWP not department of Transport.

And the military families. This Times article has a paywall so couldn’t paste it here.

Scaremongering. There’s nothing to suggest any of those things will happen.

But then, who knows, maybe reversing union laws, playing around with the working week and WFH and punitively taxing the very wealthy will bring us so much growth that we’ll be ok.

This is the test, he’ll find the walls closing in if he fails on that

Someone earlier asked for a link to the blog I referenced. Here it is again:

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/09/18/starmer-exposed/

So already they are changing the non dom status. I could have told them that! Thesepeople are very mobile and will leave. I have seen posters claiming of course they won’t. It’s almost like they assume they live round the corner from their Mum and don’t want to leave them. Bloody hell - they will be able to afford to move them too. All the VAT they pay on posh restaurants, luxury hotels will all be gone.

massive typo here?

oh look flying pig

4000 elderly people will die of cold this winter. Only if it's allowed on the death certificate will it be a reliable statistic.

We go back to the "died of COVID". Died with COVID " argument.

The London School of Economics recently released research estimating that 77 people would leave the UK under the proposed changes.

I think the UK can cope with that.

Then why are the Treasury advising them to drop the policy? They must think more than 77 will leave

Presumably because it wouldn’t be terribly effective in raising revenue.

My, you have bought into the rhetoric haven’t you ? Final salary pensions for ordinary civil servants haven’t existed for years and DLA hasn’t existed since 2013 except for children under 16 and a few legacy claimants over retirement age. And yes, why not ? Let’s start by cutting the benefits of the sick and disabled - for 14 years they’ve been demonised and at the forefront of every round of welfare reform under the Tories, and generally blamed for all the UK’s ills, so why should Labour be any different ? The alternative to disability support, including benefits, would take us back to the days when disabled people were routinely institutionalised. How much do you think that would cost by comparison ? Or is the intention to just cut support and hope they’ll wait quietly in a corner for the sweet release of death ?

I notice your rant didn’t include the billions paid in UC support for low wages. The tax payer effectively foots the wages bills of corporations too busy paying massive executive bonuses and handsome shareholder dividends to worry about whether their grass roots employees can make ends meet. And don’t get me started on landlords rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of annual benefit uprating so they can raise their rents in line with it.

Depends how much tax the 77 pay.

Is it because those 77 pay a very large amount of tax? Or that the figure of 77 is wrong

77 people out of almost 70 million? Negligible amounts, relatively speaking I’d imagine.

I always felt it was a policy designed to (a) display fairness and (b) distance the then opposition from the then government, particularly given the non dom status of the then PM’s wife.

Sorry I don’t understand your question. Do you mean it wouldn’t be effective in raising revenue because only c 77 people would up sticks (and never return for any reason, to spend any money)? Or that it would be effective because the LSE has its figures wrong?