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?

The relevance is your fundamental misunderstanding of the topic you are debating here @ChallahPlaiter which has been pointed out to you by a number of posters.

Sooo back to the binmen- are they part of the welfare state or benefit budget according to your philosophy? Please explain.

Which bit of what he's done in the past 75 days, (26 sitting days of Parliament) do you think demonstrates he's out of his depth?

GB Energy,
Onshore Wind,
Junking of Cumbrian mine, Rosebank,
Climate & nature envoy,
Removal of single word OFSTED judgements,
Junked Rwanda scheme,
Multiple repatriation flights,
Junked BIBI Stockholm,
Settled rail, doctors disputes,
Withdrew objection to ICC Netanyu arrest warrants,
Suspension of Israel arms licenses,
Visits to mend relations with France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, US,
Visits to Scotland, Wales, Norther Ireland, meetings with UK Mayors,
Devolution for Hull, East Yorks, Lincolnshire,
Handling of riots,
Removal of hereditary peers,
Rail Bill,
Bus Bill,
Renters Bill,
Workers rights bill,
Initiate Finnucane enquiry,
Abortion clinic buffer zones,
Hillsborough Bill,
Not inviting Musk,
Removing Thatcher potrait :)

I did ask in the first question why the emoji but since then it’s been a fair few posts just going on about understanding and missing points

I think a few are pointing out a misunderstanding

Hopefully all is clear now.

Quite a bit of that

He needs growth so we’ll see if those policies work

You also need to add ‘smash the gangs’ which won’t work

You've already posted that exact thing earlier in the thread. Please don't spam us with your Labour HQ messages.

Well they are pointing it out to you. So only you can say if it is.

I'm just so shocked about the freebies and giving Lord Alli, in exchange, an unrestricted pass to wander around parliament.

It's the sort of thing that he'd have had a field day with if it was the tories.

It's just indefensible, isn't it.
My husband says 'Same trough, different noses'.

Genuinely disappointing.

I am wondering whether Starmer's living arangements arre because his family are not happy with the choices HE has made in becoming leader of the LP? They dont want to be a part of it.

Starmer has got himself in a real mess here regarding the freebies - its as though he is wondering why anyone has an issue with it - after all - he deserves it! My biggest worry with all of this is the inexperience of the Cabinet. Rayner comes across as a figurehead for the unions, Starmer is too busy grabbing his feebies and Lammy just seems totally out of his depth. Lammy will probably be replaced sooner rather than later.

We cannot continue with the Welfare State as it is. It spoils it for the genuinly ill people and mental health seems to have replaced the old 'I have a bad back'.

Ah yes “smash the gangs”. Still waiting with bated breath to hear his plans for that.

He's going to smash their business model by simply allowing anybody in Northern France to hop on the Eurostar.

Not really. I’m still worrying about how the poor refuse collectors will get paid.

No, but you asked for historical precedents of countries going bankrupt or near bankrupt. It's possible, is the point.

Clear as mud

Yes my mistake, I should have specified more modern day instances.
I think it’s perfectly possible for countries to teeter on the brink of bankruptcy and suffer harsh consequences - just look at Greece for a more up to date example. I don’t think it’s in any way likely that the UK will go bankrupt which was the statement with which I was originally disagreeing.

Well I have explained above, quite succinctly. I’m open to disagreement but I don’t think what I said was unclear.

I’m really referring to the binmen/welfare state assertion

Public services.

Public services are not part of the welfare state

This exactly.
I can accept the “need” for funded clothing - he and his wife will be attending state functions and meetings, representing the country and an off-the-shelf may not cut it. It shouldn’t be that way but reality is that how you present yourself matters. However, it should all be fully declared and taxed where appropriate.

Hospitality tickets are a want not a need. If he wants to go to the football with his boy he can pay for it. If he can’t afford it then he can’t go or perhaps go less frequently than before. Budget just like the rest of us but certainly don’t try to fool us by making us think that he has done the tax payer a massive favour by accepting these tickets.
He obviously thinks we are all stupid.

I believe they are, as part of the provision of economic and social security.

I can’t argue this forever but they really aren’t. The welfare state is the provision of health services and benefits for those that need them. It does not include bin men, fire or police services.

Economic and social security comprise the welfare state which includes public services which are collectively funded.

In my view and those who see the welfare state as universal.

However, I’m sure that most of us will agree that the welfare state is not, as per my original argument, synonymous with social security benefits.

As per the previous poster, I can’t argue forever. Except to say that your belief is plain wrong. Refuse collection is not part of the welfare state nor the benefits system. Have a good day.

I agree it is inaccurate to describe refuse collection, road building, planning, health and safety, building regulation, food regulation, drug laws, farm subsidies, etc. as part of "welfare". But they are part of state intervention which costs money, and despite many of us welcoming them there are plenty of people who think the state should not be involved in these things and think everyone should be independent and look after their own business. Sort of the American dream of everyone being independent on their own homestead.

It is really just the word "welfare" that is confusing the issue.