Time for a new PM and Chancellor?

[Whenwillitgetwarm]

I wrote this on another thread but feel it should have its own thread.

Although I voted Labour (the current Tory’s are too insane), I think it may be time to swap out Starmer and Reeves. If this is done early, there’s enough parliament time left to bed a new PM and Chancellor in.

They both lack ideas, seem confused, no vision etc. They had 14 years to think up workable plans. Coming in and throwing their hands up saying there’s no money so they can’t do anything is very poor. They want to continue austerity on the sly. They indulge in stupid culture wars like VAT to rob Peter to pay Paul (and Paul won’t see a penny anyway). They have bad advisors and are arrogant. It looks like they are just excited to have the job titles and don’t know what to do.

Get a top two who will come up with a bold plan. We’re in the gutter so there’s opportunities to deliver quick wins. They don’t always need funding, simple policy changes can make big and quick differences. If they gave each department a target to deliver one quick legislative win by Christmas, we’d start 2025 differently.

Unfortunately we’re stuck with two people who can’t believe their luck, and who are afraid of the Daily Mail, Murdoch, some loud Redwall types and bots on X who wish our country economic harm. They are weak.

If Labour were a football team, there would be fans screaming for Starmer to be sacked now.

This is not about getting rid of Labour. I believe there is talent in the wider party, much more than in the Conservatives who hollowed out their party under Johnson. Nevertheless I just don’t think Starmer and Reeves should have their roles.

Do you mean the pp’s religion is something you can decide?

Lol.

I think the comments the poster is making aren’t really christian in spirit. And you know that.

You know perfectly well that isn't what I'm saying. It's just that one can define oneself as 'Christian' and not be Christian in spirit in any way at all. Like much of the US evangelical right, who hold some seriously oppressive and hateful views.

Why do people try to post for others

I think it’s low to say to someone their faith and religion is debatable.

Agree. Bit late to take the moral high ground now eh ? 😂

So many cliches…..

I’m surprised at how people view their own posts with all the emojis and jibes

But anyway who cares, I still think trying to point score based on something personal like faith isn’t necessary.

It’s obviously important to the pp

Are you suggesting the pp is those things?

I couldn’t agree more

I said 'much of', not 'all of'...

Unless you think that people who want to condemn women to death for not wanting to be pregnant are good Christians?

But that isn't the point - the point is that Jesus said a lot of things about the poor and the vulnerable, and they really weren't about calling them 'illegal' and suggesting they were living the life of Riley stuck in hotels waiting for their claims to be processed. That just isn't a very Christian attitude.

The lack of empathy for low paid workers and disabled people is also not the epitome of following Jesus.

Values matter.

Well exactly. I have more Christian values than that poster and I'm a bloody atheist. Or maybe agnostic.

Honestly why go there.

Because when someone is deliberately posting misinformation (claiming it is illegal to arrive by small boat) and stating untruths (workers haven't been affected by cuts), then states untruths about how the benefit system works and sticks to those untruths despite the provision of clear evidence to the contrary, and then claims to be a Christian, it calls their entire value system into question. I would rather someone was an out and proud Reform voter.

I’m sure you can argue the points without doing this stuff. It’s so personal, it’s someone’s faith. Not anyone else’s on here.

They have their own relationship with it, and it’s not for posters on mn to decide

It’s reasonable to challenge someone whose views are so at odds with their self professed beliefs.

When I saw the "WFA has been taken away and given to train drivers" I realised that there isn't anything worth engaging with here.

Hypocrisy should always be challenged don,'t you think?

Now I would love for you to tell me why you question my faith. No one is perfect, no one is without sin.

If you are without sin, please be my guest, and throw the stone.

Starmer promised one thing in his manifesto: that he would speed up the illegal immigration processing. If there had been a faster way to process illegal immigrants, don't you think the last government would have done that? Starmer certainly sped up the process, didn't he? He just let them ALL IN. Now they have no winter fuel worries. Those illegal immigrants, the majority of them undesirables (and my best carers are from abroad, so don't tell me I am against immigrants, I am not, just the illegal ones), who are housed in hotels, with 3 squares, no council tax, no energy bills, and £50(all but £1?) a week pocket money creating a cost of £4m a day and £4 billion a year. In the less than 100 days in power 5,000 immigrants came illegally by boat up to August - a month!

I don't think you are talking about illegal immigrants, @llizzie given that you are talking about processing them. There is nothing to process with actual illegal immigrants, because they tend to live under the radar; if they are picked up they are immediately detained in detention centres, not hotels, and deported.

It's pretty clear you're talking about asylum seekers, who are not illegal immigrants. We have a long and proud tradition of taking in and welcoming refugees, in fact it's one of our strengths that, as a nation, we have a mixed heritage going back over centuries. Starmer is following treaty obligations in accepting asylum seekers and, where their claims are not found to be genuine, they are deported. If you think that is not happening, you aren't doing your research properly. Yes, the system needs to be speeded up, but that needs a lot of recruitment and training for civil servants, immigration judges and the like, and it would be ridiculous to expect that to have an effect within three months. Of course, if we hadn't left the EU it would be much easier to process them outside the country, but again that's not a problem Starmer can solve overnight.

Were you aware that, under the Tories, net migration increased by 2.5 times the figure when they first came into power?

@Coruscations Under Blair's Labour Government our population increased from 58.32 million in 1997 to 62.77 million in 2010 an increase of over 4 million.

Over 2 million of that increase was due to immigration. Some reports put it at over 3 million. Since then immigration has been a bone of contention for the Tories and now for Starmer.

This is what they said in their manifesto: "Labour will set up a new returns and enforcement unit, with an additional 1,000 staff, to fast-track removals to safe countries for people who do not have the right to stay here. We will negotiate additional returns arrangements to speed up returns and increase the number of safe countries that failed asylum seekers can swiftly be sent back to."

Not sure whether this has begun or not.

I actually wonder what the real figures are.

I would be inclined to believe the ones provided by the supermarkets over the numbers provided by the government.

I don't question your faith. I do question what you do with it. Posters on here have pointed out that you have posted misinformation about benefits and asylum seekers. You haven't acknowledged that you got it wrong. Doing so would be a start.

@pointythings even Labour are aware there is a real problem with people coming here when they are not genuine asylum seekers.