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.

Yeah yeah. You know you're going low there. There were legitimate explanations for these. You can choose to believe the RW MSM spin if you like. Don't expect everyone to fall for it.

I don’t even remotely believe that you believe Johnson accepted less, so I’m not going to be drawn on this.

Starmer and Reeves should go, but who to replace them? They are all the same, juveniles learning to govern and getting it wrong.

The first responsibility of any government, anywhere in the world is to protect it's citizens. How successful have the pair been in that? The most vulnerable now believe this government does not want them to live. Those who can pay fuel bills without help, are demoralised, thinking the government doesn't care.

Not only the government though, labour voters all over Britain have been brainwashed to believe that all the elderly are wealthy, that they are responsible for making everyone else poor. Why? They haven't said, nor have they explained why it was immediate. ''If 'tis to be done, was well to be done quickly''. I suppose they had some education at some time.

How will the elderly cope? How will they pay fuel bills? What's more to the point, how can they afford to service their boilers? Carbon monoxide poisoning is a silent killer that can strike once and kill, or can go on for months without being detected. The symptoms of that are very much like dementia, and other diseases.

Many do not realise that carbon monoxide can be released gradually over months, and not set off the alarm. It was brought home yesterday, when a single parent family found their illnesses were caused by a faulty boiler/flue, which had been slowly discharging carbon monoxide into their home undetected. The alarm did not go off. It has happened to me several times. Yesterday's news now proves it is possible.

So, it is not only hypothermia the elderly and disabled risk. When they feel the government doesn't care about them, what are they supposed to do? Go through the winter in debt, without enough years left to pay it?

Social media sites are heavily fined when they allow posters to incite the vulnerable to take their own lives. What about this government? Would they be culpable? How many more deaths among the elderly and disabled will there be this year?

It isn't just about the money, is it? It is about the insecurity of knowing that the government, who are supposed to put their safety first, have no intention of helping them to live in comfort.

The actions and the excuses given by Ms Reeves are well documented in literature.
In A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge has several quotes about the poor, including:

"Many would rather die"
Scrooge says this, and then adds, "If they would rather die they had better do it and decrease the surplus population".

There’s no one in Labour to replace them who wouldn’t be as bad or worse.

Labour has a much deeper pool of talent than the Tories’ muddy puddle. However, they’re fine as they are. As many have said - no, it’s not time they were changed. Grow up and don’t expect everything to happen a)instantly or b) in the way you would personally prefer.
@llizzie most of what you’ve written is, once more, vitriolic nonsense. It’s not worth anyone engaging.

Did you bother reading it? I couldn’t be arsed.

So you only read the first paragraph then? Was the rest too hard to understand?

Too boring and predictable to bother with.

I've read the whole thing. What an utter load of sentimental rubbish.

The elderly have had a big increase to their pension this year and will get another big increase next year - the first increase alone is enough to offset the loss of the WFA for those who will lose it, and let's not forget that isn't all of them.

Labour have done an excellent job protecting the vulnerable by dealing quickly and sharply with the riots and putting the people who were threatening to burn hotels with people in them in jail. Good stuff. But of couse those were only immigrants, so maybe they don't count...

Labour have ended the strikes, so more people will receive crucial healthcare this winter.

Once again you're making it sound like all pensioners are going to lose their payments and are going to end up freezing in their dilapidated hovels - the reality is very different.

Yes, ideally there would be an adjustment to the threshold - but do you really think all pensioners, even those who do not need extra money, should continue to receive benefits from the state just because they are old?

I'm far more concerned about working age people on low pay and disabled people, especially working age ones who have not been protected from 14 years of cuts.

I read it all. It’s arrant nonsense. The one with the understanding issue seems to be you, I’m afraid.

So you think a single mother and her children, affected by carbon monoxide poison, being ill for 8 months before finding the boiler was to blame, boring?

Are you for real?

It has given me interesting insight as to the intelligence of posters. I am shocked, really, but understand. I am sorry for you. You argue for the sake of arguing. If I told you the natural colour of grass was green, you would find some way of disagreeing.

But I’m not arguing. I’m telling you that you are writing nonsense. You are the one look8ng at green grass and saying it’s awful how Labour has made it blue.

Did you know that 2+2 is 4? You can't go making up your own answers.

It’s not boring. It is totally irrelevant to the thread.
And everyone has known about CO poisoning for as long as I can remember.

So you don't bother to watch the news then? I would have thought you would have seen that.

In April 2024, the state pension in the UK increased by 8.5%:
Full new state pension: Rose from £203.85 per week to £221.20 per week, or £11,502 per year
Full basic state pension: Rose from £156.20 per week to £169.50 per week, or £8,814 per year

The state pension increases annually due to the triple lock, which guarantees that the increase will be the highest of 2.5%, inflation, or average earnings growth.

Not everyone is eligible for the full increase in their pension.

What have single mothers with children got to do with anything? How is it in any way relevant to this government or the means testing of the WFA?

It's terrible that this sort of thing happens. It's usually due to landlords not maintaining the homes they rent out.

Not everyone is eligible for the full increase in their pension.

And most working age people didn't get anything like 8.5%. Those who did had been suffering real terms pay degradation for over a dcade. Cry me a river.

You don't watch the news, or listen to the radio. Is that my fault?

Do you know what carbon monoxide is and how it kills?

Where does @pointythings suggest she hasn’t seen this on the news? It’s totally irrelevant to the thread though - both the stated topic and your focus on WFA.
Id have thought pretty much everyone knows about CO poisoning. There have been many sad cases publicised.

But what about the elderly who rent or own them, and cannot even know that they are slowly dying, because they cannot contact the landlord or cannot afford to service their boiler.

Pensioners in rented accommodation have to pay their energy bills. You are so pent up with anger in believing that all pensioners are well off and own their homes and resent them, that you forget those who do not.

No they are not all well off hence Age UK releasing information on 2.5m pensioners will will suffer hardship due to the WFA removal

It will exacerbate conditions and increase likelihood of falls too

All you see is percentages. 8.5% might be an enormous rise for you: it is not for pensioners.