To think Labour is not the party of the working people.

[pinkpalmleaves]

I voted for Labour as I believed their election pledge of being a party for the working people but genuinely I can’t think of one thing, since they’ve been in power, that they’ve done to help me (a single working mother on around £42k a year)! I get zero help from UC, these mystical breakfast clubs don’t exist, people aren’t employing people due to their ridiculous NI implications, they aren’t building affordable housing, energy prices are insanely high and all they talk about is grants (which won’t affect me as I live in a flat)! Genuinely I can’t think of one thing that they’ve done to help working people in the middle. Why are Labour sticking their heads in the sand? Why do they refuse to help the squeezed working class? They are stopping this economy from thriving - as
nobody can afford to spend anything extra (treats, holidays, meals out etc etc)!

Unemployment benefit used to be wage related for a period here in the UK. I think it was withdrawn in the early 1980s. The current system often seems unfair to people who have tried to improve their situation, ie, homeowners, most of whom are average wage earners. Stay in rented, get all or most rent paid if out of work, but potentially lose your home if you have a mortgage.

This! Apparently when the welfare bill failed one of the Labour backbenchers was heard saying ‘I don’t know why we can’t just borrow some more money’. I mean most of the electorate could tell you that ever increasing borrowing is a bad idea, but borrowing to cover recurring expenditure is madness.

Care in the home is already paid for by anyone with savings above £23.5k. May wanted to make a house taken into consideration so a charge would be levied on it to be repaid after death if the savings ran out. That’s fair enough when someone is in residential care because they don’t need the house any more but not for in home care.

I’m with you all the way on social housing. That would be the single measure that would improve life dramatically for young people. Especially if it included the 700k empty homes that could be put into use. A new tax on the owners of those properties would go a long way.

Agree with this. I know 3 people who rececently had operations...2 privately because they couldn't wait. The other was an emergency.

Our taxes are indeed to low. The higher rates of income tax are roughly on a par with the rest of Europe but their basic rate is 30%+ and ours is 20%. And our NICs are much lower and nil rate band is much higher. And yet we somehow expect similar public services!

Where did you apparently read this? the Express or the Mail?

Welfare Reform has escaped all Govt's.... but it always makes me laugh when this comes up, poster moan about the benefits bill, whilst moaning that SENDs is a mess, they want more FREE childcare and still want wealthy pensioners to get WFA... & Triple Lock....

Many of the right (and on here) complained non stop about Labours Welfare reforms, saying things like "first pensioners, now the disabled..."

It was amusing to see the political weaponising of pensioners over WFA by people who had hitherto despised them.

Free childcare is a policy that raises more money than it costs. Surely you understand that! Not only does it get mothers out to work and paying taxes NOW but it helps them build a FUTURE carer with higher earnings and higher tax take. It’s a policy that more than pays for itself. Taking it away from people earning over £100k is especially stupid. Childcare is so expensive if you self fund someone on £101k has no option but to cut their hours (and their tax take) or go part time and permanently harm their future earnings (and future tax take).

Edited as quoted wrong post!

Have you got a link to the figures that support that?

I don’t think the people who did that had ever been supporters of private education.

Universal WFA is a daft policy. My parents put it towards the deposit on their next cruise. The problem Labour have is that when people are used to getting something it’s electorally difficult to take it away even though it’s the blindingly obvious thing to do. The triple lock is an excellent case in point. It was only ever meant to be a temporary measure, for a few years to catch up pensions to a reasonable level. It has more than done this and is going to go way beyond ‘reasonable’ but no one wants to stop it. It’s a runaway train.

This thread had been going quite well with people of differing views having a fairly decent discussion. There is no need to belittle posters or make snide remarks.

They may well have because it’s something they believe in. It was astonishing how many people suddenly felt so sorry for the pensioners they’d been criticising the previous week. The hypocrisy was staggering.

That’s a major issue for them, their policies were hollow spite ratted than productive or beneficial.

People are asking where the benefits are (not just that policy) and since it was all nonsense there isn’t any.

I have never interacted with you before, or so I thought. But I know who you are now, so thank you for that information.

Completely predictably. No new teachers for state schools and private schools will continue to close, burdening an already overburdened state sector. Typical Labour. They could have a fight in a paper bag (I forget the expression...I may have made that one up) and it would still go horribly wrong. They just tinker around the edges, attacking groups they don't like the look of for ideological reasons. And fail on the stuff they should actually be concentrating on

What are you on about? How would I be able to silence you?