Is a more left Labour government what people want?

[punkhairbrush]

I keep hearing statement after statement from Labour MPs and Rayner saying they essentially want a more left version of the Labour Party. From my understanding the majority of the public are fed up with work not paying and whether we like it or not, nothing being done about the welfare state and also illegal immigrants. Surely a more left approach isn’t going to solve either of these issues and will just cause Labour to be even less popular than they are now. Or have I got it all wrong?

I don't agree. Pensioners pay all the same taxes as everyone else, apart from National Insurance. I think they should also pay NI, but that's a different conversation.

Economic growth is what's needed. Minimise immigration - if there's a shortage of workers, wages will rise. I'm surprised that the Labour Party, with its union background, doesn't want this.

Similar to the protest vote in the 2024 GE, where the majority did not vote pro-Labour.

They simply had fatigue of the Tories.

Oh how many weep now - Sunak & Hunt or Starmer & Reeves.

In any event, Starmer’s reset no.84 speech will not save him - but I think you know that….

Oh not the bloody Laffer curve again. In the context of your post it's not really telling us anything (other than you believe tax revenue to be the sole factor that should be taken into consideration when considering the economy).

I am not expecting it to save him. He will go, but possibly not for a few months yet. Who knows, though.

A transition is possible, I agree.

Whether it’s orderly is another matter.

Approximately 35% of working age adults in the UK paid no income tax in 2024. Of that 35% a sizeable number will also be foreign workers.

A country that pays a significant number of its own population disability and welfare benefits and allows them to stay at home and brings in low paid workers from elsewhere to do the lower end work and then tops them up in in work benefits too is a country that is circling the drain economically.

Britain's set up is not sustainable even in the short term. GDP has not moved since 2008 and this is despite adding huge numbers of immigrants who we have been consistently told have been a net gain financially.

As a slight aside, translation costs for the NHS over the last 5 years have cost the taxpayer £797,897. In 2020/21, they were £60,828. In 2024/5 they had ballooned to £261,822. How many of the people requiring translation are contributing to the British economy?

We've lost our way very badly. There is nothing moral, or upstanding, or progressive, or #bekind about being so profligate with hard earned taxpayer money when there are other things that money could and should be spent on. We are paying a heavy price for the virtue signalling of liberal idiots.

This is why so many people are flocking to Reform. I can't stand Farage, he is a charlatan. And so is Zack Polanski. But there has to be a sensible middle ground between the two. If labour don't get their arses in gear and start occupying it, I really fear for the future.

A recent poll found among Labour voters Ed Miliband was most popular and Shabana Mahmood least popular but among non Labour voters which is majority of UK Shabana Mahmood was by far the most popular of Labour MP's for PM and Ed Miliband least popular. Labour voters seem to wMt to go further left but majority of country further right.

I'm a pensioner and have to pay 40 percent tax. I know many other pensioners paying 40 percent too. I get so tired of people blaming pensioners for the countries woes.

For "what people want from Labour" you only have to look at Tony Blair's three election victories, which we'd have to go back to Harold Wilson to find again

Love him or hate him it worked, and my own view is that it won't happen again unless we get a more centrist government ... which certainly hasn't been the case with recent ones

Looks like you have some points. I have some questions.

How does this 35% look in practice? How many are carers, how many are disabled, how many work part time and don't earn enough to pay income tax, how many are looking for work? What would the impact on the economy be if they all started to work, for example in terms of paying for care because unpaid carers weren't available, funding the NHS so that people weren't too sick to work, paying UC top ups where applicable and so on?

Exactly what proportion of the 35% you cite are foreign workers and how are you defining foreign workers?

Could you provide some evidence and context for your second paragraph? What steps should the government take to ensure that disabled people are in work, and would you change the status of PIP as an in-work benefit? Are you working on the basis that only "low paid workers from elsewhere" (where?) are paid top-ups - is this included in your calculations?

Are you looking at factors other than immigration that might have affected GDP since 2008? Do you accept that GDP has in fact increased since 2008, albeit more slowly than pre GFC?

Do you have a source for your figures on translation and interpretation services? Would you agree that it was a false economy for the coalition government to cut spending on ESOL classes by 60% and a mistake by subsequent governments not to fully reinstate that funding? Are you arguing that people who don't speak English shouldn't have access to these services or that they shouldn't be in the UK?

I had a short stint working in the Job centre a year ago in a diverse area. There are lots of free English language classes available for unemployed people who don’t speak English, or speak it poorly.

Many didn’t wish to take them but they are widely available.

Edited to add that a lot of people needed translators for appointments, I don’t have the statistics but it’s common in multicultural areas like the one I was in.

@Twiglets1genuine question. I’m confused how people who don’t speak any English are in the U.K. and in receipt of benefits? I have friends from EU who speak fluent English, full time jobs have really struggled to get settled status. And why is this an option. If you’re in receipt of UC it should be mandatory to go to the lessons?

I definitely don’t claim to be an expert on this as didn’t stick with the job for long, it was beyond depressing tbh.

All the people I saw with no/very poor English were women. I think they had followed their husbands to the country and they were or had been raising children.

Edited to add that I did stay long enough to pick up that the lessons weren’t mandatory. I agree that they should be and for all I know, they are now.

So why did Boris choose to bring in nearly 2 million legal (mainly) African and Asian immigrants to promote growth? Genuinely I’m interested in whether this had a positive overall impact, what value has it brought, and if no value why did he do it?

Oh ok. When I refer people for ESOL, it can be very difficult for them to get an initial assessment. Perhaps more money needs to go into that? I used to work for a charitable organisation that offered ESOL to families and the funding for that was massively cut. It was a shame, because it benefited more than just the individual. It enabled people to make contacts, engage in the community and gain confidence. It also provided employment to the tutors of course! I think a lot more funding should be put into ESOL although of course translation and interpretation services aren't a zero sum game.
Out of interest, I wonder whether Welsh translation services are included in that figure? By law they have to be available in Wales - large organisations often have in-house teams I believe. And I don't think most people would see that as a negative.

No, they're not mandatory.

‘Walking away' as if he's honour bound…

Hilarious.

He would crawl over broken glass to cling to power.

Shameless little shit.

Moving to the left isn’t going to help Starmer.

You have to wonder why they didn’t sit down the day after the election, figure out who their voters were and immediately prioritise that group in every aspect of their policy decision making (like the Tories would have). Instead they have punished that group of voters while pursuing the votes of demographics that are long gone to them.

A large part of their voters largely don’t want higher taxes on the middle class to fund ever increasing pensioner / welfare spending. I will never vote for a Labour Party that is “more left-wing” than Starmer’s, as I know its idea of fairness is I work ever-increasing hours to fund those who work far less than me.

@ForWittyTealOP

I'm sensing you're trying to catch me out, but I'll answer in good faith...

Looks like you have some points. I have some questions.

How does this 35% look in practice? How many are carers, how many are disabled, how many work part time and don't earn enough to pay income tax, how many are looking for work? What would the impact on the economy be if they all started to work, for example in terms of paying for care because unpaid carers weren't available, funding the NHS so that people weren't too sick to work, paying UC top ups where applicable and so on?

I don't know how it breaks down into the individual groups you mention, but I would like to see more detailed statistics coming out of government, in particular the numbers who only work part time because it affects the benefits they claim and makes more hours not worth it, as well as the % of young people claiming for mental health issues and not working at all as a result.

Exactly what proportion of the 35% you cite are foreign workers and how are you defining foreign workers?

If I had the % on that I would have provided it. I'm defining foreign worker as foreign worker, i.e. someone in work who is here either through FOM and has settled status, ILR, and those on visas. With FOM we were told that people needed to be able to support themselves. Categorically, that didn't happen. If you're being given top ups, you're not self supporting. A non contributory welfare system is not compatible with high levels of migration.

Could you provide some evidence and context for your second paragraph? What steps should the government take to ensure that disabled people are in work, and would you change the status of PIP as an in-work benefit? Are you working on the basis that only "low paid workers from elsewhere" (where?) are paid top-ups - is this included in your calculations?

Disabled people still face plenty of discrimination and prejudice in the workplace and those who are able to contribute ought to be given full support to reach their full potential. What that looks like I have no idea and I appreciate it sounds like some woolly bullshit from a manifesto. For the sake of a few tweaks, someone being overlooked all the time because it's too difficult to accommodate them is wrong. That said, I would overhaul benefits in general. The system we have is not compatible with the explosion in poor mental health and I would separate this out from physical disability and give it a different framework for claiming. I have little time for anxiety, in the majority of cases it can be overcome with support and determination. Sorry if that offends you.

There are plenty of Brits being paid top ups. I have an issue with Gordon Brown's tax credits and have done from the get go. It was an unthought through work around in response to crappy low paid service jobs replacing actual skilled manufacturing roles. I would rather have kept our manufacturing base and transitioned the skills from dying industries to emerging new ones, maintained decent salaries and put a stop to Thatcher's managed decline. A good example of this is in wind turbine production. We had plenty of men from the shipyards who could have moved into this area and then passed all that knowledge on. There are no welders anymore and all that experience has been lost. We could have been world leaders, but we import it all like so much else.

Are you looking at factors other than immigration that might have affected GDP since 2008? Do you accept that GDP has in fact increased since 2008, albeit more slowly than pre GFC?

I take umbrage with the 'immigrants are, on average, a net benefit' and we've been told this crap for years. Anyone using averages is massaging figures. Some will be, many aren't. And it doesn't take many French bankers in London to cover up those not working or claiming top ups.

Do you have a source for your figures on translation and interpretation services? Would you agree that it was a false economy for the coalition government to cut spending on ESOL classes by 60% and a mistake by subsequent governments not to fully reinstate that funding? Are you arguing that people who don't speak English shouldn't have access to these services or that they shouldn't be in the UK?

The source is from a FOI request and, on looking again, I am now not sure whether this is for the NHS in total, or whether the figures I posted are solely for Gloucestershire, which is where the FOI was directed. I think it may be the latter, which makes those numbers even more appalling.

ESOL classes should be mandatory and, no, funding shouldn't have been cut. Another example of neo liberal short sighted 'cost of everything, value of nothing' mentality so beloved of Cameron & Osborne, although Blair was partial to it as well. That said, if you move to a country it is incumbent on you to learn that language otherwise you can't fully participate and need to have allowances made for you, or you fall through the cracks and become isolated, neither of which is acceptable.

I'm not trying to catch you out - I saw you post and I felt you'd be willing to engage (even though we probably disagree on a few things!). And you have, I appreciate it.
I agree with you on ESOL - I think it should be mandatory, not least because it's beneficial all round. I actually meet quite a few people who don't speak English in the UK and I think life must be so stressful and difficult. Actually that might be the key to solving a lot of issues because better English = better and more secure jobs (where those are available) and also more ability to integrate, therefore reducing people's preconceptions of 'us and them'.
Not sure about disability benefits. My controversial view is that low levels of other benefits increase the incidence and severity of disability and that if they were increased, many people would be in a better position to recover or to mitigate the effects of their illness or disability. Likewise we need a functioning NHS so people don't languish on waiting lists for ages, getting no better and often worse. Anxiety - I struggle not to be a typical Gen Xer, going on about "in my day" but obviously there's something going on that needs addressing. Again I think a lot of it is about the extreme pressures of modern life - high housing costs and COL, job insecurity, social media, consumerism... Humans weren't really set up to deal with it all and anxiety is the result. But I agree it's not good for anyone to be forgotten about - I've seen first hand (family member) how anxiety can take over and destroy lives.
Again, thank you for taking the time to respond. It's so good to get different viewpoints especially when we can have a respectful exchange of views!

I have questions. How did it work before? 40 years ago we weren’t paying out billions for disabled people to not work or their family members also not to work as their ‘carers’?

It is absolutely the case that disability benefits increased when the eligibility for other benefits tightened, be that people who could get by without benefits before deciding to claim, or people hopping to the most generous benefit.

The left exists but is split between labour and green now. People are leaving labour for failing to represent the left.

And as far as immigration goes, its been going down for a while youre all just easily gaslit by the television

Ah, the good old days when women in their 70s ran themselves ragged to look after their 90 year old parents like my mum did. Yes, let’s go back to them.

I think the fragmentation of family has led to a lot of problems. Go back a few decades and most people lived and worked in their home towns, so they had a "network" of family and friends, often living very close to each other, sometimes the same street etc.

The centralisation of decent jobs into London and a few other big cities, along with the push to get 50% of kids to go to Uni, has meant lots of "children" never return to their home towns and stay in their Uni towns or move to the bigger cities for professional jobs etc.

That obviously means a much smaller "family" is left behind in their home town. So, fewer people to "look after" the elderly relatives. Likewise, in their "new" cities, the younger people don't have the same "back up" of family and friends that they had back in their home towns.

Add in the almost inevitable requirement for women/mothers to work rather then be stay at home Mums, so that's another aspect of them not being available to "look after" elderly relatives even if they did continue to live in/near their home towns.

Quite simply for these reasons, there are fewer people (particularly women) who are able to spend much time caring for their elderly relatives. Likewise the same applies for disabled family members of all ages.

When you had family and friends living a short distance away, it was easier for them to "pop in" to "help" out a bit. The more there were, the less each one would have to do as the burden was spread out amongst more people.

Take that away, and professional carers become essential, or you're left with just one or two relatives bearing the full burden, which often they can't do without professional care help eventually.