AIBU to feel the media is pushing Starmer out?

[Ihatethistimeline]

To feel the media is forcing Starmer out and to be annoyed by this.

They need constant drama and content and this is done at the expense of the country. Starmer is boring but things are improving despite major problems like Iran in the background.

If this were 20 years ago he’d have been safe. They are treating government like football clubs and want Burnham as they think he’s more showbiz. These foreign owner media outlets don’t care about the stability of this country, they just want headlines and drama on X to drum up more drama for headlines and opinion pieces where the media all interview each other.

The country is becoming ungovernable because them and I’m sick of it.

Therefore, the child maintenance that your ex-husband pays to you is not enough.

Why is this someone else's responsibility?

Sanctimonious? Boris was partying during Covid. Calling that out is not sanctimonious.

If we look at Kemi she said two things recently that I really respected. The said testing puberty blockers on children is abhorrent and she thinks the trial should be stopped, and that Jewish people living in the UK should be allowed to live in peace. You can agree with these policies or not, but they’ll be unpopular with some but she wasn’t afraid to say it. It’s what she thinks and what her values are.

Contrast with Keir. He said the agricultural IHT exemption ought to be removed, and the WFA ought to be withdrawn too. Both of which are laudable policies (the agricultural IHT exemption had been used as a vast loophole) but despite having lots of advisers they could help him design these changes in a fair way (that didn’t hit genuine farmers or genuinely poor pensioners) he ignored all advice and ploughed in in a totally cack handed manner. Then had to u turn in an equally cack handed manner, leaving schemes that don’t really work properly still. It looked really incompetent and fogs whatever he was trying to achieve. Keir was just disappointingly poor at implementing successful policies.

Exactly. Ask your ex to give you enough to support his kids. Why bring us into it?

Well they dont need 'income' do they? So they use their wealth as collateral to borrow money - so it shows as debt rather than income - to buy whatever they like. It IS income in everything but name. But yet they dont get taxed on it the same way anyone else would. THAT loophole.

DH and I have had such horrible horrible years together. There were many years of fighting, arguing. So many issues. But we stayed for the kids and after a few decades (30 years now) we are doing so much better

So - dear - tell me this;

Jeff Bezos made his money setting up Amazon. He needs his minimum wage workers to keep his business going. So we will always need unskilled, low paid jobs to be filled.

With AI there will be fewer and fewer jobs.

So we have and will continue to have vast swathes of people on low wages or unemployed. Cost of living set to continue to rise. Some will be able to improve their finances and some won’t.

For those that can’t - they either forfeit their right to have a family or we accept that there will be more and more children living in poverty?

Thats your stance?

And when the position is unwound? Because if it isn’t ever unwound this sounds very much like the loan charge, which ended in a very sticky manner.

Am I missing the common denominator here?

Demand that your ex-husband pay more.

I mean, good gracious, what is so hard to understand?

😂😂😂

As you can see. My point is that needing benefits is not synonymous with ‘feckless’ behaviour. They are to support people when they need it. Some will abuse that. Just like some rich people abuse the tax loopholes.

FYI. I have left an abusive marriage and am not in a position to ask him anything.

Peoples lives are complicated and complex and the reasons for poverty are multifaceted and complex and not just down to individual actions.

Actually, it's the other way round. Numpties thinking what the media tells them to think. There's an easy fix, but no government has been brave enough to do it.

This concoction, I have no interest in responding to.

Having a child in poverty is not the solution.

‘Demand’?’ Yes. That will do it.

Unfortunate; however, your ex-husband should not be allowed to not contribute. It should be mandatory.

Are you for real????? He’s just delivered record debt levels (in the billions!!!!) and we now pay out more in welfare than is received in tax and that’s without anything else!! The country is on its knees starmer has had more than enough time to make a difference but he’s failed so same as if you were in any other job you fail you go!!! I’m glad he gone

We do need to start taking rights off absent parents who refuse to pay adequate maintenance, taking the money directly from their wages and benefit and handing it over to the main carer.

This is why the system is broken.

Absent parents not contributing to the children they decided to have.

Yes, I was a lifelong supporter. Not anymore.

Absolutely.

Mandatory national insurance details on the file.
Mandatory payments are deducted weekly.
Mandatory sanctions if payment is faltering.

I am quite sure it would put a dent in the nonsense.

What is the solution?

Workhouses? Child labour? Hanging for stealing an apple? Eugenics? Gas chambers? Poor houses? Slums?

You tell me how a family who have two parents without many qualifications (due to their childhood growing up in deprivation/neglect), working full time hours a week, minimum wage, only just making ends meet, cost of living spiralling, can improve their situation?

Trickle down economics doesn’t work.
Social inequality causes everyone to have poorer mental health (even the wealthiest)
inequality increases crime and poor health which cost the state but in different ways.
The reasons for poverty are multi layered and multi systemic.

Taxing the wealthiest is the only sensible step if we want a more equal, civilised and thriving society like we built post WWII.

CSA does take the money if needed and charges the paying parent 20% extra. It is set at 12.5% income.

Your imagination is running wild with you.

I will not indulge it.

Also, the electorate is not as savvy as we might like to think.

What country are you from? Is it any better politically? Allowing every adult to
vote is always going to mean that some are less informed. It’s the price you pay for democracy I guess

He is contributing what he is legally obliged to. CSA sets the percentage.

Well, 12.5% isn't enough, is it?