Olly Robbins has just nuked the premiership of Sir Keir Starmer

[ProudAmberTurtle]

What are the implications of Olly Robbins’s testimony for Starmer?

There was so much in his testimony that was damaging but surely the worst was that:

• He was instructed by No. 10 to find an ambassador's job for Starmer's then director of communications, Matthew Doyle
• He was told not to tell the foreign secretary about this
• Robbins considered leaving his role because this request was so unusual and inappropriate
• Doyle was then suspended from the Labour Party due to his links with a convicted paedophile (not Epstein).

And on Mandelson, he said there was "constant pressure" for him to fast-track the appointment, there was no interest in the vetting from the PM, concerns about the vetting were dismissed by No. 10 and Mandelson had already been given IT access that should only have been granted after the vetting process.

What can Starmer do now? Say Robbins was lying?

I agree with you. Also, if about half of the benefits bill is pensions, then how is the triple lock defensible at this stage? I’ve seen so many threads and comments on lifting the child benefit cap and limiting workers’ rights because of the economy, yet we’re saddled with this unsustainable policy (particularly with a growing ageing population). There are many pensioners with younger relatives who are working hard and struggling financially, so I wonder how hard a sell it would actually be.

Unfortunately it would be a very hard sell indeed. Look at the furore over the WFA and that was about £100. I completely agree that it’s absurd - and I’m a pensioner. But pensions are apparently sacred cows and are weaponised politically by the opposition to whatever party brave enough to even think about addressing the issue.

..and how does increasing the tax burden and legislation on employers achieve that exactly? It doesn’t, it just bleeds more cash and headroom out of the businesses.

The UK for the first time pays more in welfare than it receives through income tax and the Government shows no sign of realising that their policies continue to disincentivise work in favour of state dependency. Surely people recognise this is madness.

Yep to these posts he should go. There’s a clip of Sorcha Eastwood a NI MP that is similar to this view, she’s right.

In my view pensioners have done their bit, they should be left alone. It’s the Labour voters who need to start working, even if they don’t care about fairness or society in general they must recognise that milking the 40% of net tax payers dry isn’t sustainable and it’s in their self interest ?

30% of the benefits claimed go to people in work for more than 16 hours a week, add to that the 50% who are pensioners and it doesn’t look much like a disincentive to work. The fact that in work benefits subsidise employment and housing benefits subsidise high rents shows very clearly who’s state dependent - it’s employers and landlords.

Why tax employers (the people who pay the wages) more, then? Seems rather counterproductive.

Because if they were taxed less they’d be highly unlikely to pass the saving on to their employees.

30% is less than half, and 16 hours a week is 2 days work. That is 40% work. That is simply not enough. The maths does not add up.
There was outrage in France over a 35 hour working week whereas here we actively incentivise 16 hours! It is ludicrous.
We can agree on 35 hours etc and incentivise employers to take on young and apprentices. However, having a system that disincentives everyone from the very top to the bottom to work less than they can is madness.

It doesn’t make any sense. Employers and landlords are punatively taxed already to pay for people who are state funded, the cost gets passed onto the renters, employees and customers. Yes you are going to have to work more than 16 hours a week, the same as the people who pay for you. This idea that the 40% of people who pay for everything are the lazy and selfish ones here simply defies logic. I think this view comes from guilt or feelings of inadequacy, but either way it’s undeniable it’s sinking the country.

I’m not suggesting that we remove pensions, it’s the triple lock specifically that needs reviewing - the OBR and many experts agree it’s unsustainable. I don’t think Osborne ever thought it was a long-term sustainable option either when he introduced it.

Any evidence to support your comment that Labour voters and the need for them to start working? I thought demographic factors linked voting intentions had changed quite considerably - more influenced by age and education now.

Not sure how any of this relates to OR and Starmer! However, increasing employer costs will result in greater unemployment. We are seeing this at the moment and we have so many young people with no work. Increasing employer costs simply adds to the problems.

I couldn't agree more with that last paragraph. £70bn of the benefits bill to private landlords over 5 years compared to £11.5 billion to social housing landlords.

How much of that £70bn goes back into the UK economy rather than stashed away or funnelled overseas? How much tax is dodged🤔 ? It certainly isn't spent on maintaining tenant's homes in many cases.

And yes, I know there are some good landlords out there.

You’re right. Subsidising the wealthiest in society from taxation makes no sense whatsoever. The answer isn’t giving them a further subsidy through tax cuts they wouldn’t pass on.

That rubbish is trotted out a lot by the right, that all benefit claimants vote Labour because they want the so-called "gravy train" to keep running. As you say, data shows it is a lot of 💩

Yep. Anyone who has dc wanting to work are right to be concerned. You can see it already in threads on here.

“How much of that £70bn goes back into the UK economy rather than stashed away or funnelled overseas? How much tax is dodged🤔 ? It certainly isn't spent on maintaining tenant's homes in many cases.”

Errr? We are meant to have a system that stops tax dodging and a competent tax authority. Who exactly allows overseas investment in UK property and allows all our politicians to benefit with dodgy ties to Russians, Chinese, US etc etc

Labour MPs back higher benefit policies you can see that from recent votes.

Richard Tice?

Still waiting for the daily media coverage on that

I won't hold my breath

How has this thread turned into another benefit bashing?

Vote Reform if you care that little about rights and benefits. Farage will welcome your money

One can discuss what real Labour values are until the cows come home. The key is in the word “labour” aka work. None of the liberal feel sorry for people nonsense. People as a whole are angry at the system created by politicians to benefit themselves primarily and not the country as a whole and the population. It is not even party political, they are all at it.
Pensioners include those retiring early because they refuse to keep paying 60% tax as well as those on benefits.
As long as we do not adequately award actual hard work and labour and reward bullshit, as led by those at the top, the current sad state of affairs will continue.

I think that's incorrect. Staff are the backbone of many businesses and recruiting the best staff is essential. So you need to pay them better than your competitors. Its basic business sense. Often the wage of the business owner is the last to be paid; they know they need to retain staff as far as possible.

What you are arguing is that the government, rather than investing in business, needs to take money out of businesses (by way of tax) and use that money to pay benefits for non workers. Which doesn't grow anyones business or help with the unemployment situation. Rather regressive really.

Agree that it has been allowed to go on for too long and governments, whether Tory or Labour, have failed to get a grip.

Thats debatable, but you do understand by ever increasing legislation and taxes it means they can’t pay more? By fiddling salary sacrifice for workers, does that disincentivise work? Paying 60% tax and state funded child care, does that disincentivise working? Freezing tax bands, does that disincentivise work? Increase in nic and legislation disincentive starting a small business? Taxing education ? Taxes shrink growth, when it’s being used to incentivise economic inactivity then you have a slow car crash happening.

it will have to stop one way or another

Reform agree with removing the two child benefit cap though.