Labour is betraying women

[IwantToRetire]

. . . If Starmer’s government has achieved so much depressing stuff in 71 days, roughly 4 per cent of the way into a possible 5-year term, what they might achieve by the end of it fills me with dread. I believe that Labour showed us, and in some instances told us, what they would do, or not do, to ensure the continued erosion of women’s rights, and they are doing exactly what they said. Why some feminist women, seemingly in a blind bond to Labour, didn’t believe them escapes me. It also infuriates me that they think Labour deserve a bit more rope to hang us with.

Some prominent left-wing women, before the election, pleaded with us to trust Labour and allow them space to make the right decisions. They suggested that it was wrong to focus on the single issue of gender ideology, because women would benefit in so many other ways under a Labour government.

I wonder, did they envisage this Labour government? The one maintaining unequal benefits, placing violent men amongst their female victims and keeping the blurred line between gender and sex embedded in law? I can understand if those women were now as dismayed as the rest of us at what they are seeing, but instead they appear to be spinning for Labour, suggesting the violent men aren’t really being released or excusing it by blaming the Tories. They suggest we should wait and see what happens, keep the faith, trust the process. After many years of being told that women are influencing Labour “behind the scenes” my faith in that has gone.

If you are a feminist woman openly critical of Labour you may now be accused of “right wing drift”. This is nonsense. Instead, should scrutiny not be focused on how far Labour have drifted from the left? This is where condemnation should be aimed. . . .

NB - these are only some paragraphs from the article - you can read the whole article here - https://thecritic.co.uk/labour-is-betraying-women/

I've been half listening to some news reports from the Labour Party Conference (seriously reporters are so useless, just being chummy with their interviewees).

And am now beginning to wonder that in line with their student union style policies and posturing, that they are going on about Tory deficit being far worse than anyone imagined (more serious economists have pointed out that compared to other european countries it isn't that bad) and to illustrate just how awful the Tories are, they had this mad idea that if that made the first cuts against pensioners everybody would join in and say its all the Tories fault.

I really think their thought processes are so batshit they really thought this.

Because if not why chose this group to demonstrate their "fiscal" rules are real.

I hear that nurses have rejected their pay offer, and cant see how given the other pay awards Labour has made that they wont have to go along with an improved offer.

They just look like bullies picking on pensioners who cant after all go on strike.

And if fuel allowances are such a major drain why aren't they looking at recouping all the lost income from tax avoidance.

Some sub human MP said the really important thing was that by cutting the winter fuel allowance for this year, Labour would balance the books for this year.

So when or if there is an increase in deaths of pensioners this year, Labour will be able to say well it was worth it because we balanced the books for this financial year.

I don't see why they couldn't have just made the WFA taxable. But as noted, the govt have been remarkably politically inept.

Let's face it, we are being governed by Sussex University Student Union.

When we heard Rachel Reeves' speech in the radio DH and I both commented how inappropriate the self congratulations were because of how few people actually voted Labour. They don't represent "working people" (which is what she kept saying). They actually represent a relatively small percentage of the population.

They don't represent "working people"

Well, they could try starting...

"Working people" aye.

Quadrature money now picked up by the Telegraph but originally on Open Democracy:

www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-given-4m-from-tax-haven-based-hedge-fund-with-shares-in-oil-and-arms/

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/23/cayman-islands-hedge-fund-labour-rceord-donation-quadrature/

"An investigation last year by The Guardiann_ found that the company owned $170 million (£125 million) of shares in fossil fuels firms, including major polluters. It also reportedly holds millions of pounds worth of shares in US-based private healthcare companies and arms manufacturers.
...
The firm’s gift to Labour has only now come to light because it was accepted just before tighter transparency rules kicked in for the election periodd_.
Normally donations are published every three months, but during campaigns parties must declare what they have received every week.
Rishi Sunak called the snap poll on May 222_, with the Electoral Commission’s “pre-poll reporting” obligations kicking in a week later on May 30.
Electoral Commission records show that Labour accepted the £4 million from Quadrature on May 28, before the new rules had come into force. As a result, the donation was not made public until long after the election took place.
The timing of the declaration will raise questions over whether the party was seeking to avoid the controversy of it being published during the campaign."

Yes I was quite surprised to see this from John Curtice. I recall quite a few pro Labour citing his polls pre GE

He doesn't hold back on Starmer

Almost too true to be laughable. Just really shows up their lack of experience. Racheal reeves gets on my nerves with all those grandstanding ‘I’ statements. Running a country depends on ‘we’, not one single heroic individual. As if she’s already campaigning to be PM fgs. Please, for the love of hod, no more mention of the £22bn black hole.

Speaking of heroic individuals, I've been wondering when the NS is going to stop with this gushing over Starmer? It's getting a bit embarrassing. The following week it was Reeves in a suit of armour as the Iron Chancellor, I'll spare you that one. Gives me a few chuckles, though.

Is Starmer in fact just a puppet and the Tories are still pulling the strings?

No only is this headline like some blast from the past, but also as is discovered everytime they do this, just as much money is overpayed because of clerical error, but it usually reveal just how many people have been underpaid.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-prime-minister-government-labour-party-department-for-work-and-pensions-b1183706.html

But still in the race for Labour to out do the Tories as the nasty party, yes a crackdown on benefit is a really good tactic. Not forgetting that a large number of people claiming benefit are in work, but on such shit wages that even the state recognises it is not enough to live on.

Annual level of benefit cap (Greater London)
Couples (with or without children) or single claimants with a child of qualifying age £25,323.00
Single adult households without children £16,967.00

Annual level of benefit cap (rest of Great Britain)
Couples (with or without children) or single claimants with a child of qualifying age £22,020.00
Single adult households without children £14,753.00

NB rates for this year have not increased from last year.

whilst:

Current state pension if born after 5 April 1953: £11,502.40
Current state pension if born before 5 April 1953: £8,814.00

Not forgetting the older age group will have many women who never paid pension contributions because of what used to be the custom of supposedly being covered by their husbands contributions or may have had work but in the unofficial economy ie cash in hands.

I've put both sets of figures because this is the other duplicitous verbage by Labour saying they were aware of families with children facing heating costs.

But not saying they aren't facing hardship but a more than a few thousands pa better off. If you are on really low wages you can claim benefit to bring your annual income up to the limit set out above.

If you are on really low wages you can claim benefit to bring your annual income up to the limit set out above.

A pensioner cant.

Labour are still trying to sell in 'pain' nowhere near sunlit uplands. Apart from some Labour loyals many think that's pretty dishonest and clueless. Hence the large drop in polls

Cracking down on people who've been overpaid is the wrong way to solve overpayment for one. For another, handing more investigative powers to public bodies after all we've seen and are seeing with the post office just seems like another avoidable scandal in the making. Begs the question - why?

Do your figures include housing benefit?

Current state pension if born before 5 April 1953: £8,814.00

This is a risible amount. Not to mention that older pensioners (in their 80’s) are less likely to have paid into a private pension. I wonder how many pensioners live off the state pension alone? It doesn’t seem financially possible. And at what point do pension credits kick in?

Oh but they were happily wittering at the conference yesterday that they were talking to frightened and distressed pensioners and explaining something about the pension lock and most of the pensioners then were all happy and accepting of losing the fuel payment. And there were some that weren't and wouldn't be ok but....er..... something or other. (Big smile.)

Just fuck this lot.

So bad

All while wearing freebies, going to Taylor Swift concerts, the footy and NYC holidays

'Broad shoulders' and 'pain' for everyone else

Shoddy

It may sound surprising coming from me, but I have some sympathy for Labour, they have found themselves in a position I think where there is basically no money to do anything.

Creative thinking can only get you so far if there is nothing to work with.

It seems to me like this is increasingly a feature of politics. It's been really exacerbated because of the COVID created worldwide economic screw-up. (Which seems to have been driven by the media as much as anyone - this is an area some really shit-hot investigative journalists need to look at very carefully.) But it's been decades since any new government has really been in a position to make significant changes to the economic set up of a nation, and therefore the social arrangements. It's like everything is locked in and all they can do is tinker.

My gut feeling is this is a result of more and more globalization and international financial integration. How can any country get off that train when so much is out of their control? And there is strong pressure to increase financial and regulatory integration and give up more and more autonomy to international bodies which will only make it worse.

I don't see how we as voters can even expect our governments to do anything seriously differernt or effective. It may be part of the reason social issues have become so important in elections, there isn't much else to differentiate policy.

It's no surprise about the money, I said as much pre GE when everyone kept going on about filling coffers with VAT, non dom and Rwanda (all pretty bad choices by Labour anway)

They are still to blame for their messaging to get into power and for their wrong footedness after it

They're mucking it up, and many are not sure they know what they are actually doing which isn't good.

I know a couple of Labour delegates who went to the conference this weekend with very sceptical views about what their own party was offering. They have both returned home more positive about the prospect for some positive change.

A lot of what @TempestTost rings true to me. Everything is now so linked globally that there's a limit to what individual governments can do. The American mortgage crisis nearly bankrupted most of the world back in 2008. I think it's quite likely that Rachel Reeves' decision to abolish the winter fuel allowance was more to do with sending a quick, strong message to the financial world that Labour was prepared to take serious measures to establish fiscal control. That one announcement encouraged lenders to trust that Labour is prepared to make difficult decisions and behave responsibly. Reeves calculated that the pain the fuel allowance cut would cost would be just enough to send the right message globally.

I have less sympathy, as the Labour party has had more than ten years to prepare for office. They ought to have been able to formulate some ideas by now.

One of the fundamental issues with modern politics is that most politicians don't really have much ambition to make the world a better (or at least different) place, and approach the country in the manner of middle managers who are minding the shop whilst the boss is away. Not only do they not believe that they have any ability to change anything meaningful, they don't even believe that they ought to. So policy ends up being about a few pence of income tax in the pound, or slight adjustments to the school curriculum, or the naming of public transport systems. And whilst I agree that there is more pressure to cede authority to international bodies, this effectively represents a significant domestic political failure and weakness.

Back in 1815 the Congress of Vienna created what the great powers of Europe believed to be a stable and effective world order. It lasted for a century of apparent stability which masked an increasingly dysfunctional Europe in which failing states like Turkey and Austria-Hungary were propped up. The first era of globalisation ended in 1914, and it didn't end well. It would be good if the politicians of the modern world were not keen on a replay...

They still need to make decent decisions, which not everyone thinks they are doing, Labour delegates aside.

Plus Labour are not facing a pandemic or an external event that would really test them. Inflation is low too.

I've been surprised by how badly they've managed the optics so far.

Corruption and cruelty aren't generally 'on brand' for Labour, but that's what the freebies and the winter fuel payment has looked like.

I'll be interested to see how they present this light at the end of the tunnel/house on the hill.

And before the election, so many of us said that this was the danger - there was nothing significant they could do economically, so for a party and Prime Minister desperate to make a mark, destroying women's rights - or supporting trans rights, as they see it - was a very attractive and cheap option and would be pursued for that reason alone. And it's looking that way.