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/

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.

I agree. A lot us warned that, while the Tories were inept, Labour didn't seem to have any idea what to do either and just kept quiet so their own ineptitude wouldn't be revealed, apart of course from their amazing idea of pretending men could be women and all the consequences that are flowing from it.

Sadly we now just have to suck it up.

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

Yes, the optics from your angle. But there may be other and, dare I say it, more important angles.

For the first time for 60 years the UK national debt has risen to 100% of UK GDP. By cutting the winter fuel allowance Labour sent a message to the financial markets that it was prepared to take hard decisions. I'm hoping that when they gamed that move, they also made provision for a financial remedy for the poorest pensioners and that Reeves will soon be able to offer it.

A lot us warned that, while the Tories were inept, Labour didn't seem to have any idea what to do either and just kept quiet so their own ineptitude wouldn't be revealed, apart of course from their amazing idea of pretending men could be women and all the consequences that are flowing from it.

I don't think it's ineptitude. The whole of Europe except for Norway (tiny population, massive income from oil) is struggling. Germany's in decline. France is a basket case. In terms of finances, trade, income, the world has changed massively in the last 20 years. Some of it's to do with world politics and trade — China opening up etc. Some of it seems to be due to the fact that no one can realistically expect economies to keep growing and growing, fuelled by rampant consumerism, ever-expanding healthcare opportunities and costs and so on.

Your posting on this Pluvia gives me the first plausible explanation of why Labour would do something so negative to the public at large for what is, relatively, a small financial return.

Labour still have choices to make public sector pay v WFA

It's the former that has increased public debt to highest since 1960s

If they cannot grow the economy as they pledged repeatedly then we will sink under growing debt.

They won't even be able to uplift defence spending

Gosh, you've made my day, Nauticant. Thank you.

I had a sense that binning the WFA was about looking "hard" but it wasn't apparent to me who the audience was supposed to be.

I think it was about looking a certain way but they underestimated the backlash - because they are new to this and could be floundering

All I was doing was offering one explanation for why removing the winter fuel allowance could be part of a larger strategy. You say ineptitude: I point out that there may be good reason behind.

As Labour hasn't had charge of the economy for 15 years, I don't think you can blame the level of public sector pay on Labour, can you?

They just increased public sector pay and it has added to the highest debt since the 1960s

That was a political choice.

If they can't grow the economy and the public sector expect above inflation pay rises each year as the BMA have already indicated they will have bigger issues still

Debt is high enough already and they can't whack it on their version of a credit card. Servicing that debt is high enough already

I agree but it's odd because in the run-up to the 2017 election, Labour got a sense of Theresa May binning the WFA and worked out all the ways they'd be able to attack the government over this, including the 4000 dead pensioners estimate. So either Labour forgot about this work, which I don't believe, or persuaded themselves that it would have been a point of vulnerability for the Tories, but wouldn't be for Labour. I have a nasty feeling it's the latter of these and I think it's to do with their sense of their own moral superiority.

I guess it's hard to understand why Reeves would start out by saying they had the worst inheritance and that debt was too high. Then they decide to change the rules so more money can be borrowed. Doesn't that increase our debt? Which audience is that playing to?

I'm still unconvinced that pensioners are acceptable collateral damage, which doesn't seem to have changed. I really did think they would row back on WFA (just thought "of course that will not make it in reality") but it doesn't seem that is going to happen.

Well, the next stage in the game, which I'm presuming they've planned for, will be for Reeves to announce a programme to provide some extra money to the poorest of pensioners.

You will doubtless read that as a climb down and go on talking about Labour floundering. But to the people who really matter — the businesses considering investing here, the lenders, other leaders — the message will be obvious.

Reeves will have saved some money, set a precedent when it comes to removing subsidies from comfortably-off retirees, sent a message to the banks that Labour are prepared to be tough and also ensure that the poorest are covered.

There's also some promising news on the GI issue but I'm not in a position to say anything more at the moment.

I think they feel immune and the 4000 deaths will happen but they have enough MPs to just do it anyway.

And pensioners can't strike nor do they have a union.

There is clear ineptitude, I would argue, in economic policy. When the global financial crisis launched, the immediate response was to try to avoid the consequences through, for instance, quantitative easing, low interest rates, and so on. For a financial crisis which should have been the equivalent of the Great Depression, many people were remarkably unaffected. The problem is, of course, that the negative effects of an economic crash are supposed to be a corrective; they are obviously a bad thing for all affected, but they function to fix the economy. The alternatives are worse in the long run; for instance, low interest rates drain money away from real investment into chasing of assets, which is why house prices are far too high, and this in turn sucks money out of the productive economy and into the pockets of the rentier class (who, in turn, are not necessarily doing all that well, given how they have overpaid for the assets to begin with).

I had this interesting inside view of the global financial crisis, prosecuting bankers (or not as the case might be, as you would be hard pressed to find ones who had actually broken the law in a material way) and it was all rather different and weirder than the standard media narratives make out.

I think you are leaning on investors too much for a relatively small amount tbh

It was a political decision first

Besides CBI and IoD and other business leaders have criticised Labour for floundering and promoting gloom. They are not happy either

The way to achieve growth has always been understood to involve spending more on large capital projects that stimulate industry/ business. That sometimes involves going deeper into debt. As you'll see from the figures I quoted, both France and Italy have higher national debt than the UK.

We went through a massive growth spurt in the late 90s and noughties. Then the US nearly bankrupted us. Then Covid. Growth isn't smooth and consistent, it's contingent on innumerable factors beyond an individual country's control whatever party's in charge.

Enough of drawing on my vague recollection of A level Economics. I'm off for lunch.

I had this interesting inside view of the global financial crisis, prosecuting bankers (or not as the case might be, as you would be hard pressed to find ones who had actually broken the law in a material way) and it was all rather different and weirder than the standard media narratives make out.

Did you happen to hear this highly illuminating Radio 4 series Solrock?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m0014wtn

Well, the next stage in the game, which I'm presuming they've planned for, will be for Reeves to announce a programme to provide some extra money to the poorest of pensioners.

The only way to do that would be to raise the level which pensions get topped up to by pension credit. At present that's £218.15 a week, and opens up eligibility for the WFA (and other benefits).

The full state pension for men born after 1951 and women born after 1953 is currently £221.20 a week, so those getting only that don't qualify for the WFA.

They could ensure that pension credit tops up incomes to slightly more than £221.20 with immediate effect, meaning all those depending solely on the full state pension would be eligible for pension credit - and the WFA.

All the figures above refer to single pensioners.

It went on public sector pay rises not infrastructure

As for looking to France have you seen the issues their debt is causing them?

Actually both the countries you cite

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-cut-e100b-end-up-italy-public-deficit-council-economic-analysis/

PARIS — France must cut its public deficit by €112 billion over the next seven to 12 years if it wants to avoid entering a debt spiral like Italy, economists advising the government said on Wednesday.

We're in uncharted economic territory as far as credit/nonexistent-money-no-longer-tied-to-any-form-of-finite-resources goes. Which is my guess as to why the economy is so sort of ... hallucinatorily out of whack.

Interesting times.

I don't know if hallucinatorily is a word.

It's not. Hallucinatory. As you were.

Germany isn't looking too clever either, since the Constitutional Court ruled last year that the government's budgetary sleight of hand was illegal. They're currently trying some more fancy tricks.

The SPD is in such bad shape that, before last weekend's Brandenburg election, state premier Dietmar Woidke banned Chancellor Scholz from doing campaign events in the state, and his deputy said federal SPD leader Saskia Esken should stop doing talk shows because she pisses off voters so much.

There's a certain class of Brits who like to hold up Germany as Europe's grown up country, but it doesn't look that way right now.

It's a pretty bad time for incumbents all over the western world, and I keep wondering if, apart from the bad economic environment and globalisation restricting what governments can do, there's some kind of crisis of talent in the political class. The German government is a complete clown show, and I can't think of good examples in the Anglosphere.

The UK was doing ok with growth in the first half of this year. Better than expected

It stalled last month but it might be a blip. If it's not a blip some freebies will look like small fry to Labour

I've already said France is a basket case besides which the UK doesn't look so bad.

Why are you blaming the Labour Party, in power for two months, for the rise in public sector pay by the Tory party that has been in power since 2009?

You can keep throwing random facts at me to try and 'gotcha' me if that's what floats your boat, but I have no intention of engaging.