[Politics] The Labour Government

[Weststander]

Rather than this, I think RR would be far better placed in reversing the employers NI rise, which will lead to more recruitment.

Always respecting your views, it’s interesting that you say that.

When RR announced the ers NI increase, left wingers here and eg on Nicky Campbell claimed cry baby employers were lying when they said it would temper recruitment or bring it to a complete halt. The final costs straw that broke the overheads back. Since then businessmen including Labour supporters in eg Manchester have been very clear that this has been a significant blow when they least needed it.

 

[amexer]

Not a labour voter but admire them trying to sort out welfare system. Show what you can do with a 200 majority and full term ahead.
Something needs to be done but Tories would have been crusified if they had done this

 

[TomandJerry]

More than 3 million households will lose out as a result of the government’s sweeping cuts to welfare, according to the official analysis, with an extra 250,000 people falling into relative poverty by 2029-30. including an extra 50,000 children.

But the most significant measures were changes to the personal independence payment (Pip) criteria, to limit the number of people who can claim it. Under the changes, people who are not able to wash half of their body, or who are unable to cook a meal for themselves will no longer be able to claim Pips unless they have another limiting condition.

 

[chip]

NI already has gone up. Can working people really afford even more tax increases? I would say, mostly no, they can't.

I do agree with your view that they could be looking to raise more tax, but I'm not sure taxing high earners is the way to go either - as we need to attract the best people to the country at this critical time.

It's sad that we are in such a position that we have to make life difficult for people - but I'm sure many of the of the 250,000 you are alleging will fall into poverty, will find jobs and be better off for it overall.

What I pay in NI has come down by 4% in the past couple of years, around £140 a month. I'm a higher earner and don't have a problem with NI going back to what it was a couple of years ago, it isn't much money in the greater scheme of things. Doing that would have been a hard choice that wouldn't impact the most disadvantaged in our society.

It's no me alleging this extra 250 000 being in poverty, that was in the FT here: https://www.ft.com/content/71d78b72-f6b8-4b01-abe9-4e2cb42871b2

I think you cannot know many people with disabilities if you really believe that many will find employment and be better off. I think this will end up costing more, increase homelessness and place greater burden on areas of the NHS that are already dysfunctional. The employer NI increase seems mostly likely to reduce the available employment for those affected by these changes.

I wonder where all these fabulous job coaches are going to come from, they will probably be the only ones to benefit.

But, you could well be right and I look forward to such a compassionate and prosperous future with minimal levels of poverty - we can be like the USA. Let's see in a few years time just how well all of this works out.

 

[chip]

More than 3 million households will lose out as a result of the government’s sweeping cuts to welfare, according to the official analysis, with an extra 250,000 people falling into relative poverty by 2029-30. including an extra 50,000 children.

But the most significant measures were changes to the personal independence payment (Pip) criteria, to limit the number of people who can claim it. Under the changes, people who are not able to wash half of their body, or who are unable to cook a meal for themselves will no longer be able to claim Pips unless they have another limiting condition.

It seems like the DWP are planning to start asking recepients to demonstrate how they have used PIP and what extra help they have received. For example, "who washed the remainder of your body?" pretty hard if you live alone to answer that.

 

[nevergoagain]

I'm not sure why so much of the economic focus is set on the housebuilding targets. Do we really need 1.5m new homes ?. The population forecast suggests 4.9m increase over next 10 years which is driven almost entirely by net migration. We've got 68m people here on a relatively small island already with a very high population density. Sure we do need more homes to cater for the needs we already have and there are 700k empty properties that could help with that but the problem for me is we have too many people so allowing so many more in seems ridiculous.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I'm not sure why so much of the economic focus is set on the housebuilding targets. Do we really need 1.5m new homes ?. The population forecast suggests 4.9m increase over next 10 years which is driven almost entirely by net migration. We've got 68m people here on a relatively small island already with a very high population density. Sure we do need more homes to cater for the needs we already have and there are 700k empty properties that could help with that but the problem for me is we have too many people so allowing so many more in seems ridiculous.

On that note, be interesting to see how this one pans out.

Plan for 101-home development to go before council

Plans to build 101 homes in East Sussex will go before councillors next month despite landlord Brighton & Hove City Council pulling the plug on the project.

The proposed development in Benfield Valley, Hove, was for mostly three and four-bedroom family houses and some flats.

But last week the council said it was unwilling to grant landlord's consent because of a covenant on the land, requiring it only be used for leisure and recreation.

 

[Is it PotG?]

In stark contrast is Darren Jones, currently defending things on BBC2 - bright and engaging.

Not too sure about the 'pocket money' bit though.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkngrv14myo

https://www.thenational.scot/news/25041953.rachel-reeves-u-turns-benefits-pocket-money-comparison/

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Not too sure about the 'pocket money' bit though.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkngrv14myo

According to RR on Today, she said it was a "clumsy" analogy, adding: "Of course it's not pocket money."

Let's be honest, this is not a Labour Govt.

Imagine NSC is the Tories had cut wefare like this (plus WFA)

 

[Titanic]

Not a labour voter but admire them trying to sort out welfare system. Show what you can do with a 200 majority and full term ahead.
Something needs to be done but Tories would have been crusified if they had done this

 

[Chicken Run]

According to RR on Today, she said it was a "clumsy" analogy, adding: "Of course it's not pocket money."

Let's be honest, this is not a Labour Govt.

Imagine NSC is the Tories had cut wefare like this (plus WFA)

Yeah but Dominic Cummings broke lockdown rules blah blah blah

 

[Weststander]

QT just started on BBC1 looks interesting, fair play to Labour in sending second in finances command Darren Jones MP.

One correction though … he and they keep saying they’ve targeted non dom status, Jeremy Hunt announced the change a year ago.

 

[Bozza]

QT just started on BBC1 looks interesting, fair play to Labour in sending second in finances command Darren Jones MP.

One correction though … he and they keep saying they’ve targeted non dom status, Jeremy Hunt announced the change a year ago.

I always forget this is on - thanks for the reminder.

Darren Jones always speaks very well - he's a political star in the making.

The Citibank fella is a wild card - looks like a hand grenade thrown into the panel to shake it all up.

 

[Weststander]

I always forget this is on - thanks for the reminder.

Darren Jones always speaks very well - he's a political star in the making.

The Citibank fella is a wild card - looks like a hand grenade thrown into the panel to shake it all up.

I rarely watch QT. In the 80’s and 90’s it was a left wing rent a mob, in the last 15 years often an anti immigrant rent a mob. A while back a BBC executive admitted it was difficult to get a representative audience demographic, effectively because people lie to get on.

 

[Machiavelli]

Always respecting your views, it’s interesting that you say that.

When RR announced the ers NI increase, left wingers here and eg on Nicky Campbell claimed cry baby employers were lying when they said it would temper recruitment or bring it to a complete halt. The final costs straw that broke the overheads back. Since then businessmen including Labour supporters in eg Manchester have been very clear that this has been a significant blow when they least needed it.

Thanking you kindly, and likewise.
I'll just make two further points:
Although it's a catch-all term, there's huge variety within the left (and, more recently, in the right too). My view is that experimentation and pragmatism rather than dogmatism is a better approach, and ought to prove more successful.
As I'm sure you'll recall, I think there needs to be massive redistribution (although there are enormous obstacles to this that have especially been erected in the past half century), but that it should be assets rather than labour that is targeted. Dislike for the ers NIC rise is in line with this, as they're the engine of contemporary economies, and recruitment.

 

[nevergoagain]

Cooper floundering on LK's show this morning whilst talking about the boat arrivals numbers. Surely with all the money we've given France already we could get an agreement that if they arrive on a boat we simply turn them around and drop them back. That takes away the incentive to do it and the problem stops and the gangs lose leverage for that route. There's then no reason for the huge migrant camps around Calais etc. which would probably make the French rather happy too.

 

[carlzeiss]

Cooper floundering on LK's show this morning whilst talking about the boat arrivals numbers. Surely with all the money we've given France already we could get an agreement that if they arrive on a boat we simply turn them around and drop them back. That takes away the incentive to do it and the problem stops and the gangs lose leverage for that route. There's then no reason for the huge migrant camps around Calais etc. which would probably make the French rather happy too.

The boats could be stopped and gangs put out of business overnight if only safe transport could be provided to enable refugees to travel to the UK
So what is holding Labour back .

 

[TomandJerry]

"Nearly 20 councils have warned publicly that they are at risk of insolvency because of multibillion-pound debts caused by years of overspends on special educational needs support

Overspending on special educational needs and disability (Send) services in England is forecast to grow by nearly £2bn over the next 12 months

The deficits – currently totalling £3.4bn – will hit £5.2bn in 12 months. At least 18 councils have warned explicitly that the debts put them at risk of insolvency unless the government intervenes, with council estimates suggesting even more could go bust."

 

[highflyer]

Don't tend to post on these threads much - despite having some fairly strong views.
Because other people are able to articulate my views better, and with greater authority:

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

Best explanation I've seen of our current political and economic predicament.