Starmer's vision quest

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Benefit cuts and an ongoing insistence on being complicit in genocide in Gaza. Anyone left on here still going to attempt to defend these despicable people.
BBC News - Benefits crackdown unveiled with aim to save £5bn a year by 2030
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89y30nel59o

Without considering the rights of wrongs of each:

Interesting that means testing Winter Fuel Allowance was done with immediate effect, to (supposedly) save £1.5billion - year. This is not going to (supposedly) show savings (£5billion) until 2030. Was it not possible to do something more "instant", Means Testing PIP seems an obvious option.

Reading the supposed savings made me question them. Say. 10 million state pensioners in UK, but WFH was per household, not per person, so, at. £400 per household, does that actually come to £1.5billion ?
 

Mr Celine

Senior Member
Benefit cuts and an ongoing insistence on being complicit in genocide in Gaza. Anyone left on here still going to attempt to defend these despicable people.
BBC News - Benefits crackdown unveiled with aim to save £5bn a year by 2030
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89y30nel59o

Surely not even @multitool can defend this?

Obviously not, he's flounced again.
 

HMS_Dave

Regular
Without considering the rights of wrongs of each:

Interesting that means testing Winter Fuel Allowance was done with immediate effect, to (supposedly) save £1.5billion - year. This is not going to (supposedly) show savings (£5billion) until 2030. Was it not possible to do something more "instant", Means Testing PIP seems an obvious option.

Reading the supposed savings made me question them. Say. 10 million state pensioners in UK, but WFH was per household, not per person, so, at. £400 per household, does that actually come to £1.5billion ?

Means testing PIP might seem a logical step, but PIP does actually help people who are disabled get into work. In many instances those with disabilities do face additional costs, such as specially adapted vehicles and additional transport costs that those without disabilities don't face, for example.
 
Last edited:

Psamathe

Well-Known Member
Re: Labour's Benefit Cuts
For me this is a very difficult one. As it's very very complex, it affects many in very different ways depending on the specific details of their situation and there is very little statistical data available.

When a lot of people are involved there will always be a %age who claim without warranting receiving money (some fraud, some stretching things). That's part of any system and provided that %age is low enough has to be accepted on the basis of life of big systems.

But UK does seem a massive outlier with regard to comparable countries. But then there are maybe other factors eg horrendous NHS waiting lists meaning people with debilitating conditions are having to wait for treatments that would enable them to return to work.

I can see that from what those proposing the changes have said we are on an unsustainable path but easy for such politicians to make unsubstantiated claims without providing supporting evidence.

So if one accepts something needs to be done it comes more to what needs to be done which is where my mistrust in politicians starts. How so many senior politicians with no experience of a sector, no experience of management (or with terrible track records) suddenly find themselves responsible for a sector they've had nothing to do with before and suddenly are coming up with massive changes based on "their abilities" to see solutions without experience.

Trouble is anecdotal instances often take prominence eg I am disabled but claim and have never even tried to claim anything and in the last few days TV has interviewed some individuals and "Explain why you need PIP" and from their account of their situation I find myself thinking how much worse the impacts of my own condition have been yet I cope without any help. But my situation is meaningless in the scope of such a big system but then so is every individuals.

If it's about saving money then it's pretty bad that those in desperate need are paying the price for the daft Reeves/Starmer "red lines" about tax, particularly after Ms Reeves has just has just failed to use the opportunity to break those read lines.

Hence I'm totally confused, unsure, etc. and really don't know what to think.

Ian
 

HMS_Dave

Regular
Mental health services are in a pretty poor state in the UK which is potentially another outlier compared to other countries (i haven't checked) but it would seem reasonable to conclude in that instance that benefits disproportionately rising for mental health claims would be a rather predictable consequence of this. It seems absolutely bizzare to me that the Labour government talk about "fairness" in the welfare system, a line peddled by previous governments, without tackling the health care crisis surrounding this type of illness. Which perhaps is partly explained by lack understanding surrounding it and the half-arsed attempts at fixing the mental health services by those in government we are entrusted to fix it or perhaps they don't care...
 

Badger_Boom

Regular
The country is run by government ministers, who are accountable to parliament, and we elect the members of parliament. IMO the number of people working for NHS England is irrelevant. The NHS is a state body, it should be controlled by ministers answerable to parliament, and not by an arms-length body. I just hope that we're not just entering another period of chaos while the deckchairs are rearranged.
Of course we are; that's how political parties manage big 'problems' like the NHS. If it's in a constant state of organizational flux, it becomes impossible to work out who to blame for getting it wrong.
 

icowden

Squire
If it's about saving money then it's pretty bad that those in desperate need are paying the price for the daft Reeves/Starmer "red lines" about tax, particularly after Ms Reeves has just has just failed to use the opportunity to break those read lines.
Hence I'm totally confused, unsure, etc. and really don't know what to think.

Labour is traditionally the party that supports the poor, the disabled etc. Of course there will be those who abuse the welfare system. It is estimated that £6.5bn was overpaid due to fraud or error.

Error has been consistent over the last 20 years. Fraud had a huge increase during the coronavirus pandemic and has never really reduced again.

However, HMRC estimates that £40bn of tax revenues went uncollected in 2022-23.

You would expect Labour to be more interested in collecting taxes from those who haven't paid, closing the loopholes so that Lord Ashcroft, Lord Dyson, Viscount Rothermere etc pay their fair share of taxes too, rather than going after benefits claimants and the disabled.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Of course we are; that's how political parties manage big 'problems' like the NHS. If it's in a constant state of organizational flux, it becomes impossible to work out who to blame for getting it wrong.

Exactly!

A good reason to take it out of the hands of Politicians, of all parties, IMHO.
 

Pblakeney

Regular
The title of John Crace's sketch today is "A defeated KemiKaze offers less opposition than Starmer’s own MPs". I guess the problem for her is that Starmer is doing everything the tories would do if they were in power.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...h-starmer-pmqs-opposition-benefit-cuts-labour
As the tories lurch further and further to the right chasing the Reform vote labour are filling in the centre right.
The leftie labour supporters will be dismayed but it is a good re-election strategy.
 
Top Bottom