Forum Topic

What is going on with labour?

what a mess who would have thought that after the shenanigans with the Tories that Labour in 17 months could actually do even worse? It is truly shocking that number 10 are briefing against their own cabinet or so the press have us believe and mounting a leadership contest….surreal. Labour are truly unprofessional, lacking in any balance in terms of running the economy or the country and non of them have any leadership qualities. The scaremongering coming from RR is terrifying re the budget, Labour are making matters in every area 10 time worse…they are embarrassing!

Jayne Thorburn ● 32d78 Comments

They also have NO RESPECT for savers by increasing tax on savings interest.

Steve Taylor ● 16d

We were taken into what became the EU without a referendum of any sort. Harold Wilson then set one up as to whether we wanted to stay in to placate his backbenchers (hints of Rachel Thieves there) before enough people had sussed that membership leading to "ever closer union" was an error. We were promised one by Tony Blair before ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon but Gordon Brown "forgot" to call it.  The first rule of referenda - if the powers calling it don't get the result they want, they try again in a few years time. If they do, then there are no more referenda. Hence two goes before the setting up of the Welsh and Scottish assemblies and none since to see if the electorate still liked the idea. Hence the SNP wanting another crack at a vote on secession. And does the London electorate still think the idea of a Mayor is a good idea, after experiencing Ken Livingstone, Boris Johnson and Sadiq Khan ? Fat chance of a vote to find out !

Richard Greenhough ● 16d

So now we know we cant trust Labour they have no plan or vision and have increased income tax by sleight of hand unless of course you are on benefits! They have zero concept of building anything let alone growth in the economy, they are a bunch of spenders with zero respect for those that do work. Shame we have to wait to kick them out!

Jayne Thorburn ● 16d

Steve, Brexit and Covid were at the same time, Boris finalised Brexit? Then he got Covid.

Janice Evans ● 17d

Apparently the Government failed to update anything regarding red tape,re google.

Janice Evans ● 17d

Nicholas I don't recall anything about red tape.

Janice Evans ● 17d

No one wants to invest here at the moment Nicholas.

Janice Evans ● 17d

Brexit was going to mean an end to red tape. Why are business's still complaining about red tape then I wonder.

Nicholas Beard ● 17d

If that's right why do we have the most exspensive energy in Europe. It's putting AI companies from investing here.

Nicholas Beard ● 17d

I'm going for evil.

Andrew Fleet ● 17d

They're either idiotic bellends or evil.

Andrew Fleet ● 17d

Sam, should an unlikely referendum be allowed on our re-entry into the EU, presumably you would be happy for the new conditions you have thoughtfully laid out to apply?

Denis I. Fox ● 17d

It was the war that increased our energy bills a lot, and still rising.

Janice Evans ● 17d

Steve, of course they could leave the ECHR, even so it would not stop and doubt many were returned before Brexit.

Janice Evans ● 17d

Steve, I agree 100%. Remember vat on energy bills. We were told get out of EU and we can remove VAT on energy bills. Well we still have it. Funny that, and still it goes on. Limits on how long we can stay in another country etc. Of course we are free, not sure of what but people still tell me we are free.

Nicholas Beard ● 17d

The losers are the citizens of the UK, Brexitards and Remainers alike: “ The average Briton has seen a hit to GDP per head between £2,700 and £3,700. Billions lost in tax every year, and all of us several thousand pounds poorer.”And of course Brexit meant that we cannot stop illegal immigration of people in boats from France and Belgium so £billions being spent (wasted) on benefits, hotels, schooling, health, deportation, prisons, fighting appeals, policing demonstrations, etc etc etc.

Steve Taylor ● 17d

Wasn’t Mrs Badenoch’s response to the Budget just brilliant!!! She had Thieves and Stammer just squirming.

Steve Taylor ● 17d

Steve just checking I think that you meant to say Brexit has left each of us thousands worse off than we might have been not that we are actually thousands of pounds worse off than we were. Since we cannot wind the clock back we cannot really tell how things would have turned out if the referendum had gone the other way. I suppose that governments have had a lot on their plates but should we not have learnt from the Brexit referendum? In my view we need legislation to require ALL constitutional referendums to require a minimum of a two thirds turn out and a two thirds majority. Changes to our constitution must have solid broad support since their impact is likely to be far reaching and long lasting. Quite frankly if those wanting change cannot clear these hurdles then they cannot have presented a compelling case

Sam Hearn ● 17d

Ho hum, the loser returns....again

James Roy ● 18d

Ah yes - the analysis by the House of Commons library must be flawed ‘eh! It forgot that Covid and ‘war’ was long after the devastating effects of Brexit.

Steve Taylor ● 18d

Ignoring Covid and War once again.

Janice Evans ● 18d

“ Rachel Reeves would be facing very different choices this week if the UK hadn’t mangled its ties to its biggest trading partner. The red tape and uncertainty of the past nine years have hit every single one of us in the pocket.New analysis this week from the House of Commons Library makes this starker than ever:Brexit is costing the UK up to £90bn a year in lost tax revenuesEconomic damage since the 2016 Leave vote has resulted in the UK’s GDP being 6-8% smaller than it could have beenThe average Briton has seen a hit to GDP per head between £2,700 and £3,700Billions lost in tax every year, and all of us several thousand pounds poorer. Today’s Budget will likely mean many of us paying even more to fill the gaping hole in the country’s finances caused by Brexit.”

Steve Taylor ● 18d

I agree I talk to many younger folk and they all say ‘they have lost trust in the institutions’ which includes government which it where it start then the police, the BBC, local council etc. the real problem is government because the rest bleeds from it…so very sad people have lost complete trust that the real problem and Labour are gone they are making things 1000 times more divisive why? Simple they are divisive

Jayne Thorburn ● 23d

Anybody prepared to own up?

Brian Coyle ● 24d

Well obviously I never voted for them as I know they will never change,however I was hoping for better, I don't care who it is if they do a good job, if a Government is successful we all are, there are a few trying to do a good job but must feel they are not getting full support to do so,  we can see who works hard and who doesn't, but what is needed is a Government that works hard and delivers for us bysupporting business, jobs and wealth, we would then be in a better position to fulfill the needs of others,  a lot to ask ?

Janice Evans ● 25d

Thank you Janice, the truth is this Labour government is not a government it is a group of egoistic people who by pure luck became an MP, they have no idea about pulling together as a team and understanding what the real issues are today. We all know Covid and Russia has cost all European countries dearly, fact. The difference is this government are a bunch of juniors in their first job. Labour are dividing this country more than any other party because they have no idea, no clear direction, no strategy, there is no one is the labour who is a leader of the country. The population is NOT interested in their egos. Every policy is just plain wrong they clearly do NOT talk to those who actually make this country work and it is not them! They talk with folk tongue too many hard left that are destroying the soft left that most voters wanted. Jeremy Corbin destroyed Labour do they not learn anything?????

Jayne Thorburn ● 25d

Replying to Jayne.

Janice Evans ● 26d

Rumour is it was not as much as 20B, however after Covid and the war it was surely expected, think they did well in 14 years re finances when youcompare with the current black hole.

Janice Evans ● 26d

Mr Taylor, the one thing this government believes in is self preservation. Sound fiscal expediency is ea culpa to Rachel from Accounts.Labour has figured that costs lost to the scrapping of the 2 child benefit cap is less damaging to them than the expected number of votes forfeited on the proposed U turn.

Denis I. Fox ● 26d

Did you vote for Labour in the last election Steve?If not, then don’t worry about their manifesto promises, you didn’t vote for them in any case.If you did vote Labour, then if you are concerned I can appreciate your concern.

Andrew Jones ● 26d

Considering the dire straits of government finances I am astounded that Labour is considering scrapping the 2 child benefit cap. It wasn’t in their manifesto to scrap it so why touch it.

Steve Taylor ● 26d

The tories left a 20B black hole and RR increased taxes last budget by 40B so it’s all down to labour spending they need to start taking responsibility for their mismanagement and stop blaming others. It’s pitiful and just lies.

Jayne Thorburn ● 26d

That’s a lot of money. This country definitely can’t afford to scrap the 2 child cap. It would be ridiculous considering the Black Hole the conservatives left. According to Labour the finances are in dire straits and taxes can’t be raised so they definitely can’t afford doling out MORE benefits to irresponsible citizens and non citizens.

Steve Taylor ● 26d

N V those figures are for child benefit, the figures are gave are for families who receive universal credit which is where the cap applies.

David Turner ● 26d

Child benefit payments aren't capped to the first two children. The two children cap refers to universal credit/tax credits.

Andrew Jones ● 26d

Ridiculously wrong numbers being bandied about. It's £104 00 pounds every four weeks for the first child and £70.00 every four weeks for the second child. Source: gov.uk website.

N V Brooks ● 26d

“ I found one was enough when you take into account clothes, school clothes, and all the other costs that go with a child.”And this is the problem. So many people are  clueless about ‘taking into account’ all the costs associated with caring for children so they just breed and expect the State to bail them out. Getting rid of the two child cap will just encourage them to breed more and will definitely be a USP for people smugglers encouraging ‘asylum seekers’ to buy tickets for their dinghies to Benefits Britain.

Steve Taylor ● 26d

Blimey, I didn't realise it was so much.That's a lot of beer and fags.

Keith Iddon ● 26d

There really isn’t any evidence that people are having fewer children since the 2 cap limit was introduced. Personally I think the two children cap should be scrapped (for the benefit of the children) but with a less generous allowance for each subsequent child. Currently it’s £339/month for the first child and £293/month for each subsequent child. But I agree no one should be better off on benefits than working.

David Turner ● 26d

I think this is a wind up. As regards two children, I found one was enough when you take into account clothes, school clothes, and all the other costs that go with a child.

Nicholas Beard ● 27d

Said the local Monster Raving Loony Party spokesman.

Keith Iddon ● 27d

I’m quite a fan of people who prefer not to work as they leave the way clear for those who do! And I don’t begrudge them the tiny levels of benefit they get paid compared with what I earn!

Peter Evans ● 27d

Why should anyone go to work pay tax to give it to people who have children that choose not to work????  2 Kids are enough if one expects other to look after them…i am guessing those on benefits think it is government money because they are not educated and don’t realise its their neighbours going out to work 40 hrs + pay tax, for lazy people who are totally irresponsible and shouldn’t have kids

Jayne Thorburn ● 27d

Hence it’s imperative that the two child cap MUST stay and Councils surely have a duty to educate citizens in contraception and the responsibilities of parenting.

Steve Taylor ● 28d

While local authorities find it incresingly difficut to house fmilies with more than 3 children as there are so few 4,5 and 6 bedroom houses available to them.It's a mess,and the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Keith Iddon ● 28d

It’s astounding that thousands of quite wealthy professionals limit themselves to having two children because they do the simple calculation or Google search to work out how much children cost and they understand that ‘responsibly’ they can’t afford more than two!  Why is it that poorer households think they can just breed and breed more? Is it because the more kids they have the more they realise they will get from the State?  Starting of course with social housing. Any government stopping the two child cap would be grossly irresponsible because it would only encourage the poor to have more and more children and particularly put more pressure on women who are controlled and dominated by spouses.

Steve Taylor ● 28d

Totally agree no benefits should ever be greater than the average wage otherwise those on benefits will never work and the likelihood nor will their children. Labour is encouraging benefits not getting people back into work, it’s outrageous that work doesn’t pay. The benefits of work are far greater than just financial, social interaction improves mental health and learning skills can only add to a more positive society. I fully support children of irresponsible parents being supported in other ways so they have a chance. There is zero guarantee that extra money will go to the benefit of the children. Labour at its best totally irresponsible.

Jayne Thorburn ● 28d

I thought the two child benefit cap was imposed partly to disincentivise poorer families from having more that two children,thus eventually reducing the number of children in poverty and hopefully making such families think twice about having children they can't afford to provide for without state subsidy.Whatever you think about that policy,it seems ridiculous not to at leat limit it to three children rather than making it open season.

Keith Iddon ● 29d

The only group Labour support is those on benefits the rest of society will have to fund them and everything else this government want to squander our taxes on, same old Labour……spend your savings and don’t let this government steal your money

Jayne Thorburn ● 29d

Pensioners, savers, and investors. Spot on. I remember when I was eighteen and we received papers from the company to join the pension scheme. It seemed good so we teenagers joined. One lad read the papers and found out about AVC's. It also seemed quite good to go to the Building society and get a little book and put a little bit of money in when you could. Also post office savings accounts. Now as Steve says we are in the firing line. I don't think if ISA limits go down people will rush for stocks and shares ISA's.

Nicholas Beard ● 29d

Well now that she’s u-turned on raising taxes because since Monday she has suddenly discovered a money tree worth £Billions which means she won’t have to raise taxes for working people. We can only assume that by the time she announces the budget in two weeks the OBR will point out to her that the money tree has shed its leaves and she will claw back money from pensioners and savers and investors and anyone who tries to take responsibility for themselves and their families.

Steve Taylor ● 29d

Labour can’t be trusted with anything, spend, spend, spend is their motto and tax tax tax to ruin the country

Jayne Thorburn ● 29d

"...with a bunch of clowns running the show!" Too true, but who were the bunch of clowns who voted for them?

Brian Coyle ● 30d

It is even more galling when you see how much just her own salary is compared to those who are no longer in a position to earn!  It is just another of the black hole scandals of legacy promised reparation/money that this Govt has had dumped on them to deal with in our political system.  Tory party opposition just becomes more rabid rather than constructive in and out of Parliament.

Philippa Bond ● 30d

I hope people read your post and tell their fiends about this. I dread to think what sort of budget we will get from her. That you for highlighting this!

Nicholas Beard ● 30d

Last post didn’t quite finish. Rachel Reeves is a hypocrite because she campaigned on, behalf of her mother,  to have WASPI’s reimbursed when she was in opposition. Now that she has the power to really make a difference for these women, she stabs them in the back. And one of them is dying every 13 minutes.

Steve Taylor ● 30d

And I wouldn’t have a beef if PHSO ruled that DWP acted reasonably and correctly. My beef is that PHSO ruled that DWP was guilty of maladministration yet Rachel Reeves is discarding the judgment and simply shrugging it off with ‘we can’t afford it and the money would be better spent on other things’. That attitude is quite abhorrent especially as she campaigned on behalf of her mother

Steve Taylor ● 30d

Hi Janice, I don't really disagree with you, pensions should be as safe as is possible.I also think that it’s right these days to have women qualifying for state pensions at the same age as men.My beef is with those who believe that the WASPI women should just accept that the rug was pulled from under them in terms of what they could expect retirement wise and just take it on the chin.As Steve has already mentioned “The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) was guilty of maladministration in its handling of the state pension age changes for women born in the 1950s. The PHSO concluded that the DWP's failure to provide adequate and timely information meant affected women lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their retirement.”

Andrew Jones ● 31d

I don't think the argument is actually about EQUALITY of pension age at all - that is understood as a change that should happen - it is about the way it was carried out with such a sudden big change for some AND without proper due warning and notification.  Workplaces if you have them can be very different.Not everyone's jobs and busy family lives can possibly revolve around what happens in Parliament every single day or rather what it actually AGREES on and PASSES every single day.  Discussion is one thing but action is another.  It can take a very long time for a Bill just to pass through Parliament...  Family/work life so often just moves from dealing with one immediate crisis to another..It is so much easier nowadays for many to check online - if you can and still have sight and dexterity and enough (when is it ever enough) IT ability or access to the IT.  Remember many don't and families are spread out.

Philippa Bond ● 31d

People try to provide for retirement, in the past it has not work out well for them. Pensions should be safe.

Janice Evans ● 31d

So what is so different between the WASPIs born in the 1950s finding out that the pensions they were expecting to get when they turned 60 suddenly being delayed by 5 years, and people today expecting to get pensions suddenly finding that they are going to get taxed when previously they weren’t expecting that? In both cases goal posts have been moved.Why is it ok (according to you ) for the WASPIs to be impacted to their disadvantage, but so wrong for people who have planned pensions for today to be impacted?

Andrew Jones ● 31d

Life & generations move on & it is about gender equality, it’s hard if one is caught on the borderline. To be fair women born in the 50’s were the first on the frontline in terms of careers opportunities and have paved the way for the rest of us and should be celebrated. That’s the point life moves on and polices need to do the same. Take public sector pensions it is totally unfair that the private sector has to subsidise public sector pensions. The private section pensions have been massively reduced yet expected to fund public sector pensions, discuss? Fair?

Jayne Thorburn ● 31d

“ I always found the WASPI's claim a little hard to take - making women qualify for pensions at the same age as men seemed eminently reasonable”Well the PHSO doesn’t agree with you. “The the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) was guilty of maladministration in its handling of the state pension age changes for women born in the 1950s. The PHSO concluded that the DWP's failure to provide adequate and timely information meant affected women lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their retirement. The PHSO recommended that these women should receive compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 each (Level 4 on its banding scale), a potential total cost of up to £10.5 billion. “

Steve Taylor ● 31d

There's a Turkish barber boom now.

Keith Iddon ● 31d

The Barber boom.

David Burke ● 31d

Yep, coupled with the OPEC price rise like throwing petrol on a fire , no pun intended.

David Burke ● 31d

The Conservative Chancellor Anthony Barber was the person who set inflation booming.

Christopher Shea ● 31d

But the women born in the 50's didn't have equal rights the whole time they were working did they?

Andrew Jones ● 31d

I tend to agree if women want equal rights, equal pay then that should apply to pensionable age as well. Interesting to hear if RR attacks pensions in the budget, that would be a crime and against the moral compass for people who have worked hard all their lives, paid tax, saved into a pension and NOT claimed benefits so they have some security in later years.

Jayne Thorburn ● 31d

If what is claimed by the WASPI campaign is correct, namely that "Women had as little as one year’s notice of up to a 6 year increase to their State Pension Age, compared to men who received 6 years’ notice of a one year rise to their State Pension Age." then there is a great difference in how adverse changes to future retirement expectations were communicated to the WASPI women, compared to how lesser adverse changes ( of a future 1 year increase in pensionable age) were communicated to those expecting a pension at the age of 65.To my mind that seems unfair.

Andrew Jones ● 31d

While I am no fan of Rachel Thieves, I always found the WASPI's claim a little hard to take - making women qualify for pensions at the same age as men seemed eminently reasonable, and while I accept that an individual letter to each woman affected would have been a good idea, from what I recall the matter received a reasonable level of publicity in the media when it was introduced.

Richard Greenhough ● 31d

And Rachel Thieves is adamant that the WASPI’s won’t be paid. She says it’s not a good spend of taxpayers money. Better to use it on benefits I suppose. Apparently one WASPI dies every 13 minutes.  Hang in there Rachel - your debt to these women decreases every 13 minutes.

Steve Taylor ● 31d

You have the right to complain about this administration. But if people become tired of your obsessive, self-interested bleating about tax, don't be surprised if they start to be rude about you. Most people's criticisms of Starmer's administration are more objective than your cracked record of hollow whining. Give us all a break!

Robert Fish ● 31d

Fag ash, Smiffy, says they're doing a good job..

Michael Brown ● 31d

Don’t be so rude Brian, we live in a democratic society free speech rules…..clearly you don’t care about our country as you have nothing worthwhile to say. Some of us do care about how the government is behaving. I have not met one person who has anything positive to say about this government and how they are governing!

Jayne Thorburn ● 32d

That was another political party broadcast by the Jayne Thorburn I want to bore everyone senseless party.

Brian Green ● 32d

😂 have to confess I don’t remember that so a big thank you for sharing just how bad it can get with Labour! seriously have they learnt nothing at all……they presented themselves as ‘soft left’ at the election and the economy was safe in their hands. The truth is the majority of MP’s are ‘hard left’ and taking over the narrative this is NOT what the population voted for. They are attacking the very fabric of our society, the SME business community, everyone feels nervous and poorer unless you are on benefits or work in the public sector this is no way to run a democratic country. Without a thriving private sector there is NO public sector. Debt soaring, highest taxes, unemployment increasing, inflation stagnating, benefits increasing 🥺 with a bunch of clowns running the show!

Jayne Thorburn ● 32d

Reminds me of the infighting that marked the Wilson cabinet in the 1960s. I guess that was when taxes went up and inflation took hold. Remember, "the pound in your pocket has not been devalued". I think it was the Frost Report special at Christmas 1967 that said "On December 31st Harold Wilson says 'Its not the end of the world' On January 1st - the end of the world".

Richard Greenhough ● 32d