| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. 23:52 - Mar 17 with 5105 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/17/keir-starmer-to-unveil-drastic-d
'Reeves defended her approach on Monday. “When we’re spending £100bn a year on servicing government debt, I don’t think anyone could seriously argue that we don’t need to get a grip on government borrowing and government debt,” '
We're all debt slaves now and the cage and chains are getting shorter again. |  |
| |  |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 12:55 - Mar 18 with 1397 views | TractorWood |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 08:58 - Mar 18 by Basuco |
Employ more income tax inspectors to boost tax revenue would help, the last Government made massive cuts here under the banner "civil service waste" resulting in reduced income and an increased level of tax avoidance. |
66,000 people work for HMRC.....
Like the majority of our Government and public sector. It's not actually under staffed or under funded. It's just badly and manually run.
This is because there has never been radical investment in improving processes. You just have staff running around trying to produce outcomes from thin air. [Post edited 18 Mar 12:57]
|  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 13:03 - Mar 18 with 1360 views | giant_stow |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 12:55 - Mar 18 by TractorWood |
66,000 people work for HMRC.....
Like the majority of our Government and public sector. It's not actually under staffed or under funded. It's just badly and manually run.
This is because there has never been radical investment in improving processes. You just have staff running around trying to produce outcomes from thin air. [Post edited 18 Mar 12:57]
|
Someone told me a horrific story from the coalface of local govt the other day. he owns his own consultancy (I'd better not say where) working with local govt. Two of his fellow partners were offered redundancy from two councils after minor changes to their job titles - both were on over 100 per year. Their payout offers were 3 and 4 years of salary each.
Maybe we could look at that sort of practice instead of making skint people more skint.
I'd like there to be more incentives to get people back into work, maybe with a slightly tougher stick, but not a stick that indiscriminately hits all. [Post edited 18 Mar 13:06]
|  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 13:12 - Mar 18 with 1318 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Oh I'm not thinking that we go it alone, this default needs to be global and only the first step of a wider fundamental, societal reset. | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 13:21 - Mar 18 with 1308 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 11:31 - Mar 18 by MattinLondon |
Sorry to be thick but what do you mean by a reset? |
Something along the lines of a society whose key objective is the mutual benefit of all on a sustainable basis organised along anarcho syndicalist lines off the top of my head having a break from work....6th form stuff like that. | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 13:24 - Mar 18 with 1294 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 12:52 - Mar 18 by giant_stow |
I could live with that in return for paid holidays and sick leave*. Not sure 'tax payers' would be happy paying for me to pick the winnets out my crack for 5 weeks a year though.
* and some form of unemployment benefits or redundancy cover too. [Post edited 18 Mar 12:53]
|
But none of those are provided by the state for those who are employed, it’s the businesses that pay them (and many are taxable benefits). Surely the point of being self employed/contracting in the first place is that you are typically paid more to compensate for that. Are self employed using public services less than those who are employed? |  | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 13:42 - Mar 18 with 1255 views | giant_stow |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 13:24 - Mar 18 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
But none of those are provided by the state for those who are employed, it’s the businesses that pay them (and many are taxable benefits). Surely the point of being self employed/contracting in the first place is that you are typically paid more to compensate for that. Are self employed using public services less than those who are employed? |
"Surely the point of being self employed/contracting in the first place is that you are typically paid more to compensate for that. "
I think thats the nub of it - this isn't always true (perhaps even largely wrong - I've no idea stats wise).
There are loads of other reasons for being self-employed and many self-employed people won't be living the contractor's dream of huge day rates. They may be part of the gig economy or simply running small tight-margin businesses like little shops, or offering services for sale, or just working for someone piecemeal. Whatever... there's a good chance that bods like me will actually be earning less than they would be if on a salary.
Obviously, I don't expect the govt to pay us sick leave or holidays, but the reduced tax rates reflect the risks we take and the things we do without (compared with the bods on PAYE). | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 13:46 - Mar 18 with 1251 views | OldFart71 |
Sad to say that many things Labour are doing are counter productive. They are putting the economy into reverse at a time when they need it to grow. Being a pensioner who lost the winter fuel payment of course it had an effect on my finances. I'm not overly concerned as I can manage, but again I question the cut. Why ? well if like myself I used the payment for Christmas presents and food and the point I am making is that this money was spent on extra spend on these things and not on what I would ordinarily spend. Therefore when the wfp was cut I spent less. In turn the businesses that would have benefited from my extra spending missed out. That extra money which amounted to millions for all those formerly receiving it would have given business a lot more money, making them more financially secure, giving workers extra money and increasing the tax take to the government. Just as this increase in N.I. and an above inflation increase on the minimum wage which will hurt businesses who will cut hours, put up prices and possibly make workers redundant which in turn at a time the Government are announcing cuts to benefits to save money will cost them even more due to more claimants. | | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 14:02 - Mar 18 with 1220 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 12:45 - Mar 18 by DJR |
A few observations.
1. There was a higher percentage of those aged 16-64 in receipt of incapacity and disability benefits under Mrs Thatcher than there is now.
2. The increase in working-age people with poor health and disability after a decade of austerity followed by Covid-19 is broadly consistent with the growth in incapacity and disability benefits, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. In other words, demand for these benefits is not out of line with need.
3. Overall spending on working-age adult benefits, at about 5% of UK GDP, has changed little in two decades, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The UK spends more on incapacity and disability benefits than it did before, but this is offset by reductions in spending on other working-age benefits.
4. Over the same period, benefit spending on pensioners rose from 5.3% to 6% of GDP, an increase yet to attract the same political attention.
5. Despite claims the benefits system is a “soft touch” it is not obvious its complex application forms and notoriously stressful health assessments are any easier to navigate. JRF says that while Pip applications have risen over the last five years, the proportion approved, at 51%, has fallen from 55%, suggesting the threshold is as rigorous as ever.
6. It would be easy to argue that circumstance have changed as a result of Trump and Ukraine, and thus there is justification for not sticking to Labour's tax pledges.
7. Rather than a wealth tax and assuming no change in the fiscal rules, I would suggest, for example, increasing from 2% the National Insurance contributions that those above the Upper Earnings Limit pay. This could be justified on the basis that pensions (which NI supposedly pays for) are the real growth area when it comes to welfare, but such increases wouldn't be something pensioners had to pay because they don't pay NI.
Instead, Labour have chosen to attack and blame the most vulnerable in our society, many of whom have no doubt been failed by the NHS. [Post edited 18 Mar 12:52]
|
Labour are clearly determined to raise the threshold which will cause a lot of suffering.
Was pleased to hear Labour MP for Norwich South speaking out agsinst the cuts. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 14:02 - Mar 18 with 1220 views | J2BLUE |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 09:14 - Mar 18 by BanksterDebtSlave |
I think that Ryorry's post on the other thread regarding Freeports probably tells us how likely that is. |
Unfortunately I think Gary Stevenson is right. This is what I understand his position to be based on everything i've heard from him and looking at the world:
We have pretty much reached peak capitalism. There is not much new growth to be had and we are increasingly becoming an asset based economy where the rich use their passive income from assets to buy more assets.
There is a limited number of assets and as the poor are forced to sell assets the rich will buy them.
This will lead to a two class society. The rich and the very poor. The rich will have increased power and the poor will struggle with everyday expenses.
Assets will keep going up because the rich don't keep their money in cash and as they accumulate more and more excess cash asset prices will go up. This includes stocks, commodities, real estate, fine art etc etc. Gary has said he would not be surprised if house prices double in the next five years and that people need to own a home (I realise this is not that simple for the vast majority of people).
There are two paths we can take. One is to tax wealth and reduce taxes on ordinary people to restore balance. The second is we can walk into the above situation.
The following is the logical thing to do as I see it and not something Gary has said. If you believe that we are heading for the two class society, the only thing you can do is accumulate as many assets as you can. This is obviously morally dubious and ideally not something that most people would want to do given the final destination if he is right. With that said, when you are warned of the path ahead and you agree based on everything you see and the common sense of what he says do you accept your descendants being in poverty or try and build your asset base now? |  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 14:35 - Mar 18 with 1167 views | OldFart71 |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 14:02 - Mar 18 by Pinewoodblue |
Labour are clearly determined to raise the threshold which will cause a lot of suffering.
Was pleased to hear Labour MP for Norwich South speaking out agsinst the cuts. |
As a pensioner I do not see that the State pension is too high, affordability is another question. But successive Governments must take the blame as things like births and deaths and census conducted every so often has given them years of knowledge about what the requirement would be in ten, twenty, thirty years time. But they have done little to change things and spend far too much time moaning and whingeing, buck passing and blaming the other party when they have all been guilty of mismanagement. As for the 2008 financial crisis this was brought about by British banks buying toxic loans from America and then we had the years of austerity under the Tories financing banks while we all suffered. We are now just three years short of twenty years from that so called crisis and where are we ? a run down Country with potholed roads, foodbanks, a struggling NHS, a government that had a £9.9 billion pound headroom just a few months ago that has been wiped out. We are all paying more in taxes, benefits cut and everything going up. Welcome to third World Britain. But don't forget there are more millionaires than ever before. | | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 15:05 - Mar 18 with 1130 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 14:02 - Mar 18 by J2BLUE |
Unfortunately I think Gary Stevenson is right. This is what I understand his position to be based on everything i've heard from him and looking at the world:
We have pretty much reached peak capitalism. There is not much new growth to be had and we are increasingly becoming an asset based economy where the rich use their passive income from assets to buy more assets.
There is a limited number of assets and as the poor are forced to sell assets the rich will buy them.
This will lead to a two class society. The rich and the very poor. The rich will have increased power and the poor will struggle with everyday expenses.
Assets will keep going up because the rich don't keep their money in cash and as they accumulate more and more excess cash asset prices will go up. This includes stocks, commodities, real estate, fine art etc etc. Gary has said he would not be surprised if house prices double in the next five years and that people need to own a home (I realise this is not that simple for the vast majority of people).
There are two paths we can take. One is to tax wealth and reduce taxes on ordinary people to restore balance. The second is we can walk into the above situation.
The following is the logical thing to do as I see it and not something Gary has said. If you believe that we are heading for the two class society, the only thing you can do is accumulate as many assets as you can. This is obviously morally dubious and ideally not something that most people would want to do given the final destination if he is right. With that said, when you are warned of the path ahead and you agree based on everything you see and the common sense of what he says do you accept your descendants being in poverty or try and build your asset base now? |
Plenty of growth to be had in emerging markets, however we’ve built an economy heavily reliant on retail and services so we are severely hamstrung from an export perspective.
I also don’t buy that there’s a sudden influx of capital into assets by the wealthy driven by some capitalism end game. The biggest landowners and property owners in this country go back hundreds of years including our Royal family, their decendents as well as countless faceless Lords. Yet people love to subsidise them with our taxes and wave flags at their pompous ceremonies.
Property prices will still be driven by demand, if they double people won’t be able to afford the rents and will sit empty losing any yield. Adding 1m to our population year on year with a housing shortage going back 20 years is a recipe for asset inflation, but both parties are wedded to it. All the above goes back to the need to tax alternative incomes effectively, the likes of Sunak being on an effective tax rate lower than a junior nurse is a disgrace. | | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 15:21 - Mar 18 with 1104 views | J2BLUE |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 15:05 - Mar 18 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Plenty of growth to be had in emerging markets, however we’ve built an economy heavily reliant on retail and services so we are severely hamstrung from an export perspective.
I also don’t buy that there’s a sudden influx of capital into assets by the wealthy driven by some capitalism end game. The biggest landowners and property owners in this country go back hundreds of years including our Royal family, their decendents as well as countless faceless Lords. Yet people love to subsidise them with our taxes and wave flags at their pompous ceremonies.
Property prices will still be driven by demand, if they double people won’t be able to afford the rents and will sit empty losing any yield. Adding 1m to our population year on year with a housing shortage going back 20 years is a recipe for asset inflation, but both parties are wedded to it. All the above goes back to the need to tax alternative incomes effectively, the likes of Sunak being on an effective tax rate lower than a junior nurse is a disgrace. |
He's talking about western economies, particularly the UK and USA.
Good point about the rich going back a long time but his argument is that the money during covid overwhelmingly went to the rich. Even money given to people on furlough went on rent, mortgages owned by banks with shareholders and supermarkets owned by shareholders etc. I think he makes some excellent points.
The property thing wasn't a prediction, just that he wouldn't be surprised. I think doubling in five year is a bit out there but I bought my property in 2012 and it has gone up 67% (based on what an identical property just sold for). With the money given away during covid I don't think his prediction is as crazy as it first sounds. Obviously the 'gain' means nothing to me as I need to live in the property but it's getting harder and harder for others to get on the ladder. | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 15:35 - Mar 18 with 1084 views | OldFart71 |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 12:55 - Mar 18 by TractorWood |
66,000 people work for HMRC.....
Like the majority of our Government and public sector. It's not actually under staffed or under funded. It's just badly and manually run.
This is because there has never been radical investment in improving processes. You just have staff running around trying to produce outcomes from thin air. [Post edited 18 Mar 12:57]
|
I worked for a Government department in 2005 they were running on windows 64. When we did upgrade or change the system I tried to explain to those in charge that when a stocktake took place you needed to stop issuing and receiving for that time. You also needed to count the stock, adjust any discrepancies before they were transferred to the new system. But they would not have it. Transferred the stock over and then did the count. Didn't close the stores and stop issuing and receiving either. Madness. Lots of items written off due to losses and over and above a certain amount of money the loss had to be written off higher up the tree. Contractors were a rip off and charged well over the odds. Basically I would say this runs through most governmental departments.. | | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 15:36 - Mar 18 with 1074 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 15:21 - Mar 18 by J2BLUE |
He's talking about western economies, particularly the UK and USA.
Good point about the rich going back a long time but his argument is that the money during covid overwhelmingly went to the rich. Even money given to people on furlough went on rent, mortgages owned by banks with shareholders and supermarkets owned by shareholders etc. I think he makes some excellent points.
The property thing wasn't a prediction, just that he wouldn't be surprised. I think doubling in five year is a bit out there but I bought my property in 2012 and it has gone up 67% (based on what an identical property just sold for). With the money given away during covid I don't think his prediction is as crazy as it first sounds. Obviously the 'gain' means nothing to me as I need to live in the property but it's getting harder and harder for others to get on the ladder. |
Yeah but as someone based int he UK/West, you can achieve much better returns (as an individual/institution) investing in emerging markets, if domestic growth is minimal. Plus the US economy has achieved fantastic growth over the last decade, being now 20pc larger than the EU/UK which are held back by lack of innovation and debt.
Again, I can see the appeal of UK property investment if we’ve had two decades of population growth faster than the building of property. 1m net rise a year (3 medium sized cities) is madness. There’s too much head in sand on this topic and unfortunately it only compounds the cost of rent/property. Regardless of whether the properties are snapped up by property corps, rich individuals, or the likes of you and I, then the cost of living will continue to rise if the property shortage is compounded year on year. | | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 15:37 - Mar 18 with 1068 views | positivity |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 13:21 - Mar 18 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Something along the lines of a society whose key objective is the mutual benefit of all on a sustainable basis organised along anarcho syndicalist lines off the top of my head having a break from work....6th form stuff like that. |
we've had enough of 6th form government by vibes and feelings with truss and johnson, no more of that thanks.
let the adults and the experts have a turn, with the focus on facts instead | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 15:54 - Mar 18 with 1000 views | Herbivore |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 13:03 - Mar 18 by giant_stow |
Someone told me a horrific story from the coalface of local govt the other day. he owns his own consultancy (I'd better not say where) working with local govt. Two of his fellow partners were offered redundancy from two councils after minor changes to their job titles - both were on over 100 per year. Their payout offers were 3 and 4 years of salary each.
Maybe we could look at that sort of practice instead of making skint people more skint.
I'd like there to be more incentives to get people back into work, maybe with a slightly tougher stick, but not a stick that indiscriminately hits all. [Post edited 18 Mar 13:06]
|
I find that incredibly hard to believe. Local authorities are, in the main, basically insolvent. In my own experience of working in a local authority, if they make you redundant you get your statutory entitlement and that's your lot. The idea they'd be offering multiple years' worth of a six figure salary to make people redundant doesn't sound particularly realistic. |  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 16:10 - Mar 18 with 964 views | giant_stow |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 15:54 - Mar 18 by Herbivore |
I find that incredibly hard to believe. Local authorities are, in the main, basically insolvent. In my own experience of working in a local authority, if they make you redundant you get your statutory entitlement and that's your lot. The idea they'd be offering multiple years' worth of a six figure salary to make people redundant doesn't sound particularly realistic. |
I've known this guy for 30 years and he's talking about two fellow partners, so have no reason to doubt him. In fact, it would be in his interests to not spread this story about as it could easily come back on him given most his work is in that sector.
I can only assume that there are different practices the higher up the chain you go - these fellas were senior managers, who perhaps knew stuff that could be embarrassing - this way, nothing comes out. [Post edited 18 Mar 16:16]
| |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 16:25 - Mar 18 with 907 views | chicoazul |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 15:54 - Mar 18 by Herbivore |
I find that incredibly hard to believe. Local authorities are, in the main, basically insolvent. In my own experience of working in a local authority, if they make you redundant you get your statutory entitlement and that's your lot. The idea they'd be offering multiple years' worth of a six figure salary to make people redundant doesn't sound particularly realistic. |
From what bubalah is saying I think this is an offer to mutually part ways which is definitely something of which there is a lot about especially in councils and the NHS at the most rarefied levels of 100k plus salaries. This has happened where I work and where someone I know works in the public sector. |  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 16:29 - Mar 18 with 890 views | giant_stow |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 16:25 - Mar 18 by chicoazul |
From what bubalah is saying I think this is an offer to mutually part ways which is definitely something of which there is a lot about especially in councils and the NHS at the most rarefied levels of 100k plus salaries. This has happened where I work and where someone I know works in the public sector. |
Yeah exactly that - the change of job title offered an optional out for both parties - not a sacking or forced redundancy. | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 20:09 - Mar 18 with 760 views | DJR |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 14:02 - Mar 18 by Pinewoodblue |
Labour are clearly determined to raise the threshold which will cause a lot of suffering.
Was pleased to hear Labour MP for Norwich South speaking out agsinst the cuts. |
According to the Resolution Foundation between 800,000 and 1.2 million people will lose support of between £4,200 and £6,300 per year by 2029-30.
That's an awful lot of money for people who probably won't be well off to start with.
And there is likely to be an effect on carers.
Kirsty McHugh, CEO of the Carers' Trust, said:
"Proposals to tighten eligibility criteria for benefits will strike fear into the heart of many carers. Around half a million carers look after someone receiving personal insurance payments (Pip), and nearly 150,000 people rely on both Pip and Carer’s Allowance. Disabled people and their carers are already among the most vulnerable in our society and more likely to live in poverty. Reducing their access to a financial safety net could push them over the edge."
All this is shocking and has gone down very badly among commenters on the Guardian website.
One issue for me is that people like Starmer, Reeves and Streeting are robotic and appear to lack empathy and awareness. This may well explain the route they have gone down, and they probably don't realise the damage they have done to the reputation of the party when it comes to many of their longstanding voters and members. [Post edited 18 Mar 20:16]
|  | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 20:25 - Mar 18 with 736 views | DJR |
From Charles Gillies, policy co-chair at the Disability Benefits Consortium, an umbrella body representing more than 100 charities and organisations
These immoral and devastating benefits cuts will push more disabled people into poverty, and worsen people’s health …
Any targeted cuts to disabled people on universal credit and employment and support allowance will largely hit those who are unable to work and rely on these benefits to survive.
We are united in urging the government to abandon these cruel cuts.
From James Taylor, executive director of strategy at Scope
The biggest cuts to disability benefits on record should shame the government to its core. They are choosing to penalise some of the poorest people in our society. Almost half of families in poverty include someone who is disabled.
Life costs more if you are disabled. Ripping £5bn out of the system by 2030 will be a catastrophe for disabled peoples’ living standards and independence.
From Sarah Hughes, chief executive at Mind
Mental health problems are not a choice – but it is a political choice to make it harder for people to access the support they need to live with dignity and independence.
These reforms will only serve to deepen the nation’s mental health crisis. | | | |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 20:27 - Mar 18 with 726 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 13:12 - Mar 18 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Oh I'm not thinking that we go it alone, this default needs to be global and only the first step of a wider fundamental, societal reset. |
No chance. They’re not going to let go. I don’t know where that leaves us though. |  |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 20:27 - Mar 18 with 725 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 20:09 - Mar 18 by DJR |
According to the Resolution Foundation between 800,000 and 1.2 million people will lose support of between £4,200 and £6,300 per year by 2029-30.
That's an awful lot of money for people who probably won't be well off to start with.
And there is likely to be an effect on carers.
Kirsty McHugh, CEO of the Carers' Trust, said:
"Proposals to tighten eligibility criteria for benefits will strike fear into the heart of many carers. Around half a million carers look after someone receiving personal insurance payments (Pip), and nearly 150,000 people rely on both Pip and Carer’s Allowance. Disabled people and their carers are already among the most vulnerable in our society and more likely to live in poverty. Reducing their access to a financial safety net could push them over the edge."
All this is shocking and has gone down very badly among commenters on the Guardian website.
One issue for me is that people like Starmer, Reeves and Streeting are robotic and appear to lack empathy and awareness. This may well explain the route they have gone down, and they probably don't realise the damage they have done to the reputation of the party when it comes to many of their longstanding voters and members. [Post edited 18 Mar 20:16]
|
They need to enjoy their moment in the limelight as it will be their last chance in a long, long time...they stand for nothing. | |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 20:45 - Mar 18 with 690 views | lowhouseblue |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 20:09 - Mar 18 by DJR |
According to the Resolution Foundation between 800,000 and 1.2 million people will lose support of between £4,200 and £6,300 per year by 2029-30.
That's an awful lot of money for people who probably won't be well off to start with.
And there is likely to be an effect on carers.
Kirsty McHugh, CEO of the Carers' Trust, said:
"Proposals to tighten eligibility criteria for benefits will strike fear into the heart of many carers. Around half a million carers look after someone receiving personal insurance payments (Pip), and nearly 150,000 people rely on both Pip and Carer’s Allowance. Disabled people and their carers are already among the most vulnerable in our society and more likely to live in poverty. Reducing their access to a financial safety net could push them over the edge."
All this is shocking and has gone down very badly among commenters on the Guardian website.
One issue for me is that people like Starmer, Reeves and Streeting are robotic and appear to lack empathy and awareness. This may well explain the route they have gone down, and they probably don't realise the damage they have done to the reputation of the party when it comes to many of their longstanding voters and members. [Post edited 18 Mar 20:16]
|
"has gone down very badly among commenters on the Guardian website."
the comments section of the guardian website being renowned for calm and balanced sanity of course. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 20:57 - Mar 18 with 641 views | DJR |
| Banks were too big to fail but we're not...no QE or bailouts for us. on 20:45 - Mar 18 by lowhouseblue |
"has gone down very badly among commenters on the Guardian website."
the comments section of the guardian website being renowned for calm and balanced sanity of course. |
You'd be surprised. The commenters have been fairly (and in my view too) supportive of Starmer's government, many Corbynistas probably having deserted it.
But these cuts have been overwhelmingly criticised by commenters, and by columnists. [Post edited 18 Mar 20:59]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
