| Starmer's bill and two party system 09:50 - Jul 1 with 2073 views | nrb1985 |
I'm by no means a Politico so I don't know what the answer is but I'm following the newsflow on the Starmer bill today and it seems there's pretty much open revolt on his back benches from the left wing of his party. The tail wagging the dog so to speak.
It was the same under the Tories with the lunatic fringe pulling them ever further from the centre towards Farage, which wasn't particularly helpful to put it mildly. Indeed every week there seemed some ever more ridiculous pop up group of "neo con" or whatever nonsense Truss and Rees-Mogg were spouting that particular week.
Both parties describe themselves as a "broad church" but in practice what that looks like to me is that you have multiple conflicting views all the time and end up with Frankenstein legislation and policies that don't really satisfy or appease anyone.
Like I say, not a Politico and certainly don't follow UK politics as closely as some on here but rather seems to me the two party system doesn't really work for many people, least of all the MPs themselves.
You certainly couldn't run a company like this anyhow. [Post edited 1 Jul 15:27]
|  | | |  |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:33 - Jul 1 with 379 views | Libero |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:16 - Jul 1 by redrickstuhaart |
Our recovery from covid is worse than our neighbours. The rise also started pre covid. |
Yes, our recovery is worse, people have been shot to pieces and the NHS isn’t effectively looking after them- hence (in part) the increase in PIP applications.
I’d need to review the statistics again to assess that claim but despite the mass disabling event causing a mass of disabled people there are obviously many other factors at play too.
Anyone who thinks PIP has a problem with being fraudulently claimed genuinely has no idea what they’re talking about. [Post edited 1 Jul 18:36]
|  | | |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:36 - Jul 1 with 371 views | DJR |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 16:50 - Jul 1 by redrickstuhaart |
It is unsustainable. And it started under the previous government creating a ticking bomb which the current government are being criticised for trying to fix.
The other option (after fiddling the system and low bars) is that the rest of our public services are screwed and huge numbers of people are unable to cope because they have not had support when needed from social services, from mental health services, and from physical health services. |
Welfare spending (including pensions, universal credit and disability benefits) is predicted by the OBR to fall as a percentage of GDP by 2028/29, and this despite an ageing population and an NHS which is not fit for purpose in the sense of making people well. [Post edited 1 Jul 18:36]
|  | | |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:37 - Jul 1 with 363 views | Libero |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:36 - Jul 1 by DJR |
Welfare spending (including pensions, universal credit and disability benefits) is predicted by the OBR to fall as a percentage of GDP by 2028/29, and this despite an ageing population and an NHS which is not fit for purpose in the sense of making people well. [Post edited 1 Jul 18:36]
|
Indeed, this doesn’t fit the narrative though, demonising the unemployed, the chronically sick and the disabled is very much in vogue. | | | |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:38 - Jul 1 with 348 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:36 - Jul 1 by DJR |
Welfare spending (including pensions, universal credit and disability benefits) is predicted by the OBR to fall as a percentage of GDP by 2028/29, and this despite an ageing population and an NHS which is not fit for purpose in the sense of making people well. [Post edited 1 Jul 18:36]
|
Those predictions are based on the assumption that governments are intending to take action to cut and stem the rise? | | | |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:51 - Jul 1 with 330 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 10:32 - Jul 1 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Though his cuts to disability and heating allowance for vulnerable pensioners weren’t popular with the general public. I think he’s driven by popular opinion as much as any of his party, his stance on Israel and asylum seekers is very much at odds with many in the party.
They’ve had the issue for years of trying to appeal to their traditional working class, socially conservative core in the North of England, with more liberal wealthier voters in London and other cities. That’s the problem with an effectively two party system trying to please such a wide range of views. |
He’s out of kilter with public opinion on the Israel/Palestine and Israel/Iran conflicts.
You’d be surprised on asylum too. It depends on the question, but YouGov polls asking whether we should be accepting genuine asylum seekers show that the majority of respondents think we should accept the same number we do now or more, by quite some margin - https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-britain-allow-people-fleein It’s only because Farage and the more rancid Tories get so much press coverage that it seems the opposite. |  |
| |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:55 - Jul 1 with 306 views | DJR |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:38 - Jul 1 by redrickstuhaart |
Those predictions are based on the assumption that governments are intending to take action to cut and stem the rise? |
Just to clarify, this is what the OBR said in March 2025, after the disability cuts were announced.
"Overall, our provisional estimate is that the direct impact of the welfare measures included in this forecast reduce AME spending by £4.8 billion by 2029-30. This includes a £4.5 billion reduction in welfare spending due to changes to benefit entitlement and generosity and a £0.2 billion reduction due to fraud and error measures. This is the largest package of welfare savings since the July 2015 Budget, which included a four-year freeze to most working-age benefits and a package of reductions to tax credits and UC. It puts overall welfare spending on a slightly downward trajectory as a share of GDP over the medium term, rather than the flat path in the October forecast."
This suggests at worse a flatlining of overall welfare spending, even if the disability cuts are never made. [Post edited 1 Jul 19:01]
| | | |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:57 - Jul 1 with 294 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 14:14 - Jul 1 by BlueForYou |
The answer is …… a General Election. Personally I hoped Labour would be ok, but they’ve proven to be totally pathetic. |
There have been a few high profile cockups and the welfare bill seems the largest of all, but they’ve also been doing a lot of better stuff that goes unreported.
It’s been a bumpy first 12 months for them, all self-inflicted. They also seem devoid of imagination unfortunately. But to call for a general election is just daft. They earned the right to a term. Plus people have short memories about how useless the Tories had become (you only have to watch Badenoch to be reminded). Out of the main parties polling, they still are the better option. | |
| |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 19:03 - Jul 1 with 281 views | thebooks |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 16:00 - Jul 1 by itfcjoe |
Over 1,000 people are day are becoming entitled to PIP, my father in law needs to but got rejected because he said he can walk 200m [didn't mention he probably has to stop 8 times in it].
The system is either being fiddled, or the barriers to receive it are too low, but wither way over 1000 extra claimaints a day is unsustainable - that will be nearly another 2 million people over this parliament.
Cutting the amounts paid is the wrong move - but it needs to be stricter to get on it and properly reassessed at given intervals |
A more obvious conclusion is that not enough people are receiving the support they need, your father included. But hey, if you think everyone else is fiddling it, go ahead. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 19:14 - Jul 1 with 265 views | DJR |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:57 - Jul 1 by Swansea_Blue |
There have been a few high profile cockups and the welfare bill seems the largest of all, but they’ve also been doing a lot of better stuff that goes unreported.
It’s been a bumpy first 12 months for them, all self-inflicted. They also seem devoid of imagination unfortunately. But to call for a general election is just daft. They earned the right to a term. Plus people have short memories about how useless the Tories had become (you only have to watch Badenoch to be reminded). Out of the main parties polling, they still are the better option. |
The gutting of the Welfare Bill, a key component of Reeves's savings to give her £10 billion fiscal headroom, must go down as one of the greatest political disasters of all time, especially coming so soon after the General Election and with such a stonking majority.
Some of us (including Michael Crick) warned that trying to manipulate the selection process so as to produce a compliant Labour Party was not wise in policy terms. Presumably those at the top thought that what were called the Starmtroopers would accept whatever was thrown their way but, having no real principles themselves, they couldn't understand that even compliant MPs might have principles.
Perhaps what it does show is that the calibre of many MPs and advisers these days is not a patch on what it once was. [Post edited 1 Jul 19:17]
| | | |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 19:21 - Jul 1 with 251 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 19:14 - Jul 1 by DJR |
The gutting of the Welfare Bill, a key component of Reeves's savings to give her £10 billion fiscal headroom, must go down as one of the greatest political disasters of all time, especially coming so soon after the General Election and with such a stonking majority.
Some of us (including Michael Crick) warned that trying to manipulate the selection process so as to produce a compliant Labour Party was not wise in policy terms. Presumably those at the top thought that what were called the Starmtroopers would accept whatever was thrown their way but, having no real principles themselves, they couldn't understand that even compliant MPs might have principles.
Perhaps what it does show is that the calibre of many MPs and advisers these days is not a patch on what it once was. [Post edited 1 Jul 19:17]
|
It may show the opposite?
People standing up for convictions rather than just playing games? | | | |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 19:24 - Jul 1 with 243 views | DJR |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 19:21 - Jul 1 by redrickstuhaart |
It may show the opposite?
People standing up for convictions rather than just playing games? |
But it's no way to run a political party. Their views should have been taken into at the policy stage, and this proposal would never have got off the ground. Instead, because those at the top thought they were in complete control, they thought they could get away with anything. | | | |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 19:25 - Jul 1 with 240 views | thebooks |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 19:14 - Jul 1 by DJR |
The gutting of the Welfare Bill, a key component of Reeves's savings to give her £10 billion fiscal headroom, must go down as one of the greatest political disasters of all time, especially coming so soon after the General Election and with such a stonking majority.
Some of us (including Michael Crick) warned that trying to manipulate the selection process so as to produce a compliant Labour Party was not wise in policy terms. Presumably those at the top thought that what were called the Starmtroopers would accept whatever was thrown their way but, having no real principles themselves, they couldn't understand that even compliant MPs might have principles.
Perhaps what it does show is that the calibre of many MPs and advisers these days is not a patch on what it once was. [Post edited 1 Jul 19:17]
|
It is mind boggling that you can mismanage a 156 seat majority in the first year of your parliament.
But then, committing yourself to a dying Tory government’s spending plans was always going to end in disaster.
Yes, the damage to the Lab party inflicted by Starmer at all levels is really showing itself.
I am very glad this diabolical bill has been defeated, and that Starmer and Kendall have been royally fücked over. But I worry about what follows unless Starmer is removed pretty quickly. | | | |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 19:27 - Jul 1 with 235 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 18:33 - Jul 1 by Libero |
Yes, our recovery is worse, people have been shot to pieces and the NHS isn’t effectively looking after them- hence (in part) the increase in PIP applications.
I’d need to review the statistics again to assess that claim but despite the mass disabling event causing a mass of disabled people there are obviously many other factors at play too.
Anyone who thinks PIP has a problem with being fraudulently claimed genuinely has no idea what they’re talking about. [Post edited 1 Jul 18:36]
|
I think the frustrating thing is there are LOADS of, in effect, lost government income sources they could be looking at instead of trying to cut support for pensioners and the disabled. Pension tax relief on its own costs the government £50BN a year - that a benefit going predominantly to the better off. The same with tax breaks for investments such as bonds, which are aligned even more to the wealthy. There are a lot of benefits going to the rich that never get talked about, and that’s before we start on subsidies for industry and companies (including over £10BN per year in tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry).
For context, the government claims they’ll save £4.5BN per year from the welfare cuts, but that’s likely to be a lot lower once disabled people can’t afford to keep working and end up on the dole. Winter fuel payment changes are now expected to save a very optimistic £1.25BN/yr.
TLDR: there is a far greater opportunity to raise the government income needed by addressing tax breaks afforded to the better off than by cutting support to those who most need it. And that’s before we get on to things like wealth taxes. | |
| |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 20:39 - Jul 1 with 175 views | WeWereZombies |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 19:25 - Jul 1 by thebooks |
It is mind boggling that you can mismanage a 156 seat majority in the first year of your parliament.
But then, committing yourself to a dying Tory government’s spending plans was always going to end in disaster.
Yes, the damage to the Lab party inflicted by Starmer at all levels is really showing itself.
I am very glad this diabolical bill has been defeated, and that Starmer and Kendall have been royally fücked over. But I worry about what follows unless Starmer is removed pretty quickly. |
But the bill has not been defeated, it was amended and has just passed a vote in the House of Commons by 335 to 260:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckg33njxve0t |  |
| |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 20:39 - Jul 1 with 174 views | Leaky |
iIs the problem more that each party has Whips to cajoul members to toe the party line. As our voting system allows us to vote for an MP to represent our Constituancy. rather than an individual Prime Minister. So where does the MP's loyalty lay with the party thats put up the money to get her/him elected or the people who voted for said MP |  | | |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 21:12 - Jul 1 with 115 views | jayessess |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 19:27 - Jul 1 by Swansea_Blue |
I think the frustrating thing is there are LOADS of, in effect, lost government income sources they could be looking at instead of trying to cut support for pensioners and the disabled. Pension tax relief on its own costs the government £50BN a year - that a benefit going predominantly to the better off. The same with tax breaks for investments such as bonds, which are aligned even more to the wealthy. There are a lot of benefits going to the rich that never get talked about, and that’s before we start on subsidies for industry and companies (including over £10BN per year in tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry).
For context, the government claims they’ll save £4.5BN per year from the welfare cuts, but that’s likely to be a lot lower once disabled people can’t afford to keep working and end up on the dole. Winter fuel payment changes are now expected to save a very optimistic £1.25BN/yr.
TLDR: there is a far greater opportunity to raise the government income needed by addressing tax breaks afforded to the better off than by cutting support to those who most need it. And that’s before we get on to things like wealth taxes. |
A lot of these cuts end up costing money in the long run - you take support off vulnerable people, their lives get worse and they just re-appear needing more costly support somewhere else in the system. [Post edited 1 Jul 21:20]
|  |
| |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 21:17 - Jul 1 with 111 views | thebooks |
It’s as good as dead, unless you can see a way a “co-produced” report with disability groups comes up with a similarly batshït set of suggestions. Or Starmer has a go at putting something similar through again. I mean, he can try. | | | |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 21:32 - Jul 1 with 91 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 19:14 - Jul 1 by DJR |
The gutting of the Welfare Bill, a key component of Reeves's savings to give her £10 billion fiscal headroom, must go down as one of the greatest political disasters of all time, especially coming so soon after the General Election and with such a stonking majority.
Some of us (including Michael Crick) warned that trying to manipulate the selection process so as to produce a compliant Labour Party was not wise in policy terms. Presumably those at the top thought that what were called the Starmtroopers would accept whatever was thrown their way but, having no real principles themselves, they couldn't understand that even compliant MPs might have principles.
Perhaps what it does show is that the calibre of many MPs and advisers these days is not a patch on what it once was. [Post edited 1 Jul 19:17]
|
I’d bow to your greater knowledge in terms of where it sits, but it’s definitely been a clusterfcuk. It’s hard to understand how Labour of all people could get this so wrong. As I mentioned elsewhere, she could create that £10BN headroom by reducing the tax breaks on pensions by a mere 20%. Or any number of other ways of introducing a fairer tax system (which ultimately would proportionally affect the better off). And that’s before we start talking about wealth taxes on the super rich (>£10M value) which for some reason even normal people who are in the anti-Labour tribe oppose. [Post edited 1 Jul 21:48]
| |
| |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 21:34 - Jul 1 with 83 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 21:12 - Jul 1 by jayessess |
A lot of these cuts end up costing money in the long run - you take support off vulnerable people, their lives get worse and they just re-appear needing more costly support somewhere else in the system. [Post edited 1 Jul 21:20]
|
Yep, and that’s never factored into the costings. The lack of a big picture is scary. | |
| |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 21:43 - Jul 1 with 75 views | WeWereZombies |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 21:17 - Jul 1 by thebooks |
It’s as good as dead, unless you can see a way a “co-produced” report with disability groups comes up with a similarly batshït set of suggestions. Or Starmer has a go at putting something similar through again. I mean, he can try. |
Well, well, well, who would have thought politics involved difficult compromises ? If all this means that Labour stay in power for the full term I'm happier than if the Government fell and was replaced by the Conservatives...or worse. | |
| |
| Starmer's bill and two party system on 22:11 - Jul 1 with 40 views | DJR |
44 Labour MPs voted against including radical left lunatics like Stella Creasy, and this despite the following.
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
