Actually, it's fair to say nobody backs Rishi at the moment. The far right wing of the group thinks he's too soft, and the moderate right wing of the party thinks it's ridiculous he wants to bypass human rights laws.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Actually, it's fair to say nobody backs Rishi at the moment. The far right wing of the group thinks he's too soft, and the moderate right wing of the party thinks it's ridiculous he wants to bypass human rights laws.
He likes coke too
It's a nuclear button to hold off the right, yes
He became a Lord? I have no idea what that entitles him to, but I’m sure it’s worth a couples months of work.
I’d seen April time touted to give people chance to feel the 2% NI relief in their pocket. I’m not sure when BoE plan to resume interest rate hikes, assuming they will - that might make them want to do it a bit earlier if they’re going to bother calling one.
I'm not saying I agree with it. I just think they are enjoying its uses for their continued culture wars and Europe bashing in getting their base fired up. It's all they really have left to fight on.
Cruella being sacked wasn't because of Rwanda was it? And after the Supreme Court decision Sunak came out guns blazing. They want to play on the lefty lawyer shit.
It's such a small amount I'd doubt many will feel anything.
For what exactly?
Appreciate the notion, don't often see generosity like that these days.
I was quoting the below (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9602/), although you are correct the terminology states "a disability benefit", rather than specifically disability living allowance.
The initial point was that those deemed economically inactive and therefore not counted within the governments unemployment figures have risen (and weren't a good measure to start with for the reasons mentioned); making the sub 5% UK official unemployment figure quite misleading.
"The number of people entitled to receive a disability benefit in Great Britain has risen over time, from 3.9 million in May 2002 to 6.3 million in February 2023, and is expected to rise further.
The proportion of the population claiming a disability benefit .. the national average (9.6%)."
So Robert Jenrick wants to raise the min wage for visas to 35k and stop dependents coming with people in healthcare, as well as scrapping the shortages list.
Anyone with half a brain cell could tell you that would utterly cripple health and social care in this country. And these are diluted proposals compared to what those further on the tory right want.
But no, as a few posters keep saying, we have to listen and engage with those who have serious concerns about immigration otherwise its our fault that they end up with the far right.
Anyone with half a brain cell could tell you that would utterly cripple health and social care in this country. And these are diluted proposals compared to what those further on the tory right want.
But no, as a few posters keep saying, we have to listen and engage with those who have serious concerns about immigration otherwise its our fault that they end up with the far right.
Jenrick is so dismally thick, he'll probably be the next leader.
Meanwhile, back in the sleazy world of the pig-fecker...
Fresh China questions for Cameron as video shows him praising port project
Former PM seen quoting from Chinese-funded study in support of Sri Lankan development
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...uestions-for-david-cameron-video-port-project
Meanwhile, back in the sleazy world of the pig-fecker...
Fresh China questions for Cameron as video shows him praising port project
Former PM seen quoting from Chinese-funded study in support of Sri Lankan development
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...uestions-for-david-cameron-video-port-project
5% rise in utility bills over winter will offset 2% off NI for most people I expect. For the median UK salary of £38,000 the NI changes will save about £380 a year (~£32 a month). Price cap change is about £100 per year for the average household, a lot of which takes effect over the winter months. So I guess if you were a 2 salary household you'd notice perhaps a ~£45 rise in disposable income between you over the winter months. Meanwhile food and petrol are probably still inflating too...
Last edited:
The bolded may be true, and that is reflected in the quote I posted from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The fact remains that this has little to do with the 6.3 million figure you keep citing. That 6.3 million includes anyone "entitled to receive a disability benefit in Great Britain." This includes kids eligible for the disability living allowance for children as well as pensioners who can claim attendance allowance or a mobility supplement etc.
The actual figure you want to be citing is that which applies to those payments available only to the working age population. This is the Personal Independence Payment and 2.8 million people were in receipt of it as of October last year. This is probably a slight underestimate of all working age claimants (a small number of folk claim industrial injury disability payments, or a reduced earnings allowance for instance) but it is a far better reflection of reality than the figure of 6.3 million, which is why the IFS cite it.
2.8m still represents over 7% of the working age population, and reflects a pretty steep rise from the IFS figures of 2.1m in 2021.
It's good to see the government look to reduce people's benefits and force people into work with the looming threat of AI taking loads of people jobs and the need for universal basic income becoming an ever more pressing issue.
No, that is what happened last time with the Industrial Training Boards( ITBs) which were supposed to encourage employers to train staff in certain areas within their industry. However whilst it worked for a time, it eventually became in many industries a 'scam' in which the larger employers benefited by effectively getting the government (tax payer) to pay for their basic training needs and not the more advanced levels. As usual in these matters 'economies of scale' were used and the smaller employers lost out on scale. Although some ITB's did introduced 'Award Schemes', which were, in qualitative terms, offering a wider scope to individuals.
Whilst ITB's were not offering a 'job creation' scheme, as it was basically a training scheme concept, there were elements aimed at encouraging recruitment. The 'job creation' thing came in when Maggie Thatcher and Lord Young introduced the TECs and YTS appeared. This had some good features in particular for the young, school leavers, etc, because it introduced elements of off-the-job compulsory FE into training schemes, which equipped participants with qualifications which were inherently based around 'transferable skills sets' that could be taken into other jobs in other industries.
The down side was the payment to YTS apprentices, (although partly subsidised by the government) were set below the national industry apprentice rates agreed with the TUC, subsequently a number of TU's rejected YTS, and in particular because of Mrs 'T''s involvement. The schemes also were effectively initially only twelve months schemes , when full apprenticeships it many industries, were at least 3 -5 years ( this was before the move from 'time serving' to 'competence -based' assessments), there were some adjustments made when Mrs Thatcher proclaimed that "all 16 year old school leavers would either, go into full time employment, or into full time education, or on to a YTS programme".
Personally I thought a lot of TU's 'missed' a trick' on this one, yes it was the hated figure of Thatcher pushing this, but there were basic elements in YTS, never seen in youth provision before, or since, and had they been more positive responses from TU's (collectively) we might now not be suffering the severe skill shortages that we are now.
Because the weaknesses in YTS were never put right, nor the 'Luke-warm' interest from TU (and the Labour party) improved, the scheme eventually, like the ITB's, became a 'scam' for many unscrupulous employers
I hope Starmer will learn from the past, and in a new venture ensure everyone participates, no exceptions from employers or public in a new scheme that gives a legal backing to employment, training and remuneration.
A certain amount of compulsion will be necessary, maybe even some 'dragooning'.
Last edited:
Wtf is he doing??
I wonder if that person is aware of how much of the healthcare system in the UK is staffed by people from foreign countries. When people no longer want to come because they can't bring their families, are they going to fill the gaps with Bazza and Mark from down at the pub? Some good, honest Englishmen? The NHS is already a punishing system to work in as it is.
well quite clearly he’s been roped into trying his hand at “butler work.” it’s not his fault the mainstream media are doing whatever they can to trip up this righteous and glorious man.
As if Starmer will have any interest in any policy that a) involves spending money to do something useful or b) bears any passing resemblance to an economically left wing policy that would involve work and possibly investment on the behalf of private businesses.
Is this his bacon sandwich moment? It should be.
He already had that moment trying to pay by contactless.
To be fair to him, he was told to use it like that.
I'm talking about how the Government, ie: the taxpayer tops up peoples wages via the welfare system, there are millions of people in full-time employment that get it, that is the taxpayer subsidizing businesses because they don't pay wages that people can live on, it has nothing to do with training and everything to do with greed
Then he (and his Labour cabinet*) will lose out and be known forever as the Labour PM/Cabinet with the largest every Labour majority, who failed to 'move the dial'.
(* that's why he cannot tolerate any senior member/cabinet minister going off 'doing their own thing')
Yes, I am aware of what you are talking about.
I am suggesting Starmer needs to do something about the scandal of the so called 'working poor'. It's not about 'handouts/ benefits', its about the legal right to a permanent job, on agreed terms and conditions, subject only to the skill sets of the individuals, It's not about paying employers to take on employees off the unemployment register at the governments expense. If the scheme developed was to follow the principles of the old ITB schemes it would extract sums from employers in the form of levies first and they would have to claim, with appropriate evidence, some of that payment back when they comply.
My reference to training schemes was because its important the next Labour government learns from the past mistakes and includes with employment rights, the rights to receive training.
This is perhaps a novel suggestion because its not the unemployed/partially employed who will have to make claims on the state, its employers who have to claim back what they have already paid in to support proper and legal employment.
I am not suggesting this will be easy, but with a significant majority in government to force through legislation that brings real change that will affect the working lives of millions of ordinary folk for decades to come, Starmer has to give it a try. The next General Election result has the potential, for once in a lifetime (mine at least) to 'move the dial' significantly. The Tories are tearing themselves apart but not to win the next GE, they know that's gone, but to ensure Starmer does not get anything like the majority he needs to 'move that dial.'
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Starmer will take these 53 own goals from the Tories and somehow turn it into a loss in the metaphorical return leg. He's a vapid ballbag.
Yep, good points. Due to wage inflation people are being dragged in to tax bands they aren’t used to either and the thresholds haven’t changed so we are paying more tax than ever. They could have at least tried to do something interesting with these big tax takes but it looks like they’ve gone for something easily digestible for the masses with this NI cut.
As I said "you are correct".
That's a new one on me... is it good or bad?
Don't suppose it will matter when he's leading a substantial majority Labour Government
That's a new one on me... is it good or bad?
Don't suppose it will matter when he's leading a substantial majority Labour Government
Well either he's already shot his inconsequential load or there was nothing there to start with. And it really will matter because the country is fecked whether he has a substantial majority of not. 5 years of treading water followed by more Tory bullshit most likely. There's something to look forward to.
How do you come up with that? I take it Starmer would not be your choice for leader of Labour?
I think there are some very proper Labour members of the shadow cabinet, one or two 'iffy' but most of the 'all mouth and trousers brigade" jumped ship at the last election, or have already signalled 'they are only here for the beer' and have been spotted early. So, I am very optimistic.... for the first time in forty years, that we might just get a Labour government which will make a real difference and 'move the dial' significantly.
Mind you, I have been optimistic for years past, in the 70's and 80's, but in the 90,s sort of felt Blair was too photogenic, but then he did get some stuff done on the NHS, but he seemed to have too many friends in high places to get proper movement of the dial, and of course there was Iraq.
We shall have to see, don't give up hope.
There's absolutely no way Starmer will make significant positive impact for the working poor. He's made that very clear already.
Starmer and his Labour party will be perceived as failing the working classes at the end of their term. Making small tweaks to a broken system is not enough.
The sad consequence of a Starmer Labour government will likely be a lurch to the far right by the government which succeeds him
Apparently 30p Lee was offered 400k to join Reform.
No offence Maticmaker, but you don't half ramble sometimes. Historical context should always be appreciated, but the UK is a very different place to how it was in 1980s. Still not sure what you want Starmer to do exactly? You keep saying "new ventures"/"social contracts"/"new schemes" but what does any of this actually entail? What would be the bones of the legisation you hope he would pass?
No offence taken (too Old for that!!).
Yes, I do tend to ramble from time to time, again an age issue. I do appreciate we are not in the 1980's or even in the 20th Century anymore; however I am hoping a new Labour government, with again hopefully a significant majority, finds itself in a position to 'move the dial' towards the kind of legislation that has ongoing effect for decades, and that improves the lot of ordinary working people.
I make reference in a number of posts to how massive an effect the NHS Act and the Education Act had on the ordinary populace. Millions of people post WW2 until the present day have had access to basic human requirements that altered many lives, with Health and Education provision that is effectively free at the point of provision, whereas prior to the WW2 (and certainly WW1) such provision was sparce at best for working families and many had to pay, even for emergency treatment.
I want a Labour government in power (in my lifetime) which can once again 'move the dial' the way they did with Health and Education Acts. For me in the 21st Century this would include ensuring proper jobs with defined pay and conditions and guaranteeing a roof over peoples heads as a minimum*; there other aspects about control of energy and water etc. but those can wait, employment and housing are for me non-negotiable. Given the state the Tories look like leaving us in, it may take two or even three terms in government to get proper/powerful legislation through and then to make sure it works.
I made reference to the ITBs in the 60's and 70's and TECs and YTS in the 80's and 90's because although they were not perfect they had one major element, Employers had to pay levies on jobs and training up front and to get the money back they had to meet the standards set. In future this would be via legislation not by NGO's. For a while these thing worked, but then then big business (mainly Tories) found ways around them and eventually they were scrapped.
It's not going to be easy that's for sure. Blair had a majority, of the size that Starmer would need, but he had made too many promises to certain interests before the election and they only allowed him certain leeway, in particular on NHS; also to keep his 'big tent' idea float he had to compromise with too many members of his own party, who whilst paying lip service, had their own ideas and ambitions, he was distracted of course by Iraq.
Yes, the world has changed and will continue to do so, climate issues apart, migration and energy issues are not going away either. However, for the ordinary folk, a job with a proper rate of pay and somewhere decent to live, are basics, that need to be established like Health and Education (although both of these need re-jigging) with powerful legislation that will stand at least for 50 years is required, a new all powerful Labour government needs to prioritise these basic needs first!
(* I accept other ideas and priorities might come first and are probably easier to accomplish, but employment and housing are for me the 'Holy Grail')
You're still being very woolly about your expectations. Proper jobs with decent conditions and a roof over your head is something everyone, even the Tories, wouldn't argue against (publicly ayway). How you achieve that is a different story. It will require radical changes to our curent M.O. and no one is currently proposing that. The closest we had to that was under Corbyn.
If Kier gets a large majority, you best hope that he can be dragged to the left by his own party in order to do some of what you hope for. Otherwise it will be business as usual, just under new management.
I didn't say it would be easy, essentially it requires the government to legislate. It will take time, its not a quick fix, to formulate plans/consult and negotiate will likely take up the first term. To implement legislation and 'test-bed', a lot of the second term. The third term will see the benefits flowing. To start from scratch would be hard to sell to the public and will need a full commitment from Starmer on what is on offer during the election campaign.
I have pointed to a number of initiatives undertaken via ITBs and TECs in the past, whilst these initially were handled by Industry based organisations (ITB's) and Regional areas TEC's, they lacked specific legislation to back them up so that eventually ways around them were found, by those who 'played the game' it will be up to the Labour government to prevent people playing the game. As I say I am optimistic that Starmer with a large majority has to do something that moves the dial in favour of ordinary working people, this is not left wing (or any other) political ideology, its a means to and end. Its not to be encumbered with 'international socialism' as Corbyn wanted, it is dealing with reality in improving life in general for those who keep the wheels turning in the UK. Aspiration and commitment are essential elements for employers and employees, for land holders and construction companies, Local authorities will need to gather proper information, again not politically biased, to gain an advantage.
Yes its aiming high, but it will never come from the Tories, maybe, just maybe Starmer will at least try?
Rachel Reeves putting the chancer in chancellor, Wes Streeting as health minister, a lot of people I've never heard of... Good that Thornberry, Milliband and Cooper are in there, and Lammy should know what he's doing in the Justice department but remains to be seen what he knows about foreign policy. Hopefully some of the ones we don't know much about can show they're up to the job as they'll need to be. Without any policies or money it won't really matter that much how competent they are though, we can only hope the cowardly non-positions Starmer has taken on almost every policy give way when they take office. I won't hold my breath.
I'm not sure how those initiatives you mentioned are relevant today given the makeup of the UK economy these days, but agree that something needs to be done. Again, Labour are not proposing to do anything different to how things are run now, so any hope that they will make radical or even incremental changes is blind faith.
As for Corbyn, he may be an international socialist in his personal beliefs, but he wasn't standing on the creation of a 5th International or whatever. He was standing on pretty mainstream (outside the US/UK) social democratic policies which would favour working people like you desire. Unfortunately, that is considered a left wing position these days rather than a basic tenet, so Starmer will need to be dragged to that position if he gains power.
Last edited: