Be grateful that we give you jobs.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I just came here to post that. Very suspect vendetta against that academic and dodgy using her comment on that Guardian article as part of her evidence. Serious McCarthyist witch hunt.
We came so close with that plane crash. Heartbreaking.
The fact his plane crashed after a UKIP banner got entangled with it, is alongside the ‘This does not slip, followed by a slip’ in the hall of fame.
Someone has found a magic money tree for bombs.
Last edited:
If we sacked a load of healthcare workers, that would allow us to reinvest the money into defence.
Forget Michelle Donelan and her £34k, these are the real villains we should be going after...
Carer convicted over benefit error worth 30p a week fights to clear his name
George Henderson had to sell his home to repay nearly £20,000, years after ticking wrong box on carer’s allowance form
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/12/carers-allowance-benefit-error-30p-a-week-dwp
Carer convicted over benefit error worth 30p a week fights to clear his name
George Henderson had to sell his home to repay nearly £20,000, years after ticking wrong box on carer’s allowance form
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/12/carers-allowance-benefit-error-30p-a-week-dwp
I'll be generous and assume you are referring to the commitments to trident otherwise you've missed the whole 'when resources allow' comment in your haste to get a dig in
"When resources allow" is subjective and could potentially mean the moment they get in and make cuts to benefits or something like that to facilitate it.
It's also subjective and could mean by the end of parliament or never.
Again, they are saying that their plan to reduce spending on benefits is to fund the NHS and mental health services to support people into recovery because the numbers are too high because of austerity leading to delays in treatment.
They have to talk with firm rhetoric because they are Labour are don't get away with anything with the press we have.
So the problem all these poor people have with their health is that they're too rich compared to the NHS which is making them sad and sick and so they need their benefits cutting?
Makes perfect sense to me.
What
Oh sorry is the plan confusing?
No. When they are saying that the numbers of people on disability benefits has increased to unacceptable levels due to underfunding and they are proposing fixing the problem. Ie people not receiving treatment
This has the added benefit of enabling people to work and increasing productivity
If you took a breath to think about it it wouldn't be confusing
Taking their benefits away to "fix the problem" creates a new problem. It's stupid posturing.
Why is there a need for an individual to claim disability benefits if they are now fit to work?
So I take £50 a week off them and they're cured?
If they were cured they wouldn't be claiming the benefit so you wouldn't need to cut it...
If for example, 650k people are on disability benefits. Say 400k are never going to able to work the remainder can be treated
They are saying that if they receive the treatment and are now able to work that they will no longer be claiming disability benefits as they will be working.
Over time, the figures will go down when the public has quality health treatment.
It's not difficult to understand
I will be shocked if there aren't real terms cuts to the actual benefit so they can satisfy the Victorian Tory cnut vote that they're slavering over, regardless of how counterproductive it is to society or the economy.
The benefit system, coeval, in the UK is among the worst in Western Europe. I'll have to triple check that one. Cancer patients were forced to work because they were deemed fit by the Tory auditing-austerity system.
When it comes to disability benefits, what, broad view, individual is sitting at home fit to work but surviving on a miserable state pension instead? There's a risk of Benefit Street by the back door with some of this rhetoric, though not aimed at you personally.
Sitting at home on 40 to 80 quid when absolutely fine and fit for work. It's complete nonsense. Getting those who are on that benefit back to work might be helped if they weren't barely surviving in the first place. It's not unemployment, it's disability. People who have no say, at any given time of life, as to whether they can work or not. It's a disgraceful rate as it is.
why do people still allow her to speak publicly?
Its from her book which she is promoting.
If you're really thick and nasty - become a politician!
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...ypes/bulletins/jobsandvacanciesintheuk/latest
In December 2023 to February 2024, the estimated number of vacancies fell on the quarter by 43,000 to 908,000. The industry showing the largest fall in vacancy numbers was human health and social work activities, which was down by 13,000 from the previous quarter.
When comparing December 2023 to February 2024 with the same time the previous year, total vacancies decreased by 224,000 (19.8%), with falls in 16 of the 18 industry sectors. The industry that decreased the most was human health and social work activities, where the estimated number of vacancies fell by 47,000.
The total estimated number of vacancies remains 107,000 above January to March 2020 pre-coronavirus (COVID-19) levels, with human health and social work activities showing the largest increase, at 23,000. Four industry sectors fell below pre-coronavirus levels with a combined fall of 21,000 vacancies.
The number of unemployed people to every vacancy rose to 1.5 in November 2023 to January 2024, from 1.4 the previous quarter; this slight easing in labour demand follows continuous falls in the number of vacancies.
Our politicians in the West are so myopic. They are not interested in dealing with the systemic failures which are going to cause seismic fractures in society in the coming decades. Falling birthrates, people living longer and requiring more medical care, the spiralling debt crisis and reliance on the dollar as the world's currency, climate change, a disenfranchised youth, the ever-widening gap between the richest and the poorest, the inevitable hegemony of the East... I could go on. Instead it's business as usual, more of the same, let's just kick the can down the road.
I'm as optimistic a person as you could meet. Life is wonderful and I find joy in the simple things. By most metrics, we've never had it so good. But I'm also a student of history and when we get circumstances like those I mentioned in the first paragraph all happening at once, there's only one outcome that I can see. Revolution. Might not necessarily be violent, might not be sudden, but something has to give. And the longer things carry on as they are, the more likely it is that it will be sudden and it will be violent.
I'm surprised Bloomberg donated to Labour.
The optics aren't great, but parties discussing policy with practitioners in the industry it covers is not unusual.
The company that made the donation was the only non-financial company at the meeting where financial policy was discussed as well, so hardly a smoking gun.
Tbh the google/YouTube gave the labour only 10,000 and suddenly the labour did a u turn on its digital tax service policy. Labour also had a donation from a oil guy before it backed on its climate policy.
Tbh the thing that is most surprising is how cheap these donations are. Doesn’t seem to take a lot of cash.
Pretty much. Things will continue to get worse all of over the world but history tends to show dystopian shite doesn’t last forever.
I always assume they're just aping any Tory stance change when Labour do their latest policy U-turn.
Probably. Tbh if we takeaway the parties the likes of Starmer, Sunak, Reeves and Hunt are pretty much all the same person. I think in the case of Reeves and Hunt they studied the same course at the same uni.
I guess it’s easier for the donators at least!
We need publicly funded elections and political parties, and to make these kinds of donations illegal.
It is depressing that Reeves and Hunt could do a face/off swap and no-one would notice.
I feel about as disengaged from UK politics as I've ever been.
@Frosty I think it's fair enough if parties can attract members and raise funds off them, but I'd defo cap individual donations very low, say £5-10k. There's no legitimate reasons for corporate donations, so I'd ban them.
We do. And organisations should be unable to donate as a 'block', trade unionists should be balloted as to whether a portion of their subs goes to donation (they used to be) and for companies each and every shareholder should be balloted and any donation be in proportion to their holding. With a maximum per individual, and a low maximum at that.
The excerpt is quite interesting. Certainly underlines how blinkered Truss was by ideology and how paranoid she was about her colleagues.
The dig at Gove having 'anti-growth instincts' made me laugh.
'We didn't know Britain was sitting on a financial tinderbox': Who's to blame for the bond market meltdown that torpedoed her premiership? Everyone, says LIZ TRUSS, in her blistering new memoir
The dig at Gove having 'anti-growth instincts' made me laugh.
'We didn't know Britain was sitting on a financial tinderbox': Who's to blame for the bond market meltdown that torpedoed her premiership? Everyone, says LIZ TRUSS, in her blistering new memoir
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...hip-says-LIZ-TRUSS-blistering-new-memoir.html