A year of Starmer What do you think?

I agree with you Maizie. I want to tell them to stop waffling and come out with a clear message.

You are absolutely right MaisieD about Labour and the economy. They just lay back and let the Conservatives lead the narrative.
One of the reasons I am hesitant about Keir Starmer's Labour party is his closeness to Rachel Reeves, who wanted to come down harder on benefit claimants than the Tories, again following their narrative about "scroungers".

Sorry Growstuff. It's here.

www.who.int/bulletin/archives/78(6)845.pdf

Do you mean Reeves' 2013(?) announcement about being "tougher than the Tories on benefits"?

I don't know if Starmer's shadow cabinet has the capability to do this.

I feel that concern too. However, we have a government that is pretty incompetent - other than at spending other people's money - except when it comes to staging everything. Wikipedia on Fascism (I hope this isn't deleted yet again - I think they must have an algorithm!)

Historians and other scholars disagree on the question of whether a specifically fascist type of economic policy can be said to exist

And here we have the Johnson government following these paths yet again. He does not want to govern and be held to account; he wants to rule so we have no real idea of his economic plan - and neither do the rest of his party. Other politicians may need to band together to get rid of him. I can't think of any other way of overcoming the propaganda machine he has working for him.

growstuff yes that is what I was thinking of.

I think it's very easy easy to take single utterances out of context and not to consider the whole picture. Reeves has actually done other work investigating poverty which is usually forgotten. However, those few word make a fantastic quote on social media.

At the time, the gutter press was full of stories about "benefit scroungers" aimed at Labour voters who were struggling but above the threshold for benefits. They despised people on benefits as much as anybody else - maybe even more because they were genuinely struggling and had been persuaded that people on benefits were playing the system.

Reeves was trying to appeal to those people. It was a silly and misguided thing to say because a deeper analysis of what the opposition Labour party would have done for the low paid wasn't "tougher" for those on benefits than what the Conservatives were doing. Nevertheless, it was picked up by the Tory press and used against the Labour Party - and it worked.

Pippa With the majority he has, there is no way that 80 Conservatives will work with the opposition to get rid of him. They know very well which side their bread is buttered.

Until Starmer ditches his TWAW opinion he will lose a lot of women voters. Does he really believe this statement? He needs to get a grip.

growstuff

Pippa With the majority he has, there is no way that 80 Conservatives will work with the opposition to get rid of him. They know very well which side their bread is buttered.

Not at the moment but let me give you a scenario. Johnson has a very short attention span. We see more and more anti-democratic bills go through parliament on the excuse that we need them for Covid. Johnson finds an excuse to leave - long covid or similar. It is decided that Gove will take over and he now has the use of the anti-democratic bills and decides to take everything a little further. You could see some of the currently quiet members of the Tories decide to vote the government down. They could even do so if Johnson tries to go too far.

I do appreciate my knowledge of politics is not deep enough to stop me worrying but I do, truly worry about where we are going.

Gossamerbeynon1945

Until Starmer ditches his TWAW opinion he will lose a lot of women voters. Does he really believe this statement? He needs to get a grip.

Important to you but fairly low down on the overall reasons for voting I would have thought.

Read "Labour Losing Women" on Twitter

The problem with selling benefit policies to those just above the threshold is that they are disadvantaged. It must be galling to get up to go to a low-paid job and know that others who are staying in bed are getting as much as you are for going to work, and then there are the myriad things that benefit claimants get free which are too expensive for the working poor.

This is one of the reasons I am so rabidly anti means-testing. I don't think it is right that unwaged people can get into (for the sake of argument) concerts, exhibitions or whatever free, when their working neighbours can't go because their budget won't stretch. Similarly, there are a lot of things available to those on benefits which many working people could not afford.

As an example, I have booked some classes over the summer which cost hundreds of pounds unless you can prove that you are in receipt of benefits such as UC or pension credit, in which case they are very cheap. It is a tricky one to unpick, as (speaking for myself) I don't want to deny people on benefits the chance to spend their time productively (or pleasurably for that matter), but I am having to think carefully about which courses to do, as I missed out on a state pension at 60, so am having to use my savings, whereas people who haven't paid in anything can get them free and can take several. I'm not exactly resentful, and I know that the courses need to be funded somehow, but I can't help feeling that it's not very fair.

My example is arguably about a 'luxury' thing to do, and I know that I am lucky to be able to afford it, but I can understand how someone working hard all week but who is still unable to afford to do the things their non-working neighbours get free might be really resentful, and even more so when their children can't get access to things because they go to work.

There are a lot of people in that position. Not spiteful people who want to punish benefit claimants or restrict their lives, but decent people who want to see the benefit of their hard work. Didn't Teresa May call them 'Just About Managing'?

The answer, IMO, is to increase the minimum wage, rather than to cut benefits, but if a politician suggests that, they are shouted down by business owners who say that they 'can't afford' to pay more. I don't know - maybe there should be means testing at their end, too? If your turnover is more than £X you have to pay your staff more than a start-up company turning over a lot less? It doesn't seem fair to me that a hypothetical someone with a yacht and a second home, and children in public schools should be able to claim poverty and pay their staff badly as a result. If means testing sets a line above which the poor are deemed to be able to 'afford' to pay for things, why not balance it with one for the better off?

I think that this 'JAM' demographic is an important one, but a candidate for election who wants to sort it out fairly is up against a media which supports the profit motive, which makes it a difficult one to sell. In the end, it is easier to make the working poor feel better off than non-working neighbours by cutting benefit budgets, which ends up with a race to the bottom.

Gossamerbeynon1945

Until Starmer ditches his TWAW opinion he will lose a lot of women voters. Does he really believe this statement? He needs to get a grip.

Yes, and this is very true too. I despair, really.

Doodledog I agree

I doubt people will be concerned about TWAW when they vote

Anniebach I don't suppose they will. until it affects them or someone in their family.. Women should stick together, and support each other.

Anniebach

I doubt people will be concerned about TWAW when they vote

A year ago I would have agreed with you, but I know several women who are Labour voters by inclination, but who are now feeling disenfranchised because of it, and are unsure how to vote. And that's just the ones who aren't afraid to talk about it and express their views.

I quite liked Tony Blair until his illegal war and the I went right off him. I have never felt so politically homeless. Who do I vote for? (Don't like Boris)

Doodledog do you really believe thousands and thousands of
women will vote with TWAW in their minds ?

I think quite a lot will! Look at LabourLosingWomen and WomenAreWatching on Twitter and read Feminism on Mumsnet

I don't know. Like most of us, I can only speak about my own friendship groups, and I do know that a sizeable number of people who have always been left-leaning feminists, supportive of LGBT+ issues are now seriously concerned about the anti-feminist agenda of the TRA, and are seriously thinking about how to vote.

There is a lot of time between now and the next GE, of course, and who knows what over issues will have arisen by then, but as things stand, I do think it is a real issue.

I feel sorry for MPs, as if they go with the TWAW line they alienate middle aged feminists, but if they don't they risk alienating the young 'woke' brigade. It can't be easy, whatever they think as individuals.

I think it shows what sort of a person she is though growstuff the sort that will jump on a bandwagon and punch down. What will it be next time? Will she find another soft target and go for them?

Doodledog - No, not easy. My grandson who is 18 and bi-lingual agrees with me, people cannot change sex. I have seen a lot of forms etc. including NHS that ask you what gender you are.

Gender is a social construct

Speaking of sex, I have an inherited disease that only affects females, never affects males.

Ilovecheese

I think it shows what sort of a person she is though growstuff the sort that will jump on a bandwagon and punch down. What will it be next time? Will she find another soft target and go for them?

But people don't mind voting for Conservatives who make a habit of jumping bandwagons.