Starmer's speech 27th Aug 24

Who knows why Starmer moved the portrait? All suggestions are possibilities, which GN’s are good at putting forward on any subject, whether it’s about seeing your grandchild, or why friends act like that, or why BJ chose that wallpaper, etc, etc.
Once people get defensive about things . . .

Molly, you are sounding obsessed . You have a hypothesis based on the fact that MT once (decades ago) said something that KS has also said, and you think that is too difficult for him to cope with.

Ok - I think that's beyond far-fetched, but it's your opinion, which is fair enough. How does that make me defensive? I just think your story is a bit barmy, is all.

Every time anyone mentions anything about Starmer, I see posts leaping to his defence with dismissive comments like, it was a long time ago,^or ^they’ve only been in power for . . . or , it’s cod psychology, or the previous government left a mess, and now you are sounding obsessed etc. That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to hold it.

IMO desperately defending anything Starmer or the LP do displays a far more noticeable obsession and worthy of a or maybe even 🤣🤣🤣

The portrait totally dominated the room. Thatcher is the total antithesis of everything Starmer stands for and believes in. Is it any wonder that he didn’t want it taking centre stage in that room? Would Thatcher have sat in the shadow of a huge portrait if Keir Hardy every day? I think not. Maybe Brown had it commissioned to remind everybody how her ideologies completely divided the country and continue to do so to this day?

It would help if the things he is being castigated for were actually noteworthy.

Moving a portrait?!?

I used 'cod psychology' so will address that. It means someone pretending to understand something that another has done, based on no actual psychology. Which describes exactly how deciding that something said 30/40 years ago is somehow haunting Starmer and making him get rid of a portrait comes across.

I wouldn't want MT looking at me either. Or Stalin, for that matter. Not because they once said something I have also said (??), but because they would not inspire me to good. If Priti Patel ever got into Downing Street I dare say she would remove pictures of Starmer, Blair and Brown for the same reasons.

He used her phrase.

He used Sunak’s argument, that he’d said was wrong. He used Thatcher’s phrase-maybe he thought it was appropriate the same as she did.

Who knows why he did that?

Who cares, frankly?

MissAdventure

I'm wondering where it was stated that Starmer moved the portrait?
Was it in the news?

The tale of what came out when MissA as regards the portrait is actually a trivial - but good- example of how the media manipulates.

The initial announcements (done my googling time wise) was that it was "removed" "taken down" and even, yup, "gets rid of"

Immediate reaction, shock horror, Starmer baddie (except much ruder terms) etc etc. Major Priti Patel speech on subject. Psychological speculation....

By the next day we found out it had just been moved

We've had a summer of half baked similar statements.

Ah, thank you.

MissAdventure

Who cares, frankly?

Exactly.

I don't care about the portrait but I do about stirring half truths around the media, I think its very damaging in terms of trust in MM.

Wyllow3

I don't care about the portrait but I do about stirring half truths around the media, I think its very damaging in terms of trust in MM.

Me too. Making stories out of nothing, and embellishing them to make the government sound bad is getting really boring.

We all use the same phrases as we speak the same language. That doesn't mean anything. Should no politician use phrases that others have used? There is being a member of the Opposition, and there is being deliberately oppositional.

There is being a member of the Opposition, and there is being deliberately oppositional.
What a fantastic phrase.
There is being a member of the opposition and there is being deliberately oppositional as happens on here, to anyone who speaks about the LP in terms you don’t like.
Thanks for that. 👏👏👏

There is so much bias in the press, you really can’t believe anything they print, not just politics either, they do influence opinion greatly. Even the BBC has editorial bias on many issues, but they are the least biased

David49 there’s a very positive article on Angela Rayner in Vogue although it’s not known for its political insight.
Does seem surprising to me that first steps from Labour have provoked hysterical reactions and that’s without any full Budget announcement. I thought Victoria Derbyshire did a good job for pensioners against a tone deaf treasury minister. Incidentally if 880000 pensioners claim pension credit and then WFA, wouldn’t that sink the budget?

David49

There is so much bias in the press, you really can’t believe anything they print, not just politics either, they do influence opinion greatly. Even the BBC has editorial bias on many issues, but they are the least biased

Bias exists everywhere not just in the press.

I wrote to my LP MP and reply was full of information how to get help claiming PC and urging people to do so, I think its been counted in.

Wyllow3

I wrote to my LP MP and reply was full of information how to get help claiming PC and urging people to do so, I think its been counted in.

Our Labour MP promised to send me the info when the announcement was made. Still waiting.

I wouldn't let that go, but here is help in the meantime:

www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/money-legal/benefits-entitlements/pension-credit/

(also check out your local MP's Facebook page, it may be on there)

Political reality
We now know that the winter fuel payment will be withdrawn from 10 million pensioners after Reeves announced the universal payments are to be means-tested. When higher fuel bills are taken into account, those 10 million pensioners will have to find an extra £800 this winter if they are to avoid the dreaded choice between heating and eating.

Labour has also said it will freeze the personal tax-free allowance at its current rate of £12,570, meaning that when state pensions – currently £11,502 – rise above £12,570, as they are predicted to do before the next general election, the state pension will be subject to tax for the first time.

So the pain will fall on pensioners, and instead of soaking the rich, Starmer intends to soak the old.
Politically, it makes perfect sense for Labour. Pensioners, of course, are less likely to vote Labour than young people: in this year’s general election the “crossover age” at which voters became more likely to vote Conservative than Labour was 63. So Starmer is ruthlessly impoverishing Tory voters to enrich Labour supporters.

Oh I don't know, I think they might just be callous and unimaginative.

Freezing the tax threshold will affect anyone on a low income - not just pensioners. Pensioners are not being singled out here, just treated in the same way as everyone else. 'The old' are not being 'soaked' - they are just being asked to pay their way in the same way as families and younger people are.

I would like to see both the minimum wage and the point at which people can claim PC increased, but whatever happens there will always be people just on the wrong side of every means-tested border, and on the whole they will be there because of their contributions and/or savings. In many ways it would make more sense to cap fuel bills for everyone, so there is no deterrent to saving, and fewer people are forced onto benefits.

Labour has also said it will freeze the personal tax-free allowance at its current rate of £12,570, meaning that when state pensions – currently £11,502 – rise above £12,570, as they are predicted to do before the next general election, the state pension will be subject to tax for the first time.

Labour have said they will keep to the Tory timescale on freezing the personal allowance until 2028, which is (barring the unforeseen) before the date of the next election.

There is no guarantee - or likelihood, sadly - that state pensions will rise that much.

Assuming that pensions rise 3% next April, they will be £11,587. Another 3% in April 2026 means 11,934, and one more similar rise in 2027 (the last date before the freeze ends) only gets to 12,292.

Even if pensions rose at 10% a year by 2027 they would be 13,314, so if the threshold didn’t increase, £744 would be taxable, which is £11.44 per pension payment.

To reiterate, this is exactly the same as it would have been if the Tories remained in office.