Sick of Starmer relentlessly using the words"difficult " & "painful"

If Starmer fails to stop the benefits being paid to those that don’t need (them) he will fail to revive the economy. The Tory newspapers have had a assassination campaign against his new policies, gullible voters are influenced, it doesn’t have to be accurate, if you say it often enough it will be believed.

It is the Labour voters who are the gullible ones.
No evidence has been produced to show this black hole Labour claim to have discovered; (I believe the Treasury refused a request for actual figures). Reeves, Rayner and others are claiming energy allowances on top of their large salaries, and Starmer needs donations to afford new suits, reading glasses and apparently new dresses to clothe his wife, who as far as I am aware took very little part in his campaign, simply appearing as arm-candy.
Not surprising his approval ratings have plummeted. But be careful what you wish for; he is trying to show how tough he is because he knows his successors will be far worse.

It’s the people who deny that this country is in a terrible state, with diminished public services, increased poverty, a reduced role in Europe and on the world stage as a result of years of misrule who are in denial eazybee. At least people who voted Labour did so with the hope of a better future for the population as a whole.

The state pension will go up next April due to the triple lock, not because the Labour Party have any concept of social conscience.

I too am only just over the threshold to qualify for Pension Credit. Aren’t I lucky to be old enough for a bus pass, and lucky to live alone so my council tax is only 75% of that paid by a couple (and it’s still a quarter of my income each month).

Genuinely lucky, though, in innumerable ways that no government can influence, and I never forget that.

Am I right in thinking that the Pension Credit tops you up to a figure below which you would officially be considered to be living in poverty?

If that is correct then those pensioners who are maybe £1 or £2 above it are most certainly going to struggle when the energy price cap increases next month - they are living just above the 'poverty line'. Especially those on the old State Pension who will not get the £900 increase, but considerably less. They are quite likely to be more frail and therefore less physically able to adapt to cold temperatures.

If that is one of the first painful decisions taken - which it appears was made without a proper impact assessment (though the DWP did issue one - of sorts), then it does not bode well for anyone, old or young, on a low wage / income. Because it is they who will feel the pain.

However, we cannot expect the very wealthy to bear the burden - as has been pointed out on here, they are small in number so their contribution would be minimal. And anyway, if they have to pay more taxes, they will do a Charlie Mullins and scarper to more tax-friendly countries - and jolly well make sure we know about it!

I can't help but question why there is such a huge wealth-gap anyway? Why is so much wealth concentrated in the hands of so few? Why is an executive paid 400 times more than one of his employees - without employees, there would be nothing for an executive to 'execute' anyway? Why are massive profits untouchable? Why have we allowed wages to stagnate over the last 15 years or so?

If people have no disposable income to spend - will that grow our economy? Surely we will eat less, buy less, do less? I don't think businesses will invest and expand if there are relatively few people buying. I don't believe austerity works very well in that respect.

This is interesting, if a bit out of date.
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2018tomarch2020

Casdon

This is interesting, if a bit out of date.
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2018tomarch2020

I looked a while back for this kind of info, but couldn't find anything up to date.

That's an interesting government link anyway, thanks for posting it - there's quite a lot to digest.

I’m enjoying this thread. Those of us who criticised the last government for things they saw as wrong, should be equally at liberty to criticise what they see as wrong actions of this government without constantly being told about the number of days, weeks etc. Especially when one of the hard, difficult decisions is one he criticised Sunak for considering.

Mollygo I think those of us who are right leaning are immune to the criticism of our MP’s

Hopefully the new Government’s supporters will eventually get used to their party being under scrutiny.

GrannyGravy13

Mollygo I think those of us who are right leaning are immune to the criticism of our MP’s

Hopefully the new Government’s supporters will eventually get used to their party being under scrutiny.

I do hope so.
The constant defensive comments support the concerns raised rather than demonstrate belief that things are being done well.

Mollygo

GrannyGravy13

Mollygo I think those of us who are right leaning are immune to the criticism of our MP’s

Hopefully the new Government’s supporters will eventually get used to their party being under scrutiny.

I do hope so.
The constant defensive comments support the concerns raised rather than demonstrate belief that things are being done well.

I don’t know about anybody else, but I think scrutiny is good, all governments do some good and some bad things and should be constructively scrutinised. What is wearing is the repetition of rumours and hearsay, based on speculation rather than facts at the moment. I know not everybody likes links and detailed discussion and that some object to myth buster posts, but it does my head in when unreferenced posts start discussions where there is no information backing up what they say - it just winds everybody up to no end.

Casdon 👍

My main problem is that Starmer keeps saying that his government needs to be in power for two terms - ten years. I don’t quite understand what that means? Considering the very low number of votes cast for Labour in the election, it is not exactly the best way to gain support.

One very staunch Conservative Party member I know was genuinely generous in saying let’s give Starmer a chance and wait and see. I think that was before the WFA announcement though.

ronib

My main problem is that Starmer keeps saying that his government needs to be in power for two terms - ten years. I don’t quite understand what that means? Considering the very low number of votes cast for Labour in the election, it is not exactly the best way to gain support.

One very staunch Conservative Party member I know was genuinely generous in saying let’s give Starmer a chance and wait and see. I think that was before the WFA announcement though.

It means that he has a long term plan for the future of this country which will benefit everyone. Unlike the Conservatives over the past 14 years whose only plan was to offer tax cuts so they would be re elected no matter what else they inflicted upon the country ( eg Brexit).

MayBee70 of course that would be great if it were to happen. Ten years is a long time- we could have any number of catastrophes in that time. World War 3? Another pandemic?

Mollygo

I’m enjoying this thread. Those of us who criticised the last government for things they saw as wrong, should be equally at liberty to criticise what they see as wrong actions of this government without constantly being told about the number of days, weeks etc. Especially when one of the hard, difficult decisions is one he criticised Sunak for considering.

Those of us who criticised the last government for things they saw as wrong, should be equally at liberty to criticise what they see as wrong actions of this government...

I'm pleased you said that Mollygo.

I was a critic of the last government and I voted for this current one but will hold them to the same level of censure.

Their short tenure would IMO only be worth noting if there were expectations that they would solve all the economic and social problems within weeks, or a couple of months.

Other than that, their decisions, choices and any policies they initiate are fair game, I think.

In truth, I was never wholly committed to Starmer, I think he's tried / is trying, to run with the hare, and hunt with the hounds. In order to win.

... but maybe he had little choice?

ronib
My main problem is that Starmer keeps saying that his government needs to be in power for two terms - ten years. I don’t quite understand what that means?

If he hasn’t sorted it out in 5 years, with all appearance of being able to continue any such improvements if re-elected, then we’ll have another change.

He’s done the easy bit-removing money from people who can’t fight back and may well be dead before the next election.

What do people see as essential achievements during Starmer’s first 5 years?

No limit that is unbelievable They have a big wage for turning up for work if they feel like it They can do so little they can find time for second jobs But they can make life so hard for the general public why have they got it in for people in council houses Well Angela Raynor got hers bought and it's not likely the MPs are living in them not on their wage and with all the perks

Dickens I agree totally with your last post on here.

BigBopper

Has anyone seen this video on You Tube. It is great. The Anti Starmer comedy song. It has gone viral and says it all.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANM_l-xJCr8

Loved it!!!

Only 23% of the country voted for Keir Starmer. I didn’t but I hope he and his Cabinet do well because it’s in all our best interests if they do.

They e been in Opposition for 14 long years now. I hope they have formed some solid solutions to problems in that time. I am just hoping they’ve been keeping their ideas under wraps, waiting for Their Moment. The big reveal. They were vociferous in Opposition and voted against many (to me) sound proposals. Let’s hope the Autumn Budget inspires our collective confidence.

I don’t remember people constantly going on about the percentage of votes a winning party won in a general election before; it’s mainly the majority that people used to define success by. But it seems to me that anything negative about the new government that can be dragged up is being used against them. At the end of the day we’ve hopefully got them for at least five more years so maybe as a country we should get behind them and do everything we can to turn this country into a place that we all want to live in. At least we won’t be having a new leader every few months and the PM won’t be playing musical chairs with the cabinet on a regular basis.

I wouldn’t be so sure MayBee. Depends on how happy the union barons are with Starmer going forward. It’s still his honeymoon period.

MayBee70 there were several posters who were prolific and vociferous in posting the Conservatives percentage of the votes for the seven years I have been on GN…

Indeed GG13. You have an excellent memory. 👏

I think that’s fair comment GrannyGravy13. We all find as many ways as we can to justify why the party in power should not be there, unless we agree with what they are doing. However, we all also know that with the electoral system in the UK that is how it works, and actually all that matters is seats won, not votes cast. I hate the expression, but it is what it is.