Mainstream Labour

Anniebach

Pointless for Tory supporters to point fingers at politicians from other parties, criticising Mandelson will bring back Tory party names.

When speaking of integrity my thoughts were of voting in parliament and x number abstaining, loyalty to their party etc

I guess it’s a fine line between voting the way your constituents want or along party lines.

For a MP who has close links with his constituents it must be really difficult to go against their wishes due to being whipped by the leader of your party.

A friend was a district and county councillor, until she tried to support local issues, deselected very quickly.

For a MP who has close links with his constituents it must be really difficult to go against their wishes due to being whipped by the leader of your party.

One assumes that an MP has won their seat by being voted in on the strength of their party's manifesto. So may be it could be claimed that they are following the majority 'will' of their constituents (of course I know that this isn't an exact match, particularly when a government reneges on some of its manifesto)

MaizieD

^For a MP who has close links with his constituents it must be really difficult to go against their wishes due to being whipped by the leader of your party.^

One assumes that an MP has won their seat by being voted in on the strength of their party's manifesto. So may be it could be claimed that they are following the majority 'will' of their constituents (of course I know that this isn't an exact match, particularly when a government reneges on some of its manifesto)

I don't think though, that removing benefits from disabled people was in the manifesto.

All disabled people ?

I don't think though, that removing benefits from disabled people was in the manifesto.

Nor do I. It did cause a dilemma for Labour MPs. Even mine (who is diligent but loyal to the government) was considering voting against the Bill, and said so on social media.

It wasn’t in the manifesto

My mp did vote against the proposals on pip and disability benefits.

FWIW i would like to see a comprehensive review, constructive discussions within the party and necessary changes implemented. I’ve posted previously my concern that someone who loses their job is given less benefits than their next door neighbour who is given top benefits, a paid carer, and a mobility car because of mental health issues which are alcohol or drug dependence. Yes if course I understand the aim is to help the claimant to get to support services with the aim of getting them off benefits and back into work

My question remains, please tell us how successful this is. Identify the inventive to stop drinking, taking the prescribed methadone alongside street drugs, and start working

One of our local MP's voted against, the one I would have suspected, she has some special needs herself. She's great, I've been on Zoom committees with her oversight. I'll try and keep these going if it's within my power - I need to check current similar committees.

Anniebach

It wasn’t in the manifesto

The part that was in the manifesto was the committment that government spending would be paid for out of revenue. All the changes in benefits have now been abandoned, that seems unlikely to be achieved.

Promising to pay for government spending out of revenue IS utterly ridiculous and was never going to be achievable. If she sticks to it in the budget it will mean more austerity, no growth and even more reluctance on the part of private enterprise and private finance to invest in the UK.

Reeves has no understanding of how a national economy works, and thus not a clue as to how to stimulate it.

I'm sad to read your post Iam.

Surely the point should be that it's really detrimental to the person who loses their job and to society, that THEY are given less benefit than THEY would be if they couldn't work because of mental health issues. A flawed system influences its adherents; they're victims, not villains. I think we have many flawed systems.

I talked on another thread about the curve of the last 70 or so years. We started so well, we worked with available provision and actual need. But after a rush forward for society in this country, we began to tweak systems originally adapted to provision divided by need so that they were adapted to groups of voters. From insurance for being unable to work to pension credit for the poorest pensioners to how we tax wealth income in comparison to work income it's time to go back to the basics, not the add-ons or the exemptions, setting up new systems that bring as much equality as possible, not division.

I think many measures have been brought in too quickly without enough thought; many are being adjusted or ameliorated but could have been thought through better in the first place.

The PIP changes are a good example, ie a much more graduated approach in the assessment system. Ditto the biggest initial one of course the winter fuel issue. So many of us in the LP wrote immediately and at length with alternative suggestions to the LP.

I don't feel as pessimistic as others as an insider: it's not blind faith, it's knowing some good people and as an insider having a voice.