Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

in that case we need a general election

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

You mean like when May resigned? Or Johnson? Or Truss?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Or Cameron, or Thatcher…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

don't worry,you can still vote for king andy,i'm thinking of the future of the country,not the past

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The story of The King of the North has already been told. The people's choice ended up riding off into the wilderness with a ragbag entourage leaving behind chaos and bitterness. The Country doesn't have several seasons to repeat this inevitability.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Surprising fact. Last PM to win an election and then lose an election was Ted Heath (elected GE 1970, lost GE 1974)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I agree completely that we should not have been involved in the war, but that’s not really the issue. Starmer refused to let the US use our bases, which was not the action that a NATO partner should ever have made. Starmer realised that he shouldn’t have listened to Miliband and his supporters almost immediately, and within a few days he relented.

Starmer twisted the facts to suggest that other political parties wanted to join Trump’s war, but that simply wasn’t the case. Both the Conservatives and Reform were telling Starmer that his decision not to allow the use of our bases was wrong, not that he should have joined Trump in his personal adventures.

---------- Post added at 11:24 ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 ----------

Oh, Andrew, and I thought you were a stickler for the truth!

---------- Post added at 11:28 ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 ----------

Burnham is an MP. Starmer was only persuaded that he would have to resign on Friday. Until the election announcement, he was saying he’d carry on fighting.

Burnham didn’t cause the discontent with Starmer’s performance - that’s been self evident for some time now.

---------- Post added at 11:30 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

So you are looking forward to the permanent chaos of coalition governments? Be careful what you wish for.

---------- Post added at 11:35 ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 ----------

Don’t you think Streeting will stand? Isn’t that why he resigned from the Cabinet?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Is he an MP before he swears the oath/affirmation in the HoC?

He can’t take his seat, speak in debates, vote or receive a salary until taking the oath/affirmation…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I will always be convinced that he won the leadership in the first place because Labour was in opposition with an apparent mountain to climb after the 2019 election and Boris’ seemingly insurmountable 80-seat majority. Nobody thought he’d ever be PM. He was supposed to be a safe pair of managerial hands to lead the party through the wilderness years while the younger generation (hopefully) proved itself.

That being the case, I’m also not really very surprised that he was hopeless as prime minster. Limp, indecisive, grey, unwilling to upset anyone and therefore achieving nothing but to upset everyone. The undignified manner of his departure - helpless to do anything but sit and watch the coup unfold around him over the past few months - is entirely fitting.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

My point stands regardless as he wasn't an MP when he kicked this process off. Starmer can say what he wants about fighting on in the intervening time that was irrelevant.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Sophistry, much?

All these things will take place later today, and it’s perfectly conventional to refer to someone as ‘the new MP’ as soon as they win the election that puts them there. Even the abstentionist Sinn Fein lot are conventionally referred to as ‘MP’ even though they never do any of the above.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It's clear there was no real preparation for office.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It’s nuts, isn’t it. Even if they didn’t expect to win the next election after 2019, they had at that point been in opposition for 9 years. You would have thought someone would have done some policy work.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

That was then, this is now. I don't see the point in it given Burnham's popularity amongst MPs.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

He’s already backed Andy.

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 ----------

It’s quite bizarre. The Sue Gray appointment indicates at that point they thought they were in with a shout.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

In that case, I agree, there’s no contest.

The only question now is how radical will he be?

He did a brilliant job as mayor, but the job of a PM is far harder, with problems coming at you from all directions while there’s an agenda to be progressed.

Hopefully, he will keep to the mandate Starmer had, but with a better way of dealing with it, otherwise he should go for a General Election to get his new mandate accepted by the electorate.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The labour back benches are tough to govern. They’re always rammed with student union ideologues who’ve never had any sort of job worth the name (Nadia Witless, anyone?) and for such pound shop radicals nothing will ever be enough. One of Starmer’s big mistakes was in trying to keep them onside when faced with difficult choices over tax and benefits. With a majority of 175 there are more wingnuts than ever, but at the same time much more leeway for absorbing rebellions. Starmer could have afforded to annoy them enough to defy the whip here and there and then face down the inevitable headlines as standing up to the hard left.

Burnham has precisely the same opportunity now.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

What Chris said

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I suspect Burnham's team will be busy doing exactly that this summer!

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

In fairness, it wasn’t in their manifesto. It was however in the Conservative party manifesto to cut benefits.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Will Larry be disturbed in any of this drama?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Maybe the new boy is allergic to cats?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

When it dies, will there be some kind of vote or election on which cat replaces (quite possibly) the longest term resident?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Animal cruelty . All these new owners.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

you don't own a cat you work for them

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Last time I checked, my mum's cat licks it's own arse clean.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

when starmer was giving his speech i could hear music in the background sounded like one of those Hitler youth bands or something similar:scratch:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Don't knock it until you've . . . .

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The feline sounds like a builder in the litter box bang bang bang

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It's my intellectual levels. You might get dizzy at these heights. :LOL:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Today has been a good day, now we need Rachael from accounts gone as well.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

So he resigns and proves himself to be a hypocrite, just like any other leader who prior to becoming leader demanded the opposition to resign and call an election.

Do I think the Conservatives, Reform or the Greens would be any better? No I don't but it's the age old problem, without them being in power we cannot know for sure.

All I know is, Labour have made damn sure I would never vote for them, not that I would whilst they had Corbyn in the party, or Charlotte Nichols, both of which are traitorous ****!

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I'm sure Burnham won't keep her.

---------- Post added at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------

I don't mind the PM changing mid-term for the simple reason that I don't want the country facing an election every two years and the instability that comes with this. Plus we don't have a US-style constiution which elects a President. Though perhaps it should be capped at a maximum of two PMs per term.

But if an MP or councillor changes parties then they need to resign and face re-election - they are clearly now signed up to to a different manifesto than the one which they were elected on.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Somebody has to hold that mirror while he practices the smile . . .

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I don’t mind either, as long as they keep to the mandate.

But I disagree in part with your stance that if an MP or councillor changes parties they should automatically submit themselves to a re-election. If they have pledged to achieve things which have proved difficult or impossible to achieve with the party to which they belonged and have changed to a party that will help them better to achieve it, then that’s acceptable in my book.

However, if they’ve decided they no longer wish to go for what they set out in their manifesto, then I agree they should submit themselves for re-election.

I know that many people vote for parties, but our electoral system does not work like that. We vote for candidates, not for political parties or Prime Ministers.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The country facing an election every two years might actually force parties to reckon with the issues that they refuse to touch, which arguably debilitate the country for even longer.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The problem is with "must stick to manifesto" is that none of the parties ever stick to their manifesto's and in terms of this current Labour government they were not elected to do 90% of what they have done but seem to think that because of an "Anti-Conservative" vote that they had a "mandate" to do what ever they want without any question, including all the stuff being talked about in other threads.


As I say I do not fully believe any other MP would be better but there would and is far worse and the 2 that are currently looking at fighting it out for Starmers spot are far worse!

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I am prepared to wait and see how he performs rather than condemn him before he starts.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The last coalition wasn't chaos, quite the opposite when compared to the last 10 years of tory shithousery, who wished for that, you? Yeah you probably did actually with all your premonition of brexit being a success, bozo being a success, Truss being a success, sunak being a success etc etc etc

30% of the vote for 100% of the power stinks

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

This is inherently contradictory. It’s extremely unlikely someone can defect from one party to another and it substantially be “the same manifesto”.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Because we don’t already have a problem with short-term thinking :erm:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I could have been clearer - I wasn’t suggesting formalising that. But if it happened a few times it might make parties address unpopular issues because of how unsustainable it is.

The UK needs action on a number of issues it’s almost impossible to touch because parties tie themselves up in manifesto commitments unsuitable for reality.

• Benefit cuts
• Raising taxes
• Ending the triple lock
• Affordable housing
• Immigration
• Council tax reform

To name a few.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Not at all. If the only way an MP can fulfil the promises he or she made to voters is to join another party that would allow these promises to be fulfilled, then I think that is acceptable.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

But the promises the MP made to their voters is in their Party's manifesto, not another Party's manifesto. The Conservative Party's manifesto is not the same as Reform UK's and Reform UK's is not the same as Restore Britain's. Yet MPs have moved from the Conservative Party to Reform and one MP has moved from Reform to Restore.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

here we go again with the triple lock,trust me when you're living on a state pension you'll think differently

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The day they put the state pension into the welfare budget the vilifying of those on welfare exploded

My father has good personal pensions but he locks down on the state pension even though he does not need it as he paid into it and so on.

He started on his soapbox about how the welfare budget was now more than the income tax take but then refused to accept the state pension itself makes up over half of that. And when you include those on housing benefit and pip it increases the difference even more

For years those is power have tried to make those on benefits pariahs and it is working.

All this and my limited understanding makes me think it is all BS and propaganda because if the Welfare budget really is higher than the income tax take then how the feck does the country run . I just do not buy it

Personally I think it is inevitable that the state pension becomes means tested and I understand why but I know the boomers and forgotten generation effected even though in reality they have enough to live on easy (not alll but some) I know it was all paid for over the years but it has all been spent long ago so it also has to come out of the tax take but for transparency I would rather see it not included in the welfare budget

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

If the state pension needs to be higher in general - and how to fund that so it’s sustainable (higher taxes) - then that’s a debate worth having. It’s also a different one from whether it should uprate at the higher of earnings, inflation or 2.5%.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

to get the full state pension you have to pay taxes for 35 years ie work,yet to get benefits you just have to sit on your arse all day,that's what upsets pensioners who have grafted all their lives.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Is anybody suggesting the pension shouldn't go up with inflation? If not, what's the problem?
Because it's applied on an annual basis, the rises tend to be higher than the original intent. Just a quirk of the system and how the real world operates. It's the understanding of these sorts of things that is grossly absent in general, not just in politics.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The taxes that - in most years - didn’t make up the sum of public expenditure because we are usually in deficit and have accumulated almost £3 trn of debt.

Many people get the full state pension without working 35 years. Voluntary contributions, years of childcare, years caring for elderly relatives and benefit claimants themselves among others.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

and I totally agree with them but it is the governments that spent the insurance policies so them to blame not the unemployed sick and disabled which is what recent governments have wanted the public to believe. I truly believe most people want off benefits.

And what about the rest of my point though any feedback on that ?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

pension should not be classed as a benefit,it is bought and paid for by hard work and taxes, if it's means tested whats the point of contributing if you're a high earner, i lived on my private pensions for 5 years as i retired at 61 but had to cut back on spending,i do not see that most on benefits want a job,i look down my street and it's full of the bone idle, back when i was working there were six house holds working out of 93 houses ,it's probably about the same now, mostly 20s-40s years old fit an healthy puffing on weed all day and buying takeaways 2-3 times a day on my taxes.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

No single person can do any of that on UC without breaking the law to get more. On my estate the biggest culprit is the single mother who deliberately get pregnant to get more benefits. In my time I have been asked by 2 separate women to impregnate them for this purpose.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

With sickness and disability extras, they can.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Pensions haha.
I never paid into a private pension, never thought I'd get to the age to collect on it. I now get the State Pension only, no other benefits (maybe I shouldn't have bought my own house). It appears I'm now holding the Country back because pensioners take too much from the 'taxes paid' pot.

Public Sector Pensions:

Seems to me that my basic pension isn't quite the biggest 'drain' from the tax pot.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Agree to all of the above. I’d add social care to that list as well. There needs to be a UK-wide extension to the NHS that deals explicitly with how people who can no longer look after themselves move out of hospitals and into care. It’s such a far reaching reform, requiring a permanent solution that is not open to regular political meddling, that it ought to start with a royal commission with authoritative recommendations all main parties buy in to. They can then squabble over fine details and devolved administrations can decide exactly how it’s run, but the basic principle has to be established and made politically impossible to ditch, much as the NHS was.

And on that subject, it’s amazing to think just how much was achieved in this country in the decade after WW2 when we were in a far worse state than we are now. Nothing facing us today cannot be solved, we have simply been cursed with the worst crop of self-serving careerist politicians of the modern era.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

the problem is it's half the minimum wage and no where near the living wage, if it was comparable no one would complain but it aint

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I don't think it's the link to inflation that's the issue; it's that it will always rise by inflation, the average earnings growth or 2.5%. Whichever is higher.

So when inflation is higher than average, the pension right increases, but when inflation is low, the wages used to pay for the triple-lock can't catch up, as the pension will go higher still.

It should be tied to a percentage of the average wage so that the tax base that pays for it can catch up during periods of low inflation and wage growth. Not forever taking a bigger and bigger percentage of the budget each year.

I would keep the triple lock until we reach a level that we're comfortable with as a country (it's low compared to some European nations even now), and then change how it works personally.

No one is talking about scrapping a private pension. That's money you paid in and will get out.

When it comes to the state pension, that isn't what you paid into it. Most current pensioners paid for the retirements of a smaller cohort of retirees when they were workers. If the state pension was what you paid into it, then the triple lock wouldn't exist as it wasn't budgeted for when they were working. Of course, as you well know, that isn't how our pension system works. The current crop of pensioners are being paid out from the taxes of the currently working population. That's fine, that's how a country should work, but it's as much a decision for taxpayers as any other area of government spending. It's not a ringfenced fund from which workers get their money back. Most pensioners would be on a lot less money if it were.

---------- Post added at 11:52 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------

I think this either needs to be a type of state-mandated universal insurance scheme (as EU nations do with health care insurance) or do what May suggested, which was essentially a big inheritance tax scheme to claim social care costs upon death.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Not meant to be paying for a mortgage or for several kids at that stage.
Ridiculous that somebody can still be working(eg as an MP), get theor salary, pay no NI, get state pension and other pensions, yet somebody doing the same job just gets the salary and has to pay NI. Not what the notion of a pension is meant to be.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

But if that pensioner’s income exceeds the threshold, they pay tax on ALL income (after personal allowance), including the state pension and any private pension they get.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It's the different timing of things that cause the issues and extra costs. Eg inflation goes up to 10%, pension goes up by 10%. Months later, wages go up in response to the previous 10% inflation. But inflation has now dropped, so wage increases are higher than inflation. The pensions goes up twice over in response to the 10% inflation. Once for the inflation by itself, then again when wages respond, Overall wages may not have gone above inflation, but pensions have gone up above both of them.
Another example of the quirks of the calculations are why it had to be suspended during covid. Covid caused wages to drop, when the effect ended wages rose back up again. Should pensions have risen because of the rise of wages back to the previous level?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

That's one area to watch Burnham's administration on. The short video is worth watching as he says there's been political cowardice on the issue as it does not feature much in focus groups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU5bmXjYzcI

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

And? Their income is still a lot higher than somebody doing the same job, but not yet pension age.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I'm dying to hear how he's going to pay for it! Another stupid commitment that will get kicked into the long grass.

Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely needed, but Burnham will not make the savings in expenditure necessary to achieve it.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

And, the vast majority of pensioners have paid into NI throughout their working lives. I’m sure you’ll change your tune when you retire.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Yes but they are not as easy to get as you think. Just ask Peanut I think it was

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

They cannot be made.
That's why a cross-party approach via a Royal Commission needs to be adopted ad Chris has outlined.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

If the State Pension is your only income, you should be entitled to Pension Credit and Council Tax reduction…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The point being that if you get those extras, UC claimants CAN afford those things.

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:02 ----------

State Pension amount is £3.15/wk higher than the standard Minimum Income guarantee(Pension Credit) amount. So normally they wouldn't be eligible for Pension Credit. Other factors increase the Minimum Income guarantee amount, eg disability and caring for child or adults.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Wife still works (part time) so no 'extra' benefits available, unlike the scroungers and unmarried mothers of 3.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I repeat, their income is STILL higher, regardless of pensions, state or otherwise. The whole principle of pensions is to REPLACE working income, not supplement it. They HAVEN'T retired.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Yes but had you taken my post in context to previous post to which I was following up you would see I was on about most people wanting to work and therefore you reply to the UC things falls under the prevue of without breaking the law because anyone not legitimately sick would be breaking the law claiming the extras. Context means everything

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Are you suggesting I should be getting the (roughly) £340 pw like before I retired?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I have to say living with severe illness or disability (or both), no amount of money matters much. As it stands I might have a year or 2 left yet it's still a worry that things could change or the goalposts moved further away.

If PIP becomes means tested, then do those expect to go through what they do and and then deal with the loss of any kind of financial independence, dignity or self worth having to rely on your partner to pay for everything? I certainly wouldn't be able to live with myself. I'm already a burden to my wife. (Though she doesn't see it that way but I do).

Too many people get annoyed because someone gets something for nothing because they pay taxes and think it must be a wonderful life living on benefits. Like saying you get a free car, well in fact you don't. It tends to cost you around £320 a month for that car.

I look at those that have kids to get more money and think they're just sad and they are the ones that are missing out of living a life and I pity the kids as well. That's not something to envy that's for certain.

I qualify for PIP and ESA (contribution based). Because my wife works, that is all I can claim. So we pay full rent, Council tax etc etc No reductions of any kind. I don't qualify for water rate reduction even though I use more water for my illness. If my wife quits working and becomes my carer, then we'd probably get the lot. But that's no life if it becomes a 'career choice'.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Thanks for your input mate I know it was hard and caused stress when you claimed . What we see with opinions like Nomad are exactly what those in power want people to think. There was someone who had a lot of stress with their twin daughters I think it was too or that might have been the switch to UC.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I can only dream of mooning people like they do :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Nowadays, how many people retire when reaching state pension age? In the past it was pretty automatic. The purpose of pensions was to have an income once you left your job and retired.
The issue is whether the state pension should be means tested. After all paying NI, gives entitlement to unemployment benefits which end up being means tested.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Perhaps if they went ahead and means tested the state pension there may be pensioners given more to hit the target . . works both ways if the circumstances are right (or wrong).

Can we means test child benefit too ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-tax-charge

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

£60k a year, Gov. taking the piss again

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I guess it should be £5m a year like Farage. ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Good to see Farage (and Brexit) still aren't bothering you ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

That's what I favour - a Royal Commission to take the politics out of it.

But you are till going to end up financing it, which is where it will fall apart unless we get a government in with a firm commitment to cut waste and put in place robust measures to grow the economy and pay down our debt.

---------- Post added at 08:45 ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 ----------

But it's not coming out of the public purse, is it?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Riddle me this, Mr Capitalist, if someone paid you a one off £5m, and someone else pays £96k a year plus expenses elsewhere, which paymaster are you more likely to do bidding for today?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I would sell out for £5 million to be fair, gimme gimme gimme.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

When they're not even an MP? What bidding would that be? Trade Unions? Political Animal Lobby(over £1m to Labour)? £1.2m interest free loan with no regular repayments. Over £600K in ILLEGAL 3rd party donations to Labour from one person, with no prosecutions of course. Clothing put down as miscellaneous Office supplies? I'm sure the list goes on and on

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

100% that’s why it’s preposterous to pretend someone wouldn’t.

---------- Post added at 10:33 ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 ----------

Oh I’m sure Nige isn’t the only one at it. It’s just this one is pretty egregious.

Political party funding isn’t quite as bad as handing over money to individuals - lots of that will just be flushed down the loo in campaigning and day to day activities there won’t be many making proper coin out of it individually. Unless you’re Peter Murrell I guess.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

He was the owner/leader of a Political Party, who publicly stated he wasn’t going to stand as an MP, was given £5 million by a crypto billionaire, decided he was going to stand as an MP, and since then has assiduously lobbied for crypto…

If he ever goes to the Lords, his title will be the Count of Dodgy Crypto…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

let us know if this is bothering you

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It should bother everyone but we get it, corruption is okay as long as it's your guy doing it

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Maybe he invested all that Crypto in a 'get even richer faster' scheme (scam) and has lost it all. I wouldn't like to stand up and tell people that had happened :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

If you favour a banana republic approach so much, I fear the UK is not the right country for you. Most of the country doesn't favour a banana republic approach and the owner of Reform UK is under investigation.

---------- Post added at 13:04 ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 ----------

I would never sell out for £5m. And whilst posting, I would like to point out that Brexit has been a huge success. :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

At least a banana republic has bananas :D