Starmer’s chronicles

Originally Posted by papa smurf

my nephew a staunch labour supporter and labour activist [he tried but failed to get elected as a lab councilor] absolutly hates starmer and has some very choice words to describe him and what he has done to the british public

When he was elected party leader Labour was in opposition to a Tory government with an 80 seat majority that nobody thought anyone could overturn within 5 years. I’m not convinced anyone thought he was more than a managerial seat-warmer when he came in; I expect there was a fair bit of relief in the party that he wasn’t Jeremy Corbyn.

In th event, Labour had to win in 2024 because the Tories had made it imperative that they lose. They were wrung out, were a laughing stock and right out of ideas. A lot of people were prepared to vote for anyone best placed to get their local Tory out. I hoped, rather than believed, that this dull, grey chameleon of a man would turn out to be worthy of the office of PM, even after his fumbling start. I still hope he’ll come good because as we all know (and as Elon and the bots of Xitter seem not to), this petition isn’t going to result in a general election under any circumstances, and this soon after an election it isn’t going to defenestrate him either. It might possibly contribute to a looming sense of crisis that will do for him before the next election comes round. But the only thing that’s actually going to force him to resign any time soon is if his name were to become personally attached to something deeply scandalous. And on that point, sooner or later we will see.

IYKYK.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

do you think rachael from mortguage services can deliver anything but pain

We'll see. But I don't think we can judge yet. If pain means a working NHS, decent public services, and a growing economy, then possibly.

It's some task given 14 years of trying to destroy the public sector, lining the pockets of your rich pals, and the British suicide note called Brexit. They should at least be allowed the same amount of time, not a few months.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Next election is 2029, everything else is irrevant. They have till then to deliver.

Deliver what exactly?

Bumper pay rises for their public sector sycophants, More dead pensioners, the end of U.K. agricultural farming, job losses due to unprecedented business costs, negative growth,


Yes they’re delivering alright, and in record time.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Deliver what exactly?

Bumper pay rises for their public sector sycophants, More dead pensioners, the end of U.K. agricultural farming, job losses due to unprecedented business costs, negative growth,


Yes they’re delivering alright, and in record time.

Why does investing in the NHS increase the number of dead pensioners?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Why does investing in the NHS increase the number of dead pensioners?

Winter fuel payement stolen from pensioners so public sector workers can get inflation busting pay rises

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Why does investing in the NHS increase the number of dead pensioners?

It may do, But I was referring to the removal of the winter fuel payment + the increase in the energy cap, which will result in thousands of pensioners being too terrified to put the heating on.

Strange, well not really, that you ignore that………

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Winter fuel payement stolen from pensioners so public sector workers can get inflation busting pay rises

They shouldn't have removed the fuel payment but workers deserved to be paid. This country isn't just run for pensioners. Doctors' real wages are still lower than in 2010 relative to inflation and lower than many of their counterparts in other Western nations.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It may do, But I was referring to the removal of the winter fuel payment + the increase in the energy cap, which will result in thousands of pensioners being too terrified to put the heating on.

Strange, well not really, that you ignore that………

Hard to ignore something that wasn't there in the first place.

The winter fuel allowance is now only being given to those pensioners who need it. The Conservatives cynically used it to buy the grey vote and would never have risked curbing it. The country's debt is 96% of GDP, the country's spend on benefits is high and the NHS is struggling so reallocating resources to where they're needed most seems logical.

Not followed the increase in the energy cap.

The changes to the winter fuel allowance were handled poorly and the government should have been honest that the tax burden would need to rise. I've always said that winning the election was a poisoned chalice and nothing I've read since then has changed my view. But I'd be the first to say Starmer's not given himself the smoothest of starts.

[nomadking]

Those that only get full state pension as income, get £3.05/week more than those now eligible for the basic Pension Credit. Overall, those on Pension Credit now get more with the Winter Fuel Allowance included.
It was a universal non-means tested payment, because it would be too difficult to identify those near the bottom end of income.

Originally Posted by Pierre

+ the increase in the energy cap

What does this have to do with Labour ?

Originally Posted by Sirius

I think Starmer may have a little problem. It is increasing at about 400 a minuet

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143

Of course it means nothing to Starmer but it shows how much he is disliked.

The heat map is interesting as well.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

What does this have to do with Labour ?

The Cap increase doesn't ......directly

But indirectly, it makes the removal of the WFA, even harsher.

[Russ]

I love the moronic idea of “call an election now”.

Unless they get 19m signatures the Labour Party can rightfully say even fewer people oppose them than at the election.

It’s almost as if people were ok with Boris having parties while we couldn’t attend funerals of loved ones and spaffing tens of billions to their mates for equipment that didn’t work.

[jonbxx]

The debate arising from that online petition will bee very short;

‘Are you going to hold an election?’
‘No’

It will, hold as much weight as the petition to cancel Article 50 which had 6 million signatures back in the day

They won't even have a debate on it.

I think it needs to be something Parliament can actually debate, you would debate a Vote of No Confident not an Election, and besides I also believe there is wording that exempts that from being a valid petition.