So Labour are backing down somewhat on their PIP policy. Those who have it now will not lose it, but new claimants will not get it.
The same situation will affect people who end up being re-assessed (which covers a lot of people whose condition is lifelong but is deemed insufficiently 'serious' to meet the bar for being assessed once only).
I did say somewhat. A lot but not all rebels are placated. Labour also say they will move forward in discussions with disabled people and representative groups.
I am no fan of this government but what good they are doing is being drowned out by the big bad things they are doing
Sorry but backing down somewhat is different to actively doing good things.
I never said they did a good thing. I said they backed down somewhat. Sorry am confused. Are you commenting on my post or moving it on, not clear.
They are doing good things.
Lost in all the chat about what is wrong with the bill (i.e. a lot!!) Is the fact that the bill identifies people for whom their condition is permeant and so reassessment is stupid, a waste of everyone's time and money and a cause of significant stress to those involved. They will no-longer need to be reassessed.
This bill is not all bad. That doesn't change the facts that the bad things are really bad, nor does it excuse them.
AFZ
Yes they are doing some good things across the board but the bad stuff is really bad and more over fodder for a press who is against them. Starmer him self is unpopular with voters and there appears to be a growing number of Labour MPs who are not keen on him
In relation to PIP, the "problem" (ie: the size of the bill, which in terms of government expenditure is very small) is actually a sign of success in a lot of other areas of government. 30 years ago a lot of people with severe physical disabilities were in specialist care homes (usually funded from local council budgets or health care) and totally dependent upon others, and usually had relative short life expectancies.
While this is all true and good, it's also the case that there has been an increase in PIP claims post Covid that doesn't appear to be replicated elsewhere (again, referred to in the same article):
Fourth, the UK has experienced a bigger increase in the number of people claiming disability and incapacity benefits than its peers. Now, I would suggest, an important supplementary problem is that no one knows for sure why this is!
We know what is causing this: an increase in both claims for physical ailments among people over 45 and claims among people with mental ones among under-22s.
As the article goes on to say, diagnosing and solving this issue is likely to involve spending even more money, which is why the government hasn't gone there.
Yet I would argue that this is another one of those rather foolish short term economies that is going to stymie this government in the medium term.
Even on a very prosaic economistic level it's a further hit to growth. Download the spreadsheet from the previous link (parliament.uk), sort by percentage of working age people on benefit, and Labour MPs should be asking 'you are going to take how much out of my constituency?'
I never said they did a good thing. I said they backed down somewhat. Sorry am confused. Are you commenting on my post or moving it on, not clear.
I was referring to "I am no fan of this government but what good they are doing is being drowned out by the big bad things they are doing".
But despite the very bad stuff, and it pains me to say this, they have done some good stuff. For me the Labour right has trodden all over their history. Still they are not all bad
I’m struggling to think of one that didn’t do *something* good if you go looking. I think ‘they have done some good stuff’ is an almost meaninglessly low bar tbh.
I’m struggling to think of one that didn’t do *something* good if you go looking. I think ‘they have done some good stuff’ is an almost meaninglessly low bar tbh.
Yeah. Even Thatcher helped agree the Single European Act.
Yes all governments have done some good. You don’t have to dig too deep to find what this government has done right. It is just that what they have done wrong is catastrophic. I can’t believe I am defending that load of right wing, Blue Labour lot, but the truth is the truth.
This leadership has taken the party away from its roots. Starmer is not a good leader. He needs to go. There is some support for Rayner as leader.
Yes all governments have done some good. You don’t have to dig too deep to find what this government has done right. It is just that what they have done wrong is catastrophic. I can’t believe I am defending that load of right wing, Blue Labour lot, but the truth is the truth.
This leadership has taken the party away from its roots. Starmer is not a good leader. He needs to go. There is some support for Rayner as leader.
When I think of right wing Labour figures I think of people like Roy Hattersley, Tony Blair,even Frank Field, and if I was in a good mood I'd even call some of them socialists, but definitely all progressives. Starmer isn't a right wing Labour politician, he's just a right wing politician. I never really had great expectations of him, but he's fallen so low below these I'm really lost for words.
As a compromise candidate he's become very compromised, with little real clout in the party beyond a small handful of loyalists. This seems to suggest a more sudden downfall than I might have predicted a year ago. As to who might succeed him; this seems more difficult to predict as there doesn't appear to be an obvious candidate.
In other news, I see that Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, (and former candidate for leadership of the Labour Party) has urged MPs to vote against the Welfare Bill
Yes he has. It still has the committee stage and third reading to go. Who knows what it will look like by then?
In other other news. Rachel Reeves caused the markets to fall by being seen crying at PMQs. Starmer explained in the BBC that it was a personal problem for her that caused her to cry and markets rose. Starmer said that he has confidence in her and she would be Chancellor for a long time. Expect a new Chancellor by the end of the month 😉
There's something vaguely paradoxical about the British government. It feels like the Labour government has such a massive majority that they're tripping over their own feet.
We seem to be back to "being seen to be doing the right thing" is more important than actually doing the right thing.
It's that stupid concept of Political Capital. They seem to have spent it defending policies that are really tangential to real problems (and sometimes policies that clearly make life more difficult for certain vulnerable groups)
There's something vaguely paradoxical about the British government. It feels like the Labour government has such a massive majority that they're tripping over their own feet.
I think this is a consequence of the majority being a mile wide and inch deep. The fact is that Labour had less support to govern than any British government in modern times. Its strategy for winning support from so-called "hero voters" failed and it won because Farage peeled off votes from the tories and people stayed at home. Their mandate is illusory, the only ideology they have is a sort of cargo cult Blairism: anything that angers the left must be "good politics" and there is no objective for them beyond electoral victory. They made a fetish out of winning at any cost and are now revealing that "any cost" included any remaining semblance of humanity.
Apropos of nothing, I was amused to see that, with the addition of Tim Roca, there are now 2 Labour MPs with whom I was at university and served on the Union Council. Small world.
I think it is about communications, but that's not the be all and end all of the problem.
The issue with the current problems are not simply optical (cutting money from disabled people whilst increasing military spending) but also because the policies lack complexity and nuance.
If they'd actually listened to people saying that there are no jobs for disabled people in their area, that severely disabled people would lose financial support because they don't score highly on an arbitrary checklist and so on then this wouldn't have been such a problem. As it stood it looked like the labour government was prepared to punish a majority of disabled people for a minority who are cheating the system. If that wasn't the case, they did a really poor job of explaining why not.
Labour as a party will ride this out. Starmer and Reeves are a different matter. They are both on unstable ground at the moment. Much more of these kinds of policies and they are as the opposition leader put it toast. They don’t seem to learn. Their advisors seem to be pulling the strings, and are pushing right wing policies.
There's something vaguely paradoxical about the British government. It feels like the Labour government has such a massive majority that they're tripping over their own feet.
I think this is a consequence of the majority being a mile wide and inch deep. The fact is that Labour had less support to govern than any British government in modern times. Its strategy for winning support from so-called "hero voters" failed and it won because Farage peeled off votes from the tories and people stayed at home. Their mandate is illusory, the only ideology they have is a sort of cargo cult Blairism: anything that angers the left must be "good politics" and there is no objective for them beyond electoral victory. They made a fetish out of winning at any cost and are now revealing that "any cost" included any remaining semblance of humanity.
Apropos of nothing, I was amused to see that, with the addition of Tim Roca, there are now 2 Labour MPs with whom I was at university and served on the Union Council. Small world.
Totally agree - it's a truism that government's lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, but Labour is screwed by having come in probably 5 years before they'd expected to, having done none of the thinking, and with a mandate that amounts (at best) to 'I'm voting for you because you're not wearing a blue rosette' rather than anything that approaches even popular consent for their policy slate, never mind acclamation.
For the first time in history (probably) the UK electorate has served up a government which was a lame duck from day 1 *and* has a huge majority.
Labour's issue is that it doesn't get it - or it does, but has decided that styling it out as though a huge majority on 33.7% of the popular vote is in any way normal.
Sort of 'act like you've got the support you wanted.'
I know technically/procedurally a majority is a majority, and with a Sovereign parliament the government can do whatever it wants, but this particular government skates dangerously close to accusations of lack of mandate for anything that wasn't actually in its manifesto (and really even the stuff that was in the manifesto isn't within normal bounds of consent given how unusually unpopular the government's winning vote was, even in a First Past the Post system).
In office but not in power has really been at least a fair accusation from the morning after the General Election up until now, but it gets into ever sharper focus.
Totally agree - it's a truism that government's lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, but Labour is screwed by having come in probably 5 years before they'd expected to
I don't think this is true, Labour has widely been expected to be the likely next government since at least sometime in 2021 (and in fact when Starmer was seen to be struggling there were rumblings early on about replacing him).
having done none of the thinking, and with a mandate that amounts (at best) to 'I'm voting for you because you're not wearing a blue rosette'
It's not the amount of the thinking but its quality; on economics Labour have basically chosen to artificially constrain their options to minor tinkering at best at a point when the public realm really needed to renewed, partly out of a desire to punch left. The kinds of fights they've been picking are all downstream of being boxed in that way.
The problem with a large majority on a small share of the vote is that it translates to a large number of MPs who are very aware that they are on relatively slim majorities locally. This is also explains the manoeuvring at the edges of the party (Blue Labour - Carden's seat is sometimes predicted to swing to Reform, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Mike Tapp switches parties before the next election).
In other other news. Rachel Reeves caused the markets to fall by being seen crying at PMQs.
The only reason I hesitate to call the right-wing media's focus on the Chancellor crying borderline misogynist is that I'm unsure about the "borderline" bit. (Though I'd rather have Reeves' problems than those of a recipient of disability payments.)
How people are not constantly in tears during PMQs I have no idea. Only one time I experienced being shouted down by a politician before I finished my sentence. It was at university during a formal debate.
Fighting that wave of shouting and jeering would very likely make me cry.
Totally agree - it's a truism that government's lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, but Labour is screwed by having come in probably 5 years before they'd expected to
I don't think this is true, Labour has widely been expected to be the likely next government since at least sometime in 2021 (and in fact when Starmer was seen to be struggling there were rumblings early on about replacing him).
having done none of the thinking, and with a mandate that amounts (at best) to 'I'm voting for you because you're not wearing a blue rosette'
It's not the amount of the thinking but its quality; on economics Labour have basically chosen to artificially constrain their options to minor tinkering at best at a point when the public realm really needed to renewed, partly out of a desire to punch left. The kinds of fights they've been picking are all downstream of being boxed in that way.
The problem with a large majority on a small share of the vote is that it translates to a large number of MPs who are very aware that they are on relatively slim majorities locally. This is also explains the manoeuvring at the edges of the party (Blue Labour - Carden's seat is sometimes predicted to swing to Reform, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Mike Tapp switches parties before the next election).
Not so sure Carden is any danger, he got 70% of the vote in his Liverpool Walton seat, admittedly down from 85% at the previous GE. It's the Liverpool seat with the largest Reform vote share ; 35% compared to between 12 - 8 in the other local seats. The relatively high vote for Reform, might be ' legacy Orangeism'
We're having that most exciting of political events, a local council by-election. A different constituency, but same city. It's actually a very safe Green seat (56% at the last elections, with Labour a poor second on 33%). Greens are certain to win, but it'll be interesting to see what happens to the Labour vote - last time (2023) Reform didn't put up a candidate, but they're fielding a one this time, whose previous electoral highlight was, ironically perhaps, coming second in ward election standing as a Green, (he's also more recently stood in various elections as a Conservative and Unionist)
In other other news. Rachel Reeves caused the markets to fall by being seen crying at PMQs.
That's not what happened, the markets fell because of uncertainty.
According to the BBC business news this morning her crying spooked the markets because they thought she might be crying because Starmer had had words and was thinking of sacking her or because she was going to leave of her own choice. Starmer said this was not so and the markets rallied
Totally agree - it's a truism that government's lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, but Labour is screwed by having come in probably 5 years before they'd expected to
I don't think this is true, Labour has widely been expected to be the likely next government since at least sometime in 2021 (and in fact when Starmer was seen to be struggling there were rumblings early on about replacing him).
having done none of the thinking, and with a mandate that amounts (at best) to 'I'm voting for you because you're not wearing a blue rosette'
It's not the amount of the thinking but its quality; on economics Labour have basically chosen to artificially constrain their options to minor tinkering at best at a point when the public realm really needed to renewed, partly out of a desire to punch left. The kinds of fights they've been picking are all downstream of being boxed in that way.
The problem with a large majority on a small share of the vote is that it translates to a large number of MPs who are very aware that they are on relatively slim majorities locally. This is also explains the manoeuvring at the edges of the party (Blue Labour - Carden's seat is sometimes predicted to swing to Reform, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Mike Tapp switches parties before the next election).
Not so sure Carden is any danger, he got 70% of the vote in his Liverpool Walton seat, admittedly down from 85% at the previous GE.
(Though I'd rather have Reeves' problems than those of a recipient of disability payments.)
It was said this was a personal matter, for all we know someone she cared about could just have died.
Agree - it worries me that it might be some family tragedy that is being made worse by all the media attention. Of course if she hadn't gone to PMQs the media would have said it meant she was going to be sacked. And having gone to PMQs in tears (about some personal matter) the media said she was going to be sacked. It's like people in public life aren't allowed to have feelings unless they tell everyone all about it.
(Though I'd rather have Reeves' problems than those of a recipient of disability payments.)
It was said this was a personal matter, for all we know someone she cared about could just have died.
Agree - it worries me that it might be some family tragedy that is being made worse by all the media attention. Of course if she hadn't gone to PMQs the media would have said it meant she was going to be sacked. And having gone to PMQs in tears (about some personal matter) the media said she was going to be sacked. It's like people in public life aren't allowed to have feelings unless they tell everyone all about it.
I must admit I find it hard to have regard for the feelings of people who have spent months devoting themselves to inflicting suffering on others.
I suspect she believes that if she doesn’t do what she is trying to do, the economy will crash and then there will be even less money to go round and therefore the services and benefits people receive will get worse. (Much as the Truss budget fucked us over.). I don’t agree with that view, but it is possible for someone to hold it, and believe that they are pursuing the least worst path, without being happy about it.
"the number of people claiming PIP is set to double this decade from 2 million to 4.3 million.
As a result, spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits has increased by £20 billion since the pandemic and would have been set to rise by a further £18 billion by the end of this Parliament to £70 billion a year
Overall, the reforms are expected to make welfare savings of £4.8billion by 2029-2030"
"The government has already significantly increased investment in its national security capabilities, increasing spending on defence by nearly £3 billion in this year alone at the Budget."
The government can't credibly state that the economy will meltdown due to "welfare savings" of £4.8 billion whilst at the same time as announcing over £3 billion increases in defence spending.
I suspect she believes that if she doesn’t do what she is trying to do, the economy will crash and then there will be even less money to go round and therefore the services and benefits people receive will get worse. (Much as the Truss budget fucked us over.). I don’t agree with that view, but it is possible for someone to hold it, and believe that they are pursuing the least worst path, without being happy about it.
There's no way she's that stupid. She has, however, had it in for those on benefits for years, over a decade at least.
I suspect she believes that if she doesn’t do what she is trying to do, the economy will crash and then there will be even less money to go round and therefore the services and benefits people receive will get worse. (Much as the Truss budget fucked us over.). I don’t agree with that view, but it is possible for someone to hold it, and believe that they are pursuing the least worst path, without being happy about it.
There's no way she's that stupid. She has, however, had it in for those on benefits for years, over a decade at least.
And more, she attacked the austerity cuts from the right for not going hard enough:
One year ago this government took office. To say it has been a rocky road is an understatement. Bad decision on policy for the most vulnerable people in society will be what it is remembered for mostly. The gap between the front and back benches has not gone unnoticed. Starmer appears weak. Not a good report card
I have been thinking about how to put this. The British Labour government has made a choice that they may regret. Not just on policy but on issues of political philosophy which define who exactly they are.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 is about freedom of expression. Almost nobody believes that this is an absolute freedom without consequences.
But this is the line in the sand that the Labour government has drawn.
Arrests have already started. Because anti-terrorist police have nothing better to do than arrest peaceful protestors displaying placards calling for action for Palestine, or throwing paint on aircraft. "I'm sorry," said an anti-terrorism police spokesperson, "we were unable to prevent a right-wing extremist from going on the rampage because we were too busy nicking the parish priest for preaching the Sermon on the Mount."
And now they are going to "improve" SEND. I don't remember what that stands for, but it is education for kids with disabilities and other disadvantages.
To be fair, SEND desperately needs improving. Though I can't see how that can be achieved without reversing the cuts in funding that the Tories put in, increasing numbers of teachers qualified to provide SEND support etc. What seems to be happening is a re-assessment, so that costs can be cut by deciding that a lot of kids who need SEND support are classified as not being in need - which will mean they end up in classes with everyone else without support, which will make it much harder for them to achieve their best, cause disruption that will impact the education of the rest of the class and create more work for teachers to try to control; or they'll end up being classed as unteachable and excluded from schools to avoid the work and disruption.
I wonder how many schools specialising in SEND have been hit by the VAT on private schools? Or were there exclusions?
No - some of the biggest casualties are those who have sent their children to smaller independent schools specialising in SEND (many smaller independent schools have carved a niche in that sort of provision since the state sector - in many places - fell over). Those consequences will unwind over the next few years...
I wonder how many schools specialising in SEND have been hit by the VAT on private schools? Or were there exclusions?
No - some of the biggest casualties are those who have sent their children to smaller independent schools specialising in SEND (many smaller independent schools have carved a niche in that sort of provision since the state sector - in many places - fell over). Those consequences will unwind over the next few years...
As one of those kids at one of those schools back when, that's pretty much what I was afraid of.
Oh didn't you realise? Kids with ADHD in particular are evil and entirely responsible for the failure of the current curriculum to bore our kids into total submission
Being one of those middle aged men who has recently realised his multiple neurodivergencies this rather hits home. I was certainly treated as a second class citizen for being messy.
I certainly sympathise with those smaller private schools catering for SEND pupils - I'm opposed to private education in principle (ie in a perfect world), but also realise that while being able to attend a private school is a privileged position it's also not the fault of those who are able to choose that option that the other options are so bad. I have to admit that the disaster that has been the academy system has really shifted my thinking on private education - I know if I was a parent I would do anything in my power to avoid sending my kid to an academy. If in that situation it was a choice between academy, homeschooling, or private - private would win every time if it was possible.
I do think that there should have been an exception for SEND-specialist private schools - although not private faith schools as they already get away with absolute murder, especially with regards to teaching things like sex ed and creationism.
Comments
Yes they are doing some good things across the board but the bad stuff is really bad and more over fodder for a press who is against them. Starmer him self is unpopular with voters and there appears to be a growing number of Labour MPs who are not keen on him
While this is all true and good, it's also the case that there has been an increase in PIP claims post Covid that doesn't appear to be replicated elsewhere (again, referred to in the same article):
As the article goes on to say, diagnosing and solving this issue is likely to involve spending even more money, which is why the government hasn't gone there.
Yet I would argue that this is another one of those rather foolish short term economies that is going to stymie this government in the medium term.
Even on a very prosaic economistic level it's a further hit to growth. Download the spreadsheet from the previous link (parliament.uk), sort by percentage of working age people on benefit, and Labour MPs should be asking 'you are going to take how much out of my constituency?'
I was referring to "I am no fan of this government but what good they are doing is being drowned out by the big bad things they are doing".
But despite the very bad stuff, and it pains me to say this, they have done some good stuff. For me the Labour right has trodden all over their history. Still they are not all bad
How does that separate them from pretty much any government ever (certainly in the UK)?
Yeah. Even Thatcher helped agree the Single European Act.
This leadership has taken the party away from its roots. Starmer is not a good leader. He needs to go. There is some support for Rayner as leader.
When I think of right wing Labour figures I think of people like Roy Hattersley, Tony Blair,even Frank Field, and if I was in a good mood I'd even call some of them socialists, but definitely all progressives. Starmer isn't a right wing Labour politician, he's just a right wing politician. I never really had great expectations of him, but he's fallen so low below these I'm really lost for words.
As a compromise candidate he's become very compromised, with little real clout in the party beyond a small handful of loyalists. This seems to suggest a more sudden downfall than I might have predicted a year ago. As to who might succeed him; this seems more difficult to predict as there doesn't appear to be an obvious candidate.
In other news, I see that Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, (and former candidate for leadership of the Labour Party) has urged MPs to vote against the Welfare Bill
In other other news. Rachel Reeves caused the markets to fall by being seen crying at PMQs. Starmer explained in the BBC that it was a personal problem for her that caused her to cry and markets rose. Starmer said that he has confidence in her and she would be Chancellor for a long time. Expect a new Chancellor by the end of the month 😉
We seem to be back to "being seen to be doing the right thing" is more important than actually doing the right thing.
It's that stupid concept of Political Capital. They seem to have spent it defending policies that are really tangential to real problems (and sometimes policies that clearly make life more difficult for certain vulnerable groups)
I think this is a consequence of the majority being a mile wide and inch deep. The fact is that Labour had less support to govern than any British government in modern times. Its strategy for winning support from so-called "hero voters" failed and it won because Farage peeled off votes from the tories and people stayed at home. Their mandate is illusory, the only ideology they have is a sort of cargo cult Blairism: anything that angers the left must be "good politics" and there is no objective for them beyond electoral victory. They made a fetish out of winning at any cost and are now revealing that "any cost" included any remaining semblance of humanity.
Apropos of nothing, I was amused to see that, with the addition of Tim Roca, there are now 2 Labour MPs with whom I was at university and served on the Union Council. Small world.
The issue with the current problems are not simply optical (cutting money from disabled people whilst increasing military spending) but also because the policies lack complexity and nuance.
If they'd actually listened to people saying that there are no jobs for disabled people in their area, that severely disabled people would lose financial support because they don't score highly on an arbitrary checklist and so on then this wouldn't have been such a problem. As it stood it looked like the labour government was prepared to punish a majority of disabled people for a minority who are cheating the system. If that wasn't the case, they did a really poor job of explaining why not.
Totally agree - it's a truism that government's lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, but Labour is screwed by having come in probably 5 years before they'd expected to, having done none of the thinking, and with a mandate that amounts (at best) to 'I'm voting for you because you're not wearing a blue rosette' rather than anything that approaches even popular consent for their policy slate, never mind acclamation.
For the first time in history (probably) the UK electorate has served up a government which was a lame duck from day 1 *and* has a huge majority.
Labour's issue is that it doesn't get it - or it does, but has decided that styling it out as though a huge majority on 33.7% of the popular vote is in any way normal.
Sort of 'act like you've got the support you wanted.'
I know technically/procedurally a majority is a majority, and with a Sovereign parliament the government can do whatever it wants, but this particular government skates dangerously close to accusations of lack of mandate for anything that wasn't actually in its manifesto (and really even the stuff that was in the manifesto isn't within normal bounds of consent given how unusually unpopular the government's winning vote was, even in a First Past the Post system).
In office but not in power has really been at least a fair accusation from the morning after the General Election up until now, but it gets into ever sharper focus.
I don't think this is true, Labour has widely been expected to be the likely next government since at least sometime in 2021 (and in fact when Starmer was seen to be struggling there were rumblings early on about replacing him).
It's not the amount of the thinking but its quality; on economics Labour have basically chosen to artificially constrain their options to minor tinkering at best at a point when the public realm really needed to renewed, partly out of a desire to punch left. The kinds of fights they've been picking are all downstream of being boxed in that way.
The problem with a large majority on a small share of the vote is that it translates to a large number of MPs who are very aware that they are on relatively slim majorities locally. This is also explains the manoeuvring at the edges of the party (Blue Labour - Carden's seat is sometimes predicted to swing to Reform, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Mike Tapp switches parties before the next election).
That's not what happened, the markets fell because of uncertainty.
I thought the SNP showed a little unexpected kindness in response to Reeves, that we see very little in the political world.
[/tangent]
Fighting that wave of shouting and jeering would very likely make me cry.
It was said this was a personal matter, for all we know someone she cared about could just have died.
Not so sure Carden is any danger, he got 70% of the vote in his Liverpool Walton seat, admittedly down from 85% at the previous GE. It's the Liverpool seat with the largest Reform vote share ; 35% compared to between 12 - 8 in the other local seats. The relatively high vote for Reform, might be ' legacy Orangeism'
We're having that most exciting of political events, a local council by-election. A different constituency, but same city. It's actually a very safe Green seat (56% at the last elections, with Labour a poor second on 33%). Greens are certain to win, but it'll be interesting to see what happens to the Labour vote - last time (2023) Reform didn't put up a candidate, but they're fielding a one this time, whose previous electoral highlight was, ironically perhaps, coming second in ward election standing as a Green, (he's also more recently stood in various elections as a Conservative and Unionist)
According to the BBC business news this morning her crying spooked the markets because they thought she might be crying because Starmer had had words and was thinking of sacking her or because she was going to leave of her own choice. Starmer said this was not so and the markets rallied
Well, let's see what happens, I agree it seems unlikely, but something's caused Carden to pivot (see https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article/im-the-mp-elon-musk-praised-for-integrity-over-the-grooming-gangs-b2qcmzcjt )
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1937964316306588052
Agree - it worries me that it might be some family tragedy that is being made worse by all the media attention. Of course if she hadn't gone to PMQs the media would have said it meant she was going to be sacked. And having gone to PMQs in tears (about some personal matter) the media said she was going to be sacked. It's like people in public life aren't allowed to have feelings unless they tell everyone all about it.
Although building on what Dafyd said above, there are any matters you can keep personal when it comes to PIP assessments.
I must admit I find it hard to have regard for the feelings of people who have spent months devoting themselves to inflicting suffering on others.
The government claims that
"the number of people claiming PIP is set to double this decade from 2 million to 4.3 million.
As a result, spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits has increased by £20 billion since the pandemic and would have been set to rise by a further £18 billion by the end of this Parliament to £70 billion a year
Overall, the reforms are expected to make welfare savings of £4.8billion by 2029-2030"
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper/spring-statement-2025-health-and-disability-benefit-reforms-impacts
"The government has already significantly increased investment in its national security capabilities, increasing spending on defence by nearly £3 billion in this year alone at the Budget."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-sets-out-biggest-sustained-increase-in-defence-spending-since-the-cold-war-protecting-british-people-in-new-era-for-national-security
The government can't credibly state that the economy will meltdown due to "welfare savings" of £4.8 billion whilst at the same time as announcing over £3 billion increases in defence spending.
Total government spending is over £1000 billion.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-february-2024/public-spending-statistics-february-2024
There's no way she's that stupid. She has, however, had it in for those on benefits for years, over a decade at least.
And more, she attacked the austerity cuts from the right for not going hard enough:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 is about freedom of expression. Almost nobody believes that this is an absolute freedom without consequences.
But this is the line in the sand that the Labour government has drawn.
It reminds me of those Hong Kong protests where people were arrested for holding blank pieces of paper.
"Down with this kind of thing."
Well yes, it does make you think about how the media in the UK would report on an opposition group being banned in one of the ‘evil’ countries.
Not only banned. Any public support of that group being illegal and liable to lead to arrest.
This is not going to end well.
Which is presumably why the government is hoping to shave off some of the people currently classified as needing it, instead of sorting it out.
Borderline evil, but not unexpected with this mob in charge.
As one of those kids at one of those schools back when, that's pretty much what I was afraid of.
I do think that there should have been an exception for SEND-specialist private schools - although not private faith schools as they already get away with absolute murder, especially with regards to teaching things like sex ed and creationism.