Difficult choices for who? The Prime Minister couldn't answer my question when I asked why he's choosing to make life harder for older people, children and disabled people instead of making the super-rich pay their fair share.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Starmer can’t answer because he doesn’t have an answer. All those ‘ers’ and a pathetic attempt to claim they are taxing the rich was pathetic. Horrible man who wouldn’t last a week living the life of a disabled person reliant on low wages and government support.
Labour spin is no saner than the Tories'.
How can they make disabled people better off by cutting the PIP budget. Now if they'd abandon Austerity (making rich richer) and create some jobs they might have a scintilla of credibility.
Dear Kier,
Thankfully I don't live in the UK now but my older sister does, she's not doing well, but well enough it seems to not qualify for any help at all. She has a dog, he keeps her warm in the cold and takes her mind off her aches and pains. If I could I'd put him in the House of Lords.
Furthermore, what pressure have ministers put on employers and their representatives to make jobs much more accessible for disabled people? (Have any evaluations been done on previous 'cuts-based-approaches to reducing unemployment?' and what did they say?) @nataliegreenpeer.bsky.social
The Green Paper states that people who have been assessed as unfit to work will have their benefits cut if they don't find work. That includes people who struggle to eat or wash themselves. Oh and anyone disabled between 18-22.
Great question. It rattled Starmer. For such a short answer, there were several ers and erms.
We need to change the economic conversation. Neoliberals did that, thanks to Friedman, Thatcher and Reagan, and they have destroyed the middle class. Speaking truthfully about the economy is essential.
We need the greens to go on the attack with this constantly. Don't wait four years for policy and commitments, do the heavy lifting now, facts and figures, commit to a wealth tax. Tie labour with those that are bankrolling this lurch to the right, give us a Green party that is progressive left 🙏
I'd rather see factual questions. Like;
can the PM explain why the nations richest 50 families deserve as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the nation?
Why aren't all companies required to pay a real living wage?
Endless variants demonstrating it's political choice
A high proportion of people claiming benefits are in employment. They are just not paid enough, so the tax payer bumps up their salary. This is insane.
PIP isn't about employment. It's about the additional costs of being disabled. We need to keep telling people as the Westminster government wants to lump all benefits together to suit their narrative.
The entire mentality of this government, as follow on from the Conservatives, that all emphasis in all things has to be on growth and thus jobs, employment, drives me nuts.
There's more to life than the planet killing consumptive system to make a minority rich.
I know that's a divergence but relates
Starmer is lawyering. "Proportional tax" and "raising taxes on the wealthiest" are very carefully chosen words. He's disguising lack of progressive tax and failure to the tax super wealthy and capital. His cowardly reply hides an implied answer. imo, this question made him shit himself.
It's notable that the "transparent" Green party have neatly trimmed off the PMs full response to Carla which is quite revealing of the Greens unworkable fiscal plan which would be devastating for hard working people.
The Green plan is to tax the rich. How is this unworkable? This would reduce the deficit by billions, allowing billions to be spent on welfare, the NHS, education, green infrastructure, etc. What is devastating for hard working people is neoliberalism.
Taxing "the rich" isn't enough if you believe it would raise c£50bn the Greens claim then that only solves one or two issues at best. Net-zero requires about £50bn, the NHS needs £30-50bn extra per year. Welfare and Education need money... Greens have to tax business or working people.
The extra expenditure would generate growth which would generate increased taxes and reduce expenditure. More people working, fewer people waiting for health treatment means lower benefits bill and greater productivity. Keynesianism works, neoliberalism doesn't, it's all the change we need.
This doesn’t make your point. Did you want to try again with the extra knowledge that I studied economics at one of the highest rated universities for the subject in the UK?
Oh gosh I'm so ever sorry my Lord, I bow to your superior knowledge and wisdom and grovel for forgiveness at my transgression of not recognising your absolute superiority.
The Prime Minister has shown that he is running another set of self serving grifters who want to appease their rich friends and when they lose the next election take up lucrative jobs to secure their futures.
The location of the asset is immaterial. Jim Ratcliffe has his assets in the uk but is taxed in Monaco; James Dyson’s assets are largely abroad but he is taxed here.
the government froze/ stole the num account to starve the miners back to work, the government stole the Russian oligarchs accounts, we could easily take a few billion of each of the billionaires
If they are not uk tax resident they are not subject to uk tax - no matter where their assets are. And it works both ways, if they are tax resident here they are subject to uk tax even if their wealth is abroad.
which billionaires are you claiming non dom for? it's irrelevant new Labour have that large a majority then could alter laws to suit before lunch, the money is funnelled thru banks, stocks on our exchange etc where there's a will. its better than taking off the poor
banks are global ,the money doesn't actually exist, its not like in the world's biggest vault its a digital figure. besides the properties and his profits channel through our accounts
Great question Carla.
I noticed Starmer stumbling somewhat in giving his "answer"
Possibly caused because some part of his brain was aware of the untruth he was speaking?
MP's get at least £80grand a year (£2.5grand pay rise this year, £115grand for a Cabibet Member, plus expense accounts, paid for second homes with all bills paid, subsidised bars and restaurants and freebies. But it's disabled people who are the problem. Sickening.
In the separate question of should anyone, disabled or not, have enough to live on of course they should.
Should the wealth be better spread, wealth and super rich taxed much more, definitely. Given I see no other way under our system to enable everyone having a reasonable life.
It wouldn't be that big if the salary was all they got, but with the subsidied bars and restaurants, travel, housing allowances and off the scale expenses for things you and I have to pay for, it is huge.
I'd happily see dedicated accommodation blocks built for them to use in London. And the rest of the UK to allow a parliament to spend time in all regions.
But we don't have that and so some allowance for them to spend most of the working week hundreds of miles from home seems fair to me.
As for most other perks. The right jobs in private industry pay more and offer just as much. For doing jobs with no responsibility.
So again, compared to the normal across industry it's not excessive.
But perhaps (I'd agree) the private sector is excessive. Setting the benchmark.
I get that, but the abuses are off the scale. For example a couple who each claimed the other’s home as their second home for which they needed the mortgage to be paid by the taxpayer. Paying rent I get. But if we pay their mortgage, we should own the property, not them.
The Labour Party ceased to exist following Blair's ditching of Clause 4 and the consequent re-brand to New Labour. Thus began the transformation of a workers', socialist, left-wing party into the neo-Con, right-wing mess we have in power today.
Evidently you haven't raised the taxes on wealth far enough if you need to cut disabled people's only income by 65% to balance your books.
How about harmonise tax rates on earned & unearned income? How about tax profits where they're made, not where a company says it is domiciled? So many options.
Tax the wealth upward.
Properly fund tax collection to catch the dodgers.
Put severe enough sanctions on tax evasion to make paying the sensible option.
Legislate to make work pay enough to live on.
Just as a start.
Well done, Carla.
The verbose charlatan, Starmer, couldn't use his prepared response, and we can hear that his reply never went beyond a vacuous gibbering "erm", "er" "um".
The Nordic countries probably have vastly better social services. Eg friend moved flat in Stockholm, and a day or so after the move a city-supplied handyman arrived to provide a couple of hours' labour doing whatever she needed doing in the flat.
There are differences so comparisons aren't straightforward. Exceptions to the 25% VAT include food, clothing, shoe repair, plus restaurants, cultural events (excl cinema) and hotels at 12%. This would seem to make access to basics and some leisure activities more equitable, within their system.
Water, sewage, refuse, education and health (plus dentistry presumably) are all covered by the 'local' taxes, whereas we pay private companies for water, sewage (and increasingly green bins) and dentistry.
My opinion comes directly from the Spanish government, which reported 632 million Euros a year in revenue, not from a think-tank with a vested interest in inflating its figures.
“Proportional tax system”, does not equal fair. If a government’s go to for cuts is continually the disadvantaged, the proportion is the wrong way round. Well done for challenging on difficult decisions. Sweating over a governmental policy whilst being well off and comfortable is not difficult.
Superbly put question(s), Carla. Thank you for standing up so strongly & clearly for people who should be automatically valued & protected in any decent society, without a second thought. Difficult choice? Did the Prime Minister mean a no-brainer moral imperative which he just got infeasibly wrong?
Mad that you and your party are on about making lives difficult for the disabled, yet you’re closing off access to people’s homes and streets without thinking about disabled access. Reading this this morning is pretty shocking
Comments
How can they make disabled people better off by cutting the PIP budget. Now if they'd abandon Austerity (making rich richer) and create some jobs they might have a scintilla of credibility.
#GTTO was a CON
Thankfully I don't live in the UK now but my older sister does, she's not doing well, but well enough it seems to not qualify for any help at all. She has a dog, he keeps her warm in the cold and takes her mind off her aches and pains. If I could I'd put him in the House of Lords.
I'm sorry Carla, but you're being disingenuous, just like the rest of the Green Party always are.
Disclaimer: I do support a wealth-tax.
Cutting benefits isn't right at all, and hopefully when this goes through, it will be diluted.
We need to change the economic conversation. Neoliberals did that, thanks to Friedman, Thatcher and Reagan, and they have destroyed the middle class. Speaking truthfully about the economy is essential.
Not just an incompetent PM but a cruel and nasty one too!
Red tory = Blue tory
No difference!
I'd rather see factual questions. Like;
can the PM explain why the nations richest 50 families deserve as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the nation?
Why aren't all companies required to pay a real living wage?
Endless variants demonstrating it's political choice
can the PM explain why people shouldn't earn a living wage? Should they just decide to be rich like JRM suggested once as the solution.
There's more to life than the planet killing consumptive system to make a minority rich.
I know that's a divergence but relates
Top tip - if you’re going to decry something as “unworkable”, you’re best off possessing some basic knowledge of how it works.
Do you have a response to the answer he gave you? I’d love to know. Thks.
I noticed Starmer stumbling somewhat in giving his "answer"
Possibly caused because some part of his brain was aware of the untruth he was speaking?
A disabled person doing the job of MP or minister would get the same pay. There have been and are a few.
Personally I don't think their pay is big. It probably should be more, with second and more jobs banned.
Should the wealth be better spread, wealth and super rich taxed much more, definitely. Given I see no other way under our system to enable everyone having a reasonable life.
But we don't have that and so some allowance for them to spend most of the working week hundreds of miles from home seems fair to me.
So again, compared to the normal across industry it's not excessive.
But perhaps (I'd agree) the private sector is excessive. Setting the benchmark.
How about harmonise tax rates on earned & unearned income? How about tax profits where they're made, not where a company says it is domiciled? So many options.
Properly fund tax collection to catch the dodgers.
Put severe enough sanctions on tax evasion to make paying the sensible option.
Legislate to make work pay enough to live on.
Just as a start.
The verbose charlatan, Starmer, couldn't use his prepared response, and we can hear that his reply never went beyond a vacuous gibbering "erm", "er" "um".
And he’s right that our tax system is already very progressive. The Nordic countries tax low and middle earners more.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-tax-burden-high-when-most-us-are-taxed-so-low
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/disabled-woman-left-tears-over-10045126