Wednesday: Statement on Benefits

ministers can’t even say the word ‘disabled’

I think the latest preferred term is ‘work limiting conditions’

(Think about it - when was the last time starmer/reeeves/kendall mentioned the word ‘disabled’ directly by name when talking about sickness benefits (it’s a serious question as I honestly don’t know) - those 3 have made clear that Labour isn’t the party for the disabled unless we come under ‘working person’ and in the last few days reeves has suggested she doesn’t see us as ‘ordinary ppl’ and that it’s perverse that sick ppl should get extra money from the dwp then our able counterparts (so we can have the same quality of life as disability brings extra living costs))

even if our worst fears of welfare reforms don’t come to pass - the verbal attacks (intended that way or not) by those in a position of power have been cruel and unacceptable and done untold damage (contributing to MH of claimants rocketing up - it’s basically a form of bullying & very few don’t get affect by that sort of thing)

This is from disability news service

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/disability-minister-is-drawing-up-a-list-of-potential-actions-to-address-barriers/

got to say I’m intrigued by your post here

You obviously think that starmer is a decent person (I think we all did at the labour leadership campaign 4 years back) - he’s not a career politican (only been an mp for 10 years and it’s his first political position - many mps have roles in councils and as political aides) and reading his personal history, if he is indeed in full control at the top, the direction labour is going in makes no sense.

I guess what I’m asking you is do you think starmer is either getting bad advice or being manipulated? (on the one hand starmer is so stupidly smart it’s hard to see him being swayed so easily - however he is a relatively new politican and career politicians are masters at manipulation and spin)

You talk about snakes in the Labour Party - could you elaborate?

As I said before, the only other labour gov I’ve had in my lifetime was Blair whom ppl keep telling me wasn’t really a labour gov (blue labour) and labour govs in the past have been more left wing/socialist

And the cabinet as a whole looks like a continuation of the Blair years - though there are a few exceptions such as nandy and maybe Miliband (Jonathan Reynolds is such a disappointment as he was a great shadow work & pension minister and he has an autistic son so he should be an ally but has become a ‘yes man’ and sold out in the past 18 months - very interested to see his reaction (or silence) to upcoming things as technically it has a direct effect on his family) - but the likes of cooper, reeves, Kendall, streeting and lamy are career politicians (most likely power hungry) and closer to blairite than labour of yester year.

Also I think back to the comedy ‘yes, minister’ (never seen but my parents have told me all about) where politicians are basically puppets and it’s actually aides & civil servants running the show - Morgan McSweeney is starmers chief of staff and also ran Kendall’s leadership campaign (if there’s a ‘puppet master’ situation then he’s the most likely one pulling some of the strings) and to be blunt I don’t trust him as far as I could throw him

The situation with starmer is weird - he’s either said whatever he’s need to say in the past 5 years to gain power and painted versions of himself which were Oscar worthy performances………………..or he’s naive and has allowed himself to be ‘puppeted’ which doesn’t make any sense either

I don’t want to get in another slightly heated debate as we seem to have a lot of different views (and both of us a streak of stubbornness) and honestly I’d fall off my chair if you 100% agree with the above - if I’m honest this starmer government has confused the hell out of me and I’m interested to read another take (regardless of whether I agree with it or not - a different perspective can help you think of things you hadn’t before)

would firing reeves as chancellor give starmer a re-start in the eyes of voters

it’s an interesting thought (in the past pm’s have thrown ministers under the bus to shift blame and shield themselves from public and internal party criticism……aka save themselves at all costs) - 2 ministers have lot their jobs since starmer took charge but neither were undeniable bus throwing situations (though both occasions the back story was dodgy as hell)

For me firing reeves wouldn’t be enough to grant starmer a fresh start - there’s a number of ministers that need to go as well as mcsweeney and he’d have to 90-180 degree some current policies (and apologise for some of his quotes over the last 6 months that to put politely are unbecoming of an human rights lawyer)

I’m personally not sure he can turn things as to many of the public his government have already done things that won’t be forgiven or forgotten by the next ge regardless of what they do next

The major reason the window is still open to turn things around is because right now labours main opposition in the next ge are very far right versions of reform and tories and many of the public want a ‘sane’ option

(Another reason they may targeting disabled claimants is they are probably reasoning that we are so scared of reform/tories getting in next ge that we’ll continue giving them them strategic vote so they can do whatever they want and we’ll remain scared obedient little sheep» - I personally think they are underestimating a large amount of vulnerable ppl that may have very little to lose after reeves/kendall are finished with us and more willing to go ‘f*** it’ and cast a ‘nuclear’ vote for Lib Dem’s or greens (or even reform/tories if sanity has been totally lost after years of dwp mistreatment of disabled) - although a new centralist party could totally shake things up option wise)

look I’m open to starmer turning things around but he needs to do so asap (and risk looking weak with several necessary u turns) but I have doubts that starmers labour will have the massive shake up needed and be able to undo already done damage

I’m still favouring the nuclear option of labour having an internal coup before the next ge and starmer ousted (tories had several unelected leaders the past 7ish years, so I’m okay with labour having another spin of the wheel if a new leader could improve things)

But if we got back 2020 version of starmer that many change my current position

Apple85 it's enough reason .😅 I have hyperacusis where everything sounds louder so, for me, it's definitely a good enough reason 🤣

I'm hoping tomorrow's statement will put an end to a lot of speculation. We need facts not opinions.

No as I've said quite a few times, benefits are enshrined in law, there is a long legal process to follow to make any changes.

Cuts to Winter Fuel Payment were made so quickly because unlike welfare benefits, it was a government perk.