UK Politics General Discussion

[Matt N]

Interestingly, it appears as though Keir Starmer is taking an increasingly right-wing turn in terms of policy.

Firstly, the government recently announced the abolition of NHS England, and according to The Guardian, the government has radical plans to completely reform the civil service, cracking down on quangos and cutting jobs in the civil service, akin to Elon Musk’s actions with DOGE over in America: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...f-radical-government-proposal-to-reform-state

The government is also planning to make up to £6bn of welfare cuts, with the primary cuts coming from Personal Independence Payment (PIP), under the pretence that the benefits bill is currently burgeoning and forecast to rise to £70bn by 2030: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-labour-divided-over-prospect-of-benefit-cuts

This is generating discontent within the Labour Party, and commentators are talking about how some of these moves are further right than Blair ever went, and how moves like the benefits cuts are further right than even George Osborne managed to go during the Tory administration.

With this in mind, could the Labour government potentially end up being a more right-wing government than some were expecting? I’ll admit to being surprised at some of the recent rhetoric coming from the government; the stuff about the civil service in particular sounds as though it could have come out of the mouth of Liz Truss, and the benefits cuts are not very traditionally Labour (even if I get the rationale behind them to an extent).

 

[rob666]

This isn't a right wing government at all, politically.
It is a realistic, skint government, that has to limit increasing spending to have any chance economically.
The days of the Labour magic money tree are over.
We have been underpaying in taxation for decades.
Reality hits home in the end.

 

[Plastic Person]

This isn't a right wing government at all, politically.

Economics is politics, and this is a right-wing government. The necessity of those choices can and will be debated, but Wes Streeting stood up in the Commons this week and proudly jeered that he and the Labour Party were making moves and cuts that the Tories had "only ever talked about." Some of these will take out people already on their knees. I understand the necessity for a sensible, realistic Labour party, but much of what is proposed here just screams cruelty. Having deservedly won some Tory voters over, the higher-ups in the party seem to be doubling down on impressing them with increasingly grim party tricks. It's a race to the bottom.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

With this in mind, could the Labour government potentially end up being a more right-wing government than some were expecting?

It's more leftie than I was expecting, from a leader who went in record about how much they admired Margaret Thatcher.

cracking down on quangos and cutting jobs in the civil service, akin to Elon Musk’s actions with DOGE over in America:

It's not akin to DOGE. We don't have the literal richest person in the world meddling in governmental departments, to ensure that his interests and companies win new government contracts.

The bonfire of the Quangos is something which started under David Cameron. That being said, it's not something I wholeheartedly disagree with. NHS England is a terrible entity, handing out healthcare contacts to private third parties left right and centre. There really isn't any reason why it shouldn't be under the direction control of the Department for Health and Social Care.

Highways England and Network Rail are two others which could be folded into direct control, under the Department of Transport.

Sone Quangos are unnecessary, and probably ought to be brought under direct Departmental control. It also makes ministers and departments more responsible. Some aren't. UK Film Council, RIP, was an excellent resource and the primary reason why our film industry started booming (it's now very much declining).

Essential government services should not be outsourced, they should be under direct control. The frilly stuff is a different discussion.

 

[rob666]

Economics is politics, and this is a right-wing government. The necessity of those choices can and will be debated, but Wes Streeting stood up in the Commons this week and proudly jeered that he and the Labour Party were making moves and cuts that the Tories had "only ever talked about." ...

I disagree completely.
Economic reality means accepting large scale tax increases, or cuts in a welfare bill that has massively increased since covid, with an ageing population costing the state even more.
There is an absolute need to make hard choices, or the nation goes bust.
The Tories were at fault for not acting sooner, in a desire to get re-elected.

Change has to happen.

 

[Benzin]

Streeting is an off-putting person to be in charge of the Health Department. Stuff he's come out with (especially relating to Trans) put me off actually voting Labour at the election.

Obviously at home the changes to disabled benefits is a concern. The Universal Credit changes are still recent in the memory, and it's not exactly like PIP and ESA help a great deal in the current economic climate.

Removing NHS England I'm not sure how to feel about it. However under it there's been some terrible decisions so it does seem very unfit for purpose, and Labour have made it clear that they plan on bringing a number of things under direct government control, for better or worse.

 

[Smiley]

Starmer is digging a big hole to fall into, started by Reeves and her fiscal rules and promise not to "come back with more tax hikes". They've hit the pensioners, the businesses, and now those on disability benefits. Not many people left to go for....!

The system is broken. When the government is subsidising minimum wage (via various in-work benefits) really they are subsidising the businesses they work for. Crazy! Make work pay, or rather make "not working NOT pay".

 

[Matt.GC]

At the last election we rightly (no pun intended there) wanted rid of the ideologically driven cuckoo land governance that got us into this mess.

Now some non-ideologically driven decisions are being made, whatever anyone thinks of them (some of these I do not agree with), and suddenly a government that is nationalising railways, cutting inheritance tax loopholes for the wealthy, cancelling the deployment of wheelbarrows stuffed with government cash that was destined to mostly go to wealthier pensioners, levying higher taxes on businesses that employ lower paid workers, and was still being attacked for its links to 'Comrade Corbyn' only months ago is being compared to the richest man in the world raiding US treasury coffers to distribute amongst his rich buddies like his boss?

We don't want much do we?

Labours manifesto promises were fanciful, yet at the time were persistently being attacked for not being bold enough. Despite the previous government leaving pretty much everything broken and a piggy bank chock full of IOU's, it was those Labour socialists who were going to come in and "leave us bankrupt like they did in the 1970's" wasn't it? The absurd fiscal rules with no personal tax rises that were promised to deal with these rediclous attacks are the very reason we're seeing these decisions being made.

The numbers don't add up and haven't for years. Country is screwed and we're not even a year into this parliamentary term. Analysis of ideological drivers behind every decision being made looks like a luxury debate from a parallel universe to me. Is the country still really so out of touch with reality?

The sooner they chuck that rediclous manifesto in the furnace, raise all our taxes and start borrowing to invest the better.

 

[Matt N]

To me, it does seem as though Starmer is acknowledging some realities that have long been ignored by previous leaders.

The unfortunate truth is that both pensions and welfare bills in this country are a ticking time bomb that need sorting. The level of pension benefits being handed out currently is unsustainable, with the number of pensioners growing and the number of working age people to fund said pensions declining. The level of welfare benefits being handed out in this country is also unsustainable, with the bill forecast to rise exponentially in the coming years. I read an article in The Telegraph recently about how there are now more net recipients in this country than net contributors, and this balance is only set to shift more towards recipients in the future. I’m all for a supportive welfare state that helps those who need it, but I think a frank national conversation needs to be had to ensure that it can sustainably continue to do so, and I’m glad that Starmer is not shying away from this.

The thing I find absolutely maddening about the political discourse in this country is that you almost seem to be demonised for telling the truth. Kemi Badenoch recently got into trouble from fellow Tories and the public for calling the triple lock unsustainable; the exact words of a Tory source in the article I read about it were something along the lines of “everyone knows that the triple lock is unsustainable, but she was stupid to say it out loud”. Why on Earth should acknowledging truth be a taboo? I almost feel like politicians are in a bit of a no-win situation here, as the public wants them to be truthful and demonises them for lying, but also demonises them when they tell the truth.

I do feel that Starmer and Reeves could have been more honest during the election and made a positive case for tax rises and wealth redistribution rather than backing themselves into a corner with these “fiscal rules” that are evidently now causing them problems. This would have allowed them to pursue some more typically “Labour” policy platforms while still plugging the hole in the public purse and simultaneously avoiding some of the more problematic and unpopular policies (e.g. raising NI on employers, spending cuts). Had they done this from the get go, no one could argue that “no one voted for this” as lots of people currently are. The way in which Starmer and Reeves have actually handled this, I would argue, makes them look dishonest and incompetent, and no different from the public’s caricature of a “typical politician”; everyone realistically knew that the inheritance from the Tories would be poor, so I don’t think the “inheritance was so much worse than we expected” line really flies.

Given what I posted above about politicians being demonised for telling the truth, part of me thinks that had they done it, they would have been demonised for it. But given the circumstances, I’d argue that the time was never better for them to make a positive case for wealth redistribution and a different breed of politics. The Tories’ popularity was (and still is) in the toilet, so the chances of them winning regardless of what Labour did were very, very slim. And I feel that being honest with the public about this during the election would have reinforced Starmer’s pledge to deliver a different kind of politics; people hate politicians and how they lie, so I’d argue that one being honest might have been a refreshing change!

The electorate of this country are adults; why can’t politicians treat us like adults and level with us?

 

[Quantum]

Just a reminder we have the worst state pensions in Europe the problem is we are no longer productive as a country.

Many of the issues I blame on the Tories especially the immigration disaster but I'm not convinced Labour have the political will to sort it out.

Reeves when far too hard with taxing business and we will see the consequences of this in the next 12 months.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I read an article in The Telegraph recently about how there are now more net recipients in this country than net contributors, and this balance is only set to shift more towards recipients in the future.

Net contributors vs net recipients isn't necessarily the problem, it also masks the truth.

33.92 million people aged 16+ were employed in the UK in November 2024 to January 2025.

1.75 million people claimed unemployment benefits in January 2025.

There are 4.2 million working-age individuals receiving at least one health-related benefit. This includes PIP, which isn't means tested and can be paid to those who are working.

There were 2.4 million people on Universal Credit in employment for December 2023, 38% of all people on Universal Credit.

There are 12.95 million people claiming a state pension.

The other recipients? Children under 16. How dare they not contribute!

The issue that we have is that we don't have a fully progressive tax system. It's not the number of people paying in that strictly matters, it's how much they're collectively paying in. If you were to increase the tax burden for those on the higher end of the wage spectrum, you could easily make up the shortfall.

There are plenty of leavers that could be pulled on the tax side, but we can't do that.

I’m all for a supportive welfare state that helps those who need it, but I think a frank national conversation needs to be had to ensure that it can sustainably continue to do so, and I’m glad that Starmer is not shying away from this.

He's not having that conversation. He's introducing austerity measures and cutting, because he foolishly promised to not only refuse to increase taxes, but refuse to have that honest and frank conversation.

 

[Matt N]

I fully agree that higher earners should be taxed more, and would agree with a more progressive tax system than we currently have, but being realistic, there’s only so far the progressiveness of the tax system can go before the loss from companies and billionaires leaving the country outweighs the gains from additional tax take from those that remain.

As much as some left-wing commentators dismiss it as “Tory scaremongering”, there would likely be a brain drain to some extent if taxes were raised too highly on businesses and high earning individuals. For businesses to stay here and employ people, the government needs to give them some incentive, and taxing them to the absolute eyeballs isn’t much of an incentive. As much as it would be lovely to think that businesses and billionaires will stay here and pay 99% income tax (as I’ve seen suggested before), they realistically won’t; there does need to be some degree of quid pro quo to get businesses and rich individuals to stay here and employ people here. Full-on communism does not work as an approach for economic prosperity; most communist countries, while equal, are also very poor.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of room to redistribute in the UK as it stands; plenty of European countries with more egalitarian tax systems arguably prove that business prosperity and higher levels of wealth equality can go hand in hand. I would love to see a more egalitarian tax system implemented in this country. But I would caution against “just raise taxes on the rich and businesses” always working as an approach, because it only works to a certain point.

Limitlessly “taxing the rich” Robin Hood-style isn’t realistic, in the same way as “net zero immigration” or “a flat rate of income tax” isn’t realistic on the other side of the political fence. “The rich” will not just compliantly pay whatever you tax them; if they see a country with better incentives, they will pull their money out and move.

In reality, I think the best path lies somewhere between the two. More redistribution and higher taxes than we currently have for sure, but not so much as to cripple businesses or see rich individuals leave the country en masse. At the same time, perhaps looking at making our state and welfare system more sustainable and efficient, and using taxpayer money in the most efficient manner that results in the most effective delivery to those who need it, isn’t a bad idea.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Full-on communism does not work as an approach for economic prosperity

As far as I'm aware, none of us have suggested that it does. You're taking the thinnest wedge of my argument and blowing it out of proportion.

I was highlighting that net numbers of contributors alone is a useless metric, it matters what they're contributing. If you had 1,000 contributors all paying 1p each, but then had 1 recipient receiving £11, you have an uneven system.

The benefit cuts that Starmer is proposing will barely scratch the surface of the tax burden, but it will leave deep scars on society's most vulnerable, which doesn't actually help anybody. The problem isn't solved.

 

[Matt N]

Ah, fair enough. That makes more sense.

Starmer and Kendall sound as though part of their motivation behind the benefits changes is to help people back into work. To some extent, could you not argue that some people’s mental health, for example, might benefit from being supported into the workplace rather than being kept at home and reliant on benefits ad infinitum?

As well as a monetary purpose, going to work or into education arguably gives your life some purpose. Certainly for me, I feel far more purpose by going to university than I would by staying at home, and I think it has great mental benefits for me overall. My feeling is that if you stay at home due to poor physical or mental health and have nothing to think about other than your health, it almost becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, wherein your health is made worse by staying at home and thinking about it constantly. Work or education, rightly or wrongly, provides a distraction and gives you something else to think about. I’ve often felt that way whenever I’ve been mildly ill; I feel much better if I have something to do than if I’m sat at home with nothing to think about other than being ill.

Of course, there will always be people who will never be able to work for a smorgasbord of reasons. People with severe physical or mental disabilities will rely on PIP as a lifeline, as they will never realistically hold down a job. These people absolutely deserve the fullest support. PIP should also absolutely function as a lifeline for people who are out of work for a short to medium term period for health reasons. On the milder end of the spectrum, however, is there not an argument that whatever the health reason for claiming PIP is, it could potentially be improved or mitigated by being supported into the workplace rather than continuing to be reliant on PIP long term in some cases? That’s not to stigmatise less severe health struggles at all, but I do feel from my own experiences that health could be improved in some cases by being supported into work or education rather than by being kept at home and reliant on benefits. The key word there, though, is “supported”, because these people should be supported into the workplace and given help to reintegrate into the professional world rather than forced to go it alone.

It is undeniably a complicated and multi-faceted issue that needs to be handled with sensitivity, however. It arguably has parallels with the age-old RAP debate in Merlin parks in that sense.

 

[Bert2theSpark]

A lot of younger people around my age are being written off by the system due to poor mental health.

It is not a fulfilling lifestyle to not really do anything for most of your day, something to keep you busy. These are people who don’t have many skills on their CV, often due to poor educational attainment. The jobs that are ‘available’ to them are hospitality and retail jobs that are always hiring because they can’t retain staff because the work environment is so chaotic.

If that’s their experience of getting a job, they will hate it and will never want to work. It’s fundamentally a failure in our education system, once you leave education it’s an “off you go” mentality. Plus a lack of vocational training for various careers in this country, because those who can work are pushed towards white-collar jobs.

There will be jobs in the economy that people who are currently written-off can work, it’s just how we find the structural solution to get people there!

When it comes to tax burdens in this country, people want all of the social democratic outcomes of the Scandinavian countries, but with the tax burden of the USA. The British electorate will have to pick one or the other at some point, because the consensus we’ve had up to now can no longer hold.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Ah, fair enough. That makes more sense.

Starmer and Kendall sound as though part of their motivation behind the benefits changes is to help people back into work. To some extent, could you not argue that some people’s mental health, for example, might benefit from being supported into the workplace rather than being kept at home and reliant on benefits ad infinitum?

As well as a monetary purpose, going to work or into education arguably gives your life some purpose. Certainly for me, I feel far more purpose by going to university than I would by staying at home, and I think it has great mental benefits for me overall. My feeling is that if you stay at home due to poor physical or mental health and have nothing to think about other than your health, it almost becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, wherein your health is made worse by staying at home and thinking about it constantly. Work or education, rightly or wrongly, provides a distraction and gives you something else to think about. I’ve often felt that way whenever I’ve been mildly ill; I feel much better if I have something to do than if I’m sat at home with nothing to think about other than being ill.

Of course, there will always be people who will never be able to work for a smorgasbord of reasons. People with severe physical or mental disabilities will rely on PIP as a lifeline, as they will never realistically hold down a job. These people absolutely deserve the fullest support. PIP should also absolutely function as a lifeline for people who are out of work for a short to medium term period for health reasons. On the milder end of the spectrum, however, is there not an argument that whatever the health reason for claiming PIP is, it could potentially be improved by being supported into the workplace rather than continuing to be reliant on PIP long term in some cases? That’s not to stigmatise less severe health struggles at all, but I do feel from my own experiences that health could be improved in some cases by being supported into work or education rather than by being kept at home and reliant on benefits. The key word there, though, is “supported”, because these people should be supported into the workplace and given help to reintegrate into the professional world rather than forced to go it alone.

It is undeniably a complicated and multi-faceted issue that needs to be handled with sensitivity, however. It arguably has parallels with the age-old RAP debate in Merlin parks in that sense.

You've severely misunderstood what PIP, is and who it is for, and appear to be getting it confused with those who are deemed LCWRA (formerly known as incapacity benefit), which is a status given to Universal Credit claimants.

Personal Independence Payments (PIP) is for working aged people, 16 and over, to assist with the extra costs of living with a health condition or a disability. It is given to people who are unemployed, or employed, and is not means tested. You could be fully employed, for 37.5 hours a week, and earning £150,000 a year and still be eligible for PIP.

PIP doesn't prevent you from working, and being a PIP claimant doesn't disqualify you from having to look for a job if you're deemed capable for work and claiming Universal Credit.

LCWRA means that the Universal Credit claimant doesn't have any requirement to undergo work search related activities, though they are free to do so if they wish. The single progressive change that has been suggested is that those who are LCWRA can rejoin the workforce on a trial basis, without fear of losing their status or claim if they don't feel comfortable in their new role.

 

[rob666]

We all need to be paying more direct income tax, like we did in the sixties and seventies.
Thatcher changed the tax system to an indirect focus, and saved the rich billions over the years, at the cost to the poor.
Again...(again!)...Blair did nothing to reset the balance...We had a "cool britannia" Labour government to ease our new richer conscience regarding welfare, but he didn't put the taxes back up to pay for it, did he.
The numbers have never added up since.
More progressive taxation required.
Income tax at higher rates for higher earners.
People do not leave the country in their droves if it is done fairly, and not at 99%.
Very high earners are often happy to pay more, and prove the point they do it through philanthropy.

 

[Matt N]

A lot of younger people around my age are being written off by the system due to poor mental health.

It is not a fulfilling lifestyle to not really do anything for most of your day, something to keep you busy. These are people who don’t have many skills on their CV, often due to poor educational attainment. The jobs that are ‘available’ to them are hospitality and retail jobs that are always hiring because they can’t retain staff because the work environment is so chaotic.

If that’s their experience of getting a job, they will hate it and will never want to work. It’s fundamentally a failure in our education system, once you leave education it’s an “off you go” mentality. Plus a lack of vocational training for various careers in this country, because those who can work are pushed towards white-collar jobs.

There will be jobs in the economy that people who are currently written-off can work, it’s just how we find the structural solution to get people there!

When it comes to tax burdens in this country, people want all of the social democratic outcomes of the Scandinavian countries, but with the tax burden of the USA. The British electorate will have to pick one or the other at some point, because the consensus we’ve had up to now can no longer hold.

I wholeheartedly agree. There are plenty of people written off due to poor mental health who could work, and I feel would likely benefit from working, but who have not been adequately supported into the professional world.

In this sort of scenario, you can see why some of these people might view long term benefit reliance as a better option. Benefits should not be a long term source of primary income other than for people who physically cannot work, but some of these people who have not had enough support into the professional world might honestly see it as their best option for a long term source of income.

In an ideal world, I think it would be brilliant for people with milder health issues claiming benefits to have an appointment with some sort of careers advisor, where they’re asked things like “what do you enjoy?” or “what are you good at?” and then given an ideal career for them and supported into x-y-z steps to get there. I feel this would improve people’s mental health and give them purpose, and also reduce the benefits bill. If more people are supported into ideal careers for them, it may even have the side effect of reducing overall destitution. This would have a knock on effect on other social issues such as crime and healthcare outcomes (both crime rates and healthcare outcomes are strongly linked to socioeconomic status, with poorer areas having higher crime and worse healthcare outcomes), and thus lower the burden on state services such as the NHS and the police.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

There are plenty of people written off due to poor mental health who could work

But there aren't. You cannot be assessed as LCWRA for poor mental health alone, which means that you will always have a work search requirement as part of your Universal Credit claim.

In an ideal world, I think it would be brilliant for people with milder health issues claiming benefits to have an appointment with some sort of careers advisor, where they’re asked things like “what do you enjoy?” or “what are you good at?” and then given an ideal career for them and supported into x-y-z steps to get there.

They do. They're called DWP Work Coaches. The problem that work coaches face is that they have 10 minutes for each appointment, which includes identify verification at the start and their note taking time. They're under-resourced, poorly paid and underfunded.

I have a lot of respect and time for you, Matt. Unfortunately your position on this matter is formed primarily from the privilege of never having to have lived experience of these systems, or professional experience, which leaves you a woefully uninformed and crashing into dangerous tropes and stereotypes.

The solution isn't to cut benefit payments. The solution is to restructure and progressively fund the support system.

The existing provisions prior to July 2024, such as the Restart scheme and the Work and Health Programme, were at least attempts to try and provide assistance to those who are looking for work, despite being run by for profit entities (Serco and G4S). Unfortunately within weeks of coming into power, Labour have cut funding for both of these provisions and they're being wound down, without replacement.

A cut to benefit assistance, in addition to scrapping assistance provision, is austerity.

 

[Smiley]

You can't keep hammering the rich - it's a fine balancing act, and increasing taxation leads to increases in tax avoidance. Remember that these are generally the wealth creators (jobs, indirect taxes from property, business, employee tax, etc).

We live in a global environment - just remember if you can "work from home" you can work anywhere on the planet. Tax 45% on income and people will suck it up. Tax 65% and people will move to somewhere it's 25%.