Yeah totally agree
slakemoth
joined 7 months ago
Even if that's true it doesn't stop them needing the money
The problem here is landlords not benefit claimant's
Get rid of landlords, they can simply sign on
The red tape being removed just means lower quality housing. Don't fall for sloganeering.
Isnt the main issues that voters have the cost of living, failing nhs, landlords?
Planning regulations aren't going to see any wins, nor is improving energy girds, important as those things are.
Its been shown that increases in housing stock has minimal effects on rent prices. A very cheap solution to this is rent control, it literally costs nothing. They could also build social housing if they wanted to invest money in something useful.
The NHS needs money, there is no getting around this unfortunately. All the fat trimming has been done.
Cost of living is obviously more complicated and i won't pretend to understand that level of macro. But you seem to be concerned that increases in deficit ie borrowing would cause debts to increase. This always happens when any government does anything remotely left wing, look at how the USA treats cuba. The political fact is that to be left wing you have to accept USA aligned countries making it more expensive for you to borrow. If Corbyn had won we would have been battered by this, but the trick is to nationalise the economy and become independent.
I can sympathise with some of what you're saying,but you make it out as if néolibéral policy is capable of doing those things as well as positioning it as the only route possible, which is disingenuous. You're making a political statement, not a descriptive diagnosis.
All i can see this cut doing is forcing carers to work extra jobs if they can, or forcing more people onto the street. It won't get any of these people into work.
No they just do it more politely a la lib dems
The problem is not the factual accuracy of what he's saying but why he would say it.
To anyone who follows politics even remotely, Wes clearly here is doing a dog whistle. He's signalling to the boomers that labour also thinks people with mental health issues are just lazy. Hes doing reactionary politics on purpose.
This was done on purpose, it's not a mistake. Wes is literally this cruel.
He's gonna be the next leader so get used to him!
On average, being disabled costs 1100 more a month.
Even when they are in work, those costs are still there. This is why PIP exists. 675 a month is already a pittance. And thats being taken away from many.
https://dpac.uk.net/2025/03/hands-off-disability-benefit-cut-slides/
Read what disabled people actually say before listening to some bullshit bbc article white washing it
Break a promise, labour could never.
This cut will kill 1000s and your discussing it like it's a change to bin collection days
You can't govern a country based on the potential headlines. Murdoch has power but they have 4 more years with an incredible majority. They could literally expropriate the entire wealth of the nation and reset us to a 1970s level of inequality (ie the lowest ever). But they wont because they are ideologues, they believe the poor should have shit lives. They believe in the hierarchy.
view more: next ›
Use your brain - if they are cutting it by 5bil then they will make it harder for people to get PIP that is undoubtedly true as how else would they make savings.
Those people will no longer be able to afford essentials. Hence, could become homeless.
many of those on PIP already work bear in mind.
In order to make savings, they will have to force those unable to work to work which will either cause them to have worsened chronic health issues (which will cost NHS more), or cause them to be homeless as they cant work, or force them to rely on carers even further.
The idea that there are lots of people on PIP who could work with some encouragement is frankly ridiculous