Analysis Breaking Exclusive

Exclusive: Labour ‘undertook no assessment of fiscal policy impact on vulnerable’

No denial from party

The Labour party has not conducted any assessment of the impact of its continuation of Tory austerity on vulnerable people in the UK, according to party sources spoken to by Skwawkbox.

Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have said that they will not increase spending to reverse thirteen years of Tory cuts and instead have announced a ‘mission’ to ‘grow the economy’ before any improvements can be funded – the same language and false logic used by the Tories to justify austerity. Starmer has also said that he will continue the brutal ‘two-child benefit cap’ that has pushed hundreds of thousands of children into poverty, even though it would actually be much cheaper for the country to abolish it.

Skwawkbox asked Labour to confirm whether it had undertaken an impact assessment of its planned policies on life expectancy and mortality rates and if so to provide details. The party did not respond.

Tory austerity has seen huge increases in rates of suicide and attempted suicide among disabled and mentally ill people – a 2018 study found that almost half of disability benefit claimants have attempted suicide under the Tory conditionality and fitness regime and its punitive treatment of disabled people. Austerity has also been linked directly to over 300,000 excess deaths and to reductions in UK life expectancy.

The United Nations has condemned the UK’s treatment of disabled people and those with mental health problems in 2016 and 2017 as a ‘human catastrophe’ – and the EHRC last month submitted a further report to the UN condemning the government’s discrimination against the vulnerable.

Now Labour’s red-Tory policies are creating terror among vulnerable communities because they mean an extension of the fiscal programme that has seen a sharp increase in deaths, as mental health campaigner Jessica Turtle explained:

Her comment was echoed by respondents:

The realisation that a Starmer government will mean the continuation of Tory government is spreading.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. The Labour party supports its corporate overlords.

    Remember, they need your vote to achieve this. They need you more than you need them!

  2. “Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have said that they will not increase spending to reverse thirteen years of Tory cuts”. Their policies will make Austerity perpetual, deepen the cost-of-living crisis for many and augment voters’ mental-health challenges.

    No wonder Dr Rosena Allin-Khan resigned from Starmer’s front-bench over his obvious contempt for mental health.

    When it comes time to cast a vote in GE2024, voters should follow her lead and not give Sir Keir ‘davos’ Starmer an entry-permit to Downing Street with their votes. Independents, Plaid and Greens are better for our mental health and better for our wallets and the economy.

    “No-where else to go”? Only if we want Perpetual Austerity, ever-reducing economic security and Nato-lead wars for ever.

    1. Who thought that the war was only in Ukraine? This is war against the working class!

    2. In essence, Starmer & Reeves saying there can be no help for the poor until the pockets of the billionaire class have been further stuffed with loot.
      Presumably Starmer & Reeeves will get a 30 peices of silver thank you, at some point.

    3. The impacts of these types of policies can be found in this piece from last year in the USA:

      “Anyone can suddenly get very sick, but older citizens are more likely to have some extremely expensive medical problems. If I’m looking at death unless I get treatment for my horrible ailment, I’ll max out the credit cards, empty any bank account, and then try to monetize any remaining assets – including my home if I have some equity.

      At some point I’ll run out of money, and then I’ll be homeless too.”

      – Zachary Smith

      1. Dave – We in the UK can be thankful that unlike the USA we have the NHS and an incoming Labour government that will fix the damage the Tories have done to this great institution.

  3. Known this since the greasy one took the reins. There’s nothing for me to persuade me to vote for them, and there never would be.

    They *offer* no help for the vulnerable whatsoever.

    Under them, we will witness the return of forcing the sick, the disabled & unemployed to work for their dole. Be in NO doubt.

    This will be delivered by and alongside their plan to reduce waiting lists by more private sector healthcare. The excuse will be that more people have been treated and are therefore fit to work, which in turn will need paying for by ‘returning’ more victims people to the labour market to maximize the bribery tax revenues to pay the private sector for their involvement.

    And don’t even get me started what’s going on with the (armed) plod; they’ll be given exemption from prosecution for arbitrarily shooting people dead in the same manner as they’ll be exempt for everything else under the ‘slycop’ (sic) bill.

    The signs are there, they’ve already made the murmurs since keef shithoused his way to the fuhrership

    You’ve been warned.

  4. On another note, Mike Sivier’s site has a very telling comment from the fat ginger-bollocked gawp know as like fakehurst

    All the more reason to vote Labour not LD and make sure we get a working majority not a coalition partner constraining us

    It appears to me that the bespectacled, bullied-at-school ginger beaut is now hedging his bets on a labour majority + when they’ve been adamant there’ll be NO coalition with ANY other party…Wonder why that is? 😙🎵

    (I’d have made this comment on his site but for some reason he very rarely publishes my posts)

    1. He won’t have cussing on his comment threads, as I’ve discovered in the past, so that’ll be why, Toffee!

      1. I have zero need to cuss on his site, tim. A certain someone doesn’t post on there – and not with the admitted intent to rile me.

        I think it’s because I had him over a barrel a few years back when that little rat tried to bomb the train in London a few years back but it didn’t go off.

        He said words to the effect of we shouldn’t but into falling into the hate trap (vicious circles and all that) …but didn’t like it when I mentioned he (the perp) did exactly that.

  5. Also, further to my previous post, IIRC wasn’t Mike Sivier expelled from labour under their spurious antisemitism witch-hunt?

    Does that mean that fakehurst sharing or engaging in a twitter platform/discussion with him should see fakehurst subject to the same disciplinary measures fakehurst calls loudest for, for others??

    Might be worth investigating, skwawky 🤔

  6. The policy of immobility (which in turn creates social immobility) to not scare voters pushes Starmer’s Labour into ever more indefensible positions. Sunak’s row back on green policies and kite-flying the decimation of HS2 are political moves both to eke out a tax-cutting fund and to dare Starmer to announce he will reverse these moves. Starmer’s visionless, arse-clenched fixity can’t respond to such taunts.

  7. Did anyone believe that New New Labour would think about how their policies effected the poor?

  8. Not from Labour but from our own activism in the workplace and the community will we get change. Let the political parties carry on with their circus, but let us do what matters: organise at work and refuse to be used for the enrichment of employers.

    1. Frank – …..and the credible alternative that you are offering the electorate is?

      1. What’s keef gonna do for the likes of me?

        Sod-all. No impact assessment proves he doesn’t give a shite.

        And what’s keef’s credible alternative to private sector plundering of (what’s left of) the NHS


        What’s keef’s credible alternative to the renationalisation of rail, mail and the utilities?


        And the closing the inequality gap through the redistribution of wealth via the taxation of corporates and the obscenely rich?

        Yep, that’s right.

        So what’s the credible alternative keefs offering?

        He hasn’t provided ANYalternative, nevermind a credible one. .

        Therefore, shut up and desist from the ad infinitum,ad nauseam until he has, you monumental retard.

      2. Dave – …….and the credible alternative that you and your comrades are offering in the UK is❓

      3. How many times do we have to answer this question Billy?

        Its not like its challenging in any way and its been proven to work both historically and elsewhere compared to the record of complete failure and eventual catastrophic collapse of the unworkable bullshit paradigm you are gaslighting.

        To keep it short – because we all know you can’t cope with real life detail – the exact opposite of what you are pushing on behalf of the Oligarchy.

        The videos shot in this piece is where your TINA model is driving us:

  9. …paid for by MI5.

    And of course, Evans can’t remember if he spoke to keef at the shindig. (Probly both were too pished to remember).

    I wonder when keef had his leaving do** from the CPS if he invited seb fox aka michael green aka corinne stockheath grant shafts, seeing as keef resigned on the very same day the met said shafts’ actions “may have constituted fraud”.

    **Paid for by???

    1. Thank you for this.

      However, the article does get something wrong

      “Every so often, the UK Labour prime minister James Callaghan once remarked, there is a sea change in politics. This happened in 1979, when British voters lost faith in Callaghan’s Labour party and put their trust in Margaret Thatcher.”

      There was no ‘sea change’ for the Conservatives in 1979. James Callaghan’s claim is nonsense.
      I looked into this some years ago and, if I remember correctly, the Gallup poll for the Daily Telegraph had Labour in the lead by 5% as late as November 1978. You then had the ‘winter of discontent’ which saw the Conservative Party roar into a 20-point lead. But the Conservative lead on election day in May was down to 7%. If the election had been delayed a few months more, then it is reasonable to think that the Conservative lead would have disappeared.

      John Golding’s book ‘Hammer of the Left’ tells us that Callaghan largely threw in the towel. The confidence vote was lost 311-310. Based on his figures, I concluded that 6 Labour MPs did not vote. The book ‘Cruel Britannia’ makes the claim that Gerry Fitt of the SDLP could not support the government because of the use of torture in Northern Ireland.

      I think the confidence vote could have been won and the election delayed. In that scenario, I believe that Callaghan’s claim would not have entered political folklore.

    2. “”If a small group of secretive people manipulate and control one of the two great parties in Great Britain, what will they do when they have control of MI5? When they have control of all the levers of the state? Are they suddenly going to believe in justice and proper investigations and fairness? Or are they going to be the same as they are now? Or even worse?”

      – Paul Davies

      Precisely. When the internal organisational constitution is written to exclude the principles and standards of due process does anyone with an even a smidgen of common sense (which, given the reams of evidence available, excludes the gullible idiot here with no mates) seriously think those standards are going to survive within the Country’s legal and judicial system?

      1. I guess that is why (unlike Russia and China) we have separation of powers🤔

      2. Is that why those nominal separation of powers are known as Chinese Walls?

        How’s that working, to cite just one example, in the case of the current target of the uppity comedian who is very effective at going of piste with The Official Narrative; where an establishment functionary of the Government – whose husband just happened to be the former Deputy Commander of 77 Brigade – has been busy pressurising social media companies to stop his income stream with no pretence of due process?

        But, be my guest Billy boy. Come on double down kid. There’s loads more examples of how this ‘separation of powers’ works in real life.

        Meanwhile, here’s the Clause:

      3. Well Billy, clearly the research, then and now, was of sufficient quality to result in you once again being unable to offer any kind of rational evidenced based argument against to the point where you are reduced to making up some half-arsed sorry excuse to cover your tracks.

        It really would be better PR for you if you made your mind up. When it suits convenience any detail is dismissed as a ‘long essay’ and any lack of detail is dismissed as insufficient argument. Which is it Billy?

        No wonder you never get any support here.

        Anyway, the latest in the example provided can be found here:

        The Blackbelt Barrister explains (BBB):

        Apparently the Attorney General has issued some kind of official general notice regarding potential contempt of court proceedings in relation to any comment on a matter which has yet to reach the status of case. The BBB explains this in easily understandable terms in respect of the potential of falling foul of Common Law Contempt of Court and advises against publishing any opinion on the matter just in case.

        So far, so good.

        However, there appears to be at least three aspects here which are problematic:

        1. It seems reasonable to surmise that the notice from the AG is designed to prevent any comment which might prejudice any, at this stage, potential case. Which seems a reasonable an laudable aim until you consider the fact that the timing of the notice – several weeks after that particular horse has bolted – means that the best that can be achieved is damage limitation.

        2. The corporate media coverage so far has seemingly already breached the advice from the AG. Yet the media – assuming that is the target of the notice from the AG (see point 3 below) – are not alone in this. If, as the BBB advises, comments and opinion online could well fall foul of such contempt proceedings then logically the same contempt charge can be leveled against those in other Government Departments (so munch for those Separation of Powers) who have publicly written to Social Media outlets seeking to circumnavigate due process by getting those outlets to de-monetize the subject of the at present potential case.

        3. Given point two, above, along with the precedent set in the Craig Murray case it does not seem inconceivable that the potential threat of contempt proceedings may therefore be limited to those who appear to be considered deplorable’s/the great unwashed/plebeian masses and that the self styled and self-identifying Great and Good – such as those in other Government Departments who have already actively sought to limit the livelihood of said ‘uppity comedian’ along with the corporate media are immune and get a free pass?

        At least the Chinese make walls out of something tangible. The separation of powers walls which apply here are invisible.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: