The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
The build build build narrative didn't last long.
It's fucking pathetic.
And not a word of protest on here from the sheep who used it as an excuse to vote for them a few weeks ago.
Perhaps a little bit of your righteous anger ought to be directed toward yourself, for supporting the coronation of a useless, spineless self-serving turd of a leader who threw the country under this bus when it wasn't even necessary for another 6 months.
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
What feather bedding - she is simply paying what the independent pay review says because not paying it this year simply kicks the issue another year down the line where the next recommendation would include the bit not paid this year.
And the reason why the figures are so high this year is because they include a part of the bit that wasn't paid last year.
I should point out Rachel Reeves hasn't done anything yet. The purpose of today is to pin as much blame for subsequent pain as she can on her predecessors, who I have to say are make that job easy for her.
Erhh she did do quite a lot today. 10 million won't get their winter fuel payment anymore, social care reform junked, loads of infrastructure projects canned and signed off significant public sector pay increases. That is quite a busy day at the office.
Oh and Sunak new A-Levels that I think even he had forgotten about were sent to the glue factory.
As one of the ten million, Francis, I'd like you to appreciate precisely what the removal of the payment means to me. It means I will be able to afford one less losing bet this year.
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
The Sunak government had these recommendations before the election was called, and sat on them.
I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?
How many potentially indecent images do you see on social media, realistically? Yes, this could happen - but I don't think it would. And there has to be some common sense anyway because I can invent a file format where "01" is an indecent image and the whole world is a peadophile... iow while I'm not 100% sure about this I don't think the thing is strict liability, i.e. it needs mens rea. A lawyer can correct me.
As I said it's the extreme porn one you need to worry about. Anyone who enjoys banter is vulnerable.
There's a real conspiracy of silence around this. Largely cause "legalise extreme porn" is quite a, erm, brave political position to take...
I should point out Rachel Reeves hasn't done anything yet. The purpose of today is to pin as much blame for subsequent pain as she can on her predecessors, who I have to say are make that job easy for her.
Erhh she did do quite a lot today. 10 million won't get their winter fuel payment anymore, social care reform junked, loads of infrastructure projects canned and signed up significant public sector pay increases. That is quite a busy day.
Oh and Sunak new A-Levels that I think even he had forgotten about.
Grant you canning winter fuel payments for the well off in the sense of it being an actual policy and one she could have continued. As the policy was widely seen as a joke it was hardly a tough decision.
The supposed infrastructure projects, A levels replacement and social care could politely be called aspirations of the previous government. Fictions maybe. There was nothing to cull.
The pay increase for junior doctors was probably inevitable with the previous government putting off the inevitable with significant damage for health outcomes.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
What feather bedding - she is simply paying what the independent pay review says because not paying it this year simply kicks the issue another year down the line where the next recommendation would include the bit not paid this year.
And the reason why the figures are so high this year is because they include a part of the bit that wasn't paid last year.
And the payments are in line with private sector pay too.
I don't agree with the 22% pay rise for doctors, but ~5.5% for police/teachers/nurses etc when private sector pay is up 5.6% seems entirely within reason.
I should point out Rachel Reeves hasn't done anything yet. The purpose of today is to pin as much blame for subsequent pain as she can on her predecessors, who I have to say are make that job easy for her.
Erhh she did do quite a lot today. 10 million won't get their winter fuel payment anymore, social care reform junked, loads of infrastructure projects canned and signed up significant public sector pay increases. That is quite a busy day.
Oh and Sunak new A-Levels that I think even he had forgotten about.
Grant you canning winter fuel payments for the well off in the sense of it being an actual policy and one she could have continued. As the.
The supposed infrastructure projects, A levels replacement and social care could politely be called aspirations of the previous government. Fictions maybe. There was nothing to cull.
The pay increase for junior doctors was probably inevitable with the previous government putting off the inevitable with significant damage for health outcomes.
The infrastructure projects weren't supposedly. Where HS2 finishes is kinda of important (even if HS2 has been kneecapped) and several 100 million has already been spent on the tunnel under stone henge. Also, the increase capacity on Northern rail lines seems rather crucial if we are going to be building millions of houses and wanting a real Northern Powerhouse.
To me, infrastructure spending is something you can get real return on. Now a tunnel under Stone Henge, I think we can probably do without that, but plenty of infrastructure building is required.
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
What feather bedding - she is simply paying what the independent pay review says because not paying it this year simply kicks the issue another year down the line where the next recommendation would include the bit not paid this year.
And the reason why the figures are so high this year is because they include a part of the bit that wasn't paid last year.
Yes. this is where tough decisions kick in, and she cant take them. Instead of giving doctors a 22% pay rise ( and their leaders say they still want the other 13% ) she could have spent the money on recruiting more doctors which would have added capacity in to the system.
But she didnt, she bought off a bunch of blackmailers, which will do nothing for the long term of the NHS. And as ever the blackmailers will be back.
So much for Streeting doing anything. The BMA will have him for breakfast.
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
Merge NI and Income Tax and have pensioners pay the same rate of tax as working people.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
Brown's basic view is that universal benefits mean that those who need them who don't claim them if means-tested means that people don't miss out. He is a very driven anti-poverty campaigner.
I am not sure this was an altogether assured performance from Labour. They’ve come out of this looking rather muddled.
We can debate the rights and wrongs of the winter fuel allowance at length. I happen to think it has always been a benefit that shouldn’t be universal. But make no mistake that you will hear people in coming months saying Reeves took this payment off pensioners to give junior doctors a 22% pay rise. That is a political choice and people will make noise about it.
For all the talk of building and growth we have cutbacks on infrastructure spend coupled with tax rises.
This is exactly what I meant when I said the ming vase strategy could backfire on Labour. There’ll be a lot of people today who’ll be thinking whether they should have voted for them a few weeks ago now. I suspect the strategy is a two act piece from Reeves and Starmer - do the doom and gloom for a couple of years (blamed on the Tories), to move into the renewal and rebuilding as the next GE nears. But they have to hope that the economy is resilient enough to allow them the headroom to do that.
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
The Sunak government had these recommendations before the election was called, and sat on them.
That's evasive crap.
It's called saving money and it's pretty common across the private sector.
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
The Sunak government had these recommendations before the election was called, and sat on them.
That's evasive crap.
Personally I think it's totally wrong for Ministers to make decisions on public sector pay. Give the public bodies their budget, and let them set their wages accordingly.
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
Well as she's here for at least another five years that would seem to be more our problem than hers
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
The Sunak government had these recommendations before the election was called, and sat on them.
That's evasive crap.
It's called saving money and it's pretty common across the private sector.
Not making decisions is not saving any money. A decision had to be made.
And across the private sector pay is rising, quite appropriately because we have full employment so pay SHOULD rise. Across the board. 👍
I dont wish to comment on Huw Edwards but this definition of making indecent images is just a bit disturbing in terms of the last sentence imho -(on the bbc site atm ) According to the CPS website, "making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group.”
So anyone who uses social media is vulnerable to being a convicted peado?
I think the law possibly pre dates the internet, particularly the ubiquity of social media, but has never been updated because it is too hard work. So you have this charge 'making indecent images' that people take literally but it actually means something different in reality, but the system just goes on enforcing the law as it is written,
Edit. deleted the rest of the post. Too difficult topic.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
Brown's basic view is that universal benefits mean that those who need them who don't claim them if means-tested means that people don't miss out. He is a very driven anti-poverty campaigner.
I doubt he is a happy bunny tonight.
But Dilnot will be many times more furious.
Hating means testing is something that both the left and right should agree on imo. The left for reasons like this to do with dignity and it putting off the most vulnerable, the right because what's the point in doing ok for yourself to just spend it all on stuff you would get for free if you didn't.
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
Well as she's here for at least another five years that would seem to be more our problem than hers
Of course. As I said over a week ago she's softening us up for tax rises. the sad thing is she will waste the money of buying off her mates and fail. 5 more lost years
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
Brown's basic view is that universal benefits mean that those who need them who don't claim them if means-tested means that people don't miss out. He is a very driven anti-poverty campaigner.
I doubt he is a happy bunny tonight.
But Dilnot will be many times more furious.
I think that's been shown very often - I'm going to have to have another conversation with the M-i-L to go through her finances because I'm 100% sure she qualifies for some things she isn't claiming...
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
The Sunak government had these recommendations before the election was called, and sat on them.
That's evasive crap.
Personally I think it's totally wrong for Ministers to make decisions on public sector pay. Give the public bodies their budget, and let them set their wages accordingly.
They don't - there is an independent pay review body that makes recommendations. Alan's complaint here is that the Government are implementing what the pay review body has recommended...
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
The Sunak government had these recommendations before the election was called, and sat on them.
That's evasive crap.
It's called saving money and it's pretty common across the private sector.
Not making decisions is not saving any money. A decision had to be made.
And across the private sector pay is rising, quite appropriately because we have full employment so pay SHOULD rise. Across the board. 👍
No decisions dont have to be made, stretching time is part of wage negotiations, I take it there youve never had to settle a pay round.
And you dont just hand out pay rises because a third party says so. You concentrate each year on productivity and pay what you can afford. The public sector has had no productivity gains.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
Brown's basic view is that universal benefits mean that those who need them who don't claim them if means-tested means that people don't miss out. He is a very driven anti-poverty campaigner.
I doubt he is a happy bunny tonight.
But Dilnot will be many times more furious.
Rightly so. You could probably make some sort of decent argument for VAT on school fees, or ending univeral benefits, but social care is an area where real reform and a national care service is long overdue. At best Labour have delayed things by a couple more years, at worst they have no political will to tackle the issue properly.
I get the feeling people are going to become quite disenchanted with Labour sooner than would be expected.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
Brown's basic view is that universal benefits mean that those who need them who don't claim them if means-tested means that people don't miss out. He is a very driven anti-poverty campaigner.
I doubt he is a happy bunny tonight.
But Dilnot will be many times more furious.
Hating means testing is something that both the left and right should agree on imo. The left for reasons like this to do with dignity and it putting off the most vulnerable, the right because what's the point in doing ok for yourself to just spend it all on stuff you would get for free if you didn't.
I do hate means testing and want to see it abolished, but working people paying taxes to give a benefit for wealthy pensioners that they don't get themselves is neither an effective use of money nor universal.
If it were universal it would go to everyone, not just pensioners.
I should point out Rachel Reeves hasn't done anything yet. The purpose of today is to pin as much blame for subsequent pain as she can on her predecessors, who I have to say are make that job easy for her.
Erhh she did do quite a lot today. 10 million won't get their winter fuel payment anymore, social care reform junked, loads of infrastructure projects canned and signed up significant public sector pay increases. That is quite a busy day.
Oh and Sunak new A-Levels that I think even he had forgotten about.
Grant you canning winter fuel payments for the well off in the sense of it being an actual policy and one she could have continued. As the.
The supposed infrastructure projects, A levels replacement and social care could politely be called aspirations of the previous government. Fictions maybe. There was nothing to cull.
The pay increase for junior doctors was probably inevitable with the previous government putting off the inevitable with significant damage for health outcomes.
The infrastructure projects weren't supposedly. Where HS2 finishes is kinda of important (even if HS2 has been kneecapped) and several 100 million has already been spent on the tunnel under stone henge. Also, the increase capacity on Northern rail lines seems rather crucial if we are going to be building millions of houses and wanting a real Northern Powerhouse.
To me, infrastructure spending is something you can get real return on. Now a tunnel under Stone Henge, I think we can probably do without that, but plenty of infrastructure building is required.
Of course it is and I wouldn't rule out the current Labour government initiating or continuing infrastructure projects, maybe even HS2. All Rachel Reeves has done here is to drop the previous government's pretence that they were actually doing something on those infrastructure projects.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
Brown's basic view is that universal benefits mean that those who need them who don't claim them if means-tested means that people don't miss out. He is a very driven anti-poverty campaigner.
I doubt he is a happy bunny tonight.
But Dilnot will be many times more furious.
Hating means testing is something that both the left and right should agree on imo. The left for reasons like this to do with dignity and it putting off the most vulnerable, the right because what's the point in doing ok for yourself to just spend it all on stuff you would get for free if you didn't.
I do hate means testing and want to see it abolished, but working people paying taxes to give a benefit for wealthy pensioners that they don't get themselves is neither an effective use of money nor universal.
If it were universal it would go to everyone, not just pensioners.
For sure. It should have been abolished for everyone imo. Silly thing.
I am not sure this was an altogether assured performance from Labour. They’ve come out of this looking rather muddled.
We can debate the rights and wrongs of the winter fuel allowance at length. I happen to think it has always been a benefit that shouldn’t be universal. But make no mistake that you will hear people in coming months saying Reeves took this payment off pensioners to give junior doctors a 22% pay rise. That is a political choice and people will make noise about it.
For all the talk of building and growth we have cutbacks on infrastructure spend coupled with tax rises.
This is exactly what I meant when I said the ming vase strategy could backfire on Labour. There’ll be a lot of people today who’ll be thinking whether they should have voted for them a few weeks ago now. I suspect the strategy is a two act piece from Reeves and Starmer - do the doom and gloom for a couple of years (blamed on the Tories), to move into the renewal and rebuilding as the next GE nears. But they have to hope that the economy is resilient enough to allow them the headroom to do that.
Interesting times ahead.
If Trump wins in November, unfortunately that is still a real possibility, everything Labour wants to do will go in the bin, and we will have a full-blown defence crisis to deal with.
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
Is today the day that it's finally sunk in? The Westminster system really is an elected dictatorship?
For the next five/nine/thirteen years, the government is other people? That all Conservative MPs will be able to do is listen to announcements and complain about them? But that those complaints will change absolutely nothing in the real world?
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
The weirdest things is the ones going "I told you so" as though it was some sort of surprise this would happen. While some of the specifics are not what I expected (never gave winter fuel payment a thought although add me to a list of PBers with family that didn't need it and used it as free money) so far things are proceeding as I anticipated.
The conservative party needed kicking in the face last election. It really did. Now let's have Labour start us on the road to recovery and bring on Kemi for 2029
I believe in low taxes, but if taxes are being spent then our taxes paying the wages of people who are working for a living is a more productive and appropriate use than paying to ensure someone gets an inheritance, or paying benefits to those who don't need them.
If you're upset you lose an expected inheritance or benefit then get a job.
The government never pays for someone to get an inheritance but just doesn’t take money from them
Wrong, paying for people's care and living costs that they can afford to pay themselves, in order to then ensure that someone gets an inheritance is paying for someone to get an inheritance.
Not wrong, just misinterpreted your poorly expressed thought as relating to inheritance tax
Not a bunch of stuff you didn’t write
Inheritance tax is something I didn't write and hasn't changed today.
What has changed, which @HYUFD objected to and I responded to, is fewer people will have their inheritances paid by the taxpayer.
Not a penny of taxes should go to fund anyone's inheritance. Get a damned job instead of demanding that.
Labour will raise taxes to fund their base, higher public sector pay, higher benefits and their crusade nationalisations.
Nothing else will change. Long-term investment will suffer.
The build build build narrative didn't last long.
It's fucking pathetic.
And not a word of protest on here from the sheep who used it as an excuse to vote for them a few weeks ago.
Perhaps a little bit of your righteous anger ought to be directed toward yourself, for supporting the coronation of a useless, spineless self-serving turd of a leader who threw the country under this bus when it wasn't even necessary for another 6 months.
Which recent PM are you talking about? You'll need to be more specific. Although I guess a few of them we didn't get a say on, so that narrows things down.
How did Tommy Robinson just get on the EuroStar, especially with much increased pre-departure checks?
He was stopped by police, but apparently they weren't allowed to stop him! :shrugemoji:
I thought he had just been arrested under terrorism legislation? I presumed that would be bail with condition not to be leaving the country and that you can't just walk onto EuroStar if that's the case?
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
The weirdest things is the ones going "I told you so" as though it was some sort of surprise this would happen. While some of the specifics are not what I expected (never gave winter fuel payment a thought although add me to a list of PBers with family that didn't need it and used it as free money) so far things are proceeding as I anticipated.
The conservative party needed kicking in the face last election. It really did. Now let's have Labour start us on the road to recovery and bring on Kemi for 2029
Well, I was not expecting them to kill loads of infrastructure projects, as has been trailed.
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
It's outrageous that Labour are implementing their manifesto and campaign promises.
It sets a dangerous precedent for other parties.
I have no problem with Labour implementing their policies. I dont agree with them and think they will go wrong,
I do have a problem with Rachel Reeves being a spineless shit who hasnt the courage to say she is raising taxes to fund her programme, but hides behind smoke screens of her own making.
If you want to know why people dont trust politicians start here.
Reading comments above, if there was an opt out from Income Tax and NI, in return for which you would no longer have access to the NHS, the State Education system, the Police and Fire services, who would opt out?
I would
Good luck with your RTA...
Public transport all the way
Have you not heard of a train wreck?
Or tram crash. This one a lorry collision leading to a short circuit from the overhead wire through the tram.
How did Tommy Robinson just get on the EuroStar, especially with much increased pre-departure checks?
He was stopped by police, but apparently they weren't allowed to stop him! :shrugemoji:
It's woke gone mad, I tell you. When Tommy gets his way those brave bobbies would have just beaten him to the ground and stomped on his face like the ....!
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
The Sunak government had these recommendations before the election was called, and sat on them.
That's evasive crap.
It's called saving money and it's pretty common across the private sector.
Not making decisions is not saving any money. A decision had to be made.
And across the private sector pay is rising, quite appropriately because we have full employment so pay SHOULD rise. Across the board. 👍
No decisions dont have to be made, stretching time is part of wage negotiations, I take it there youve never had to settle a pay round.
And you dont just hand out pay rises because a third party says so. You concentrate each year on productivity and pay what you can afford. The public sector has had no productivity gains.
No you don't.
The private sector is not five-to-six percent more productive than last year, yet that is the current rate of pay growth across the economy.
Employers pay what they need to in order to get the staff they require. Same as they do for other things. The public sector isn't immune to that.
When your milkman puts up his prices, do you get this cross with him?
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
It's outrageous that Labour are implementing their manifesto and campaign promises.
It sets a dangerous precedent for other parties.
I have no problem with Labour implementing their policies. I dont agree with them and think they will go wrong,
I do have a problem with Rachel Reeves being a spineless shit who hasnt the courage to say she is raising taxes to fund her programme, but hides behind smoke screens of her own making.
If you want to know why people dont trust politicians start here.
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
It's outrageous that Labour are implementing their manifesto and campaign promises.
It sets a dangerous precedent for other parties.
I have no problem with Labour implementing their policies. I dont agree with them and think they will go wrong,
I do have a problem with Rachel Reeves being a spineless shit who hasnt the courage to say she is raising taxes to fund her programme, but hides behind smoke screens of her own making.
If you want to know why people dont trust politicians start here.
It's all very Brownian. At this rate she'll soon be triple counting things to make them sound bigger.
How did Tommy Robinson just get on the EuroStar, especially with much increased pre-departure checks?
He was stopped by police, but apparently they weren't allowed to stop him! :shrugemoji:
It's woke gone mad, I tell you. When Tommy gets his way those brave bobbies would have just beaten him to the ground and stomped on his face like the ....!
...
Oh, hang on...
Well his previous arrest went a bit like that. He got the fully pepper spray treatment and ended up in wrongful arrest.
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
It's outrageous that Labour are implementing their manifesto and campaign promises.
It sets a dangerous precedent for other parties.
I have no problem with Labour implementing their policies. I dont agree with them and think they will go wrong,
I do have a problem with Rachel Reeves being a spineless shit who hasnt the courage to say she is raising taxes to fund her programme, but hides behind smoke screens of her own making.
If you want to know why people dont trust politicians start here.
It's all very Brownian. At this rate she'll soon be triple counting things to make them sound bigger.
Don't you mean Johnsonian? 40 New Hospitals and all that.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
That wouldn't be simpler. It would have been simpler to make it and free bus passes taxable benefits
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
The weirdest things is the ones going "I told you so" as though it was some sort of surprise this would happen. While some of the specifics are not what I expected (never gave winter fuel payment a thought although add me to a list of PBers with family that didn't need it and used it as free money) so far things are proceeding as I anticipated.
The conservative party needed kicking in the face last election. It really did. Now let's have Labour start us on the road to recovery and bring on Kemi for 2029
Well, I was not expecting them to kill loads of infrastructure projects, as has been trailed.
I'll await the details, but I'm not hopeful.
I'm surprised (but darkly amused) by Stonehenge - I dunno anything about the A27 - the railway stuff doesn't really come as a surprise though - obv kite flying aside (which there's also been on e.g. thames crossing) it seems more like stopping hugely expensive no hoper stuff with the possible exception of Portishead (I think they'll be keeping it though - probably comes under kite flying).
So yes they may not be strictly what I "expected" in sense of me saying anything or thinking about the A27 beforehand but the general thrust of this stuff is.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
Brown's basic view is that universal benefits mean that those who need them who don't claim them if means-tested means that people don't miss out. He is a very driven anti-poverty campaigner.
I doubt he is a happy bunny tonight.
But Dilnot will be many times more furious.
Rightly so. You could probably make some sort of decent argument for VAT on school fees, or ending univeral benefits, but social care is an area where real reform and a national care service is long overdue. At best Labour have delayed things by a couple more years, at worst they have no political will to tackle the issue properly.
I get the feeling people are going to become quite disenchanted with Labour sooner than would be expected.
I am pretty angry tonight. Wes Streeting specifically was asked about Dilnot and he said 2025 would go ahead as planned. "I am not in the business of tearing down stuff" was the quote to Laura K I think two weeks before election.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
That wouldn't be simpler. It would have been simpler to make it and free bus passes taxable benefits
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
That wouldn't be simpler. It would have been simpler to make it and free bus passes taxable benefits
Now all bus journeys are capped at a maximum of £2, is there any real need for free bus passes?
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
That wouldn't be simpler. It would have been simpler to make it and free bus passes taxable benefits
Now all bus journeys are capped at a maximum of £2, is there any real need for free bus passes?
One of the downsides and stupidness of that policy was that all that did was increase the cost of returns....which most people use and need. It should have been singles capped at x, returns capped at y.
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
How do all the things laid out match what was in the manisgesto of, checks calendar, less than a month ago?
Early days yet. No full Budget/Autumn Statement, remember.
It shows where May went wrong. She should have said nothing about social care until after winning. Whether you think cutting winter fuel allowance is right or wrong, arguably it should have been in the manifesto.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
That wouldn't be simpler. It would have been simpler to make it and free bus passes taxable benefits
Now all bus journeys are capped at a maximum of £2, is there any real need for free bus passes?
O/T but has anyone modelled the cost to society of pensioners crashing their Jazz into everyone and everything, while getting in everyone's way V the cost of free bus passes?
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
If you had been paying attention you would have noticed Tory posters on here expressing displeasure with Tory governments since at latest 1985, so before the site or the internet existed. Whereas you're the one who thinks Labour = FUCK YEAH and that that viciously amoral shit Blair murdering brownies is AOK because it was a Labour murder, whereas a bunch of Dutch farmers making black people sit at the back of the bus on a different continent proves that UK conservatives are inherently evil because completely unfathomable reasons (they once ate a Cape golden delicious?)
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
It's outrageous that Labour are implementing their manifesto and campaign promises.
It sets a dangerous precedent for other parties.
I have no problem with Labour implementing their policies. I dont agree with them and think they will go wrong,
I do have a problem with Rachel Reeves being a spineless shit who hasnt the courage to say she is raising taxes to fund her programme, but hides behind smoke screens of her own making.
If you want to know why people dont trust politicians start here.
She didn't raise taxes, she cut pensioner entitlements.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
That wouldn't be simpler. It would have been simpler to make it and free bus passes taxable benefits
Now all bus journeys are capped at a maximum of £2, is there any real need for free bus passes?
Only some journeys, though, at least in England. Plus even if it is £2 then if one depends on the bus, even £2 can build up (and is that £2 per leg or overall journey even if different companies)? 5 return shops/doctor/etc make £20 pcw, £1K pa. [amended, sorry, too sleepy after dinner to do mental arithmetic]
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
The Sunak government had these recommendations before the election was called, and sat on them.
That's evasive crap.
It's called saving money and it's pretty common across the private sector.
Not making decisions is not saving any money. A decision had to be made.
And across the private sector pay is rising, quite appropriately because we have full employment so pay SHOULD rise. Across the board. 👍
No decisions dont have to be made, stretching time is part of wage negotiations, I take it there youve never had to settle a pay round.
And you dont just hand out pay rises because a third party says so. You concentrate each year on productivity and pay what you can afford. The public sector has had no productivity gains.
No you don't.
The private sector is not five-to-six percent more productive than last year, yet that is the current rate of pay growth across the economy.
Employers pay what they need to in order to get the staff they require. Same as they do for other things. The public sector isn't immune to that.
When your milkman puts up his prices, do you get this cross with him?
Errr thats the problem. No-one is banging out productivity, we are living beyond our means. The worst scale is Executive pay which has lost contact with the reality of what directors do. However we have just seen a government telling us about growth and productivity fall at the first hurdle.
And third parties fixing numbers for organisations they dont run will not work. The money has to come from somewhere. Tax or borrow.
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
It's outrageous that Labour are implementing their manifesto and campaign promises.
It sets a dangerous precedent for other parties.
I have no problem with Labour implementing their policies. I dont agree with them and think they will go wrong,
I do have a problem with Rachel Reeves being a spineless shit who hasnt the courage to say she is raising taxes to fund her programme, but hides behind smoke screens of her own making.
If you want to know why people dont trust politicians start here.
She didn't raise taxes, she cut pensioner entitlements.
Weren’t some PB Tories complaining this morning that the doctors had settled for an offer only a fraction above what the previous government was offering ?
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
How do all the things laid out match what was in the manisgesto of, checks calendar, less than a month ago?
Early days yet. No full Budget/Autumn Statement, remember.
It shows where May went wrong. She should have said nothing about social care until after winning. Whether you think cutting winter fuel allowance is right or wrong, arguably it should have been in the manifesto.
Well, if the Tories hid the state of the public finances, they can't very well complain about manifestoes becoming out of date rather quickly.
Weren’t some PB Tories complaining this morning that the doctors had settled for an offer only a fraction above what the previous government was offering ?
I must say I was surprised to find you were in your 60s.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
That wouldn't be simpler. It would have been simpler to make it and free bus passes taxable benefits
Now all bus journeys are capped at a maximum of £2, is there any real need for free bus passes?
One of the downsides and stupidness of that policy was that all that did was increase the cost of returns....which most people use and need. It should have been singles capped at x, returns capped at y.
It didn't round here. The prices were absolutely extortionate pre capping.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
That wouldn't be simpler. It would have been simpler to make it and free bus passes taxable benefits
Now all bus journeys are capped at a maximum of £2, is there any real need for free bus passes?
One of the downsides and stupidness of that policy was that all that did was increase the cost of returns....which most people use and need. It should have been singles capped at x, returns capped at y.
Eh? A single is capped at £2. A return is two singles and is capped at £4. Not too complex.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
That wouldn't be simpler. It would have been simpler to make it and free bus passes taxable benefits
Now all bus journeys are capped at a maximum of £2, is there any real need for free bus passes?
One of the downsides and stupidness of that policy was that all that did was increase the cost of returns....which most people use and need. It should have been singles capped at x, returns capped at y.
Eh? A single is capped at £2. A return is two singles and is capped at £4. Not too complex.
No, before a return was normally say £3 or £3.50. Now its £4 (and there is the issues of per leg of journey). All the bus companies did was move the cost of subsidising the single onto a price increase on the return and day passes, so it rather defeated the point of the policy as most people need a return or want multiple journeys.
Republican Arizona mayor backs Harris over Trump, evoking McCain
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4797963-republican-arizona-harris-trump-mccain/ The GOP mayor of Mesa, Ariz. — Phoenix’s largest suburb — endorsed Vice President Harris on Monday, saying only the vice president can “put country over party” in the November election. Mesa Mayor John Giles wrote in an op-ed for The Arizona Republic that Republicans should reject former President Trump at the ballot box. “Our party used to stand for the belief that every Arizonan, no matter their background or circumstances, should have the freedom, opportunity and security to live out their American Dream,” Giles wrote. “But since Donald Trump refused to accept the outcome of the 2020 election, Republicans have yet to course correct,” he continued. “The Republican Party with Trump at its helm continues down the path of political extremism, away from focusing on our fundamental freedoms.” Giles argued that President Biden and Harris have delivered for Arizona, pointing to infrastructure investments and new jobs, while Trump turned away from immigration reforms. He also argued that Harris represents a return to “decency” in politics. Giles recalled the career of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), arguing that Arizona needs more like-minded leaders who can work across the aisle. “And it’s that same high caliber of character and leadership I see in Vice President Harris,” he wrote. ..
Weren’t some PB Tories complaining this morning that the doctors had settled for an offer only a fraction above what the previous government was offering ?
I must say I was surprised to find you were in your 60s.
You thought someone my age couldn’t be so callow in their judgment ?
Weren’t some PB Tories complaining this morning that the doctors had settled for an offer only a fraction above what the previous government was offering ?
I must say I was surprised to find you were in your 60s.
You thought someone my age couldn’t be so callow in their judgment ?
Inj his world everyone dies in their 40s for lack of publicly funded medical care, was how I read his comment.
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
That wouldn't be simpler. It would have been simpler to make it and free bus passes taxable benefits
Now all bus journeys are capped at a maximum of £2, is there any real need for free bus passes?
One of the downsides and stupidness of that policy was that all that did was increase the cost of returns....which most people use and need. It should have been singles capped at x, returns capped at y.
Eh? A single is capped at £2. A return is two singles and is capped at £4. Not too complex.
No, before a return was normally say £3 or £3.50. Now its £4 (and there is the issues of per leg of journey). All the bus companies did was move the cost of subsidising the single onto a price increase on the return, so it rather defeated the point of the policy as most people need a return.
I suspect you don't use buses. That's not what's happened. It would be a bloody short journey to give a return price of £4 or under in most places under the old regime.
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
If you had been paying attention you would have noticed Tory posters on here expressing displeasure with Tory governments since at latest 1985, so before the site or the internet existed. Whereas you're the one who thinks Labour = FUCK YEAH and that that viciously amoral shit Blair murdering brownies is AOK because it was a Labour murder, whereas a bunch of Dutch farmers making black people sit at the back of the bus on a different continent proves that UK conservatives are inherently evil because completely unfathomable reasons (they once ate a Cape golden delicious?)
Oh do fuck off. I never supported the Iraq war (unlike the Conservative Party), and I am not a Labour Party member (I voted LD this time) so why you insist on bringing this up every time I post is rather bizarre.
It's strange hearing the Italian national anthem repeatedly in these Olympics, in a context other than a major football tournament final.
When the anthem finishes and the cheer goes up I keep expecting a commentator to come on saying "Another world cup final, and the Italians are there again. Despite all the injuries, the rumours of problems in the camp, the early disappointments, here they are. Can they yet again find a way to overcome the skill and panache of [Brazil / France / Argentina]? I hope you're sitting comfortably"
The scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment doesn’t bring in that much and is going to annoy a lot of people .
Not sure why Reeves decided on that .
As I mentioned previously, the danger with a lot of these small benefits are that the cost of means testing them can often eat up a huge chunk of the savings. In theory, this one should be easier, but we will see.
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
It would be simpler and less admin-intensive to just reduce the 40% income tax threshold for pensioners by sufficient to offset the cost their fuel payments.
That wouldn't be simpler. It would have been simpler to make it and free bus passes taxable benefits
Now all bus journeys are capped at a maximum of £2, is there any real need for free bus passes?
One of the downsides and stupidness of that policy was that all that did was increase the cost of returns....which most people use and need. It should have been singles capped at x, returns capped at y.
Eh? A single is capped at £2. A return is two singles and is capped at £4. Not too complex.
No, before a return was normally say £3 or £3.50. Now its £4 (and there is the issues of per leg of journey). All the bus companies did was move the cost of subsidising the single onto a price increase on the return, so it rather defeated the point of the policy as most people need a return.
I suspect you don't use buses.
Yes I do. This is exactly what happened where I lived. And day passes and passes between areas went up crazy amount, they are 25-30% more.
I am pretty angry tonight. Wes Streeting specifically was asked about Dilnot and he said 2025 would go ahead as planned. "I am not in the business of tearing down stuff" was the quote to Laura K I think two weeks before election.
I think the "big idea" is to take what money is left over after cuts and tax rises and stick it on investment, banking on that delivering a bonanza in later years. Unfortunately I've heard absolutely nothing that makes me think Labour are even remotely inclined to take the sort of decisions that would unlock higher growth. I expect the government to waste an awful lot of money on relatively low growth, low risk, and in many cases unnecessary investments. Don't expect a British Google or Apple to suddenly appear out of the mists.
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
The Sunak government had these recommendations before the election was called, and sat on them.
That's evasive crap.
It's called saving money and it's pretty common across the private sector.
Not making decisions is not saving any money. A decision had to be made.
And across the private sector pay is rising, quite appropriately because we have full employment so pay SHOULD rise. Across the board. 👍
No decisions dont have to be made, stretching time is part of wage negotiations, I take it there youve never had to settle a pay round.
And you dont just hand out pay rises because a third party says so. You concentrate each year on productivity and pay what you can afford. The public sector has had no productivity gains.
No you don't.
The private sector is not five-to-six percent more productive than last year, yet that is the current rate of pay growth across the economy.
Employers pay what they need to in order to get the staff they require. Same as they do for other things. The public sector isn't immune to that.
When your milkman puts up his prices, do you get this cross with him?
Errr thats the problem. No-one is banging out productivity, we are living beyond our means. The worst scale is Executive pay which has lost contact with the reality of what directors do. However we have just seen a government telling us about growth and productivity fall at the first hurdle.
And third parties fixing numbers for organisations they dont run will not work. The money has to come from somewhere. Tax or borrow.
Borrow! I vote for borrow! There can be no possible downsides to this! 🥳
How did Tommy Robinson just get on the EuroStar, especially with much increased pre-departure checks?
He was stopped by police, but apparently they weren't allowed to stop him! :shrugemoji:
I thought he had just been arrested under terrorism legislation? I presumed that would be bail with condition not to be leaving the country and that you can't just walk onto EuroStar if that's the case?
Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers.
[...]
On Sunday, the founder of the English Defence League went to the Channel Tunnel terminal at Folkestone, where police officers stopped him under counter-terrorism powers.
When he allegedly refused to co-operate, he was arrested and held until 10pm before being released on unconditional bail and leaving the country.
Mr Payter said: “We understand he failed to cooperate with a port stop and search.
“The implication is he was attempting to leave the country and therefore was not intending to attend this hearing this morning
“The information that we have is that he is not within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. He has been spending significant time outside the UK since being served with the contempt application on 13 June.
“He returned for the purpose of publishing the film and sought to immediately leave the jurisdiction.”
The court heard the police officers who had held Yaxley-Lennon had no power to stop him leaving the UK.
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
How do all the things laid out match what was in the manisgesto of, checks calendar, less than a month ago?
Early days yet. No full Budget/Autumn Statement, remember.
It shows where May went wrong. She should have said nothing about social care until after winning. Whether you think cutting winter fuel allowance is right or wrong, arguably it should have been in the manifesto.
Well, if the Tories hid the state of the public finances, they can't very well complain about manifestoes becoming out of date rather quickly.
If doing the heavy lifting. New governments ALWAYS say it’s worse than we were led to believe.
She's nonetheless one of the least incompetent of her cohort. The potential alternatives (Dodds, Bryant, Rayner, Lammy etc.) would likely be worse.
In all of history there have been precisely two Labour chancellors who didn't look hopelessly out of their depth in the role, and both of them had an almost schizoid tendency to only see what they wanted to see. (There's possibly a case to add Healey to this list but I'd take a lot of convincing.)
She's already set off polcies which will blow up in her face,
This week while inventing a £20bn black hole she has somehow found the money to fund £4.5 bn of public sector pay rises. And having green lighted big pay rises everyone else will demand their share. All of which ill add to inflation, falling public sector productivity and infrastructure budgets getting slashed.
Whatever Labours big plan was its dead in the water.
Alternatively, she has acknowledged that staff cost what they cost.
If the electorate decides it doesn't want so much stuff done, so it doesn't need so many people, fine. Let's see some proposals for that.
Otherwise, it comes down to reality vs. fantasy. And from what we've heard today, the dying months of the last government were all about fantasy numbers.
what a load of evasive crap. Reeves is simply saying one thing while doing the opposite - crying austerity while feather bedding her mates. She now looks plain shifty, Her honey moon period is fast coming to an end.
The Sunak government had these recommendations before the election was called, and sat on them.
That's evasive crap.
It's called saving money and it's pretty common across the private sector.
Not making decisions is not saving any money. A decision had to be made.
And across the private sector pay is rising, quite appropriately because we have full employment so pay SHOULD rise. Across the board. 👍
No decisions dont have to be made, stretching time is part of wage negotiations, I take it there youve never had to settle a pay round.
And you dont just hand out pay rises because a third party says so. You concentrate each year on productivity and pay what you can afford. The public sector has had no productivity gains.
No you don't.
The private sector is not five-to-six percent more productive than last year, yet that is the current rate of pay growth across the economy.
Employers pay what they need to in order to get the staff they require. Same as they do for other things. The public sector isn't immune to that.
When your milkman puts up his prices, do you get this cross with him?
You are not completely wrong, but the difference is that most people in the private sector do not demand that they, as a group of individuals, should automatically all have the same pay rise. What the public sector does is demand that all of a particular category (eg our modern entitled aristocracy, aka the medical profession) is given a pay rise en masse.
This generally doesn't happen in the private sector. If individual doctors were able to move around the country and individually argue for higher rates of pay (for the NHS that is, not their private work that they miraculously find time for), depending on where they live and the relative scarcity of their skills, then that would be good. The BMA though want to continue to have salaries that are higher than many comparable professions, the safest job security in the known universe and pensions that will give a monthly income that is three times higher than the average person earns
I am pretty angry tonight. Wes Streeting specifically was asked about Dilnot and he said 2025 would go ahead as planned. "I am not in the business of tearing down stuff" was the quote to Laura K I think two weeks before election.
I think the "big idea" is to take what money is left over after cuts and tax rises and stick it on investment, banking on that delivering a bonanza in later years. Unfortunately I've heard absolutely nothing that makes me think Labour are even remotely inclined to take the sort of decisions that would unlock higher growth. I expect the government to waste an awful lot of money on relatively low growth, low risk, and in many cases unnecessary investments. Don't expect a British Google or Apple to suddenly appear out of the mists.
No sane person would give Ed Miliband £11 billion.
How did Tommy Robinson just get on the EuroStar, especially with much increased pre-departure checks?
He was stopped by police, but apparently they weren't allowed to stop him! :shrugemoji:
I thought he had just been arrested under terrorism legislation? I presumed that would be bail with condition not to be leaving the country and that you can't just walk onto EuroStar if that's the case?
The court heard the police officers who had held Yaxley-Lennon had no power to stop him leaving the UK.
Arhh so the court deemed he has basically been falsely arrested again. The use of counter-terrorism powers did seem extreme, I presumed there was more going on, but sounds like the police messed up again.
I am pretty angry tonight. Wes Streeting specifically was asked about Dilnot and he said 2025 would go ahead as planned. "I am not in the business of tearing down stuff" was the quote to Laura K I think two weeks before election.
I think the "big idea" is to take what money is left over after cuts and tax rises and stick it on investment, banking on that delivering a bonanza in later years. Unfortunately I've heard absolutely nothing that makes me think Labour are even remotely inclined to take the sort of decisions that would unlock higher growth. I expect the government to waste an awful lot of money on relatively low growth, low risk, and in many cases unnecessary investments. Don't expect a British Google or Apple to suddenly appear out of the mists.
No sane person would give Ed Miliband £11 billion.
The meltdown of Tory PBers shocked by the audacity of a Labour government governing is a sight to behold this evening.
If you had been paying attention you would have noticed Tory posters on here expressing displeasure with Tory governments since at latest 1985, so before the site or the internet existed. Whereas you're the one who thinks Labour = FUCK YEAH and that that viciously amoral shit Blair murdering brownies is AOK because it was a Labour murder, whereas a bunch of Dutch farmers making black people sit at the back of the bus on a different continent proves that UK conservatives are inherently evil because completely unfathomable reasons (they once ate a Cape golden delicious?)
Oh do fuck off. I never supported the Iraq war (unlike the Conservative Party), and I am not a Labour Party member (I voted LD this time) so why you insist on bringing this up every time I post is rather bizarre.
Not really, I always had you down as a Labour supporter. Maybe you should open up a bit more.
Weren’t some PB Tories complaining this morning that the doctors had settled for an offer only a fraction above what the previous government was offering ?
I must say I was surprised to find you were in your 60s.
You thought someone my age couldn’t be so callow in their judgment ?
Comments
It is a reason why Gordon Brown didn't go around trying to mean testing stuff like weather fuel payments, free bus passes and tv licences (although the free tv licence scheme was on its own actually very expensive to administer, it would have been much way easier to just say you won't get done if you are a pensioner, no licence required).
Its often just a lot easier to fiddle around edges of tax bands, state pension, pension credits and get your money that way than just means testing who gets a bus pass.
And the reason why the figures are so high this year is because they include a part of the bit that wasn't paid last year.
You feel my pain?
Millions here, millions there and soon we're talking real money.
If its costing us anything, and its not a good use of money, it should be scrapped. Same with all inappropriate expenditure.
That's evasive crap.
As I said it's the extreme porn one you need to worry about. Anyone who enjoys banter is vulnerable.
There's a real conspiracy of silence around this. Largely cause "legalise extreme porn" is quite a, erm, brave political position to take...
The supposed infrastructure projects, A levels replacement and social care could politely be called aspirations of the previous government. Fictions maybe. There was nothing to cull.
The pay increase for junior doctors was probably inevitable with the previous government putting off the inevitable with significant damage for health outcomes.
I don't agree with the 22% pay rise for doctors, but ~5.5% for police/teachers/nurses etc when private sector pay is up 5.6% seems entirely within reason.
To me, infrastructure spending is something you can get real return on. Now a tunnel under Stone Henge, I think we can probably do without that, but plenty of infrastructure building is required.
But she didnt, she bought off a bunch of blackmailers, which will do nothing for the long term of the NHS. And as ever the blackmailers will be back.
So much for Streeting doing anything. The BMA will have him for breakfast.
I doubt he is a happy bunny tonight.
But Dilnot will be many times more furious.
I am not sure this was an altogether assured performance from Labour. They’ve come out of this looking rather muddled.
We can debate the rights and wrongs of the winter fuel allowance at length. I happen to think it has always been a benefit that shouldn’t be universal. But make no mistake that you will hear people in coming months saying Reeves took this payment off pensioners to give junior doctors a 22% pay rise. That is a political choice and people will make noise about it.
For all the talk of building and growth we have cutbacks on infrastructure spend coupled with tax rises.
This is exactly what I meant when I said the ming vase strategy could backfire on Labour. There’ll be a lot of people today who’ll be thinking whether they should have voted for them a few weeks ago now. I suspect the strategy is a two act piece from Reeves and Starmer - do the doom and gloom for a couple of years (blamed on the Tories), to move into the renewal and rebuilding as the next GE nears. But they have to hope that the economy is resilient enough to allow them the headroom to do that.
Interesting times ahead.
And across the private sector pay is rising, quite appropriately because we have full employment so pay SHOULD rise. Across the board. 👍
Edit. deleted the rest of the post. Too difficult topic.
And you dont just hand out pay rises because a third party says so. You concentrate each year on productivity and pay what you can afford. The public sector has had no productivity
gains.
I get the feeling people are going to become quite disenchanted with Labour sooner than would be expected.
If it were universal it would go to everyone, not just pensioners.
or continuing infrastructure projects, maybe even HS2. All Rachel Reeves has done here is to drop the previous government's pretence that they were actually doing something on those infrastructure projects.
It sets a dangerous precedent for other parties.
For the next five/nine/thirteen years, the government is other people? That all Conservative MPs will be able to do is listen to announcements and complain about them? But that those complaints will change absolutely nothing in the real world?
The conservative party needed kicking in the face last election. It really did. Now let's have Labour start us on the road to recovery and bring on Kemi for 2029
I'll await the details, but I'm not hopeful.
I do have a problem with Rachel Reeves being a spineless shit who hasnt the courage to say she is raising taxes to fund her programme, but hides behind smoke screens of her own making.
If you want to know why people dont trust politicians start here.
https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/128575/
...
Oh, hang on...
The private sector is not five-to-six percent more productive than last year, yet that is the current rate of pay growth across the economy.
Employers pay what they need to in order to get the staff they require. Same as they do for other things. The public sector isn't immune to that.
When your milkman puts up his prices, do you get this cross with him?
So yes they may not be strictly what I "expected" in sense of me saying anything or thinking about the A27 beforehand but the general thrust of this stuff is.
However we have just seen a government telling us about growth and productivity fall at the first hurdle.
And third parties fixing numbers for organisations they dont run will not work. The money has to come from somewhere. Tax or borrow.
Strewth how sad.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4797963-republican-arizona-harris-trump-mccain/
The GOP mayor of Mesa, Ariz. — Phoenix’s largest suburb — endorsed Vice President Harris on Monday, saying only the vice president can “put country over party” in the November election.
Mesa Mayor John Giles wrote in an op-ed for The Arizona Republic that Republicans should reject former President Trump at the ballot box.
“Our party used to stand for the belief that every Arizonan, no matter their background or circumstances, should have the freedom, opportunity and security to live out their American Dream,” Giles wrote.
“But since Donald Trump refused to accept the outcome of the 2020 election, Republicans have yet to course correct,” he continued. “The Republican Party with Trump at its helm continues down the path of political extremism, away from focusing on our fundamental freedoms.”
Giles argued that President Biden and Harris have delivered for Arizona, pointing to infrastructure investments and new jobs, while Trump turned away from immigration reforms. He also argued that Harris represents a return to “decency” in politics.
Giles recalled the career of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), arguing that Arizona needs more like-minded leaders who can work across the aisle.
“And it’s that same high caliber of character and leadership I see in Vice President Harris,” he wrote. ..
When the anthem finishes and the cheer goes up I keep expecting a commentator to come on saying "Another world cup final, and the Italians are there again. Despite all the injuries, the rumours of problems in the camp, the early disappointments, here they are. Can they yet again find a way to overcome the skill and panache of [Brazil / France / Argentina]? I hope you're sitting comfortably"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/29/labour-to-drop-beautiful-from-rules-on-housebuilding/
Yaxley-Lennon left the UK by a Eurotunnel train on Sunday night, despite having been arrested by Kent Police under counter-terrorism powers.
[...]
On Sunday, the founder of the English Defence League went to the Channel Tunnel terminal at Folkestone, where police officers stopped him under counter-terrorism powers.
When he allegedly refused to co-operate, he was arrested and held until 10pm before being released on unconditional bail and leaving the country.
Mr Payter said: “We understand he failed to cooperate with a port stop and search.
“The implication is he was attempting to leave the country and therefore was not intending to attend this hearing this morning
“The information that we have is that he is not within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. He has been spending significant time outside the UK since being served with the contempt application on 13 June.
“He returned for the purpose of publishing the film and sought to immediately leave the jurisdiction.”
The court heard the police officers who had held Yaxley-Lennon had no power to stop him leaving the UK.
This generally doesn't happen in the private sector. If individual doctors were able to move around the country and individually argue for higher rates of pay (for the NHS that is, not their private work that they miraculously find time for), depending on where they live and the relative scarcity of their skills, then that would be good. The BMA though want to continue to have salaries that are higher than many comparable professions, the safest job security in the known universe and pensions that will give a monthly income that is three times higher than the average person earns
No sane person would give him £11
https://x.com/DrDavidJeffery/status/1817831088611357181?t=R6TC6pPIC327QjTuRtxIZg&s=19