Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
What level would you set UBI at?
We already effectively have a UBI given how easy it is to claim benefits of different varieties, the problem is then people get trapped on benefits not seeing any point in working more as they don't want to lose them.
I'd set UBI at a comparable rate to how we offer benefits today, no more, no less. But then tax people consistently and not have a NYC skyline of tax rates.
Incorrect. We have in effect a Minimum Income Guarantee. Lots of people confuse the two.
Yes, hence why I said effectively not actually.
We already have incomes going to people.
The question is simply the best way to do it.
I think the best way to do it is to tax incomes the least possible but consistently across the board, so that people keep more of what they earn across the board. Rather than lightly taxing some while so excessively taxing others that they don't bother working or engage evasion schemes to avoid the cliff edge.
No, you're still confusing them. We do not have anything that resembles a UBI at the moment.
It does not resemble a UBI I agree because of the flaws I mentioned, I'm not confused.
Which is why I would switch it to a UBI which would be a far superior system.
But Pagan is asking how much to cost/set it at - well we already have comparable figures, that would be my starting point as we transition into a UBI would be my viewpoint.
Right, so it's not in effect a UBI.
And the point about UBI is that it's universal, so your idea of basing it on the current suite of benefit eligibilities and payments... would be the precise opposite.
One option would be to use the lowest UC Standard Allowance of £312 per month for all UK residents, at a cost of £250 billion a year.
I don't like UBI at all. Let's take four people as an example:
1) An 18 year old who doesn't have the willpower to get a job and/or enter further education 2) A 30-year old single parent of two pre-school children who's partner left the country and is in rental accomodation 3) A 55 year-old who has quit hit their job in the hope of living on relatively modest but adequate savings through to early retirement - the UBI makes all the difference 4) A 90-year old who has depleted their savings and lives in rental accomodation, but is in otherwise good health.
I want a benefit system to act as a safety net for people like those in scenarios 2 and 4, not as an excuse for people to not to bother working like in scenarios 1 and 3.
I thought the basic UBI was that it would be enough to live on, but a pretty shit life. So your lazy 18 year old would need to work to buy a better phone, or have a car etc.
Sure, but my point is the cash amount needed for 'enough to live on but pretty shit life' varies drastically depending on your circumstances.
Hence you'll always end up coming back to more customised benefits, regardless of the initial intent of UBI.
If starmer can't face down pensioners, then young skilled private sector workers in this country are just going to get more and more hacked off about carrying the tax burden, just as they were under the last government. Other more dynamic economies, less burdened by debt and by unsustainable political promises, will welcome them with open arms.
Private sector workers are already hacked off at outrageous public sector pension contributions that get paid and we are funding. I am fed up of friends that work in the public sector explaining to me that there pension isn't gold plated as the will only get 15K a year index linked when I will be lucky to get 5 to 6k a year non index linked. Despite the fact I am paying more out of my pay in pounds than they are.
Have you thought about switching to the public sector? Free market and all that.
No because I have worked on public sector projects before and I know what a shit show civil service is. The irritation it would cause is not worth the price. Fucking shower of empire building idiots
Relentless. Labour better hope this was a move as part of an overall strategy that can be defended over time and will be shown to be (ie. time to look after Gen X and Z rather than grandma).
The Telegraph @Telegraph · 2h 💷 Rachel Reeves carried out “no impact assessment” before withdrawing winter fuel payments for 10 million pensioners, The Telegraph can reveal
And that's before the daily front page headlines on the Mail and The Sun about how peoples little old ladies are freezing to death during the winter...
David Axelrod @davidaxelrod Robert F. Kennedy was my political hero. He battled fiercely & eloquently against poverty, injustice and for economic fairness. Sadly RFK Jr, who made a rambling exit from the race today, proves that sometimes an apple DOES fall far from the tree...in this case, down a hill and over a cliff.
David Axelrod @davidaxelrod · 2h Robert F. Kennedy Sr. would have been appalled to see his son cut a deal to drop out for he race and endorse Trump,
Seriously - as someone who really wants to see this solved, the tendency by some to go into total denial over the problems that need to be faced and solved is really quite frustrating.
The infrastructure is an issue. Simply handwaving it as "it'll get sorted somehow" or insisting that councils fund it with no funding or authority is stupidity on stilts.
We've actually managed to free up £197,000 for helping upgrade one sewage works. £360,000 for additonal berths in a mobile home park. £17,000 on upgrading parks facilities. £1.3 million on improving disabled facilities. But it's really difficult to squeeze more and more out of less and less money.
Hell, when we took over in 2019, the Vale were projected to be bankrupt by now, but we've somehow ended up in a stable and improving position.
Increased housing and population, especially when the density per place is changing, requires infrastructure provision. Failure to provide it at all causes massive pushback. Waiting to provide it years after it's needed causes chronic and unending stresses and problems and causes pushback. It needs to be solved. Denialism doesn't help.
Give us the authority to provide it, provide the initial funds to prime the pump, and allow us that route to become self-funding. And it can be solved.
Or lapse into denialism and insistence that it gets solved somehow, and just whine about it from the sidelines, because without solving it, it won't get done. And it'll just continue to get worse.
If it needs paying for, it needs paying for, and whatever rates/taxes on everyone needs to go up needs to pay for it.
Public infrastructure needs to come from everyone's taxes, that's what we pay our taxes for. All of us.
Central government decides whether we have population growth or not and takes the taxes on a growing population and uses those taxes to support its expenditure. If investment needs to happen in infrastructure then that investment needs to be funded.
You object that you can't afford infrastructure up front. I object that we can't wait for infrastructure before getting houses.
A solution is needed. But the solution can't be to put houses on the never never by saying we won't allow them without infrastructure, and oh yes, we can't afford infrastructure.
Personally a logical solution to me seems to be a central government grant to anywhere with high population growth to fund infrastructure investment. Then you have the money, and people can get the homes, and neither needs to wait for the other.
But it's not OK to say you can't afford infrastructure, so you can't allow houses, because of the lack of infrastructure. That is no solution.
It’s even worse than this.
Infrastructure.
I get applications where the builder says the water co will connect the sewers And it is true, the service providers are legally obliged to take the sewage.
But the water companies lie about their capability. They don’t even know where their CSOs are. New connections frequently go into our rivers.
They avoid investing for the future, and they deliberately underspecify when upgrading.
When the planning system fills our streets with shit we create a lot of angry nimbys. Who know exactly who we are.
Water privatisation is a real problem. Telling Southern Water or whoever that they must provide the required infrastructure is not working.
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
Seriously - as someone who really wants to see this solved, the tendency by some to go into total denial over the problems that need to be faced and solved is really quite frustrating.
The infrastructure is an issue. Simply handwaving it as "it'll get sorted somehow" or insisting that councils fund it with no funding or authority is stupidity on stilts.
We've actually managed to free up £197,000 for helping upgrade one sewage works. £360,000 for additonal berths in a mobile home park. £17,000 on upgrading parks facilities. £1.3 million on improving disabled facilities. But it's really difficult to squeeze more and more out of less and less money.
Hell, when we took over in 2019, the Vale were projected to be bankrupt by now, but we've somehow ended up in a stable and improving position.
Increased housing and population, especially when the density per place is changing, requires infrastructure provision. Failure to provide it at all causes massive pushback. Waiting to provide it years after it's needed causes chronic and unending stresses and problems and causes pushback. It needs to be solved. Denialism doesn't help.
Give us the authority to provide it, provide the initial funds to prime the pump, and allow us that route to become self-funding. And it can be solved.
Or lapse into denialism and insistence that it gets solved somehow, and just whine about it from the sidelines, because without solving it, it won't get done. And it'll just continue to get worse.
If it needs paying for, it needs paying for, and whatever rates/taxes on everyone needs to go up needs to pay for it.
Public infrastructure needs to come from everyone's taxes, that's what we pay our taxes for. All of us.
Central government decides whether we have population growth or not and takes the taxes on a growing population and uses those taxes to support its expenditure. If investment needs to happen in infrastructure then that investment needs to be funded.
You object that you can't afford infrastructure up front. I object that we can't wait for infrastructure before getting houses.
A solution is needed. But the solution can't be to put houses on the never never by saying we won't allow them without infrastructure, and oh yes, we can't afford infrastructure.
Personally a logical solution to me seems to be a central government grant to anywhere with high population growth to fund infrastructure investment. Then you have the money, and people can get the homes, and neither needs to wait for the other.
But it's not OK to say you can't afford infrastructure, so you can't allow houses, because of the lack of infrastructure. That is no solution.
It’s even worse than this.
Infrastructure.
I get applications where the builder says the water co will connect the sewers And it is true, the service providers are legally obliged to take the sewage.
But the water companies lie about their capability. They don’t even know where their CSOs are. New connections frequently go into our rivers.
They avoid investing for the future, and they deliberately underspecify when upgrading.
When the planning system fills our streets with shit we create a lot of angry nimbys. Who know exactly who we are.
Water privatisation is a real problem. Telling Southern Water or whoever that they must provide the required infrastructure is not working.
Someone, somewhere, offshore is making bank on it. So... surely that means it's working as intended?
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
I suspect if it was in the manifesto it would have been a May 'dementia tax' moment half way through campaign.
Reversed under orders from Sir K and then 'nothing has changed' etc etc.
I guess somewhere in Reeves inner office they think this is a win and the "right thing to do" but...
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
It's the blob conspiring against Labour. I tell you - they're all secretly Tories.
...
:: repeat and invert for the next 20,000 election cycles ::
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
I suspect if it was in the manifesto it would have been a May 'dementia tax' moment half way through campaign.
Reversed under orders from Sir K and then 'nothing has changed' etc etc.
I guess somewhere in Reeves inner office they think this is a win and the "right thing to do" but...
Would they rather have £300 or a working NHS and care system? Maybe a difficult political choice but it was the right thing to do. The pain will have been forgotten by the next election. And I really don't think this is as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be.
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
I suspect if it was in the manifesto it would have been a May 'dementia tax' moment half way through campaign.
Reversed under orders from Sir K and then 'nothing has changed' etc etc.
I guess somewhere in Reeves inner office they think this is a win and the "right thing to do" but...
Would they rather have £300 or a working NHS and care system? Maybe a difficult political choice but it was the right thing to do. The pain will have been forgotten by the next election. And I really don't think this is as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be.
As opposed to a striking NHS and care system, I suppose?
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
I suspect if it was in the manifesto it would have been a May 'dementia tax' moment half way through campaign.
Reversed under orders from Sir K and then 'nothing has changed' etc etc.
I guess somewhere in Reeves inner office they think this is a win and the "right thing to do" but...
Would they rather have £300 or a working NHS and care system? Maybe a difficult political choice but it was the right thing to do. The pain will have been forgotten by the next election. And I really don't think this is as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be.
you assume its an either or choice. If you took wfa from every pensioner and increased basic rate tax you still wouldn't have a working nhs and care system. The NHS is run for the benefit of the people who work in it not for patients
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
I suspect if it was in the manifesto it would have been a May 'dementia tax' moment half way through campaign.
Reversed under orders from Sir K and then 'nothing has changed' etc etc.
I guess somewhere in Reeves inner office they think this is a win and the "right thing to do" but...
Would they rather have £300 or a working NHS and care system? Maybe a difficult political choice but it was the right thing to do. The pain will have been forgotten by the next election. And I really don't think this is as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be.
Jeez. If Reeves promised a working care system and implementing the long promised Dilnot cap in exchange for the end of winter fuel allowance then I would be delighted.
Instead the money has been spent on train drivers as far as the public can see.
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
I suspect if it was in the manifesto it would have been a May 'dementia tax' moment half way through campaign.
Reversed under orders from Sir K and then 'nothing has changed' etc etc.
I guess somewhere in Reeves inner office they think this is a win and the "right thing to do" but...
Would they rather have £300 or a working NHS and care system? Maybe a difficult political choice but it was the right thing to do. The pain will have been forgotten by the next election. And I really don't think this is as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be.
That’s not the choice though . The savings from the WFA are minimal. Reeves is clueless , if she wanted to make savings here she could have just said you have to apply for it regardless of income . She could have couched it as many don’t need it and this way we’d ask people to think about that before applying . Many wouldn’t bother and she’d then not be accused of stopping it .
Is Kennedy's endorsement of Trump significant? Maybe it isn't important.
He’s suspending his campaign but apparently will stay on the ballot in Red and Blue states but will ask to be removed from the swing states . Whilst Biden was the nominee he was a problem for the Dems . I don’t see him making much of a difference now .
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
I suspect if it was in the manifesto it would have been a May 'dementia tax' moment half way through campaign.
Reversed under orders from Sir K and then 'nothing has changed' etc etc.
I guess somewhere in Reeves inner office they think this is a win and the "right thing to do" but...
Would they rather have £300 or a working NHS and care system? Maybe a difficult political choice but it was the right thing to do. The pain will have been forgotten by the next election. And I really don't think this is as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be.
That’s not the choice though . The savings from the WFA are minimal. Reeves is clueless , if she wanted to make savings here she could have just said you have to apply for it regardless of income . She could have couched it as many don’t need it and this way we’d ask people to think about that before applying . Many wouldn’t bother and she’d then not be accused of stopping it .
It may not save much on its own, but it's fairly clearly just a harbringer of things to come. My generation (and the pensioners!) is going to be even more stuffed by e.g. the CGT changes blatantly coming. But that's fine cause stuff needs paying for... I think you'll find that WFA cut is pretty popular amongst anyone under 55.
Genuinely interested in how much the forthcoming (presumably) euthanasia legalisation will save. Suppose it depends on uptake. In US aiui a lot of money is the last couple of days of life (which is when euthansia would have most update I suppose?) but here I suspect it's care home fees where I wouldn't imagine people would be taking it up.
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
I suspect if it was in the manifesto it would have been a May 'dementia tax' moment half way through campaign.
Reversed under orders from Sir K and then 'nothing has changed' etc etc.
I guess somewhere in Reeves inner office they think this is a win and the "right thing to do" but...
Would they rather have £300 or a working NHS and care system? Maybe a difficult political choice but it was the right thing to do. The pain will have been forgotten by the next election. And I really don't think this is as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be.
That’s not the choice though . The savings from the WFA are minimal. Reeves is clueless , if she wanted to make savings here she could have just said you have to apply for it regardless of income . She could have couched it as many don’t need it and this way we’d ask people to think about that before applying . Many wouldn’t bother and she’d then not be accused of stopping it .
It may not save much on its own, but it's fairly clearly just a harbringer of things to come. My generation (and the pensioners!) is going to be even more stuffed by e.g. the CGT changes blatantly coming. But that's fine cause stuff needs paying for... I think you'll find that WFA cut is pretty popular amongst anyone under 55.
Genuinely interested in how much the forthcoming (presumably) euthanasia legalisation will save. Suppose it depends on uptake.
Go full Logan's Run. No need for winter fuel payments to the elderly if the state offs everyone on their 30th birthday...
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
I suspect if it was in the manifesto it would have been a May 'dementia tax' moment half way through campaign.
Reversed under orders from Sir K and then 'nothing has changed' etc etc.
I guess somewhere in Reeves inner office they think this is a win and the "right thing to do" but...
Would they rather have £300 or a working NHS and care system? Maybe a difficult political choice but it was the right thing to do. The pain will have been forgotten by the next election. And I really don't think this is as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be.
That’s not the choice though . The savings from the WFA are minimal. Reeves is clueless , if she wanted to make savings here she could have just said you have to apply for it regardless of income . She could have couched it as many don’t need it and this way we’d ask people to think about that before applying . Many wouldn’t bother and she’d then not be accused of stopping it .
It may not save much on its own, but it's fairly clearly just a harbringer of things to come. My generation (and the pensioners!) is going to be even more stuffed by e.g. the CGT changes blatantly coming. But that's fine cause stuff needs paying for... I think you'll find that WFA cut is pretty popular amongst anyone under 55.
Genuinely interested in how much the forthcoming (presumably) euthanasia legalisation will save. Suppose it depends on uptake.
Go full Logan's Run. No need for winter fuel payments to the elderly if the state offs everyone on their 30th birthday...
I wouldn't propose that sort of thing but one of the most corrosive aspects of the last few years of government (since Brexit basically) has been an inter generational political divide enmity that afaik has never happened before.
I still think that most pensioners who are well off enough for it to have been removed will be pretty meh with WFA being taken away once they've spoken with their descendants. (And just wait till IHT!)
Relentless. Labour better hope this was a move as part of an overall strategy that can be defended over time and will be shown to be (ie. time to look after Gen X and Z rather than grandma).
The Telegraph @Telegraph · 2h 💷 Rachel Reeves carried out “no impact assessment” before withdrawing winter fuel payments for 10 million pensioners, The Telegraph can reveal
She's lucky her name doesn't really lend itself to a "milk snatcher" style rhyme about freezing pensioners.
Is Kennedy's endorsement of Trump significant? Maybe it isn't important.
In a close race even small changes are significant ☹️
The most recent polling showed his supporters splitting about 6:4 for Trump over Harris, so fractionally helps Trump but not heavily and of course Harris likely gets a post convention bounce too
Relentless. Labour better hope this was a move as part of an overall strategy that can be defended over time and will be shown to be (ie. time to look after Gen X and Z rather than grandma).
The Telegraph @Telegraph · 2h 💷 Rachel Reeves carried out “no impact assessment” before withdrawing winter fuel payments for 10 million pensioners, The Telegraph can reveal
She's lucky her name doesn't really lend itself to a "milk snatcher" style rhyme about freezing pensioners.
Racheal Reeves She leads the gas thieves.
But pensioners don't be bitter The train drivers need their stonker this winter.
Turns out that everyone likes bold leadership and tough choices except pensioners.
Overall the new government has a -21% approval rating, it is not just pensioners losing enthusiasm for Starmer
Maybe the aptly-named Generation Zedders have realised at last that the degrading of pensions affects them, too. Just wait until Reeves cuts the tax relief on pension contributions. "About time!" the Zedders will ululate in unison. "... Hang on a minute, that's going to cost me thousands."
Turns out that everyone likes bold leadership and tough choices except pensioners.
Overall the new government has a -21% approval rating, it is not just pensioners losing enthusiasm for Starmer
I'm not sure many people ever had any enthusiasm for Starmer to begin with - grudging acceptance combined with fury at the previous government more like.
The latter should die away at some point and the former obviously already is.
But those are obviously dismal figures for a government that just won a landslide victory and should be in its honeymoon period.
"Labour MP does not rule out voting against government over cuts to winter fuel payments
Labour MP Rachael Maskell has not ruled out voting against the government’s plans to scrap winter fuel payments for most older people. Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced last month that around ten million pensioners in England and Wales would lose the annual payments as part of plans to means test the benefit. However, according to The New Statesman, several Labour MPs are said to be uneasy at the move, with one said to have described the cut as “almost suicidal”. Rachael Maskell, MP for York Central and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ageing and older people, told Times Radio there are backbenchers which are applying for a debate on the matter."
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
I suspect if it was in the manifesto it would have been a May 'dementia tax' moment half way through campaign.
Reversed under orders from Sir K and then 'nothing has changed' etc etc.
I guess somewhere in Reeves inner office they think this is a win and the "right thing to do" but...
Would they rather have £300 or a working NHS and care system? Maybe a difficult political choice but it was the right thing to do. The pain will have been forgotten by the next election. And I really don't think this is as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be.
Jeez. If Reeves promised a working care system and implementing the long promised Dilnot cap in exchange for the end of winter fuel allowance then I would be delighted.
Instead the money has been spent on train drivers as far as the public can see.
Is Kennedy's endorsement of Trump significant? Maybe it isn't important.
He’s suspending his campaign but apparently will stay on the ballot in Red and Blue states but will ask to be removed from the swing states . Whilst Biden was the nominee he was a problem for the Dems . I don’t see him making much of a difference now .
Yep. It will likely make sod all difference, despite the breathless ramping/bedwetting on here.
Let’s be blunt if Labour would have come up with this policy before the election they’d have been lucky to get a majority . Whether people like it or not pensioners are ruthless and will punish any party that they feel has shortchanged them.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
I suspect if it was in the manifesto it would have been a May 'dementia tax' moment half way through campaign.
Reversed under orders from Sir K and then 'nothing has changed' etc etc.
I guess somewhere in Reeves inner office they think this is a win and the "right thing to do" but...
Would they rather have £300 or a working NHS and care system? Maybe a difficult political choice but it was the right thing to do. The pain will have been forgotten by the next election. And I really don't think this is as big a deal as you guys are making it out to be.
That’s not the choice though . The savings from the WFA are minimal. Reeves is clueless , if she wanted to make savings here she could have just said you have to apply for it regardless of income . She could have couched it as many don’t need it and this way we’d ask people to think about that before applying . Many wouldn’t bother and she’d then not be accused of stopping it .
Why is she clueless? It seems to be yet another weird PB obsession.
Relentless. Labour better hope this was a move as part of an overall strategy that can be defended over time and will be shown to be (ie. time to look after Gen X and Z rather than grandma).
The Telegraph @Telegraph · 2h 💷 Rachel Reeves carried out “no impact assessment” before withdrawing winter fuel payments for 10 million pensioners, The Telegraph can reveal
She's lucky her name doesn't really lend itself to a "milk snatcher" style rhyme about freezing pensioners.
Relentless. Labour better hope this was a move as part of an overall strategy that can be defended over time and will be shown to be (ie. time to look after Gen X and Z rather than grandma).
The Telegraph @Telegraph · 2h 💷 Rachel Reeves carried out “no impact assessment” before withdrawing winter fuel payments for 10 million pensioners, The Telegraph can reveal
She's lucky her name doesn't really lend itself to a "milk snatcher" style rhyme about freezing pensioners.
NOW - Trump promises RFK Jr. that he will establish a commission that will release all remaining classified documents on the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
No one has been arrested and police said they had deployed a “large contingent” including a helicopter to search for the male assailant who fled the scene. Police declined to discuss a possible motive or speculate about the identity of the suspect.
Surely someone nearby got a look at them and, given they're on the run, a description wouldn't go amiss.
Relentless. Labour better hope this was a move as part of an overall strategy that can be defended over time and will be shown to be (ie. time to look after Gen X and Z rather than grandma).
The Telegraph @Telegraph · 2h 💷 Rachel Reeves carried out “no impact assessment” before withdrawing winter fuel payments for 10 million pensioners, The Telegraph can reveal
She's lucky her name doesn't really lend itself to a "milk snatcher" style rhyme about freezing pensioners.
Racheal Reeves She leads the gas thieves.
But pensioners don't be bitter The train drivers need their stonker this winter.
Is Kennedy's endorsement of Trump significant? Maybe it isn't important.
He’s suspending his campaign but apparently will stay on the ballot in Red and Blue states but will ask to be removed from the swing states . Whilst Biden was the nominee he was a problem for the Dems . I don’t see him making much of a difference now .
Yep. It will likely make sod all difference, despite the breathless ramping/bedwetting on here.
Either - Harris entering the race changed the dynamic and she took a bunch of his voters or his vote collapsed under the polarisation of the campaign.
Probably the former - people who wanted a younger candidate and were attracted to the Kennedy legend.
Trumps vote share seems to have stayed the same (45% or thereabouts) but Harris has seen some leads. These may be from newly enthused, previous non voters, but the timing of the RFK collapse…
Is Kennedy's endorsement of Trump significant? Maybe it isn't important.
He’s suspending his campaign but apparently will stay on the ballot in Red and Blue states but will ask to be removed from the swing states . Whilst Biden was the nominee he was a problem for the Dems . I don’t see him making much of a difference now .
Yep. It will likely make sod all difference, despite the breathless ramping/bedwetting on here.
It's worth 1 point or 2 to Trump maybe up to 3 in some states. Has anyone on here claimed more than that? Mostly people on here are in danger of underestimating the significance of RFK's endorsement, there's quite a few people who wouldn't have considered voting for Trump who now might.
I can confidently say that Ukraine is going to win in Kursk.
How?
Because 'general' Douglas MacGregors says they won't: 1827201512004616547
MacGregor has a long history of bein pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Macgregor . So much so, I'm amazed how he keeps on popping up in the media with his 'takes' on the topic, which appease and apologise for Putin. Haven't they all realised he's a b/s merchant with only one view: Russia's stronk, and Ukraine will lose?
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
Nutjob , a mum of 3 on minimum wage will get more benefits than a state pensioner gets, you halfwitted cretin.
The "malcolmg" character is a parody being run by a group of PPE undergrads, isn't it ?
@malcolmg is most certainly non fictional and is a true Scot. He may actually be the mythical Only A True Scotsman as he frequently holds to his loyalties where other, perhaps saner, folk would have demurred. 😃
Comments
Hence you'll always end up coming back to more customised benefits, regardless of the initial intent of UBI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r57J0jPyZRs
The Telegraph
@Telegraph
·
2h
💷 Rachel Reeves carried out “no impact assessment” before withdrawing winter fuel payments for 10 million pensioners, The Telegraph can reveal
And that's before the daily front page headlines on the Mail and The Sun about how peoples little old ladies are freezing to death during the winter...
David Axelrod
@davidaxelrod
Robert F. Kennedy was my political hero. He battled fiercely & eloquently against poverty, injustice and for economic fairness.
Sadly RFK Jr, who made a rambling exit from the race today, proves that sometimes an apple DOES fall far from the tree...in this case, down a hill and over a cliff.
David Axelrod
@davidaxelrod
·
2h
Robert F. Kennedy Sr. would have been appalled to see his son cut a deal to drop out for he race and endorse Trump,
Infrastructure.
I get applications where the builder says the water co will connect the sewers And it is true, the service providers are legally obliged to take the sewage.
But the water companies lie about their capability. They don’t even know where their CSOs are. New connections frequently go into our rivers.
They avoid investing for the future, and they deliberately underspecify when upgrading.
When the planning system fills our streets with shit we create a lot of angry nimbys. Who know exactly who we are.
Water privatisation is a real problem. Telling Southern Water or whoever that they must provide the required infrastructure is not working.
Who in their wisdom at the Treasury thought this WFA policy was a good idea.
Seems like he'd have been possible MAGA material based on Trump's "grab 'em" comments.
Reversed under orders from Sir K and then 'nothing has changed' etc etc.
I guess somewhere in Reeves inner office they think this is a win and the "right thing to do" but...
...
:: repeat and invert for the next 20,000 election cycles ::
https://order-order.com/2024/08/23/no-criminal-charges-over-election-betting/
RFK Jr should fit right in today's cult GOP.
Instead the money has been spent on train drivers as far as the public can see.
Sky's 1997 election night show, with Kay Burley, Adam Boulton, Prof Michael Thrasher. Quality a bit iffy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ3mvDfNyfI
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13/
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
(I'm quite fond of both, so I should remember which is which.)
Genuinely interested in how much the forthcoming (presumably) euthanasia legalisation will save. Suppose it depends on uptake. In US aiui a lot of money is the last couple of days of life (which is when euthansia would have most update I suppose?) but here I suspect it's care home fees where I wouldn't imagine people would be taking it up.
divideenmity that afaik has never happened before.I still think that most pensioners who are well off enough for it to have been removed will be pretty meh with WFA being taken away once they've spoken with their descendants. (And just wait till IHT!)
She leads the gas thieves.
But pensioners don't be bitter
The train drivers need their stonker this winter.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrgp4gyv0lo
Wrong. It's going to cost them tens of thousands.
The latter should die away at some point and the former obviously already is.
But those are obviously dismal figures for a government that just won a landslide victory and should be in its honeymoon period.
"Labour MP does not rule out voting against government over cuts to winter fuel payments
Labour MP Rachael Maskell has not ruled out voting against the government’s plans to scrap winter fuel payments for most older people. Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced last month that around ten million pensioners in England and Wales would lose the annual payments as part of plans to means test the benefit. However, according to The New Statesman, several Labour MPs are said to be uneasy at the move, with one said to have described the cut as “almost suicidal”. Rachael Maskell, MP for York Central and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ageing and older people, told Times Radio there are backbenchers which are applying for a debate on the matter."
https://labourlist.org/2024/08/labour-mp-winter-fuel-payments-cut-rachael-maskell/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyw04e297po
NOW - Trump promises RFK Jr. that he will establish a commission that will release all remaining classified documents on the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13773239/BORIS-JOHNSON-Starmer-Orwell-1984-ill.html
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1827077871875055785
The crew were taken off by the French and are safe, but the environmental disaster will be massive.
I wonder what our Houthi-supporting poster feels about this?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/23/people-killed-and-injured-at-festival-in-solingen-in-germany-report
No one has been arrested and police said they had deployed a “large contingent” including a helicopter to search for the male assailant who fled the scene. Police declined to discuss a possible motive or speculate about the identity of the suspect.
Surely someone nearby got a look at them and, given they're on the run, a description wouldn't go amiss.
Probably the former - people who wanted a younger candidate and were attracted to the Kennedy legend.
Trumps vote share seems to have stayed the same (45% or thereabouts) but Harris has seen some leads. These may be from newly enthused, previous non voters, but the timing of the RFK collapse…
How?
Because 'general' Douglas MacGregors says they won't:
1827201512004616547
MacGregor has a long history of bein pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Macgregor . So much so, I'm amazed how he keeps on popping up in the media with his 'takes' on the topic, which appease and apologise for Putin. Haven't they all realised he's a b/s merchant with only one view: Russia's stronk, and Ukraine will lose?
NEW THREAD