The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Back then you didnt have a quarter to a third of pensioners living in millionaire households either. Things change.
A reminder we have record employment because we are not counting many of those not working (as to be fair, the linked article mentions). The labour market is tight and most candidates will have more experience than recent school or college leavers. Mental health issues (as covered in the story) also seem more prevalent now.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Back then you didnt have a quarter to a third of pensioners living in millionaire households either. Things change.
Where are you getting a quarter of pensioners are millionaires? And if it just because of their house, its irrelevant if you are asset rich, cash poor, particularly if as expected council tax is going to be going up.
Also, even in the 90s the number of pensioners actually dying from no heating will have been small, but it doesn't matter if media decide its a thing, every Maureen freezing to death becomes a scandal.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
That's great, but it also gave people like @NickPalmer and me to say go on a weekend break to Europe free of charge and that is not a good use of taxpayers money. Limiting to those who need it seems like a sensible compromise.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
Ignorance, pride, but also the hassle factor. I did not claim JSA (unemployment benefit) or a free bus pass because I do not, especially for the first, want to jump through bureaucratic hoops.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
That's great, but it also gave people like @NickPalmer and me to say go on a weekend break to Europe free of charge and that is not a good use of taxpayers money. Limiting to those who need it seems like a sensible compromise.
As I said before there is a better and easier way, you nudge the tax system so you get the £300 (or more) off rich pensioners. The problem looks like there are going to be people still on pretty low income no longer entitled to it, so the danger for the government is those people get in serious trouble with higher energy bills and it becomes a PR nightmare.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
In my fifties and my expectation has always been that pensioner benefits including state pension would mostly be means tested by the time I'm eligible. Because thats what the maths strongly suggests.
I would suggest that you're an exception.
And that there will be many, many voters who instead think "I've paid my taxes for forty years and then they take away all the things they promised me before I could get them".
And yes, they have been promised them.
Take a look at your HMRC page and the state pension it promises you from your years of NI contributions.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
That's great, but it also gave people like @NickPalmer and me to say go on a weekend break to Europe free of charge and that is not a good use of taxpayers money. Limiting to those who need it seems like a sensible compromise.
But as many including myself have said where they set the boundary (ie pension credit) has cut off many who do need it. A pensioner with an annual income of 11.5k will for example no longer get it. I don't think many are disagreeing that rich pensioners should not get it.
The problem of public spending and who to spend it on, that not the real problem, the real issue is low growth and piss poor productivity. The pie has been shrinking in real terms for nearly 20 years especially if you consider it in per capita terms. We haven't had good solid growth per capita since early 2000s. Until that problem can be solved just going to get worse.
If you believe that cutting taxes is the route to growth (there are other opinions, but that is the Trussite view) then you need to cut spending. Debt interest defence etc are all pretty small beer compared to spending on pensioners, much of which is from other spending on top of the State Pension itself.
It was grossly irresponsible for Hunt to cut NI twice without detailing the cuts required to pay for it and daft for Reeves to accept being painted into a corner.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
In my fifties and my expectation has always been that pensioner benefits including state pension would mostly be means tested by the time I'm eligible. Because thats what the maths strongly suggests.
I would suggest that you're an exception.
And that there will be many, many voters who instead think "I've paid my taxes for forty years and then they take away all the things they promised me before I could get them".
And yes, they have been promised them.
Take a look at your HMRC page and the state pension it promises you from your years of NI contributions.
it says bugger all about WFA
I never said it did.
I was replying to this:
In my fifties and my expectation has always been that pensioner benefits including state pension would mostly be means tested by the time I'm eligible.
Harris’ lead in the polls according to RCP is +1.5. On a like for like basis (ie the RCP averages from last time), she is 6%+ down from Biden at this stage and 4% from Clinton.
I think to believe Harris’ candidacy is increasing likely and it may even be a mini-landslide, you have to assume one or a combo of a few factors (1) Harris’ Big Momentum continues (2) Trump’s campaign implodes (3) the consumer suddenly feels a lot better off and / or (4) the polls underestimate Harris. All are possible but unlikely as things stand:
Harris has had the best start any candidate could have but she has to define policies at some point. The one she mentioned so far - price controls - has been received poorly.
Trump has a track record of flailing and making mistakes but, at some point, correcting himself. His making up with Kemp suggests this is happening again
The consumer is feeling worse not better and interest rate cuts take time to feed through
Hard to think of a ‘shy Harris’ effect and possible it’s more exaggerated on the other side with voters saying they will vote for a Black woman when they won’t.
I wouldn’t be betting at this stage and it still looks close as Sean Trende mentioned when looking at the Washington results
If you’re entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2023 to 2024, you will get an extra £150 or £300 paid with your normal payment from November 2023.
The problem of public spending and who to spend it on, that not the real problem, the real issue is low growth and piss poor productivity. The pie has been shrinking in real terms for nearly 20 years especially if you consider it in per capita terms. We haven't had good solid growth per capita since early 2000s. Until that problem can be solved just going to get worse.
If you believe that cutting taxes is the route to growth (there are other opinions, but that is the Trussite view) then you need to cut spending. Debt interest defence etc are all pretty small beer compared to spending on pensioners, much of which is from other spending on top of the State Pension itself.
It was grossly irresponsible for Hunt to cut NI twice without detailing the cuts required to pay for it and daft for Reeves to accept being painted into a corner.
Where did I say that we should just cut taxes? I said at the time Truss was looking at the problem from the wrong end of the telescope. Her recipe was cut all taxes will get growth, my take is there are fundamental issues with our economy that until addressed we won't get consistent long term growth.
One of the most disappointing things about the new government is all the cancelling of infrastructure. That is something that you can easily borrow for and even more Conservative leaning people have little issue with.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Back then you didnt have a quarter to a third of pensioners living in millionaire households either. Things change.
Where are you getting a quarter of pensioners are millionaires? And if it just because of their house, its irrelevant if you are asset rich, cash poor, particularly if as expected council tax is going to be going up.
Also, even in the 90s the number of pensioners actually dying from no heating will have been small, but it doesn't matter if media decide its a thing, every Maureen freezing to death becomes a scandal.
Living in millionaire households - actual individual millionaires will be lower.
"The latest statistics, from 2020, show that 27 percent of those 65 and over live in households with a total wealth of £1m or more. The data does not show whether these individuals are millionaires, and much of the wealth comes from house and pension value, rather than disposable financial wealth."
And that is from 2020, reasonable asset price inflation since then so I suspect it will be pushing a third now.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Back then you didnt have a quarter to a third of pensioners living in millionaire households either. Things change.
Where are you getting a quarter of pensioners are millionaires? And if it just because of their house, its irrelevant if you are asset rich, cash poor, particularly if as expected council tax is going to be going up.
Also, even in the 90s the number of pensioners actually dying from no heating will have been small, but it doesn't matter if media decide its a thing, every Maureen freezing to death becomes a scandal.
The combination of home value and pension pot will be over a million for many of the younger pensioners.
For the older oldies the value of the pension pot will have falling for a decade or two as it is being spent.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
That's great, but it also gave people like @NickPalmer and me to say go on a weekend break to Europe free of charge and that is not a good use of taxpayers money. Limiting to those who need it seems like a sensible compromise.
As I said before there is a better and easier way, you nudge the tax system.
That doesn't work. See reply to @Pagan2. Rich people with drawdown pensions and savings won't get pulled into the tax system for ages. If you don't yet take your drawdown you won't be paying tax yet. You will simply be hitting the pensioners who have a state pension and small annuity or DB pension and missing the more well off.
Either get the pension to an acceptable level so people don't need benefits or give benefits to those that need them and not those that don't like me. I should not get any benefits.
If you’re entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2023 to 2024, you will get an extra £150 or £300 paid with your normal payment from November 2023.
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Nevada waves its little paw, and says "look at me! look at me!"
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
That's great, but it also gave people like @NickPalmer and me to say go on a weekend break to Europe free of charge and that is not a good use of taxpayers money. Limiting to those who need it seems like a sensible compromise.
As I said before there is a better and easier way, you nudge the tax system. The problem looks like there are going to be people still on pretty low income no longer entitled to it, so the danger for the government is those people get in serious trouble and it becomes a PR nightmare.
Nah. Stopping unecessary handouts is always preferable to messing with the tax system which is way too complicated already.
We should means test all Government handouts* and return to the first principle of Government handouts being a safety net for those in need, not pocket money for those who are finacially secure. Clarke and Brown started this when they reduced and then got rid of MIRAS. It is an example we should follow.
*And I include in that the one that I get which is child benefit.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Who the fuck still goes to "the pub" anyway?
Er, like everyone ?
Not angry vegans it would appear.
Pattern there, innit.
You can always visit his house for lettuce, a glass of water, and get bored off your tits scrolling through a bicycle parts catalogue and hearing an extremely violent rant about people who disagree with him, though.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
It's impossible to cut back state spending without cutting back on benefits to pensioners. Not just the state pension, but also the NHS which disproportionately serves the retired, and that's before all the means tested and other benefits such as support for carers, council tax rebates, etc etc.
The brutal truth is that a small state is incompatible with the Tory promises to featherbed the grey vote. You can have one ot the other, not both.
Labour want a big state but simply want to shift the featherbedding from pensioners to union members.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
That's great, but it also gave people like @NickPalmer and me to say go on a weekend break to Europe free of charge and that is not a good use of taxpayers money. Limiting to those who need it seems like a sensible compromise.
As I said before there is a better and easier way, you nudge the tax system. The problem looks like there are going to be people still on pretty low income no longer entitled to it, so the danger for the government is those people get in serious trouble and it becomes a PR nightmare.
Nah. Stopping unecessary handouts is always preferable to messing with the tax system which is way too complicated already.
We should means test all Government handouts* and return to the first principle of Government handouts being a safety net for those in need, not pocket money for those who are finacially secure. Clarke and Brown started this when they reduced and then got rid of MIRAS. It is an example we should follow.
*And I include in that the one that I get which is child benefit.
Problem with that is means testing can get very expensive very quickly. Free tv licence cost ~£150m a year to administor.
Harris’ lead in the polls according to RCP is +1.5. On a like for like basis (ie the RCP averages from last time), she is 6%+ down from Biden at this stage and 4% from Clinton.
I think to believe Harris’ candidacy is increasing likely and it may even be a mini-landslide, you have to assume one or a combo of a few factors (1) Harris’ Big Momentum continues (2) Trump’s campaign implodes (3) the consumer suddenly feels a lot better off and / or (4) the polls underestimate Harris. All are possible but unlikely as things stand:
Harris has had the best start any candidate could have but she has to define policies at some point. The one she mentioned so far - price controls - has been received poorly.
Trump has a track record of flailing and making mistakes but, at some point, correcting himself. His making up with Kemp suggests this is happening again
The consumer is feeling worse not better and interest rate cuts take time to feed through
Hard to think of a ‘shy Harris’ effect and possible it’s more exaggerated on the other side with voters saying they will vote for a Black woman when they won’t.
I wouldn’t be betting at this stage and it still looks close as Sean Trende mentioned when looking at the Washington results
"Harris’ lead in the polls according to RCP is +1.5. On a like for like basis (ie the RCP averages from last time), she is 6%+ down from Biden at this stage and 4% from Clinton."
Sure, but it's also true that pollsters change their models after each election, as they seek to become more accurate. So, I would be careful about assuming pollster bias against a political party persists between electoral cycles.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Back then you didnt have a quarter to a third of pensioners living in millionaire households either. Things change.
Is it really that high?
Important to remember household wealth is not individual wealth, property wealth is somewhat hypothetical and difficult to liquidate into income if needed in a hurry - and large pension pots, until recently, translated into pitiful income.
Also tax treatment (particularly of property) has incentivised older folks to stay in the family home, even when all their family has left/departed.
A lot of the wealth is, sort of, paper wealth.
On the flip side, the point made by @foxy ^ about the value of "free" healthcare is an excellent one. I wonder what value could be attached to that? Perhaps calculated off American healthcare premiums?
Anyone aware of academic / think tank research on this?
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Back then you didnt have a quarter to a third of pensioners living in millionaire households either. Things change.
Where are you getting a quarter of pensioners are millionaires? And if it just because of their house, its irrelevant if you are asset rich, cash poor, particularly if as expected council tax is going to be going up.
Also, even in the 90s the number of pensioners actually dying from no heating will have been small, but it doesn't matter if media decide its a thing, every Maureen freezing to death becomes a scandal.
Living in millionaire households - actual individual millionaires will be lower.
"The latest statistics, from 2020, show that 27 percent of those 65 and over live in households with a total wealth of £1m or more. The data does not show whether these individuals are millionaires, and much of the wealth comes from house and pension value, rather than disposable financial wealth."
And that is from 2020, reasonable asset price inflation since then so I suspect it will be pushing a third now.
And here we get to another problem.
If you're sitting in a house with an inflated asset value, and need the money, the sensible thing to do is to sell the home.
But the home for many is for them their insurance policy for their care costs. And while more senior living options have come onto the market in recent years, this is nowhere near enough.
The problem of people living in expensive houses with limited income will continue until we fix the care problem. A problem that no party seems to ever want to tackle.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Though at that point, the basic state pension was considerably less generous.
By 2023, the action of the triple lock has added about £800 to the state pension compared with the pure inflation lock introduced by Maggie in her first term. And that's before the frankly quirky transient effects of the inflation pulse we've just had.
In Starmers Britain are we allowed to repost Bild description of the German knife attack? Asking for a friend.
very classy, bravo
No a serious question. Are we allowed? Aftet the riots there were statements made that we now need to be very careful about doing such things.
stop being a dick
TSE literally posted on here saying after taking legal advice given the statement of the head of the CPS we now had to be very careful now in relation to these types of things.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
46% going either once a week or once a fortnight is pretty strong.
I expect a good chunk of the rest go too, but less occasionally. Those with very young families, or perhaps the elderly or sick, far less, and there's probably a gender skew in it too. Males more than females.
However, outside the "dry" and religious, it's still a huge feature of work and personal social life.
I can't think of anyone who wouldn't go, if asked or invited.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
Though at that point, the basic state pension was considerably less generous.
By 2023, the action of the triple lock has added about £800 to the state pension compared with the pure inflation lock introduced by Maggie in her first term. And that's before the frankly quirky transient effects of the inflation pulse we've just had.
That's true, but energy bills are also massively higher. And by all reports council tax will be going up and many pensioners live in homes that are now very valuable but they are cash poor.
In Starmers Britain are we allowed to repost Bild description of the German knife attack? Asking for a friend.
very classy, bravo
No a serious question. Are we allowed? Aftet the riots there were statements made that we now need to be very careful about doing such things.
stop being a dick
TSE literally posted on here saying after taking legal advice given the statement of the head of the CPS we now had to be very careful now in relation to these types of things.
if you think you have to be v careful it's probably because you're trying to be an edgelord
Harris’ lead in the polls according to RCP is +1.5. On a like for like basis (ie the RCP averages from last time), she is 6%+ down from Biden at this stage and 4% from Clinton.
I think to believe Harris’ candidacy is increasing likely and it may even be a mini-landslide, you have to assume one or a combo of a few factors (1) Harris’ Big Momentum continues (2) Trump’s campaign implodes (3) the consumer suddenly feels a lot better off and / or (4) the polls underestimate Harris. All are possible but unlikely as things stand:
Harris has had the best start any candidate could have but she has to define policies at some point. The one she mentioned so far - price controls - has been received poorly.
Trump has a track record of flailing and making mistakes but, at some point, correcting himself. His making up with Kemp suggests this is happening again
The consumer is feeling worse not better and interest rate cuts take time to feed through
Hard to think of a ‘shy Harris’ effect and possible it’s more exaggerated on the other side with voters saying they will vote for a Black woman when they won’t.
I wouldn’t be betting at this stage and it still looks close as Sean Trende mentioned when looking at the Washington results
On 3) the warning signs are flashing red on US entering a recession. Non-farm payroll numbers were not as the central bankers had wanted apparently.
If it hits before November then Harris's task is even harder.
If you’re entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2023 to 2024, you will get an extra £150 or £300 paid with your normal payment from November 2023.
It would be illogical to do so - the increase in the state pension takes into account inflation.
But if she doesn't then that's going to be another thing for the oldies to be upset about.
I see nothing about those payments 2024-2025. I think it's finished.
It was a one off
I believe it was a two off:
Pensioner Cost of Living Payment
If you’re entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2022 to 2023, you will get an extra £150 or £300 paid with your normal payment from November 2022. This is in addition to any Cost of Living Payment you get with your benefit or tax credits.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
That's great, but it also gave people like @NickPalmer and me to say go on a weekend break to Europe free of charge and that is not a good use of taxpayers money. Limiting to those who need it seems like a sensible compromise.
But as many including myself have said where they set the boundary (ie pension credit) has cut off many who do need it. A pensioner with an annual income of 11.5k will for example no longer get it. I don't think many are disagreeing that rich pensioners should not get it.
Obviously not disagreeing with you there @Pagan2. I was just pointing out your suggested mechanism doesn't work. It would actually give the benefit to the most wealthy pensioners as well. It is easy to say it needs sorting. It is much harder to say how.
Labour have done the easy obvious option of limiting it to those on benefits. Your argument seems to be either the state pension is not enough or maybe the threshold for pensioner benefits is not high enough. Its one or both of those that need sorting now then.
As with all these things people fall through the cracks. One needs to minimise these and help those that do.
I had a friend over from Louisiana in july but talk to them most days, she is a republican voter. She thinks Harris is useless, she also doesn't have time for trump. However the project 2025 stuff has brought her to decide that she has to vote democrat this election....in her words "my daughter is 14....I don't want her growing up in a country that's governed the way the project 2025 people think it should be"
She sounds very engaged? Does the average American voter know what Project 2025 is?
You don't need the average American voter to know about it. You need a bunch of former low turnout groups who would be affected by it to hear about (young women); you need independent women with teenage children to hear about it, and you need non-Evangelical Republicans to hear about it.
In the first case, you want them to get out and vote. In the second the statistics are insane - mothers of daughters support their right to an abortion if raped by ratios of 8:1. And in the third case, you're basically hoping to slightly depress Haley supporters turnout.
The problem of public spending and who to spend it on, that not the real problem, the real issue is low growth and piss poor productivity. The pie has been shrinking in real terms for nearly 20 years especially if you consider it in per capita terms. We haven't had good solid growth per capita since early 2000s. Until that problem can be solved just going to get worse.
And yet over the same period, the UK economy has been a job creating machine with massive growth in the number of people employed. Maybe we're too addicted to labour.
My take is similar to the Header. I think Harris will win and there's a good chance (say 30%) that it won't be close. If pushed to predict right now (although only a fool etc) I'd say Harris by 5 pts PV and about 100 in the EC.
Betting strategy for this? If the consensus is still 'coin toss' when the spreads come out (and my view is unchanged) buy Harris supremacy. That's the best and simplest way.
However this is what I planned to do with Labour here and it didn't pan out. I was ahead of the curve in seeing that landslide coming but by the time the GE spreads were available a landslide was expected and Lab seats were quoted at Blair 97 levels. So, no value spread bet on the landslide available. You'd have had to get going much earlier with the seat bands on betfair to profit from that view.
So the equivalent here, like Nigel says, is you look for states to flip blue. NC isn't exactly thrilling at 2.5. Florida at 7 is good imo and maybe Texas at 10 if you can get matched there. Ohio is too much of a stretch but if 15 was available I'd do it.
The problem of public spending and who to spend it on, that not the real problem, the real issue is low growth and piss poor productivity. The pie has been shrinking in real terms for nearly 20 years especially if you consider it in per capita terms. We haven't had good solid growth per capita since early 2000s. Until that problem can be solved just going to get worse.
And yet over the same period, the UK economy has been a job creating machine with massive growth in the number of people employed. Maybe we're too addicted to labour.
Well one of the issues is it has been far cheaper to just import cheap labour than invest long term in cutting edge equipment. Hand car washes being an obvious example, where as in the US same industry is a massive growth area, but its all automated highly efficient setups often with zero staff.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
46% going either once a week or once a fortnight is pretty strong.
I expect a good chunk of the rest go too, but less occasionally. Those with very young families, or perhaps the elderly or sick, far less, and there's probably a gender skew in it too. Males more than females.
However, outside the "dry" and religious, it's still a huge feature of work and personal social life.
I can't think of anyone who wouldn't go, if asked or invited.
I'm a regular so I am biased, but for me the pub is one of the things that is particularly British. I am nowhere near a traditionalist like you @Casino_Royale , but I really do enjoy many British traditions and the pub must be one of the top ones.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
That's great, but it also gave people like @NickPalmer and me to say go on a weekend break to Europe free of charge and that is not a good use of taxpayers money. Limiting to those who need it seems like a sensible compromise.
As I said before there is a better and easier way, you nudge the tax system. The problem looks like there are going to be people still on pretty low income no longer entitled to it, so the danger for the government is those people get in serious trouble and it becomes a PR nightmare.
Nah. Stopping unecessary handouts is always preferable to messing with the tax system which is way too complicated already.
We should means test all Government handouts* and return to the first principle of Government handouts being a safety net for those in need, not pocket money for those who are finacially secure. Clarke and Brown started this when they reduced and then got rid of MIRAS. It is an example we should follow.
*And I include in that the one that I get which is child benefit.
Problem with that is means testing can get very expensive very quickly. Free tv licence cost ~£150m a year to administor.
I think this is a falacious argument. We are not yet set up to do it properly but to be honest we manage to run a system that means tests everyone in reverse for how much they pay in tax. So why shouldn't we use the same system to means test everyone for how much they receive as well? Indeed we already means test to some extent with the top up to the pension for low income pensioners.
Australia run a means tested pension system as do Denmark and Canada to some extent. The systems are already in place for this. We simply need to adapt them and have the political will to use them.
Harris’ lead in the polls according to RCP is +1.5. On a like for like basis (ie the RCP averages from last time), she is 6%+ down from Biden at this stage and 4% from Clinton.
I think to believe Harris’ candidacy is increasing likely and it may even be a mini-landslide, you have to assume one or a combo of a few factors (1) Harris’ Big Momentum continues (2) Trump’s campaign implodes (3) the consumer suddenly feels a lot better off and / or (4) the polls underestimate Harris. All are possible but unlikely as things stand:
Harris has had the best start any candidate could have but she has to define policies at some point. The one she mentioned so far - price controls - has been received poorly.
Trump has a track record of flailing and making mistakes but, at some point, correcting himself. His making up with Kemp suggests this is happening again
The consumer is feeling worse not better and interest rate cuts take time to feed through
Hard to think of a ‘shy Harris’ effect and possible it’s more exaggerated on the other side with voters saying they will vote for a Black woman when they won’t.
I wouldn’t be betting at this stage and it still looks close as Sean Trende mentioned when looking at the Washington results
On 3) the warning signs are flashing red on US entering a recession. Non-farm payroll numbers were not as the central bankers had wanted apparently.
If it hits before November then Harris's task is even harder.
Not all recessions are the same.
There are recessions with soaring energy prices, rising interest rates, crashing banks, mass redundancies.
Voters notice those as they affect people personally.
Then there are recessions which are a short and small fall in economic activity.
Only economic nerds notice those.
Unless something very big happens very soon there is no chance of the first type of recession happening before November.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
That's great, but it also gave people like @NickPalmer and me to say go on a weekend break to Europe free of charge and that is not a good use of taxpayers money. Limiting to those who need it seems like a sensible compromise.
As I said before there is a better and easier way, you nudge the tax system. The problem looks like there are going to be people still on pretty low income no longer entitled to it, so the danger for the government is those people get in serious trouble and it becomes a PR nightmare.
Nah. Stopping unecessary handouts is always preferable to messing with the tax system which is way too complicated already.
We should means test all Government handouts* and return to the first principle of Government handouts being a safety net for those in need, not pocket money for those who are finacially secure. Clarke and Brown started this when they reduced and then got rid of MIRAS. It is an example we should follow.
*And I include in that the one that I get which is child benefit.
Problem with that is means testing can get very expensive very quickly. Free tv licence cost ~£150m a year to administor.
I think this is a falacious argument. We are not yet set up to do it properly but to be honest we manage to run a system that means tests everyone in reverse for how much they pay in tax. So why shouldn't we use the same system to means test everyone for how much they receive as well? Indeed we already means test to some extent with the top up to the pension for low income pensioners.
Australia run a means tested pension system as do Denmark and Canada to some extent. The systems are already in place for this. We simply need to adapt them and have the political will to use them.
Brown looked at this and consistently found that it was just cheaper to give a benefit to everybody or a wide group. We have seen with likes of universal credit how super complex and expensive these things get. It is why so often it is easier just to increase / decrease tax on people. Its also why tax credits are so stupid as you introduce this massive extra layer of admin.
We should modernise, but i thini universal credit has probably scared every politician from doing anything major.
Its why for ages i have said get rid combine Ni and IC...lets simply and modernise.
If you’re entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2023 to 2024, you will get an extra £150 or £300 paid with your normal payment from November 2023.
It would be illogical to do so - the increase in the state pension takes into account inflation.
But if she doesn't then that's going to be another thing for the oldies to be upset about.
I see nothing about those payments 2024-2025. I think it's finished.
It was a one off
I believe it was a two off:
Pensioner Cost of Living Payment
If you’re entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2022 to 2023, you will get an extra £150 or £300 paid with your normal payment from November 2022. This is in addition to any Cost of Living Payment you get with your benefit or tax credits.
The amount of money the government handed out over the last two years is usually underestimated, often forgotten and quickly taken for granted.
Reeves will have to deal with the consequences of bringing it to an end.
In practice, those increases will have worked their way through cost-of-living figures and into core benefits by now. Indeed, they've worked their way out the other side, which is why inflation figures are expected to creep up from here.
All the short term dollops of cash were needed because the price rises were so sudden; incomes couldn't keep up.
So it's all a problem of politics and opposition (it looks bad) more than government (it is bad). And, however much The Mail and its readership hates it, opposition is basically irrelevant for the next few years.
Please take 40 minutes of your time and listen to one of the most important, moving, and inspirational speeches that I have heard in my lifetime. I expect you will agree.
Alternatively, if you don’t have 40 minutes, listen for five minutes and then you will find time for the rest.
The speech begins at around minute 40.
@RobertKennedyJr addresses the health crisis in our country and its root causes and how he intends to address it. He also scolds the DNC for its anti-Democratic anti-free speech actions during the election.
It doesn’t matter whether you are a Republican, Democrat or otherwise. It is important for you to hear his words, not a short form (mis)translation by the media. We owe him as much for the work, sacrifice, and investment he has made in his campaign and in sharing his important message.
And the short answer is that, if you want a Make America Healthy Again campaign, you don't have DJT as your figurehead. It would be like when Jim Hacker made this guy Health Minister.
How on earth did the Left become the LEAST likely group of people to show concern about America’s adults and children being systemically poisoned by toxic ultra-processed foods, pesticides, and ridiculous numbers of prescription meds?
Someone PLEASE explain to me how the party of hippies, vegans, peace, and love— become ao captured by the Establishment and Big Pharma? 10:20 PM · Aug 23, 2024 · 45.6K Views
If you’re entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2023 to 2024, you will get an extra £150 or £300 paid with your normal payment from November 2023.
It would be illogical to do so - the increase in the state pension takes into account inflation.
But if she doesn't then that's going to be another thing for the oldies to be upset about.
I see nothing about those payments 2024-2025. I think it's finished.
It was a one off
I believe it was a two off:
Pensioner Cost of Living Payment
If you’re entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2022 to 2023, you will get an extra £150 or £300 paid with your normal payment from November 2022. This is in addition to any Cost of Living Payment you get with your benefit or tax credits.
The amount of money the government handed out over the last two years is usually underestimated, often forgotten and quickly taken for granted.
Reeves will have to deal with the consequences of bringing it to an end.
In practice, those increases will have worked their way through cost-of-living figures and into core benefits by now. Indeed, they've worked their way out the other side, which is why inflation figures are expected to creep up from here.
All the short term dollops of cash were needed because the price rises were so sudden; incomes couldn't keep up.
So it's all a problem of politics and opposition (it looks bad) more than government (it is bad). And, however much The Mail and its readership hates it, opposition is basically irrelevant for the next few years.
Indeed, a government with a big majority can generally do what it wants and what it feels it needs to.
But that doesn't mean that opposition will not find its outlet.
From voters at future elections and perhaps sooner with disgruntled people within its own party.
The strong reaction to @RobertKennedyJr on both sides illustrates exactly how effective and powerful truth and honesty still are in this country. It gives decent people hope and keeps the evil terrified. Though the system itself remains broken and corrupt, his words today were a welcomed change of pace and a breath of fresh air. Last edited 10:13 PM · Aug 23, 2024 · 42.6K Views
RFK Jr. takes the stage and declares that the Democratic Party now represents the OPPOSITE of democracy.
"As you know, I left that party in October because it had departed so dramatically from the core values that I grew up with. It had become the party of war, censorship, corruption, big pharma, big tech, big ag, and big money. When it abandoned democracy by canceling the primary to conceal the cognitive decline of the sitting president, I left the party to run as an independent."
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Agreed. There is a narrative being pushed by some that she is something like an Obama or Clinton but I think that is almost exclusively driven by the desire to stop Trump, rather than Harris being inspirational.
Thanks for the header Nigelb. I can't really see evidence that it won't be close, but agree on the lack of betting opportunities.
It's actually hard to see which states she will win apart from the states Biden won in 2020 plus N Carolina. Florida at a stretch? Of course Florida is big with 30 EC votes so that would be a big Harris win if she won there.
Similarly hard to see Trump winning any states other than the ones he won in 2016. Virginia looks to be the closest, maybe New Hampshire?
Nevada waves its little paw, and says "look at me! look at me!"
How much of a difference do you think an interest rate cut will make ?
Healthy? Just look at those two faces. Trump/RFK. One's bright orange and the other is deepest purest gammon.
Those slurs tell me everything about a hampstead libetal such as yourself. Kennedy said 600000 ukrainians had died in the ukraine war a tragedy. Do you support this.
Harris’ lead in the polls according to RCP is +1.5. On a like for like basis (ie the RCP averages from last time), she is 6%+ down from Biden at this stage and 4% from Clinton.
I think to believe Harris’ candidacy is increasing likely and it may even be a mini-landslide, you have to assume one or a combo of a few factors (1) Harris’ Big Momentum continues (2) Trump’s campaign implodes (3) the consumer suddenly feels a lot better off and / or (4) the polls underestimate Harris. All are possible but unlikely as things stand:
Harris has had the best start any candidate could have but she has to define policies at some point. The one she mentioned so far - price controls - has been received poorly.
Trump has a track record of flailing and making mistakes but, at some point, correcting himself. His making up with Kemp suggests this is happening again
The consumer is feeling worse not better and interest rate cuts take time to feed through
Hard to think of a ‘shy Harris’ effect and possible it’s more exaggerated on the other side with voters saying they will vote for a Black woman when they won’t.
I wouldn’t be betting at this stage and it still looks close as Sean Trende mentioned when looking at the Washington results
On 3) the warning signs are flashing red on US entering a recession. Non-farm payroll numbers were not as the central bankers had wanted apparently.
If it hits before November then Harris's task is even harder.
Joe Public (US) is more exposed to the stock market than UK equivalent. It's distinctly possible that the lurch at the beginning of the month was just a warm up. September sees a disproportionate number of stock market crashes.
Harris’ lead in the polls according to RCP is +1.5. On a like for like basis (ie the RCP averages from last time), she is 6%+ down from Biden at this stage and 4% from Clinton.
I think to believe Harris’ candidacy is increasing likely and it may even be a mini-landslide, you have to assume one or a combo of a few factors (1) Harris’ Big Momentum continues (2) Trump’s campaign implodes (3) the consumer suddenly feels a lot better off and / or (4) the polls underestimate Harris. All are possible but unlikely as things stand:
Harris has had the best start any candidate could have but she has to define policies at some point. The one she mentioned so far - price controls - has been received poorly.
Trump has a track record of flailing and making mistakes but, at some point, correcting himself. His making up with Kemp suggests this is happening again
The consumer is feeling worse not better and interest rate cuts take time to feed through
Hard to think of a ‘shy Harris’ effect and possible it’s more exaggerated on the other side with voters saying they will vote for a Black woman when they won’t.
I wouldn’t be betting at this stage and it still looks close as Sean Trende mentioned when looking at the Washington results
On 3) the warning signs are flashing red on US entering a recession. Non-farm payroll numbers were not as the central bankers had wanted apparently.
If it hits before November then Harris's task is even harder.
Joe Public (US) is more exposed to the stock market than UK equivalent. It's distinctly possible that the lurch at the beginning of the month was just a warm up. September sees a disproportionate number of stock market crashes.
The removal of the automatic right to the winter fuel allowance hasn't gone down too well with those who will end up a little worse off.
Of course, the hyperbole of "little old grannies freezing to death" is overdone considering those in real need are still going to receive the allowance but the more pertinent question is what can the Government do (if it's not going to be an automatic right) to ensure the 850,000 pensioners who do not currently claim pension credit and therefore the winter fuel allowance get that to which they are entitled. I'm told ignorance is one reason (that can be addressed) and "pride" another.
"Pride" is a difficult one - from where I sit, I'd rather be humble and warm than proud and cold but I know that's not how everyone sees it and there's a natural resistance to going through a means testing process - there's an analogy with the reaction ot proposed affordability checks on punters.
However, the public finances are in a parlous state and I'd like to think (though I see plenty of evidence to the contrary) handing out public money wholesale wouldn't be the preserve of an "Iron" Chancellor. We all know of course winning elections means thanking your friends and supporters whether they be big business via tax cuts or trade unions via wage increases.
Stodge's Eighth Law of Politics states annoying your enemies is fine, they'll never be your friends. Annoying your friends is a bad move because they stop being your friends and become your enemies and in politics you need all the friends you can get.
42% of those over 65 voted Conservative in July, only 23% voted Labour. If the worst result for the Conservatives since the introduction of universal suffrage still left Labour trailing by nearly 2-1 in the over 65 age group, I imagine labour may be thinking they'll never win in that age group and naturally will look to boosting their base among younger voters
To be brutal, there is little point in Labour chasing the grey vote. They will not out featherbed the Tories promises.
Favour the young, which includes everyone under 65 nowadays.
You're wrong there.
There are lots of people approaching retirement who are looking forward to all the pensioner handouts and aren't going to be happy if they're taken away before they get them.
A 60 year old is likely to lose out more from WFA being stopped than an 80 year old.
I'm 74 and have lots of reasonably unworried, mostly leftish, pensioner friends - we were all slightly embarrassed to get the full WFA, though we did take it. There will be Labour-voting people approaching pension age who will be disappointed but I shouldn't think it will move many votes.
The whole reason it came in in the first place was because it did move votes because of the annual stories of oldies freezing to death. And that was when energy bills were a lot lower. The PR at the time.for the government was terrible.
That's great, but it also gave people like @NickPalmer and me to say go on a weekend break to Europe free of charge and that is not a good use of taxpayers money. Limiting to those who need it seems like a sensible compromise.
As I said before there is a better and easier way, you nudge the tax system. The problem looks like there are going to be people still on pretty low income no longer entitled to it, so the danger for the government is those people get in serious trouble and it becomes a PR nightmare.
Nah. Stopping unecessary handouts is always preferable to messing with the tax system which is way too complicated already.
We should means test all Government handouts* and return to the first principle of Government handouts being a safety net for those in need, not pocket money for those who are finacially secure. Clarke and Brown started this when they reduced and then got rid of MIRAS. It is an example we should follow.
*And I include in that the one that I get which is child benefit.
Problem with that is means testing can get very expensive very quickly. Free tv licence cost ~£150m a year to administor.
I think this is a falacious argument. We are not yet set up to do it properly but to be honest we manage to run a system that means tests everyone in reverse for how much they pay in tax. So why shouldn't we use the same system to means test everyone for how much they receive as well? Indeed we already means test to some extent with the top up to the pension for low income pensioners.
Australia run a means tested pension system as do Denmark and Canada to some extent. The systems are already in place for this. We simply need to adapt them and have the political will to use them.
Brown looked at this and consistently found that it was just cheaper to give a benefit to everybody or a wide group. We have seen with likes of universal credit how super complex and expensive these things get. It is why so often it is easier just to increase / decrease tax on people. Its also why tax credits are so stupid as you introduce this massive extra layer of admin.
We should modernise, but i thini universal credit has probably scared every politician from doing anything major.
Brown wanted to create a client class that was getting handouts from the Government even when they didn't need them. I had a huge fight with the authorities over this when my wife and I refused to complete the paperwork for tax credits because we didn't think we should be getting it when we earned a decent income.
Why is it that you can get Child Benefit for a household income of £120,000 a year? (Both parents working)? It is a bribe to the middle classes.
Healthy? Just look at those two faces. Trump/RFK. One's bright orange and the other is deepest purest gammon.
Those slurs tell me everything about a hampstead libetal such as yourself. Kennedy said 600000 ukrainians had died in the ukraine war a tragedy. Do you support this.
On topic - I think it is highly unlikely that either side will win big in the US. There are two big blocs of voters out there that will not change - though their turnout rates might. It is clear Dems turnout will now be nuch stronger than if Biden was still candidate.
Then there is a smaller group of switch-voters. This is like the UK in the 50s. Their movement decides the election. In 2016 they didn't like Hilary and didn't think Trump was so bad so they swung massively to the Reps. In 2016 they weren't impressed by Trump's record and weren't scared of Biden but still helped Trump claw back some of his deficit. Harris has to win those middle voters and win them big - a reverse 2016 you might say. It is not an easy task but she has begun well.
Meanwhile - Trump in Glendale, AZ His best performance for a week in terms of energy - no doubt due to a good crowd and the fact (courtesy of Kennedy) he knew lots of eyeballs would be on the speech. Nothing kills Trump like knowing the attention is elsewhere. That's the plus. The negative is of course the fact the crowd response lured Trump into playing the same old hits and fitting seamlessly into the Dem hitjob on him.
Dem strategy = pit Hope, Optimism and Harris against Negativity, Tedium and Trump.
If he fights on the issues then Trump almost certainly wins. If he parades around like a old man Golf Club bore then he probably loses. Those middle voters, there is reason to suggest, are really tired of that act
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
Fair enough.
I've always been a sucker for the nutters, and found betting on (and against) the libertarian fringe quite profitable.
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
For Winston's sake, I hope he wasn't on a per-post contract.
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
You're a cruel man. His reward would have been promotion to the defence of Kursk.
In Starmers Britain are we allowed to repost Bild description of the German knife attack? Asking for a friend.
After checking Google's translation of Bild, it seems the description is so sketchy that there is speculation there might have even have been two attackers, and that police have already arrested and cleared one bloke.
So I'd steer clear. Panic in the dark does not reliable witnesses make.
On topic, I think Harris is Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm but not much more.
At present, I expect a narrow win as she'll campaign in the right places and smile, but this isn't going to be an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Regan landslide.
Hi CR.
Harris really is nothing at all like Hilary Clinton.
It’s not just her colour and background. It’s her lack of entitlement, her ability to roll up her sleeves and get stuck in with the under-privileged.
Hilary could and should have won in 2016 if she wasn’t so stuck up.
Chalk and cheese.
Doesn’t guarantee Kamala will win but she’s not repeating Hilary’s mistakes. And she’s 10 years younger than Hilary was and that age mattered. Hilary looked frail in 2016. As Trump does now, nearing 80 years old.
The younger one will win it.
Yes, exactly. That's why I said she'll campaign in the right places with a smile.
The rest was a psephological point: I think demographically her voting coalition, as well as the votes themselves, will be very similar.
Hillary Clinton was too arrogant and too interested in lecturing on sex and race for people to warm to her.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
The downfall of Liz Truss — by those who were there
Her premiership was the shortest and most chaotic in British history. In his new book, Anthony Seldon talks to the key aides, allies and civil servants who witnessed the arrogance, the rows, the tears and the meltdowns
The article is rubbish. Truss's premiership wasn't the shortest in history - not even close. The 18th century Long Administration, under the Earl of Bath in 1746, lasted only 48 hours, not 38 days, and anyway was by some measures the best government we've ever had. As a leaflet at the time said, to the astonishment of all wise men, it never transacted one rash thing, and, even more remarkably, left as much money in the Treasury as it found there.
I reckon I could do it for 48 hours. Maybe we all could.
You could probably stay up for the whole thing and then jack it in and go for a nice long sleep after, whilst Seldon wrote a (very) short book about it.
"Casino was one of the greats. He turned up at 10am to chair COBRA, looked terrified, promptly shat himself and then appealed to his officials for help whilst his lower lip wobbled tremendously. But his heart was in the right place, and he meant well. And he at least showed his colleagues how Betfair Exchange worked."
From what we have learnt from the betting scandal, that is an accurate description of how government works anyway. You'd fit right in.
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
He had suspiciously accurate info about the capital markets, I expect SMERSH will be purging him anyway
I agree that the Tories spent far too much chasing the pensioner vote at the expense of the working population. But the way some talk about pensioners on here is as if they’re universally as rich as Croesus and raking it in with all these generous entitlements. The state pension is not (despite the cries of unfairness about the triple lock) a huge sum, and a significant amount of the pensioner class rely on it with limited private pensions/savings.
Labour will be onto a hiding to nothing if they manage to p*ss off pensioners to a significant degree. Two things to bear in mind: a lot of pensioners have children, who will never hear the end of any Labour unfairness from their parents, and plenty of people in their 50s (or younger!) already have one eye on their retirement. And I say that as someone who believes some careful recalibration is needed, and support the removal of some universal benefits (though as I have said before, pension credit was the wrong benchmark for the WFA).
I tend to agree with that. So I support the triple lock until state pensions reach an acceptable basic level. However a mechanism needs to be implemented to ensure people like me do not get things like the winter fuel allowance and Christmas bonus. Labour does seem to have taken the right approach, but it does need to get those not getting these benefits on to them
Has the £10 Christmas bonus been cut. It should be, if for no other reason £10 is ridiculous. I shouldn't get, but maybe those on benefits could do with £100.
The full triple-locked pension, even today, is under £1,000 a month but still extremely expensive, and probably unsustainable.
It just goes to show what a fantasy ideas of a UBI are.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
I saw a comment from a US pollster last night that polling on Harris shows that she was, until the start of this week, largely unknown to most of the US public. Obviously they knew she was VP, but they had little opinion on her as a person or as a politician. This got me thinking: a presidential candidate is defined for the voters in two ways: a) they are the incumbent, with all the positives and negatives that that entails; they will have been seen taking positions on high profile issues, running a competent or incompetent administration, and so on. And the media from the other side of the spectrum will have been attacking them for some time. So the candidate will largely be defined by factors beyond their direct control. b) they have won through the primary process. While the fact of winning is going to be down to a number of positive factors, the voters will have seen them get attacked by other primary candidates, the opposing party, and opposing media. Again, the public perception of the candidate wil be largely created oppositionally.
Now for Harris, the quick handover from Biden, and the rapid coalescing of the party behind her, means the Republicans and their media have not had the chance to define her on their terms. And now the public perception will be formed on the basis of a universally positive convention, which has garnered very impressive ratings - this being the other point the pollster made, that people want to find out about Harris, and were looking to the convention to learn about her.
So, to conclude, I think that Trump and the Republicans are going to struggle to find a negative framing for Harris, because the public perception is already hardening into a fixed view. There may or may not be a convention 'bounce', but it has served a useful purpose already.
The analysis I like best is that the Democrats have gone from wake to wedding party.
She massively enthuses their base, and I'm pretty confident she'll win the popular vote, but we still know there are 45%+ of Americans who'll never touch her and plenty of close swing states.
What if the Republicans drop Trump, what if Putin sends poisoners over to finish him off, what would a new Republican candidate bring. There would be arguments too late his name is on the Ballot etc, but if he dies then thy have to replace. What I am saying be ready for the unexpected, Trump might be in prison, there are so many permutations.
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
To be fair, not an interesting one. Some of them you can confuse the hell out of with counter trolling (Remember Clarkman, who thought he'd taken his name from Jeremy Clarkson?) but that one was embarrassingly poor.
On topic - I think it is highly unlikely that either side will win big in the US. There are two big blocs of voters out there that will not change - though their turnout rates might. It is clear Dems turnout will now be nuch stronger than if Biden was still candidate.
I feel like DJT is a completely known quantity at this point; everybody who will vote for him has probably already decided.
If Kamala has any significant weaknesses as a candidate, beyond the insipid legacy of the Abu Hunter regime, then they have not really manifested yet implying her numbers won't move each either.
So, absent an October Surprise, the result probably be narrow, no matter who wins.
A reminder we have record employment because we are not counting many of those not working (as to be fair, the linked article mentions). The labour market is tight and most candidates will have more experience than recent school or college leavers. Mental health issues (as covered in the story) also seem more prevalent now.
Plenty find the "human" and social side of work really difficult, in which there is precisely no training or education offered, and you need an understanding employer and strong mentor and coach to get better at.
No-one is ever taught people skills or the importance of emotional self-control at school or university, and some struggle anyway.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
Indeed. Only from Lucky's extreme right-wing promontory does Clarkson seem in any way liberal.
Then again, since he (Luckyguy1983) thinks Clarkson's attack on Meghan Markle was designed to help her, we should remember that his judgement is, er, somewhat suspect.
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I think Clarkson is Cameroon Tory/Orange Book.
Nothing about him makes me think he might be anything different.
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
The pattern is always pretty similar though, isn't it?
1) US or UK election 2) Liberal establishment media 3) Vaccines 4) War in Ukraine
Jeremy Clarkson's opened a pub in Witney constituency and immediately barred Keir Starmer. This has been celebrated by the right wing media but I wonder what the reaction would have been if say Carol Vorderman opened a pub and told the public that Kimi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick wasn't welcome over the threshold.
Now I know and I support a landlord's right to bar anyone they like from their pub. [just having Peggy Mitchell flashbacks there] but it's the blatant hypocrisy that's hard to stomach. Do right-wingers care about cancel culture or not or just when it sorts them?
Clarkson's not particularly right wing. A Cameroon remainer Tory.
Yep, I expect he is doing it entirely for marketing reasons to make more money. A proper old fashioned Tory. A problem the 'new' right faces aswell though. Many of their most effective new media personalities ultimately want to end up stateside like Douglas Murray where the big bucks are.
Clarkson is a funny one. Since before Brexit I've just put him down as a standard Chipping Norton Cameronite liberal - the sort of left wing person who only really associates with the Tory Party in preference to the Labour Party because they'd be terrified if they ever had to meet a member of the working class. Brexit smoked a lot of these types away from the Tories.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
I don't recall anything Clarkson ever said or did that would single him out as a 'liberal'.
I use the term in its losest sense. I wouldn't describe many left wing people these days as liberal.
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
To be fair, not an interesting one. Some of them you can confuse the hell out of with counter trolling (Remember Clarkman, who thought he'd taken his name from Jeremy Clarkson?) but that one was embarrassingly poor.
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
To be fair, not an interesting one. Some of them you can confuse the hell out of with counter trolling (Remember Clarkman, who thought he'd taken his name from Jeremy Clarkson?) but that one was embarrassingly poor.
Comments
Also, even in the 90s the number of pensioners actually dying from no heating will have been small, but it doesn't matter if media decide its a thing, every Maureen freezing to death becomes a scandal.
It was grossly irresponsible for Hunt to cut NI twice without detailing the cuts required to pay for it and daft for Reeves to accept being painted into a corner.
I was replying to this:
In my fifties and my expectation has always been that pensioner benefits including state pension would mostly be means tested by the time I'm eligible.
Harris’ lead in the polls according to RCP is +1.5. On a like for like basis (ie the RCP averages from last time), she is 6%+ down from Biden at this stage and 4% from Clinton.
I think to believe Harris’ candidacy is increasing likely and it may even be a mini-landslide, you have to assume one or a combo of a few factors (1) Harris’ Big Momentum continues (2) Trump’s campaign implodes (3) the consumer suddenly feels a lot better off and / or (4) the polls underestimate Harris. All are possible but unlikely as things stand:
Harris has had the best start any candidate could have but she has to define policies at some point. The one she mentioned so far - price controls - has been received poorly.
Trump has a track record of flailing and making mistakes but, at some point, correcting himself. His making up with Kemp suggests this is happening again
The consumer is feeling worse not better and interest rate cuts take time to feed through
Hard to think of a ‘shy Harris’ effect and possible it’s more exaggerated on the other side with voters saying they will vote for a Black woman when they won’t.
I wouldn’t be betting at this stage and it still looks close as Sean Trende mentioned when looking at the Washington results
One of the most disappointing things about the new government is all the cancelling of infrastructure. That is something that you can easily borrow for and even more Conservative leaning people have little issue with.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/news/number-millionaire-pensioners-quadruples/
https://theferret.scot/27-per-cent-pensioners-millionaires-mostly-true/
"The latest statistics, from 2020, show that 27 percent of those 65 and over live in households with a total wealth of £1m or more. The data does not show whether these individuals are millionaires, and much of the wealth comes from house and pension value, rather than disposable financial wealth."
And that is from 2020, reasonable asset price inflation since then so I suspect it will be pushing a third now.
For the older oldies the value of the pension pot will have falling for a decade or two as it is being spent.
Either get the pension to an acceptable level so people don't need benefits or give benefits to those that need them and not those that don't like me. I should not get any benefits.
As that's over 80% of homes then it would be easier to keep it for everyone.
We should means test all Government handouts* and return to the first principle of Government handouts being a safety net for those in need, not pocket money for those who are finacially secure. Clarke and Brown started this when they reduced and then got rid of MIRAS. It is an example we should follow.
*And I include in that the one that I get which is child benefit.
You can always visit his house for lettuce, a glass of water, and get bored off your tits scrolling through a bicycle parts catalogue and hearing an extremely violent rant about people who disagree with him, though.
Sure, but it's also true that pollsters change their models after each election, as they seek to become more accurate. So, I would be careful about assuming pollster bias against a political party persists between electoral cycles.
Important to remember household wealth is not individual wealth, property wealth is somewhat hypothetical and difficult to liquidate into income if needed in a hurry - and large pension pots, until recently, translated into pitiful income.
Also tax treatment (particularly of property) has incentivised older folks to stay in the family home, even when all their family has left/departed.
A lot of the wealth is, sort of, paper wealth.
On the flip side, the point made by @foxy ^ about the value of "free" healthcare is an excellent one. I wonder what value could be attached to that? Perhaps calculated off American healthcare premiums?
Anyone aware of academic / think tank research on this?
If you're sitting in a house with an inflated asset value, and need the money, the sensible thing to do is to sell the home.
But the home for many is for them their insurance policy for their care costs. And while more senior living options have come onto the market in recent years, this is nowhere near enough.
The problem of people living in expensive houses with limited income will continue until we fix the care problem. A problem that no party seems to ever want to tackle.
By 2023, the action of the triple lock has added about £800 to the state pension compared with the pure inflation lock introduced by Maggie in her first term. And that's before the frankly quirky transient effects of the inflation pulse we've just had.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-triple-lock-how-will-state-pensions-be-uprated-in-future/
I expect a good chunk of the rest go too, but less occasionally. Those with very young families, or perhaps the elderly or sick, far less, and there's probably a gender skew in it too. Males more than females.
However, outside the "dry" and religious, it's still a huge feature of work and personal social life.
I can't think of anyone who wouldn't go, if asked or invited.
If it hits before November then Harris's task is even harder.
Pensioner Cost of Living Payment
If you’re entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2022 to 2023, you will get an extra £150 or £300 paid with your normal payment from November 2022. This is in addition to any Cost of Living Payment you get with your benefit or tax credits.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/cost-of-living-payment-2022#:~:text=Tax credits-,You were eligible for the first Cost of Living Payment,tax year 2022 to 2023
The amount of money the government handed out over the last two years is usually underestimated, often forgotten and quickly taken for granted.
Reeves will have to deal with the consequences of bringing it to an end.
Labour have done the easy obvious option of limiting it to those on benefits. Your argument seems to be either the state pension is not enough or maybe the threshold for pensioner benefits is not high enough. Its one or both of those that need sorting now then.
As with all these things people fall through the cracks. One needs to minimise these and help those that do.
In the first case, you want them to get out and vote. In the second the statistics are insane - mothers of daughters support their right to an abortion if raped by ratios of 8:1. And in the third case, you're basically hoping to slightly depress Haley supporters turnout.
There is anger and anxiety among MPs over Rachel Reeves’s austerity measure.
https://www.newstatesman.com/the-politics-column/2024/08/labour-faces-a-winter-of-discontent-over-fuel-payment-cuts
Betting strategy for this? If the consensus is still 'coin toss' when the spreads come out (and my view is unchanged) buy Harris supremacy. That's the best and simplest way.
However this is what I planned to do with Labour here and it didn't pan out. I was ahead of the curve in seeing that landslide coming but by the time the GE spreads were available a landslide was expected and Lab seats were quoted at Blair 97 levels. So, no value spread bet on the landslide available. You'd have had to get going much earlier with the seat bands on betfair to profit from that view.
So the equivalent here, like Nigel says, is you look for states to flip blue. NC isn't exactly thrilling at 2.5. Florida at 7 is good imo and maybe Texas at 10 if you can get matched there. Ohio is too much of a stretch but if 15 was available I'd do it.
Australia run a means tested pension system as do Denmark and Canada to some extent. The systems are already in place for this. We simply need to adapt them and have the political will to use them.
There are recessions with soaring energy prices, rising interest rates, crashing banks, mass redundancies.
Voters notice those as they affect people personally.
Then there are recessions which are a short and small fall in economic activity.
Only economic nerds notice those.
Unless something very big happens very soon there is no chance of the first type of recession happening before November.
We should modernise, but i thini universal credit has probably scared every politician from doing anything major.
Its why for ages i have said get rid combine Ni and IC...lets simply and modernise.
All the short term dollops of cash were needed because the price rises were so sudden; incomes couldn't keep up.
So it's all a problem of politics and opposition (it looks bad) more than government (it is bad). And, however much The Mail and its readership hates it, opposition is basically irrelevant for the next few years.
Robert Kennedy Jr. makes an incredible speech at President Trump's rally
"Don't you want a president who is going to make America healthy again?"
https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1827135634928238632
Please take 40 minutes of your time and listen to one of the most important, moving, and inspirational speeches that I have heard in my lifetime. I expect you will agree.
Alternatively, if you don’t have 40 minutes, listen for five minutes and then you will find time for the rest.
The speech begins at around minute 40.
@RobertKennedyJr
addresses the health crisis in our country and its root causes and how he intends to address it. He also scolds the DNC for its anti-Democratic anti-free speech actions during the election.
It doesn’t matter whether you are a Republican, Democrat or otherwise. It is important for you to hear his words, not a short form (mis)translation by the media. We owe him as much for the work, sacrifice, and investment he has made in his campaign and in sharing his important message.
Thank you
@RobertKennedyJr
!
https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1827107178982842829
@RobertKennedyJr
Beautifully said.
https://x.com/LibertariansRFK/status/1827066946224877573
And the short answer is that, if you want a Make America Healthy Again campaign, you don't have DJT as your figurehead. It would be like when Jim Hacker made this guy Health Minister.
Someone PLEASE explain to me how the party of hippies, vegans, peace, and love— become ao captured by the Establishment and Big Pharma?
10:20 PM · Aug 23, 2024
·
45.6K
Views
https://x.com/DrSuneelDhand/status/1827093582488158427
But that doesn't mean that opposition will not find its outlet.
From voters at future elections and perhaps sooner with disgruntled people within its own party.
@RobertKennedyJr
on both sides illustrates exactly how effective and powerful truth and honesty still are in this country. It gives decent people hope and keeps the evil terrified. Though the system itself remains broken and corrupt, his words today were a welcomed change of pace and a breath of fresh air.
Last edited
10:13 PM · Aug 23, 2024
·
42.6K
Views
https://x.com/FiveTimesAugust/status/1827091943563616290
"As you know, I left that party in October because it had departed so dramatically from the core values that I grew up with. It had become the party of war, censorship, corruption, big pharma, big tech, big ag, and big money. When it abandoned democracy by canceling the primary to conceal the cognitive decline of the sitting president, I left the party to run as an independent."
https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1827056215496806658
"It became the party of war, censorship, corruption, big Pharma, big tech, and big money."
https://x.com/GrahamAllen_1/status/1827056048051572801
Why is it that you can get Child Benefit for a household income of £120,000 a year? (Both parents working)? It is a bribe to the middle classes.
RFK JR. Devastates Military Industrial Complex By Explaining True Reasons Behind Russia / Ukraine War
https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1827067992070397966
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-netherlands-pre-qualifying-2024.html
Edited extra bit: also, the qualifying is at 2pm UK time, oddly early for a European race.
Then there is a smaller group of switch-voters. This is like the UK in the 50s. Their movement decides the election. In 2016 they didn't like Hilary and didn't think Trump was so bad so they swung massively to the Reps. In 2016 they weren't impressed by Trump's record and weren't scared of Biden but still helped Trump claw back some of his deficit. Harris has to win those middle voters and win them big - a reverse 2016 you might say. It is not an easy task but she has begun well.
Meanwhile - Trump in Glendale, AZ His best performance for a week in terms of energy - no doubt due to a good crowd and the fact (courtesy of Kennedy) he knew lots of eyeballs would be on the speech. Nothing kills Trump like knowing the attention is elsewhere. That's the plus. The negative is of course the fact the crowd response lured Trump into playing the same old hits and fitting seamlessly into the Dem hitjob on him.
Dem strategy = pit Hope, Optimism and Harris against Negativity, Tedium and Trump.
If he fights on the issues then Trump almost certainly wins. If he parades around like a old man Golf Club bore then he probably loses. Those middle voters, there is reason to suggest, are really tired of that act
And if he hadn't strayed onto his Ukrainian talking points ("Russia winning is good for the Ukrainian people because now they won't have to die fighting off the invaders!"), I would have probably let him stay.
If so, who did you vote for, back in July?
Did any candidates/parties in particular, appeal?
I'd predict for you, based on incredibly limited info;
3/1 Reform
3/1 Indy (any)
6/1 Green
10/1 Con
20/1 Lab
And "did not vote" making up the remainder of the book.
(assuming you have a vote)
How wrong am I?
I've always been a sucker for the nutters, and found betting on (and against) the libertarian fringe quite profitable.
So I'd steer clear. Panic in the dark does not reliable witnesses make.
The rest was a psephological point: I think demographically her voting coalition, as well as the votes themselves, will be very similar.
Hillary Clinton was too arrogant and too interested in lecturing on sex and race for people to warm to her.
Then there was his vile piece about Meghan Markle - that seemed to me in some odd way calculated to engender public sympathy in her favour - though at immense cost to Clarkson's own media career at that time.
But now he's supposedly a born-again right winger - even oddly made his peace with Brexit. I don't buy it or trust him, but I do welcome his support for free speech while it lasts.
It just goes to show what a fantasy ideas of a UBI are.
She massively enthuses their base, and I'm pretty confident she'll win the popular vote, but we still know there are 45%+ of Americans who'll never touch her and plenty of close swing states.
That's why Trump is finding life difficult. As was RFK Jr.
Not as difficult as his mates out East though. They're Kursking their bad fortune.
If Kamala has any significant weaknesses as a candidate, beyond the insipid legacy of the Abu Hunter regime, then they have not really manifested yet implying her numbers won't move each either.
So, absent an October Surprise, the result probably be narrow, no matter who wins.
No-one is ever taught people skills or the importance of emotional self-control at school or university, and some struggle anyway.
Then again, since he (Luckyguy1983) thinks Clarkson's attack on Meghan Markle was designed to help her, we should remember that his judgement is, er, somewhat suspect.
Nothing about him makes me think he might be anything different.
1) US or UK election
2) Liberal establishment media
3) Vaccines
4) War in Ukraine
It's almost exactly like that, actually.