WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
I think you are right with the first suggestion - the "22Bn black hole"
I suspect a range of things were in the initial plan, to be cut. And then, one by one, shot down as being too close to Labour values. WFA was what was left....
That may be right. But they clearly didn’t think through the optics of freezing impoverished grannies to death AT THE SAME as bunging their train driving TUC friends another £10,000 on top of the £60,000 they’re already making
That was basic ineptitude
Also, they hadn’t thought through their defense tactics when queried. To the point they’ve been claiming they “had to do it or there would be a run on the pound”
Which is the argumentation of a ten year old
That's because Starmer is simply following the Osborne playbook post 2010 step-by-step and expecting it to work.
The man is a dissembler not a thinker.
Except that Osborne lead on what would be protected - NHS spending, mainly.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
I think you are right with the first suggestion - the "22Bn black hole"
I suspect a range of things were in the initial plan, to be cut. And then, one by one, shot down as being too close to Labour values. WFA was what was left....
That may be right. But they clearly didn’t think through the optics of freezing impoverished grannies to death AT THE SAME as bunging their train driving TUC friends another £10,000 on top of the £60,000 they’re already making
That was basic ineptitude
Also, they hadn’t thought through their defense tactics when queried. To the point they’ve been claiming they “had to do it or there would be a run on the pound”
Which is the argumentation of a ten year old
That's because Starmer is simply following the Osborne playbook post 2010 step-by-step and expecting it to work.
The man is a dissembler not a thinker.
Yes, they are fighting the last war not the new one
I am mildly astonished by their political ineptitude given the enormous time they had to prepare. They’ve been given a hard hand to play but instead of playing it they’ve dropped their cards on the carpet and run off to the toilet, crying
The lack of a Mandelon and a Campbell - let alone a Blair and Brown - is very noticeable. Where is the intellectual heft and political nous in Starmer’s Labour? There is none
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
I think you are right with the first suggestion - the "22Bn black hole"
I suspect a range of things were in the initial plan, to be cut. And then, one by one, shot down as being too close to Labour values. WFA was what was left....
That may be right. But they clearly didn’t think through the optics of freezing impoverished grannies to death AT THE SAME as bunging their train driving TUC friends another £10,000 on top of the £60,000 they’re already making
That was basic ineptitude
Also, they hadn’t thought through their defense tactics when queried. To the point they’ve been claiming they “had to do it or there would be a run on the pound”
Which is the argumentation of a ten year old
That's because Starmer is simply following the Osborne playbook post 2010 step-by-step and expecting it to work.
The man is a dissembler not a thinker.
Except that Osborne lead on what would be protected - NHS spending, mainly.
The equivalent, here, would be Osborne getting in and then a week later jacking up NHS spending by £10bn per annum For Reasons and then complaining about the massive black hole he'd been left and the need for difficult decisions to balance the books and avoid a run on the pound.
Doesn't wash.
Protecting spending - for more cuts in other areas - isn't the same as increasing spending - for more tax in other areas.
Interesting that the WFA debate and vote comes on the day official data is likely to lead to an inflation busting increase in state pensions for next year !
Their best way out of this without gigantic loss of face is to announce a zillion% rise in pensions, starting a little earlier than usual, which would of course cost many billions more than than the WFA cost in the first place.
Otherwise I can't see their way out without major embarrassment.
Here's a thought.
The state pension is forecast to increase by around £400 next year. Pay the increase early as a lump sum this December to cope with heating. And ensure it remains taxable so there is clawback from wealthy pensioners.
If it were taxable then it is not only taxable for Mick Jagger, it is also taxable for single pensioners whose total relevant income is above the personal allowance of £12,570; a sum which it is universally agreed by everyone except Reeves and Starmer to be one at which grannie freezes to death. This issue is not easy.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
I think you are right with the first suggestion - the "22Bn black hole"
I suspect a range of things were in the initial plan, to be cut. And then, one by one, shot down as being too close to Labour values. WFA was what was left....
That may be right. But they clearly didn’t think through the optics of freezing impoverished grannies to death AT THE SAME as bunging their train driving TUC friends another £10,000 on top of the £60,000 they’re already making
That was basic ineptitude
Also, they hadn’t thought through their defense tactics when queried. To the point they’ve been claiming they “had to do it or there would be a run on the pound”
Which is the argumentation of a ten year old
That's because Starmer is simply following the Osborne playbook post 2010 step-by-step and expecting it to work.
The man is a dissembler not a thinker.
Except that Osborne lead on what would be protected - NHS spending, mainly.
Osborne and Cameron also essentially pre-warned the electorate about austerity during the election campaign (one of the reasons why, I think, they fell short was because people started to get a bit nervy about that).
Labour by contrast fought an election campaign by talking about change and toolmakers and not really saying anything of consequence.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
I think you are right with the first suggestion - the "22Bn black hole"
I suspect a range of things were in the initial plan, to be cut. And then, one by one, shot down as being too close to Labour values. WFA was what was left....
That may be right. But they clearly didn’t think through the optics of freezing impoverished grannies to death AT THE SAME as bunging their train driving TUC friends another £10,000 on top of the £60,000 they’re already making
That was basic ineptitude
Also, they hadn’t thought through their defense tactics when queried. To the point they’ve been claiming they “had to do it or there would be a run on the pound”
Which is the argumentation of a ten year old
That's because Starmer is simply following the Osborne playbook post 2010 step-by-step and expecting it to work.
The man is a dissembler not a thinker.
Except that Osborne lead on what would be protected - NHS spending, mainly.
The equivalent, here, would be Osborne getting in and then a week later jacking up NHS spending by £10bn per annum For Reasons and then complaining about the massive black hole he'd been left and the need for difficult decisions to balance the books and avoid a run on the pound.
Doesn't wash.
Protecting spending - for more cuts in other areas - isn't the same as increasing spending - for more tax in other areas.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
I think you are right with the first suggestion - the "22Bn black hole"
I suspect a range of things were in the initial plan, to be cut. And then, one by one, shot down as being too close to Labour values. WFA was what was left....
That may be right. But they clearly didn’t think through the optics of freezing impoverished grannies to death AT THE SAME as bunging their train driving TUC friends another £10,000 on top of the £60,000 they’re already making
That was basic ineptitude
Also, they hadn’t thought through their defense tactics when queried. To the point they’ve been claiming they “had to do it or there would be a run on the pound”
Which is the argumentation of a ten year old
That's because Starmer is simply following the Osborne playbook post 2010 step-by-step and expecting it to work.
The man is a dissembler not a thinker.
Yes, they are fighting the last war not the new one
I am mildly astonished by their political ineptitude given the enormous time they had to prepare. They’ve been given a hard hand to play but instead of playing it they’ve dropped their cards on the carpet and run off to the toilet, crying
The lack of a Mandelon and a Campbell - let alone a Blair and Brown - is very noticeable. Where is the intellectual heft and political nous in Starmer’s Labour? There is none
Explains why he feels so insecure with Thatcher's pic anywhere within 10 miles of him really, doesn't it?
Interesting that the WFA debate and vote comes on the day official data is likely to lead to an inflation busting increase in state pensions for next year !
Their best way out of this without gigantic loss of face is to announce a zillion% rise in pensions, starting a little earlier than usual, which would of course cost many billions more than than the WFA cost in the first place.
Otherwise I can't see their way out without major embarrassment.
Here's a thought.
The state pension is forecast to increase by around £400 next year. Pay the increase early as a lump sum this December to cope with heating. And ensure it remains taxable so there is clawback from wealthy pensioners.
If it were taxable then it is not only taxable for Mick Jagger, it is also taxable for single pensioners whose total relevant income is above the personal allowance of £12,570; a sum which it is universally agreed by everyone except Reeves and Starmer to be one at which grannie freezes to death. This issue is not easy.
Interesting that the WFA debate and vote comes on the day official data is likely to lead to an inflation busting increase in state pensions for next year !
Their best way out of this without gigantic loss of face is to announce a zillion% rise in pensions, starting a little earlier than usual, which would of course cost many billions more than than the WFA cost in the first place.
Otherwise I can't see their way out without major embarrassment.
Good afternoon
There is no way out for Reeves and she has to stand by her decision or lose all creditability and even her post of COE
Even if she mitigated it the mindset that Grandma's winter fuel allowance was sacrificed for train drivers pay awards giving them £70,000 pa will remain and is going to be used ad infinutum, no matter what she does and even how true it is
It is really perverse, and shows just how poor the Treasury are, when a policy they decide would raise 1.5 billion would actually cause huge controversy and that the 800,000 pensioners who do not yet claim pension credit will now be actively targeted to claim, and in targeting them the likely cost will be billions more to be found over any perceived saving
To govern is to chose and this was Reeves first political error in her choice
Quite so. She CHOSE this. And it’s not like she was rushed into it (no one believes the astonishing 22bn quid black hole story)
So Labour had months or years to get ready for this, and their planned first move was to hurl money at overpaid train drivers and take money away from hypothermic nans. Crass
They really do need to sharpen up because that apparently large majority is built on soft sand
Yeh. Making granny freeze this winter.
It's not exactly announcing independent BoE which Gordon did over the first weekend of CoE.
Interesting that the WFA debate and vote comes on the day official data is likely to lead to an inflation busting increase in state pensions for next year !
Their best way out of this without gigantic loss of face is to announce a zillion% rise in pensions, starting a little earlier than usual, which would of course cost many billions more than than the WFA cost in the first place.
Otherwise I can't see their way out without major embarrassment.
Here's a thought.
The state pension is forecast to increase by around £400 next year. Pay the increase early as a lump sum this December to cope with heating. And ensure it remains taxable so there is clawback from wealthy pensioners.
If it were taxable then it is not only taxable for Mick Jagger, it is also taxable for single pensioners whose total relevant income is above the personal allowance of £12,570; a sum which it is universally agreed by everyone except Reeves and Starmer to be one at which grannie freezes to death. This issue is not easy.
I've already argued that the personal allowance should be increased so that pensioners only on the state pension do not pay tax.
Even if the £400 advance pension payment is taxable at 20%, it is still worth £320. I.e. more than the WFA,
Interesting that the WFA debate and vote comes on the day official data is likely to lead to an inflation busting increase in state pensions for next year !
Their best way out of this without gigantic loss of face is to announce a zillion% rise in pensions, starting a little earlier than usual, which would of course cost many billions more than than the WFA cost in the first place.
Otherwise I can't see their way out without major embarrassment.
Here's a thought.
The state pension is forecast to increase by around £400 next year. Pay the increase early as a lump sum this December to cope with heating. And ensure it remains taxable so there is clawback from wealthy pensioners.
If it were taxable then it is not only taxable for Mick Jagger, it is also taxable for single pensioners whose total relevant income is above the personal allowance of £12,570; a sum which it is universally agreed by everyone except Reeves and Starmer to be one at which grannie freezes to death. This issue is not easy.
I've already argued that the personal allowance should be increased so that pensioners only on the state pension do not pay tax.
Even if the £400 advance pension payment is taxable at 20%, it is still worth £320. I.e. more than the WFA,
Good luck. Fiscal drag is going to be right at the heart of this government's tax plans.
Incidentally, when it comes to house building, there are rumours that one of the housebuilders around here is getting sued because the homes they sold 'on plan' were way off plan.
Naturally enough, the differences were to the advantage of the builder and not the new homeowner.
Sorry, as a layman what does that actually mean ?
They had not got planning permission, had not built to the spec ?
I would not buy a new build in a month of Sundays.
You can buy an unbuilt house 'to plan'. In other words, the housebuilder shows you the plans, and often takes you around a showhome to show the prospective buyers.
*Scuttlebutt* is that the sizes of the rooms (and houses overall) are not as the builder promised when they were sold. I won't mention which builder, as although apparently an investigation is ongoing, the rest is local rumour.
Thanks, that's interesting.
I wonder how much of it can be construed as a "sales puff" and how much as a contractual commitment.
I do remember people complaining, years ago, about new build flats where the brochures had stuff like brass door handles and when they moved in they were plastic.
I successfully sued a builder in Aberdeen on behalf of a client for this. The "as built" was materially smaller than the size indicated in the plans. Some of this was because cupboards etc had been included in the room dimensions when they should not have been. A lot turns on the terms of the contract, what plans etc are actually provided, whether they are to scale or indicative, etc etc.
The case settled, in part because a builder being sued in that situation has to weigh the negative impact on their reputation and standing. They can find themselves in a situation where even if they won they would lose.
A couple of decades back, an ex-colleague of mine threatened to sue the builder of his new home. It was sold as a three (or four, I can't remember...) home. But the smallest bedroom was so narrow that you could not get a single bed in it and fully open the inward-opening door. He argued the width and its awkward shape made it impossible to function as a bedroom.
Since his was one of the first houses on the estate, and he threatened to kick up an almighty stink, they bunged some money at him to keep him quiet...
Comments
I am mildly astonished by their political ineptitude given the enormous time they had to prepare. They’ve been given a hard hand to play but instead of playing it they’ve dropped their cards on the carpet and run off to the toilet, crying
The lack of a Mandelon and a Campbell - let alone a Blair and Brown - is very noticeable. Where is the intellectual heft and political nous in Starmer’s Labour? There is none
Doesn't wash.
Protecting spending - for more cuts in other areas - isn't the same as increasing spending - for more tax in other areas.
Labour by contrast fought an election campaign by talking about change and toolmakers and not really saying anything of consequence.
It's not exactly announcing independent BoE which Gordon did over the first weekend of CoE.
To be a good government you need a vision, the support and the competence to implement.
Thatcher had all three until the end. Major had less but still arguably all three but with difficulties of support.
Blair had all and so did Brown although after Blair his vision was insufficiently distinct.
Cameron had all until the populus disagreed with his vision over Brexit.
May was not able to command support, but had vision and competence.
Johnson had vision and support but no competence.
Truss had vision but again no competence and less support than she thought she had.
Sunak was competent but I struggle to see his vision and his support was threadbare.
So far with Starmer there is support and competence but little sign of vision.
Who in the Starmer government can provide the vision?
Even if the £400 advance pension payment is taxable at 20%, it is still worth £320. I.e. more than the WFA,
https://www.theguardian.com/music/article/2024/sep/09/its-where-all-the-best-socialising-happens-the-joy-of-the-smoking-area
NEW THREAD
Since his was one of the first houses on the estate, and he threatened to kick up an almighty stink, they bunged some money at him to keep him quiet...