If cutting the WFA stabilises the economy, what a multiplier effect the grey pound has! Skir and Rachel should consider a bingo tax for further stabilisation
Ok this place is schizophrenic. Suddenly the sun has come out and I’ve done loads of work and I’ve realised my hotel has a bar by the lake and it feels like I’m sitting with a cold one by Lake Como in July, but everyone speaks English and there’s no mad traffic or mafia
I’d post a photo but I’m not sure if I have allowance left
Anyway. Canada rocks. I love the fact you can drive everywhere without hassle. Such a good system
3 points isn't necessarily enough. Pennsylvania is still neck-and-neck.
Trump has a three-point hat. My head canon says that Clinton had a 2-and-a-bit lead and lost. Biden had a 4-and-a-bit lead and won. 3 points is the tipping point.
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
This is absolutely embarrassing now. No one believes this. Just STFU
Are they panicking? What is this for?
Remember in SKS/Reeves world everyone under 60 is still angry and bitter at the Boomers voting Brexit and being frequently Conservative voters...
So they thought giving the oldies a punishment beating by taking away their WFA would be generally popular with the under 60s... I'm sure they've been taken aback by the backlash..
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
The saving of £1.5bn is less than 0.2% of government spending. I think giving bungs like that to well off pensioners is wrong but the justifications are bordering on the irrational.
I think it is rightly totemic of being a serious government at what is a difficult time for the country, not to be giving out money unnecessarily. Some of these sums will be modest in themselves, but they add up.
What's irrational is that WFA survived Osborne's period of austerity.
The survival of the WFA came almost entirely from the rocketing energy costs from the Ukrine war and even today those energy bills are extremely high especially for the elderly who stay at home and need heating in the winter to keep them well
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
3 points isn't necessarily enough. Pennsylvania is still neck-and-neck.
I noticed when Harris was having her surge that the polling in Pennsylvania wasn't moving even half as much. I think PA will be tight regardless of the result elsewhere, so it probably only ends up being the tipping point state if the election is tight overall.
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
The saving of £1.5bn is less than 0.2% of government spending. I think giving bungs like that to well off pensioners is wrong but the justifications are bordering on the irrational.
I think it is rightly totemic of being a serious government at what is a difficult time for the country, not to be giving out money unnecessarily. Some of these sums will be modest in themselves, but they add up.
What's irrational is that WFA survived Osborne's period of austerity.
The survival of the WFA came almost entirely from the rocketing energy costs from the Ukrine war and even today those energy bills are extremely high especially for the elderly who stay at home and need heating in the winter to keep them well
The 2022 invasion of Ukraine was nearly six years after Osborne ceased to be Chancellor. What has it got to do with Osborne preserving a pointless Brown-era bung to pensioners?
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
This is absolutely embarrassing now. No one believes this. Just STFU
Are they panicking? What is this for?
Remember in SKS/Reeves world everyone under 60 is still angry and bitter at the Boomers voting Brexit and being frequently Conservative voters...
So they thought giving the oldies a punishment beating by taking away their WFA would be generally popular with the under 60s... I'm sure they've been taken aback by the backlash..
It’s fucking inept politics at a basic level is what it is
Starmer simultaneously looks like a fool AND like he is taking us for fools
Moreover, if anyone is going to spook the markets it is him and reeves looking like sadistic clowns with no clue and no plan, and dooming the economy with their gloom so taxpayers and investors flee
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
The saving of £1.5bn is less than 0.2% of government spending. I think giving bungs like that to well off pensioners is wrong but the justifications are bordering on the irrational.
I think it is rightly totemic of being a serious government at what is a difficult time for the country, not to be giving out money unnecessarily. Some of these sums will be modest in themselves, but they add up.
What's irrational is that WFA survived Osborne's period of austerity.
The survival of the WFA came almost entirely from the rocketing energy costs from the Ukrine war and even today those energy bills are extremely high especially for the elderly who stay at home and need heating in the winter to keep them well
The 2022 invasion of Ukraine was nearly six years after Osborne ceased to be Chancellor. What has it got to do with Osborne preserving a pointless Brown-era bung to pensioners?
It is precisely the point for why it has been continued and not even a hint by Labour it would be means tested
Anyway this is a very big issue now dominating the media and is not going away
So BBC news starts with the alleged assault of a woman by a man who was released today and then goes into the WFA once again. Government is proving tougher than mocking an inept and dysfunctional administration before the election.
WFA was a total and utter unforced error by a rookie CoE.
The prisons fuck up is totally the responsibility of last administration.
What alternative did they have?
Well, hang on, if they can suddenly find places in hotels for asylum seekers, by the same token they could have found places somewhere for prisoners, even if the prisons themselves were full.
Asylum seekers are not generally considered yo be a flight risk. Most of them are happy to be somewhere safe and with a very decent chance of being granted asylum.
Sticking your local house burglar or mugger in a hotel is not likely to be a popular move with the public.
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
The saving of £1.5bn is less than 0.2% of government spending. I think giving bungs like that to well off pensioners is wrong but the justifications are bordering on the irrational.
I think it is rightly totemic of being a serious government at what is a difficult time for the country, not to be giving out money unnecessarily. Some of these sums will be modest in themselves, but they add up.
What's irrational is that WFA survived Osborne's period of austerity.
The survival of the WFA came almost entirely from the rocketing energy costs from the Ukrine war and even today those energy bills are extremely high especially for the elderly who stay at home and need heating in the winter to keep them well
The 2022 invasion of Ukraine was nearly six years after Osborne ceased to be Chancellor. What has it got to do with Osborne preserving a pointless Brown-era bung to pensioners?
It is precisely the point for why it has been continued and not even a hint by Labour it would be means tested
Anyway this is a very big issue now dominating the media and is not going away
It is dominating the media, but it's an example of how the media have completely lost their shit following Labour's huge landslide on a risible share of the vote. The polling suggests it's not particularly unpopular, certainly not to the extent to justify the attention it has received.
Given the harder choices that Labour will face in the future it is of vital importance that the government can withstand pressure form the media and stick to this one. Otherwise there's no chance of them doing anything useful.
So BBC news starts with the alleged assault of a woman by a man who was released today and then goes into the WFA once again. Government is proving tougher than mocking an inept and dysfunctional administration before the election.
WFA was a total and utter unforced error by a rookie CoE.
The prisons fuck up is totally the responsibility of last administration.
What alternative did they have?
Well, hang on, if they can suddenly find places in hotels for asylum seekers, by the same token they could have found places somewhere for prisoners, even if the prisons themselves were full.
Asylum seekers are not generally considered yo be a flight risk. Most of them are happy to be somewhere safe and with a very decent chance of being granted asylum.
Sticking your local house burglar or mugger in a hotel is not likely to be a popular move with the public.
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
This is absolutely embarrassing now. No one believes this. Just STFU
Are they panicking? What is this for?
It's to show that they are not scared of making tough decisions. And idiotic ones are ok too, apparently.
Yes. I think they’ve combined the two here
They’ve made an idiotic decision. Cut WFA in a way that enrages lots of people and mystifies others. And now they are forced to stick to it so they look “tough”
But they don’t even look tough. They look stupid, silly and vindictive
So BBC news starts with the alleged assault of a woman by a man who was released today and then goes into the WFA once again. Government is proving tougher than mocking an inept and dysfunctional administration before the election.
WFA was a total and utter unforced error by a rookie CoE.
The prisons fuck up is totally the responsibility of last administration.
What alternative did they have?
Well, hang on, if they can suddenly find places in hotels for asylum seekers, by the same token they could have found places somewhere for prisoners, even if the prisons themselves were full.
Asylum seekers are not generally considered yo be a flight risk. Most of them are happy to be somewhere safe and with a very decent chance of being granted asylum.
Sticking your local house burglar or mugger in a hotel is not likely to be a popular move with the public.
He could be in Camden now, strolling down some canal side or other, several gins and red wines to the good, glorying in the multicultural triumph of 21st century London and enjoying bonhomie of the scant dressed young folk on a balmy early autumn eve.
Instead he is driving 200 miles across a desert no one knew existed to a Tim Horton.
There are, by the way, about 80 Tim Hortons in the UK. None near here, but I went to the Gloucester one on the way to somewhere else. Cracking value breakfasts.
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
This is absolutely embarrassing now. No one believes this. Just STFU
Are they panicking? What is this for?
It's to show that they are not scared of making tough decisions. And idiotic ones are ok too, apparently.
Yes. I think they’ve combined the two here
They’ve made an idiotic decision. Cut WFA in a way that enrages lots of people and mystifies others. And now they are forced to stick to it so they look “tough”
But they don’t even look tough. They look stupid, silly and vindictive
They should just have frozen it. It would have ended up like the £10 pensioner Christmas Bonus which used to be something, but now is nothing.
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
The saving of £1.5bn is less than 0.2% of government spending. I think giving bungs like that to well off pensioners is wrong but the justifications are bordering on the irrational.
I think it is rightly totemic of being a serious government at what is a difficult time for the country, not to be giving out money unnecessarily. Some of these sums will be modest in themselves, but they add up.
What's irrational is that WFA survived Osborne's period of austerity.
The survival of the WFA came almost entirely from the rocketing energy costs from the Ukrine war and even today those energy bills are extremely high especially for the elderly who stay at home and need heating in the winter to keep them well
The 2022 invasion of Ukraine was nearly six years after Osborne ceased to be Chancellor. What has it got to do with Osborne preserving a pointless Brown-era bung to pensioners?
It is precisely the point for why it has been continued and not even a hint by Labour it would be means tested
Anyway this is a very big issue now dominating the media and is not going away
It is dominating the media, but it's an example of how the media have completely lost their shit following Labour's huge landslide on a risible share of the vote. The polling suggests it's not particularly unpopular, certainly not to the extent to justify the attention it has received.
Given the harder choices that Labour will face in the future it is of vital importance that the government can withstand pressure form the media and stick to this one. Otherwise there's no chance of them doing anything useful.
There are no easy choices left.
The media are only reporting the response from across politics and now Unite Union
They had choices and even a better way of doing it including in the Autumn Statement and with sensible mitigation
So BBC news starts with the alleged assault of a woman by a man who was released today and then goes into the WFA once again. Government is proving tougher than mocking an inept and dysfunctional administration before the election.
WFA was a total and utter unforced error by a rookie CoE.
The prisons fuck up is totally the responsibility of last administration.
What alternative did they have?
Well, hang on, if they can suddenly find places in hotels for asylum seekers, by the same token they could have found places somewhere for prisoners, even if the prisons themselves were full.
Asylum seekers are not generally considered yo be a flight risk. Most of them are happy to be somewhere safe and with a very decent chance of being granted asylum.
Sticking your local house burglar or mugger in a hotel is not likely to be a popular move with the public.
I heard a story that a fair chunk of the problem is the historic offences now being investigated and prosecuted - which lead to long sentences.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of what people are in prison for, and for how long.
A dashboard of the data, perhaps. But then I remember the reaction to the COVID dashboard. A couple of people got praised - then the unit got shut down and dispersed. To make sure they didn't do it with other departments data.
So BBC news starts with the alleged assault of a woman by a man who was released today and then goes into the WFA once again. Government is proving tougher than mocking an inept and dysfunctional administration before the election.
WFA was a total and utter unforced error by a rookie CoE.
The prisons fuck up is totally the responsibility of last administration.
What alternative did they have?
Well, hang on, if they can suddenly find places in hotels for asylum seekers, by the same token they could have found places somewhere for prisoners, even if the prisons themselves were full.
Asylum seekers are not generally considered yo be a flight risk. Most of them are happy to be somewhere safe and with a very decent chance of being granted asylum.
Sticking your local house burglar or mugger in a hotel is not likely to be a popular move with the public.
The government should rule out any changes to the single persons council tax discount . Would they really go ahead with this after having just cut the WFA? And removing the discount would also effect single parents with children under 18 in the household . I personally think changing the discount would be immeasurably cruel and would cause huge anger.
Political suicide.
Widows tax.
Young person in first flat tax.
No idea why they have let this kite fly so high other than maybe they don't care how lurid the pre-budget speculation is about the tax hammer as long as everyone sighs in relief when it turns out not quite so bad.
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
This is absolutely embarrassing now. No one believes this. Just STFU
Are they panicking? What is this for?
It's to show that they are not scared of making tough decisions. And idiotic ones are ok too, apparently.
Yes. I think they’ve combined the two here
They’ve made an idiotic decision. Cut WFA in a way that enrages lots of people and mystifies others. And now they are forced to stick to it so they look “tough”
But they don’t even look tough. They look stupid, silly and vindictive
They should just have frozen it. It would have ended up like the £10 pensioner Christmas Bonus which used to be something, but now is nothing.
It was in the Conservative manifesto of 2017 to get rid of it and phase out the triple lock too.
Bad politics from Starmer and Reeves. There's a difference between tough decisions and performative political cruelty.
Starmer backs away from ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030 allowing hybrid sales until 2035
Inevitable and another broken promise
Hybrid sales were never part of the intention to stop petrol and diesel sales by 2030. It was always about non-hybrids, with a later cut-off date for hybrids.
The reality of this is always going to be that is a tango between the car industry and the law makers as to what might actually be deliverable.
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
This is absolutely embarrassing now. No one believes this. Just STFU
Are they panicking? What is this for?
It's to show that they are not scared of making tough decisions. And idiotic ones are ok too, apparently.
Yes. I think they’ve combined the two here
They’ve made an idiotic decision. Cut WFA in a way that enrages lots of people and mystifies others. And now they are forced to stick to it so they look “tough”
But they don’t even look tough. They look stupid, silly and vindictive
They should just have frozen it. It would have ended up like the £10 pensioner Christmas Bonus which used to be something, but now is nothing.
It was in the Conservative manifesto of 2017 to get rid of it and phase out the triple lock too.
Bad politics from Starmer and Reeves. There's a difference between tough decisions and performative political cruelty.
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
This is absolutely embarrassing now. No one believes this. Just STFU
Are they panicking? What is this for?
It's to show that they are not scared of making tough decisions. And idiotic ones are ok too, apparently.
Yes. I think they’ve combined the two here
They’ve made an idiotic decision. Cut WFA in a way that enrages lots of people and mystifies others. And now they are forced to stick to it so they look “tough”
But they don’t even look tough. They look stupid, silly and vindictive
They should just have frozen it. It would have ended up like the £10 pensioner Christmas Bonus which used to be something, but now is nothing.
It was in the Conservative manifesto of 2017 to get rid of it and phase out the triple lock too.
Bad politics from Starmer and Reeves. There's a difference between tough decisions and performative political cruelty.
I expect you will see the results of it this winter
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
This is absolutely embarrassing now. No one believes this. Just STFU
Are they panicking? What is this for?
It's to show that they are not scared of making tough decisions. And idiotic ones are ok too, apparently.
Yes. I think they’ve combined the two here
They’ve made an idiotic decision. Cut WFA in a way that enrages lots of people and mystifies others. And now they are forced to stick to it so they look “tough”
But they don’t even look tough. They look stupid, silly and vindictive
They should just have frozen it. It would have ended up like the £10 pensioner Christmas Bonus which used to be something, but now is nothing.
It was in the Conservative manifesto of 2017 to get rid of it and phase out the triple lock too.
Bad politics from Starmer and Reeves. There's a difference between tough decisions and performative political cruelty.
Yes, but remember, the 2017 general election saw glumbuckets May blow a 25% lead in the three weeks from which she unveiled her manifesto.
Glumbuckets Starmer is blowing his 170 seat majority within three months of taking office...
So BBC news starts with the alleged assault of a woman by a man who was released today and then goes into the WFA once again. Government is proving tougher than mocking an inept and dysfunctional administration before the election.
WFA was a total and utter unforced error by a rookie CoE.
The prisons fuck up is totally the responsibility of last administration.
What alternative did they have?
Well, hang on, if they can suddenly find places in hotels for asylum seekers, by the same token they could have found places somewhere for prisoners, even if the prisons themselves were full.
Asylum seekers are not generally considered yo be a flight risk. Most of them are happy to be somewhere safe and with a very decent chance of being granted asylum.
Sticking your local house burglar or mugger in a hotel is not likely to be a popular move with the public.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Perhaps part of it is that no-one remembered it was a Gordon Brown (and hence Labour) policy in the first place. If the public knew that, Starmer would have claimed and protected it. Perhaps we have erased Brown from our collective memory. Blair then Cameron.
So BBC news starts with the alleged assault of a woman by a man who was released today and then goes into the WFA once again. Government is proving tougher than mocking an inept and dysfunctional administration before the election.
WFA was a total and utter unforced error by a rookie CoE.
The prisons fuck up is totally the responsibility of last administration.
What alternative did they have?
Well, hang on, if they can suddenly find places in hotels for asylum seekers, by the same token they could have found places somewhere for prisoners, even if the prisons themselves were full.
"Ok. listen up Fletch and Godber. You will still be in prison. Definitely. It's just it will be a premier inn at the end of its life and due refurb next year out on the ring road."
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Starmer is already enduring near-unprecedented drops in popularity
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Basically, WFA might, *might* be politically survivable if we have a mild winter and there's a fair wind over the next four years.
Removal of the single persons discount is tuition fees and the poll tax rolled into one... Labour will be done if they axe that, IMO.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Starmer is already enduring near-unprecedented drops in popularity
A bit like Truss, piquantly
Do you think he'll last the full 5 years in office?
Chris Grayling is a bin fire of a politician, so of course Rishi Sunak put him in the House of Lords
There's no better representation of the decline of the political class than Chris Grayling.
Probably there are stupider people. Mark Francois has a lower capacity to handle a moderate cognitive load, as does Lee Anderson. There might even be more cynical people. Robert Jenrick is currently exploring the furthest reaches of his own venality. Nigel Farage is about as reprehensible as it is possible to endure. But there is a crucial distinction. Grayling had power - serious power - for a sustained period and secured constant promotion.
Ian Dunt wins substack but faces expulsion from the Chris Grayling fan club! Dunt explores in particular Grayling's part in wrecking the probation system.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Starmer is already enduring near-unprecedented drops in popularity
A bit like Truss, piquantly
Do you think he'll last the full 5 years in office?
The Labour party finds it hard to get rid of leaders.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Has this been seriously proposed or is it just one of a number of pre-budget scare stories put out by the Conservatives?
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Starmer is already enduring near-unprecedented drops in popularity
A bit like Truss, piquantly
Don’t blame me I voted Lib Dem ! Although ordinarily I am or say was a Labour voter . They’ve totally pissed me off with their snubbing of the youth mobility scheme offered by the EU. They keep saying they want a re-set and keep acting like the Brexit Party !
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
This is absolutely embarrassing now. No one believes this. Just STFU
Are they panicking? What is this for?
It's to show that they are not scared of making tough decisions. And idiotic ones are ok too, apparently.
Yes. I think they’ve combined the two here
They’ve made an idiotic decision. Cut WFA in a way that enrages lots of people and mystifies others. And now they are forced to stick to it so they look “tough”
But they don’t even look tough. They look stupid, silly and vindictive
They should just have frozen it. It would have ended up like the £10 pensioner Christmas Bonus which used to be something, but now is nothing.
It was in the Conservative manifesto of 2017 to get rid of it and phase out the triple lock too.
Bad politics from Starmer and Reeves. There's a difference between tough decisions and performative political cruelty.
Yes, but remember, the 2017 general election saw glumbuckets May blow a 25% lead in the three weeks from which she unveiled her manifesto.
Glumbuckets Starmer is blowing his 170 seat majority within three months of taking office...
#TheGlums #SwingsAndRoundabouts
Nah, he has 5 years. We are going to have to put up with a lot more of this.
But the objection is coming from those wanting more tax and spend, not less, so not likely to benefit the Tories.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Basically, WFA might, *might* be politically survivable if we have a mild winter and there's a fair wind over the next four years.
Removal of the single persons discount is tuition fees and the poll tax rolled into one... Labour will be done if they axe that, IMO.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Has this been seriously proposed or is it just one of a number of pre-budget scare stories put out by the Conservatives?
The Treasury refuse to rule it out . My brain is trying to compute how Reeves and Starmer could be so detached from reality that they think this could even fly . It might be a case of terrify people then say it’s not going to happen after all .
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Has this been seriously proposed or is it just one of a number of pre-budget scare stories put out by the Conservatives?
The problem is it has been put to Starmer who refused to rule it out thereby the idea was pounced on by the media and is in the political narrative
It should be remembered it is the media who are the ones looking for 'gotchas' and they have not changed even though the government has
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Basically, WFA might, *might* be politically survivable if we have a mild winter and there's a fair wind over the next four years.
Removal of the single persons discount is tuition fees and the poll tax rolled into one... Labour will be done if they axe that, IMO.
So we'll see...
WFA is not a concatenated benefit. It doesn't have to spent on heating.
What would be interesting is to find how many pensioners are on the sort of variable payment plan for heating that means that additional energy use during the winter will mean the removal of WFA causes issues.
Roughly 15%* of pensioners are eligible anyway, so we are talking about a subset of the 85% above that threshold.
*UC is typically used as piggy back eligibility for other benefits, and accounts for roughly 30% of working households (once fully rolled out). If pensioners received UC instead of the state pension (lol), I would guess Labour would've used that instead.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Starmer is already enduring near-unprecedented drops in popularity
A bit like Truss, piquantly
Do you think he'll last the full 5 years in office?
My guess is that Starmer intends to step down during his second term, although as Blair discovered, along with perhaps most long-serving prime ministers, there is always a reason to stay just a bit longer, one more crisis, one more summit needing an experienced hand. But Starmer is not young, and his family is. Starmer is already 62 years old and has not been a dedicated politician from his youth; politics is his second career.
But while I expect Starmer to go voluntarily, there is no obvious mechanism to force a leader's removal as there is in the Conservative Party.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Basically, WFA might, *might* be politically survivable if we have a mild winter and there's a fair wind over the next four years.
Removal of the single persons discount is tuition fees and the poll tax rolled into one... Labour will be done if they axe that, IMO.
So we'll see...
WFA is not a concatenated benefit. It doesn't have to spent on heating.
What would be interesting is to find how many pensioners are on the sort of variable payment plan for heating that means that additional energy use during the winter will mean the removal of WFA causes issues.
Roughly 15% of pensioners are eligible anyway, so we are talking about a subset of the 85% above that threshold.
I expect it will have a real problem in Scotland with its colder winters
I know members of my Scottish family are very angry, as is their social media and what's app groups
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
This is absolutely embarrassing now. No one believes this. Just STFU
Are they panicking? What is this for?
It's to show that they are not scared of making tough decisions. And idiotic ones are ok too, apparently.
Yes. I think they’ve combined the two here
They’ve made an idiotic decision. Cut WFA in a way that enrages lots of people and mystifies others. And now they are forced to stick to it so they look “tough”
But they don’t even look tough. They look stupid, silly and vindictive
They should just have frozen it. It would have ended up like the £10 pensioner Christmas Bonus which used to be something, but now is nothing.
It was in the Conservative manifesto of 2017 to get rid of it and phase out the triple lock too.
Bad politics from Starmer and Reeves. There's a difference between tough decisions and performative political cruelty.
Yes, but remember, the 2017 general election saw glumbuckets May blow a 25% lead in the three weeks from which she unveiled her manifesto.
Glumbuckets Starmer is blowing his 170 seat majority within three months of taking office...
#TheGlums #SwingsAndRoundabouts
Nah, he has 5 years. We are going to have to put up with a lot more of this.
But the objection is coming from those wanting more tax and spend, not less, so not likely to benefit the Tories.
One of the problems of the WFA cut is that is just looks like an announcement out of the blue in a panic with no wider context and frankly doesn't look like anyone has given it more than a moments tactical thought.
By all means come after the boomers.
But lets hit the well off boomers with, dare I say it, 'broad shoulders', and not pensioners just above the pension credit line who are struggling after years of inflation.
The jokes about WFA tell us where to hit. Those who spend their £200 on champagne for Xmas or a weekend break every November when the cheque lands.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Basically, WFA might, *might* be politically survivable if we have a mild winter and there's a fair wind over the next four years.
Removal of the single persons discount is tuition fees and the poll tax rolled into one... Labour will be done if they axe that, IMO.
So we'll see...
WFA is not a concatenated benefit. It doesn't have to spent on heating.
What would be interesting is to find how many pensioners are on the sort of variable payment plan for heating that means that additional energy use during the winter will mean the removal of WFA causes issues.
Roughly 15% of pensioners are eligible anyway, so we are talking about a subset of the 85% above that threshold.
I expect it will have a real problem in Scotland with its colder winters
I know members of my Scottish family are very angry, as is their social media and what's app groups
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Has this been seriously proposed or is it just one of a number of pre-budget scare stories put out by the Conservatives?
The Treasury refuse to rule it out . My brain is trying to compute how Reeves and Starmer could be so detached from reality that they think this could even fly . It might be a case of terrify people then say it’s not going to happen after all .
Yes but this is standard pre-budget politics turned up to 11. The government cannot rule everything out, and as the budget gets closer, cannot rule anything out. As well as the council tax discount, there is similar noisy speculation from the blue team on ISA allowances and limits, and on pension tax relief and limits. and CGT and income tax and everything bar return of the windows tax.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Starmer is already enduring near-unprecedented drops in popularity
A bit like Truss, piquantly
Do you think he'll last the full 5 years in office?
My guess is that Starmer intends to step down during his second term, although as Blair discovered, along with perhaps most long-serving prime ministers, there is always a reason to stay just a bit longer, one more crisis, one more summit needing an experienced hand. But Starmer is not young, and his family is. Starmer is already 62 years old and has not been a dedicated politician from his youth; politics is his second career.
But while I expect Starmer to go voluntarily, there is no obvious mechanism to force a leader's removal as there is in the Conservative Party.
Given the volatility of modern voting there is no way Labour and Starmer should assume they are not out of office in five years.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Basically, WFA might, *might* be politically survivable if we have a mild winter and there's a fair wind over the next four years.
Removal of the single persons discount is tuition fees and the poll tax rolled into one... Labour will be done if they axe that, IMO.
So we'll see...
WFA is not a concatenated benefit. It doesn't have to spent on heating.
What would be interesting is to find how many pensioners are on the sort of variable payment plan for heating that means that additional energy use during the winter will mean the removal of WFA causes issues.
Roughly 15% of pensioners are eligible anyway, so we are talking about a subset of the 85% above that threshold.
I expect it will have a real problem in Scotland with its colder winters
I know members of my Scottish family are very angry, as is their social media and what's app groups
This link with the temperature is a red herring, I suspect. How many pensioners use prepayment meters, and aren't on a direct debit that adjusts the price through the year to ensure a consistent charge throughout the year?
In some respects, it will be less of a problem in Scotland because a higher proportion of households are eligible for PC due to less savings and lower incomes than in warmer parts of the UK.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Basically, WFA might, *might* be politically survivable if we have a mild winter and there's a fair wind over the next four years.
Removal of the single persons discount is tuition fees and the poll tax rolled into one... Labour will be done if they axe that, IMO.
So we'll see...
WFA is not a concatenated benefit. It doesn't have to spent on heating.
What would be interesting is to find how many pensioners are on the sort of variable payment plan for heating that means that additional energy use during the winter will mean the removal of WFA causes issues.
Roughly 15% of pensioners are eligible anyway, so we are talking about a subset of the 85% above that threshold.
I expect it will have a real problem in Scotland with its colder winters
I know members of my Scottish family are very angry, as is their social media and what's app groups
Surprised it's not a devolved issue.
It nearly is. The change has been neatly delayed until next year following the decision of UKGov.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Starmer is already enduring near-unprecedented drops in popularity
A bit like Truss, piquantly
Do you think he'll last the full 5 years in office?
My guess is that Starmer intends to step down during his second term, although as Blair discovered, along with perhaps most long-serving prime ministers, there is always a reason to stay just a bit longer, one more crisis, one more summit needing an experienced hand. But Starmer is not young, and his family is. Starmer is already 62 years old and has not been a dedicated politician from his youth; politics is his second career.
But while I expect Starmer to go voluntarily, there is no obvious mechanism to force a leader's removal as there is in the Conservative Party.
Given the volatility of modern voting there is no way Labour and Starmer should assume they are not out of office in five years.
Do the stuff now that you want to do.
*THEORY*
There are going to be some pretty significant changes to the fiscal rules (only Brown was able to sustain them for more than a couple of years) that will all be about "investing in growth".
The Treasury is very nervous about this (Truss), and so several pounds of flesh have been demanded in order to signal fiscal sobriety. WFA is just one of them.
I CANNOT BELIEVE I MISSED THE CASH THREAD YESTERDAY
Working too hard. But yes @TheScreamingEagles is right - cash is absolutely pointless. The arguments of the very few PBers who contested his view were incredibly weak.
No you just dont accept that there are poor people who dont have bank accounts or it helps them budget...but as a proper left winger fuck them it inconveniences you when they take longer to pay.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Basically, WFA might, *might* be politically survivable if we have a mild winter and there's a fair wind over the next four years.
Removal of the single persons discount is tuition fees and the poll tax rolled into one... Labour will be done if they axe that, IMO.
So we'll see...
WFA is not a concatenated benefit. It doesn't have to spent on heating.
What would be interesting is to find how many pensioners are on the sort of variable payment plan for heating that means that additional energy use during the winter will mean the removal of WFA causes issues.
Roughly 15% of pensioners are eligible anyway, so we are talking about a subset of the 85% above that threshold.
I expect it will have a real problem in Scotland with its colder winters
I know members of my Scottish family are very angry, as is their social media and what's app groups
Surprised it's not a devolved issue.
It nearly is. The change has been neatly delayed until next year following the decision of UKGov.
The change comes with money, or they're just dumping the problem on the devolved nations?
Ok this place is schizophrenic. Suddenly the sun has come out and I’ve done loads of work and I’ve realised my hotel has a bar by the lake and it feels like I’m sitting with a cold one by Lake Como in July, but everyone speaks English and there’s no mad traffic or mafia
I’d post a photo but I’m not sure if I have allowance left
Anyway. Canada rocks. I love the fact you can drive everywhere without hassle. Such a good system
There are no mafia in Como. How can you travel so much, and be so ignorant?
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Basically, WFA might, *might* be politically survivable if we have a mild winter and there's a fair wind over the next four years.
Removal of the single persons discount is tuition fees and the poll tax rolled into one... Labour will be done if they axe that, IMO.
So we'll see...
WFA is not a concatenated benefit. It doesn't have to spent on heating.
What would be interesting is to find how many pensioners are on the sort of variable payment plan for heating that means that additional energy use during the winter will mean the removal of WFA causes issues.
Roughly 15% of pensioners are eligible anyway, so we are talking about a subset of the 85% above that threshold.
I expect it will have a real problem in Scotland with its colder winters
I know members of my Scottish family are very angry, as is their social media and what's app groups
Surprised it's not a devolved issue.
It nearly is. The change has been neatly delayed until next year following the decision of UKGov.
The change comes with money, or they're just dumping the problem on the devolved nations?
The change will filter through via a change to the Block Grant Adjustment*, so the latter.
*Only three people have ever really understood the Barnett Formula - the Duke of Edinburgh, who is dead - a professor at UHI, who has gone mad - and I, who have forgotten all about it.
Ok this place is schizophrenic. Suddenly the sun has come out and I’ve done loads of work and I’ve realised my hotel has a bar by the lake and it feels like I’m sitting with a cold one by Lake Como in July, but everyone speaks English and there’s no mad traffic or mafia
I’d post a photo but I’m not sure if I have allowance left
Anyway. Canada rocks. I love the fact you can drive everywhere without hassle. Such a good system
There are no mafia in Como. How can you travel so much, and be so ignorant?
Ah @IanB2, never change. Always be the flailing pompous twat that we love
Afaicr the Adlon pops up in I Am A Camera so it’s on the Weimarophile route map. Miraculously it largely survived Allied bombing but after victory in 1945 the Red Army occupied it, got in to the wine cellar and burnt it down. Very plush but lacking a bit of soul in its reincarnation.
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
This is absolutely embarrassing now. No one believes this. Just STFU
Are they panicking? What is this for?
It's to show that they are not scared of making tough decisions. And idiotic ones are ok too, apparently.
Yes. I think they’ve combined the two here
They’ve made an idiotic decision. Cut WFA in a way that enrages lots of people and mystifies others. And now they are forced to stick to it so they look “tough”
But they don’t even look tough. They look stupid, silly and vindictive
They should just have frozen it. It would have ended up like the £10 pensioner Christmas Bonus which used to be something, but now is nothing.
It was in the Conservative manifesto of 2017 to get rid of it and phase out the triple lock too.
Bad politics from Starmer and Reeves. There's a difference between tough decisions and performative political cruelty.
Yes, but remember, the 2017 general election saw glumbuckets May blow a 25% lead in the three weeks from which she unveiled her manifesto.
Glumbuckets Starmer is blowing his 170 seat majority within three months of taking office...
#TheGlums #SwingsAndRoundabouts
Nah, he has 5 years. We are going to have to put up with a lot more of this.
But the objection is coming from those wanting more tax and spend, not less, so not likely to benefit the Tories.
One of the problems of the WFA cut is that is just looks like an announcement out of the blue in a panic with no wider context and frankly doesn't look like anyone has given it more than a moments tactical thought.
By all means come after the boomers.
But lets hit the well off boomers with, dare I say it, 'broad shoulders', and not pensioners just above the pension credit line who are struggling after years of inflation.
The jokes about WFA tell us where to hit. Those who spend their £200 on champagne for Xmas or a weekend break every November when the cheque lands.
They're five years from an election, this is the time for strategy not tactics.
Specifically they need to run the country better and that means fixing bad policy.
Afaicr the Adlon pops up in I Am A Camera so it’s on the Weimarophile route map. Miraculously it largely survived Allied bombing but after victory in 1945 the Red Army occupied it, got in to the wine cellar and burnt it down. Very plush but lacking a bit of soul in its reincarnation.
An excellent hotel. I’ve had a beer there, looking out at the gate thingy
A friend of mine once encountered Peter Ustinov there
No comments on the report that Labour were 24 hours from telling the police not to arrest anyone?
I have a rule of thumb that any newspaper article saying we are 24 hours from the collapse of the NHS, irreversible climate change, world war 3 or anything else is typically complete BS
Interesting to see the number of EU flags at the last night of the proms. They possibly outnumber the union jacks.
That's not interesting. It's been going on for years now.
They set up a Remoaner stall outside the Albert Hall every time now and hand them out for free to "celebrate our European musicians".
They find a willing audience because most who go are well-off, internationalist, liberal urbanites, and many aren't even British at all.
I'm a brexiteer but I'd wave an EU flag if handed one. What the hell, we've left
I wouldn't. I love continental Europe dearly but the Last Night of the Proms is the one time when you're allowed unashamedly to celebrate being British (or you were). I'd ask for 20 for friends and family then put them in a nearby bin.
That's exactly why they target it.
The venue should draw a line and ban EU flags. Yes, there would be a furore but tough- it's been part of an orchestrated political campaign on national TV for years now.
BBC News: "Sir Keir Starmer has said that the cut to winter fuel allowance was necessary to stabilise the economy"
Really?
Has he said this?
If so, it is utter bollocks.
No one in the bond markets gives a shit about WFA.
Isn't plugging the £22 billion hole in the national finances important to the bond markets? I thought that was the sort of thing that sunk Truss's government.
I trust everyone's watching the Last Night of the Proms. 😊
Yep. I try and watch and listen to all the Prom concerts though the summer and The Last Night for me marks the start of autumn and my Sacred Season.
What's with the EU flags? During Elgar?
There have always been flags of many different nations there although the Union Flag was usually the most prominent. After the Referendum the Remainer clique tried to flood the Last Night with EU flags as a protest and I think hoping to provoke some outrage. The Daily Mail crowd were predictably outraged but everyone else just shrugged and got on with it.
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Nah, that's a bit of an inspid establishment view. It's not a "bring your own flag" competition and to say that robs of its meaning, and why people started going in the first place.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
The removal of the single occupancy discount would be WFA furore on steroids . Not just those currently living alone , older couples will think if one of us goes then the other with just one pension will have to meet that extra cost. It hammers single parents and others who live alone .
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
Starmer is already enduring near-unprecedented drops in popularity
A bit like Truss, piquantly
He wanted his entire government to be elected and judged on a "growth" platform.
Unfortunately, money, capital and labour is starting to flee the country as no-one trusts him and he's decided to tax the rest to death.
For a decade now, independence has been the hammer to make every difficulty, every choice, every prescription a nail. At least twice a year, Sturgeon would announce a fresh constitutional initiative, rallying her clans for the final push towards national emancipation. And at least twice a year, that drive would lead precisely nowhere. The people, whatever their merits, were unmoved; the people let their government down.
All governments eventually suffer from a kind of mental fatigue, and Sturgeon’s was no exception. The SNP has been Scotland’s dominant election-winning force since 2007. At the next Holyrood election, it will be asking for a third decade in office. Though the Scottish people are as divided on their constitutional future as ever — this is now an assumed normal in Scottish affairs — there are signs that they are tiring of the Nationalists.
Comments
I’d post a photo but I’m not sure if I have allowance left
Anyway. Canada rocks. I love the fact you can drive everywhere without hassle. Such a good system
So they thought giving the oldies a punishment beating by taking away their WFA would be generally popular with the under 60s... I'm sure they've been taken aback by the backlash..
Weirdly it has become a new tradition now and it would be strange to be offended by it - well except for the Daily Mail readers.
One thing I did notice once again was how many Ukraine flags were being waved
Starmer simultaneously looks like a fool AND like he is taking us for fools
Moreover, if anyone is going to spook the markets it is him and reeves looking like sadistic clowns with no clue and no plan, and dooming the economy with their gloom so taxpayers and investors flee
What a shower
Springfield, Ohio's Haitian community wakes up to smashed widows and acid thrown on their cars. MSNBC
https://x.com/MichaelArt123/status/1835019351667114050
Anyway this is a very big issue now dominating the media and is not going away
Sticking your local house burglar or mugger in a hotel is not likely to be a popular move with the public.
@mercator is right
Given the harder choices that Labour will face in the future it is of vital importance that the government can withstand pressure form the media and stick to this one. Otherwise there's no chance of them doing anything useful.
There are no easy choices left.
https://news.sky.com/story/offenders-could-serve-sentence-in-estonian-prisons-to-ease-overcrowding-13210297
They’ve made an idiotic decision. Cut WFA in a way that enrages lots of people and mystifies others. And now they are forced to stick to it so they look “tough”
But they don’t even look tough. They look stupid, silly and vindictive
They had choices and even a better way of doing it including in the Autumn Statement and with sensible mitigation
This was an avoidable decision
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of what people are in prison for, and for how long.
A dashboard of the data, perhaps. But then I remember the reaction to the COVID dashboard. A couple of people got praised - then the unit got shut down and dispersed. To make sure they didn't do it with other departments data.
I think I’d find it a bit boring and remote in the end. And too North American. I am European with a hankering for Indochina
But I can definitely see the appeal
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4V8uZMCsrGw
Widows tax.
Young person in first flat tax.
No idea why they have let this kite fly so high other than maybe they don't care how lurid the pre-budget speculation is about the tax hammer as long as everyone sighs in relief when it turns out not quite so bad.
Bad politics from Starmer and Reeves. There's a difference between tough decisions and performative political cruelty.
Lot of back and forth.
And it is a world market.
Glumbuckets Starmer is blowing his 170 seat majority within three months of taking office...
#TheGlums #SwingsAndRoundabouts
Starmer and Reeves made a big deal of the pension rise covering the loss of the WFA so what will be their defence here ?
The logical side suggests this is a case of giving the worst case scenario so that when it doesn’t happen there’s a big relief for those that might be effected .
Alternatively Reeves and Starmer are insane and want the polling to have them in single digits and want their councilors to be totally wiped out next year.
A bit like Truss, piquantly
New title for knapper article: "Canada. The most boring country on earth. And yet suddenly I found I wanted to live here."
Removal of the single persons discount is tuition fees and the poll tax rolled into one... Labour will be done if they axe that, IMO.
So we'll see...
There's no better representation of the decline of the political class than Chris Grayling.
Probably there are stupider people. Mark Francois has a lower capacity to handle a moderate cognitive load, as does Lee Anderson. There might even be more cynical people. Robert Jenrick is currently exploring the furthest reaches of his own venality. Nigel Farage is about as reprehensible as it is possible to endure. But there is a crucial distinction. Grayling had power - serious power - for a sustained period and secured constant promotion.
He was given a procession of ministerial posts - employment minister, justice secretary, leader of the House, transport secretary. He failed in every one of them
https://iandunt.substack.com/p/chris-grayling-is-a-bin-fire-of-a
Ian Dunt wins substack but faces expulsion from the Chris Grayling fan club! Dunt explores in particular Grayling's part in wrecking the probation system.
But the objection is coming from those wanting more tax and spend, not less, so not likely to benefit the Tories.
They may as well shoot themselves in the head.
It should be remembered it is the media who are the ones looking for 'gotchas' and they have not changed even though the government has
What would be interesting is to find how many pensioners are on the sort of variable payment plan for heating that means that additional energy use during the winter will mean the removal of WFA causes issues.
Roughly 15%* of pensioners are eligible anyway, so we are talking about a subset of the 85% above that threshold.
*UC is typically used as piggy back eligibility for other benefits, and accounts for roughly 30% of working households (once fully rolled out). If pensioners received UC instead of the state pension (lol), I would guess Labour would've used that instead.
But while I expect Starmer to go voluntarily, there is no obvious mechanism to force a leader's removal as there is in the Conservative Party.
I know members of my Scottish family are very angry, as is their social media and what's app groups
By all means come after the boomers.
But lets hit the well off boomers with, dare I say it, 'broad shoulders', and not pensioners just above the pension credit line who are struggling after years of inflation.
The jokes about WFA tell us where to hit. Those who spend their £200 on champagne for Xmas or a weekend break every November when the cheque lands.
Do the stuff now that you want to do.
In some respects, it will be less of a problem in Scotland because a higher proportion of households are eligible for PC due to less savings and lower incomes than in warmer parts of the UK.
There are going to be some pretty significant changes to the fiscal rules (only Brown was able to sustain them for more than a couple of years) that will all be about "investing in growth".
The Treasury is very nervous about this (Truss), and so several pounds of flesh have been demanded in order to signal fiscal sobriety. WFA is just one of them.
*Only three people have ever really understood the Barnett Formula - the Duke of Edinburgh, who is dead - a professor at UHI, who has gone mad - and I, who have forgotten all about it.
https://comocompanion.com/2021/01/14/shadow-of-the-mafia-over-como/
SHADOW OF THE MAFIA OVER COMO
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1835041918990078068
https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/celebrity/michael-jackson-explains-baby-out-balcony-window-643218-20240913
Afaicr the Adlon pops up in I Am A Camera so it’s on the Weimarophile route map. Miraculously it largely survived Allied bombing but after victory in 1945 the Red Army occupied it, got in to the wine cellar and burnt it down. Very plush but lacking a bit of soul in its reincarnation.
Specifically they need to run the country better and that means fixing bad policy.
A friend of mine once encountered Peter Ustinov there
I hope they were impressed by the shoes
It’s a highly complex issues with deeply held moral beliefs on all sides. Better to get the law right surely?
The venue should draw a line and ban EU flags. Yes, there would be a furore but tough- it's been part of an orchestrated political campaign on national TV for years now.
It's like a silent Steve Bray jamboree.
The man dines off copying, imitating or following others, and relying on dissemblement for the rest.
I'm with @Luckyguy1983 on this - it was a musical carnival, an unabashed, celebration of being British - all glorious and bombastic - and to enjoy it amongst everyone else doing it. The fewer doing it the less of a collective and special communal experience it is.
You get "unofficial" battleproms/last nights around the country now that have sprung up where ordinary people can enjoy themselves as it should be. Either the Albert Hall event needs resetting or it should be relocated or debroadcast now.
It has been totally sullied and spoiled.
Unfortunately, money, capital and labour is starting to flee the country as no-one trusts him and he's decided to tax the rest to death.
His answer to concerns about that?
To say things will get worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0dPRxxqs-c
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8djply3z18o
Ooops. The donor is, naturally enough, the guy who got given a Downing Street pass. Clothes for access?
I'd expect a top lawyer to be able to follow a few simple rules. It seems when declaring donations, he's an utter numpty.
(Remember also https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61781601 )
Mr. Driver, I can confirm I have never compared the glory of morris dancing with the liberation of Iraqis.
F1: quite a grid and race we have in store. Perusing the markets shall commence imminently.
Betting PostF1: if you backed my Leclerc each way tip at 6.5 and hedged at just over evens, I'd advocate sitting on that. But if you want the tired gut feeling nonsense I posted on the blog, here it is: https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2024/09/azerbaijan-pre-race-2024.html
Starmers downbeat gloom and doom affecting investment according to the Guardian
Absolutely no surprise there
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/15/financial-leaders-and-party-insiders-warn-starmer-we-need-less-gloom-more-optimism?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other