Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
I think the Reform number is about right, but I think this is probably too optimstic for the Tories and the Independents, and not optimistic enough for the Greens, and probably the LDs too.
Greens looking to get 1000 so plus 850
I think they'll fall just short - probably 900-950.
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
California’s high speed rail, which was supposed to link LA and SF, is now seven times over budget and plans to terminate well outside the suburbs of both terminal cities. Very little has actually been built since it was first announced in 2008.
Streeting is a good communicator but his seat majority is only around 500 votes .
Very risky to have a PM in danger of losing his seat at the next GE .
Rayner has a backstory that could make her easier to connect with people but the tax issue will be a problem .
One PM going because of very poor judgement replaced with another who could be accused of the same . I like Rayner and wouldn’t have a problem with her being PM but she’s very much a marmite character .
Streeting will hold his seat comfortably. You heard it here first.
I’m pleased to have laid Farage and Johnson by so much, at opportune times, and laid Lowe down to the same point in the Red - which is just free money - that I don’t feel impelled to pick between the various Labour contenders, all in the Green.
Meanwhile, isn’t that a great, and apposite, photo for the lead? You can just imagine the large knife she has behind her back.
If it is Streeting v Rayner, then I'm not sure who I would vote for.
If it was Streeting or Rayner and I only had one bullet... Well, I'd probably just shoot myself.
I've just been given huge quantities of co-codamol to deal with pain. The leaflet tells me that an overdose can kill me.
I don't see Starmer easily giving up. A PM who whips his MPs to prevent a referral to the Privileges Committee does not look like someone who is going to leave because of poor local elections results.
There was a time when the NHS would give you proper analgesia.
Co-codamol is a horrible medication. Lots of people in severe pain will push the dosage limits sometimes, but with co-codamol by time you see any symptoms from too much codeine the paracetamol has silently destroyed your liver.
The treatment for paracetamol overdose is NAC, a supplement you can actually get at Holland and Barratt (it's just an amino acid). The liver damage is caused, as I understand it, by your liver running out of glutathione, which NAC solves by providing the necessary precursor for making more.
This doesn't mean that you can necessarily take more paracetamol safely by eating NAC, in theory it might work but the quantities are large and in the case of an overdose they inject it for a faster response. (I am not a doctor and this is not medical advice, etc)
Read an article recently suggesting that iboprofen is actually a bigger problem, as paracetamol overdose is rare, and ibuprofen causes damage at normal doses under various circumstances: acetaminophen Vs iboprofen
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
A shortlist of Rayner, Burnham and Streeting (and the risk that, if you want X you may get Y or Z) is the best argument for sticking with Starmer for now.
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
I work with PHE.
Abolishing an organisation only saves money if you abolish the functions and responsibilities of that organisation. If you merely transfer those responsibilities then there are no savings merely a reorganisation, and one that paralyses activity in the meantime. Streeting fell at that first hurdle.
No one regards Streeting as highly as himself, so I expect him to run in any contest. I also expect him to lose as he is Billy Nomates in the party.
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
A shortlist of Rayner, Burnham and Streeting (and the risk that, if you want X you may get Y or Z) is the best argument for sticking with Starmer for now.
The shortlist is Rayner and Streeting - Burnham isn't in the running.
Suddenly chaos with Ed Miliband looks as the better option now - as it was in 2015..
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
A shortlist of Rayner, Burnham and Streeting (and the risk that, if you want X you may get Y or Z) is the best argument for sticking with Starmer for now.
The shortlist is Rayner and Streeting - Burnham isn't in the running.
Suddenly chaos with Ed Miliband looks as the better option now - as it was in 2015..
Saudi Arabia Pulls Funding From LIV Golf. Its Star Players Face a Painful Road Back. LIV plans to tell players and staff by Thursday that Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund would end its funding for the upstart league. But the PGA Tour isn’t yet ready to welcome back those who jumped ship.
I've completely lost track (and interest) on why this has failed...
crap , play it in the sand dunes or trump only courses
If it is Streeting v Rayner, then I'm not sure who I would vote for.
If it was Streeting or Rayner and I only had one bullet... Well, I'd probably just shoot myself.
I've just been given huge quantities of co-codamol to deal with pain. The leaflet tells me that an overdose can kill me.
I don't see Starmer easily giving up. A PM who whips his MPs to prevent a referral to the Privileges Committee does not look like someone who is going to leave because of poor local elections results.
There was a time when the NHS would give you proper analgesia.
Co-codamol is a horrible medication. Lots of people in severe pain will push the dosage limits sometimes, but with co-codamol by time you see any symptoms from too much codeine the paracetamol has silently destroyed your liver.
The treatment for paracetamol overdose is NAC, a supplement you can actually get at Holland and Barratt (it's just an amino acid). The liver damage is caused, as I understand it, by your liver running out of glutathione, which NAC solves by providing the necessary precursor for making more.
This doesn't mean that you can necessarily take more paracetamol safely by eating NAC, in theory it might work but the quantities are large and in the case of an overdose they inject it for a faster response. (I am not a doctor and this is not medical advice, etc)
Read an article recently suggesting that iboprofen is actually a bigger problem, as paracetamol overdose is rare, and ibuprofen causes damage at normal doses under various circumstances: acetaminophen Vs iboprofen
Paracetamol is safe if the dose is not exceeded, of 8 500mg tabs in 24 hours if over 50kg. Liver toxicity comes from acute overdose, usually deliberate but occasionally from taking other meds that include paracetamol inadvertently.
For long term pain relief it is best taken regularly by the clock. Taking it only when pain starts is much less effective.
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
I work with PHE.
Abolishing an organisation only saves money if you abolish the functions and responsibilities of that organisation. If you merely transfer those responsibilities then there are no savings merely a reorganisation, and one that paralyses activity in the meantime. Streeting fell at that first hurdle.
No one regards Streeting as highly as himself, so I expect him to run in any contest. I also expect him to lose as he is Billy Nomates in the party.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Yet state benefits, that are also income, are not subject to tax.
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
I work with PHE.
Abolishing an organisation only saves money if you abolish the functions and responsibilities of that organisation. If you merely transfer those responsibilities then there are no savings merely a reorganisation, and one that paralyses activity in the meantime. Streeting fell at that first hurdle.
No one regards Streeting as highly as himself, so I expect him to run in any contest. I also expect him to lose as he is Billy Nomates in the party.
To the point that it’s a throw away joke in Yes Minister - abolishing/merging an organisation always increases the number of jobs in the end.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
Coming back to Malcolm's comments about Pension Credit, I am a bit out of date now but I can see what his issue with the trigger amounts is. Something else, Pensioner wise, that needs sorted.
California’s high speed rail, which was supposed to link LA and SF, is now seven times over budget and plans to terminate well outside the suburbs of both terminal cities. Very little has actually been built since it was first announced in 2008.
Wonder if it will open before the overdue San Andreas "big one" smashes it to bits...
I’m shocked to hear on Today that interception by the UK of Russian shadow tankers is being held up my members of cabinet being concerned that it maybe not legal - I wonder which members of cabinet.
Funnily enough France and other countries do not have the same legal constraints.
It's becoming baked in. To the extent that if they lose 1400 does everyone just shrug?
I don't know. It might be that doing better than expectations would prompt a sigh of relief all round. But 1,400 lost council seats would be objectively terrible, and would involve the loss of large numbers of councillors in core areas, crystallising the threat to the seats of many MPs.
And then, of course, there's the likely humiliation we're expecting in Wales.
Where does PB stand on the arsonists now that the trial is up and running (after two days discussing case management – is that normal?) and reported in the mainstream media?
You can discuss it using reputable media sources.
The issue that puts PB at risk is using the story to smear Sir Keir Starmer.
I remain entertained by the concept that voters in Kent will see the abject failure of the Reform council to deliver any of their promises actually as a success actually because their council tax has actually gone up by £20 less than it could have done actually.
Its about as disconnected from lived reality as you can get.
F1: backed a Ladbrokes special of Bearman to be top 8 and over 2.5 leaders in the race, at 6.5.
Bearman's been 5th and 7th and had a DNF (but, from fuzzy memory, had the pace to be easily top 8). He's driving very well. Possible upgrades for various teams upset this, but still. Also, Mercedes is bringing less than other teams, I forget if it's minor or nothing, and with Ferrari starts, undercutting, and rain forecast the leader side has a good chance of coming off too.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
I’m leaning towards thinking Starmer will actually manage to cling on in the immediate aftermath of these elections.
I think the results will be so shockingly bad, that the Labour Party are likely to enter a sort of stunned inertia. There will be grumblings, perhaps even “interventions” by ambitious characters like Rayner, but they’ll fall short of actually launching an official challenge. It is an oft mentioned point on here that the Labour Party aren’t very good at getting rid of leaders - I think the events of recent months have shown that.
I think Starmer’s days are numbered before the next GE - but I still think the timing of these elections, together with the difficulties the leading challengers face (Rayner - HMRC, Streeting - Mandelson links, Burnham - not an MP). is likely to keep him in post for now, unless they can agree on Miliband as a ‘unity’ candidate.
The wildcard in all this is whether Starmer really does try for a reshuffle. This could go either way. If he manages to buy off Rayner and Streeting for now with a return to cabinet/promotions, he might also avoid further fallout. On the other hand if they decline to serve/others get upset about being moved (can he really move Reeves for instance?) then that could actually spark a challenge.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
A pension age of 286 would certainly solve the problem! Bravo
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
I’m leaning towards thinking Starmer will actually manage to cling on in the immediate aftermath of these elections.
I think the results will be so shockingly bad, that the Labour Party are likely to enter a sort of stunned inertia. There will be grumblings, perhaps even “interventions” by ambitious characters like Rayner, but they’ll fall short of actually launching an official challenge. It is an oft mentioned point on here that the Labour Party aren’t very good at getting rid of leaders - I think the events of recent months have shown that.
I think Starmer’s days are numbered before the next GE - but I still think the timing of these elections, together with the difficulties the leading challengers face (Rayner - HMRC, Streeting - Mandelson links, Burnham - not an MP). is likely to keep him in post for now, unless they can agree on Miliband as a ‘unity’ candidate.
The wildcard in all this is whether Starmer really does try for a reshuffle. This could go either way. If he manages to buy off Rayner and Streeting for now with a return to cabinet/promotions, he might also avoid further fallout. On the other hand if they decline to serve/others get upset about being moved (can he really move Reeves for instance?) then that could actually spark a challenge.
For those of you that think SKS does not know his way around the law and Parliament, I give you this.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
It's becoming baked in. To the extent that if they lose 1400 does everyone just shrug?
I don't know. It might be that doing better than expectations would prompt a sigh of relief all round. But 1,400 lost council seats would be objectively terrible, and would involve the loss of large numbers of councillors in core areas, crystallising the threat to the seats of many MPs.
And then, of course, there's the likely humiliation we're expecting in Wales.
Wales is going to be the traumatic one for Labour. It has been their fiefdom for decades. While maybe, in the back of their minds, they accepted that they would lose power at some point, they would have fully expected to be a dominant opposition force in that scenario. If they are pushed into third - or, even worse - fourth or fifth as some polls suggest - that will be truly beyond the comprehension of Welsh Labour leaders. It is a cataclysm they would never have ever prepared for.
I’m leaning towards thinking Starmer will actually manage to cling on in the immediate aftermath of these elections.
I think the results will be so shockingly bad, that the Labour Party are likely to enter a sort of stunned inertia. There will be grumblings, perhaps even “interventions” by ambitious characters like Rayner, but they’ll fall short of actually launching an official challenge. It is an oft mentioned point on here that the Labour Party aren’t very good at getting rid of leaders - I think the events of recent months have shown that.
I think Starmer’s days are numbered before the next GE - but I still think the timing of these elections, together with the difficulties the leading challengers face (Rayner - HMRC, Streeting - Mandelson links, Burnham - not an MP). is likely to keep him in post for now, unless they can agree on Miliband as a ‘unity’ candidate.
The wildcard in all this is whether Starmer really does try for a reshuffle. This could go either way. If he manages to buy off Rayner and Streeting for now with a return to cabinet/promotions, he might also avoid further fallout. On the other hand if they decline to serve/others get upset about being moved (can he really move Reeves for instance?) then that could actually spark a challenge.
For those of you that think SKS does not know his way around the law and Parliament, I give you this.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
Because we have been too busy paying mortgages to have children to the extent we are having to bring in other people's children.
This is quite the story with bizarre responses from people to it.
Sexual abuse is sexual abuse.
‘ A JPMorgan executive allegedly used her power to sexually harass and abuse a junior male employee - drugging him, subjecting him to racial abuse and threatening his career.’
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
Yes it will, probably by ten years.
However they won’t do anything to arrest the growth of the benefits side of the welfare bill which they should also tackle. However SKS lost that battle early on.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
That won't be enough looking at the numbers. I am due to receive my first state pension in 2040 which might get pushed back to 2043, I suspect means testing will also be brought in around then.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Farage has gone big on crypto deregulation. The guy is big in crypto. Completely unrelated I'm sure.
Yes, I am sure that is just a curious coincidence.
But what has Farage actually done with this undeclared donation? He could have bought his own house in Clacton, but instead his lady friend did, so it seems that he has used it for some other purpose.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
People with income above the personal allowance pay tax shocker.
California’s high speed rail, which was supposed to link LA and SF, is now seven times over budget and plans to terminate well outside the suburbs of both terminal cities. Very little has actually been built since it was first announced in 2008.
Wonder if it will open before the overdue San Andreas "big one" smashes it to bits...
The LA to SF railroad will never open. The only 'good news' is that very little of the $231bn has actually been spent; most of it has merely been earmarked.
It's time to abandon it, and move on.
Separately, the Los Angeles to Las Vegas railroad, that has not taken a penny of taxpayer's money*, and which was only greenlit a couple of years ago, will likely launch in 2029.
* The bonds used to finance it are tax exempt, so it's not entirely without subsidy. Still: it will probably cost less in total costs than LA to SF did in planning alone.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Farage has gone big on crypto deregulation. The guy is big in crypto. Completely unrelated I'm sure.
Yes, I am sure that is just a curious coincidence.
But what has Farage actually done with this undeclared donation? He could have bought his own house in Clacton, but instead his lady friend did, so it seems that he has used it for some other purpose.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
Maybe. But the obsession with budgeting to a five-year time horizon that has gripped recent Chancellors kinda counts against it. It's a change that doesn't help those budget sums (unless the increase is brought a very long way forward) and so it only helps a Chancellor from a different party in the future.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
It doesn’t necessarily show pensioner incomes have increased significantly. It will certainly show the effect of fiscal drag due to the lack of increase of the personal allowance.
California’s high speed rail, which was supposed to link LA and SF, is now seven times over budget and plans to terminate well outside the suburbs of both terminal cities. Very little has actually been built since it was first announced in 2008.
Wonder if it will open before the overdue San Andreas "big one" smashes it to bits...
The LA to SF railroad will never open. The only 'good news' is that very little of the $231bn has actually been spent; most of it has merely been earmarked.
It's time to abandon it, and move on.
Separately, the Los Angeles to Las Vegas railroad, that has not taken a penny of taxpayer's money*, and which was only greenlit a couple of years ago, will likely launch in 2029.
* The bonds used to finance it are tax exempt, so it's not entirely without subsidy. Still: it will probably cost less in total costs than LA to SF did in planning alone.
All the things in U.K. infrastructure projects, that we so love, are present in US infrastructure projects. But turned up to 11.
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
I work with PHE.
Abolishing an organisation only saves money if you abolish the functions and responsibilities of that organisation. If you merely transfer those responsibilities then there are no savings merely a reorganisation, and one that paralyses activity in the meantime. Streeting fell at that first hurdle.
No one regards Streeting as highly as himself, so I expect him to run in any contest. I also expect him to lose as he is Billy Nomates in the party.
Thanks for this …. but it doesn’t really explain the polling. Since when did niche info on gross incompetence and lack of allies in the party influence that?
My point is he’s an accomplished media performer, much better than Starmer, yet his polling is even worse. Says something about the state of the electorate. Not only are we basically ungovernable, we are also entirely unforgiving.
Pension age? I turn 50 this year and expect it will be 70 before they pay me anything. Which is why i am diversifying into other forms of income...
While the Triple Lock cannot continue indefinitely, and clearly needs to be linked to the personal allowance to prevent complexity, it is not a huge amount to live on.
Pensioners are an increasingly rich part of the population, but mostly because they own property outright, and often have occupational pensions. Certainly I do, as I approach my complete retirement, but the coming generations do not. The State Pension is a pretty bare bones existence with no other assets.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
It doesn’t necessarily show pensioner incomes have increased significantly. It will certainly show the effect of fiscal drag due to the lack of increase of the personal allowance.
That’s true. But that’s something that affects all of us, not just pensioners.
The idea but forward (I forget which party) to have a special tax allowance for pensioners was just risible. The sort of thing that has me wistfully looking at visas.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
I remain entertained by the concept that voters in Kent will see the abject failure of the Reform council to deliver any of their promises actually as a success actually because their council tax has actually gone up by £20 less than it could have done actually.
Its about as disconnected from lived reality as you can get.
Amusing; but why do all US TV presenters have to behave as if they're on drugs?
TLDR: Trump has lost Gen X, men, suburbanites (isn't that almost everyone?), catholics, poor voters, married people, etc etc. Looks like the same sort of electoral strategy that Starmer is following....
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
It doesn’t necessarily show pensioner incomes have increased significantly. It will certainly show the effect of fiscal drag due to the lack of increase of the personal allowance.
That’s true. But that’s something that affects all of us, not just pensioners.
The idea but forward (I forget which party) to have a special tax allowance for pensioners was just risible. The sort of thing that has me wistfully looking at visas.
I'm waiting for Malcolm to apologise for the miserly pension he was happy for my grandparents to get back when he was a working taxpayer.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
Pension age? I turn 50 this year and expect it will be 70 before they pay me anything. Which is why i am diversifying into other forms of income...
While the Triple Lock cannot continue indefinitely, and clearly needs to be linked to the personal allowance to prevent complexity, it is not a huge amount to live on.
Pensioners are an increasingly rich part of the population, but mostly because they own property outright, and often have occupational pensions. Certainly I do, as I approach my complete retirement, but the coming generations do not. The State Pension is a pretty bare bones existence with no other assets.
Which means zero social mobility. Your entire working life depends on having rich and generous relatives. If you don’t, half your lifetime income is siphoned off by someone else’s rich relatives.
I remain entertained by the concept that voters in Kent will see the abject failure of the Reform council to deliver any of their promises actually as a success actually because their council tax has actually gone up by £20 less than it could have done actually.
Its about as disconnected from lived reality as you can get.
No elections in Kent next week, afaik.
And at this stage of the electoral cycle people will pile on to Reform anyway. But as it becomes clear they have no answers either the swing back we have seen in national polls will continue.
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
I work with PHE.
Abolishing an organisation only saves money if you abolish the functions and responsibilities of that organisation. If you merely transfer those responsibilities then there are no savings merely a reorganisation, and one that paralyses activity in the meantime. Streeting fell at that first hurdle.
No one regards Streeting as highly as himself, so I expect him to run in any contest. I also expect him to lose as he is Billy Nomates in the party.
To the point that it’s a throw away joke in Yes Minister - abolishing/merging an organisation always increases the number of jobs in the end.
Are you lot taliking about PHE or NHS England? One was made into UKHSA by the Tories as punishment for covid. One was made into ? By Labour for shits and giggles.
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
I work with PHE.
Abolishing an organisation only saves money if you abolish the functions and responsibilities of that organisation. If you merely transfer those responsibilities then there are no savings merely a reorganisation, and one that paralyses activity in the meantime. Streeting fell at that first hurdle.
No one regards Streeting as highly as himself, so I expect him to run in any contest. I also expect him to lose as he is Billy Nomates in the party.
Thanks for this …. but it doesn’t really explain the polling. Since when did niche info on gross incompetence and lack of allies in the party influence that?
My point is he’s an accomplished media performer, much better than Starmer, yet his polling is even worse. Says something about the state of the electorate. Not only are we basically ungovernable, we are also entirely unforgiving.
I agree. We have an electorate that is both entitled and unforgiving. The next party in government will get a punishment beating too, until we run out of options.
No party can get elected telling the truth about the national finances and the economies needed.
I don’t blame pensioners for voting for their own interests . They’re a large voting block who always go to the polls .
Something Rayner and Starmer ignored with the WFA fiasco .
The big fall in Labours popularity really started from that . Unless there’s cross party agreement to drop the triple lock then it’s not going anytime soon .
Parties can continue to deny reality that the triple lock is unaffordable until the UKs finances implode.
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
I work with PHE.
Abolishing an organisation only saves money if you abolish the functions and responsibilities of that organisation. If you merely transfer those responsibilities then there are no savings merely a reorganisation, and one that paralyses activity in the meantime. Streeting fell at that first hurdle.
No one regards Streeting as highly as himself, so I expect him to run in any contest. I also expect him to lose as he is Billy Nomates in the party.
Thanks for this …. but it doesn’t really explain the polling. Since when did niche info on gross incompetence and lack of allies in the party influence that?
My point is he’s an accomplished media performer, much better than Starmer, yet his polling is even worse. Says something about the state of the electorate. Not only are we basically ungovernable, we are also entirely unforgiving.
In left wing circles, Streeting has become the poster boy for “Blue Labour, selling the NHS to US corporate interests”.
Starmer is more liked, in such circles, because of his history with human rights.
Streeting as PM might well reduce the Labour polling figures - he won’t pick up votes on the right, the left will go more Green and the portion of the centre that likes him is small.
The wishcasting about Burnham is based on his being liked on the Left. Many in the Labour Party think he would reunite the wings of the left in general - around the policy platform of Brown or slightly to the left of that.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
Well they have worked all their lives for their additional private pensions, you should be more bothered aout those who have never worked or never saved a penny who get huge largesse shovelled to them and never pay a penny in tax. If you have 10 pound a week private pension you get nothing and will be in tax bracket, never work a day in your life or save a penny and you get showered with extra pension credits of all types.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
Even his Arsenal seat being moved by security to a better one was considered a resignation issue on here!
Amusing; but why do all US TV presenters have to behave as if they're on drugs?
TLDR: Trump has lost Gen X, men, suburbanites (isn't that almost everyone?), catholics, poor voters, married people, etc etc. Looks like the same sort of electoral strategy that Starmer is following....
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
It doesn’t necessarily show pensioner incomes have increased significantly. It will certainly show the effect of fiscal drag due to the lack of increase of the personal allowance.
That’s true. But that’s something that affects all of us, not just pensioners.
The idea but forward (I forget which party) to have a special tax allowance for pensioners was just risible. The sort of thing that has me wistfully looking at visas.
I’m perfectly aware it affects us all and I don’t disagree with your view of it. I was chatting to a neighbour the other day who thought pensioners shouldn’t pay tax. That seems a prevailing view however it’s income and gets favourable tax treatment on the way in.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
Well they have worked all their lives for their additional private pensions, you should be more bothered aout those who have never worked or never saved a penny who get huge largesse shovelled to them and never pay a penny in tax. If you have 10 pound a week private pension you get nothing and will be in tax bracket, never work a day in your life or save a penny and you get showered with extra pension credits of all types.
My generation is paying for your state pension, whereas chances are that we won't get one as it will be means tested away. It is hardly surprising that is an issue.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
Isn’t there a difference though in the sense that most of us expect Farage to be surrounded by alleged grift and grey areas whereas Starmer had sold himself as the great man of decency and probity etc and yet that was bullshit, and worse for it being so cheap.
The idea that Farage has serious questions about financial issues isn’t news and is factored in to our thoughts about him whereas with Starmer it wasn’t.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
It doesn’t necessarily show pensioner incomes have increased significantly. It will certainly show the effect of fiscal drag due to the lack of increase of the personal allowance.
That’s true. But that’s something that affects all of us, not just pensioners.
The idea but forward (I forget which party) to have a special tax allowance for pensioners was just risible. The sort of thing that has me wistfully looking at visas.
I’m perfectly aware it affects us all and I don’t disagree with your view of it. I was chatting to a neighbour the other day who thought pensioners shouldn’t pay tax. That seems a prevailing view however it’s income and gets favourable tax treatment on the way in.
When you merge NI and IT, you could give basic rate pensioners the old IT rate.
I don’t blame pensioners for voting for their own interests . They’re a large voting block who always go to the polls .
Something Rayner and Starmer ignored with the WFA fiasco .
The big fall in Labours popularity really started from that . Unless there’s cross party agreement to drop the triple lock then it’s not going anytime soon .
Parties can continue to deny reality that the triple lock is unaffordable until the UKs finances implode.
The mistake wasn’t doing something with WFA - it was doing it in the way they did. Singling it out as their first major policy proposal, ahead of the budget, ostensibly to “fix” the finances. It couldn’t have looked more vindictive or nakedly political if they’d tried.
It will go down as one of the stupidest unforced errors in British political history.
They should have had a “big bang” budget in Autumn 2024 that dealt with everything in the round (and that should have got the income tax rise out of the way too). A gradual phasing out starting for the richest would have taken a lot of the sting out of it. It would hardly be unusual for an incoming government to do a sweeping budget as its first major action - Osborne’s was, for instance.
I think it has hamstrung them ever since. Reeves really should have carried the can for that - she didn’t, of course, because she was in lockstep with Starmer on the issue.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
It doesn’t necessarily show pensioner incomes have increased significantly. It will certainly show the effect of fiscal drag due to the lack of increase of the personal allowance.
That’s true. But that’s something that affects all of us, not just pensioners.
The idea but forward (I forget which party) to have a special tax allowance for pensioners was just risible. The sort of thing that has me wistfully looking at visas.
I'm waiting for Malcolm to apologise for the miserly pension he was happy for my grandparents to get back when he was a working taxpayer.
I am still a working taxpayer and paying tax for at least 4 pensioners so all your grandparents are covered , think you should be thanking me for paying their pensions. PS: I just believe pensioners get a bum rap on here , many who have worked all their lives get a bad deal for trying to look after themselves whilst feckless ones getting well looked after by the state. I am not short of cash so not an issue for me as I will be a high rate taxpayer till I pop my clogs.
Pension age? I turn 50 this year and expect it will be 70 before they pay me anything. Which is why i am diversifying into other forms of income...
While the Triple Lock cannot continue indefinitely, and clearly needs to be linked to the personal allowance to prevent complexity, it is not a huge amount to live on.
Pensioners are an increasingly rich part of the population, but mostly because they own property outright, and often have occupational pensions. Certainly I do, as I approach my complete retirement, but the coming generations do not. The State Pension is a pretty bare bones existence with no other assets.
Which means zero social mobility. Your entire working life depends on having rich and generous relatives. If you don’t, half your lifetime income is siphoned off by someone else’s rich relatives.
In a consultation the other day I was tinkering with the medication of a newly retired guy living just on the State Pension. He asked the fairly obvious question "why would I want to live for extra years like this?". He didn't seem to be depressed, just not seeing much to look forward to. It was a tough question to respond to.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
It doesn’t necessarily show pensioner incomes have increased significantly. It will certainly show the effect of fiscal drag due to the lack of increase of the personal allowance.
That’s true. But that’s something that affects all of us, not just pensioners.
The idea but forward (I forget which party) to have a special tax allowance for pensioners was just risible. The sort of thing that has me wistfully looking at visas.
I’m perfectly aware it affects us all and I don’t disagree with your view of it. I was chatting to a neighbour the other day who thought pensioners shouldn’t pay tax. That seems a prevailing view however it’s income and gets favourable tax treatment on the way in.
I wasn’t disagreeing with you at all. And your example does demonstrate how deluded some people have become in a kind of fiscal vacuum.
I think most pensioners would be shocked to discover that the poverty line is well below the current state pension level.
I don’t blame pensioners for voting for their own interests . They’re a large voting block who always go to the polls .
Something Rayner and Starmer ignored with the WFA fiasco .
The big fall in Labours popularity really started from that . Unless there’s cross party agreement to drop the triple lock then it’s not going anytime soon .
Parties can continue to deny reality that the triple lock is unaffordable until the UKs finances implode.
The mistake wasn’t doing something with WFA - it was doing it in the way they did. Singling it out as their first major policy proposal, ahead of the budget, ostensibly to “fix” the finances.
It will go down as one of the stupidest unforced errors in British political history.
They should have had a “big bang” budget in Autumn 2024 that dealt with everything in the round (and that should have got the income tax rise out of the way too). It would hardly be unusual for an incoming government to do a sweeping budget as its first major action - Osborne’s was, for instance.
I think it has hamstrung them ever since. Reeves really should have carried the can for that - she didn’t, of course, because she was in lockstep with Starmer on the issue.
Yes - put all the old age benefits in a blender and produce something simpler that uses taxation to target the poorest.
So you spend money on those who need help. And can wave tons of examples of “Mrs Miggins, on only the state pension, can now afford to take the train to see her grandchildren” etc.
Hell, even folding the WFA into the state pension would have saved money by binning admin on it.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
I don’t blame pensioners for voting for their own interests . They’re a large voting block who always go to the polls .
Something Rayner and Starmer ignored with the WFA fiasco .
The big fall in Labours popularity really started from that . Unless there’s cross party agreement to drop the triple lock then it’s not going anytime soon .
Parties can continue to deny reality that the triple lock is unaffordable until the UKs finances implode.
The mistake wasn’t doing something with WFA - it was doing it in the way they did. Singling it out as their first major policy proposal, ahead of the budget, ostensibly to “fix” the finances. It couldn’t have looked more vindictive or nakedly political if they’d tried.
It will go down as one of the stupidest unforced errors in British political history.
They should have had a “big bang” budget in Autumn 2024 that dealt with everything in the round (and that should have got the income tax rise out of the way too). A gradual phasing out starting for the richest would have taken a lot of the sting out of it. It would hardly be unusual for an incoming government to do a sweeping budget as its first major action - Osborne’s was, for instance.
I think it has hamstrung them ever since. Reeves really should have carried the can for that - she didn’t, of course, because she was in lockstep with Starmer on the issue.
This is my drone swarm theory. The only way to sort out the finances is to announce so many deeply unpopular policies in rapid succession that the outrage machine can’t keep up.
As long as the markets react well, and you hammer everyone to some extent for the solidarity angle, I think you could just about get away with it.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
I work with PHE.
Abolishing an organisation only saves money if you abolish the functions and responsibilities of that organisation. If you merely transfer those responsibilities then there are no savings merely a reorganisation, and one that paralyses activity in the meantime. Streeting fell at that first hurdle.
No one regards Streeting as highly as himself, so I expect him to run in any contest. I also expect him to lose as he is Billy Nomates in the party.
Thanks for this …. but it doesn’t really explain the polling. Since when did niche info on gross incompetence and lack of allies in the party influence that?
My point is he’s an accomplished media performer, much better than Starmer, yet his polling is even worse. Says something about the state of the electorate. Not only are we basically ungovernable, we are also entirely unforgiving.
I agree. We have an electorate that is both entitled and unforgiving. The next party in government will get a punishment beating too, until we run out of options.
No party can get elected telling the truth about the national finances and the economies needed.
We assume that is the case, but when was the last time that a party tried?
It's an untested assumption.
A party willing to consistently ridicule the other four for making absurd spending promises when the deficit is over £100bn might be surprised at the hearing the public is willing to give it.
Amusing; but why do all US TV presenters have to behave as if they're on drugs?
TLDR: Trump has lost Gen X, men, suburbanites (isn't that almost everyone?), catholics, poor voters, married people, etc etc. Looks like the same sort of electoral strategy that Starmer is following....
I don’t blame pensioners for voting for their own interests . They’re a large voting block who always go to the polls .
Something Rayner and Starmer ignored with the WFA fiasco .
The big fall in Labours popularity really started from that . Unless there’s cross party agreement to drop the triple lock then it’s not going anytime soon .
Parties can continue to deny reality that the triple lock is unaffordable until the UKs finances implode.
The mistake wasn’t doing something with WFA - it was doing it in the way they did. Singling it out as their first major policy proposal, ahead of the budget, ostensibly to “fix” the finances. It couldn’t have looked more vindictive or nakedly political if they’d tried.
It will go down as one of the stupidest unforced errors in British political history.
They should have had a “big bang” budget in Autumn 2024 that dealt with everything in the round (and that should have got the income tax rise out of the way too). A gradual phasing out starting for the richest would have taken a lot of the sting out of it. It would hardly be unusual for an incoming government to do a sweeping budget as its first major action - Osborne’s was, for instance.
I think it has hamstrung them ever since. Reeves really should have carried the can for that - she didn’t, of course, because she was in lockstep with Starmer on the issue.
This is my drone swarm theory. The only way to sort out the finances is to announce so many deeply unpopular policies in rapid succession that the outrage machine can’t keep up.
As long as the markets react well, and you hammer everyone to some extent for the solidarity angle, I think you could just about get away with it.
Some time ago I posted here about cuts needed across various areas. One advantage of doing that is that people view things in relative terms. Pain's easier to take if other people are getting hit too.
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
I work with PHE.
Abolishing an organisation only saves money if you abolish the functions and responsibilities of that organisation. If you merely transfer those responsibilities then there are no savings merely a reorganisation, and one that paralyses activity in the meantime. Streeting fell at that first hurdle.
No one regards Streeting as highly as himself, so I expect him to run in any contest. I also expect him to lose as he is Billy Nomates in the party.
Thanks for this …. but it doesn’t really explain the polling. Since when did niche info on gross incompetence and lack of allies in the party influence that?
My point is he’s an accomplished media performer, much better than Starmer, yet his polling is even worse. Says something about the state of the electorate. Not only are we basically ungovernable, we are also entirely unforgiving.
I agree. We have an electorate that is both entitled and unforgiving. The next party in government will get a punishment beating too, until we run out of options.
No party can get elected telling the truth about the national finances and the economies needed.
We assume that is the case, but when was the last time that a party tried?
It's an untested assumption.
A party willing to consistently ridicule the other four for making absurd spending promises when the deficit is over £100bn might be surprised at the hearing the public is willing to give it.
They don't get through the first stage - winning party leaderships.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
People with income above the personal allowance pay tax shocker.
No-one on benefits income above the personal tax allowance pay any tax is the real shocker
I don’t blame pensioners for voting for their own interests . They’re a large voting block who always go to the polls .
Something Rayner and Starmer ignored with the WFA fiasco .
The big fall in Labours popularity really started from that . Unless there’s cross party agreement to drop the triple lock then it’s not going anytime soon .
Parties can continue to deny reality that the triple lock is unaffordable until the UKs finances implode.
The mistake wasn’t doing something with WFA - it was doing it in the way they did. Singling it out as their first major policy proposal, ahead of the budget, ostensibly to “fix” the finances. It couldn’t have looked more vindictive or nakedly political if they’d tried.
It will go down as one of the stupidest unforced errors in British political history.
They should have had a “big bang” budget in Autumn 2024 that dealt with everything in the round (and that should have got the income tax rise out of the way too). A gradual phasing out starting for the richest would have taken a lot of the sting out of it. It would hardly be unusual for an incoming government to do a sweeping budget as its first major action - Osborne’s was, for instance.
I think it has hamstrung them ever since. Reeves really should have carried the can for that - she didn’t, of course, because she was in lockstep with Starmer on the issue.
This is my drone swarm theory. The only way to sort out the finances is to announce so many deeply unpopular policies in rapid succession that the outrage machine can’t keep up.
As long as the markets react well, and you hammer everyone to some extent for the solidarity angle, I think you could just about get away with it.
Hence why “we’re all in this together “ (even if you can easily find reasons to disagree with that statement) was such a smart move from Cameron/Osborne.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
Thicko , you do not get state pension at 63, your obsession to include anyone older and poorer than you as a pensioner is laughable. As a Rachman landlord you should know better.
I don’t blame pensioners for voting for their own interests . They’re a large voting block who always go to the polls .
Something Rayner and Starmer ignored with the WFA fiasco .
The big fall in Labours popularity really started from that . Unless there’s cross party agreement to drop the triple lock then it’s not going anytime soon .
Parties can continue to deny reality that the triple lock is unaffordable until the UKs finances implode.
Or Labour will just continue to increase tax on the wealthy and business and freeze tax thresholds on workers to pay for it and the ever growing welfare bill
Comments
Still, a really great night for them.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
https://inews.co.uk/news/spent-11-hours-airport-missed-flight-ees-checks-4386859
https://kmph.com/news/local/california-high-speed-rail-price-tag-jumps-to-231b-nearly-seven-times-2008-estimate
California’s high speed rail, which was supposed to link LA and SF, is now seven times over budget and plans to terminate well outside the suburbs of both terminal cities. Very little has actually been built since it was first announced in 2008.
I’m pleased to have laid Farage and Johnson by so much, at opportune times, and laid Lowe down to the same point in the Red - which is just free money - that I don’t feel impelled to pick between the various Labour contenders, all in the Green.
Meanwhile, isn’t that a great, and apposite, photo for the lead? You can just imagine the large knife she has behind her back.
This doesn't mean that you can necessarily take more paracetamol safely by eating NAC, in theory it might work but the quantities are large and in the case of an overdose they inject it for a faster response. (I am not a doctor and this is not medical advice, etc)
Read an article recently suggesting that iboprofen is actually a bigger problem, as paracetamol overdose is rare, and ibuprofen causes damage at normal doses under various circumstances:
acetaminophen Vs iboprofen
Rather a shame the hereditary peers are going. Got to make space for more political appointees, I suppose...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgp5j5gpplo
Abolishing an organisation only saves money if you abolish the functions and responsibilities of that organisation. If you merely transfer those responsibilities then there are no savings merely a reorganisation, and one that paralyses activity in the meantime. Streeting fell at that first hurdle.
No one regards Streeting as highly as himself, so I expect him to run in any contest. I also expect him to lose as he is Billy Nomates in the party.
Suddenly chaos with Ed Miliband looks as the better option now - as it was in 2015..
Suddenly chaos with Ed Miliband looks as the better option now - as it was in 2015..
For long term pain relief it is best taken regularly by the clock. Taking it only when pain starts is much less effective.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/29/revealed-nigel-farage-was-given-undisclosed-5m-by-crypto-billionaire-in-2024?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
They should be.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286
2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
5.6/8.2 on Betfair.
Funnily enough France and other countries do not have the same legal constraints.
And then, of course, there's the likely humiliation we're expecting in Wales.
The issue that puts PB at risk is using the story to smear Sir Keir Starmer.
Its about as disconnected from lived reality as you can get.
Betting PostF1: backed a Ladbrokes special of Bearman to be top 8 and over 2.5 leaders in the race, at 6.5.
Bearman's been 5th and 7th and had a DNF (but, from fuzzy memory, had the pace to be easily top 8). He's driving very well. Possible upgrades for various teams upset this, but still. Also, Mercedes is bringing less than other teams, I forget if it's minor or nothing, and with Ferrari starts, undercutting, and rain forecast the leader side has a good chance of coming off too.
I think the results will be so shockingly bad, that the Labour Party are likely to enter a sort of stunned inertia. There will be grumblings, perhaps even “interventions” by ambitious characters like Rayner, but they’ll fall short of actually launching an official challenge. It is an oft mentioned point on here that the Labour Party aren’t very good at getting rid of leaders - I think the events of recent months have shown that.
I think Starmer’s days are numbered before the next GE - but I still think the timing of these elections, together with the difficulties the leading challengers face (Rayner - HMRC, Streeting - Mandelson links, Burnham - not an MP). is likely to keep him in post for now, unless they can agree on Miliband as a ‘unity’ candidate.
The wildcard in all this is whether Starmer really does try for a reshuffle. This could go either way. If he manages to buy off Rayner and Streeting for now with a return to cabinet/promotions, he might also avoid further fallout. On the other hand if they decline to serve/others get upset about being moved (can he really move Reeves for instance?) then that could actually spark a challenge.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2588/contents/made
Sexual abuse is sexual abuse.
‘ A JPMorgan executive allegedly used her power to sexually harass and abuse a junior male employee - drugging him, subjecting him to racial abuse and threatening his career.’
https://x.com/daily_mailus/status/2049630290402836851?s=61
- disaster for Labour
- One more heave for reform
- Disappointment for the greens
- Who are the Lib Dems?
- Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
However they won’t do anything to arrest the growth of the benefits side of the welfare bill which they should also tackle. However SKS lost that battle early on.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
But what has Farage actually done with this undeclared donation? He could have bought his own house in Clacton, but instead his lady friend did, so it seems that he has used it for some other purpose.
It's time to abandon it, and move on.
Separately, the Los Angeles to Las Vegas railroad, that has not taken a penny of taxpayer's money*, and which was only greenlit a couple of years ago, will likely launch in 2029.
* The bonds used to finance it are tax exempt, so it's not entirely without subsidy. Still: it will probably cost less in total costs than LA to SF did in planning alone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeHTI660IuE
My point is he’s an accomplished media performer, much better than Starmer, yet his polling is even worse. Says something about the state of the electorate. Not only are we basically ungovernable, we are also entirely unforgiving.
Pensioners are an increasingly rich part of the population, but mostly because they own property outright, and often have occupational pensions. Certainly I do, as I approach my complete retirement, but the coming generations do not. The State Pension is a pretty bare bones existence with no other assets.
The idea but forward (I forget which party) to have a special tax allowance for pensioners was just risible. The sort of thing that has me wistfully looking at visas.
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
TLDR: Trump has lost Gen X, men, suburbanites (isn't that almost everyone?), catholics, poor voters, married people, etc etc. Looks like the same sort of electoral strategy that Starmer is following....
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
No party can get elected telling the truth about the national finances and the economies needed.
Something Rayner and Starmer ignored with the WFA fiasco .
The big fall in Labours popularity really started from that . Unless there’s cross party agreement to drop the triple lock then it’s not going anytime soon .
Parties can continue to deny reality that the triple lock is unaffordable until the UKs finances implode.
Starmer is more liked, in such circles, because of his history with human rights.
Streeting as PM might well reduce the Labour polling figures - he won’t pick up votes on the right, the left will go more Green and the portion of the centre that likes him is small.
The wishcasting about Burnham is based on his being liked on the Left. Many in the Labour Party think he would reunite the wings of the left in general - around the policy platform of Brown or slightly to the left of that.
If you have 10 pound a week private pension you get nothing and will be in tax bracket, never work a day in your life or save a penny and you get showered with extra pension credits of all types.
Hmmm
Not sure that is entirely correct.
The idea that Farage has serious questions about financial issues isn’t news and is factored in to our thoughts about him whereas with Starmer it wasn’t.
And market that as a special tax break :-)
It will go down as one of the stupidest unforced errors in British political history.
They should have had a “big bang” budget in Autumn 2024 that dealt with everything in the round (and that should have got the income tax rise out of the way too). A gradual phasing out starting for the richest would have taken a lot of the sting out of it. It would hardly be unusual for an incoming government to do a sweeping budget as its first major action - Osborne’s was, for instance.
I think it has hamstrung them ever since. Reeves really should have carried the can for that - she didn’t, of course, because she was in lockstep with Starmer on the issue.
PS: I just believe pensioners get a bum rap on here , many who have worked all their lives get a bad deal for trying to look after themselves whilst feckless ones getting well looked after by the state. I am not short of cash so not an issue for me as I will be a high rate taxpayer till I pop my clogs.
I think most pensioners would be shocked to discover that the poverty line is well below the current state pension level.
So you spend money on those who need help. And can wave tons of examples of “Mrs Miggins, on only the state pension, can now afford to take the train to see her grandchildren” etc.
Hell, even folding the WFA into the state pension would have saved money by binning admin on it.
As long as the markets react well, and you hammer everyone to some extent for the solidarity angle, I think you could just about get away with it.
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
It's an untested assumption.
A party willing to consistently ridicule the other four for making absurd spending promises when the deficit is over £100bn might be surprised at the hearing the public is willing to give it.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
Donald Trump saves the lives of '8 beautiful women'. So says Karoline Leavitt........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRXTXykWd78