It's weird that people say that a Labour govt shouldn't be attacking the old. Where have they been for 50 years, or however many? Labour are not a left wing party. And Starmer and Reeves definitely not.
Maybe. But it's definitely inaccurate to call this an attack on the old. 27% of pensioners are millionaires. I don't think they need an extra £300...
It's weird that people say that a Labour govt shouldn't be attacking the old. Where have they been for 50 years, or however many? Labour are not a left wing party. And Starmer and Reeves definitely not.
Maybe. But it's definitely inaccurate to call this an attack on the old. 27% of pensioners are millionaires. I don't think they need an extra £300...
It's weird that people say that a Labour govt shouldn't be attacking the old. Where have they been for 50 years, or however many? Labour are not a left wing party. And Starmer and Reeves definitely not.
Maybe. But it's definitely inaccurate to call this an attack on the old. 27% of pensioners are millionaires. I don't think they need an extra £300...
It's true that some will be asset rich and cash poor.
Sort of. For most people it will be dominated by two figures. The current value of their house and the hypothetical value of the annuity that would yield any private pension provision they receive at its current level.
The first is figure is definitely an asset that is hard to realise, but the second relates real income, which, if housing has been paid off, can reflect a relatively high level of disposable income compared to someone in the middle of their working life.
It's weird that people say that a Labour govt shouldn't be attacking the old. Where have they been for 50 years, or however many? Labour are not a left wing party. And Starmer and Reeves definitely not.
Maybe. But it's definitely inaccurate to call this an attack on the old. 27% of pensioners are millionaires. I don't think they need an extra £300...
It's true that some will be asset rich and cash poor.
Sort of. For most people it will be dominated by two figures. The current value of their house and the hypothetical value of the annuity that would yield any private pension provision they receive at its current level.
The first is figure is definitely an asset that is hard to realise, but the second relates real income, which, if housing has been paid off, can reflect a relatively high level of disposable income compared to someone in the middle of their working life.
Exactly. For most people, housing is the biggest cost. A paid off mortgage puts people in a very good position.
Many, many pensioners have no need of a winter fuel payment.
The first issue is the grey zone. Those that don't qualify for pension credit but can't afford their heating. The second being the non-claimants.
It's weird that people say that a Labour govt shouldn't be attacking the old. Where have they been for 50 years, or however many? Labour are not a left wing party. And Starmer and Reeves definitely not.
Maybe. But it's definitely inaccurate to call this an attack on the old. 27% of pensioners are millionaires. I don't think they need an extra £300...
I just can't believe that people are disappointed in Labour. They must think that Starmer is secretly left wing.
I know you're joking, but before the election a very intelligent and not usually at all gullible person (who should have known better) told me with great excitement how they'd spoken to someone well connected in Labour circles and there was a secret plan to put the country on a 'war footing' and then they'd pull out all the stops with public spending and fixing things.
I pointed to the record of Reeves, Kendall et al. and told them this was surely nonsense...
Meanwhile in Scotland - Labour and the Tories are voting against austerity because the SNP is following spending cuts policies like successive Tory and Labour governments down south* - they won't raise taxes to feed hungry children, keep pensioners in fuel or make the railways affordable since the SNP right wing are back in the cabinet and they don't have the Greens any more as a buffer against them. They were defeated twice today in parliament.
(Amazing how much-touted Christian values vanish when asked to feed the hungry instead of persecute other people over Epiphanies matters. 'Oh no my conscience!' suddenly turns into 'Yeah I can vote for that!')
* to some extent they have to follow cuts down South because they affect what money the Scottish Parliament is given and because they were given few and toxic tax raising powers deliberately by Blair back in the day but they still could have chosen to do things like not freezing council tax or raising income tax, so they must take some blame
I just can't believe that people are disappointed in Labour. They must think that Starmer is secretly left wing.
I know you're joking, but before the election a very intelligent and not usually at all gullible person (who should have known better) told me with great excitement how they'd spoken to someone well connected in Labour circles and there was a secret plan to put the country on a 'war footing' and then they'd pull out all the stops with public spending and fixing things.
I found it bleakly amusing how many people were of the opinion that Starmer et al were just saying these things for the media and that after the election they'd pivot.
As a friend was fond of saying at the time; if you think someone is running in a con and you are on the inside, chances are you are really the mark.
Meanwhile in Scotland - Labour and the Tories are voting against austerity because the SNP is following spending cuts policies like successive Tory and Labour governments down south* - they won't raise taxes to feed hungry children, keep pensioners in fuel or make the railways affordable since the SNP right wing are back in the cabinet and they don't have the Greens any more as a buffer against them. They were defeated twice today in parliament.
And, Labour and Tory alike seem to be devoid of any ideas. "Vote against the SNP" is a unifying cry, but when it comes to working out what to vote for the best they can do is support Green policies. Not that I'm going to complain about that, of course, but surely someone in those parties has enough imagination to think up a policy of their own? Or, are the branches still waiting for Westminster to tell them what to think?
Aye, choose which way you go down the toilet. But. Every skid mark on the right makes it worse, makes it inevitable that the left goes to the right. The toilet is asymmetric. It's angled, grooved to the right. That's how the ruling class, civilization made it. You can sit facing 90 degrees on the left, knees against the wall, it goes down right. Is it just by accretion, or is it in the porcelain? It's in the porcelain. The anthropology.
I thought that Labour's job is to administer capitalism efficiently, since the Tories ran into a brick wall. Of course, there are sentimentalists who talk about poverty and so on, they can be indulged at conference.
O well. I doubt if any of us would be better off under yet another tory *government*, but there yer go. It is what it is, and at least there are serious-minded grown-ups in charge, even if you don't always agree with them.
Some people would prefer the tory clowns back, it seems...
I think I'll stick it out, and take me medicine.
(BTW, I lose my winter fuel payment, but I'm happy for it to to go to someone who needs it more than I do...).
There will people who need it who wont get it - an estimated 1.6 million below the poverty line - https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-13807915/Three-fairer-ways-reform-Winter-Fuel-Payments-five-six-poorer-pensioners-stand-lose-out.html
because they don't know about how to qualify, because they see claiming as a stigma or because they live in cold and fuel-expensive areas like the islands where it's much more expensive to heat their homes and they need much more help and wont get it (because consequentials mean pensioners up here will lose it too), or because they earn eg. just a tiny amount too much to qualify, despite losing a lot more than that. Meanwhile money will be wasted on the bureaucracy to means test. All absolutely needless as there are other ways to either fund or claim back through tax.
What we have isn't a normal Labour government as I would understand one. They seem to the right of Teresa May - socially conservative hard Brexiters who are low-tax, still cling to austerity-type thinking and who are far too close to pro-privatisation lobbies. The benefit is - to steal a little from P.J. O'Rourke reluctantly voting for Hilary Clinton vs Trump - they're wrong about just about everything but they're wrong within normal parameters - not wrong plus as erratically dangerous and wildly off the wall as Truss, Sunak, Johnson etc.
"In May 2019, when Theresa May was trying to secure the backing of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party for her Brexit deal, her chief of staff Gavin Barwell presented the Labour negotiating team with a “what we’ve agreed document”. Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary at the time, “objected to the language on customs”.
In his new memoir of his time as May’s most senior lieutenant, Barwell writes, deadpan: “I pointed out that we’d lifted it from his letter of 22 April — he was objecting to his own policy. He looked suitably embarrassed.”
Barwell is one of the most courteous people in British politics, and his book does not labour the point that by blowing up the talks and continuing to insist on a second EU referendum, Starmer positioned himself for the Labour leadership at the price of a hard Brexit and a Tory majority. Of the cross-party deal, Barwell concludes: “Jeremy Corbyn wanted to do it, but Keir Starmer stopped it — it seems fitting that he’s now dealing with the consequences.” A more ruthless man would have made these points with greater gusto."
They're wrong about just about everything but they're wrong within normal parameters - not wrong plus as erratically dangerous and wildly off the wall as Truss, Sunak, Johnson etc.
But they are also wrong in the same way Osborne was wrong and after Cameron/Osborne, well ..
That quote from Barwell suggests Starmer was every bit as duplicitous as the most paranoid of us on the left thought. Of course, tory, so he may be lying. It would be interesting if somebody could get Corbyn's take on it, or someone else from the Labour side who isn't currently on the government payroll.
That quote from Barwell suggests Starmer was every bit as duplicitous as the most paranoid of us on the left thought. Of course, tory, so he may be lying.
The judo move is that the people who are most invested in the remain side of the referendum are also most invested in the idea of the good Tory.
My God. How naive have I been. They're all Machiavels. Well all the ones who get power. God, Jeremy came so close by being pure. How naive is that? But Starmer - and Reeves - it has to be. Says my head. They look like one creature. So they can soothe me down the toilet in my dotage.
There will people who need it who wont get it - an estimated 1.6 million below the poverty line - https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-13807915/Three-fairer-ways-reform-Winter-Fuel-Payments-five-six-poorer-pensioners-stand-lose-out.html
because they don't know about how to qualify, because they see claiming as a stigma or because they live in cold and fuel-expensive areas like the islands where it's much more expensive to heat their homes and they need much more help and wont get it (because consequentials mean pensioners up here will lose it too), or because they earn eg. just a tiny amount too much to qualify, despite losing a lot more than that. Meanwhile money will be wasted on the bureaucracy to means test. All absolutely needless as there are other ways to either fund or claim back through tax.
What we have isn't a normal Labour government as I would understand one. They seem to the right of Teresa May - socially conservative hard Brexiters who are low-tax, still cling to austerity-type thinking and who are far too close to pro-privatisation lobbies. The benefit is - to steal a little from P.J. O'Rourke reluctantly voting for Hilary Clinton vs Trump - they're wrong about just about everything but they're wrong within normal parameters - not wrong plus as erratically dangerous and wildly off the wall as Truss, Sunak, Johnson etc.
The first half of this is the concern. It is always the issue with any kind of benefit policy. How do we target help to those who need it most? How to we manage the thresholds?
This is a real debate. I have complex thoughts on this.
The second half of this is more problematic. I get why people don't like Starmer. I am very concerned that Reeves might embrace austerity - we shall see - but to the right of May?
No. That's just silly. Hostile environment May. Windrush May.
O well. I doubt if any of us would be better off under yet another tory *government*, but there yer go.
The ones losing their winter fuel payment would be.
It is what it is, and at least there are serious-minded grown-ups in charge, even if you don't always agree with them.
Some people would prefer the tory clowns back, it seems...
It also seems like some people would rather be worse off under Labour than better off under the Tories.
Surely that depends on what else happens - the pension is going up by more than the value of the winter fuel payment anyway - and you might be “better off”, for example, if you don’t have to wait for healthcare whilst your condition deteriorates, or you don’t burn to death in a cladding fire, or are able to find somewhere affordable to rent to live in etc etc
O well. I doubt if any of us would be better off under yet another tory *government*, but there yer go.
The ones losing their winter fuel payment would be.
It is what it is, and at least there are serious-minded grown-ups in charge, even if you don't always agree with them.
Some people would prefer the tory clowns back, it seems...
It also seems like some people would rather be worse off under Labour than better off under the Tories.
Surely that depends on what else happens - the pension is going up by more than the value of the winter fuel payment anyway
But not by more than pension + fuel payment.
and you might be “better off”, for example, if you don’t have to wait for healthcare whilst your condition deteriorates, or you don’t burn to death in a cladding fire, or are able to find somewhere affordable to rent to live in etc etc
None of which are things they’ve done anything about yet.
May's softer proposed Brexit deal was replaced by Boris Johnson's, Labour continue to back it and refuse to take significant steps to undo Brexit. May had self-ID in her manifesto, UK Labour refuse to back meaningful Self-ID. May did not use or support the use of section 35 on Scotland - Labour refused to oppose the unprecedented use of section 35 on Scotland by Sunak and have not reversed this. They still bang the 'control immigration' drum and Yvette Cooper has authorised an increase in immigration raids (are we now defining this as not hostile?) and they're doing and proposing nothing to reverse the hostile environment in benefits which has led to so many deaths, especially of disabled people.
The leadership are socially conservative Brexiters. It doesn't matter that lots of people in the party aren't - that's what we're getting served up.
May's softer proposed Brexit deal was replaced by Boris Johnson's, Labour continue to back it and refuse to take significant steps to undo Brexit. May had self-ID in her manifesto, UK Labour refuse to back meaningful Self-ID. May did not use section 35 on Scotland - Labour refused to oppose the unprecedented use of section 35 on Scotland by Sunak and have not reversed this. They still bang the 'control immigration' drum and Yvette Cooper has authorised an increase in immigration raids (are we now defining this as not hostile?) and they're doing and proposing nothing to reverse the hostile environment in benefits which has led to so many deaths, especially of disabled people.
The leadership are socially conservative Brexiters. It doesn't matter that lots of people in the party aren't - that's what we're getting served up.
They are not Brexiters. That's nonsense. There are no steps to reversing Brexit. It's in Europe's gift now.
As to the benefit environment, how do you know? Parliament had been in session for 4 weeks. We've not had a budget yet.
They are not Brexiters. That's nonsense. There are no steps to reversing Brexit. It's in Europe's gift now.
As to the benefit environment, how do you know? Parliament had been in session for 4 weeks. We've not had a budget yet.
That's technically true and at the same time nonsense. Starmer won't even consider rejoining the single market or customs union. Things that could be done much more quickly and with much less friction than full membership. If you think any of that would be vetoed by another country please show your evidence and working. The fact that even these are not on the agenda and not being asked for makes Labour hard Brexiters. They don't support the Soft Brexit option and have made clear they don't. And it severely impacts their ability to fund public services, because Labour says such funding will come from increased economic growth and then kneecaps the economy by continuing Boris Johnson's Brexit.
Disability campaigners have been tracking Labour's policies and what went into the manifesto and who got made ministers and are alarmed by what's happening. Have a look at Liz Kendall here if you want to see some of why that is
Comments by new work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall, and her support for a controversial report, suggest she wants to increase pressure on disabled people to move off benefits and into work, while disregarding risks to their health.
Kendall and also Rachel Reeves have a long history of being awful on issues like these - Reeves famously in 2015 told people who were out of work that Labour was not for them. Starmer put them both in prominent cabinet posts. I think the burden of proof is on those who think they're going to suddenly change their spots and drop their anti-benefit claimant views to say why and when they think that will be.
Starmer’s key phrases at the moment are “22 billion black hole” and “things will get worse before they get better”. Labour’s only action on benefits so far has been to remove the winter fuel payment. This doesn’t inspire confidence.
My suspicion is that, much like purging the left wing of his party after becoming leader or pushing against the softer Brexit deal because doing so helped him gain power, he’s actually quite happy to abandon his pre-election promises and make things worse for lots of people in the first couple of years of this parliament (i.e. while he can still blame the Tories for it), because it will make it easier for him to improve things thereafter, take all the credit, and win the next election. Such a strategy would be entirely in line with what we know of Starmer as a politician - in his own way he’s as duplicitous and two-faced as any Tory you’d care to name, if not more so.
This is what I dislike about Starmer. He appears to have no principles, no guiding philosophy for his government beyond what they need to do to win the next election. Say what you like about Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, May or even Truss, but at least they had something they wanted to actually do with their power, rather than power being the end in itself. I don’t know how we can trust a thing he says, that he’ll keep any promise he makes, or that he gives two short shits about actually making life better for anyone other than himself.
This is what I dislike about Starmer. He appears to have no principles, no guiding philosophy for his government beyond what they need to do to win the next election. Say what you like about Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, May or even Truss, but at least they had something they wanted to actually do with their power, rather than power being the end in itself. I don’t know how we can trust a thing he says, that he’ll keep any promise he makes, or that he gives two short shits about actually making life better for anyone other than himself.
I'd largely agree. It's very strange for someone who has had the political and career trajectory he has to have emerged at the other end with very little in the way of discernible politics, and the simplest explanation is that he's driven primarily by personal ambition.
Insofar as he has any project it seems to be some kind of authoritarian modernisation, but it's hard to see how he hopes to achieve this. Early on there was some lip service paid to Marianna Mazzucato's idea of a using greening the economy as the infrastructure equivalent of a moonshot, but as with everything else he's since backed away from this.
The cabinet is similarly filled with people like him (Reeves) or those who seem want a post-political career like the Blairs and Clintons (Streeting), the absence of politics, beyond aping what third way politicians did over a decade ago is very striking.
We were told that Doctors and surgeons would be working longer hours to clear the backlog. Now we have the infamous £22 billion black hole, I guess that can be quietly forgotten.
They don't explain the details of this black hole.
They want to reform the NHS and in order to do so, we will have to elect them again in 2029.
I think, as others have mentioned, Parliament has been sitting for only 4 weeks so it may be too early to ascertain any effects. I haven’t seen anything about backlog clearance being abandoned though - have I missed that?
Anecdotal I know, but my B-i-L has recently had two weekend appointments with an NHS consultant oncologist. I don’t know if that would routinely happen in the past (before the election) but in any case I am glad it is happening now.
Presumably by 2029 we will have some evidence about whether there has been progress and that will influence our decisions at that time.
I think, as others have mentioned, Parliament has been sitting for only 4 weeks so it may be too early to ascertain any effects. I haven’t seen anything about backlog clearance being abandoned though - have I missed that?
Anecdotal I know, but my B-i-L has recently had two weekend appointments with an NHS consultant oncologist. I don’t know if that would routinely happen in the past (before the election) but in any case I am glad it is happening now.
Presumably by 2029 we will have some evidence about whether there has been progress and that will influence our decisions at that time.
I suspect that one reform might be to have two lists. An official waiting list that gradually gets shorter but no new patients are allowed to join it. A waiting list to join the official waiting list. The only published stats will come from the official list.
This sysyem may well be a figment of my imagination.
I think, as others have mentioned, Parliament has been sitting for only 4 weeks so it may be too early to ascertain any effects. I haven’t seen anything about backlog clearance being abandoned though - have I missed that?
Anecdotal I know, but my B-i-L has recently had two weekend appointments with an NHS consultant oncologist. I don’t know if that would routinely happen in the past (before the election) but in any case I am glad it is happening now.
Presumably by 2029 we will have some evidence about whether there has been progress and that will influence our decisions at that time.
I suspect that one reform might be to have two lists. An official waiting list that gradually gets shorter but no new patients are allowed to join it. A waiting list to join the official waiting list. The only published stats will come from the official list.
This sysyem may well be a figment of my imagination.
I don’t understand what reasons you have for ‘suspecting’ this. But perhaps you are basing it on the NHS practice developed under the Conservative government, of having GPs triaging patients and only putting the most urgent / severe forward for scarce services.
Otherwise, it does indeed seem to be a figment of your imagination.
Starmer’s key phrases at the moment are “22 billion black hole” and “things will get worse before they get better”. Labour’s only action on benefits so far has been to remove the winter fuel payment. This doesn’t inspire confidence.
My suspicion is that, much like purging the left wing of his party after becoming leader or pushing against the softer Brexit deal because doing so helped him gain power, he’s actually quite happy to abandon his pre-election promises and make things worse for lots of people in the first couple of years of this parliament (i.e. while he can still blame the Tories for it), because it will make it easier for him to improve things thereafter, take all the credit, and win the next election. Such a strategy would be entirely in line with what we know of Starmer as a politician - in his own way he’s as duplicitous and two-faced as any Tory you’d care to name, if not more so.
This is what I dislike about Starmer. He appears to have no principles, no guiding philosophy for his government beyond what they need to do to win the next election. Say what you like about Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, May or even Truss, but at least they had something they wanted to actually do with their power, rather than power being the end in itself. I don’t know how we can trust a thing he says, that he’ll keep any promise he makes, or that he gives two short shits about actually making life better for anyone other than himself.
Pretty much. Tories stab you in the front, New Labour reluctantly stab you in the back and claim it's all TINA's fault.
Some pundits are saying that next up is removing free bus travel for OAPs. If that happens will there be any Labour MPs prepared to defy the whips?
During PMQs, a Conservative MP asked “…will the Prime Minister today rule out scrapping concessionary travel fares and council tax discounts which also help millions of pensioners across the UK? Yes or no?”
The PM replied “As he knows very well, I am not going to preempt the Budget. It will all be set out in due course.”
So not a lot for the pundits to work with, really.
Personally, I think it is relatively unlikely for bus passes to be removed, since: (a) people need to apply for it, so it isn’t going to rich pensioners who always use their Mercedes for travel, (b) there is a strong environmental case for bus travel, and (c) it is provided on a more generous basis in London and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Labour can’t afford to lose too much ground in three of those four places.
Instead, I think it seems like a candidate for (eventually) handing to devolved regional administrations in England, to align with their power to direct bus services.
But because it’s devolved Labour, were they to do it, wouldn’t lose ground in any of those four places, because it’s devolved. This would hit non-London England only.
But because it’s devolved Labour, were they to do it, wouldn’t lose ground in any of those four places, because it’s devolved. This would hit non-London England only.
Depends if there are funding consequentials, in which case there would be an issue.
TBH it seems to be a non-story anyway, based on a fairly routine response to a fishing expedition.
Some pundits are saying that next up is removing free bus travel for OAPs. If that happens will there be any Labour MPs prepared to defy the whips?
Starmer does seem to have it in for older folk. One can’t help wondering if this is related to the whole “old people tend to vote for the Tories” thing.
Some pundits are saying that next up is removing free bus travel for OAPs. If that happens will there be any Labour MPs prepared to defy the whips?
Starmer does seem to have it in for older folk. One can’t help wondering if this is related to the whole “old people tend to vote for the Tories” thing.
Talk about extrapolation from insufficient data. So far, the new government has announced removal of the winter fuel payment from most pensioners whilst retaining it for the poorest.
That's it. One policy. One change. And somehow this is "having it in for older people."
Seriously?
I mean on the basis of a LOT more evidence, it is clear that the Tories had it in for disabled people, children, the unemployed, public sector workers, immigrants of all kinds, vulnerable adults, vulnerable children, Europeans....
Shall I go on?
But yeah, sure, removing the winter fuel payment from the 27% of pensioner households with a net worth of over £1m is evil....*
Bad Starmer.
AFZ
*Yes, I know that's not the only group losing it. I know there's some who may genuinely suffer. See previous posts, but can we stop pretending that all pensioners are in great need.
'1.6 million pensioners with disabilities will lose their winter fuel payments because of government cuts... The internal DWP analysis also suggested that nine in 10 pensioners aged between 66 and 79, and eight out of 10 over-80s would lose their allowance.
This is despite disabled people's greater needs with regards to warm homes - James Taylor from Scope points out
It’s true some disabled pensioners receive pension credit but there are an alarming number who will miss out this winter.
“Life already costs more when you’re disabled. Higher electricity bills because of medical equipment to power. Higher heating bills because of health conditions affected by the cold."
“Since the cost of living crisis, Scope’s helpline has heard from disabled people who are cutting back on everything they can. Going without heating, forgoing medical treatment. Sacrifices that put their health at risk.”
This kind of means testing and pretending there's no money for winter fuel allowance when ways to directly tax the rich without hitting vulnerable people are right there is a disgrace. Rachel Reeves has been notorious for years for her right wing stances so saying it's too early in the term to judge is not justifiable here - she's being true to longstanding form. Disabled people were right to have been worried.
There's been some movement on better public sector pay, but at the moment immigrants, disabled folk, Europeans, LGBT+ people are all looking at more of the same and putting older people on the chopping block too - a bit of levelling down - is not what people meant when they voted for change from the Tories. It's making things worse, not better.
This kind of means testing and pretending there's no money for winter fuel allowance when ways to directly tax the rich without hitting vulnerable people are right there is a disgrace. Rachel Reeves has been notorious for years for her right wing stances so saying it's too early in the term to judge is not justifiable here - she's being true to longstanding form.
As I pointed out up-thread, this is literally what she said 10 years ago, in 2014:
"We are the party who have said that we will cut the winter fuel allowance for the richest pensioners and means-test that benefit to save money, but Government Members do not support that. The reality is that we are the party who are willing to take tough decisions to get the welfare bill down, whereas it is rising, not falling, under this Government."
The way people are talking, you'd think that the government is decimating pensioner incomes.
Are pensions going down in real terms or up?
Up.
What is actually happening works out at about a 1% cut on average (accepting the important caveats about the dangers of averages).
So, tell me, what matter most to pensioners? This 1% cut which will be more than offset by other changes or having a doctor to look after them when they are sick?
Oh and look out for the improved insulation for homes and windfall taxes on energy companies as those will have a much bigger impact on pensioner wellbeing...
What's being done is completely and utterly unnecessary and no amount of PR about 'jam tomorrow' changes that cruelty and indignity are on the menu now. The disability organisations aren't making it up about people who will have to go without heating or do things like choose between heating and eating or heating and washing.
If I wanted to morally distinguish myself from the Tories then I wouldn't be telling people to get 'perspective' when they are unnecessarily being subjected to cold and wretchedness by folk on high salaries who I (also well-off) voted for. I think they've every right to tell me and my party to get lost and to shove our 'perspective' somewhere rude.
I voted for a party - the SNP - which also went back on this - they are wrong. I don't want to hear excuses from them and I won't make excuses for them. I'm absolutely not going to do PR for them pretending this is anything short of unacceptable. I 'd like to see similar from Labour supporters but I'm not holding my breath. Probably a Green vote for me at the next election.
@Cameron Just why do you think it is "rich" OAPs who drive a Mercedes? Sure, those mad enough to buy one new may be "rich" but the rest of us buy one second-hand, and then drive it until it dies - which takes a looong time. There's a reason that most of the taxis in places like the middle East are Mercedes: they require little maintenance to keep going and accommodate a lot of people.
My current Mercedes, which I've had for over 15 years, is nearly 19 years old and, apart from an annual service by a proper garage (so not a dealership) gives no trouble at all; fuel economy is good (at least for an automatic) and it is comfortable for long drives, plus has a capacious boot. So far it has cost me less in garage bills than a friend's BMW which is only 8 years old.
Given everything you've posted about yourself on the forums in the past two years - I'm fairly sure you are rich. It may be to do with fashion, trends and aspirations that correlate with class and money.
Comments
What's your source for this ?
Various.
But try this:
https://www.rollits.com/news/blog/have-senior-citizens-never-had-it-so-good/#:~:text=More or Less reported that,not they are the head.
It's true that some will be asset rich and cash poor.
AFZ
Sort of. For most people it will be dominated by two figures. The current value of their house and the hypothetical value of the annuity that would yield any private pension provision they receive at its current level.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2016tomarch2018
The first is figure is definitely an asset that is hard to realise, but the second relates real income, which, if housing has been paid off, can reflect a relatively high level of disposable income compared to someone in the middle of their working life.
Exactly. For most people, housing is the biggest cost. A paid off mortgage puts people in a very good position.
Many, many pensioners have no need of a winter fuel payment.
The first issue is the grey zone. Those that don't qualify for pension credit but can't afford their heating. The second being the non-claimants.
AFZ
I don't understand how these people get all their information. Is there no confidentiality these days ?
I know you're joking, but before the election a very intelligent and not usually at all gullible person (who should have known better) told me with great excitement how they'd spoken to someone well connected in Labour circles and there was a secret plan to put the country on a 'war footing' and then they'd pull out all the stops with public spending and fixing things.
I pointed to the record of Reeves, Kendall et al. and told them this was surely nonsense...
Meanwhile in Scotland - Labour and the Tories are voting against austerity because the SNP is following spending cuts policies like successive Tory and Labour governments down south* - they won't raise taxes to feed hungry children, keep pensioners in fuel or make the railways affordable since the SNP right wing are back in the cabinet and they don't have the Greens any more as a buffer against them. They were defeated twice today in parliament.
(Amazing how much-touted Christian values vanish when asked to feed the hungry instead of persecute other people over Epiphanies matters. 'Oh no my conscience!' suddenly turns into 'Yeah I can vote for that!')
* to some extent they have to follow cuts down South because they affect what money the Scottish Parliament is given and because they were given few and toxic tax raising powers deliberately by Blair back in the day but they still could have chosen to do things like not freezing council tax or raising income tax, so they must take some blame
I found it bleakly amusing how many people were of the opinion that Starmer et al were just saying these things for the media and that after the election they'd pivot.
As a friend was fond of saying at the time; if you think someone is running in a con and you are on the inside, chances are you are really the mark.
Some people would prefer the tory clowns back, it seems...
I think I'll stick it out, and take me medicine.
(BTW, I lose my winter fuel payment, but I'm happy for it to to go to someone who needs it more than I do...).
It's not medicine - in no way is it a remedy for a particular problem facing the UK.
because they don't know about how to qualify, because they see claiming as a stigma or because they live in cold and fuel-expensive areas like the islands where it's much more expensive to heat their homes and they need much more help and wont get it (because consequentials mean pensioners up here will lose it too), or because they earn eg. just a tiny amount too much to qualify, despite losing a lot more than that. Meanwhile money will be wasted on the bureaucracy to means test. All absolutely needless as there are other ways to either fund or claim back through tax.
What we have isn't a normal Labour government as I would understand one. They seem to the right of Teresa May - socially conservative hard Brexiters who are low-tax, still cling to austerity-type thinking and who are far too close to pro-privatisation lobbies. The benefit is - to steal a little from P.J. O'Rourke reluctantly voting for Hilary Clinton vs Trump - they're wrong about just about everything but they're wrong within normal parameters - not wrong plus as erratically dangerous and wildly off the wall as Truss, Sunak, Johnson etc.
Well, quite. And the administrative costs for "claiming it back through tax" are zero, because you just change a tax rate or a threshold a little bit.
Interesting anecdote along these lines which I previously saw in Oliver Eagleton's book but which - given the biases of any possible audience - I've since seen confirmed by the Times and in Barwell's own book (via https://www.thetimes.com/culture/books/article/michel-barnier-and-gavin-barwell-go-inside-the-brexit-negotiations-in-chief-of-staff-and-my-secret-brexit-diary-gk9mc05v7 )
But they are also wrong in the same way Osborne was wrong and after Cameron/Osborne, well ..
The judo move is that the people who are most invested in the remain side of the referendum are also most invested in the idea of the good Tory.
The first half of this is the concern. It is always the issue with any kind of benefit policy. How do we target help to those who need it most? How to we manage the thresholds?
This is a real debate. I have complex thoughts on this.
The second half of this is more problematic. I get why people don't like Starmer. I am very concerned that Reeves might embrace austerity - we shall see - but to the right of May?
No. That's just silly. Hostile environment May. Windrush May.
AFZ
The ones losing their winter fuel payment would be.
It also seems like some people would rather be worse off under Labour than better off under the Tories.
Surely that depends on what else happens - the pension is going up by more than the value of the winter fuel payment anyway - and you might be “better off”, for example, if you don’t have to wait for healthcare whilst your condition deteriorates, or you don’t burn to death in a cladding fire, or are able to find somewhere affordable to rent to live in etc etc
But not by more than pension + fuel payment.
None of which are things they’ve done anything about yet.
The leadership are socially conservative Brexiters. It doesn't matter that lots of people in the party aren't - that's what we're getting served up.
They are not Brexiters. That's nonsense. There are no steps to reversing Brexit. It's in Europe's gift now.
As to the benefit environment, how do you know? Parliament had been in session for 4 weeks. We've not had a budget yet.
That's technically true and at the same time nonsense. Starmer won't even consider rejoining the single market or customs union. Things that could be done much more quickly and with much less friction than full membership. If you think any of that would be vetoed by another country please show your evidence and working. The fact that even these are not on the agenda and not being asked for makes Labour hard Brexiters. They don't support the Soft Brexit option and have made clear they don't. And it severely impacts their ability to fund public services, because Labour says such funding will come from increased economic growth and then kneecaps the economy by continuing Boris Johnson's Brexit.
Disability campaigners have been tracking Labour's policies and what went into the manifesto and who got made ministers and are alarmed by what's happening. Have a look at Liz Kendall here if you want to see some of why that is
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/fresh-dwp-fears-after-kendall-helps-launch-report-that-calls-for-duty-to-engage-and-cuts-to-disability-benefits/
Kendall and also Rachel Reeves have a long history of being awful on issues like these - Reeves famously in 2015 told people who were out of work that Labour was not for them. Starmer put them both in prominent cabinet posts. I think the burden of proof is on those who think they're going to suddenly change their spots and drop their anti-benefit claimant views to say why and when they think that will be.
My suspicion is that, much like purging the left wing of his party after becoming leader or pushing against the softer Brexit deal because doing so helped him gain power, he’s actually quite happy to abandon his pre-election promises and make things worse for lots of people in the first couple of years of this parliament (i.e. while he can still blame the Tories for it), because it will make it easier for him to improve things thereafter, take all the credit, and win the next election. Such a strategy would be entirely in line with what we know of Starmer as a politician - in his own way he’s as duplicitous and two-faced as any Tory you’d care to name, if not more so.
This is what I dislike about Starmer. He appears to have no principles, no guiding philosophy for his government beyond what they need to do to win the next election. Say what you like about Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, May or even Truss, but at least they had something they wanted to actually do with their power, rather than power being the end in itself. I don’t know how we can trust a thing he says, that he’ll keep any promise he makes, or that he gives two short shits about actually making life better for anyone other than himself.
I'd largely agree. It's very strange for someone who has had the political and career trajectory he has to have emerged at the other end with very little in the way of discernible politics, and the simplest explanation is that he's driven primarily by personal ambition.
Insofar as he has any project it seems to be some kind of authoritarian modernisation, but it's hard to see how he hopes to achieve this. Early on there was some lip service paid to Marianna Mazzucato's idea of a using greening the economy as the infrastructure equivalent of a moonshot, but as with everything else he's since backed away from this.
The cabinet is similarly filled with people like him (Reeves) or those who seem want a post-political career like the Blairs and Clintons (Streeting), the absence of politics, beyond aping what third way politicians did over a decade ago is very striking.
They don't explain the details of this black hole.
They want to reform the NHS and in order to do so, we will have to elect them again in 2029.
Anecdotal I know, but my B-i-L has recently had two weekend appointments with an NHS consultant oncologist. I don’t know if that would routinely happen in the past (before the election) but in any case I am glad it is happening now.
Presumably by 2029 we will have some evidence about whether there has been progress and that will influence our decisions at that time.
I suspect that one reform might be to have two lists. An official waiting list that gradually gets shorter but no new patients are allowed to join it. A waiting list to join the official waiting list. The only published stats will come from the official list.
This sysyem may well be a figment of my imagination.
I used to use my free bus pass a bit but if it didn't exist I would not have bothered to use the bus.
I assume that bus servives do not exist for the benefit of pass holding pensioners
I don’t understand what reasons you have for ‘suspecting’ this. But perhaps you are basing it on the NHS practice developed under the Conservative government, of having GPs triaging patients and only putting the most urgent / severe forward for scarce services.
Otherwise, it does indeed seem to be a figment of your imagination.
Pretty much. Tories stab you in the front, New Labour reluctantly stab you in the back and claim it's all TINA's fault.
During PMQs, a Conservative MP asked “…will the Prime Minister today rule out scrapping concessionary travel fares and council tax discounts which also help millions of pensioners across the UK? Yes or no?”
The PM replied “As he knows very well, I am not going to preempt the Budget. It will all be set out in due course.”
So not a lot for the pundits to work with, really.
Personally, I think it is relatively unlikely for bus passes to be removed, since: (a) people need to apply for it, so it isn’t going to rich pensioners who always use their Mercedes for travel, (b) there is a strong environmental case for bus travel, and (c) it is provided on a more generous basis in London and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Labour can’t afford to lose too much ground in three of those four places.
Instead, I think it seems like a candidate for (eventually) handing to devolved regional administrations in England, to align with their power to direct bus services.
Depends if there are funding consequentials, in which case there would be an issue.
TBH it seems to be a non-story anyway, based on a fairly routine response to a fishing expedition.
Starmer does seem to have it in for older folk. One can’t help wondering if this is related to the whole “old people tend to vote for the Tories” thing.
Talk about extrapolation from insufficient data. So far, the new government has announced removal of the winter fuel payment from most pensioners whilst retaining it for the poorest.
That's it. One policy. One change. And somehow this is "having it in for older people."
Seriously?
I mean on the basis of a LOT more evidence, it is clear that the Tories had it in for disabled people, children, the unemployed, public sector workers, immigrants of all kinds, vulnerable adults, vulnerable children, Europeans....
Shall I go on?
But yeah, sure, removing the winter fuel payment from the 27% of pensioner households with a net worth of over £1m is evil....*
Bad Starmer.
AFZ
*Yes, I know that's not the only group losing it. I know there's some who may genuinely suffer. See previous posts, but can we stop pretending that all pensioners are in great need.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/sep/15/charities-demand-to-meet-uk-ministers-as-16m-disabled-oaps-set-to-lose-winter-fuel-payments.
This is despite disabled people's greater needs with regards to warm homes - James Taylor from Scope points out
This kind of means testing and pretending there's no money for winter fuel allowance when ways to directly tax the rich without hitting vulnerable people are right there is a disgrace. Rachel Reeves has been notorious for years for her right wing stances so saying it's too early in the term to judge is not justifiable here - she's being true to longstanding form. Disabled people were right to have been worried.
There's been some movement on better public sector pay, but at the moment immigrants, disabled folk, Europeans, LGBT+ people are all looking at more of the same and putting older people on the chopping block too - a bit of levelling down - is not what people meant when they voted for change from the Tories. It's making things worse, not better.
As I pointed out up-thread, this is literally what she said 10 years ago, in 2014:
"We are the party who have said that we will cut the winter fuel allowance for the richest pensioners and means-test that benefit to save money, but Government Members do not support that. The reality is that we are the party who are willing to take tough decisions to get the welfare bill down, whereas it is rising, not falling, under this Government."
via Hansard: https://tinyurl.com/yc3w346e
The way people are talking, you'd think that the government is decimating pensioner incomes.
Are pensions going down in real terms or up?
Up.
What is actually happening works out at about a 1% cut on average (accepting the important caveats about the dangers of averages).
So, tell me, what matter most to pensioners? This 1% cut which will be more than offset by other changes or having a doctor to look after them when they are sick?
Oh and look out for the improved insulation for homes and windfall taxes on energy companies as those will have a much bigger impact on pensioner wellbeing...
If I wanted to morally distinguish myself from the Tories then I wouldn't be telling people to get 'perspective' when they are unnecessarily being subjected to cold and wretchedness by folk on high salaries who I (also well-off) voted for. I think they've every right to tell me and my party to get lost and to shove our 'perspective' somewhere rude.
I voted for a party - the SNP - which also went back on this - they are wrong. I don't want to hear excuses from them and I won't make excuses for them. I'm absolutely not going to do PR for them pretending this is anything short of unacceptable. I 'd like to see similar from Labour supporters but I'm not holding my breath. Probably a Green vote for me at the next election.
My current Mercedes, which I've had for over 15 years, is nearly 19 years old and, apart from an annual service by a proper garage (so not a dealership) gives no trouble at all; fuel economy is good (at least for an automatic) and it is comfortable for long drives, plus has a capacious boot. So far it has cost me less in garage bills than a friend's BMW which is only 8 years old.