Do you believe that MP selection should be run along similar lines?
I am using my detective skills to try to unpick your point. That is a little annoying.
The link is to a Reddit page. Apparently it has something to do with Luke Akehurst. It seems to go back to around 2008 but I'm still not sure what it is.
Do you mind just saying what you mean? It really would speed things up a bit.
Do you mind just saying what you mean? It really would speed things up a bit.
The answer to your question is 'yes', even compared to the Blair-Brown years. The difference between then and now is that the current crowd aren't even fighting over ideological points or policy.
The same reason trolls fight in internet forums, the actual reason is usually secondary.
To expand the above; the screenshot was from completely serious post from Akehurst's blog (there an instructive exercise to try and imagine the type of individual who might post that sort of thing entirely unironically), he then went on to the NEC where he played a major part in the selection of the current roster of MPs, specifically where that involved imposing a selection of one on naughty - read left wing - CLPs.
The blog was ultimately taken down - along with a number of tweets - when he selected himself to stand in Durham North.
Although, we also need to note @Doublethink's point about further discussion on immigration.
However, I will state here - as noted in my long comment - that you are factually wrong and complaining about a government having not yet solved a problem in fewer than 100 days.
Yes Starmer will not have solved the immigration problems in a hundred days. There appear to be no clear plans at the moment. Maybe the budget will reveal more.
The election was in July.
It's been less than 100 days with Parliamentary summer recess, right in the middle.
There was no honeymoon. There never was going to be with our media. You are extrapolating from virtually nothing.
But even if you are right that he's failing everywhere, it still means nothing in terms of the short term. Starmer will remain PM until he dies or loses the support of The Commons. There is zero chance of his own MPs turning on him in the next year.
AFZ
Yes he will probably last longer than a year. There was some exaggeration in my first post. From what I can tell, and I try to keep my ear to the ground, support for some major policies is begrudging. MPs from all sides of Labour are not happy having to defend them to their constituents. Their constituents are not happy with the policies. The buck stops with Starmer. He needs to create a positive vibe. Politically he is not the best. Even some Labour supporting YouTubers say that (A Different Bias for instance). If he has good advisors that is ok. Either he doesn’t have good advisors or he is ignoring them.
If they can't show visible progress on this in 4 years, they should go.
I think they will. They need to point out where we going though. The problem with this of course if they tell us where they think we will end up and we don’t the press will be calling them a failure from roof tops. But people need hope and they are not giving much (note I say much) of that at the moment
Over on the thread about the potential futures of the Conservative Party we had a meander into relative competence. In that context, Hugal said the following:
Whilst you [@Telford] are correct making any pensioners colder and hungrier is incompetence. Making people who cannot afford it suffer is cruel. It is unpopular and shows a lack of understanding of public thought on the matter. The same with kids. They are two groups who are less able to fend for themselves. They are viewed as off limits to many people. Not understanding this is incompetence.
I disagree with this purely on the basis of logic in the first instance but the more I've thought about it, the more I take issue with the idea that removal of the Winter Fuel Payment from some pensioners is genuinely a catastrophe and making lots of older people cold. It does not really stack up.
Making pensioners colder and hungrier is not axiomatically incompetence. A government who decided to do this deliberately is very Machiavellian and immoral but if that is their intent then obviously it is not incompetence. I assumed you are framing this way as you are granting that it is not the government's intent. However, if the intent is good policy and this is a potential consequence that does not equate to incompetence either. It may reflect a government appreciating the consequences but weighing all things up, deciding that it's the right policy. That is a moral question and not a competence one. I hold many decisions made by Michael Gove and many others in that category.
So let us talk about what we were talking about.
When Gordon Brown introduced the payment in 1997, the levels of pensioner poverty were two to three times what they are now. The state pension was much lower in real terms and the overall wealth of pensioner households was much lower.
Some numbers:
Pensioner couple income 1995: £305*
Pensioner couple income 2023: £561 (84% increase)
*2023 prices.
There are around 12.6 million pensioners in the UK. 97.3% live in 'regular households' That is in their own home, on their own or with a partner or living with a family member etc. 2.7% live in communal homes (i.e. care homes).
About 1.4 million households claim pensioner credit (and with that potentially housing benefit as well). Age UK estimate that there are about 880,000 who are entitled but not claiming and as such are losing out on about £100 per week (Pensioner Credit plus Housing Benefit).
As previously noted, 27% of pensioner households have a net worth of over £1m.
To me, it seems that we are absolutely having the wrong argument.
880,000 people who are not getting £100 per week that they are entitled to are the ones who are really in trouble. You cannot convince me that £200 a year is the problem when we're talking about over £5000 per year not being claimed.
Moreover for the average pensioner household on £561 / week = £29k/year the £200 is clearly of negligible significance.
It is also the case that thousands of old people die from cold every winter in the UK. How many of these are prevented and preventable is a much wider discussion.
Aside from arguments around universality (to which I am sympathetic), there is a very poor case for thinking that the way to help the poorest pensioners who are missing out on £5k per year is to give every pensioner, including the more than a quarter who are technical millionaires, £200 for the winter!
AgeUK estimates that 2.5 million pensioners are at risk from this decision. This is made up of 1.5 million who are not entitled to Pension Credit and 1 million who are entitled but don't currently claim it. If we accept that the 1 million are a problem, the solution is the £5k payment not the 200 quid one. The other 1.5 million is the challenge. However, when the state pension is £221/week** we are talking about a 2% cut in pensioner income and the background of more than a decade of above inflation increases. Of course, there will be some close to the line or who have high energy needs who are a point of particular concern. But once again the £200 is not enough to solve this problem.
**exact amounts vary because of complex rules
Is there a problem with the UK's energy market and the prices we are charged as consumers?
Yes, absolutely. How much is this helped by giving all pensioners £200? Not much. We need to fix the energy markets.
Is there a massive need for improved insulation of our homes?
Yes, absolutely. Is this helped by giving all pensioners £200? Nope.
Do we need to find a way to make sure that those in need get help?
Abso-bloody-lutely but I'm much more interested in fixing Pensioner Credit than I am in the Winter Fuel Payment.
Do we need to do something about pensioners whose homes are not warm enough in Winter?
Of course we do. But that was true in 2023 and will still be true in 2025. The effect of removing the WFP is minimal, especially when you look at how much the pensions have gone up in those years.
Meanwhile, the Tories are running Ads with a pensioner wearing a Rolex, complaining about losing £200. No, seriously.
The State Pension is - and must remain - a universal benefit. No one has suggested otherwise. The Winter Fuel Payment was brought in 25 years ago for a particular purpose. In 2024, it is an expensive way of not really achieving very much. There are much better causes for the benefits of Pensioners.
I accept that there are some who will continue to feel that taking any money from pensioners is too risky because of the at-risk individuals who may be genuinely adversely affected. I respect that. Not meaning anyone here on the Ship, particularly but a very high proportion of those screaming about it were celebrating taking money from children, the working poor and the disabled, so I will take no lessons from them. Hugal expressed the notion that Children and Older People both deserved special attention. I agree but millionaire pensioners do not need this money. It makes sense to make this a targeted benefit. The issue is with the targeting, not the morality or competence of the policy. Moreover, as I said, I think we're having the wrong argument. The issue is Pensioner Credit. If 38% who are entitled don't claim, then it's clearly not working. And that's before we look at the chosen thresholds. And the problem is energy bills and insulation and the wider provision of care for the elderly.
One of the political analysts I heard a month or so back suggested that Starmer and Reeves underestimated the backlash but will now dig their heals in. That is a political issue, not a governance one.
Not @Telford I ment @Dafyd
I was answering him. I should have put a comma after correct. He was correct that @Telford needed to perhaps look at his philosophy making any pensioners colder is incompetence. It shows a lack of understanding how the consultants feel on the subject. To make life worse for them is hitting down. Morally if not financially bad.
Not @Telford I ment @Dafyd
I was answering him. I should have put a comma after correct. He was correct that @Telford needed to perhaps look at his philosophy making any pensioners colder is incompetence. It shows a lack of understanding how the consultants feel on the subject. To make life worse for them is hitting down. Morally if not financially bad.
I think I've read it right. @Dafyd was responding to @Telford but the coding was slightly off.
Aside from arguments around universality (to which I am sympathetic)
Well, many of us think that this is a very important argument and shouldn't simply be waved away with a 'I am sympathetic'. Provision for the poor too often ends up being poor provision, and equally means testing is a hostage to political fortune and can easily be twisted to persecute the most vulnerable (see the stories relating various forms of disability provision and the fit-to-work tests introduced by the last Labour government).
The other reason for doing it this way - which you don't address, and is thoroughly ideological in the practical sense - is that the current government is allergic to talking taxes.
Meanwhile, the Tories are running Ads with a pensioner wearing a Rolex, complaining about losing £200. No, seriously.
Once more; address systemic issues systemically, rather than buying into the individualistic framing presented by the opposition; because that quickly gets talk of the deserving vs undeserving poor and whether people can claim benefits while owning 'flat screen tvs' and 'smartphones'.
Not meaning anyone here on the Ship, particularly but a very high proportion of those screaming about it were celebrating taking money from children, the working poor and the disabled, so I will take no lessons from them.
Telford comes to closest as he has previously indicated that he does not support the reinstatement of these benefits due to there being 'not enough money'
Telford comes to closest as he has previously indicated that he does not support the reinstatement of these benefits due to there being 'not enough money'
I don't recall saying this.
I can manage without it but millions will not be so fortunate. They will have a rise in pensions but that's to cover everything as well as the big increaase in fuel prices this coming winter.
Aside from arguments around universality (to which I am sympathetic)
Well, many of us think that this is a very important argument and shouldn't simply be waved away with a 'I am sympathetic'. Provision for the poor too often ends up being poor provision, and equally means testing is a hostage to political fortune and can easily be twisted to persecute the most vulnerable (see the stories relating various forms of disability provision and the fit-to-work tests introduced by the last Labour government).
It was an already long post and addressing a specific point. I have direct experience of supporting people with PIP and not enough swear words to discuss it fully.
Pensions is a problematic area for all developed countries. Over the past 2-3 decades has been a necessary process of encouraging people to save for their retirement. At the same time there's been a necessary move to ensure that those who are unable to don't end up destitute. Gordon Brown did a lot of work on this and that's why we got the WFP in the first place.
However, it's quite clear I think just by looking at the numbers that their remains a number of pensioners who are at significant risk of fuel poverty. Part of my point is that at this point in time, the WFP achieves very little - it is likely to be a negligible benefit at a £1.5Bn cost.
Apart from fixing the energy market and insulating homes better, two things that a vital, the issue is that the state pension is clearly inadequate. So let's make the State Pension much better and tax the high income pensioners... but the WFP is just fiddling around the edges.
I have just seen a Chagossian group on Twitter claiming that Rt Hon David Lammy MP misled parliament when he stated that he and his team had met with Chagossian representatives.
If true, this is a big deal.
Obviously on Twitter the usual Lammy-haters are out in force and so there's a lot of noise rather than facts. However, unlike the vast majority of the headlines we've seen,* this is a big deal.
AFZ
*The Times' latest scoop is that Angela Rayner bought her boyfriend a suit. No, seriously.
They can be and often are. They can be reduced according to circumstances. For example, a benefit might reduce by 50p for every £1 earned over a given threshold.
There is a problem in that you can effectively create high marginal tax rates for people on tapers, and multiple tapers can result in you being worse off for earning, but benefits absolutely can be tapered.
Well, of course benefits can be tapered, but I suspect it costs to administer, and offers yet another opportunity for the minions of the state to enjoy creating hard cases and subtle poverty traps.
Apart from fixing the energy market and insulating homes better, two things that a vital, the issue is that the state pension is clearly inadequate. So let's make the State Pension much better and tax the high income pensioners... but the WFP is just fiddling around the edges.
AFZ
The Triple Lock is fine as long as Labour don't mess with it.
A lot of Pensioners are already paying tax, not just high earning pensioners
Well, of course benefits can be tapered, but I suspect it costs to administer, and offers yet another opportunity for the minions of the state to enjoy creating hard cases and subtle poverty traps.
Well, of course benefits can be tapered, but I suspect it costs to administer, and offers yet another opportunity for the minions of the state to enjoy creating hard cases and subtle poverty traps.
Universal credit....
The basic idea of Universal Credit is good. One source for all benefits. One payment for everything. The way it has been administered is rubbish.
It strikes me as an example of claimed simplicity that has been buried in bureaucratic complexity.
The previous Tax credits system was certainly more straightforward and much less stressful to navigate in my experience (annual reporting of income as opposed to monthly and so on).
Before we go any further, I was totally against what P&O did (totally wrong) but a government’s left hand torpedoing their own right hand’s industrial showpiece like this is either political amateur hour, or wilful self harm.
Before we go any further, I was totally against what P&O did (totally wrong) but a government’s left hand torpedoing their own right hand’s industrial showpiece like this is either political amateur hour, or wilful self harm.
Well, of course benefits can be tapered, but I suspect it costs to administer, and offers yet another opportunity for the minions of the state to enjoy creating hard cases and subtle poverty traps.
Universal credit....
The basic idea of Universal Credit is good. One source for all benefits. One payment for everything. The way it has been administered is rubbish.
Well, of course benefits can be tapered, but I suspect it costs to administer, and offers yet another opportunity for the minions of the state to enjoy creating hard cases and subtle poverty traps.
Universal credit....
The basic idea of Universal Credit is good. One source for all benefits. One payment for everything. The way it has been administered is rubbish.
I mean, I’ve made no secret that I don’t like Labour, but I also must admit I had foolishly expected basic competence.
So did I. I am shocked that they are being so incompetent
I don't believe that you are shocked. You seem have a grudge against Labour, and you are dredging up stuff from Daily Mail, GB News, etc., to reinforce this. Fake news.
Well, of course benefits can be tapered, but I suspect it costs to administer, and offers yet another opportunity for the minions of the state to enjoy creating hard cases and subtle poverty traps.
Universal credit....
The basic idea of Universal Credit is good. One source for all benefits. One payment for everything. The way it has been administered is rubbish.
I mean, I’ve made no secret that I don’t like Labour, but I also must admit I had foolishly expected basic competence.
So did I. I am shocked that they are being so incompetent
I don't believe that you are shocked. You seem have a grudge against Labour, and you are dredging up stuff from Daily Mail, GB News, etc., to reinforce this. Fake news.
These things I have 'drudged up'. Which of them are false?
Well, of course benefits can be tapered, but I suspect it costs to administer, and offers yet another opportunity for the minions of the state to enjoy creating hard cases and subtle poverty traps.
Universal credit....
The basic idea of Universal Credit is good. One source for all benefits. One payment for everything. The way it has been administered is rubbish.
I mean, I’ve made no secret that I don’t like Labour, but I also must admit I had foolishly expected basic competence.
So did I. I am shocked that they are being so incompetent
I don't believe that you are shocked. You seem have a grudge against Labour, and you are dredging up stuff from Daily Mail, GB News, etc., to reinforce this. Fake news.
These things I have 'drudged up'. Which of them are false?
I'm not saying the information is false, but your pretended shock. It strikes me that you love attacking Labour and Starmer. OK, fair enough, but let go of the fake shock.
Before we go any further, I was totally against what P&O did (totally wrong) but a government’s left hand torpedoing their own right hand’s industrial showpiece like this is either political amateur hour, or wilful self harm.
Although messaging aside; there is a certain intentionality about it. i.e if they get around to banning fire and rehire then you won't have companies whose business model relies on firing-and-rehiring operating that way in the UK or at all, and that's going to be an economic and political trade off.
Before we go any further, I was totally against what P&O did (totally wrong) but a government’s left hand torpedoing their own right hand’s industrial showpiece like this is either political amateur hour, or wilful self harm.
Firstly, P&O can fuck all the way off to Fuckland and then fuck off some more for how they treated their workers, Haigh and Raynor are absolutely right to highlight it as an example of the sort of worker mistreatment they're looking to eliminate, and if DP World and their Emirati billionaire chairman don't like it then they can fuck off as well. I don't care how much investment they're offering as a bribe to get us to overlook their shady business practices, and neither should the government.
Secondly, if for realpolitik reasons Haigh and Rayner had been silenced so that the London Gateway investment would go ahead, does anyone seriously think the news agenda wouldn't have been dominated by "Labour says they want to improve worker rights but cosies up to the company that fucked over honest British workers - what a bunch of hypocrites" stories? Anyone? Hello? McFly?
I'm no fan of Starmer or his government, but for fuck's sake this line of attack is ridiculous.
Well, of course benefits can be tapered, but I suspect it costs to administer, and offers yet another opportunity for the minions of the state to enjoy creating hard cases and subtle poverty traps.
Universal credit....
The basic idea of Universal Credit is good. One source for all benefits. One payment for everything. The way it has been administered is rubbish.
I mean, I’ve made no secret that I don’t like Labour, but I also must admit I had foolishly expected basic competence.
So did I. I am shocked that they are being so incompetent
I don't believe that you are shocked. You seem have a grudge against Labour, and you are dredging up stuff from Daily Mail, GB News, etc., to reinforce this. Fake news.
These things I have 'drudged up'. Which of them are false?
I'm not saying the information is false, but your pretended shock. It strikes me that you love attacking Labour and Starmer. OK, fair enough, but let go of the fake shock.
Jeez, if those who love attacking the Tories had "let go of their fake shock" we'd have had a lot less posts on this website over the last decade or so. Sauce for the goose, and all that.
Before we go any further, I was totally against what P&O did (totally wrong) but a government’s left hand torpedoing their own right hand’s industrial showpiece like this is either political amateur hour, or wilful self harm.
Before we go any further, I was totally against what P&O did (totally wrong) but a government’s left hand torpedoing their own right hand’s industrial showpiece like this is either political amateur hour, or wilful self harm.
Whether or not they have advisors it's just possible that in this case they have principles they want to stick to.
I’d love to have been a fly on the wall when thee DPM and the Transport Secretary tipped off the Business Secretary about what they were going to do 6 days before his and the PM’s big day though….. assuming they did….
The issue is *not* what they’ve done (which FWIW I agreed with for all the the reasons that have been trotted out. The issue is with the timing, teeing up a keynote guest and flagship announcement (which again, shouldn’t have been…) and then whipping the rug away with under a week to go. That’s where I’m detecting the cold dead hand of political amateurism - I actually support the stance!
Well, of course benefits can be tapered, but I suspect it costs to administer, and offers yet another opportunity for the minions of the state to enjoy creating hard cases and subtle poverty traps.
Universal credit....
The basic idea of Universal Credit is good. One source for all benefits. One payment for everything. The way it has been administered is rubbish.
I mean, I’ve made no secret that I don’t like Labour, but I also must admit I had foolishly expected basic competence.
So did I. I am shocked that they are being so incompetent
I don't believe that you are shocked. You seem have a grudge against Labour, and you are dredging up stuff from Daily Mail, GB News, etc., to reinforce this. Fake news.
These things I have 'drudged up'. Which of them are false?
I'm not saying the information is false, but your pretended shock. It strikes me that you love attacking Labour and Starmer. OK, fair enough, but let go of the fake shock.
I am totally amazed that you think my shock was fake. I genuinely thought that Sir Keir was one of the good guys.
I didn't read @Telford's shock and surprise as 'fake' - although I hadn't realised he'd regarded him as one of the 'good guys.'
But come on, let's face it, whilst some of those on the left of the Labour Party who post here don't seem at all surprised by some of Starmer's antics, the rest of us were probably lulled into a false sense of security to some extent.
I must admit to having been taken aback by the venality as well as the cack-handedness that he's shown ... and no, two wrongs don't make a right, so highlighting the venality and cack-handedness of the previous government doesn't let him off the hook.
Sure, the right-wing press would have a go even if he found a magic money mine and gave everyone in the country a million pounds each.
But even so ...
Not only that, but whilst I sometimes spar with @Telford - genially I hope - I wouldn't have a go at him simply for having different political views to mine.
It's not as if the Labour Party is so above and beyond reproach that it is wicked, evil and heretical to criticise it or to hold different ideological views.
The same applies to any other political party or ideology.
There are people on these boards who are critical of Starmer from within the Labour movement itself, so why should @Telford be criticised for having a go at it from the 'outside', as it were?
I may not agree with all his criticisms but he has a right to make them and many of them do overlap with concerns expressed by people on the left.
I have no time whatsoever for GBN and some of the other sources Telford cites but that doesn't undermine all the observations he makes or the questions he raises.
Well, of course benefits can be tapered, but I suspect it costs to administer, and offers yet another opportunity for the minions of the state to enjoy creating hard cases and subtle poverty traps.
Universal credit....
The basic idea of Universal Credit is good. One source for all benefits. One payment for everything. The way it has been administered is rubbish.
I mean, I’ve made no secret that I don’t like Labour, but I also must admit I had foolishly expected basic competence.
So did I. I am shocked that they are being so incompetent
Me too. As in the head shaking 'God, no!' sense. As with the optics, through the lens of the Tory press, of taking a hundred thousand pounds in 'gifts', mainly while in opposition. And Sue Gray.
Officials and industry are concerned that the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority has stopped or slowed deals, denting Britain’s reputation overseas, and making the government appear “anti-tech”.
(A reminder that unemployment is currently 4% in the UK).
I used to read the Telegraph with interest. Now I don't bother. I don't really care if it's an interview or whatever, I think it's just so not credible that it's pointless.
I would surmise that if Streeting is talking about weight loss drugs, then he's not talking about the unemployed but the economically inactive.
Evidence suggests that a significant proportion of this group want to work but are unable to do so. I haven't seen any data on obesity in this group but it is a rational expectation that there are people for whom this would be a good policy. Though I've no sense of how many and if this would work.*
So, the key question here is whether this is good policy, giving support to those who want and need it or is is demonising the poor for political reasons?
With Mr Streeting, I am prepared to accept that either interpretation may be correct.** However, I doubt one could drill down into this with any accuracy in a Telegraph article.
Increasingly, I am pausing before forming any judgment on any government policy because of the unreliability of the media lens.***
AFZ
*Obesity treatment is complex and medication is crucial part but only a part. People with obesity need the whole package in order to improve. It is very likely that done well, this will help people into work but one cannot form any judgment from a soundbite.
**Or both.
***The history of the M4 Bus Lane and how it was reported is extremely illustrative here. I will write a full post on this later.
With Mr Streeting, I am prepared to accept that either interpretation may be correct.** However, I doubt one could drill down into this with any accuracy in a Telegraph article.
Well, it's on the back of a column published in the Telegraph to which he was willing to put his name, so your intermediate beef is with him:
Given that at the moment such medications are very difficult to get on the NHS if you don’t have diabetes to a certain level - widening access would not be terrible.
With Mr Streeting, I am prepared to accept that either interpretation may be correct.** However, I doubt one could drill down into this with any accuracy in a Telegraph article.
Well, it's on the back of a column published in the Telegraph to which he was willing to put his name, so your intermediate beef is with him:
Because of you, I have actually now read said article (uggh ). Mr Streeting himself uses the word 'unemployed' a sum total of zero times. As you know, the writer of an article has no control over the headline attached to it. Whether a Minister should write for the Telegraph is a different question.
Here's what he actually says:
Our widening waistbands are also placing significant burden on our health service, costing the NHS £11 billion a year – even more than smoking. And it’s holding back our economy. Illness caused by obesity causes people to take an extra four sick days a year on average, while many others are forced out of work altogether.
<snip>
Today, we are announcing a £279 million investment from the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, Lilly, in a collaboration that includes exploring new ways of delivering health and care services to people living with obesity, and a five-year real-world study of a cutting-edge obesity treatment.
<snip>
The long-term benefits of these drugs could be monumental in our approach to tackling obesity. For many people, these weight-loss jabs will be life-changing, help them get back to work, and ease the demands on our NHS.
I can find no fault with that.
I reiterate that the media lens is incredibly distorting.
Whether a Minister should write for the Telegraph is a different question.
On the contrary, it's an entirely related question. The reason for using outlets like the Telegraph is the hope that you'll benefit from their framing. It's of a piece with that Sun article bylined to Starmer talking about 'net zero extremists'.
I can find no fault with that.
It's important to review the entire study; but unless they tackle issues like food poverty it's going to be disciplinary rather than preventative.
Comments
Do you believe that MP selection should be run along similar lines?
I am using my detective skills to try to unpick your point. That is a little annoying.
The link is to a Reddit page. Apparently it has something to do with Luke Akehurst. It seems to go back to around 2008 but I'm still not sure what it is.
Do you mind just saying what you mean? It really would speed things up a bit.
The answer to your question is 'yes', even compared to the Blair-Brown years. The difference between then and now is that the current crowd aren't even fighting over ideological points or policy.
The same reason trolls fight in internet forums, the actual reason is usually secondary.
To expand the above; the screenshot was from completely serious post from Akehurst's blog (there an instructive exercise to try and imagine the type of individual who might post that sort of thing entirely unironically), he then went on to the NEC where he played a major part in the selection of the current roster of MPs, specifically where that involved imposing a selection of one on naughty - read left wing - CLPs.
The blog was ultimately taken down - along with a number of tweets - when he selected himself to stand in Durham North.
The second sentence is sarcasm.
I'll refer you to my detailed post over on the Tory thread:
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/688202/#Comment_688202
Although, we also need to note @Doublethink's point about further discussion on immigration.
However, I will state here - as noted in my long comment - that you are factually wrong and complaining about a government having not yet solved a problem in fewer than 100 days.
AFZ
Yes he will probably last longer than a year. There was some exaggeration in my first post. From what I can tell, and I try to keep my ear to the ground, support for some major policies is begrudging. MPs from all sides of Labour are not happy having to defend them to their constituents. Their constituents are not happy with the policies. The buck stops with Starmer. He needs to create a positive vibe. Politically he is not the best. Even some Labour supporting YouTubers say that (A Different Bias for instance). If he has good advisors that is ok. Either he doesn’t have good advisors or he is ignoring them.
I think they will. They need to point out where we going though. The problem with this of course if they tell us where they think we will end up and we don’t the press will be calling them a failure from roof tops. But people need hope and they are not giving much (note I say much) of that at the moment
I agree. That is of vital importance.
I disagree with this purely on the basis of logic in the first instance but the more I've thought about it, the more I take issue with the idea that removal of the Winter Fuel Payment from some pensioners is genuinely a catastrophe and making lots of older people cold. It does not really stack up.
Making pensioners colder and hungrier is not axiomatically incompetence. A government who decided to do this deliberately is very Machiavellian and immoral but if that is their intent then obviously it is not incompetence. I assumed you are framing this way as you are granting that it is not the government's intent. However, if the intent is good policy and this is a potential consequence that does not equate to incompetence either. It may reflect a government appreciating the consequences but weighing all things up, deciding that it's the right policy. That is a moral question and not a competence one. I hold many decisions made by Michael Gove and many others in that category.
So let us talk about what we were talking about.
When Gordon Brown introduced the payment in 1997, the levels of pensioner poverty were two to three times what they are now. The state pension was much lower in real terms and the overall wealth of pensioner households was much lower.
Some numbers:
Pensioner couple income 1995: £305*
Pensioner couple income 2023: £561 (84% increase)
*2023 prices.
There are around 12.6 million pensioners in the UK. 97.3% live in 'regular households' That is in their own home, on their own or with a partner or living with a family member etc. 2.7% live in communal homes (i.e. care homes).
About 1.4 million households claim pensioner credit (and with that potentially housing benefit as well). Age UK estimate that there are about 880,000 who are entitled but not claiming and as such are losing out on about £100 per week (Pensioner Credit plus Housing Benefit).
As previously noted, 27% of pensioner households have a net worth of over £1m.
To me, it seems that we are absolutely having the wrong argument.
880,000 people who are not getting £100 per week that they are entitled to are the ones who are really in trouble. You cannot convince me that £200 a year is the problem when we're talking about over £5000 per year not being claimed.
Moreover for the average pensioner household on £561 / week = £29k/year the £200 is clearly of negligible significance.
It is also the case that thousands of old people die from cold every winter in the UK. How many of these are prevented and preventable is a much wider discussion.
Aside from arguments around universality (to which I am sympathetic), there is a very poor case for thinking that the way to help the poorest pensioners who are missing out on £5k per year is to give every pensioner, including the more than a quarter who are technical millionaires, £200 for the winter!
AgeUK estimates that 2.5 million pensioners are at risk from this decision. This is made up of 1.5 million who are not entitled to Pension Credit and 1 million who are entitled but don't currently claim it. If we accept that the 1 million are a problem, the solution is the £5k payment not the 200 quid one. The other 1.5 million is the challenge. However, when the state pension is £221/week** we are talking about a 2% cut in pensioner income and the background of more than a decade of above inflation increases. Of course, there will be some close to the line or who have high energy needs who are a point of particular concern. But once again the £200 is not enough to solve this problem.
**exact amounts vary because of complex rules
Is there a problem with the UK's energy market and the prices we are charged as consumers?
Yes, absolutely. How much is this helped by giving all pensioners £200? Not much. We need to fix the energy markets.
Is there a massive need for improved insulation of our homes?
Yes, absolutely. Is this helped by giving all pensioners £200? Nope.
Do we need to find a way to make sure that those in need get help?
Abso-bloody-lutely but I'm much more interested in fixing Pensioner Credit than I am in the Winter Fuel Payment.
Do we need to do something about pensioners whose homes are not warm enough in Winter?
Of course we do. But that was true in 2023 and will still be true in 2025. The effect of removing the WFP is minimal, especially when you look at how much the pensions have gone up in those years.
Meanwhile, the Tories are running Ads with a pensioner wearing a Rolex, complaining about losing £200. No, seriously.
The State Pension is - and must remain - a universal benefit. No one has suggested otherwise. The Winter Fuel Payment was brought in 25 years ago for a particular purpose. In 2024, it is an expensive way of not really achieving very much. There are much better causes for the benefits of Pensioners.
I accept that there are some who will continue to feel that taking any money from pensioners is too risky because of the at-risk individuals who may be genuinely adversely affected. I respect that. Not meaning anyone here on the Ship, particularly but a very high proportion of those screaming about it were celebrating taking money from children, the working poor and the disabled, so I will take no lessons from them. Hugal expressed the notion that Children and Older People both deserved special attention. I agree but millionaire pensioners do not need this money. It makes sense to make this a targeted benefit. The issue is with the targeting, not the morality or competence of the policy. Moreover, as I said, I think we're having the wrong argument. The issue is Pensioner Credit. If 38% who are entitled don't claim, then it's clearly not working. And that's before we look at the chosen thresholds. And the problem is energy bills and insulation and the wider provision of care for the elderly.
One of the political analysts I heard a month or so back suggested that Starmer and Reeves underestimated the backlash but will now dig their heals in. That is a political issue, not a governance one.
AFZ
Sources:
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/pensioners-incomes-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2023/pensioners-incomes-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2023
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/pensioners-incomes-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2023/pensioners-incomes-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2023
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benefits-statistics-august-2023/dwp-benefits-statistics-august-2023#:~:text=There were 12.6 million people,resulting in fewer new claims.
4. https://www.ageuk.org.uk/our-impact/campaigning/save-the-winter-fuel-payment/
I was answering him. I should have put a comma after correct. He was correct that @Telford needed to perhaps look at his philosophy making any pensioners colder is incompetence. It shows a lack of understanding how the consultants feel on the subject. To make life worse for them is hitting down. Morally if not financially bad.
I think I've read it right. @Dafyd was responding to @Telford but the coding was slightly off.
Well, many of us think that this is a very important argument and shouldn't simply be waved away with a 'I am sympathetic'. Provision for the poor too often ends up being poor provision, and equally means testing is a hostage to political fortune and can easily be twisted to persecute the most vulnerable (see the stories relating various forms of disability provision and the fit-to-work tests introduced by the last Labour government).
The other reason for doing it this way - which you don't address, and is thoroughly ideological in the practical sense - is that the current government is allergic to talking taxes.
Once more; address systemic issues systemically, rather than buying into the individualistic framing presented by the opposition; because that quickly gets talk of the deserving vs undeserving poor and whether people can claim benefits while owning 'flat screen tvs' and 'smartphones'.
Telford comes to closest as he has previously indicated that he does not support the reinstatement of these benefits due to there being 'not enough money'
I can manage without it but millions will not be so fortunate. They will have a rise in pensions but that's to cover everything as well as the big increaase in fuel prices this coming winter.
It was an already long post and addressing a specific point. I have direct experience of supporting people with PIP and not enough swear words to discuss it fully.
Pensions is a problematic area for all developed countries. Over the past 2-3 decades has been a necessary process of encouraging people to save for their retirement. At the same time there's been a necessary move to ensure that those who are unable to don't end up destitute. Gordon Brown did a lot of work on this and that's why we got the WFP in the first place.
However, it's quite clear I think just by looking at the numbers that their remains a number of pensioners who are at significant risk of fuel poverty. Part of my point is that at this point in time, the WFP achieves very little - it is likely to be a negligible benefit at a £1.5Bn cost.
Apart from fixing the energy market and insulating homes better, two things that a vital, the issue is that the state pension is clearly inadequate. So let's make the State Pension much better and tax the high income pensioners... but the WFP is just fiddling around the edges.
AFZ
If true, this is a big deal.
Obviously on Twitter the usual Lammy-haters are out in force and so there's a lot of noise rather than facts. However, unlike the vast majority of the headlines we've seen,* this is a big deal.
AFZ
*The Times' latest scoop is that Angela Rayner bought her boyfriend a suit. No, seriously.
They can be and often are. They can be reduced according to circumstances. For example, a benefit might reduce by 50p for every £1 earned over a given threshold.
There is a problem in that you can effectively create high marginal tax rates for people on tapers, and multiple tapers can result in you being worse off for earning, but benefits absolutely can be tapered.
A lot of Pensioners are already paying tax, not just high earning pensioners
Universal credit....
The previous Tax credits system was certainly more straightforward and much less stressful to navigate in my experience (annual reporting of income as opposed to monthly and so on).
Do they have advisors?
https://news.sky.com/story/blow-to-no-10s-investment-summit-as-port-giant-pulls-1bn-announcement-over-pando-row-13231876
Or this is a very misleading story. That's where I'm putting my money.
So did I. I am shocked that they are being so incompetent
I don't believe that you are shocked. You seem have a grudge against Labour, and you are dredging up stuff from Daily Mail, GB News, etc., to reinforce this. Fake news.
These things I have 'drudged up'. Which of them are false?
I'm not saying the information is false, but your pretended shock. It strikes me that you love attacking Labour and Starmer. OK, fair enough, but let go of the fake shock.
Although messaging aside; there is a certain intentionality about it. i.e if they get around to banning fire and rehire then you won't have companies whose business model relies on firing-and-rehiring operating that way in the UK or at all, and that's going to be an economic and political trade off.
Two things:
Firstly, P&O can fuck all the way off to Fuckland and then fuck off some more for how they treated their workers, Haigh and Raynor are absolutely right to highlight it as an example of the sort of worker mistreatment they're looking to eliminate, and if DP World and their Emirati billionaire chairman don't like it then they can fuck off as well. I don't care how much investment they're offering as a bribe to get us to overlook their shady business practices, and neither should the government.
Secondly, if for realpolitik reasons Haigh and Rayner had been silenced so that the London Gateway investment would go ahead, does anyone seriously think the news agenda wouldn't have been dominated by "Labour says they want to improve worker rights but cosies up to the company that fucked over honest British workers - what a bunch of hypocrites" stories? Anyone? Hello? McFly?
I'm no fan of Starmer or his government, but for fuck's sake this line of attack is ridiculous.
Jeez, if those who love attacking the Tories had "let go of their fake shock" we'd have had a lot less posts on this website over the last decade or so. Sauce for the goose, and all that.
Whether or not they have advisors it's just possible that in this case they have principles they want to stick to.
I’d love to have been a fly on the wall when thee DPM and the Transport Secretary tipped off the Business Secretary about what they were going to do 6 days before his and the PM’s big day though….. assuming they did….
The issue is *not* what they’ve done (which FWIW I agreed with for all the the reasons that have been trotted out. The issue is with the timing, teeing up a keynote guest and flagship announcement (which again, shouldn’t have been…) and then whipping the rug away with under a week to go. That’s where I’m detecting the cold dead hand of political amateurism - I actually support the stance!
I am totally amazed that you think my shock was fake. I genuinely thought that Sir Keir was one of the good guys.
But come on, let's face it, whilst some of those on the left of the Labour Party who post here don't seem at all surprised by some of Starmer's antics, the rest of us were probably lulled into a false sense of security to some extent.
I must admit to having been taken aback by the venality as well as the cack-handedness that he's shown ... and no, two wrongs don't make a right, so highlighting the venality and cack-handedness of the previous government doesn't let him off the hook.
Sure, the right-wing press would have a go even if he found a magic money mine and gave everyone in the country a million pounds each.
But even so ...
Not only that, but whilst I sometimes spar with @Telford - genially I hope - I wouldn't have a go at him simply for having different political views to mine.
It's not as if the Labour Party is so above and beyond reproach that it is wicked, evil and heretical to criticise it or to hold different ideological views.
The same applies to any other political party or ideology.
There are people on these boards who are critical of Starmer from within the Labour movement itself, so why should @Telford be criticised for having a go at it from the 'outside', as it were?
I may not agree with all his criticisms but he has a right to make them and many of them do overlap with concerns expressed by people on the left.
I have no time whatsoever for GBN and some of the other sources Telford cites but that doesn't undermine all the observations he makes or the questions he raises.
Me too. As in the head shaking 'God, no!' sense. As with the optics, through the lens of the Tory press, of taking a hundred thousand pounds in 'gifts', mainly while in opposition. And Sue Gray.
https://www.ft.com/content/3d8593a0-ce3b-4ce1-a039-f95c74362e0e
So basically a pro-big tech/big business agenda.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/14/unemployed-could-be-given-weight-loss-jabs-to-get-back-to-work-says-wes-streeting
(A reminder that unemployment is currently 4% in the UK).
I used to read the Telegraph with interest. Now I don't bother. I don't really care if it's an interview or whatever, I think it's just so not credible that it's pointless.
I would surmise that if Streeting is talking about weight loss drugs, then he's not talking about the unemployed but the economically inactive.
Evidence suggests that a significant proportion of this group want to work but are unable to do so. I haven't seen any data on obesity in this group but it is a rational expectation that there are people for whom this would be a good policy. Though I've no sense of how many and if this would work.*
So, the key question here is whether this is good policy, giving support to those who want and need it or is is demonising the poor for political reasons?
With Mr Streeting, I am prepared to accept that either interpretation may be correct.** However, I doubt one could drill down into this with any accuracy in a Telegraph article.
Increasingly, I am pausing before forming any judgment on any government policy because of the unreliability of the media lens.***
AFZ
*Obesity treatment is complex and medication is crucial part but only a part. People with obesity need the whole package in order to improve. It is very likely that done well, this will help people into work but one cannot form any judgment from a soundbite.
**Or both.
***The history of the M4 Bus Lane and how it was reported is extremely illustrative here. I will write a full post on this later.
Well, it's on the back of a column published in the Telegraph to which he was willing to put his name, so your intermediate beef is with him:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/14/widening-waistbands-are-a-burden-on-britain/
Not really.
Because of you, I have actually now read said article (uggh
Here's what he actually says:
I can find no fault with that.
I reiterate that the media lens is incredibly distorting.
AFZ
On the contrary, it's an entirely related question. The reason for using outlets like the Telegraph is the hope that you'll benefit from their framing. It's of a piece with that Sun article bylined to Starmer talking about 'net zero extremists'.
It's important to review the entire study; but unless they tackle issues like food poverty it's going to be disciplinary rather than preventative.