[Politics] Labour Party meltdown incoming.......

[BLOCK F]

But If the Tories had done this they would have been apoplectic!

Yes, the hypocrisy of some politicians and some on NSC knows no bounds.

 

[keaton]

View attachment 188668

Sorry, I thought today's witterings were about inheritance tax

 

[Uh_huh_him]

could have just said they'd look at WFP for higher earners, not even particualrly controversial, along with some upbeat talking points about positive policy changes. instead we've had this issue dominate for two months.

It's ridiculous that this measure has dominated the news coverage.
The boomer generation continue to have a disproportionate influence on political discourse..

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

If I was cynical, I might think that the plan to remove the winter fuel allowance was something of a smokescreen. Threaten a policy which is very unpopular, if it is voted through, OK but, if there is significant opposition, do a U-turn, claim to be a caring, listening government, then smack us all with some other tax hike. It could just be a carefully engineered softening-up manoeuvre. Surely SKS and RR wouldn't do anything like that, would they?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

this is a weird argument. do you view any offers of financal assistance from family or friends the same? who does have the right to assets of the deceased, hard earned or otherwise?

It's not weird at all. Like a lot of things in life, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[BrightonCottager]

If I was cynical, I might think that the plan to remove the winter fuel allowance was something of a smokescreen. Threaten a policy which is very unpopular, if it is voted through, OK but, if there is significant opposition, do a U-turn, claim to be a caring, listening government, then smack us all with some other tax hike. It could just be a carefully engineered softening-up manoeuvre. Surely SKS and RR wouldn't do anything like that, would they?

That's exactly what I was arguing last night in the pub.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Good grief, I am amazed by some on here defending the inept WFP fiasco that Starmer and Reeves have created for themselves. Labour MPs and MInisters visibly squirming on TV , the unions very unhappy and even the Guardian has had a right go, so I have just read online. But, some good old NSC stalwarts are still banging the drum.
Of course there is a case for stopping the universality of the WPF, but this is a cock up entirely of Starmer and Reeves making and their political ineptness is a worry.
What on earth were they thinking of?

So we agree that there is a case for stopping the universality of the WFP. I would like to see the cut off line slightly higher than that proposed currently and have been trying to think of a simple way to manage it, but can't think of a simple, quick and easy solution slightly above the benefits cut off line proposed.

I always look at my Mum as a prime 'cut off line' example. Single Council tenant, state pension, just above the £16k savings limit, so no benefits. She insists she doesn't need it and who am I to argue with my Mum

But seriously, any ideas for a simple, implementable cut off slightly higher than that proposed ?

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Good grief, your generosity knows no bounds.
It is not the pensioners who may have six figure sums tucked away that concerns the huge number of critics re the WPF, it is the unfortunate souls who fall just outside the threshold for claiming pension credit and are surviving on very modest means. It is highly unlikely that these people have substantial sums earning interest.
You mention the young paying mortgages and the old getting a shitload more interest, well, interest rates go up and down.
Finally, your comment re the ‘end of the world for pensioners,’ is unworthy. Only those who cannot or will not see that the way this whole business has been implemented is an unholy mess, can possibly defend the actions of Reeves and Starmer.

Unholy mess??
Really?

I bet you couldn't believe the shambles of the Truss mini-Budget.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Good grief, your generosity knows no bounds.
It is not the pensioners who may have six figure sums tucked away that concerns the huge number of critics re the WPF, it is the unfortunate souls who fall just outside the threshold for claiming pension credit and are surviving on very modest means. It is highly unlikely that these people have substantial sums earning interest.
You mention the young paying mortgages and the old getting a shitload more interest, well, interest rates go up and down.
Finally, your comment re the ‘end of the world for pensioners,’ is unworthy. Only those who cannot or will not see that the way this whole business has been implemented is an unholy mess, can possibly defend the actions of Reeves and Starmer.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

This is about a £200 p.a. deduction in a benefit exclusively for pensioners - and given to ALL pensioners, regardless of their income level -for something that we all have to pay for - energy.

What about the young people who fall just outside the threshhold for benefits? They get nothing. Pensioners are lucky they have the triple lock when there are many workers who are seeing earning fall in real terms year on year.

And how exactly is this whole business "an unholy mess"? Labour are absolutely correct in getting rid of WFP. The economy is f*cked so Labour do something about it by withdrawing an ageist benefit that the country can no longer afford. What part of "the economy is f*cked" don't you get??

And on that subject, the 60% of those over 65 who voted Brexit should be reflecting on their decision very carefully because that is the reason our status as a nation has changed from 'just about managing' to 'can't afford it'.

 

[A1X]

Surely there has to be a means test that works? There must be a happy medium somewhere between “old people freezing to death in their bed” and “Sean Connery gets taxpayers money to heat his Barbados mansion”.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Surely there has to be a means test that works? There must be a happy medium somewhere between “old people freezing to death in their bed” and “Sean Connery gets taxpayers money to heat his Barbados mansion”.

I suspect there isn't a means test that can be managed without eating in to the savings made.

If you don't qualify for additional benefit above the state pension, then you are perceived to have enough income.
It's as good a marker as any.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Yes, the hypocrisy of some politicians and some on NSC knows no bounds.

The Tories were already considering making this change.

I find it interesting that a certain demographic are irate about this, but didn't get so apoplectic about Starmer's refusal to reverse the child benefit cap on 2 children.
Many of us "hypocrites" also accepted that was a necessary evil, in the current economic landscape.

 

[Is it PotG?]

The Tories were already considering making this change.

I find it interesting that a certain demographic are irate about this, but didn't get so apoplectic about Starmer's refusal to reverse the child benefit cap on 2 children.
Many of us "hypocrites" also accepted that was a necessary evil, in the current economic landscape.

The Labour report of a possible 4,000 deaths is merely a necessary evil?

Nice.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The Labour report of a possible 4,000 deaths is merely a necessary evil?

Nice.

I guess it depends who these 4000 are

 

[Uh_huh_him]

The Labour report of a possible 4,000 deaths is merely a necessary evil?

Nice.

This is just playing politics though isn't it.

If you are going to take a 2017 Labour report as gospel, then we should also acknowledge that the same group alleged that Tory Austerity was responsible for 120,000 excess deaths too?
I seem to recall that Austerity was also seen as a necessary evil.

Doesn't dominate the news headlines for quite so long though does it?

 

[BLOCK F]

It's ridiculous that this measure has dominated the news coverage.
The boomer generation continue to have a disproportionate influence on political discourse..

Sorry, fat finger, please ignore.

Unholy mess??
Really?

I bet you couldn't believe the shambles of the Truss mini-Budget.

Yes, I could. I was hoping ‘Mad Liz’ would fail in her bid to become leader. Alas, she succeeded.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Sorry, fat finger, please ignore.

Yes, I could. I was hoping ‘Mad Liz’ would fail in her bid to become leader. Alas, she succeeded.

But she gets a free-ride in the culpability for this "unholy mess", because she was clearly not up to the job?

 

[KZNSeagull]

Surely there has to be a means test that works? There must be a happy medium somewhere between “old people freezing to death in their bed” and “Sean Connery gets taxpayers money to heat his Barbados mansion”.

HMRC needs to tell the benefits department the level of everyone's income and savings that they have knowledge of. The benefits department can then decide who is eligible and who isn't. In this day and age that really shouldn't be very difficult but I'm sure it will be too complicated to implement without spending millions on consultants.

 

[BLOCK F]

So we agree that there is a case for stopping the universality of the WFP. I would like to see the cut off line slightly higher than that proposed currently and have been trying to think of a simple way to manage it, but can't think of a simple, quick and easy solution slightly above the benefits cut off line proposed.

I always look at my Mum as a prime 'cut off line' example. Single Council tenant, state pension, just above the £16k savings limit, so no benefits. She insists she doesn't need it and who am I to argue with my Mum

But seriously, any ideas for a simple, implementable cut off slightly higher than that proposed ?

Indeed. I have mentioned the case for stopping the universality of the WFP on at least one of my previous posts.
Your Mum sounds like a doughty lady, so best not argue!
I think they could have, initially, stopped the WFP for higher rate tax payers and that would have given them time to devise a scheme that was ‘fit for purpose’ if they wanted to lower the barrier any further. It wouldn’t also have given due warning of their possible intentions or alternatively given time for the Treasury to decide whether it was really the best way to raise funds or whether it would be more politic to think up other dastardly plans to raise dosh.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

HMRC needs to tell the benefits department the level of everyone's income and savings that they have knowledge of. The benefits department can then decide who is eligible and who isn't. In this day and age that really shouldn't be very difficult but I'm sure it will be too complicated to implement without spending millions on consultants.

Yep - the "should be easy" fallacy is an interesting thing.

I'm sure the data is available, but analysing the data and understanding how to implement a new level of means-testing.
Will be an expensive change in any system.

Establishing how many people are going to die as a direct consequence of this, however.... piece of piss.