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

[Bozza]

It’s means tested.

That’s fair.

Sorry if you don’t think so but you’re wrong.

It's not. Some of the benefits which are being used as gateway qualifications to receiving the Winter Fuel Payment are means tested.

We won't find agreement on this though, so just answer me this one...

If the Tory party put in a change that led to a very well-regarded charity issuing a statement that up to 2m poor and vulnerable people could be adversely-impacted and launched a peitition to try and stop that policy change, are you seriously pretending you'd dismiss those concerns, and applaud the Tory party for making the change?

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Of course.

But I'm not entirely sure why the first port of call to start putting things right is a group of the most vulnerable in our society.

And that's not millionaires, of course, but those who sit just above the qualifiction line for pension credits. Those people will have very modest pensions and, because these thngs are often linked, little or no savings.

Of course the payment should not be universally available, but surely there is a better way than scrapping it at the level decided? Tiers or tapering could work. As it is a lot of elderly people, who aren't weatlhy by any measure, are going to be shit-scared to put their heating on this winter, and that is utterly deplorable.

Pensioners are not universally the most vulnerable in society, though are they?
This is an archetype, which is doing a lot of heavy lifting in how this is playing out in the media.

There will be a subset of pensioners who are very vulnerable, many of these may well be vulnerable due to other factors.
This will not be necessarily sdue to their age.
Many of these will be eligible for other benefits and will therefore maintain their WFA.

The insistence that there must be a fairer way to make a decision on a £200-£300 payment seems a bit odd to me.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the measures proposed.

This is based on th (possibly wrong) assumption, that the measures to identify pension credit, are based on the criteria to provide pensioners with a living income in relation to their outgoings.

There may well be a bigger problem, which is the number of pensioners not claiming benefits they are eligible for, however.
Which is the real risk here.

 

[BLOCK F]

It’s means tested.

That’s fair.

Sorry if you don’t think so but you’re wrong.

Clampy,
I never had you down as suffering from Gerontophobia ( yes, I had to look it up!)
I hope you don’t entirely believe your rather glib words regarding old people.
I do believe that many young people have had it tough for some time and continue to do so, and that it would be right that Governments should give more emphasis and attention to trying to help/solve some of the problems currently facing the younger generation, but surely, that shouldn’t be at the cost of neglecting the vulnerable old people in our society.

 

[crodonilson]

Dickie Burgon has voted AGAINST

Sir Keir will be raging

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Remind me - when do fuel bills go up? Yep, that's right, October.

When does the pension increase kick in? Yep, right again, April.

Might be too late for some pensioners.

Listen to the Charities - non-political -they know this is wrong.
You know this is wrong.
Lots of Labour MPs know this is wrong.

That's because it is wrong.

Yep this year it was £75 a month extra since April I believe.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

It's not. Some of the benefits which are being used as gateway qualifications to receiving the Winter Fuel Payment are means tested.

We won't find agreement on this though, so just answer me this one...

If the Tory party put in a change that led to a very well-regarded charity issuing a statement that up to 2m poor and vulnerable people could be adversely-impacted and launched a peitition to try and stop that policy change, are you seriously pretending you'd dismiss those concerns, and applaud the Tory party for making the change?

The Tory Party implemented some pretty Draconian policies on the Disabled community, as part of their austerity measures.
There was plenty of outcry from various sources, but nowhere near as much as this.

 

[Bozza]

The Tory Party implemented some pretty Draconian policies on the Disabled community, as part of their austerity measures.
There was plenty of outcry from various sources, but nowhere near as much as this.

Ah, so two wrongs do make a right Gotcha.

 

[Baldseagull]

i did when checking on the points forming the black hole. they cite the IFS with an estimated 10-20bn hole by end of the parliament, which is largely made from the pay awards. there was no expectation of these large pay awards in the 2021 spending review, because there was underestimated forecast of inflation, and more recently no intention to follow the pay recommendations. that puts it down to policy decisions.

But there had to be some pay award, at some level.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Ah, so two wrongs do make a right Gotcha.

You've got me , with a well thought out deconstruction of my argument.

I bow to your superior analysis of the arguments involved.

 

[The Clamp]

It's not. Some of the benefits which are being used as gateway qualifications to receiving the Winter Fuel Payment are means tested.

We won't find agreement on this though, so just answer me this one...

If the Tory party put in a change that led to a very well-regarded charity issuing a statement that up to 2m poor and vulnerable people could be adversely-impacted and launched a peitition to try and stop that policy change, are you seriously pretending you'd dismiss those concerns, and applaud the Tory party for making the change?

The Tory’s would use the money saved to line their own pockets.

Labour are doing it to get the economy back in the black. Incomparable motivations.

 

[Bozza]

You've got me , with a well thought out deconstruction of my argument.

I bow to your superior analysis of the arguments involved.

I'd like to think I've been pretty clear ob my concerns on this change, but let's recap shall we...

1. Stuff has to be paid for - we all get that. Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heavier burden. But this policy change groups 10m people together - some do have very broad shoulders, whilst others have backs that are all but broken and they can't take any more.

2. What the Tories did or didn't do is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned in the context of this specific change. Successive Tory adminisations were contemptible. Kier Starmer wants to be held to a higher standard, and rightly so.

So when the likes of Age UK, multiple trade unions and Labour luminaries such as Andy Burnham make public appeals for changes to this policy, it means something. This isn't the Daily Mail making thinly-veiled Tory-supporting swipes, these are groups that sing from the same left-of-centre hymn sheet.

I write this from the perspective of knowing how fragile the finances are for many old folk. My mum was a proud and independent woman who wouldn't have taken any offer of help from me with her money. But, since her health has declined so rapidly over the last six months, I have become involved. Her pension is miniscule, so she does qualify for pension credits, and she has a small amount of savings.

Since I've got involved, I've manged to get her into rough equilibrium - balacing what comes in and what goes out each month. But there's not much contingency. It wouldn't take much for her to be eroding her modest savings and looking at running out of money. Now, she's lucky as she has two children who could and would help.
She won't have to make decisions over heating and eatng.

A lot of people aren't so fortunate - c2m according to Age UK.

 

[The Oldman]

Isn’t it more complicated than that.

What about those with income between £12,571 to £50,270, basic tax payers?

If “the less well off” get to keep it all, that would allow pensioner couples with annual income up to £100,540 to keep the WFA.

Agree its complicated. Basic rate taxpayers would pay the standard rate on their WFA.
I just feel that taxing WFA would be a fairer way and would probably be more acceptable if not producing the total saving Reeve wants.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I expect Labour to win the Commons vote, for Winter Fuel Payments to be scrapped and for everybody to move on. However, Labour's PR chief needs sacking.

To my mind, Labour should have had their Budget at the earliest opportunity, which would have been c. 12/13 September. They could have kept schtum until then, unleashed all the pain and taken all the negativity in one hit. But at least there would have been certainty moving forward, businesses, investors and the housing market could start planning and party conference could take the new plans into account and develop policy.

Instead, we've had Starmer's speech saying there will be great pain, then we've had this Winter Fuel Payment story, and we still have to wait another 7 weeks before the actual Budget.

This is spreading the pain and negativity over an extended period, one in which 5 Tory candidates for the leadership can each have a pop at Labour and magnify the Opposition response. In addition, Labour will be trying to end the public sector strikes with wage hikes but no one knows where the money is coming from, fanning the flames of uncertainty.

Labour have created a economic policy vacuum and it is not helping them. Maybe they should get Mandelson and Alistair Campbell back to sort this PR shitshow out?

In the here and now, this looks like bad PR

But I think Starmer and Reeves are looking at the early Brown budgets in the late 90s and thinking that the reputation gained as tough financial operators will stand them in good stead for their bigger pictures

I’m not saying, this is all part of his masterplan, I think him and his advisers have miscalculated the strength of feeling.

I just think he’ll be happy enough playing the long game

 

[Weststander]

I'd like to think I've been pretty clear ob my concerns on this change, but let's recap shall we...

1. Stuff has to be paid for - we all get that. Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heavier burden. But this policy change groups 10m people together - some do have very broad shoulders, whilst others have backs that are all but broken and they can't take any more.

2. What the Tories did or didn't do is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned in the context of this specific change. Successive Tory adminisations were contemptible. Kier Starmer wants to be held to a higher standard, and rightly so.

So when the likes of Age UK, multiple trade unions and Labour luminaries such as Andy Burnham make public appeals for changes to this policy, it means something. This isn't the Daily Mail making thinly-veiled Tory-supporting swipes, these are groups that sing from the same left-of-centre hymn sheet.

I write this from the perspective of knowing how fragile the finances are for many old folk. My mum was a proud and independent woman who wouldn't have taken any offer of help from me with her money. But, since her health has declined so rapidly over the last six months, I have become involved. Her pension is miniscule, so she does qualify for pension credits, and she has a small amount of savings.

Since I've got involved, I've manged to get her into rough equilibrium - balacing what comes in and what goes out each month. But there's not much contingency. It wouldn't take much for her to be eroding her modest savings and looking at running out of money. Now, she's lucky as she has two children who could and would help.
She won't have to make decisions over heating and eatng.

A lot of people aren't so fortunate - c2m according to Age UK.

Some poignant phone calls on this to LBC and R5 over the last few weeks. Elderly callers in the household income bracket just above pension credit, until now used to pay the WFP as soon as received, to their utilities supplier. To give themselves assurance over the winter months. Genuinely, that hit home for me.

 

[The Clamp]

So what are people seriously thinking here then?

That Kier Starmer, clearly an intelligent and insight man, has deliberately decided to piss off a huge swathe of the electorate (admittedly a swathe that has misunderstood that pensioners won’t actually be worse off annually) for no reason whatsoever?

Or does he simply want to be perceived to be inflicting misery on millions of “poor pensioners”?

Does he dislike old people?


Why do people think Labour are doing this?

 

[Zeberdi]

Makes more economic sense to stop the strikes and get the country moving again than save well off pensioners £25 a month.

“The government can’t reduce safety on the railways, these people deserve better pay”

Okay. Where does the money come from?


Sorry, nearly all pensioners will be better off and have money left over. They’ll be on 145 quid better off a year.

Stop clutching your pearls. The oldies will be just fine. The rest of the country needs a working railway system and productive workers.

It’s £25 a month. Get over it.

As @Guinness Boy said earlier, the money has to come from somewhere. We can’t keep rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic by moving piles of money around in the shrinking coffers of the public purse when what we need to do is fix the economy and the £140 billion shrinkage since Brexit..

What the Government really needs to do about fuel frankly, is to step in and stop OFGEM from yet again raising the cap allowing energy suppliers to raise the price of bills again. OFGEM is really not fit for purpose and has the interests of fuel companies at heart to the detriment of consumers.

It is fcuking disgraceful that last year, while most of us were shivering in our homes when fuel prices were going through the roof, Shell, Equinor, ExxonMobil and BP made £65bn in net profits which arguably stoked the energy bills crisis in the first place.

Rather than clutching our pearls over £200-300 per year being withdrawn for Pensioners who are on enough income to take them above means-tested benefits level (either through savings or full State Pension) we should be looking to reduce fuel bills for everyone and also subsidise the £2 billion winter fuel payments (currently paid to all pensioners) in their cost to the Government from the £10 billion windfall tax on the fat cat energy sector over the next 5 years. We should then be able to afford to widen the qualifying criteria for pension fuel payments (ie disabilities, housing occupancy, number of rooms, tax band regardless of income etc).

Windfall taxes should not be used to reinvest in green energy - that’s not a ‘tax’ - that’s greenwashing the insidious profits made by fuel companies and reinvesting them back into those very same companies under the auspices of Climate Change policies. The green sector is viable and self-sustaining enough now to be driven by private enterprise.

Make energy companies give back some of the excessive profits to the people they stole them from.

 

[Weststander]

In the here and now, this looks like bad PR

But I think Starmer and Reeves are looking at the early Brown budgets in the late 90s and thinking that the reputation gained as tough financial operators will stand them in good stead for their bigger pictures

I’m not saying, this is all part of his masterplan, I think him and his advisers have miscalculated the strength of feeling.

I just think he’ll be happy enough playing the long game

With only 33.7% of the vote at peak Tory incompetence, they don't have the luxury that Blair did in 1997. Then serving governments face nonstop criticism denting popularity.

Starmer/Reeves need to be clever politically, minimising these opportunities for all opponents.

If they could turn the clock back one month ....

 

[The Clamp]

I almost guarantee I could go through any pensioners monthly budget and save £25 a month for the next four or five months when they’ll all get an extra £450 a year off the government.

 

[Weststander]

So what are people seriously thinking here then?

That Kier Starmer, clearly an intelligent and insight man, has deliberately decided to piss off a huge swathe of the electorate (admittedly a swathe that has misunderstood that pensioners won’t actually be worse off annually) for no reason whatsoever?

Or does he simply want to be perceived to be inflicting misery on millions of “poor pensioners”?

Does he dislike old people?


Why do people think Labour are doing this?

A blunt instrument, he miscalculated politically. So far, on this.

 

[nevergoagain]

So will John Trickett now be suspended as well, that makes 8 in just over 2 months if so, very careless. Not to mention the 50 abstentions and the already suspended Labour MP's. Party of Unity!.