[Politics] The Labour Government

[Thunder Bolt]

No it isn't. Only by people seeking to deflect by saying, "Yerbut..."

What is being discussed is the judgement and integrity of a Prime Minister who stood outside Downing Street 11 weeks ago and promised a re-set by saying:

"But now our country has voted, decisively. For change. For national renewal. And a return of politics to public service. When the gap between the sacrifices made by people and the service they receive from politicians grows this big, it leads to a weariness in the heart of a nation. This lack of trust, can only be healed by actions not words. I know that. But we can make a start today with the simple acknowledgment that public service is a privilege."

Then a couple of months in, it transpires he and his family have received tens and ten of thousands pounds worth of free stuff that frankly he's quite capable of buying himself - in large funded by a bloke who got a security pass to Downing Street for no purpose of National Interest or public service that anybody in government has been able to suggest.

Everybody knew the previous lot were on the make. Starmer promised to do better.

Where’s the lack of trust? It was all declared and as I pointed out, most Prime Ministers get perks.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Your private medical cover is paid for by your employer, and the reason he pays it is that it's part of your remuneration. In exchange, your employer gets the benefit of your labour.

It's a different matter when it's a private individual doing the paying. If someone not related to your work was giving your wife thousands of pounds of goodies and you in exchange game that person work-related benefits such as access to your office, your employer would be asking some very searching questions.

I was talking about MY WIFE getting it, who does precisely bugger all for my employer, apart from sometimes complain that I'm away on business too much.

And this whole 'passes for glasses' thing is absolute desperate nonsense. People associated to the government have always had access to them, whether SPADs or lobbyists. At least this one isn't racist.

 

[nicko31]

The Tories were horrible in government. But this one isn’t about the Tories. Even using the £22bn black hole as reasoning for the WFA cut, the estimated £1.7bn saving isn’t going to touch the sides. It’s a very poor policy.

Personally I'd make taxing the dead and the super rich the priority, a one off wealth tax would be good.

The issue with with the pensioners have got used to doing better than the working population, its what kept the Tories in power for so long.

A few will fall between the cracks but you can't please everyone. Triple lock maintained...

Debt to GDP just hit 100%, gotta living within our means

 

[chip]

I don’t disagree - You’ve quoted me out of context though.

I said that cold causes high blood pressure, strokes and worsens flu and Covid symptoms - and as I said, there are excess deaths every winter (ie cold weather) in the elderly because of that.

However - The only point I was questioning was the proposition that there will be a thousand deaths this year directly because people are not using their heating specifically because of the WFA withdrawal.

Without knowing how many people will not use their heating because of the withdrawal of the WFA nor how many excess deaths this winter will be caused by Covid or Flu related illnesses or other morbidities, how can one forecast with certainty or quantify that the policy WILL result in this number of deaths as a direct cause ?

I am not saying it won’t have an impact but it seems a little hyperbolic to start accusing Starmer of directly killing 1000s of pensioners before the facts.

For all you know, we could have an unusually mild winter!

As I have said, I don’t support the withdrawal but do want to be clear of the facts - Its just a question

I didn't quote you out of context at all. I merely took issue with your argument. For avoidance of any doubt on cold and death, NICE publish evidence and economic analysis on this very topic:

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng6/documents/excess-winter-deaths-and-illnesses-concept-review2

You don't need certainty to make reasonable and robust predictions, but I don't think you are a scientist. It certainly isn't hyperbole to say reducing peoples ability to heat and eat will result in more deaths and, in this case, you can make robust predictions in the 1000s (action against fueld poverty, eg, do this). It's fairly simple maths and biology.

We could indeed have a mild winter or drink drivers may be lucky and not kill people. Not really bets we should be making with the lives of others when we should know better. This is why impact analysis is important, there are very large financial implications of getting this wrong at individual and societal levels. You'd have to be especially ignorant or arrogant to ignore this which seems to be the case (I mean MPs, not neccessarily you).

 

[Bry Nylon]

Where’s the lack of trust? It was all declared and as I pointed out, most Prime Ministers get perks.

And now you've started trying to deflect again by inserting random nouns that you've plucked out of the air and were never part of post you've got issue with.

If there is nothing wrong with it I expect we shall be seeing him making multiple future claims for suits, dresses, gig tickets, glasses etc and you will have been proved right.

 

[Bry Nylon]

And this whole 'passes for glasses' thing is absolute desperate nonsense. People associated to the government have always had access to them, whether SPADs or lobbyists. At least this one isn't racist.

Would those be the SPADS who have passes because that's where they happen to work?

The pass Lord Alli had is the pass reserved for civil servants and advisors. He was neither. He was a party donor. Lobbyists don't get passes - although accredited members of the press lobby do, although that only gets them onto the street outside the door and not inside, unless by appointment.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

And now you've started trying to deflect again by inserting random nouns that you've plucked out of the air and were never part of post you've got issue with.

If there is nothing wrong with it I expect we shall be seeing him making multiple future claims for suits, dresses, gig tickets, glasses etc and you will have been proved right.

Nope. I mentioned the word perks yesterday in post 2238.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Let's re-visit that, briefly, because it's interesting given what business secretary Jonathan Reynolds said yesterday.

The Guardian reports that, when pressed on Sue Gray's salary, Reynolds said:

"I think it’s important people understand that the pay bands for any official, any adviser, are not set by politicians. There’s an official process that does that. I don’t, for instance, get to set the pay for my own advisers who work directly for me. So, there’s a process, we don’t have political input into that.​

​

There’s a process that sets these things. It is widely recognised. It’s long-standing. It hasn’t changed and that is how pay bands are set for any adviser."​

​

So, any criticism of Keir Starmer for Sue Gray's salary is mis-directed.

But, then, errrm.....



If there's a long-standing, unchanged, non-political process for adviser pay, why was the now Prime Minister seeking to make political capital out of Cummings' salary?

Did he simply not know how adviser pay worked? That seems highly unlikely doesn't it?

Or was he seeking to score cheap political points based on something he knew not to be true? Also unlikely for a man of such high integrity.

What a conundrum!

You would think there is enough highly paid people around MPs/PMs to remind them what they have previously tweeted.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Would those be the SPADS who have passes because that's where they happen to work?

The pass Lord Alli had is the pass reserved for civil servants and advisors. He was neither. He was a party donor. Lobbyists don't get passes - although accredited members of the press lobby do, although that only gets them onto the street outside the door and not inside, unless by appointment.

I said they had access to the Government. I didn’t mention they had a pass, just that the three word slogan was inane. Because it doesn’t really matter if they meet in Parliament, in Whitehall, for dinner or in the local Spoons. And people without passes can presumably be signed into a building, no?

 

[Bry Nylon]

Nope. I mentioned the word perks yesterday in post 2238.

Perks isn't the word I meant but never mind, its a minor point and frankly my appetite for engaging in further on-line hair-splitting is rapidly diminishing to the point of zero.

Bottom line for me is that I don't mind Keir Starmer. In fact I was looking forward to his premiership with a degree of optimism and wished him well and posted so on this very forum on July 5th.

But based on what he said outside Downing Street when he was elected and where we are today, I have come to the conclusion that he is, in fact, full of shit. That realisation won't change my world any; I'll just carry on doing my job and supporting my family.

 

[Zeberdi]

I didn't quote you out of context at all. I merely took issue with your argument. For avoidance of any doubt on cold and death, NICE publish evidence and economic analysis on this very topic:

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng6/documents/excess-winter-deaths-and-illnesses-concept-review2

You don't need certainty to make reasonable and robust predictions, but I don't think you are a scientist. It certainly isn't hyperbole to say reducing peoples ability to heat and eat will result in more deaths and, in this case, you can make robust predictions in the 1000s (action against fueld poverty, eg, do this). It's fairly simple maths and biology.

We could indeed have a mild winter or drink drivers may be lucky and not kill people. Not really bets we should be making with the lives of others when we should know better. This is why impact analysis is important, there are very large financial implications of getting this wrong at individual and societal levels. You'd have to be especially ignorant or arrogant to ignore this which seems to be the case (I mean MPs, not neccessarily you).

No it isn’t and I haven’t questioned that. Again, you are responding to my post with a different set of parameters to that I was referring to. (No I am not a scientist but do work with scientists, data and statistical analysis, so yes, very aware of the need for accurate data gathering and sound empirical evidence before any ‘scientific’ claim is valid.)

The sentence I was referring to said “1,000s WILL die as a DIRECT RESULT of this policy’.

In common parlance, there is a big difference between saying something “will” happen and something ‘could’ or is ‘likely’ to happen and a big difference between quantifying something (ie ‘1,000s’ ) and not specifically quantifying something ie “will result in “more” deaths” - how many ‘more’? 100? 500? 1,000? 1,000s?

Please provide an impact analysis that concludes 1,000s of pensioners are going definitely to die (that is what “will” means) as a direct result of this policy - that is all I am asking because in the absence of that, we really don’t know how many people this will effect or what the consequences will be in terms of deaths.

As I said, I am certainly not defending the policy, nor am I questioning that elderly people can die of hyperthermia or strokes or that severe cold can exacerbate other illnesses - I’m just trying to claw through any unnecessary hyperbole in the debate because using this as a stick to score political points and make attacks on NSC Labour Party supporters is unhelpful . I barely used my heating at all last winter to save money (my living areas were consistently around 12 degrees) and I am not even a pensioner - I ended up with dangerously high blood pressure which required emergency hospital treatment as a result (and worsening auto-immune symptoms), so I am certainly not taking the impact of cold weather on vulnerable people, lightly.

 

[Bozza]

No it isn’t and I haven’t questioned that. Again, you are responding to my post with a different set of parameters to that I was referring to. (No I am not a scientist but do work with scientists, data and statistical analysis, so yes, very aware of the need for accurate data gathering and sound empirical evidence before any ‘scientific’ claim is valid.)

The sentence I was referring to said “1,000s WILL die as a DIRECT RESULT of this policy’.

In common parlance, there is a big difference between saying something “will” happen and something ‘could’ or is ‘likely’ to happen and a big difference between quantifying something (ie ‘1,000s’ ) and not specifically quantifying something ie “will result in “more” deaths” - how many ‘more’? 100? 500? 1,000? 1,000s?

Please provide an impact analysis that concludes 1,000s of pensioners are going definitely to die (that is what “will” means) as a direct result of this policy - that is all I am asking because in the absence of that, we really don’t know how many people this will effect or what the consequences will be in terms of deaths.

As I said, I am certainly not defending the policy, nor am I questioning that elderly people can die of hyperthermia or strokes or that severe cold can exacerbate other illnesses - I’m just trying to claw through any unnecessary hyperbole in the debate because using this as a stick to score political points and make attacks on NSC Labour Party supporters is unhelpful . I barely used my heating at all last winter to save money (my living areas were consistently around 12 degrees) and I am not even a pensioner - I ended up with dangerously high blood pressure which required emergency hospital treatment as a result (and worsening auto-immune symptoms), so I am certainly not taking the impact of cold weather on vulnerable people, lightly.

You know as well as anyone else that the government, somewhat shamefully, neglected to undertake an impact analysis on this policy.

The closest we have, I guess, is Labour's own analysis in 2017 when they believed the Tories were going to remove the payment from all but the poorest pensioners...

The Conservatives’ policy of means testing the winter fuel allowance for pensioners could contribute to almost 4,000 extra deaths this winter, Labour has said.​

​

That would mean 10 million people who currently receive the annual payment missing out – though Labour claims the true figure could be higher, since many who are eligible for pension credit do not claim it.​

​

Labour cited research saying that half of the almost 10,000 decrease in so-called “excess winter deaths” – the rise in mortality that occurs each winter – between 2000 and 2012 was due to the introduction of the winter fuel allowance, and suggested that could be reversed by the Conservatives’ policy.​

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ce-cuts-puts-4000-lives-at-risk-claims-labour

 

[Flounce]

I am quite enjoying Starmer being widely criticised having listened to him spending most of his time in opposition doing it about the Tories every f***ing day, often getting very personal. The Toolmakers son needs thicker skin now he’s in the frontline. It is amusing/worrying to me that he no longer has the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I am quite enjoying Starmer being widely criticised having listened to him spending most of his time in opposition doing it about the Tories every f***ing day, often getting very personal. The Toolmakers son needs thicker skin now.

He’s been criticised, unfairly, for the Jimmy Savile decision for over 12 years, which was stirred up even more by the previous governments. His skin is thick enough.

 

[chip]

No it isn’t and I haven’t questioned that. Again, you are responding to my post with a different set of parameters to that I was referring to. (No I am not a scientist but do work with scientists, data and statistical analysis, so yes, very aware of the need for accurate data gathering and sound empirical evidence before any ‘scientific’ claim is valid.)

The sentence I was referring to said “1,000s WILL die as a DIRECT RESULT of this policy’.

In common parlance, there is a big difference between saying something “will” happen and something ‘could’ or is ‘likely’ to happen and a big difference between quantifying something (ie ‘1,000s’ ) and not specifically quantifying something ie “will result in “more” deaths” - how many ‘more’? 100? 500? 1,000? 1,000s?

Please provide an impact analysis that concludes 1,000s of pensioners are going definitely to die (that is what “will” means) as a direct result of this policy - that is all I am asking because in the absence of that, we really don’t know how many people this will effect or what the consequences will be in terms of deaths.

As I said, I am certainly not defending the policy, nor am I questioning that elderly people can die of hyperthermia or strokes or that severe cold can exacerbate other illnesses - I’m just trying to claw through any unnecessary hyperbole in the debate because using this as a stick to score political points and make attacks on NSC Labour Party supporters is unhelpful . I barely used my heating at all last winter to save money (my living areas were consistently around 12 degrees) and I am not even a pensioner - I ended up with dangerously high blood pressure which required emergency hospital treatment as a result (and worsening auto-immune symptoms), so I am certainly not taking the impact of cold weather on vulnerable people, lightly.

No, I have provided analysis done by NICE that clearly supports the statement that 1000's will die (or worse, require long-term care). You are trying to make a semantic argument. If I open the throttle on my big bike, it will reach 150 mph - I do not need to test this to see if it is true. I think I clearly explained why saying "will" is acceptable here. I also addressed the issues of predicting the future in the same way that leaving pensioners to die this year will save £xB - no way of accurately predicting that it seems.

I know a few artists but I'm not very good with a paint brush.

 

[Flounce]

He’s been criticised, unfairly, for the Jimmy Savile decision for over 12 years, which was stirred up even more by the previous governments. His skin is thick enough.

Time will tell if his skin is thick enough, he has only been in power a short time and is getting plenty of stick quicker than I would have expected when he won the election.

 

[Is it PotG?]

He’s been criticised, unfairly, for the Jimmy Savile decision for over 12 years, which was stirred up even more by the previous governments. His skin is thick enough.

He was also in charge in 2009 when it was decided to bring no charges against Al Fayed.

 

[chip]

And, as an aside, cold is varey rarely listed as any cause of death, so the data is very likely (certainly?) very much an under-representation of the role of cold. If you combine that with unsatisfactory nutrition then you can confound this if you like.

 

[Flounce]

He was also in charge in 2009 when it was decided to bring no charges against Al Fayed.

Was he getting freebies from Harrods at the time?

 

[rippleman]

Cold temperatures are known to cause significant increase in mortality, there is a causal link that is well understood. You don't need an BMBS to know this. While I accept the philosophical premise that we cannot predict the future with certainty, I think @jcdenton is justified to assert that removing WFA will cause deaths. The alternative is to count them afterwards, that would be much better wouldn't it? I also think AgeUK are quite a reliable source, they fund quite a bit of research and some of that is how to keep older people with comorbities alive.

Not only deaths but as importantly more chronic / long-term illnesses which place an additional burden on our NHS and social care system both of which are already broken.

I know of two pensioners who were more than comfortable and didn't need the WFA. They were told by the DWP that there was no mechanism for them to return it or for them not to receive it.

Have we now gone too far the other way?