[Politics] The Labour Government

[Weststander]

Being anti Johnson, Truss and Sunak (or just not defending them) is NOT being anti Tory

A certain mod was highly critical of Johnson, Truss and Sunak and is a fair, balanced and mature conservative party member, although unsurprisingly absent from this particular thread.

You often say that, but like you I have a good memory. I remember the same characters hating on all Tories for years, included people some might’ve warmed to in later years such as Rudd. It was very, very party political.

 

[zefarelly]

What % of the UK read the Telegraph and Mail? It must be tiny. I realise you haven’t said them, but paranoid others obsess with those two titles.

This was inevitable. When lefties got the Vaseline out with Beth Rigby and Sam Coates relentlessly on the case of the last government, I think I was the only person here who said they’d do exactly the same to Labour when in power.

That’s the media in 2024. Murdoch’s Sky brought it to our shores. Now in competition with social media, bitchy political commentary on steroids was here to stay.

Sad but true

treasonous behaviour should be punishable.

 

[Bozza]

You have and so have I - numerous times since my first post on this issue - even posting a bullet pointed list of ideas that was completely ignored - We do have the money to pay for subsidising WFA from the £20 billion windfall tax being levied currently in energy companies - but it seems to fall on deaf ears - so coming to the conclusion that nothing short of making grandstanding anti-Labour Government position will satisfy some folk here - they will just keep repeating ad nauseam that Starmer is planning to “kill 1,000s of pensioners“. There seems to be a greater appetite on this thread for a polarised rant against Labour and political mudslinging than genuine debate.

But perhaps that is where are generally with political debates these days on social media.

You can post all the ideas you want on here. It makes absolutely no difference if Starmer and Reeves repeatedly state that there will be no mitigation.

Personally, I'm receptive to all or any mitigations that get the most vulnerable affected by this callously-implemented policy through this winter.

If that means we err on the side of safety and accept that maybe some who don't need extra help get it, just this winter, then I'm fine with that.

Let's buy some time, get through this winter, and look at ensuring we have a fair system to help those in need that doesn't throw cash at people who have no use for it.

 

[KZNSeagull]

But you’d acknowledge that a flat rate benefit that gave a millionaire the same as someone on 14k a year, that gave a couple in a small, well insulated flat more than a single person heating a bigger, older home is fundamentally unfair?

And that if Labour didn’t do something about the debt they inherited, this thread would, instead, be full of people saying “fiscally irresponsible Labour”? And if, they instead, spent their way out of things, this thread would be in meltdown?

I’ve put forward an alternative idea on here. Labour need to get the energy companies to drop bills for vulnerable customers either by legislation and toughening up the regulator or by taxing them heavily if they don’t. That plus the triple lock would mean they could then reform WFB more fairly next year. But something else would then have to pay the inherited debt.

And, after reading that, I can hear keyboards being warmed up to say that idea would be anti business and irresponsible. Or, in one case, probably just an emoji.

This is another idea that a proper means testing system could be used for. At the moment, any social tariff has to be applied for as the companies don't have access to the correct information in order to make a decision automatically. There was an item on BBC Breakfast this morning stating that £2bn in social tariffs are going unclaimed on things like broadband as people are unaware of them and they have to be applied for. Rather like Pension Credit people are with unable or unwilling to apply for them. A proper means testing system would sort all of this out and the only discussion would the level of income where social tariffs no longer apply.

 

[Zeberdi]

Maybe what you're proposing is a viable solution - I have no idea. But it sounds like big, chunky legislation that would take a long time to work through Parliament, and not something that could be put in place in the next few weeks to ensure that as temperatures drop, people have the money they need to have confidence they can heat their homes.

Not necessarily

Emergency legislation is pushed through Parliament frequently and can be done in as little as a day

Fast-tracked legislation / emergency legislation | Institute for Government

A fast-tracked bill passes through all the normal stages of passage in each House, but on an expedited timetable.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

Also only Statutory changes need to go through the Parliamentary process.

Any changes could easily be implemented through Statutory Instruments (secondary legislation) which takes about 4- 6 weeks.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I've acknowledged multiple times that there are a lot of people who have been receiving this allowance who have absolutely no need for it at all. Some will be so wealthy that they don't even notice it hitting their bank accounts each year, and some will be living a very comfortable life, and look forward to it arriving so they can buy themselves a treat or stick it away in their holiday fund.

Clearly, those people don't need it, and shouldn't get it.

Tackling the universality of the payment, and putting a chunk of that money to better use, is a worthy endevaour.

Starmer told us those with the broadest shoulders will take a greater share of the burden. Once again - it's hard to disagree with that intent, and I personally don't.

The problem with the current implementation is that as well as taking the payment away from those who don't need it, it's also highly punitive to people who desperately need it to get through the cold months.

The criteria, essentially...

IF oldperson in (SELECT * FROM pensioncreditpayees)
THEN

PAY WFA​

ELSE

DO NOTHING​

ENDIF

​

...is too blunt/ill-considered/lazy/stupid (delete as applicable)




I'm delighted the country is in the hands of people determined to put things right.

I spent 6-8 hours a day, every day, in hospital for over three months. Numerous times I provided hands-on care to old ladies suffering with post-operative delirium and/or dementia because there were no nurses available to help them. The nurses were, without exception, wonderful caring human beings, but there weren't enough of them and they were massively stretched.

That needs fixing, and we have the best people able to try and do that.



I'm a layman sitting on the outside of government departments. I have no idea what data is held, and how it can be used to assess need and provide mitigation.

Maybe what you're proposing is a viable solution - I have no idea. But it sounds like big, chunky legislation that would take a long time to work through Parliament, and not something that could be put in place in the next few weeks to ensure that as temperatures drop, people have the money they need to have confidence they can heat their homes.

Good post. I don’t disagree with most of it and I don’t think we’re too far off.

I think you’ve actually written the implementation code there. And I think that’s why they’ve done it. Lots of money for little outgoings. But if that’s too blunt then you’re agreeing the goalposts need moving. Household income data in this country is dreadful so you’d have to tie it to an individual’s income. Let’s say we up it to 20k then you piss off people on 20100 while a couple on 19k each get it. And people get moved into the bracket automatically by the triple lock. And before you know it you have a very large object indeed or maybe even spaghetti code.

I am persuaded by you and others on this thread that the implementation is risky and that poor, elderly people are most at risk. That’s bad. It is also deeply unpopular. But I’d like to see some ideas from people on this thread about what should be cut instead.

 

[Zeberdi]

I am persuaded by you and others on this thread that the implementation is risky and that poor, elderly people are most at risk. That’s bad. It is also deeply unpopular. But I’d like to see some ideas from people on this thread about what should be cut instead.

This.

 

[chip]

For some people politics has become the new religion that can't be questioned, who's not for me is against me. I personally don't like party politics as it leads to a homogeneity of thought and put up barriers to progress (whatever that means). I also don't like the cult of individuals, people always let us down in the end if we give them our trust and power. What a surprise, Starmers doesn't walk on water even if someone is probably paying for the water to be turned into wine. I also think it is a little blinkered to look at individual measure and their remediation, there has to be a whole system plan. Somehow, current thinking seems to be what can we tax next. It would have been so much better if there was a plan and we knew this before the election, at least we would have known what to expect. I think I just want some level of honesty and decency in politics, not more of the same.

What this discussion has established is that everyone thinks (haven't seen dissent) that the most vulnerable should get extra support. Blindly following a party doesn't have the appearance of achieving that and nor does all the disquiet. But, it is quite fun to laugh at the individual a collective failures of our elected representatives and their paid for hangers on.

What's next? Water, council tax, fuel duty.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Good post. I don’t disagree with most of it and I don’t think we’re too far off.

I think you’ve actually written the implementation code there. And I think that’s why they’ve done it. Lots of money for little outgoings. But if that’s too blunt then you’re agreeing the goalposts need moving. Household income data in this country is dreadful so you’d have to tie it to an individual’s income. Let’s say we up it to 20k then you piss off people on 20100 while a couple on 19k each get it. And people get moved into the bracket automatically by the triple lock. And before you know it you have a very large object indeed or maybe even spaghetti code.

I am persuaded by you and others on this thread that the implementation is risky and that poor, elderly people are most at risk. That’s bad. It is also deeply unpopular. But I’d like to see some ideas from people on this thread about what should be cut instead.

I have seen many ways that £22bn could be raised, the easiest way would be a 1 or 2% wealth tax on assets over £10m. Others include charging CGT at the same rate as income tax and removing high rate tax relief on pension contributions. Another was stop paying banks interest on money generated via Quantitative Easing (ie interest on money the BoE gave them to distribute). Windfall taxes on energy companies has already been suggested. I am sure there are loads of other ways too none of which involve cuts to ordinary people with little to no savings.
These are the sort of things that I would have thought the Labour Party would automatically look at. The rich have got considerably richer under the Tories. Get some of it back and don't piss off your core voters whilst that prat Farage is waiting around the corner to pick up the disaffected.
Oh and this comes from someone who, you quite rightly pointed out the other day, is not a leftie!

 

[keaton]

You often say that, but like you I have a good memory. I remember the same characters hating on all Tories for years, included people some might’ve warmed to in later years such as Rudd. It was very, very party political.

I would suggest that the Rudd is one you think people could warm to is the reason why many people are anyone but Tory

 

[Professor Plum]

I have no idea how it works at the Emirates. All I know is he’s a season ticket holder of some description and due to the security he needs Arsenal felt it best to allow him the use of a box….which he has declared in the register of interests. Should he be penalized because of who he is and his safety?

Is it not possible that when you’re weighing up the pros and cons of entering politics and thinking of having a crack at being PM, you take into account that you’ll no longer be able to ‘go down the Arsenal’ as he likes to say in blokey podcasts, or go to the pub with your mates on a Friday night, or even slop around town unshaven in an old teeshirt and shorts and sandals? It’s a career and lifestyle choice. 'Going down the Arsenal' is not a human right. It’s something available to some people and not others, for a whole host of reasons.

But you’d acknowledge that a flat rate benefit that gave a millionaire the same as someone on 14k a year, that gave a couple in a small, well insulated flat more than a single person heating a bigger, older home is fundamentally unfair?

And that if Labour didn’t do something about the debt they inherited, this thread would, instead, be full of people saying “fiscally irresponsible Labour”? And if, they instead, spent their way out of things, this thread would be in meltdown?

I’ve put forward an alternative idea on here. Labour need to get the energy companies to drop bills for vulnerable customers either by legislation and toughening up the regulator or by taxing them heavily if they don’t. That plus the triple lock would mean they could then reform WFB more fairly next year. But something else would then have to pay the inherited debt.

And, after reading that, I can hear keyboards being warmed up to say that idea would be anti business and irresponsible. Or, in one case, probably just an emoji.

I’ve read hardly any of this thread but I’m sure the point's been made before that almost no one thinks that well-off pensioners should get the WFA. In particular, well-off pensioners don’t think that well-off pensioners should get it. The point of contention is that the cut-off point is far too crude and severe so that many hundreds of thousands of pensioners who DO need it, but who are just beyond the point of eligibility for pension credits or other welfare top ups, are being deprived of this assistance. There are plenty of ideas put forward to help deal with this, perhaps the best being the one that links WFA to Council Tax band.

As for dealing with the debt, the money saved here is quite insignificant, estimated at between £1bn and £1.5bn net. Certainly not worth the PR problem it’s ballooned into. The difficulty Labour has is that it’s ruled out cuts to the 4 biggest taxes (Income, NI, VAT, Corporation) which account for between 75 and 80% of the entire tax revenue. So they’re left with tinkering with stuff like WFA. IHT, CGT etc. Popular proposals like cracking down on non-doms and shady offshore investment accounts, and ramping up taxes on the super-wealthy, sound great but would actually raise very little extra. They’ve painted themselves into a corner.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I have seen many ways that £22bn could be raised, the easiest way would be a 1 or 2% wealth tax on assets over £10m. Others include charging CGT at the same rate as income tax and removing high rate tax relief on pension contributions. Another was stop paying banks interest on money generated via Quantitative Easing (ie interest on money the BoE gave them to distribute). Windfall taxes on energy companies has already been suggested. I am sure there are loads of other ways too none of which involve cuts to ordinary people with little to no savings.
These are the sort of things that I would have thought the Labour Party would automatically look at. The rich have got considerably richer under the Tories. Get some of it back and don't piss off your core voters whilst that prat Farage is waiting around the corner to pick up the disaffected.
Oh and this comes from someone who, you quite rightly pointed out the other day, is not a leftie!

Again, good post.

It has genuinely left me wondering why they haven’t done some of those things, although they might be waiting for the budget (in which case why announce and start implementing a more unpopular scheme). Or they are seen as unworkable and Labour don’t want to say that out loud for fear of being called incompetent or lacking in ingenuity.

 

[pocketseagull]

I think in part the cut is ideological for Reeves, she's wanted to do it since 2014 at least.

 

[Zeberdi]

@Zeberdi I remember you talking about a energy windfall tax as an alternative - a great idea! - but also saying that was 'a plan for another day'

Why not now?

Yes, I actually meant the discussion was for another day because the thread discussion at the time was focussed just on the current policy but we seem to have moved on to alternatives now - thank you for bringing it up .

Of course now - there is an existing windfall tax revenue if £10 billion - the Government has also announced an increase in that windfall tax in their Energy Reform bill.

I have also posted above (twice) that the Government has just extended the Household Support Fund as a measure to help vulnerable people on low incomes with their fuel bills:

Here

[Politics] - The Labour Government

Er no thank you, the electorate in majority voted for a Labour Government, if their performance to date is anything to go by regrettably i’m not sure if that is what they got, it’s going to be a very long 5 years for the fan boys on here! IMHO the fan boys of both sides are the problem. If you...

www.northstandchat.com

But again that has disappeared under the radar. However, it is a significant mitigation and I think it shouldn’t be dismissed - people here on NSC might qualify but they won’t unless they know to apply.

I also posted a rebuttal to the suggestion that @Guinness Boy ’s proposals would take hefty legislation and too long to go through parliament. I provided links to show it can be done with emergency legislation within 24hrs or 4-6 weeks with Statutory Instruments.

Call me cynical but I think we will see more mitigation in the budget for pensioners that Bozza is hoping for (just not a u-turn or changes to this particular policy) - even as a PR damage limitation exercise.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Is it not possible that when you’re weighing up the pros and cons of entering politics and thinking of having a crack at being PM, you take into account that you’ll no longer be able to ‘go down the Arsenal’ as he likes to say in blokey podcasts, or go to the pub with your mates on a Friday night, or even slop around town unshaven in an old teeshirt and shorts and sandals? It’s a career and lifestyle choice. 'Going down the Arsenal' is not a human right. It’s something available to some people and not others, for a whole host of reasons.

So anyone who enters into a high profile public service has to row back on, or call a halt to, their social life? If this was the case, can you imagine the type of people we’d lose out on, who’d decide this wasn’t for them? And the odd-balls, social misfits and weirdos that would ?

Of course he should still go to the football, the pub or whatever ….just in a different way.

 

[Is it PotG?]

They received a record £197m last month in CGT as folk binned stuff before the budget and anticipated increases, yet they persist with this WFA disgrace.

 

[fly high]

But you’d acknowledge that a flat rate benefit that gave a millionaire the same as someone on 14k a year, that gave a couple in a small, well insulated flat more than a single person heating a bigger, older home is fundamentally unfair?

And that if Labour didn’t do something about the debt they inherited, this thread would, instead, be full of people saying “fiscally irresponsible Labour”? And if, they instead, spent their way out of things, this thread would be in meltdown?

I’ve put forward an alternative idea on here. Labour need to get the energy companies to drop bills for vulnerable customers either by legislation and toughening up the regulator or by taxing them heavily if they don’t. That plus the triple lock would mean they could then reform WFB more fairly next year. But something else would then have to pay the inherited debt.

And, after reading that, I can hear keyboards being warmed up to say that idea would be anti business and irresponsible. Or, in one case, probably just an emoji.

There is Warm Home Discount scheme which provides eligible households with a £150 reduction on their electricity bills annually & is available for anyone on benefits. The problem with this is once again you have to be on pension credit to qualify, so actually anyone of pension credit gets up to £450 per year. It's more a case of how you define 'vulnerable'. It could be argued that people on pension credit need the WFP less than people just over the £218 cut off as they have council tax & rent paid (I know not all their council tax), over 75 get free TV licence & as I understand it their income is made up to £218, obviously they should still get it but the way the government have done is completely wrong, ignorant, heartless & just cruel.

 

[Professor Plum]

So anyone who enters into a high profile public service has to row back on, or call a halt to, their social life? If this was the case, can you imagine the type of people we’d lose out on, who’d decide this wasn’t for them? And the odd-balls, social misfits and weirdos that would ?

Of course he should still go to the football, the pub or whatever ….just in a different way.

No, that’s not what I said.

I said that when you’re considering major career choices, part of the decision is how might this affect my lifestyle? Are you prepared to accept the sacrifices in exchange for the benefits?

 

[pocketseagull]

Call me cynical but I think we will see more mitigation in the budget for pensioners that Bozza is hoping for (just not a u-turn or changes to this particular policy) - even as a PR damage limitation exercise.

Hopefully as you say action is taken in the budget. I worry that local Government having to step up is piling pressure on local services already at breaking point after years of budget cuts. It also leaves us in the same position of the most vulnerable being among the least likely to claim.

Think we're in agreement that a Labour government should be seeking alternative ways to balance the books.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No, that’s not what I said.

I said that when you’re considering major career choices, part of the decision is how might this affect my lifestyle? Are you prepared to accept the sacrifices in exchange for the benefits?

And I’m saying he doesn’t need to consider this a sacrifice as he can still go to the football. I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make.