[Politics] The Labour Government

[Guinness Boy]

You're a good bkloke, but have you actually looked at the detail of this? The vast swathe of people living on a pittance who are now living in fear for what this winter is going to bring them?

That's not what any decent society does.

The British economy is a Tory-ravaged mess, but we're still a wealthy country by most measures. Whatever option is taken to protect these poor vulnerable people will not cost a lot of money in the big scheme of things. It's pocket change

I want Labour to put things right. They'll probably need (at least) two terms to do that - the typical short-termism of politics inhibits many projects from reaching fruition because they take longer than one Parliamentary term.

I've spent much of this year in hospitals with my mum, who, although now home, is now a heavy user of both the NHS and social care. I have a 14-y-o working his way through our education system. I have a 21-y-o who has just finished university and looking to start her working career. I have many reasons why I want this country to enter a period of economic growth, fuelling a regeneration of our decimated public services.

But not at the expense of letting down some of the poorest and most vulnerable we have. People who deserve better.

I think you and others have done a good job of persuading people (me included) that the policy is wrong but I don't think anyone's really done a good job on what the alternative looks like. HT is right. Labour will be criticised for U turning and they will be criticised for whatever replaces it in the budget to try and balance said budget (if they change their mind, which Reeves doesn't look like doing).

While there is an obvious worry over vulnerable OAPs there is a risk that you'd replace with something just as bad for another section of the population, something that got in even less money or something that stopped the economy growing, which is the only long term way out of this.

TLDR? U turn would be welcomed but derided and needs to be in the round, rather than abandoning one economic lever without replacing it.

 

[Bozza]

I think you and others have done a good job of persuading people (me included) that the policy is wrong but I don't think anyone's really done a good job on what the alternative looks like. HT is right. Labour will be criticised for U turning and they will be criticised for whatever replaces it in the budget to try and balance said budget (if they change their mind, which Reeves doesn't look like doing).

While there is an obvious worry over vulnerable OAPs there is a risk that you'd replace with something just as bad for another section of the population, something that got in even less money or something that stopped the economy growing, which is the only long term way out of this.

TLDR? U turn would be welcomed but derided and needs to be in the round, rather than abandoning one economic lever without replacing it.

I think the policy is actually sound, and I completely understand why people would agree with the headline, which is something like...

"Restructuring a universally-available benefit via means testing to ensure those who need it still receive it, whilst removing it from those who don't."

...because, frankly, I agree with that too.

The problem is how those who need it have been defined, particularly given the known issue with pension credit non-claimants.

I don't know what the answer is - I'm a layman with no knowledge of DWP systems and data. All I'd say is I'd err on the side of safety, trying to get the money to those believed to be in need, whilst accepting that may mean paying some (not all) who may not have the need. That would still allow the Exchequer to make some savings this winter, just not the full £1.4bn.

Do that this winter and buy some time to plan for better-targeting next winter onwards.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You're a good bkloke, but have you actually looked at the detail of this? The vast swathe of people living on a pittance who are now living in fear for what this winter is going to bring them?

That's not what any decent society does.

The British economy is a Tory-ravaged mess, but we're still a wealthy country by most measures. Whatever option is taken to protect these poor vulnerable people will not cost a lot of money in the big scheme of things. It's pocket change

I want Labour to put things right. They'll probably need (at least) two terms to do that - the typical short-termism of politics inhibits many projects from reaching fruition because they take longer than one Parliamentary term.

I've spent much of this year in hospitals with my mum, who, although now home, is now a heavy user of both the NHS and social care. I have a 14-y-o working his way through our education system. I have a 21-y-o who has just finished university and looking to start her working career. I have many reasons why I want this country to enter a period of economic growth, fuelling a regeneration of our decimated public services.

But not at the expense of letting down some of the poorest and most vulnerable we have. People who deserve better.

I was not commenting on WFA per se. My post was a direct reply to the idea that the Labour party will get support for u-turning. Whilst it will be greeted by most, if not all, it will then be used as a stick to beat them. I also feel there is hypocracy from certain sections of the press and society over this as well.

This was the thrust of my post. If it came across as being supportive of the current WFA situation then this is not what I meant. I am aware of the detail and my position is that I agree with the principle of means testing but not the current proposed application of this....which is the same as most people I guess. I have posted this previously in this thread.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You're a good bkloke, but have you actually looked at the detail of this? The vast swathe of people living on a pittance who are now living in fear for what this winter is going to bring them?

That's not what any decent society does.

The British economy is a Tory-ravaged mess, but we're still a wealthy country by most measures. Whatever option is taken to protect these poor vulnerable people will not cost a lot of money in the big scheme of things. It's pocket change

I want Labour to put things right. They'll probably need (at least) two terms to do that - the typical short-termism of politics inhibits many projects from reaching fruition because they take longer than one Parliamentary term.

I've spent much of this year in hospitals with my mum, who, although now home, is now a heavy user of both the NHS and social care. I have a 14-y-o working his way through our education system. I have a 21-y-o who has just finished university and looking to start her working career. I have many reasons why I want this country to enter a period of economic growth, fuelling a regeneration of our decimated public services.

But not at the expense of letting down some of the poorest and most vulnerable we have. People who deserve better.

Having re-read my post, the line "ignore the noise and get on with the job" maybe does not come across as intended. By "job" I mean things in general. I did not mean applying thier current WFA policy.

 

[Bozza]

I was not commenting on WFA per se. My post was a direct reply to the idea that the Labour party will get support for u-turning. Whilst it will be greeted by most, if not all, it will then be used as a stick to beat them. I also feel there is hypocracy from certain sections of the press and society over this as well.

This was the thrust of my post. If it came across as being supportive of the current WFA situation then this is not what I meant. I am aware of the detail and my position is that I agree with the principle of means testing but not the current proposed application of this....which is the same as most people I guess. I have posted this previously in this thread.

Agree on all counts

It's surely a sign of personal strength to be confident enough to change course, whether that's because of new information/data/analysis reframing a decision or simply because, upon further reflection, you simply decide you got something wrong.

As you say, though, unfortunately, in the political arena this is seized upon by opponents and used to imply weakness.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I think the policy is actually sound, and I completely understand why people would agree with the headline, which is something like...

"Restructuring a universally-available benefit via means testing to ensure those who need it still receive it, whilst removing it from those who don't."

...because, frankly, I agree with that too.

The problem is how those who need it have been defined, particularly given the known issue with pension credit non-claimants.

I don't know what the answer is - I'm a layman with no knowledge of DWP systems and data. All I'd say is I'd err on the side of safety, trying to get the money to those believed to be in need, whilst accepting that may mean paying some (not all) who may not have the need. That would still allow the Exchequer to make some savings this winter, just not the full £1.4bn.

Do that this winter and buy some time to plan for better-targeting next winter onwards.

Fair play. Can't argue with any of that.

Does Peter Kyle read NSC?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Hmmm it’s good but just beaten by Bozza (and I’m not sucking up…honest)…it’s one spoken with true life experiences and from the heart imo …..both posts though have the same aim and have no political bias

Unfortunately, politicians very rarely reverse their decisions, which is seen as a sign of weakness.
It’s too late this year, already, as it’s based on the status in September.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I think the policy is actually sound, and I completely understand why people would agree with the headline, which is something like...

"Restructuring a universally-available benefit via means testing to ensure those who need it still receive it, whilst removing it from those who don't."

...because, frankly, I agree with that too.

The problem is how those who need it have been defined, particularly given the known issue with pension credit non-claimants.

I don't know what the answer is - I'm a layman with no knowledge of DWP systems and data. All I'd say is I'd err on the side of safety, trying to get the money to those believed to be in need, whilst accepting that may mean paying some (not all) who may not have the need. That would still allow the Exchequer to make some savings this winter, just not the full £1.4bn.

Do that this winter and buy some time to plan for better-targeting next winter onwards.

Well said. I wish government had more say in what Ofgem can do, especially when the person has a three year contract.
The standing charges of 55p a day are excessive imo, and the price cap at 10% is double the inflation rate.

Maybe the Budget could raise tax threshold for pensioners? I’m no economist but is it possible?

 

[armchairclubber]

Fair play. Can't argue with any of that.

Does Peter Kyle read NSC?

I doubt it? though you could write to him if in his constituency

peter.kyle.mp@parliament.uk

 

[amexer]

When WFA was introduced I know several at the time who made contact to say that they didnt need it and were told it could not be stopped and suggested it was given to charity. Appreciate not answer but if government reluctant to back down why not make it something OAPs will receive but will have to apply for it. Surely the majority of those not in need would not apply.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

When WFA was introduced I know several at the time who made contact to say that they didnt need it and were told it could not be stopped and suggested it was given to charity. Appreciate not answer but if government reluctant to back down why not make it something OAPs will receive but will have to apply for it. Surely the majority of those not in need would not apply.

You’d like to think so, but unfortunately there will still be those who will use it to buy Christmas presents for the grandkids (yes, I’ve heard that) as they think they’re entitled to it.

 

[fly high]

What is Pension Credit and how much financial support is paid out per week?

An estimated £1.7bn in help for older people going unclaimed every year, according to DWP

www.independent.co.uk

It's generally accepted that 800,000 people entitled to pensions credit haven't been claiming it, according to Martine Lewis that is £1.7b unpaid. Approx 100,000 extra people have now claimed it & hopefully more will claim but the more who claim the less money the government will save & if everyone did it would actually cost them more than if they'd just left the WFP as it was. Should rich pensioner get the WFP. No they should not but better they get it than those who desperately need it don't until they can come up with a sensible, simple way of truly supporting the poorest. Every time Starmer says he is helping the poorest I want to shout 'you idiot LIAR'.

 

[abc]

Thread ‘hijacked’ by the age old entrenched Middle East camps.

Actually that would be so bad and could even be informative but a more accurate description might be 'thread hijacked by people who cant debate a subject without reverting to personal insults and petty (and boring to everyone else) point scoring'