[Politics] The Labour Government

jcdenton08 said:

The vast majority of us.

Furious about the WFA cut. Still hate the Tories. It’s possible to be politically agnostic and call out bullshit from the government even if I’d rather them than the alternative.

Click to expand...

Pedantry point. I believe most people are furious about where the WFA cut off point has been drawn. I would suggest that a significant number (possibly even majority) don't disagree with a WFA cut, but it's how the limits of the cut are implemented protecting those that genuinely need it that is the issue

Sorry, is this the five minute argument or the full half hour ?

Zeberdi said:

You repeating ad nauseam that the government will kill 1,000s of people will make no difference either.

Click to expand...

You can't repeat something you've not ever said once, and I've not said the government will kill thousands of people once.

If you have time on your hands you can go back and check - I can assure you that I've neither deleted nor edited any of my posts.

Other people may well have said that - I'm not sure. I did stick my nose in when you were having a to-and-fro with someone around this kind of subject where you were asking for a report, and I dug out some references to Labour's research when they believed the Tories were going to make the very same cut a few years back.

I was trying to give you what you were asking for in that debate, not saying "look here - this is conclusive proof that thousands will die."

I have no idea how many may die.

However, I have read enough on this subject from people who do know what they are talking about to believe that the cut, as currently designed, will cause significant health concerns to many and, sadly, that will extend to death for some.

Firstly, when talking about people who are old, which is a risk factor in itself, and where many will have existing health conditions, in many cases it would be difficult to identify with certainty that "he died because he didn't turn his heating on enough because he couldn't afford it".

Secondly, arguing the toss about how many people may die from this policy is, frankly, quite horrible. I'm not suggesting you are saying this, but the whole conversation begins to sound like "how many people is it ok to lose so we save a bit of money?", and I want no part of that.

There is a wealth of research that points to bad health outcomes when heating is limited. That is enough for me to be angry about this.

Actually, there's another reason I'm angry: proud people in the twilight years deserve the dignity of being able to look after themselves, even if the state has to chip in a bit for those who haven't reached old age in rude financial health.

Our country is in a Tory-inflicted mess, but we've still got enough money to look after our old and vulnerable as best we can, regardless of what Starmer and Reeves may make out.

Bozza said:

Read this poor lady's story - https://news.stv.tv/east-central/ed...after-missing-out-on-winter-fuel-payment-by-3 If she'd been £3 worse off, she'd be £300 better off and able to afford more heating. That is fundamentally wrong on any way of reasoning.

Click to expand...

I get the point you're making. But it's £200 as she is under 80.

What's also of concern in that story is that she has her own state pension, her husband's pension and a small work pension - and yet still is only just over the amount to qualify for pension credit. It can't be right that someone with three pensions is still on less than the full state pension amount, presumably because of past contributions and the way women were dealt with so differently to men in the past?

Bodian said:

I get the point you're making. But it's £200 as she is under 80.

What's also of concern in that story is that she has her own state pension, her husband's pension and a small work pension - and yet still is only just over the amount to qualify for pension credit. It can't be right that someone with three pensions is still on less than the full state pension amount, presumably because of past contributions and the way women were dealt with so differently to men in the past?

Click to expand...

There are also many men not on the full state pension noted in media headlines, who accrued their rights under different state pension schemes.

Weststander said:

There are also many men not on the full state pension noted in media headlines, who accrued their rights under different state pension schemes.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Just to clarify - by 'can't be right' I didn't mean it was a made up story - but that 'something is wrong if we can allow this as a society'.

Bodian said:

Yes.

Just to clarify - by 'can't be right' I didn't mean it was a made up story - but that 'something is wrong if we can allow this as a society'.

Click to expand...

I wasn’t critiquing your post at all. Just expanding the immediate topic to include males that have inferior state pensions too.

Much of the media lazily keep referring to £221 per week, giving the impression to the non retired world of all retired couples on £23k a year from the public purse.

Machiavelli said:

He's a genuine football fan, who has had a season ticket for decades, and you're saying that he needs to ditch it because he's now PM. Presumably it was OK when he was Leader of the Opposition for you? Or when he was in the Shadow Cabinet? Or DPP? How else do you want to manage his time?

That last question will probably get some trite response. PMs work incredibly long hours, apart from Johnson. Starmer (wrongly, in my view) cut short his holiday to deal with the far right on the rampage on our streets when keyboard warriors were all a frenzy.

Why can't he have about 20 weekend afternoons off, and 10 or so weekday evenings, just so he can relax, like most of us do?

Click to expand...

Do you think it would be less of a furore if he treated it as a benefit in kind for tax purposes? I’ve no issue with him like anyone needing a break from the job

Machiavelli said:

He's a genuine football fan, who has had a season ticket for decades, and you're saying that he needs to ditch it because he's now PM. Presumably it was OK when he was Leader of the Opposition for you? Or when he was in the Shadow Cabinet? Or DPP? How else do you want to manage his time?

That last question will probably get some trite response. PMs work incredibly long hours, apart from Johnson. Starmer (wrongly, in my view) cut short his holiday to deal with the far right on the rampage on our streets when keyboard warriors were all a frenzy.

Why can't he have about 20 weekend afternoons off, and 10 or so weekday evenings, just so he can relax, like most of us do?

Click to expand...

£2000 for an afternoon at the football? Ordinary football fan?

Bollocks. He’s a grifter.

What planet are you living on?

The Clamp said:

£2000 for an afternoon at the football? Ordinary football fan?

Bollocks. He’s a grifter.

What planet are you living on?

Click to expand...

He can still go, just pay for it.

He's a millionare.

Machiavelli said:

He's a genuine football fan, who has had a season ticket for decades, and you're saying that he needs to ditch it because he's now PM. Presumably it was OK when he was Leader of the Opposition for you? Or when he was in the Shadow Cabinet? Or DPP? How else do you want to manage his time?

That last question will probably get some trite response. PMs work incredibly long hours, apart from Johnson. Starmer (wrongly, in my view) cut short his holiday to deal with the far right on the rampage on our streets when keyboard warriors were all a frenzy.

Why can't he have about 20 weekend afternoons off, and 10 or so weekday evenings, just so he can relax, like most of us do?

Click to expand...

It’s not me saying he should ditch it, it’s him. And his security people.

The Clamp said:

£2000 for an afternoon at the football? Ordinary football fan?

Bollocks. He’s a grifter.

What planet are you living on?

Click to expand...

If he's a grifter, he's not a very good one. He gave up a job with a salary of over £250K for being the best in a highly competitive industry for a decade being paid 77K as an MP. He's paid for a season ticket at Arsenal for years, and Arsenal have now said 'since you're PM security will be far better if we put you in a private box'. He's said thank you for considering my safety and declared it.

Are you taking the piss or just simply pissed

Kinky Gerbil said:

He can still go, just pay for it.

He's a millionare.

Click to expand...

That's a good idea. Only allow MPs who are millionaires because then they can pay for their own security

Bozza said:

You can't repeat something you've not ever said once, and I've not said the government will kill thousands of people once.

If you have time on your hands you can go back and check - I can assure you that I've neither deleted nor edited any of my posts.

Other people may well have said that - I'm not sure. I did stick my nose in when you were having a to-and-fro with someone around this kind of subject where you were asking for a report, and I dug out some references to Labour's research when they believed the Tories were going to make the very same cut a few years back.

Click to expand...

And I didn’t disagree with that post or your report - as I said, the language it used was “could” and “possibly “ and so I was fine with that.

Bozza said:

I was trying to give you what you were asking for in that debate, not saying "look here - this is conclusive proof that thousands will die."

I have no idea how many may die.

Click to expand...

Exactly - the point I was making when I challenged the statement made earlier (by another poster ) that “ 1,000s WILL die” . That it was not only hyperbolic but extremely distasteful to be predicting the deaths of people in such a manner.

You provided links to research (thanks for that btw) that demonstrated my point perfectly - that additional mortality could occur as a result of people losing their heating allowances and the impacts could possibly result in severe hardship for millions of pensioners - but we don’t know for certain to what extent..

Bozza said:

However, I have read enough on this subject from people who do know what they are talking about to believe that the cut, as currently designed, will cause significant health concerns to many and, sadly, that will extend to death for some.

Click to expand...

But I haven’t contested that once. I worked in the health service and with elderly people for years - I know the medical impacts of extreme temperatures and the level of vulnerability older people (and btw chronically sick people ) have to cold.

Bozza said:

Firstly, when talking about people who are old, which is a risk factor in itself, and where many will have existing health conditions, in many cases it would be difficult to identify with certainty that "he died because he didn't turn his heating on enough because he couldn't afford it".

Secondly, arguing the toss about how many people may die from this policy is, frankly, quite horrible. I'm not suggesting you are saying this, but the whole conversation begins to sound like "how many people is it ok to lose so we save a bit of money?", and I want no part of that.

Click to expand...

Then we are on the same page - as I have consistently said, it is unquantifiable much of the time, especially before events have even occurred and it is extremely distasteful for people to be posting with some kind of crystal ball certainty the numbers of people they think “will die” - I certainly haven’t argued the toss with anyone over specific numbers (and it is disingenuous to say I did) I have simply said we do not know.

Bozza said:

There is a wealth of research that points to bad health outcomes when heating is limited. That is enough for me to be angry about this.

Click to expand...

Personally, I just don’t see the point of getting all morally outraged on a football forum when it’s not going to make a blind bit of difference - I would rather save my energy for effecting positive changes in real life - but it would be presumptuous and unfair to imply, by virtue of feeling the need to say that to me, that cruel treatment of the elderly does not make me angry - of course it does - I am not a heartless git. I felt this way too when millions of pensioners were forced into lockdown and ended up isolated, alone and in extreme fear of dying from Covid.

I also have a very elderly, and very frail 90 year old mother who has been seriously ill with cancer the pass few years, and has a blood clot in her brain - she is highly susceptible to another stroke due to the cold - however she is too afraid to put on her heating all day (despite being housebound most of the time) because she cant afford the bills - she was a nurse for the NHS her entire working life and has a basic state pension and measly serps payment.

SHE DESERVES BETTER.

Bozza said:

Our country is in a Tory-inflicted mess, but we've still got enough money to look after our old and vulnerable as best we can, regardless of what Starmer and Reeves may make out.

Click to expand...

For some reason your response to my posts on this thread seem to suggest that I somehow need convincing that this is an ill conceived policy, that I haven’t said that it will cause hardship, possibly added winter mortalities and that there are far better ways to manage the deficit in the economy without taking it away from those that really need the help.

- From the outset and since, I have posted exactly that.

My position is this and remains unchanged:

Removing the WFA from pensioners except those on means-tested benefits (ie those who do not qualify for pension credit) is going to result in severe hardship and could possibly cause additional mortality for those on very low incomes - that is a no brainer - however, is not right to continue to give public handouts to those that do not need it but the threshold for determining that need is set too low.

I have (repeatedly) posted alternative suggestions too that in my view would be better, including using the windfall tax this winter to subsidise fuel bills for everyone. I have also several times posted links to a fund that those experiencing hardship in paying their fuel bills can apply for that is not means tested which I think is a constructive suggestion..


I get that you are angry about this, so are all of us decent thinking people, but I am not the opposition here nor the straw man for people arguing against this policy..

KZNSeagull said:

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!

Click to expand...

I think you’ve come up with some great ideas.

In fact they are so good, you have to wonder why Labour aren’t doing this sort of thing?

I’d speculate that it could be about spooking the markets. The lettuce negatively jolted ‘the system’ with her bat shit policies and chaos ensued. Perhaps the cautious (Starmer/Reeves) approach is like turning a tanker rather and an about turn in a Lazer dinghy. It might not be such a good idea to rock the boat with these kind of progressive ideas immediately but rather, a slow process of reforming our fiscal landscape in a gradual and responsible fashion. It’s hard to think of another reason why they’d not immediately start to claw back the absurd amounts of extra wealth the Tories have allowed the super rich -1% (£10m+ pa income) to hoard over the last 14 years.

jcdenton08 said:

@Zeberdi

You’re having a mare with this one. Strange hill to die on, every single official report, even ones from your own side, directly contradict the point you’re trying to make. I appreciate you’re being “loyal” and don’t actually believe anything you’re saying - you’ll be the first to admit that - but it is a fact that deaths from cold homes rise when poor people can’t afford to heat them. Unequivocal fact.

Click to expand...

Er, hardly being loyal to anyone. That is not my MO - I have criticised a number of Labour Government policies on the boards in recent months. I course I believe what I post - I am not in the habit of posting lies so “admit” nothing but thanks for the really patronising attitude.

You seem to not have a clue what point I was making (now about 4 pages back!) - if you knew, you would realise the research backed up what I have been saying.

Please point me to a single post on this thread where I have said this is a good idea or unequivocally supported the Government for implementing it or said that it won’t cause severe hardship or even the possibility of causative mortality.

Where have I said anywhere that cold homes does not cause excess mortality? All I have said in response to your distastefully hyperbolic proposition that ‘1,000s WILL die‘ is that we cannot predict the number with any certainty, because it is a future event contingent on a number of sequential factors. - My criticism of your statement has been taken completely out of context and re-interpreted as me supporting Starmer and blown up into an almighty and ridiculous side discussion ! @Bozza’s links to the Labour research backs my point up. No where in that research did the authors predict with certainty what the mortality rate would be - they said “could” and “possibly ”

I can’t believe your English is not good enough to know the difference between measured, scientific reports and partisan hyperbole.

AGAIN

My position is this and remains unchanged:

Removing the WFA from pensioners except those on means-tested benefits (ie those who do not qualify for pension credit) is going to result in financial hardship for millions of pensioners and could possibly cause additional mortality for those on very low incomes who may not use their heating as a consequence - that is a no brainer - however, is not right to continue to give public handouts to those that do not need it but the threshold for determining that need is set too low.

I have (repeatedly) posted alternative suggestions too that in my view would be better, including using the windfall tax this winter to subsidise fuel bills for everyone. I have also several times posted links to a fund that those experiencing hardship in paying their fuel bills can apply for that is not means tested which I think is a constructive suggestion..

HtF is that different from what the majority of us on this thread are saying about the withdrawal of the WFA?

Why are you trying to position me in opposition to that by twisting my posts?

WATFORD zero said:

If he's a grifter, he's not a very good one. He gave up a job with a salary of over £250K for being the best in a highly competitive industry for a decade being paid 77K as an MP. He's paid for a season ticket at Arsenal for years, and Arsenal have now said 'since you're PM security will be far better if we put you in a private box'. He's said thank you for considering my safety and declared it.

Are you taking the piss or just simply pissed

Click to expand...

£2000 for an afternoon at the footy.

No reasonable man can justify that.

Hugo Rune said:

I think you’ve come up with some great ideas.

In fact they are so good, you have to wonder why Labour aren’t doing this sort of thing?

I’d speculate that it could be about spooking the markets. The lettuce negatively jolted ‘the system’ with her bat shit policies and chaos ensued. Perhaps the cautious (Starmer/Reeves) approach is like turning a tanker rather and an about turn in a Lazer dinghy. It might not be such a good idea to rock the boat with these kind of progressive ideas immediately but rather, a slow process of reforming our fiscal landscape in a gradual and responsible fashion. It’s hard to think of another reason why they’d not immediately start to claw back the absurd amounts of extra wealth the Tories have allowed the super rich -1% (£10m+ pa income) to hoard over the last 14 years.

Click to expand...

Or they’ll be announced in the budget?

From the Guardian/Observer today:​

Honeymoon over: Keir Starmer now less popular than Rishi Sunak​

Opinium poll for the Observer finds a 45-point drop in the prime minister’s approval rating since he won the election

Keir Starmer has suffered a precipitous fall in his personal ratings since winning the election, according to a new poll for the Observer that comes before his first Labour conference as prime minister.
The latest Opinium poll reveals that Starmer’s approval rating has plunged below that of the Tory leader Rishi Sunak, suffering a huge 45-point drop since July. While 24% of voters approve of the job he is doing, 50% disapprove, giving him a net rating of -26%. Sunak’s net rating is one point better.

The prime minister is not alone in suffering from a major drop in personal support since the election. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, who has cut winter fuel payments for all but the poorest pensioners and promised tough decisions on welfare and tax in the forthcoming budget, has seen a 36-point drop in her net approval since July.

He’ll bounce back - people bounce back. Dennis Hopper, Rolf Harris… there are others