[Politics] The Labour Government

Bozza said:

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.

Click to expand...

Guinness Boy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bozza said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bozza said:

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.

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bozza said:

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.

Click to expand...

LamieRobertson said:

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

Click to expand...

Bozza said:

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.

Click to expand...

Guinness Boy said:

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

Does Peter Kyle read NSC?

Click to expand...

amexer said:

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.

Click to expand...

Weststander said:

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

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

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.

Click to expand...

Weststander said:

From 1:24:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0022kdz

Real stories of people who will suffer. Good examples for those here still not persuaded that people will be seriously harmed, they give their finances details to explain.

I still like to think Reeves will act, for the politics alone.

Click to expand...

Is it PotG? said:

I see Sir Freebie is paying back some of the money, the guilt got too much.

The prime minister is covering the cost of six Taylor Swift tickets, four to the races and a clothing rental agreement with a high-end designer favoured by his wife, Lady Victoria Starmer.

Too little too late.

Click to expand...

Is it PotG? said:

I see Sir Freebie is paying back some of the money, the guilt got too much.

The prime minister is covering the cost of six Taylor Swift tickets, four to the races and a clothing rental agreement with a high-end designer favoured by his wife, Lady Victoria Starmer.

Too little too late.

Click to expand...