Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
It's all lovely in the Labour garden, the future looks fabulous.
[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?
- Thread starter Flounce
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
That's good because I had heard differently.
One of the main reasons is the weather apparently. More settled - so safer to cross.
That's okay, they can still claim a winter fuel payment from abroad https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/if-you-live-abroadThey're mostly on cruises all winter anyway.
Wallace
Active member
- Nov 9, 2016
- 173
How very democratic of you.
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,687
The furlough money was paid to employees. I don't think there is any way the government can hope to get money back from the workforce, if only because it would knock an enormous hole in the manifesto pledges.
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,227
Parties in opposition have to oppose Government policy. Has there ever been a new Government that has not faced accusations of "shameful" duplicity because when in government they do not act completely consistently with their numerous pronouncements when in opposition?
Judge politicians and Governments by what they actually do when in a position to govern. By their overarching interests and aims. By who they instinctively are most concerned about improving the lives of and by the raft of policies they enact.
Keir Starmer and his team are delivering EXACTLY what I expected and hoped for from them. Endowed public finances in chaos, and key services on their knees, the policy to save some money from paying out a social security benefit to relatively comfortable pensioners, who as a collective generation have been obscenely advantaged, is smart and precisely what Labour should do.
You’d be surprised.
I’ve been working with a local company recently. The owner mentioned how he was a great employer because he organised furlough for his staff. Now this chap is pretty dodgy, a quick check of companies house revealed that he has the best part of £1m sitting in his accounts, oddly, this was not the case pre-pandemic. I wonder where the profits came from?
I’d suggest that there are countless operators like him.
1. No, parties in opposition do not have to oppose Government policy. They have to hold the Government to account. They are dramatically different things.
Opposition parties often agree with Government policy, for example in matters relating to national security. The opposition largely agreed with Government policy during the Covid pandemic by way of another example.
Disagreeing for disagreeing sake isn't the way politics always works, thankfully.
2. I am happy to judge Government performance in the round. However, a policy that, according to Labour's own report, could lead to the premature deaths of nearly 4,000 people is very much worth paying attention to as part of that holistic assessment.
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.
Theresa May said removing the annual payment of up to £300 a year from all but the poorest pensioners would release funds that could be pumped into the social care system.
But the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, published analysis which he said showed almost 4,000 more pensioners’ lives would be at risk through being unable to heat their homes.
No level was given for the means test in the manifesto, published last month, but the Resolution Foundation thinktank suggested one straightforward approach would be to give the payment only to those who receive pension credit, the means-tested benefit for the poorest pensioners.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ce-cuts-puts-4000-lives-at-risk-claims-labour
3. Yes, the Government is rightly removing a universal benefit from relatively wealthy pensioners. At the same time, they are also removing a vital payment to vulnerable pensioners, some of whom have a total income of just over £11,000 per annum, with no savings, and living pension payment to pension-payment. £200/£300 is a significant sum if your income is that low.
We were told the Government had "no choice" but to make this cut in this specific way - a lie, because they had to save £1.5bn in this way - a lie.
They also say they want everyone who qualifies for pension credits, which is the gateway benefit to receiving the Winter Fuel Allowance, to receive them. This number totalled in the region of 800,000.
If everyone who was due pension credits applied for them, got them, and then also unlocked the Winter Fuel Allowance it is estimated that the total cost to the Treasury would be c£3.5bn.
It's total bullshit.
You clearly don't understand though, as you've dived head-first into the "all pensioners are rich and don't need the WFA" trope.
I largely agree but to take any note of the calculations of "the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell" is not likely to add to the weft of an HMG-skeptic narrative.
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,227
Good try to defend a stance that you've gone "all in" on.
Details of the balances in these sort of tax and spend decisions are exactly what opposition parties ALWAYS oppose, try to present an alternative point to, and vote against.
Poorer pensioners will be better off under Keir Starmer and Labour. Labour policy will, in general, benefit people lower down the socioeconomic scale and reliant on public services.
Life will obviously never be great for everyone - especially old and otherwise disadvantaged people - and public services in the UK will always be inadequate compared to what people wish for. But
this Labour Cabinet have got a perfect calibration of their purpose and mission and can be trusted to deliver in the best interests of the many not the few.
The country couldn’t sustain itself under the Tories….Someone else had to have a go at governing without the lies, contracts for friends and deceit. The challenge is that those people on the margins as the policy changes are going to suffer…Those who are just over the WFA, who now don’t qualify for example. Labour has some choices as to how it manages the transition, not sure its got it completely right yet, but its certainly a tough gig they have inherited…
There was an interesting section on the "4,000 premature deaths" claim on Radio 4 a few months ago (the More or Less programme). Basically, the research quoted by Labour when in opposition was actually carried out by Age UK about a decade ago. Age UK have now disowned the figure - it was based on the reduction in "excess winter deaths" when the Winter Fuel Allowance was first introduced. However, at the same time the eligibility for the free Flu jab was increased significantly, and Age UK now believe that the main cause of the reduction in excess winter deaths relates to the positive impact of the flu jab. Also, the Labour government of the time increased the state pension quite a bit, which would have led to a reduction in winter deaths - plus there were massive increases in the resources for the NHS. So - the whole basis for the calculation of the "4,000 premature deaths" has been thoroughly debunked.
I note you don't provide citation for, nor links to, any of these claims.
I doubt anyone on here has spent as much time reading and researching this subject as me, and I've not seen the supposed Age UK report, nor their subsequent distancing themselves from it.
From all of my reading, I suspect the report referenced is the 2012 Centre for Analysis of Special Exclusion (CASE) report for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), which covers fuel poverty and excess winter deaths extensively.
I've read the report in its entirety- it's 234 pages long - so makes for great bedtime reading. Have this link as a little early Christmas present:
But, let's go with your version of events, this was another example of opportunistic opposition from Labour, the report was from Age UK and they've since rowed back from the findings.
It would surely be more useful to look to see if Age UK said anything in direct response to the policy as enacted by Labour. Do you agree that would be more appropriate? Allow me...
"There's been a lot of discussion about the Government's decision, but at heart Age UK's critique of their policy is really simple: we just don't think it's fair to remove the payment from the 2.5 million pensioners on low incomes who badly need it, and to do it so quickly this winter, at the same time as energy bills are rising by 10%.
"It is crystal clear that there is insufficient time to make any serious impact on the miserably low take-up of Pension Credit before the cold sets in this autumn, and the Government has brought forward no effective measures to support all those whose tiny occupational pensions take them just above the line to claim. It's true they have agreed to extend the Household Support Fund until April and they deserve some credit for that, but the HSF is an all-age fund that you have to apply for, so we know it will only help a small proportion of all the pensioners who will be in need as a result of their policy change.
"The Government has also tried to suggest that the increase in State Pension for older people next year as a result of the Triple Lock means there's no need to worry about how they will cope now, but that won't help anyone this winter and most pensioners will not benefit to the extent being suggested - either because they are on the old State Pension which attracts less of an increase, or because they don't qualify for a full State Pension in the first place.
"The reality is that driving through this policy as the Government is doing will make millions of poor pensioners poorer still and we are baffled as to why some Ministers are asserting that this is the right thing to do. We and many others are certain that it is not, and that's why we will continue to stand with the pensioners who can't afford to lose their payment and campaign for them to be given more Government support.
"Meanwhile, winter is coming and we fear it will be a deeply challenging one for millions of older people who have previously relied on their Winter Fuel Payment to help pay their energy bills and who have no obvious alternative source of funds on which to draw. As a charity we will do everything we can to help them, but with so many in need and no extra support on offer from the Government at the moment it's looking like an incredibly uphill task."
But your suggestion to discount historic statements on this, and focus on specific responses to Labour's actual policy, has me wondering if any other organisations in this field feel similarly to Age UK. And you'll never guess what? Many do...
Marie Curie
"For people who claim benefits under the Special Rules for Terminal Illness, this may very well be their last winter and Christmas. We know that energy costs can increase dramatically after a terminal diagnosis, yet the decision to restrict the Winter Fuel Payment only to people receiving means-tested benefits takes no account of this.
"The festive season is meant to be one of warmth, joy, and celebration. No one should have to face their final days worrying about money or whether they can afford to heat their home or even switch on Christmas lights. The government should urgently rethink this decision, and take further steps to support people at the end of life with energy costs, including by introducing a social tariff."
Independent Age
“Tying the Winter Fuel Payment to Pension Credit now will see far too many older people fall through the cracks. Pension Credit still has a stubbornly low take up and in addition there is a large group of older people living just above the entitlement’s threshold, sometimes by just a few pounds. People in this situation will now have this vital money taken away from them. That’s why we are heading to Downing Street to urge the UK Government to protect the payment for those in later life living on low incomes.
“With winter around the corner, now is the time to bring older people on a low income back in from the cold.”
End Fuel Poverty Coallition
“The long term way to reduce the costs to the NHS of people living in cold damp homes is to improve insulation and ventilation of buildings as well as stabilise energy costs by getting the country away from being hooked on volatile gas prices.
“But until the Government fully implements its positive plans in these areas, vulnerable households will continue to need financial support. That’s why the Winter Fuel Payments were so important, the money provided help for older households to stay warm each winter.
“Sadly, now more older people are expected to live in cold damp homes this winter and this puts them at greater risk of ill health, meaning the costs to the NHS will soar.”
National Pensioners Convention
“The loss of the winter fuel allowance for the majority of older people clearly puts them at risk. It is a known fact that older people require warmth and a stable temperature to maintain their health.
“Living in cold, damp homes heightens the risk of strokes, heart disease, respiratory conditions and generally harms the rest of the body.
It therefore follows that the risk of overwhelming the NHS in winter is high and the cost of dealing with the consequences of the Government decision will be felt throughout the NHS and care sectors.”
Independent Age (again)“Many of the older people on a low income we speak to tell us they were already cutting back on heating before the announcement to means test the winter fuel payment.
“With the reality of now losing hundreds of pounds this winter, many have shared they will be making severe cutbacks including not turning the heating on at all.
“Others have told us they will reduce the amount they eat so they can turn the heating on for a few hours a day.
“It is unacceptable that people in later life are having to make dangerous sacrifices as we approach the colder months, and we are concerned that the demand for NHS services could increase as a result.”
You and I know that I could go on and on and on here. There's a strong and consistent theme from organisations who work in the field of elderly care and poverty. You don't have to read much to find terms such as "cruel", "dangerous" and "brutal".We've known each other for a long time - close to 30 years now - and I know you're a decent and compassionate sort. I admire the amazing work you have done with charity to help very vulnerable people.
So, given I think I know you reasonably well, are you going to surprise me and say you fully support this policy in its entirety? I'm not interested in the wealthiest c90% of pensionsers losing this benefit. The universality was wrong, and the money can be better spent.
But amongst the poorest 10% losing the benefit, which still numbers c1m people, there are people with meagre incomes, no savings and the WFA provided some respite to allow the heating to be turned on occasionally on the very coldest days. Do you support the removal of the payment from these people?
Wallace
Active member
- Nov 9, 2016
- 173
So if Labour had been in power during Covid they wouldn't have introduced Furlough or a similar scheme? Really??
Ironically this ostensibly right wing and autocratic Labour government have provided a sort of political litmus test for us all. Are we inclined to sit back for the time being, or do we want to pile in now, the latter seeming to me to be rather....premature and perhaps fuelled by confirmation bias. A bit like the 'Fab OUT!' contingent's imperative.
I am definitely in the same camp as you. I see a dull workmanlike left of centre government taking the tough decisions quickly, without much if any thought about their own PR and spin (relabled by their opponents as making decisions with bad 'optics').
It is very easy to pile into Starmer because he is a poor 'man of the people' and lacks the ability to turn a problem into a comedy opportunity. Yes, he's the exact opposite of Johnson, and even those who didn't trust Johnson respond better at a gut level to Johnson than Starmer. Johnson would never take unpopular measures.
I have very little to say about what Labour have done so far other than it seems OK, and it will take me a few more years before I firmly commit to not voting Labour again and resigning my membership again.
The disappearance over the horizon and down the plug hole of the 'hard left' has helped.
The failure to commit political suicide by promising a new in/out referendum on EU membership has also helped.
The rest is m'eh but, by god, m'eh is soooo much better than what the tories gave us year after year.
Those wanting to pile now in need to bide there time for when the pile on might have some traction with the rest of us, or else they are simply preaching to the potg and carlzeisses of this world (people for whom campaigning against labour is a mission that never lets up).
CaptainDaveUK
Well-known member
- Oct 18, 2010
- 1,538
The rise in NICs for small businesses and charities will not help turn things around, it will sadly make things a lot worse.
Hope the head isn't too sore this morning! Tis the season to be merry after all though - well done you for getting stuck in.
I have absolutely no shame in being "all in" on speaking up for vulnerable people intentionally targeted by this Government - pushing tens of thousands into poverty by Liz Kendall's own admission, fearing how they will get through any cold snaps we may get this winter. At least climate change is working for these poor souls to a degree. Every cloud and all that...
The Guardian are certainly painting a gloomy picture coming from industry:
Sharp fall in UK business activity forecast as economic gloom deepens
CBI survey finds firms planning to reduce hiring amid weakest expectations for growth since November 2022
www.theguardian.com
In terms of charities, one wonders where the extra money to pay NICs will come from? In terms of reducing potential salary increases, this is a given but those who work in decent well governed charities should already be used to minimal annual increases and salaries that are on the very lowest end of the scale. Working for charities can be incredibly rewarding, but you must accept that you could be doing a similar role and earning a lot more in the private sector.
Some charities (such as the West Pier Trust with their £1.8m stash) are sitting on huge reserves. They could certainly meet the the cost there although I doubt whether my example qualifies for NICs increases.
But I do worry about the charity sector as a whole and whether it needs some form of further regulation. There are about 170k charities in the UK. One can’t help feeling that the admin costs could be cut an awful lot if, for example, chartable objectives were genuinely exclusive and broadened somewhat. This would mean less charities, more focused campaigning with greater revenues and potentially, a lot more money available for charitable activities.
And what of those who would lose their jobs? It strikes me that the sort of people who work in charities are similar to the folk who work in the NHS. People who care about others more than they do about how much money they earn. Perhaps we won’t need to import hundreds of thousands of NHS workers from aboard anymore if the charity sector wasn’t so massive (in administration, not income).
Last edited: