[Politics] Labour Party meltdown incoming.......

[Weststander]

Of course it’s unpopular (FACT) but whether it is the ‘right’ thing to do as part of ‘fixing the economy’ or not is another issue. Personally if I were a government minister, I wouldn’t start with this! I’m waiting for single people to lose their council tax discount of 25% - that will mean another £400 per year for me personally on top of fuel rises of another £100 or so per year (it costs about as much to heat a 2 bed house for one person as it does for two) - single room supplements on holidays and most accommodation …. It’s not cheap being single

I don’t benefit from that council tax discount, but want it to stay. That could be a second gaff.

Shirley there are enough tax opportunities on CGT, IHT, high end council tax, restrict pension contributions tax relief to basic rate.

 

[Zeberdi]

That last bit, may not be correct, too binary. I recognise several posters critical of this policy, who for years made plain their dislike of the Tories and/or their Tory MP.

And yet somehow I’m being positioned by other posters as being supportive of this measure (given the likes Bozza is giving to everyone’s post - I am not making this partisan but those that have been dominating the discussion assume wrongly that I support this policy because they know I am a Labour Party activist/ member (because of the Liz Truss thread).

For one last time though, and for clarity, I think it’s been bad PR, I would not have started a campaign of fixing the economy by withdrawing support from pensioners regardless of income thresholds) . That demographic is too much of a hot potato. I think there are more creative and equitable ways to fix the economy especially when it comes to fuel prices but that requires an holistic approach and joined up thinking which by it’s very departmentalised nature, the art of politics seems unable to do.

 

[The Clamp]

Certainly an argument for Labour’s policy of means testing pensioners for winter fuel benefit;

Winter fuel payment: We spend it on holidays, say some pensioners

Some pensioners say they don't need the extra cash of up to £300 - and want better means testing.

www.bbc.co.uk

“The payment acts as a bonus to the bank balance for Nick Plowright. “My mother, who died back in 2019, was also receiving it for many years. When she did, she'd tell us to give it to the grandchildren,” the 68-year-old explains.

He adds: “The government needs to make the means testing rigorous, right minded and focused on helping those most in need. Above all, stop paying it to the millions who very obviously do not need it, like me.”

 

[Peteinblack]

Certainly an argument for Labour’s policy of means testing pensioners for winter fuel benefit;

Winter fuel payment: We spend it on holidays, say some pensioners

Some pensioners say they don't need the extra cash of up to £300 - and want better means testing.

www.bbc.co.uk

“The payment acts as a bonus to the bank balance for Nick Plowright. “My mother, who died back in 2019, was also receiving it for many years. When she did, she'd tell us to give it to the grandchildren,” the 68-year-old explains.

He adds: “The government needs to make the means testing rigorous, right minded and focused on helping those most in need. Above all, stop paying it to the millions who very obviously do not need it, like me.”

This is why I think much of the criticism of the policy overall reeks of hypocrisy - people who insist that welfare payments need to be 'targeted' when paid to the unemployed, disabled, and single parents/unmarried mothers, are now acting outraged.

That said, I do think Labour have handled this badly, and scored a stupid political own goal; they should have realised how the Daily Mail and Conservatives would react, particularly as the Mail's readership is mainly elderly, and 2/3 of pensioners normally vote Conservative (this year, many of them voted Reform UK instead, but pensioners generally are more Right-wing than other sections of society. Only 20% of pensioners voted Labour in July). The backlash was entirely predictable, and it is astonishing that Starmer and Reeves did not seem to anticipate it - or maybe they arrogantly didn't care. Either way, it casts doubt on their political nous, and ability to 'read the room'.

Labour should have had a higher or 'tapered' threshold before the WFA was withdrawn, and/or prioritised other 'targets' at the other end of income scale, although, of course, we know that there would be a similar outcry if they raised Inheritance or Capital Gains Tax, and that going after the rich would be met by allegations of penalising hard-work and success, or practicing the politics of envy, while the rich themselves would (threaten to) emigrate.

Also, unlike pensioners and other welfare recipients, the better-off can usually afford to hire accountants to help them avoid paying more tax.

I think this policy will be used as a stick to beat Labour with for many years to come, just as people still refer to "Gordon Brown selling our gold reserves".

More generally, given that Starmer and Reeves seem - judging from other policy announcements in the last week or so - intent on continuing with austerity measures, with 'jam tomorrow' being promised, I think that politically, the main beneficiary will be Nigel Farage and Reform UK. This will play into their populist narrative that "both parties are pretty similar, and out of touch with ordinary people". Reform UK will also promote the line that "If we can't afford to keep pensioners warm, why are we allowing mass immigration? Why are we giving money to asylum seekers?"

 

[Chicken Run]

This is why I think much of the criticism of the policy overall reeks of hypocrisy - people who insist that welfare payments need to be 'targeted' when paid to the unemployed, disabled, and single parents/unmarried mothers, are now acting outraged.

That said, I do think Labour have handled this badly, and scored a stupid political own goal; they should have realised how the Daily Mail and Conservatives would react, particularly as the Mail's readership is mainly elderly, and 2/3 of pensioners normally vote Conservative (this year, many of them voted Reform UK instead, but pensioners generally are more Right-wing than other sections of society. Only 20% of pensioners voted Labour in July). The backlash was entirely predictable, and it is astonishing that Starmer and Reeves did not seem to anticipate it - or maybe they arrogantly didn't care. Either way, it casts doubt on their political nous, and ability to 'read the room'.

Labour should have had a higher or 'tapered' threshold before the WFA was withdrawn, and/or prioritised other 'targets' at the other end of income scale, although, of course, we know that there would be a similar outcry if they raised Inheritance or Capital Gains Tax, and that going after the rich would be met by allegations of penalising hard-work and success, while the rich themselves would (threaten to) emigrate.

Also, unlike pensioners and other welfare recipients, the better-off can usually afford to hire accountants to help them avoid paying more tax.

I think this policy will be used as a stick to beat Labour with for many years to come, just as people still refer to "Gordon Brown selling our gold reserves".

More generally, given that Starmer and Reeves seem - judging from other policy announcements in the last week or so - intent on continuing with austerity measures, with 'jam tomorrow' being promised, I think that politically, the main beneficiary will be Nigel Farage and Reform UK. This will play into their populist narrative that "both parties are pretty similar, and out of touch with ordinary people". Reform UK will also promote the line that "If we can't afford to keep pensioners warm, why are we allowing mass immigration? Why are we giving money to asylum seekers?"

You seem more concerned about Labour’s PR issues and what the DM think than you do about elderly people this winter worrying about turning the heating on

 

[Peteinblack]

You seem more concerned about Labour’s PR issues and what the DM think than you do about elderly people this winter worrying about turning the heating on

If you read my post properly, instead of hurriedly trying to score a political point, you'd see that I said the thresh-hold at which the WFA was withdrawn should be higher and/or withdrawn gradually in relation to higher income, but the payment itself - like other welfare payments - ought to be means-tested.

Do you think that retired senior civil servants, barristers, politicians, high court judges, university professors, corporate bosses, etc, with decent occupational pensions, should still receive the WFA?

 

[Chicken Run]

If you read my post properly, instead of hurriedly trying to score a political point, you'd see that I said the thresh-hold at which the WFA was withdrawn should be higher and/or withdrawn gradually in relation to higher income - but the payment itself - like other welfare payments - ought to be means-tested.

Do you think that retired senior civil servants, barristers, politicians, high court judges, university professors, corporate bosses, etc, with decent occupational pensions, should still receive the WFA?

You’ve spent a lifetime on here scoring‘political points’ i won’t be lectured by the likes of you

In answer to your question, the WFA is for pensioners, ALL pensioners, if some people receive it that don’t need it then i say that will still be more cost effective than putting a means test system in place and all the associated policing of such testing

 

[fly high]

Agree. And what is even worse from a political dimension is doing this now ffs. I mean, what the f*** were they even thinking?!

If you’re going to do this, at least do it in April. You literally couldn’t pick a worse time politically to announce this. For the next 5 months the media will be wall to wall with stories of freezing pensioners with empty fridges. It will dominate everything.

I can’t imagine part of SKS plan for his first 100 days included featuring on a meme alongside Harold Shipman.

Clueless.

Doesn't help that September is unusually cold in areas of the country so elderly people are already wrapped in blankets with homes down to 16-17 degrees C or less.

 

[Bodian]

Labour slump to 29% in polls. Turns out starving kids with the two-child cap and freezing pensioners by withdrawing vital winter heating is leading voters to make the “tough decision” to make this one of the most unpopular Labour governments ever

Interesting to see that the Labour vote has not gone to the Tories. And switching to the Green Party because you are concerned about losing benefits aimed at paying for heating, which is still mainly fossil fuel generated, is a little ironic.

 

[Machiavelli]

The danger of the mean average, when it comes to real people.

The statement is correct, however. It's about a category. You're right to point out the huge variation within the category, but the statement that the over-65s are the wealthiest is correct.
I've said what I have to on WFP, yet I still don't think it's as cruel a policy as the two-child benefit limit or, indeed, how the disabled were targeted during austerity.

 

[Machiavelli]

A few weeks ago I shared on here the slightly caustic quip originating on a WhatsApp group comprised mostly of Cabinet members, congratulating Sue Gray on her first 2 months in power. (I was shown it; I’m not a member of it, obvs).

Whilst the gag itself was mildly funny, it was the tiny grain of truth contained within it that was really interesting and the chickens are well and truly coming home to roost now, with an increasing number of the Cabinet understandably furious about this self-inflicted shitstorm that they are having to both vote for and defend in the media.

Whilst seemingly none of them deny Sue Gray is undoubtedly a good pick from the point of view of being an exceptional administrator and having unparalleled knowledge of the workings of Whitehall, the main gripe is that she has absolutely no political antenna. This in and of itself wouldn’t be a problem - but the real frustration is that she controls (‘limits’ they would say) access to the PM - and trying to get time with him this side of Christmas to discuss the political dimension and potential fallout of how decisions like the Winter Fuel Allowance are likely to play out Is apparently nigh on impossible. And so here we are.

At least Blair - when he too decided to dispense with his cabinet and do ‘sofa politics’ - had the good sense to share the sofa with really shrewd political operators like Phillip Gould, Peter Mandleson, Anji Hunter and Alistair Campbell.

No one believes this is going to go away any time soon. But they seem to wish Sue would.

Thanks for sharing. Really interesting: it gives a new angle into how things evolve over the rest of the year.

 

[abc]

Interesting to see that the Labour vote has not gone to the Tories. And switching to the Green Party because you are concerned about losing benefits aimed at paying for heating, which is still mainly fossil fuel generated, is a little ironic.

It would be shocking if the tories were gaining in popularity so soon. However, the poll shows the fragility of labour's landslide and perhaps reflects that their deliberately negative messaging is working against them.

 

[Right Brain Ronnie]

I wonder what the ‘Tool Maker’ would say to his son….

I think he would say a sentence with the words, box, tool and sharpest in it.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Thanks for sharing. Really interesting: it gives a new angle into how things evolve over the rest of the year.

That’s kind of you, but don’t thank me; thank the loose-lipped Lobby Correspondent who lives locally to me and joins the little dawn running group I’m a member of. She’s usually got a few little tasty tit-bits on her phone that disgruntled Honourable and Right Honourable Members have shared with her.

I particularly liked the most recent one she showed me that read, “Exactly! And whilst nobody expected the honeymoon would last forever, none of us expected Rachel would do a big steaming turd in the bridal suite either.”

Not sure that will make the Sundays verbatim tbh.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Sir Keir Starmer faces investigation over possible breach of parliamentary rules after Labour donor 'pays for wife's clothes'

Tut tut.

 

[Beach Hut]

Starmer off to Italy tomorrow, f*** the UK

 

[Hugo Rune]

Starmer off to Italy tomorrow, f*** the UK

Is he becoming PM there? Is he going on holiday? Or is he holding a mini-summit to explore the Italian asylum system in order to learn lessons that could improve the clusterfuck he inherited from your people?

 

[Bozza]

Sir Keir Starmer faces investigation over possible breach of parliamentary rules after Labour donor 'pays for wife's clothes'

Tut tut.

If (when?) a Tory PM personally accepts clothes, glasses (WTF?) and accommodation from a wealthy donor, and also accepts clothes for his wife from the same donor who, by way of pure coincidence I'm sure, was granted a security pass to Downing Street - people would rightly be asking questions about judgement, regardless of the "mistake" of not registering some of those gifts within the required timescales.

Nothing to see here though, I'm sure - it all sounds completely honourable from a man who promised us ‘the highest standards of integrity and honesty’.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

He is probably going shopping with somebody else's money.

Keir Starmer alleged to have broken rules over party donor’s gifts to wife

The prime minister made a late declaration of a personal shopper and clothes for his wife paid for by Lord Alli

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bozza]

He is probably going shopping with somebody else's money.

Keir Starmer alleged to have broken rules over party donor’s gifts to wife

The prime minister made a late declaration of a personal shopper and clothes for his wife paid for by Lord Alli

www.theguardian.com

Victoria Starmer out clothes shopping with Lord Alli.