[Politics] The Labour Government

[A1X]

I'm sorry if you can't come up with a response to that, but it's a perfectly legitimate question. I believe that everyone who needs the WFA should get it and those who don't need it shouldn't because that saves the Government money. There are many more that don't need it than do, and those who do will continue to receive it by and large. There is a little bit of tinkering to be done around the edges, but the policy itself remains sound outside of that.

Your starting point appears to be that because the policy needs a small amount of rework it should be scrapped entirely and everyone should continue to receive the WFA as they always have done. Fine, that's your opinion, but who else has to pay in that scenario? Pensioners are the richest demographic on average in the country and have been kept largely immune from the impacts of austerity for the last decade and a half (despite as a demographic voting for it repeatedly). Now they are being asked to contribute a tiny amount and you'd think the world is about to end.

 

[Peteinblack]

Not a dig at you fella, the Tory thread is stacked full of the usual suspects and I remember clearly the likes of Beth Rigby & Peston going hell for leather at the Tories whenever the chance arose.

As one of your probable 'usual Leftie suspects', I have condemned this Government's crass decision over WFA (and the rumoured outdoor smoking ban), and also condemned the freebies that Starmer, Reeves, and Rayner have received. But I guess this won't suit you narrative; how inconvenient for you!

However, there is a world of difference between a few 'usual suspects' on NSC, and individuals like Beth Rigby, and Robert Peston, criticising the corruption and sleaze - amounting to £ billions of tax-payers money awarded to Tory donors in dodgy contracts - and the systematic anti-Labour propaganda being published daily by the Express, Mail, Telegraph and Times, and loudly echoed by Britain's equivalent of Fox News, GBNews.

Virtually everyone I know who supports Labour has condemned the WFA policy (either the principle of it, or the low cut-off point), and strongly criticised the freebies fiasco. Virtually everyone I know who voted Labour is disappointed at these actions and decisions, and feels let down by Starmer et al.

By contrast, how many Tories repeatedly and obstinately defended the cronyism, lies and incompetence of Boris Johnson's Government?. I said at the time that Johnson could burn someone's house down or shoot their pets, and many Tories would still have defended him. Indeed, even now, Hard Right headbangers like Nadine Dorries still thinks Boris Johnson should have led the Conservatives into the recent general election.

 

[nevergoagain]

I disagree that it’s wrong. Why should my tax money be given to Alan Sugar to heat his Florida mansion?

But Ethel from Wigan who's just above the pension credit line, lives alone in a draughty terrace house can suck it up?. Nice one.

 

[Peteinblack]

But Ethel from Wigan who's just above the pension credit line, lives alone in a draughty terrace house can suck it up?. Nice one.

So are you saying that everyone should continue to receive the WFA, regardless of income/wealth, or is your criticism that the cut-off point is too low?

 

[nevergoagain]

So are you saying that everyone should continue to receive the WFA, regardless of income/wealth, or is your criticism that the cut-off point is too low?

Absolutely the 2nd part. No problem with it being means tested. I have issues with it not having an impact assessment and being rushed through for very little benefit overall when it will affect negatively a very large number of pensioners.

 

[Peteinblack]

Absolutely the 2nd part. No problem with it being means tested. I have issues with it not having an impact assessment and being rushed through for very little benefit overall when it will affect negatively a very large number of pensioners.

Ah, then we are in full agreement

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

He doesn't like the fact that some upstart has upset the natural order of things.

if you mean doesn't like the hypocrisy on show, you would be right.

Maybe I'm doing you a disservice and you would be completely fine with a millionaire (who hasn't paid full tax) bankrolling the Tory party PM or taking a 4 million pound donation from the Cayman Islands who invest in fossil fuel and privatised medical services?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

So it’s fine for Starmer’s kid to live in the middle of a media circus during his exams? How much of his life would it be suitable for him to sacrifice because Rishi Sunak called an election?

And Allis flat was the only option?

Do you think it would be headline news if he moved out to a neighbour or he rented somewhere else and paid for it?

No, it's because the PM is seen to be in the pocket of a wealthy individual, something the last government were rightly slated for

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

So are you saying that everyone should continue to receive the WFA, regardless of income/wealth, or is your criticism that the cut-off point is too low?

I think you should do it this year whilst they actually work out the details.

If we are in that much of a mess, what's another years worth of payments

Giving people the heads up, helping them to claim what they can and giving them time to do so

 

[beorhthelm]

The much publicised tax clampdown on non-Doms, a Tory policy in the end, Labour always pushed for it and are seeing it through, was originally meant to raise £3.2b per annum (OBR figure). It will now likely cost money. Reason being, largely they’re moving overseas. I’ve followed this over the last year, Italy, France and the Emirates are welcoming them.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...on-non-doms-may-raise-no-money-officials-fear

Many economic commentators predicted that would happen,

Highlighting how difficult it is to act in a global environment.

saw stats earlier in week that ~60% non-doms plan to leave UK, 80% will change their investment plans.

it's a popular cause in principle to tax/remove non-doms, people don't realise that they still pay normal taxes on everything in the country, it's their overseas income/assets are untaxed.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I think you should do it this year whilst they actually work out the details.

If we are in that much of a mess, what's another years worth of payments

Giving people the heads up, helping them to claim what they can and giving them time to do so

Exactly ….and why did they bring out this one vastly unpopular and discredited policy in advance of a budget that will cover many many more areas ..its seems a major gaff to me…..why not have tweaked the existing system brought in by a former Labour government for the following year ….crazy and causing considerable grief to a section of society who have little recourse …

 

[dsr-burnley]

I disagree that it’s wrong. Why should my tax money be given to Alan Sugar to heat his Florida mansion?

Two issues with this.

1. They shouldn't be taking WFA off both Alan Sugar and Auntie Ethel if Alan Sugar doesn't need it and Auntie Ethel does.
2. Florida residents don't get it anyway so they are only hitting Auntie Ethel, not Alan Sugar.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

saw stats earlier in week that ~60% non-doms plan to leave UK, 80% will change their investment plans.

it's a popular cause in principle to tax/remove non-doms, people don't realise that they still pay normal taxes on everything in the country, it's their overseas income/assets are untaxed.

That’s one opinion. The link which Weststander posted had a different one. Most non-doms are in the UK to work as either bankers, CEOs and footballers, the guy said some will leave but not as many as is suggested and certainly nowhere near 80%. They have money, many love living in London.

 

[BLOCK F]

It’s zero comfort to those pensioners, that some accountants on nsc have retired clients who are sitting pretty.

Agreed, it is a very odd and entirely irrelevant stance that this other accountant on NSC has taken to defend the WFP decision.

 

[Springal]

In Labours case it would appear that it's a ban on delegates using the words Genocide or Apartheid at conference and throwing out members who even dare to bring attention to the plight of children in Gaza.

I mean really, restricting the vocabulary adults can use even in discussion at conference!

I think Labour voters are still blind to how right wing and authoritarian this Labour front bench actually is.

Taking donations from Israel lobby and continuing to back Zionist escalation in allowing arms trading, whilst paying lip service to the ICJ.

Israel lobby funded half of Keir Starmer’s cabinet

Exclusive: Labour’s top team has accepted hundreds of thousands of pounds from pro-Israel funders.

www.declassifieduk.org

Labour accused of censoring pro-Palestinian activists by banning genocide references

Exclusive: The party has been criticised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) for refusing to promote its fringe event, titled ‘Justice for Palestine: Confronting genocide and ending apartheid’

www.independent.co.uk

How do you explain their biggest donor being a Muslim ?

 

[armchairclubber]

How do you explain their biggest donor being a Muslim ?

Really? Why should I need to explain that?

Ask the ***** who are taking the money.

 

[Weststander]

saw stats earlier in week that ~60% non-doms plan to leave UK, 80% will change their investment plans.

it's a popular cause in principle to tax/remove non-doms, people don't realise that they still pay normal taxes on everything in the country, it's their overseas income/assets are untaxed.

And pay our flat rate annual remittance charge if opting for overseas income/gains not to be taxed in the UK.

Italy have said grazie we'll take the non-doms, at a charge of €100k per year.

 

[Weststander]

Agreed, it is a very odd and entirely irrelevant stance that this other accountant on NSC has taken to defend the WFP decision.

Party politics.

 

[A1X]

Two issues with this.

1. They shouldn't be taking WFA off both Alan Sugar and Auntie Ethel if Alan Sugar doesn't need it and Auntie Ethel does.
2. Florida residents don't get it anyway so they are only hitting Auntie Ethel, not Alan Sugar.

But in both cases only if Auntie Ethel is not deemed as needing it would she not get it. It is not a blanket withdrawal and the whole scheme is being scrapped, that's not what is being suggested and would (quite correctly) be described as outrageous. I agree with the poster above who says that the limit needs work, of course it should and those who need it should get it, but to suggest that the alternative are either (a) everyone gets it or (b) nobody gets it fundamentally misrepresents the policy and is just lazy commentary.

 

[LamieRobertson]

But in both cases only if Auntie Ethel is not deemed as needing it would she not get it. It is not a blanket withdrawal and the whole scheme is being scrapped, that's not what is being suggested and would (quite correctly) be described as outrageous. I agree with the poster above who says that the limit needs work, of course it should and those who need it should get it, but to suggest that the alternative are either (a) everyone gets it or (b) nobody gets it fundamentally misrepresents the policy and is just lazy commentary.

I think you’ve been too busy sheltering behind a rock somewhere to notice that most people not religiously attached to a particular party would have understood the withdrawal of the current system as times are apparently hard, if it were done in a way that still protected those in need NOW!….lets not forget that it was a Labour government who brought in this universal benefit in the first place and that at yesterday’s Labour conference there was a unanimous vote against this discredited policy …