Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
To be fair he didn’t know at that point the financial mess they would inherit from the Tories with then some difficult decisions needing to be made.
If she raises taxes, then Rishi was right.
They are setting up for it.
Only because him and his mates absolutely pillaged the country for over a decade.
Of course he did. What did he think he was inheriting? He played politics in order to gain support from a certain demographic and then backtracked once in power. As is tradition.
Starmer and his gang have constantly lied and broken promises since he was elected leader. Not sure why anyone expects a sudden shift towards honesty.
Whether he played politics or not, how could he know that extent of the problem when the Government kept the information from the OBR and the actual truth is coming out right now?
Pensioners fecked this country raw for decades. I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for them as a group.
I worked on the IT implementation of Pension Credit. I remember one of the main challenges was uptake. Labour rebranded the Income Support Minimum Income Guarantee to Pension Credit in an effort to remove the stigma. We couldn't refer to it as a benefit, it was an entitlement that a Pensioner applied for, not claimed. Loads of effort went into the communication, I suspect it hasn't been pushed so hard for the last 14 years.....
If he was relying solely on just the OBR report that he's an idiot. The demand for public pay rises was known about which is the majority of the supposed 22bn and the rest are mainly departmental pressures that would have been known. The asylum claim is a complete fabrication as you'll find the projected overspend was discussed in parliament and committee. There's debates especially for costs and forecasts.
Absolutely no one believes Hunts pre-election budget was fully funded. I can understand why Reeves is making political benefit of it all but why some of you choose to actuallt believe it is beyond me.
It's not about him relying on the report, its about the Tories withholding information from the OBR which is coming to light now and showing the extent of the financial issues.
From April this year
Lying arsewipe
What?
I've read that a bit of the "it's worse than we thought" is political spin but the other comments form IFS etc have said that it is worse than anticipated/believed from the outside looking in.
It's clear the country is in a cluster feck and something needs doing.
I also don't understand the issue around pensioners? It's means tested so that means millionaire pensioners won't get benefits? I don't see an issue with wealthy 70 years not getting discount on their gas bills?
It's clear the country is in a cluster feck and something needs doing.
I also don't understand the issue around pensioners? It's means tested so that means millionaire pensioners won't get benefits? I don't see an issue with wealthy 70 years not getting discount on their gas bills?
He means boomers.
And I've just told you why it's bullshit. I don't need Reeves words parroted back to me, that's what I'm already assessing. If you don't want to assess them fine.
I agree with means testing but I do think the eligibility criteria has been narrowed too far. There are groupings just outside the income range for listed benefits that will still really struggle.
It's not Reeves words though is it, it's been confirmed by the OBR released through a letter which I've posted previously so if you want to ignore that, then that's fine.
Totally get that but people acting like Myriam the impoverished pensioner will freeze to death is not accurate
Presumably it’s going to hurt the people in the middle which is a common Tory complaint.
People who just miss out but don’t feel any richer than those just below them who receive the benefit.
It's making that group specific enough I guess.
One factor stopping pensioners taking up the existing pension credit is the.form filling and a reluctance to admit to needing a means tested benefit. In that case it stays hard even if it's just to qualify for the energy top-up.
I don't know enough about how the PAYE system works for pensioners (I think it can handle the state pension and UK employer pensions but maybe not other income like a SIP?) Even if you were to set a level from there it wouldn't be fair - renters or owner occupiers, how much in savings etc - all parts of typical ways of means testing.
I don't have a huge sympathy for that demographic, the most protected class of people because......they vote.
I agree with @DanH. I suspect they've just gone for the quickest and easiest way of implementing a cut. Maybe a fairer way would have been to add the winter fuel payment to the state pension, which would mean all pensioners with additional income would pay extra tax, and those with well above average additional income would pay 40%. It wouldn't save as much cash of course but achieve quite a bit whilst being a lot fairer.
That's an argument for reducing all benefits and cutting government expenditure. You're a Tory really, you just won't admit it to yourself.
I'm not ignoring it, you seem to be ignoring the OBR report isn't the only source of information on spending for Starmer/Reeves to be aware. It's inconvenient so you're ignoring it to parrot a government line.
The treasury and departments and therefore MPs all knew that the recommendations for public salary wasn't going to be the 2%. That's 9.5 billion off the 22 billion figure which is actually a government final decision. Explain why they couldn't factor that in?
The asylum spending forecasts already laid out the likely forecasted overspend. It had already gone through committee with Labour MPs on it. That's another several billion. Explain why they couldn't factor that in?
I'm not going to unpick the rest but I can guarantee most will have been known. The shadow government don't sit there blind to government.
I think I'm right in saying the OBR costed Labour's proposals, the only thing stopping Labour from asking these forecast assumptions to be costed in was politics.
I’m not parroting anything, merely repeating the information which is there. My point is that certain information had come to light after they have taken office. I could say the same parroting reference for you. Maybe Labour should have asked better questions previously, I don’t know, I wasn’t there. Anyway don’t think this discussion is going anywhere.
Means testing means that some people will always fall just outside
Well he should have done; its been part and parcel of outgoing governments for a few decades now. Scorched earth and feck over the new lot for the first few months at least.
Reeves has only ever said no rises on the headline taxes. Income tax won't move but she's going to shaft every working person in the UK over the next 5 years one way or another. She's certainly starting the handouts sooner than anybody expected.
They should get some labour staffer to spend a afternoon deleting old tweets
It looks like there will be no more money for local authorities where I work which will increase local pressure on services.
Wtf is this shite?
Do you really need a thorough analysis of voting profiles based on age? Older voters have repeatedly supported conservative governments baited by pension and mortgage promises, not giving a flying feck about how younger generations have been affected.
Next, we're going to pretend that older generations didn't also overwhelmingly vote Leave.