The Labour Government

[mancityvstoke]

Callous policy reversed ....about time.

It won't be forgotten.

All liars Left and Right

 

[hilts]

Can easily be both. We can be doing better from outside the EU than some EU countries who were more dependent on Russian energy (eg Germany), however we would be doing even better if we didn’t have the trade barriers imposed by the Brexit deal. It’s not rocket science.

It doesn't help ones cause then when people use terms like catastrophic or similar to paint a picture that's not really a reality. If people don't want hyperbole from dodgy politicians perhaps they should refrain from doing it themselves.

If one shouts get your boats, get your boats the country Is about to flood then we get light drizzle comments will be made:-)

 

[Brewster's millions]

so Labour make changes to the WFA and the same news outlets response................. can the country afford it? " That the same outlets that berated Labour for reducing it in the first place. They can't win so if I was Starmer I'd just press on, govern and do my thing and fuck them. When pensioners are getting the WFA and school kids are getting fed come the time of the next GE lets see what the press darlings can do to boost reform.

The government sold the removal of the WFA as a fiscal necessity, all part of fixing the foundations because of the fabled £22bn black hole.

When they reverse the decision in short order, and at a time when the public finances are now in an even worse position, then it’s only natural that the press asks the questions they do.

I’m not sure how you can complain about this. The government’s dishonesty is the issue, nothing else.

 

[inbetween]

Can easily be both. We can be doing better from outside the EU than some EU countries who were more dependent on Russian energy (eg Germany), however we would be doing even better if we didn’t have the trade barriers imposed by the Brexit deal. It’s not rocket science.

So had we been in the EU 100% then would be seeing vastly different GDP figures? I seriously don't believe that and the evidential proof is that Europe is not seeing that difference so why would we?

We're talking decimal point differences which do not matter to people because if it did then it would also be reflected in other things such as unemployment but it isn't. Unemployment is still mostly at record lows compared to pre-Brexit, unemployment in Europe meanwhile is far worse.

You could argue just as much that the UK economy is being hamstrung by the national debt deficit where we spend £120bn per year on debt interest. I wonder why there are no studies on that despite the economic impact being broadly the same or likely far worse? There are no studies because it isn't an issue of political entrenchment, IE, I want a bad result so I will commission a study to produce a bad result.

 

[west didsblue]

It doesn't help ones cause then when people use terms like catastrophic or similar to paint a picture that's not really a reality. If people don't want hyperbole from dodgy politicians perhaps they should refrain from doing it themselves.

If one shouts get your boats, get your boats the country Is about to flood then we get light drizzle comments will be made:-)

I agree.
Catastrophic is a stupid term to use but the reality is that we would be better off with fewer barriers to trade.

 

[The Northern Baptist]

And Farage is taking credit for it on BBC/Sky.

A vote for Reform is a vote for change.

 

[Metal Biker]

Would you have allowed a referendum in the first place? If not then you can't really say that you wanted more democracy. I'm sure you're of the view that the majority of the electorate are too stupid to be allowed to vote at all.

The referendum simply asked do you want to leave the EU and that's it. If somebody wanted to leave the EU and they voted to leave the EU and then we left the EU then that referendum has been satisfied. Their reasons for wanting to leave are far too complex to be reduced down to lies. My father in law was a hard line Brexiter and his mind was made up long before the referendum was even held.

It was also impossible that anybody could have voted for a realistic Brexit because the EU would not allow any pre-negotiations so a well-defined version to vote for could never exist. So for those who wanted to consider a serious Brexit then what were they going to vote for other than an optimistic view?

The definition of Brexit, ie the negotiated version only began once we triggered Article 50 but unfortunately the Tory government did that without any knowledge of what it wanted to negotiate. They then LOST all authority in Parliament and our position was compromised to essentially salvage anything that could be salvaged.

I don't see why any of this is the fault of the people who voted for it. It's the fault of politicians, Parliament and the political system which gave us this end result. And what sums up this awful end result? Theresa May was given a peerage!

A nationwide opinion poll which the Tories ran with and did their own thing, refusing to listen to advice from others. That's how I remember it going down. Twas 2019 elections that gave Boris his 'mandate' to leave his way, not 2016. Lots of people forget that.

 

[hampshireblue]

Callous policy reversed ....about time.

It won't be forgotten.

All liars Left and Right

I'm glad they've changed the policy as it was originally too blunt and clumsy, however, I'm still not sure it's right that a pensioner household with a potential combined income of £64000 is going to have its' fuel bill subsidised by workers who are already paying high(ish) levels of tax and NI. It feels like they've gone from one extreme to well beyond what was necessary.

 

[mancityvstoke]

I'm glad they've changed the policy as it was originally too blunt and clumsy, however, I'm still not sure it's right that a pensioner household with a potential combined income of £64000 is going to have its' fuel bill subsidised by workers who are already paying high(ish) levels of tax and NI. It feels like they've gone from one extreme to well beyond what was necessary.

Oh well.......I'm sure you won't lose any sleep over it.

Write a strongly worded letter to Reeves.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I'm glad they've changed the policy as it was originally too blunt and clumsy, however, I'm still not sure it's right that a pensioner household with a potential combined income of £64000 is going to have its' fuel bill subsidised by workers who are already paying high(ish) levels of tax and NI. It feels like they've gone from one extreme to well beyond what was necessary.

everything I have heard on the radio seems to suggest people would have thought restoration up to £20k - £15k income would have been right I mean basing it on the average income is equally as clumsy as the last decision - the treasury will know exactly how many people earn way under the so called average and they know how many people in work have to claim in work benefits to get by. It will just shift the anger to another group - I welcome the change in principle but it does have the look of a desperate formula thought up in a panicked response to the Fag Ash Fuhrer

 

[mancityvstoke]

everything I have heard on the radio seems to suggest people would have thought restoration up to £20k - £15k income would have been right I mean basing it on the average income is equally as clumsy as the last decision - the treasury will know exactly how many people earn way under the so called average and they know how many people in work have to claim in work benefits to get by. It will just shift the anger to another group - I welcome the change in principle but it does have the look of a desperate formula thought up in a panicked response to the Fag Ash Fuhrer

You think pensioners getting £15,000 a year are doing ok?

 

[bluethrunthru]

You think pensioners getting £15,000 a year are doing ok?

thats approximately what I get from my private pension and I manage easily

 

[mancityvstoke]

thats approximately what I get from my private pension and I manage easily

Bully for you..........not everyone has your lifestyle .........whatever that is.

 

[ganganvince]

thats approximately what I get from my private pension and I manage easily

Plus state pension? Or still too much too young?

 

[mancityvstoke]

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Callous policy reversed ....about time.

It won't be forgotten.

All liars Left and Right

And Centre!

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Bully for you..........not everyone has your lifestyle .........whatever that is.

I think a lot depends on wether you are rent/mortgage free.

 

[hampshireblue]

Oh well.......I'm sure you won't lose any sleep over it.

Write a strongly worded letter to Reeves.

But many working people may well do wondering why they are subsidising people living in property they can only ever dream of owning and at the same time paying off student loans, high private rents, relatively high income tax....

 

[hampshireblue]

You think pensioners getting £15,000 a year are doing ok?

I don't know what a decent STATE pension should actually be. Using average earnings as a baseline, someone who has "paid in" all of their working lives has effectively contributed the same amount as around 6 years worth of state pension at present levels IIRC.

What do you think it should be?

 

[mancityvstoke]

I don't know what a decent STATE pension should actually be. Using average earnings as a baseline, someone who has "paid in" all of their working lives has effectively contributed the same amount as around 6 years worth of state pension at present levels IIRC.

What do you think it should be?

Pension Breakeven Index: How the UK State Pension Compares to Europe

We've compared the UK's pension system to the rest of Europe’s countries to see which one offers the most to retirees. Check it out here.

www.almondfinancial.co.uk