It does not prove they are ineligible, as I explained. But it does support the argument that they are not the most in need.
Keir Starmer
- Thread starter urban genie
- Start date
It does not prove they are ineligible, as I explained. But it does support the argument that they are not the most in need.
"Can we not just have a consensus on here for once and ALL of us agree that taking £200 or £300 off someone who is on less than £11k per year, is fucking outrageous? Is that so hard for you lot to accept? Do you really have to come out with all sorts of whataboutery to try to deflect from this outrage?"
That was your point which mentioned whataboutery. Yet, I had only commented on your two previous posts about the inefficiency of means tested benefits, and about the 800,000 being the "very poorest". I had not suggested taking £200 is a good thing. I was literally replying to your own points.
How can that be whataboutery?
I didn't say they did!!
They still have influence.
UNISON backs Angela Rayner for deputy leader of the Labour Party | News, Press release | News | UNISON National
UNISON member and former union rep understands working people
www.unison.org.uk
TinFoilHat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2023
- Messages
- 24,142
- Team supported
- Manchester City
They can agree to ask their members to vote. The LP member is free to vote for whom they chose.They still have influence.
UNISON backs Angela Rayner for deputy leader of the Labour Party | News, Press release | News | UNISON National
UNISON member and former union rep understands working peoplewww.unison.org.uk
The block vote was removed after Ed Milliband was elected. One of the few things I agreed with the blairites on that one member one vote should determine party leaders.
Keith wants to change that into the MPs deciding.
Rayner wouldn't be Deputy PM without the support of Unison, all I was trying to say is they still carry significant support.
Initially, it was around means testing being inefficient in the context of WFA/Pension Credit.
I am assuming that you mean inefficient in the way it's usually used with means tested benefits - that the cost of means testing outweighs the benefits. If you meant something else, or were using it a broader context, then we can both be right :)
Then when our mum's call us for tea, we can run to the table and say we had a good day on t'internet ;)
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Well yes, because the MOST in need are on perhaps £5k per year and probably do claim it.
But if you think that someone who's on e.g. £11k per year however is somehow comfy, then I don't know what to say. The figures of 800,000 were for people that the government estimates ARE eligible, people who ARE on less than £11k. So OK maybe the estimate is wrong and there is only 600,000 of them. Or maybe it's 900,000. The fact remains there are hundreds of thousands of people that surely you and I would agree ARE deserving of a benefit, who for whatever reason, are not getting it. And now they are getting the WFA taken off them. That is indefensible.
Jeez this is hard work.
I've never said it was a great idea, or that it was good politics (although I am impressed at how many right wingers have found a conscience - comparing posts on this thread, and the VAT on school fees one is certainly an eye opener).
I gave someone else a few more stats, and info about applications and take up rates. It's clearly not as simple as it appears, with figures that are all over the place.
If you will indulge a little whataboutery. Regarding the fact that many of the non-claimants are close to the limit, then maybe removing the WFA encourages them to apply. Not just because it's highlighted in the press but if they weren't going to apply due to being close to the limit, then the extra £200 or £300, added to maybe a few hundred pounds in pension credit will now seem worth it.
So, can I ask, would you be happy if the uptake of pension credit got close to the savings from means testing the WFA? That would mean a lot more money going to pensioners we know are in need, than before. I suspect you would be one of the people who did agree with that (and yes, I do realise that's not how the idea was sold, and that it's certainly not a given that it will get close. so no excuses).
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Honestly I don’t know. I’d rather the pension credit was taken up, AND everyone got WFA.
I don’t believe for 1 nano-second that removing the WFA was essential to plug some made up black hole, “to stabilize the economy”. What tosh. How does a £1.3bn saving stop the economy from “becoming unstable” if we’re £22bn short? And why couldn’t Thieves take the £1.3bn from Ed Silliband’s £11bn loony overseas green initiatives fund? It’s all made up bollocks mate.
And now we’re hearing that in fact Reeves may have a £39bn surplus after all. And the times asked the treasury where they got the £22bn from and they refused, saying they couldn’t because they were not sure if the figures!
Rear Starmer and co are playing us for mugs in the hope they can lay on the public some massive tax hikes and say, “sorry but we had no choice, it’s not our fault, it’s those naughty Tories and the mess they left behind”. If this was not a political thread, everyone in unison would be saying what a load of bollocks, we’re being played here. Because we are.