Keir Starmer

[meltonblue]

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.

To be fair, the 22bn black hole is completely different to the 39 billion surplus. 22 billion is the difference this year between budget and projected spending, the 39 billion is the headroom forecast in five years time if they loosen the fiscal rules.

Worth reading the economist article Hunt got that figure from rather than how it’s subsequently been interpreted.

 

[bluenova]

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.

If you're posting on a politics thread, you're probably not who the "politics" of the black hole is aimed at. After the Tories milked the 2008 global crash for years, and used it as an excuse for austerity, Labour clearly wanted to throw a little back, in the hope that it would still damage the Tories for the next election.

With the WFA, I suspect they wanted to look tough, and expected to get some "tough on benefits" bonus from it. Given that it's a universal benefit, that the energy cap was going to be less than last year, that pensioners were about to get a pretty high increase with the triple lock, and that means-testing meant that the poorest still had protection, it probably looked like the benefit 'cut' that was easiest to defend.

I also suspect that one reason they didn't go for a quick budget, is that they're wanted a few months of the "Tories are to blame narrative" (and let's face it, the Tories have left behind a mess), before announcing that they had to adjust the borrowing rules, and introduce some wealth taxes - both of which might seem 'tough', but would probably be welcomed if it meant the state investing again.

I think they've discovered that it was pretty naive to announce the WFA cut into a vacuum, where it's one of the only policy changes that is immediately noticeable.

 

[bluenova]

To be fair, the 22bn black hole is completely different to the 39 billion surplus. 22 billion is the difference this year between budget and projected spending, the 39 billion is the headroom forecast in five years time if they loosen the fiscal rules.

Worth reading the economist article Hunt got that figure from rather than how it’s subsequently been interpreted.

It's ironic that Hunt also claims the backlash to the WFA means testing, will make it harder for Labour to reform or reduce the welfare bill.

 

[Chippy_boy]

To be fair, the 22bn black hole is completely different to the 39 billion surplus. 22 billion is the difference this year between budget and projected spending, the 39 billion is the headroom forecast in five years time if they loosen the fiscal rules.

Worth reading the economist article Hunt got that figure from rather than how it’s subsequently been interpreted.

Thanks, good info. People also need to understand that the £22bn is a forecast, IIRC £1,204 budgeted spend this year vs £1,226. It's hardly like the world is collapsing. Depending upon interest rates and growth, that £22bn figure may be larger or smaller.

And of course the Tories were not committing to spend the "missing" £22bn, whereas Labour did.

 

[Chippy_boy]

If you're posting on a politics thread, you're probably not who the "politics" of the black hole is aimed at. introduce some wealth taxes - both of which might seem 'tough', but would probably be welcomed if it meant the state investing again.

Fair point.

...introduce some wealth taxes - both of which might seem 'tough', but would probably be welcomed if it meant the state investing again.

Depends how deep and how far wide. I don't think many people would object if multimillionaires have to chip in a percentage or two. But my concern is I wonder if that would raise significant money. I also wonder why they would bother spooking the whole country about painful tax rises, if the plans were only to target a small number of (politically insignificant) millionaires and billionaires. The logical conclusion is that they are preparing us for more wide-ranging pain.

I've worked hard all my life and very recently retired. I have a very small pension but will be reliant upon a full state pension when it arrives in a couple of years. I have to fund myself until then. I am extremely concerned they may start to means-test state pensions, if not now, then at some point over the next 5 years. That would be a disaster and make all of the sacrifices I have made over the past 40+ years, a waste of time. And I would run out of money, in old age, with no ability to plug the gap.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's ironic that Hunt also claims the backlash to the WFA means testing, will make it harder for Labour to reform or reduce the welfare bill.

Whilst that claim is likely true, I fail to see the irony in it. I'm obviously missing something.

 

[bluenova]

Whilst that claim is likely true, I fail to see the irony in it. I'm obviously missing something.

I think he saw the irony, rather than it being ironic that it was him saying it.

He suggested that welfare reform, and lower welfare bills, is something that he, and the Tories, support - and that he was now expecting Labour will be a lot less likely to make changes.

 

[bluenova]

Depends how deep and how far wide. I don't think many people would object if multimillionaires have to chip in a percentage or two. But my concern is I wonder if that would raise significant money. I also wonder why they would bother spooking the whole country about painful tax rises, if the plans were only to target a small number of (politically insignificant) millionaires and billionaires. The logical conclusion is that they are preparing us for more wide-ranging pain.

I've worked hard all my life and very recently retired. I have a very small pension but will be reliant upon a full state pension when it arrives in a couple of years. I have to fund myself until then. I am extremely concerned they may start to means-test state pensions, if not now, then at some point over the next 5 years. That would be a disaster and make all of the sacrifices I have made over the past 40+ years, a waste of time. And I would run out of money, in old age, with no ability to plug the gap.

Means testing state pension would be an absolutely suicidal idea for Labour.

It would not surprise me if the budget does contain some "tough" measures, but their does seem to be a lot of info in the public domain about the plans. Pretty much every economic editor in the media, and all the big financial institutions that brief on what to expect are saying the same things. It's the front pages of the Mail, Telegraph, Express etc., that talk about secret plans for taxes that they've already ruled out. There is that rule that the Mail has, where they publish very long stories, with speculation and innuendo at the start, followed by an analysis of what it would mean if "it" happened, and then, right at the end, statements saying it's almost certainly not going to happen. They can do it because they know 100% of people will read the headline, 90% the first paragraph, and by the time it gets down to the facts, it's like 10-20% who are still reading. People go away with the impression that want, while they get to claim they put forward a balanced argument.

Obviously no-one knows fully what to expect, and I do wonder if a curve ball like rerating council tax will be thrown in, but they've ruled out things like means testing the state pension, and dropping the single person council tax discount.

Most commentators seem to agree that it's likely that it'll be changes to Inheritance Tax, and changing CGT to be aligned with Income Tax. The changes to things like pensions and ISAs are predicted to be either caps of the total amounts, or reducing the extra tax relief that higher rate tax payers get.

 

[hammocity]

This from Leicestershire live about Waspi compensation:

"Back in May, then-leader of the opposition Sir Keir Starmer blasted the Tories and said: "The Ombudsman's report came out I don't know how many months ago now and the Government should have responded and they haven't done so … it is shocking that the Government hasn't dealt with it.” But his own Government has yet to pay out any compensation either.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves will deliver Labour's first Budget on Wednesday October 30, and at the beginning of September, she told the BBC it would involve "difficult decisions" on tax, spending and benefits, with it looking unlikely that WASPI compensation will be a priority"

DWP WASPI update on £3,000 'compensation' countdown battle

WASPI women born in the 1950s are waiting for payouts from the DWP

www.leicestermercury.co.uk

 

[Chippy_boy]

Just read this from Dan Wootton:

"The Sun was investigating Two Tier Keir’s marriage just months before the newspaper endorsed Labour. Then a pre-election deal between News Corporation and the now-PM saw him agree to drop plans for part two of Leveson Inquiry"

I have no idea if this is true, nor whether it can be proven. But thought it was worth posting, because if true, I think Starmer's days are numbered. If he's agreed to not to pursue potential legislation, in return for keeping quiet about something to do with personal life, he's toast.