The Labour Government

[mexico1970]

They've both just turned 80 so had the state pension for 15 and 20 years respectively.

They still had to wait for their pension though, I can't see the problem with that at all.

 

[RiversideBlue]

They still had to wait for their pension though, I can't see the problem with that at all.

I might be being thick but I think I'm missing your point. What does them having to wait until they retire have to do with my original post about them not needing the winter fuel payment as they're well off and that the money would be better going to someone who actually needs it?

 

[mexico1970]

I might be being thick but I think I'm missing your point. What does them having to wait until they retire have to do with my original post about them not needing the winter fuel payment as they're well off and that the money would be better going to someone who actually needs it?

I don't think you are missing my point really, I did state that we could means test additional benefits like the cold weather payments but my point was that had nothing to do with them retiring at 52 because they wouldn't have been eligible as pensioners.

 

[Kompany Car]

Uk national debt is very high so a few dead old folk is necessary, the £2,720.8 billion should clear pretty quickly.

They didn't want to do it but there was no other choice.

The national debt like any other business debt its only an issue if you can’t service the interest payments (which in the case of the UK needs to be restructured and would save a fortune but I won’t get into that). As long as the economy grows in line with the borrowing, which is why correctly planned infrastructure projects should be a no brainier, for the likes of the average person the national debt has the same impact as the weather on Venus.

Of late the UK government has been obsessed with dramatically reducing it. France’s debt as a percentage of GDP is 111%, Belgium, Spain and Canada are all similar and higher than the UK. Yet particularly Canada and France are still spending to drive growth at a much higher rate than the UK, not trying to cut back.

 

[waspish]

It’s old ground but it was built on lies-and has been a disaster.

Perhaps a second vote should be held.

Yep but Starmer already said there won't be one maybe the next leader will do it

 

[hilts]

The national debt like any other business debt its only an issue if you can’t service the interest payments (which in the case of the UK needs to be restructured and would save a fortune but I won’t get into that). As long as the economy grows in line with the borrowing, which is why correctly planned infrastructure projects should be a no brainier, for the likes of the average person the national debt has the same impact as the weather on Venus.

Of late the UK government has been obsessed with dramatically reducing it. France’s debt as a percentage of GDP is 111%, Belgium, Spain and Canada are all similar and higher than the UK. Yet particularly Canada and France are still spending to drive growth at a much higher rate than the UK, not trying to cut back.

So no need to kill off pensioners then to save 0.055 % of national debt(head maths dont shoot me)

 

[Vic]

The NI cut is of no relevance whatsoever -zilch- to the question of whether the previous government misled on the likely profile of departmental expenditure this year and beyond.

Quite why you keep banging on about it is anyone’s guess.

It’s ironic that somebody who claims to be left wing continues to criticise a tax cut which by definition helps working people - low earners especially - while at the same time making excuses for a decision as crass as removing the WFA.

Now I think you're just being silly.

I criticise a tax cut that was a desperate, cynical last throw by a defunct and dying government, knowing that it would have to be funded by "government borrowing, stealth tax rises and a squeeze on public spending to come after polling day".

If you're suggesting that helping the working poor with a tax cut rather than maintaining a benefit for pensioners, most of whom are not poor, is a good proposal, that's the sort of choice to be made. But don't then blame the new government for having to raise other taxes or cut spending to pay for that tax cut.

I'll cut you some slack as Tory pain is obviously real.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Fair enough, I can admit I have misinterpreted, the Treasury provides the estimate. But then in that case, I’m inclined to wait for the OBR’s review to be complete before declaring it outright bollocks.

I think there are two questions here that get conflated - one is does the gap exist? My suspicion is that yes it does, and it is at least in part made up of differences in policy on things like public sector pay - things that were predictable.

The second question is whether there is impropriety in the March forecast, things like wedging in unfunded commitments. I think that is the bit that we won’t know until the investigation is complete.

There is a third question around whether the gap actually means anything in practice (it is based on guidelines, it’s not as if the economy suddenly crashes if a spending limit gets breached). But I think that’s an entirely different matter.

We should wait for the OBR report, although as you suggest it’s easy to conflate different issues here, and for that reason I don’t think the report will be definitive on the £22bn figure.

The Treasury report suggests that there are genuinely unfunded spending commitments which total £2.6bn this fiscal year. Naturally this figure should also feature in the OBR report. But given that most of the 22bn figure relates to differing assumptions around public sector pay, the OBR won’t be able to state what level of pay award should have been budgeted for, and in turn how large the shortfall in projected spending would be, because that’s a political decision.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

It’s old ground but it was built on lies-and has been a disaster.

Perhaps a second vote should be held.

The first vote should not have been a simple majority. Something as important should have had to reach 60 or 70 per cent in favour of a change. Anything less and it's the status quo!

 

[hilts]

Now I think you're just being silly.

I criticise a tax cut that was a desperate, cynical last throw by a defunct and dying government, knowing that it would have to be funded by "government borrowing, stealth tax rises and a squeeze on public spending to come after polling day".

If you're suggesting that helping the working poor with a tax cut rather than maintaining a benefit for pensioners, most of whom are not poor, is a good proposal, that's the sort of choice to be made. But don't then blame the new government for having to raise other taxes or cut spending to pay for that tax cut.

I'll cut you some slack as Tory pain is obviously real.

Why do they have to? Who is forcing them?


Is it the black hole? Are they being sucked into it?