The Labour Government

[Mr Kobayashi]

Some benefits are paid not based on ability to pay but on costs incurred that are above what would be expected for a heathy active person Personal independence payment or example. WFA recognises the increased costs of maintaining a comfortable temperature for the elderly. How much could be saved means testing PIP?

PIP is targeted. WFA for all state pensioners is not. That's the difference.

 

[inbetween]

Honestly, thinking about this, I think Starmer will be gone by end of 2025 if not sooner. The Labour zealots will doubtless laugh at that, and yes Labour do not have a history of ousting their leaders.

But I cannot see him lasting. He's demonstrating every week that he is politically incompetent. He's almost systematically pissing off every demographic, every section of society, other than the most devout and blinkered Labour supporters.

I don't know which exact (metaphorical!) bullet will get him but I think something will. Whether it be dead pensioners, or released criminals, or some international gaff, or caught lying to the house, or whatever. He will be forced to resign I think. I am *certain* he is going to increase taxes on "working people" in a few weeks time as well. I can only imagine how that will be received.

I am not suggesting his demise will result in a general election - we are stuck with Labour for 5 more years I am pretty sure. But I cannot see Starmer lasting the full term at all.

The biggest problem that Starmer has is his government wasn't positively elected, not many voted Labour because they wanted to vote Labour, they voted Labour to get rid of the Tories. He is however ruling Labour with an iron fist so I can't see him going anywhere.

If the public are so misaligned to believe that there is this world where we pay nothing and get everything then Starmer has no chance on appeal but neither does anybody else. The socialists believe in this sort of nonsense, they believe in a system where they punish the rich but the rich continue to be rich and so subsequently they pay for everything whilst everybody else pays nothing. To call this system one about equality is ironic but anyway...

The Reform argument is meanwhile the opposite type of nonsense, they think that we can support historic low taxes and all we need to do is find 'efficiencies' in everything else, plus we can save money by throwing out the leeching brown people... Obviously that is bollocks. The proof is in the pudding in Europe where they have moderately high taxes and excellent public services.

So Starmer has choices, he can raise taxes on the general population and fund public services properly and if he's honest about why then why would this be a problem? Or, he can opt for strict budgetary controls and throw us a bone every now and then which is sort of where he is now.

I suspect that Labour haven't worked out their tax policy and so they can't do much until then unless they break their promises on fiscal rules. The Tories were pitched here too but they were also pitched to a low tax policy and subsequently alongside poor spending choices they had no ability to do anything remotely good or useful for people.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Some benefits are paid not based on ability to pay but on costs incurred that are above what would be expected for a heathy active person Personal independence payment or example. WFA recognises the increased costs of maintaining a comfortable temperature for the elderly. How much could be saved means testing PIP?

There's VAST amounts of waste in the system. My mother-in-law who was a single parent and never worked much, got every benefit going. She had her rent paid for her, mobility allowance, PiP, pension credit and god knows what else. I was not close to it so I don't have the full list. But she never went anywhere and just accumulated more and more money. Eventually she went into a care home and thankfully the state got all but £23k of it back. But then of course she got all her care home fees covered as well. In addition, with her healh issues that went on for years, she had a house so full of unused drugs, she could have opened a pharmacy. She must have cost the state hundreds of thousands, having contributed almost nothing in tax and NI.

I wonder how many people like that we are all paying too much money to? Quite a lot, I would imagine.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The biggest problem that Starmer has is his government wasn't positively elected, not many voted Labour because they wanted to vote Labour, they voted Labour to get rid of the Tories. He is however ruling Labour with an iron fist so I can't see him going anywhere.

If the public are so misaligned to believe that there is this world where we pay nothing and get everything then Starmer has no chance on appeal but neither does anybody else. The socialists believe in this sort of nonsense, they believe in a system where they punish the rich but the rich continue to be rich and so subsequently they pay for everything whilst everybody else pays nothing. To call this system one about equality is ironic but anyway...

The Reform argument is meanwhile the opposite type of nonsense, they think that we can support historic low taxes and all we need to do is find 'efficiencies' in everything else, plus we can save money by throwing out the leeching brown people... Obviously that is bollocks. The proof is in the pudding in Europe where they have moderately high taxes and excellent public services.

So Starmer has choices, he can raise taxes on the general population and fund public services properly and if he's honest about why then why would this be a problem? Or, he can opt for strict budgetary controls and throw us a bone every now and then which is sort of where he is now.

I suspect that Labour haven't worked out their tax policy and so they can't do much until then unless they break their promises on fiscal rules. The Tories were pitched here too but they were also pitched to a low tax policy and subsequently alongside poor spending choices they had no ability to do anything remotely good or useful for people.

Very good post IMO. I don't agree with all of it, but much I do.

The bit I would differ upon, relates to Reform. I don't differ in terms of their approach being unworkable, which I agree it is. But I do differ about their ideology.

They might seem like they are just the anti-immigration party, but you have to remember they are also really the UKIP party. What UKIP stood for, and Reform still do, is the idea that we could be like Singapore, or some other low-tax, low regulation, small government sovereign nation (not that Singapore is all of these things). Where businesses thrive, tax revenues are high because the economy booms and everyone is better off.

Of course this pipe-dream completely ignore the fact that 50% of our trade was with the EU. And the EU would never allow such a regime, 20 miles off their coast, freely exporting into its market. So it was - and remains - a completely unrealistic aspiration. It was one of the main reasons I voted Remain.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

There's VAST amounts of waste in the system. My mother-in-law who was a single parent and never worked much, got every benefit going. She had her rent paid for her, mobility allowance, PiP, pension credit and god knows what else. I was not close to it so I don't have the full list. But she never went anywhere and just accumulated more and more money. Eventually she went into a care home and thankfully the state got all but £23k of it back. But then of course she got all her care home fees covered as well. In addition, with her healh issues that went on for years, she had a house so full of unused drugs, she could have opened a pharmacy. She must have cost the state hundreds of thousands, having contributed almost nothing in tax and NI.

I wonder how many people like that we are all paying too much money to? Quite a lot, I would imagine.

Strange thinking. You are describing (at least that's the impression I get) a genuine case of someone so disabled that they were housebound and couldn’t work.

We don't expect disabled people to pay back more than they get in.

Being aged over 66 isn't a disability.

 

[Manc in London]

Playing with fire.

If an assessment was done and says anything about excess deaths, Starmer would have no choice other than to bury it, or his career as PM is over.

Now, if there is such a document, and it leaks - which it will if it exists - his career is also over.

Also pretty damning if they didn't do any assessment at all.

Any which way, a poll tax moment. As soon as people start dying from cold - and thousands do every year - this will haunt him.

I have both read and produced many impact assessments in relation to social policy. We have had to do a lot of these in the last 15 years in the areas of benefits and social care due to Tory policy.

Impact assessments state not just the impact but mitigating actions. In this instance, there would be reference to the likes of 'increased probability in negative health outcomes etc..' details of actions to mitigate the issues highlighted.

Just to add, Government did produce an equalities impact assessment. This will include an assessment of impact (and mitigating actions) for all protected characteristics and I expect a section on social class / income. What are you expecting to be an impact assessment but not in the equality impact assessment?

If there is no other impact assessment, it will unlikely lead to the doom scenario you suggest. Labour will also use the increase in pension payments and the likely reduction in utility prices compared to the last two years.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Strange thinking. You are describing (at least that's the impression I get) a genuine case of someone so disabled that they were housebound and couldn’t work.

We don't expect disabled people to pay back more than they get in.

Being aged over 66 isn't a disability.

She was only disabled in later life. For years she just couldn't be arsed to work. But I don't begrudge her getting appropriate benefits at all. What I am questioning is why were the level of benefits so high that she was getting richer, year upon year, merely out of state funding. Seems wrong to me. Also the wasted drugs. Tens of thousands wasted, repeat prescriptions just sent automatically and stuffed in draws. Huge amounts of waste.

Strange comment about being over 66 not being a disability. No idea what you mean by that.

 

[hammocity]

Are you considered the poorest pensioners or reasonably well off?

We're fine, I retired early, been funding that for 3 years, not wealthy but not poor, no benefits of any kind even though our only income is Mr's H £884 every four weeks, I get my SP next May, wont have to subsidise my retirement as much after that.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I have both read and produced many impact assessments in relation to social policy. We have had to do a lot of these in the last 15 years in the areas of benefits and social care due to Tory policy.

Impact assessments state not just the impact but mitigating actions. In this instance, there would be reference to the likes of 'increased probability in negative health outcomes etc..' details of actions to mitigate the issues highlighted.

Just to add, Government did produce an equalities impact assessment. This will include an assessment of impact (and mitigating actions) for all protected characteristics and I expect a section on social class / income. What are you expecting to be an impact assessment but not in the equality impact assessment?

If there is no other impact assessment, it will unlikely lead to the doom scenario you suggest. Labour will also use the increase in pension payments and the likely reduction in utility prices compared to the last two years.

I dunno whether this will get him in the end. Maybe it will, maybe not.

But the lies become more and more apparent, day by day. Now we are told, and I quote " 'The Government will be ensuring that those who are most vulnerable and should be receiving support are receiving it, and that's why there is a huge effort to try and convert people onto pension credit."

There are two possibilities. Either the above is a lie. Or alternatively the "We had to make the changes to WFA in order to balance the books and reassure the markets"* is a lie.

It's either lie A or lie B. No money at all will be saved if significant numbers claim pension credit. So logically, either the government does not want or expect them to claim it, or it is not expecting to save any money. There's no escaping their dishonesty here.


* Not an actual quote, but I will dig one out should any pedants demand it. That is - in terms - what has been said.

 

[ganganvince]

PIP is targeted. WFA for all state pensioners is not. That's the difference.

Accept that is a big difference but the big similarity is that it is paid regardless of financial need