The Labour Government

[mosssideblue]

I wouldn't miss it for the world mate. We've had donkeys years on the Tory thread with the same Labour luvvies slagging off every conservative for breathing. It's lovely having a few months of fun at their expense, and I look forward to the next 5 years of same... if the government lasts that long, which it may not.

10 years at least

 

[bluenova]

I don't have time to listen to it, but I imagine the person saying it is an idiot then.

There are - according to Martin Lewis - about 800,000 people eligible for pension credit who don't claim it. The average amount given to people who do claim is £3,900 per year (Martin Lewis again).

So schoolboy maths, if the 800,000 claimed it that would cost 800,000 x £3,900 = £3.12bn per year, i.e. way more than the amount of WFA saved.

QED

It's actually quite an interesting listen.

There are a few key bits.

One is that the 1.5bn figure already includes the likelihood of 95000 people signing up.

They also claim that the 3900 is out of date, and could be as low as 2900 (which brings the figure if everyone claimed down to around 2bn).

The other reason is slightly different to your argument. They said that there is almost no way that everyone will ever apply. They even spoke to a Lib Dem who worked in the coalition. At one point they tried a scheme where they worked out what they "thought" people had based on their tax situation, and simply gave then the money without them applying. After 12 weeks they contacted them, and said "we've been giving you this money because we think you are entitled to it. If you want to continue you just have to apply". Apparently lots of them never did. Whether it's because some just didn't want govt help, some of the amounts were small, or perhaps they were getting other income that hadn't come up and knew they wouldn't qualify, I don't know, but the point was that very high take up isn't going to happen.

One thing they didn't mention is that even the 2900 might be totally wrong. If your only income is £1000 a year of pension, then you're almost certainly going to apply for pension credit. If it's £11,000, then you're MUCH less likely to go through the process of claiming. So, as you increase the percentage claiming, the average claim will go down. The likelihood is that those not claiming, are eligible for a lot less than the average.

And not forgetting that Reeves herself has apparently said she wouldn't mind if the policy ultimately cost money, because it would mean that they'd been able to reach the very poorest pensioners.

 

[kaz7]

Public sector pay has fallen well behind private sector pay in the last 14 years, which is a major reason why the Tories were facing ongoing strikes across the sector.

The Government are also unsurprisingly, only going to be negotiating pay with employees in the public sector, so it's a bit of a red herring to say that it's "union mates". If you have a look at what they're planning on employment, it will give workers a lot more rights, more power to join a union, and there are even plans to look at collective bargaining across private sector industries, particularly in areas where employees are low paid and have little power.

You could have just posted bollocks, lol

 

[bluenova]

I don't doubt that, and I also don't doubt that those working in the public sector would like more money - who wouldn't? But I do wonder whether we should question whether those in the public sector *should* have comparable pay? Maybe it should be higher than the private sector because it's a terrible career and awful working conditions? Or maybe it should be lower because of better conditions and benefits other than salary? I don't know.

It's not like people are press-ganged into working the in public sector is it. I mean they CHOOSE to go into the public sector and they can leave it and get a better paid job elsewhere if they think their skills are worth it. I think the two career paths are entirely different with a different set of benefits and values, and it's far more complicated than saying public sector pays X, private pays Y and therefore public must get Y. There's pension contributions, retirement age, holiday entitlement, the free electric bike (for example), gym membership, sick pay, life assurance, flexible working, god knows what else.

My point is there is much more to it than pay.

Sorry if it's wasn't clear. It's that public sector pay has fallen being private sector pay in relative terms, not that it should be exactly comparable with the private sector.

This was from the FT, and it's starting with both sectors on 100 at the start of the coalition, but over time they've diverged.

 

[metalblue]

The most obvious thing would be to avoid the daft thing whereby someone eligible for pension credit ends up with a lot more than someone who doesn't quite qualify. Though I'm not sure even that is as clear-cut, as it seems you can get pension credit even if somewhat over the nominal threshold.

The BBC's stats-buster prog has an interesting item (first up) on some of this (and dismisses the idea that it could cost more than it saves by higher take-up on pension credit).

More or Less - Could the winter fuel cut cost more than it saves? - BBC Sounds

Plus, ONS transgender stats, early-onset cancer, and puzzles you’re meant to get wrong.

www.bbc.co.uk

100% agree on your first paragraph.

It was interesting listen to that, the last government ran a trail of a group of people who it thought would be eligible for pension credit and put the money in the bank for 12 weeks. Then wrote to them and said we’ve put this money in to your bank and this is what we think you’d be entitled to if you claimed. It seems nobody did.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Sorry if it's wasn't clear. It's that public sector pay has fallen being private sector pay in relative terms, not that it should be exactly comparable with the private sector.

This was from the FT, and it's starting with both sectors on 100 at the start of the coalition, but over time they've diverged.

View attachment 133018

Private sector pay has grown faster than public since the coalition started, but the opposite was true in the previous decade, and the differentials in private/public sector pay growth over the two periods are actually fairly similar.

All depends on your starting point.

 

[bluenova]

Private sector pay has grown faster than public since the coalition started, but the opposite was true in the previous decade, and the differentials in private/public sector pay growth over the two periods are actually fairly similar.

All depends on your starting point.

That sounds like Labour putting up pay, and the Tories reducing it, and now Labour putting it up again ;)

Still, a fall in real terms over more than a decade, surely isn't something any sector should consider a good thing, I'd have thought.

 

[Kompany Car]

Sorry if it's wasn't clear. It's that public sector pay has fallen being private sector pay in relative terms, not that it should be exactly comparable with the private sector.

This was from the FT, and it's starting with both sectors on 100 at the start of the coalition, but over time they've diverged.

View attachment 133018

And yet average public sector salaries are still significantly higher than private sector over the same period.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The other reason is slightly different to your argument. They said that there is almost no way that everyone will ever apply.

Of course. The debate was “would any money be saved if everyone eligible applied”. Of the 800,000 eligible, it’s inconceivable that even most of them would apply. And if they did, we couldn’t process the applications until time. Martin Lewis reckoned that with a huge push, the most they could get on pension credit would 100,000 out of the 800,000.

Labour knew this of course, which is why they planned that removing WFA would save money. If they actually expected a majority to claim pension credit, they would have known it wouldn’t save money and presumably would not have done it. Although tbf I do wonder if it was actually done to save money at all, but was more out a loathing of giving better off people £300.

 

[alan__mcfc]

Public sector pay has fallen well behind private sector pay in the last 14 years, which is a major reason why the Tories were facing ongoing strikes across the sector.

The Government are also unsurprisingly, only going to be negotiating pay with employees in the public sector, so it's a bit of a red herring to say that it's "union mates". If you have a look at what they're planning on employment, it will give workers a lot more rights, more power to join a union, and there are even plans to look at collective bargaining across private sector industries, particularly in areas where employees are low paid and have little power.

Not if you work for Crapita, no pay rise in 2024 and around 2% in 2023