The Labour Government

[metalblue]

An old statistic from a footnote in Tony Judt’s Ill Fares the Land:

‘In its last year of operation, 1994, state-owned British Rail cost the taxpayer £950 million. By 2008, Network Rail, its semiprivate successor company, cost taxpayers £5 billion.’

And from the same page:

‘The only reason that private investors are willing to purchase inefficient public goods is because the state eliminates or reduces their exposure to risk…The purchasing companies were assured that whatever happened they would be protected against serious loss - thereby undermining the economic case for privatization: the workings of the profit motive…The outcome has been the worst sort of ‘mixed economy’: individual enterprise indefinitely underwritten by public funds.’

For complete comparison double the miles are were being made by that time and with inflation it’s £1.5bn versus £5bn for double the miles. So about £3bn equivalent compared to £5bn - clearly not good but not as bad as those figures would suggest. Privatisation of the rails never really made sense.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

. . . . . . . . . .
I never knew winter starts in April next year or that Germans don't have private pensions which is why they get better state pensions.

Do we want decent state pensions and warm pensioners or not. The answer shouldn't be based on the party you vote for.

Ange is currently taking a week or two away from her aprrentice-bricky job of building a billion social houses and leading a task force to see if they can successfully crowbar April into a new slot between November and December.

 

[PPT]

A few of the purple posters on here have got themselves into a support Labour at all costs mess on this. For years they have rightfully moaned how our state pension is poor and compared to a lot of other European countries it is. We should be paying them more they rightfully cried.
When energy prices went up they demanded more help from the Tories for everyone including pensioners and rightly so.
Then a strange thing happened their party immediately scrapped the fuel allowance for all those not on pension benefits. They knew those above the line could well struggle but no they had to defend their party. All of a sudden their beliefs suddenly changed, those rich pensioners sod them but rather alarmingly those pensioners who aren't wealthy well that's their own fault. They should have got themselves a nice private pension like they have. The posters who hate the I'm alright Jack's of this world are now behaving like them.
Now the state pension is going up again in April so I presume they will be against this because a lot if those pensioners have a private pension? No? Thought not its like they're not judging a policy just the people delivering it.
The best though are the ones saying yeah but they're getting a rise in April.

I never knew winter starts in April next year or that Germans don't have private pensions which is why they get better state pensions.

Do we want decent state pensions and warm pensioners or not. The answer shouldn't be based on the party you vote for.

Exactly. Some of the political gymnastics that have been performed on this thread since July have been pretty spectacular! You really do just have to chuckle…

 

[Phil1]

Exactly. Some of the political gymnastics that have been performed on this thread since July have been pretty spectacular! You really do just have to chuckle…

I’m glad something makes you chuckle, was beginning to think you were incapable of being in a good mood. :-)

 

[Blue Maverick]

If it's the 5.71% that's predicted it'll be circa £650 which you fully deserve after paying in for 40 years.

What some people don't realise is the current cost of living increases eats into the savings us FOC's have made to make our retired life comfortable whereby some people in employment are now getting inflation busting pay rises.

A brick layer I know is now charging £300'a day and his "hod carrier" gets £170 a day, equivalent to £40k per year for a labourer.

And I bet they declare all that to the tax man as well!

 

[metalblue]

Does that mean the wfp is even more 'peanuts'?

I guess it’s not peanuts to the recipients that only just fall outside the arbitrary line where is not longer receivable.

The worst of it is that those who have paid their full stamp and don’t have any other previsions fall outside and those who haven’t contributed do. So you can theoretically end up in a situation where those who haven’t potentially worked a day in their life being better off than someone who hasn’t had a day on the dole - and that is inherently unjust.

 

[69FACUPfinal]

Dunno about your first question but it's irrelevant to my point.
The triplelock was a manifesto promise from Labour at the last election. They are now in power so has everything to do with this government.

Tories introduced some years ago iirc. They were in 14 years, Labour 13 before that. When i was working I took no notice of pensions info, however bore oldies no ill will and certainly didn't think their pensions were the cause of the economic blackholes unlike seems to be the mass received wisdom today put out by Government.

 

[69FACUPfinal]

I guess it’s not peanuts to the recipients that only just fall outside the arbitrary line where is not longer receivable.

The worst of it is that those who have paid their full stamp and don’t have any other previsions fall outside and those who haven’t contributed do. So you can theoretically end up in a situation where those who haven’t potentially worked a day in their life being better off than someone who hasn’t had a day on the dole - and that is inherently unjust.

This. And it irritates me beyond belief.

 

[hampshireblue]

I guess it’s not peanuts to the recipients that only just fall outside the arbitrary line where is not longer receivable.

The worst of it is that those who have paid their full stamp and don’t have any other previsions fall outside and those who haven’t contributed do. So you can theoretically end up in a situation where those who haven’t potentially worked a day in their life being better off than someone who hasn’t had a day on the dole - and that is inherently unjust.

Apparently @PPT can sort out the "scroungers"-he just won't share with us how to do it-12 days and counting.

 

[hampshireblue]

The problem with governments is that they bring in initiatives that are hard to take away once they have done it without causing a shit storm. The winter fuel allowance being one.

The Tory party cut national insurance by 2% when no one was asking for this and they knew that they were almost certainly going to lose an election. That just creates a bigger tax hole.

Spot on. The last reduction in NI was purely political. Labour should have reserved the right to reverse it on getting into power and seeing the state of the economy. I don't get why politicians of all parties back themselves into a corner on stuff like this-oh yes I do, the bloody press and their ability to spin anything the way their puppet masters dictate.

 

[bluenova]

I guess it’s not peanuts to the recipients that only just fall outside the arbitrary line where is not longer receivable.

The worst of it is that those who have paid their full stamp and don’t have any other previsions fall outside and those who haven’t contributed do. So you can theoretically end up in a situation where those who haven’t potentially worked a day in their life being better off than someone who hasn’t had a day on the dole - and that is inherently unjust.

Is that really the worst of it? The ONS did some research a few years ago on people who had never worked. They narrowed down to something like 10,000 out of 41 million, a group of "discouraged workers" who had not worked and had given up trying to find a job.

There really aren't lots of people who have never done a days work in their lives.

 

[Big Joe Corrigan]

Is that really the worst of it? The ONS did some research a few years ago on people who had never worked. They narrowed down to something like 10,000 out of 41 million, a group of "discouraged workers" who had not worked and had given up trying to find a job.

There really aren't lots of people who have never done a days work in their lives.

I think you’ll find there’s loads about 30 miles away ;)

 

[bluenova]

Spot on. The last reduction in NI was purely political. Labour should have reserved the right to reverse it on getting into power and seeing the state of the economy. I don't get why politicians of all parties back themselves into a corner on stuff like this-oh yes I do, the bloody press and their ability to spin anything the way their puppet masters dictate.

The 'hope' is that Labour can get the economy growing again, and balance the tax take through changes that will disproportionally affect the better off. If that allows the NI reductions to go ahead, then as well as a tax cut for the average person, it could even be redistributive.

Whether that happens isn't something any of can judge before Labour have even had their first budget, never mind five years.

 

[PPT]

Is that really the worst of it? The ONS did some research a few years ago on people who had never worked. They narrowed down to something like 10,000 out of 41 million, a group of "discouraged workers" who had not worked and had given up trying to find a job.

There really aren't lots of people who have never done a days work in their lives.

The current figure for people aged 16-24 in the UK who are ‘economically inactive’ (people not in work and not looking for work is 20.6 million. It has risen sharply since Covid and continues to increase. Admittedly not all of them are claiming benefits, but a decent chunk of them in all probability will be. The number of people not working due to long term sickness is now 7% of the working age population. This just isn’t sustainable.

 

[bluenova]

The current figure for people aged 16-24 in the UK who are ‘economically inactive’ (people not in work and not looking for work is 20.6 million. It has risen sharply since Covid and continues to increase. Admittedly not all of them are claiming benefits, but a decent chunk of them in all probability will be. The number of people not working due to long term sickness is now 7% of the working age population. This just isn’t sustainable.

I think it's 16-64, not 16-24, but that's not the issue I replied to (on the growth in economic inactivity, I agree with your post that it's not a good thing).

The quote I replied to was about people who had "never worked" and who were now pensioners, not people who are economically inactive in one quarter of a year.

The ONS found approx 3.6 million people had never worked when they surveyed in 2019, but nearly all were students who had yet to enter the job market. The next biggest group was younger mothers looking after small children.

Almost all these people will work at some point.

The number of people reaching pension age, never having done a days work in their lives, is a tiny amount.

 

[hilts]

UK state pension to rise by more than £400 a year, say reports

Figures reportedly seen by BBC show men born after 1951 and women after 1953 will get £12,000 in 2025 and 2026

www.theguardian.com

Just in time to have missed helping cold old folk;-)

 

[hilts]

Spot on. The last reduction in NI was purely political. Labour should have reserved the right to reverse it on getting into power and seeing the state of the economy. I don't get why politicians of all parties back themselves into a corner on stuff like this-oh yes I do, the bloody press and their ability to spin anything the way their puppet masters dictate.

The general public have to take their share of the blame, tell the truth about any tax rises and they lose their minds.
Starmer pretty much confirmed he is planning to suspend any mps who vote against him because they stood on the Labour mandate. Don't remember taking money off old poor cold folk being in their manifesto.
Nice to see he doesn't want other views in his party, Labour is a broad church he was forever saying. He's a bit of a **** on the quiet that bloke.

 

[hilts]

Is that really the worst of it? The ONS did some research a few years ago on people who had never worked. They narrowed down to something like 10,000 out of 41 million, a group of "discouraged workers" who had not worked and had given up trying to find a job.

There really aren't lots of people who have never done a days work in their lives.

I think it's quite important if you can to have worked most of your life tbh. If the stat doesn't include people who have done 20 yrs 20 months or 2 days it's a tad pointless imho.

 

[mexico1970]

I think it's quite important if you can to have worked most of your life tbh. If the stat doesn't include people who have done 20 yrs 20 months or 2 days it's a tad pointless imho.

You earn or pay into a pension you should get a pension and all which it entails, Labour cutting the cloth from the wrong fucking end and people on here supporting that?

 

[bluenova]

I think it's quite important if you can to have worked most of your life tbh. If the stat doesn't include people who have done 20 yrs 20 months or 2 days it's a tad pointless imho.

The post said the "worst" thing is not that there might be a few million pensioners in the middle, struggling, but now not getting the WFA. The "worst" thing was that there are a small number of people who are marginally "less deserving" than a small number of people just over the pension credit limit.

Given that benefit entitlement will often open up additions from free prescriptions, or access to replacement boiler programmes, some of the right wingers on here must have been constantly outraged for the last few decades.

ps. If you there are a large number of pensioners who have only ever worked 2 days or even 20 months in their entire lives, I'd like to see the stats. Given the number who reach pension age without doing any work is apparently tiny, it's a huge stretch to imagine there is any kind of significant number who have hardly worked.