The Labour Government

[bluenova]

No.

No rose coloured specs here, I was 19 when my family got a council house, I was brought up in a terraced slum in Lower Broughton. Both parents had false teeth, dad smoked 30 Woodbines a day, as for diet! I really don't want to go there.

Progress isn't a uniform linear process, somethings progress even in the face of general decline and even then it's relative. For most people things are better now in 2024 than they were in 1964, across the board, but, and this is the point, in 1964 my dad, who didn't have to have two halfpennies to rub together, knew I'd have a better life than he did, how many dads can say the same today?

Is that not partly because of the changes since the 60s, which would be difficult to replicate again?

In the 60s, you still had quite a lot of houses with outside toilets. You probably didn't have central heating, or even hot water on tap. There were "easy" gains in life expectancy, which we'll struggle to match again. You didn't have a TV.

There will still be technological improvements, but I wouldn't be able to put together a list like that. I don't look at a billionaire and say that my life is lacking something basic that they have.

There have also been huge social changes, which have transformed the lives of women, LGBTQ+, and ethnic minorities. There's still a way to go, but the big leaps, and legal protections, have already happened, and will be difficult to replicate again.

Certainly, there's an argument that housing prices, pensions, university etc., were better for many, but then so many more people own their homes, go to university, or have a private pension, compared to the 60s.

I can see greater insecurity in my kids' futures, but a lot of that is due to the technological advances and AI, which could well see a major change in how we work, and the fear is that it will become even easier for a few individuals to peel off all the money.

 

[metalblue]

No.

I'm saying that history shows that given that choice the right in politics tend to opt for fascism.

That's why, in present circumstances, it's good that we have a fairly centrist government. Although almost every day, I see people calling Starmer a communist.

It's that kind of purblind nonsense we have to be on guard against. Starmer has 1001 faults, but communist he ain't and nor is his government. Who is motivating this absurd pretence?

Plenty will call him a communist like plenty called the tories fascist - it doesn’t mean they are worth listening too. The UK electorate generally votes for centrist parties. You’re right, IMHO, to sah that as the left moves to the centre the right moves further right - at least that is what we are seeing now.

I don’t think given the choice the right in the UK would vote for fascism any more than the left would vote for communism. Some will of course but not the majority.

 

[west didsblue]

Hard to be worse off than dead.

Not according to the Pet Shop Boys.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I don’t think given the choice the right in the UK would vote for fascism any more than the left would vote for communism. Some will of course but not the majority.

Nobody votes for fascism, because fascism doesn't reveal itself until it's already in power. And then, of course, suddenly 'everyone' votes for fascism, just like 'everyone' votes for Putin in Russia. People do vote for populist, simplistic solutions to complex problems though, and that's where extremists thrive.

 

[mancityvstoke]

You probably didn't have central heating, or even hot water on tap. There were "easy" gains in life expectancy, which we'll struggle to match again. You didn't have a TV.

Sounds like Stoke.

Have you got a colour telly ...have you fuck
Have you got double glazing...have you fuck
Have you got central heating, got central heating, got central heating ...have you fuck

Have you got an inside toilet ...have you fuck ctd

 

[hilts]

Hard to be worse off than dead.

You've obviously never lived in Wales

 

[Brewster's millions]

I don't think any politician these days would be able to stay in power with 1980s unemployment rates, especially if they justifies them by saying it was good for the economy.

Railways and buses are clearly a lot easier to bring back into state control, but polling shows huge levels of support for nationalisation of energy and water. I don't buy that as outright support, for the same reason it's not being done - People like the idea, but they wouldn't be keen on the costs of buying back private companies. For many, there was a genuinely positive attitude towards privatisation in the 80s, which I don't think would be an easy sell today.

I'd agree that the internet has sent a lot of industries rightwards. I don't know whether that would be an indication that the Overton window has changed (which is what this discussion was about), as I think technology has been moving faster than politicians, and the wild west online economy doesn't necessarily reflect people's beliefs.

Still, what's nice is that you get to agree with Postman Pep about something, which is quite heart warming at this time of year. So Merry Xmas to you :)

Merry Christmas to you mate.

 

[metalblue]

Nobody votes for fascism, because fascism doesn't reveal itself until it's already in power. And then, of course, suddenly 'everyone' votes for fascism, just like 'everyone' votes for Putin in Russia. People do vote for populist, simplistic solutions to complex problems though, and that's where extremists thrive.

Populism is really an echo chamber, as you say simplistic solutions that people say to their mates down the pub. And when you hear a politician say it you think they know what they’re talking about.

 

[dennishasdoneit]

This was introduced by the Tories, and the October 2025 start date was announced in 2023.

Yeah.
Two cheeks of the same arse.
I,m not taking sides here...
Just highlighting something ,that many people don't know about.

I didn't know about it,but then,I don't watch tv.

I've spoken to 2 separate people about it last night.....living in totally different areas of the UK.both looked at me blank faced.
Hence my decision to post on here in case anyone else ...didn't know about it.
And ...I salute your sharp appreciation of today's politics......but generally, imo, people didn't know.

 

[Vic]

Hard to be worse off than dead.

That's arguable. Dementia?

 

[metalblue]

That's arguable. Dementia?

Who is better off if they are dead? “You” or them?

 

[Vic]

Who is better off if they are dead? “You” or them?

"They" would happily take a pill to end it (not just dementia, can't walk unaided, 3 stays in hospital this year, two after falls, no idea it's Christmas).

 

[metalblue]

"They" would happily take a pill to end it (not just dementia, can't walk unaided, 3 stays in hospital this year, two after falls, no idea it's Christmas).

Dementia is a god awful disease mate and you have my absolute sympathy if this is someone you know, it’s the disease of multiple deaths and hardest on those who knew them before hand.

 

[RabidCity]

Of course. It proves the benefit of the NHS for life expectancy. And the problem it creates of unaffordable pensions for an ageing population - not releasing housing so younger people can't afford to start a family, so we need more immigrants to pay people pensions for 20-30 years.

Is that what you meant by taking political bias out of the argument?

The foundations for the reduction and eventual removal of the state pension are in place with widely available contributory pension options. As we've seen with the WASPI women, changes like this take time to implement and need plenty of notice. There's no doubt that pensions will be tackled in our lifetime, it's systematically unaffordable without a constantly growing workforce. It's just going to be a difficult political message that people will contribute to existing state pensions, without receiving one themselves.

 

[hilts]

Dementia is a god awful disease mate and you have my absolute sympathy if this is someone you know, it’s the disease of multiple deaths and hardest on those who knew them before hand.

They're are plenty of other illnesses that I wouldn't wish on anyone else including deep depression and other severe mental issues. Plus plenty exist rather than live.
So we can put to bed there aren't worse things than death.

 

[bluenova]

The foundations for the reduction and eventual removal of the state pension are in place with widely available contributory pension options. As we've seen with the WASPI women, changes like this take time to implement and need plenty of notice. There's no doubt that pensions will be tackled in our lifetime, it's systematically unaffordable without a constantly growing workforce. It's just going to be a difficult political message that people will contribute to existing state pensions, without receiving one themselves.

On a slightly more positive note, auto-enrolment has pretty much doubled the number of private sector employees who are contributing to pensions. Also, the average pensioner is already apparently better off than the average worker.

While there are plenty of issues that may well impact the future - from increased life expectancy v increases "healthy" lives, lower birthrates v immigration, home ownership rates/mortgages extending after retirement etc. - I don't think we're walking completely obliviously towards a cliff face abolition of the state pension.

 

[BayernMan]

 

[Kompany Car]

The foundations for the reduction and eventual removal of the state pension are in place with widely available contributory pension options. As we've seen with the WASPI women, changes like this take time to implement and need plenty of notice. There's no doubt that pensions will be tackled in our lifetime, it's systematically unaffordable without a constantly growing workforce. It's just going to be a difficult political message that people will contribute to existing state pensions, without receiving one themselves.

The state pension can be made affordable by removing the triple lock and linking it to earning growth. Additionally they should remove the lower threshold for NI payments and increase the upper threshold.

Abolishing the limit for maximum lifetime contributions was also crazy.

Should it be done immediately? No, it needs to be increased until it hits what is seen sufficient for a basic retirement, so around £14400 per year, next year it will be around 12k per year following the increase in April.

The state pension should not be means tested or at least the majority of the payment. This is in line with everyone else in Europe. Only Australia to my knowledge has a fully means tested pension, but they have a much higher level of mandatory contributions into the private schemes from both employers and employees, there is no opt out or minimum thresholds.

For reference the following shows how much of GDP the UK spends on pensions against other countries, most of whom have a lower retirement age.

 

[bluethrunthru]

The foundations for the reduction and eventual removal of the state pension are in place with widely available contributory pension options. As we've seen with the WASPI women, changes like this take time to implement and need plenty of notice. There's no doubt that pensions will be tackled in our lifetime, it's systematically unaffordable without a constantly growing workforce. It's just going to be a difficult political message that people will contribute to existing state pensions, without receiving one themselves.

The contributions under auto enrolment are too small to provide a decent pension. Eg if you were to enrol in a works pension in a job paying £40k pa to qualify for the maximum allowance at retirement you'd need to stick 15% ( £6k pa ) of your pay before tax every year - thats highly unlikely to happen.

I did 43 years 40 of them in the insurance industry where my employers had a final salary scheme - when I retired I get about £1500- £1600 per month. So the state pension of about £885 pm on current figs will be more than welcome when I finally get there as they deferred it to me reaching 68 yo.

Any Govt deciding to scrap the State Pension without the reforms having been enforced on private pension provision and increased contribution would get wiped out - that at the moment would be £885 pm every month - look at the pelters Labour have got for means testing a one off £300 payment

 

[BrianW]

The snag is, if we have a financial crash - quite possible if people are daft enough to vote for financially illiterate Reform - such harsh measures as means testing the state pension may well be forced on us by the IMF, who are not fluffy bunnies. In short, it's only within our government's discretion while we have a functioning economy.

I remember arguing with people who said the economy wasn't everything and that intangible things like 'sovereignty' were more important. My position remains unchanged. It is all about the economy because if that fails we are all fucked and nothing is off the table.

In my view, the UK economy is not currently fucked, but it certainly isn't secure and it wouldn't take that much to wreck it.

I think the triple lock is unaffordable in the medium/long term, but obviously, no political party wants the unpopularity of abandoning it. If politicians were remotely responsible, they would come together and agree on a long-term position on this and other issues like social care. Consensus, not point scoring.

My suggestion is that state pension should be an agreed percentage of minimum wage for 40 hours and should rise in line with the minimum wage. This would be much more affordable in the long term as there would be a link to economic growth.