New Labour government - legislative agenda

[two sheds]

It's a lot easier to do this than "tax the rich". The rich have lawyers and accountants. They stick things in offshore accounts and are already set up to avoid taxes. Their friends run stories about how everybody is going to leave if anybody dares to tax them.

So he's taking the easy choices rather than the hard choices then.

 

[Silas Loom]

Or, before we decide that Starmer is loading all the pain on pensioners, we could wait and see what the budget does to increase taxes on wealth, especially capital gains tax and higher-rate pension tax relief. It’s only a matter of weeks.

 

[DotCommunist]

It's a lot easier to do this than "tax the rich". The rich have lawyers and accountants. They stick things in offshore accounts and are already set up to avoid taxes. Their friends run stories about how everybody is going to leave if anybody dares to tax them.

those friends camp outside your house for four years straight.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Will that raise £20 billion?

If it does then they can probably get rid of the "Office for Value for Money" that they want to create. And reverse the cuts to hospitals, roads and rail. That'll be good.

Doesn't the National Audit Office effectively have oversight as to whether government spending of public funding is value for money or not?

 

[PR1Berske]

It's interesting that so many posters have essentially stepped away from "the Tories got an easy ride when giving the wealthiest retirees everything" and have chosen to direct their fire only on "Starmer is an enemy of all elderly people"

I don't deny that restricting the payments is going to be tough. But I guarantee that we've all has arguments and discussions on whether it's fair to give the wealthiest pensioners free TV licenses, WFA, etc, and not ask those who can afford it to consider whether it's fair that they receive what they might be able to do without.

"Tax the rich!" isn't something I object to. I'm not conservative, I'm a broadly centrist fence-sitter, I'm not as "of the left" as many regular posters so I don't see things from that perspective.

 

[PTK]

It's interesting that so many posters have essentially stepped away from "the Tories got an easy ride when giving the wealthiest retirees everything" and have chosen to direct their fire only on "Starmer is an enemy of all elderly people"

I don't deny that restricting the payments is going to be tough. But I guarantee that we've all has arguments and discussions on whether it's fair to give the wealthiest pensioners free TV licenses, WFA, etc, and not ask those who can afford it to consider whether it's fair that they receive what they might be able to do without.

"Tax the rich!" isn't something I object to. I'm not conservative, I'm a broadly centrist fence-sitter, I'm not as "of the left" as many regular posters so I don't see things from that perspective.

The Starmer government is certainly an enemy of poor people with more than two children.

 

[belboid]

348 vote to kill pensioners. So 56 Labour MP's didnt, can't tell how many voted against yet, although most clearly abstained.

 

[Bingoman]

348 vote to kill pensioners. So 56 Labour MP's didnt, can't tell how many voted against yet, although most clearly abstained.

According to Sophy Ridge on Sky news she said at least 50 Labour MPs have gone missing and didn't vote

 

[Chz]

According to Sophy Ridge on Sky news she said at least 50 Labour MPs have gone missing and didn't vote

That tracks. Vote was 348-228=576 out of 650 MPs.

 

[taperoo2k]

Not an unexpected result. But I do think Labour will come to regret this policy.
The way things are going so far, I think I'll be voting Liberal Democrat or Green
at the next election.

 

[Dystopiary]

Disability Poverty Campaign Group (DPCG) made a statement yesterday, urging MPs to vote against scrapping the WFP. To no avail.

Extract of their statement:

The withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Payment will not only drive people into greater poverty and ill health but will result in higher levels of winter deaths. The withdrawal of Winter Fuel Payment should be voted against.

DPCG urges all MPs to vote against the proposed cut to the Winter Fuel Payment in recognition of the hardship it will cause for low-income disabled pensioners.

If the Government proposal is accepted, older Disabled people, many of whom have at least one age-related impairment, will struggle to heat their homes and power essential equipment needed for health and mobility. It will drive an increase in poverty and contribute to an excess of winter deaths.

Disabled lives depend on warm homes and uninterrupted and affordable energy supply.

Disability Poverty Campaign Group (DPCG) Statement on the parliamentary vote on Winter Fuel Payments | Disability Rights UK

 

[taperoo2k]

Same old thing, Westminster Politicians not listening to anyone. Just going along with what the party
leadership wants in hopes of climbing the greasy pole into Government.

 

[The39thStep]

It's interesting that so many posters have essentially stepped away from "the Tories got an easy ride when giving the wealthiest retirees everything" and have chosen to direct their fire only on "Starmer is an enemy of all elderly people"

I don't deny that restricting the payments is going to be tough. But I guarantee that we've all has arguments and discussions on whether it's fair to give the wealthiest pensioners free TV licenses, WFA, etc, and not ask those who can afford it to consider whether it's fair that they receive what they might be able to do without.

"Tax the rich!" isn't something I object to. I'm not conservative, I'm a broadly centrist fence-sitter, I'm not as "of the left" as many regular posters so I don't see things from that perspective.

I've read this several times and still won't understand the points or points you are making. If you don't object to taxing the rich then why arent you advocating taxing the rich?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

It wouldn’t be a bad thing to encourage people living alone in homes which are too big for them to trade down. Council tax values need to be reassessed and tied to property values and redistributed nationally anyway,

What if a single person is already living in a property that's in council tax Band A and downsizing wouldn't reduce their council tax liability?

And you're assuming that they have sufficient savings to move, which can cost thousands.

 

[Silas Loom]

What if a single person is already living in a property that's in council tax Band A and downsizing wouldn't reduce their council tax liability?

And you're assuming that they have sufficient savings to move, which can cost thousands.

Band A houses are usually pretty small, so this just a reprise of the argument that has been trotted out several times on this thread about studios and two bedroom flats. Since it’s you, though, I’ll assume it’s being deployed in good faith.

I am not suggesting that anyone in Band A downsizes. Why would I?

The heftiest council tax bills, where 25% discounts make the greatest difference, apply only to the largest houses - which it could be argued should really be occupied by families, given the general shortage of housing. In these cases, of course, equity easily funds the moving costs and stamp duties.

Single people - especially the widowed elderly - have a perfect right to occupy very large houses that they feel comfortable in, but it’s reasonable to question property tax incentives for this choice.

 

[belboid]

53 Labour MPs didnt vote for the cut, although that includes 8 ministers who were undoubtedly allowed to miss the vote. Jon Trickett was the only. Labour MP to vote against - a number which doesn't include the 7 already suspended.

 

[PR1Berske]

What happened to those MPs who voted against the 2-child cap removal might have played on some minds.

 

[Silas Loom]

It’s a reasonable deal, no penalties for abstention but join the outcasts if you vote against. Surprised Trickett wasn’t already on the naughty step.

 

[PR1Berske]

Bell Ribeiro-Addy, the Labour MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill, said she had been unable to attend the vote because she had been in Ghana for her father's funeral.

However, she insisted she would have defied the Government if she had been in the UK.

She said in a post on X: "For clarity, the reason I am unable to attend today's vote on winter fuel payment cuts is because I am still out of the country following my Dad's funeral in Ghana.

Former Conservative leader and work and pensions secretary Sir Iain Duncan Smith said he was "appalled" by the Government's decision to scrap winter fuel payments.

"I am appalled that the first act of this Labour Government has been to announce that they will abolish the Winter Fuel Payment for millions of pensioners," Sir Iain said.

"Pensioners have earned the right to dignity and respect in retirement, and I am opposed to the Government’s plans.

"I will maintain pressure on the Government by campaigning to reverse this decision, as I know that it will impact many of my constituents in Chingford and Woodford

 

[Smokeandsteam]

What happened to those MPs who voted against the 2-child cap removal might have played on some minds.

Perhaps the 100,000 pensioners they’ve just voted into poverty should have been playing on their minds instead?

 

[two sheds]

Looks like my MP abstained - TheyWorkForYou says she's not voted against the government but also that she's not voted on any of the issues they track.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Looks like my MP abstained - TheyWorkForYou says she's not voted against the government but also that she's not voted on any of the issues they track.

Abstainers are here:

https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/1840#notrecorded

 

[Chz]

Perhaps the 100,000 pensioners they’ve just voted into poverty should have been playing on their minds instead?

Clearly since only 20% of over 70s voted Labour, they need to be gotten rid of. 60-69 year olds to be forbidden from aging.

 

[urbanspaceman]

Helen Hayes and Florence Eshalomi both supported the government, that is voted to stop WFP.

 

[two sheds]

Nope - Jayne Kirkham - not there she indeed voted against, disappointing I'd thought she was a bit humane

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's interesting that so many posters have essentially stepped away from "the Tories got an easy ride when giving the wealthiest retirees everything" and have chosen to direct their fire only on "Starmer is an enemy of all elderly people"

I don't deny that restricting the payments is going to be tough. But I guarantee that we've all has arguments and discussions on whether it's fair to give the wealthiest pensioners free TV licenses, WFA, etc, and not ask those who can afford it to consider whether it's fair that they receive what they might be able to do without.

"Tax the rich!" isn't something I object to. I'm not conservative, I'm a broadly centrist fence-sitter, I'm not as "of the left" as many regular posters so I don't see things from that perspective.

These kinds of discussions have come up on here many times before. An argument for universalism is that it is efficient to administer and guarantees catching the maximum number of people in need. (There are other arguments as well, to do with such things as dignity and decency.)

Means-testing always misses a significant chunk of the people who are eligible for the benefit, for a variety of reasons, such as chaotic lifestyle meaning you don't have the wherewithal to claim, cognitive impairment meaning the same, or pride about not claiming benefits. This has been well-studied and is well-evidenced.

Universal benefits/credits etc of course also reach those who don't need them. But such people can and should be expected to pay for them through the tax system - if they are rich enough, paying not only for their allowance but for other people's allowances as well.

These same arguments apply to a wide range of benefits and also to things like university education. As an aside, I don't quite see why they don't apply to the NHS as well. Why don't the rich have to pay for doctor appointments? For reasons that I don't fully understand, this particular universalism is accepted while others meet with resistance.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Looks like my MP abstained - TheyWorkForYou says she's not voted against the government but also that she's not voted on any of the issues they track.

Our newly elected cunt voted in favour. I will be asking him why at his next surgery.

 

[Silas Loom]

These kinds of discussions have come up on here many times before. An argument for universalism is that it is efficient to administer and guarantees catching the maximum number of people in need. (There are other arguments as well, to do with such things as dignity and decency.)

Means-testing always misses a significant chunk of the people who are eligible for the benefit, for a variety of reasons, such as chaotic lifestyle meaning you don't have the wherewithal to claim, cognitive impairment meaning the same, or pride about not claiming benefits. This has been well-studied and is well-evidenced.

Universal benefits/credits etc of course also reach those who don't need them. But such people can and should be expected to pay for them through the tax system - if they are rich enough, paying not only for their allowance but for other people's allowances as well.

These same arguments apply to a wide range of benefits and also to things like university education. As an aside, I don't quite see why they don't apply to the NHS as well. Why don't the rich have to pay for doctor appointments? For reasons that I don't fully understand, this particular universalism is accepted while others meet with resistance.

WFP isn’t universal, though. Only pensioners and people on means-tested benefits get it.

The problem is that there are a raft of means-tested benefits where being a pensioner is treated as a proxy for evidence of need, even though that’s obviously unsatisfactory and unfair to other age groups.

 

[two sheds]

Our newly elected cunt voted in favour. I will be asking him why at his next surgery.

in favour? that's against the 'have a go at pensioners' option. You mean voted No?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

WFP isn’t universal, though. Only pensioners and people on means-tested benefits get it.

It's currently universal for pensioners, though. So pensioners are not means-tested, meaning for example that those who are too proud to submit themselves to means-testing are not missed by the benefit.

You can guarantee that a significant number of pensioners in need who are eligible for the payment will be missed.