Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Steve H on July 30, 2024, 03:10:14 PM
-
Now that the election's over, I thought a thread to keep tabs on the new Labour government might be a good idea.
I must say, I'm a bit disappointed in some ways: whipping all Labour MPs to keep the two-child benefit cap, and restricting the winter fuel allowance. Re. the former, my MP, David Taylor, said that the government has other plans to end child poverty; well, I dare say it does, but I'dn't've thought they were mutually incompatible.
Otoh, an above-inflation pay rise for public sector workers sounds good, though it's not a firm promise yet,
-
Now that the election's over, I thought a thread to keep tabs on the new Labour government might be a good idea.
I must say, I'm a bit disappointed in some ways: whipping all Labour MPs to keep the two-child benefit cap,
I have no opinion on that.
and restricting the winter fuel allowance.
This is a good thing, I think. My parents, for example, think it is ridiculous that they receive the winter fuel allowance. Obviously, it is a welcome addition for some pensioners but the richer ones don't need it.
Otoh, an above-inflation pay rise for public sector workers sounds good, though it's not a firm promise yet,
I agree that public sector pay has been eroded over recent years, but there always a downside to anything expensive like this.
-
his is a good thing, I think. My parents, for example, think it is ridiculous that they receive the winter fuel allowance. Obviously, it is a welcome addition for some pensioners but the richer ones don't need it.
I'd agree on this. It always felt like a very blunt hammer to solve a problem that arguably needed a needlepoint approach. I think Jeremyp and I discussed this last year or the year before. It is ludicrous that I get a winter fuel allowance when I can manage perfectly well on my pensions.
-
Aruntraveller describes my feelings about this matter accurately.
-
I don't, in general, like the idea of any universal benefit becoming means-tested. inevitably, ,the ceiling will be set too low.
-
I don't, in general, like the idea of any universal benefit becoming means-tested. inevitably, ,the ceiling will be set too low.
Worth reading Age UK's comments
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/articles/2024/age-uk-responds-to-the-chancellors-announcement-to-means-test-the-winter-fuel-payment/
-
George Osbourne on Rachel Reeves
https://x.com/StephenFlynnSNP/status/1819454077539176626
-
Approval ratings dropping
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news/content/ar-AA1pzNei?ocid=sapphireappshare
-
Worth reading Age UK's comments
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/articles/2024/age-uk-responds-to-the-chancellors-announcement-to-means-test-the-winter-fuel-payment/
This seems to me to be key:
“A big reason for this disastrous outcome is that more than one in three pensioners entitled to Pension Credit, the qualifying benefit for WFP under this proposal, don’t receive it, a proportion that’s been roughly constant for many years."
So the argument seems to be that you need to give WFP to everyone (including many very wealthy pensioners) because a lot of people who are on more restricted incomes don't get the benefits they are entitled to. So surely the focus should be on ensuring all that are entitled to pension credit get it rather than maintaining WFP for all. Those people would doubly benefit, both from retained WFP and pension credit. That would involve clear redistribution from those most wealthy to those most in need.
-
This seems to me to be key:
“A big reason for this disastrous outcome is that more than one in three pensioners entitled to Pension Credit, the qualifying benefit for WFP under this proposal, don’t receive it, a proportion that’s been roughly constant for many years."
So the argument seems to be that you need to give WFP to everyone (including many very wealthy pensioners) because a lot of people who are on more restricted incomes don't get the benefits they are entitled to. So surely the focus should be on ensuring all that are entitled to pension credit get it rather than maintaining WFP for all. Those people would doubly benefit, both from retained WFP and pension credit. That would involve clear redistribution from those most wealthy to those most in need.
Yes, but given the issue you don't withdraw it until that work has been substantially done.
-
Yes, but given the issue you don't withdraw it until that work has been substantially done.
Not necessarily as the process of withdrawing the universal WFP can be used to shake out those people who are eligible for pension credit but don't apply.
This seems analogous to the removal of child benefits from wealthier parents. That affected me and it was actioned by writing to all those who were getting the payments asking them to confirm whether their income was above the threshold and therefore would have the benefit withdrawn (there was an appeal process). If the same approach was applied to WFP you could also ask pensioners whether their income was above the threshold, and a supplementary question on whether the individual receives pension credit - join up those that are below the threshold but not currently receiving pension credit and ensure they get both pension credit and WFP. Job done.
-
Not necessarily as the process of withdrawing the universal WFP can be used to shake out those people who are eligible for pension credit but don't apply.
This seems analogous to the removal of child benefits from wealthier parents. That affected me and it was actioned by writing to all those who were getting the payments asking them to confirm whether their income was above the threshold and therefore would have the benefit withdrawn (there was an appeal process). If the same approach was applied to WFP you could also ask pensioners whether their income was above the threshold, and a supplementary question on pension credit - join up those that are below the threshold but not currently receiving pension credit and ensure they get it. Job done.
Writing job done isn't getting the job done. There was no move to get the uptake on credits up, and the rationale for the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance was the cost not the lack of uptake ob credits. What's tge net figure of savings if tge credits are fully taken up?
-
Writing job done isn't getting the job done. There was no move to get the uptake on credits up, and the rationale for the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance was the cost not the lack of uptake ob credits. What's tge net figure of savings if tge credits are fully taken up?
It seemed to work for the child benefits so don't understand why it wouldn't work for WFP.
It would clearly be in a person's interest to respond if their income is below the threshold (as that would trigger retained WFP). All HMRC would need to do is join up those that reported that they are below the income threshold but not receiving pension credit to allow them to receive the benefits they deserve.
By doing that not only would you ensure those eligible for WFP continue to receive it but ensure those people also get pension credit if they are entitled to it.
-
It seemed to work for the child benefits so don't understand why it wouldn't work for WFP.
It would clearly be in a person's interest to respond if their income is below the threshold (as that would trigger retained WFP). All HMRC would need to do is join up those that reported that they are below the income threshold but not receiving pension credit to allow them to receive the benefits they deserve.
By doing that not only would you ensure those eligible for WFP continue to receive it but ensure those people also get pension credit if they are entitled to it.
Which is work that wasn't announced up front. Rather as already covered it was in the context of the 'black hole' and wasn't announced as part of a reform merely a saving.
Again, if the credits are fully taken up, what is the overall saving ?
-
Which is work that wasn't announced up front. Rather as already covered it was in the context of the 'black hole' and wasn't announced as part of a reformed merely a saving.
Again, if the credits are fully taken up, what is the overall saving ?
I don't know what the saving would be, but presumably the issue of fairness and redistribution would be a factor too. So by aligning the process of withdrawal of WFP from wealthier pensioners with ensuring that the poorest pensioners (those eligible for pension credit) both retain WFP and get pension credit where they haven't previously you'd effectively be redistributing from those that simply don't need the WFP to those that are the poorest, but currently not getting what they are entitled to.
Sure the saving would be less than if you don't use the withdrawal of WFP to ensure those entitled to pension credit get it, but there would surely still be a considerable saving given that there are over 12M pensioners and from the article you linked to there are about 800,000 people who would (if the scheme works) now receive pension credit.
-
I don't know what the saving would be, but presumably the issue of fairness and redistribution would be a factor too. So by aligning the process of withdrawal of WFP from wealthier pensioners with ensuring that the poorest pensioners (those eligible for pension credit) both retain WFP and get pension credit where they haven't previously you'd effectively be redistributing from those that simply don't need the WFP to those that are the poorest, but currently not getting what they are entitled to.
Sure the saving would be less than if you don't use the withdrawal of WFP to ensure those entitled to pension credit get it, but there would surely still be a considerable saving given that there are over 12M pensioners and from the article you linked to there are about 800,000 people who would (if the scheme works) now receive pension credit.
So the work wasn't done. It wasn't part of the calculation. In terms of this action by the govt, it ignored those on pension credit, it made it purely about saving money from something they defended vociferously in the past, and means the claim that everything was fully funded at least incorrect if not necessarily a deliberate lie. It's hugely unpopular, see the approvals rating post this morning because it was badly done.
-
So the work wasn't done. It wasn't part of the calculation. In terms of this action by the govt, it ignored those on pension credit, it made it purely about saving money from something they defended vociferously in the past, and means the claim that everything was fully funded at least incorrect if not necessarily a deliberate lie.
I've no idea what calculations on the level of savings were used by the treasury on this, and I suspect nor do you. So it is perfectly possible (and obviously sensible) that they have also factored in an increase in pension credit costs as those pensioners eligible, but currently not claiming may recognise that they need to claim benefits that they are entitled to.
It's hugely unpopular, see the approvals rating post this morning because it was badly done.
Oh dear NS - category error - did the polling on approvals ratings specifically ask about the WFP proposals.
To see whether or not it is popular you need to ask a specific question about it, just as yougov did:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/07/30/65187/1
Strongly/tend to support - 47%
Strongly/tend to oppose - 38%
Seems that the public are broadly supportive of the proposals.
-
I've no idea what calculations on the level of savings were used by the treasury on this, and I suspect nor do you. So it is perfectly possible (and obviously sensible) that they have also factored in an increase in pension credit costs as those pensioners eligible, but currently not claiming may recognise that they need to claim benefits that they are entitled to.
Oh dear NS - category error - did the polling on approvals ratings specifically ask about the WFP proposals.
To see whether or not it is popular you need to ask a specific question about it, just as yougov did:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/07/30/65187/1
Strongly/tend to support - 47%
Strongly/tend to oppose - 38%
Seems that the public are broadly supportive of the proposals.
Yes, they are specifically referenced in the link as -33, didn't you read it?
As to whether they've done the work, wouldn't they announce that at the time of withdrawing, and cover the 'disastrous outcome' in terms of the inadequate pension credit uptake? Or are they just so incompetent, that they've done the work, and had plans to deal with that but forgot to announce thar at the time? Perhaps having said everything was fully costed, and then on denying that they got confused?
-
Yes, they are specifically referenced in the link as -33, didn't you read it?
Without seeing the actual data and, critically, the wording of the question it is rather hard to comment. I typically only comment on polling where I can see the question. The question on the YouGov polling which had a +9 support is linked, clear and seems to me to be completely unbiased (simply setting out the proposals). Come back with the details on this -33 polling, including the question and we can discuss.
But generally if there is a +9 vs -33 difference in polling it suggests that the question on one, the other or both isn't very neutral.
-
Barking
https://news.sky.com/story/economy-could-have-crashed-if-winter-fuel-payments-for-pensioners-werent-cut-labour-minister-claims-13207619
-
Opportunistic bunch of hypocritical slugs
https://x.com/Conservatives/status/1833470886269145212
This entire mess gives me the dry boak when I think of either lying toerag parties.
-
Not very well
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr54n3r0l50o
-
Not very well
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr54n3r0l50o
And some Labour MPs agree
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3dgvzy6do
-
Not great according to the poll.
But then getting rid of money for pensioners without an impact assessment while getting your wife's clothes paid for and getting thousands of pounds of tickets to see your football club will do that.
https://archive.vn/AG99b
-
Not great according to the poll.
But then getting rid of money for pensioners without an impact assessment while getting your wife's clothes paid for and getting thousands of pounds of tickets to see your football club will do that.
Freebies never seem to raise much consternation with Conservative governments.
Economic assessment of Labour in the polls is a bit premature.
The voters still look a bit fuckwitted not having learned their lessons from the debacle they unleashed from Brexit although
Starmer and Reeves look a pair of fuckwits.
-
Freebies never seem to raise much consternation with Conservative governments.
It did in this household.
That's not really the point though.
Labour, and Starmer in particular, implied that they were going to clean up politics Add to that the ongoing hints that we are going to be expected to swallow unpleasant economic news, hard decisions, yada, yada, yada and people will quite rightly conclude that he is indeed "2 tier Kier". You can't ask people to tighten their collective belts and then continue to get freebies for glasses, Taylor Swift, clothes, etc.
To stand any chance of regaining trust Labour must stop any personal donations of this type. End of.
He's pissed me off.
And I'm a Labour supporter, FFS.
-
It did in this household.
That's not really the point though.
Labour, and Starmer in particular, implied that they were going to clean up politics Add to that the ongoing hints that we are going to be expected to swallow unpleasant economic news, hard decisions, yada, yada, yada and people will quite rightly conclude that he is indeed "2 tier Kier". You can't ask people to tighten their collective belts and then continue to get freebies for glasses, Taylor Swift, clothes, etc.
To stand any chance of regaining trust Labour must stop any personal donations of this type. End of.
He's pissed me off.
And I'm a Labour supporter, FFS.
Totally.
-
Totally.
Agree, and the football shit is annoying me. If you're going to be in politics you might need to make a few sacrifices, and it might be a shame that you can't just use your season ticket to go to an Arsenal match with your son because your leader of the opposition/PM but that seems just part of the job. Many people who Starmer is supposed to represent would have no chance of affording season tickets. It's stupidly entitled.
The line being run out that 'we're not as bad as the Tories' is a disgrace. Rather like being pregnant, you are not just a little corrupt. You are corrupt.
-
Not bad speech by Starmer but seemed to take a long while to get going with some weird phrasing early on. It may just be remembered as the 'return the sausages' speech though.
https://youtu.be/mpyU3VsubGA?si=WAt93EjosT-ttl6Z
-
.
-
One take in the first hundred days
https://archive.vn/YarRt
-
One take in the first hundred days
https://archive.vn/YarRt
I see the article references political giant William Hague's analysis of New Labour.
I recall Hague couldn't manage a full English breakfast and New Labour had him for theirs.
-
I see the article references political giant William Hague's analysis of New Labour.
I recall Hague couldn't manage a full English breakfast and New Labour had him for theirs.
16 pints though
-
And another review of the first hundred days, this one especially for Vlad, from his replacement for Dick
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv2xp40vpvo
-
And another review of the first hundred days, this one especially for Vlad, from his replacement for Dick
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv2xp40vpvo
Dick is irreplaceable. I'm a bit of a Mormon when it comes to bogeypersons.
-
Council by elections are a bit hit and miss as indications of how a govt is doing but not generally good for Labour
https://archive.vn/1ynTc
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-loses-london-by-election-to-tories-amid-row-over-sadiq-khan-police-station-closure-and-winter-fuel/ar-AA1svkXa
-
Currently not that well in council by elections
https://electionmaps.uk/council-by-elections/24-29
-
Oh look it's a petition. It seems to be oddly cheered by some who thought little of the 6.1 million one that cancelling Brexit got, and vice versa.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2r4g98gjo
-
This article articulates much of my thinking on our current government:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/17/keir-starmer-tory-radical-prime-minister-poor-people
So, more reasons to be thoroughly depressed and pissed off.
-
This article articulates much of my thinking on our current government:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/17/keir-starmer-tory-radical-prime-minister-poor-people
So, more reasons to be thoroughly depressed and pissed off.
+1
-
This article articulates much of my thinking on our current government:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/17/keir-starmer-tory-radical-prime-minister-poor-people
So, more reasons to be thoroughly depressed and pissed off.
From nine years ago where the Labour Party are now
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11751.msg598864#msg598864
-
Neil Findlay former Labour Party MSP resigns from the party
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/former-scottish-labour-msp-resigns-34885258
-
Neil Findlay former Labour Party MSP resigns from the party
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/former-scottish-labour-msp-resigns-34885258
Hmm - if you polled 1000 people in the UK I wonder how many would have every heard of this chap before.
But a little digging revealed him to be a major cheerleader for Jeremy Corbyn - in which case the Labour party are well shot of him.
-
Hmm - if you polled 1000 people in the UK I wonder how many would have every heard of this chap before.
But a little digging revealed him to be a major cheerleader for Jeremy Corbyn - in which case the Labour party are well shot of him.
So what is your opinion of the reforms?
-
"Shit jobs will cure you, benefits claimants told" - from the Mash
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/shit-jobs-will-cure-you-benefits-claimants-told-20250319255666
-
So what is your opinion of the reforms?
This bloke seems to have three main gripes, so not sure which you are talking about - so to address each:
1. Winter fuel payment - yup agree with the change - particularly with the current challenges to public finance it is crazy to be giving payment to all people over a particular age regardless of whether they are poor or millionaires. And there are, of course, pensioners who genuinely need these payments (as interestingly there are in all age groups), and these people should (and I gather will) retain the payment. But there are plenty over 65 who are comfortably or well off and do not need them - those that consider the payment as their 'golf-trip' money or '6-nations' fund - yup both of those real cases from my experience).
And actually pensioners are not the poorest age demographic - indeed relative poverty (being below 60% median income) once housing costs are taken into account (pensioners have by far the lowest housing costs) pensioners actually have the lowest % in relative poverty. Ah, but it is about fuel poverty - well actually same applies - the over 75s have the lowest proportion in fuel poverty followed by 65-74.
https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-01/IFS-Report-Housing-costs-and-income-inequality-in-the-UK-edited.pdf (p17)
https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/demographics/pensioners/
2. WASPI women - don't get me started. No they shouldn't get compensation. They had decades to sort their financial position which most women in their demographic did. They were given ample notice and there was amply communication from government over many years. Take some responsibility for your lives - why should tax payers compensate them for failing to take notice and take responsibility. And of course this was about righting a gross inequality (that men got pensions at a later age). If anyone has a legitimate case that they have been disadvantaged it is the men who had to wait decades before the sex discrimination was finally abolished.
3. Benefits changes - well the devil will be in the detail, but the system absolutely has to be reformed. Not just because of the cost but because the current system is failing swathes of people, many of them young who are being disincentivised to work as they've been told they cannot work (as a binary yes/no) and if they try they lose their benefits. I am a strong believer in work, not just on financial grounds, but on respect, self-worth, ability to be aspirational etc etc and we are failing people if we simply accept that they cannot work, rather than supporting them to work.
I think there should be strong a presumption that people should work unless they cannot and those who can work should be incentivised and supported into work rather than left on the scrap-heap of benefits for life (which is a consequence of the current system). And work is completely different to how it was even a decade ago. Once if you couldn't easily travel or leave the house then work wasn't an option - now home working is the norm for many and so is part-time and flexible working practices). So the system should focus on what you can do, not what you can't.
And we also have the ridiculous situation (which I've seen many times) where the benefits system only allows someone to work a particular number of hours or they lose more in benefits than they gain in earnings. So in my business on several occasions we've had potential employees who we want to take on full time who say they can't work more than 16 hours a week and if they do they'll be worse off financially.
So yup - major reform absolutely needed and well overdue, but of course the most vulnerable (those who genuinely cannot work at all) must be protected - but not everyone on benefits (including health-related benefits) are in that most vulnerable group, by a long way.
This is pretty close to my views:
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/the-times-view/article/labour-has-grasped-the-nettle-on-benefits-but-its-only-a-start-xwv0hqndh
Over to you NS - what are your views on those three issues? Or you could of course merely debase a series of very serious issues with some kind of spoof article from somewhere like The Daily Mash! Oh, you already have!
-
This bloke seems to have three main gripes, so not sure which you are talking about - so to address each:
1. Winter fuel payment - yup agree with the change - is is crazy to be giving payment to all people over a particular age regardless of whether they are poor or millionaires. And there are, of course, pensioners who genuinely need these payments (as interestingly there are in all age groups), and these people should (and I gather will) retain the payment. But there are plenty over 65 who are comfortably or well off and do not need them - those that consider the payment as their 'golf-trip' money or '6-nations fund - yup both of those real cases from my experience).
And actually pensioners are not the poorest age demographic - indeed relative poverty (being below 60% median income) once housing costs are taken into account (pensioners have by far the lowest housing costs) actually have the lowest % in relative poverty. Ah, but it is about fuel poverty - well actually same applies the over 75s have the lowest proportion in fuel poverty followed by 65-74.
https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-01/IFS-Report-Housing-costs-and-income-inequality-in-the-UK-edited.pdf (p17)
https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/demographics/pensioners/
2. WASPI women - don't get me started. No they shouldn't get compensation. They had decades to sort their financial position which most women in their demographic did. They were given ample notice and there was amply communication from government over many years. Take some responsibility for your lives - why should tax payers compensate them for failing to take notice and take responsibility. And of course this was about righting a gross inequality (that men got pensions at a later age). If anyone has a legitimate case that they have been disadvantaged it is the men who had to wait decades before the sex discrimination was finally abolished.
3. Benefits changes - well the devil will be in the detail, but the system absolutely has to be reformed. Not just because of the cost but because the current system is failing swathes of people, many of them young who are being disincentivised to work as they've been told they cannot work (as a binary yes/no) and if they try they lose their benefits. I am a strong believer in work, not just on financial grounds, but on respect, self-worth, ability to be aspirational etc etc and we are failing people if we simply accept that they cannot work, rather than supporting them to work.
I think there should be strong a presumption that people should work unless they cannot and those who can work should be incentivised and supported into work rather than left on the scrap-heap of benefits for life (which is a consequence of the current system). And work is completely different to how it was even a decade ago. Once if you couldn't easily travel or leave the house then work wasn't an option - now home working is the norm for many and so is part-time and flexible working practices). So the system should focus on what you can do, not what you can't.
And we also have the ridiculous situation (which I've seen many times) where the benefits system only allows someone to work a particular number of hours or they lose more in benefits than they gain in earnings. So in my business on several occasions we've had potential employees who we want to take on full time who say they can't work more than 16 hours a week and if they do they'll be worse off financially.
So yup - major reform absolutely needed and well overdue, but of course the most vulnerable (those who genuinely cannot work at all) must be protected - but not everyone on benefits (including health-related benefits) are in that most vulnerable group, by a long way.
This is pretty close to my views:
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/the-times-view/article/labour-has-grasped-the-nettle-on-benefits-but-its-only-a-start-xwv0hqndh
Over to you NS - what are your views on those three issues? Or you could of course merely debase a series of very serious issues with some kind of spoof article from somewhere like The Daily Mash! Oh, you already have!
My god, a spoof article, the horror! Were you born with the stuck up your arse or did you have an operation to insert it?
-
My god, a spoof article, the horror! Were you born with the stuck up your arse or did you have an operation to insert it?
And your views on these three topics please?
Or is your latest post merely another one of your classic diversionary tactics to avoid answering a question.
You'll note you asked me a question (So what is your opinion of the reforms?) and I've answered it.
I have also asked you a question (Over to you NS - what are your views on those three issues?) - I await your response.
-
And your views on these three topics please?
Or is your latest post merely another one of your classic diversionary tactics to avoid answering a question.
You'll note you asked me a question (So what is your opinion of the reforms?) and I've answered it.
I have also asked you a question (Over to you NS - what are your views on those three issues?) - I await your response.
Bump for NS.
No response - surely you must have some views on:
1. Winter fuel allowance becoming means tested so that only the poorest pensioners.
2. On whether the so-called WASPI women (a small subset of women born in the 1950s who failed to recognise planned changes to the pension rules over about 2 decades) should receive compensation from tax-payers.
3. The proposed changes to the benefits system.
-
I can't speak for NS but I have my thoughts.
You cannot say you are going to keep the winter fuel allowance for all pensioners and then get rid of it. OK, it wasn't in the manifesto but up until a few weeks before the announcement Labour ministers were saying there would be no change.
Same with WASPI women - Labour supported them when in opposition giving the impression they would support them. Get elected then do a quick volte face.
As to the proposed changes to the benefit system, yes it needs overhauling, but should a Labour administration be targeting the poorest in society without saying what they will do to offset the losses to individuals that even the govt says will happen.
I just think you are being completely disingenuous here. If it were a Tory government doing these things you would be up in arms about it and rightly so.
Anyway new slogan announced:
The Labour government out conservating the conservatives.
-
I can't speak for NS but I have my thoughts.
You cannot say you are going to keep the winter fuel allowance for all pensioners and then get rid of it. OK, it wasn't in the manifesto but up until a few weeks before the announcement Labour ministers were saying there would be no change.
Same with WASPI women - Labour supported them when in opposition giving the impression they would support them. Get elected then do a quick volte face.
As to the proposed changes to the benefit system, yes it needs overhauling, but should a Labour administration be targeting the poorest in society without saying what they will do to offset the losses to individuals that even the govt says will happen.
I just think you are being completely disingenuous here. If it were a Tory government doing these things you would be up in arms about it and rightly so.
Anyway new slogan announced:
The Labour government out conservating the conservatives.
Thanks AT - but you are answering a different question to the one I asked.
I didn't ask whether you thought that Labour were a bunch of lying bastards for doing things in government that they said they wouldn't do in opposition.
What I asked was for your views on the actual issues.
And actually you are wrong that I'd be livid if the Tories had done these things, although there is some nuance.
On the WASPI women I would have been livid if they'd been compensated by the tories.
On WFA - I've never considered that these blanket payments to pensioners regardless of how rich or otherwise they were was justified. I'm pretty well off and will be when I retire. I'm too young currently to get WFA but when I get to that age I don't think it is appropriate use of tax payers money to give me a bung which I demonstrable won't need. There are far better uses for that money.
On benefits - well this is more complex and of course unlike to two above we don't really have the details. And here there may be a difference, which would be motivation. Had the tories proposed this I would have had concerns that it was merely a cost cutting measure to support tax cuts for the more well off. I have some hope (you might suggest naivety) that Labour will not just see this as a necessary measure to reduce the cost of benefits which will become increasingly unsustainable. But will also see this as a way to genuinely support people into work, which I think is an absolute priority. The number of people who could work if supported but are stuck, often for life, living entirely off benefits is frankly a scandal.
So AT - I'd be grateful if you could provide your views on whether you support or do not support the three issues, regardless of whether you consider Labour to be disingenuous through to lying bastards.