So many missteps, waiting 16 weeks for a budget, having an investment summit before the budget, taking the winter fuel allowance which saves such a tiny amount overall, the optics of Starmer’s freebies, sacking the Chief of Staff and giving her a job she doesn’t turn up for. The markets will be watching the borrowing from the budget and Reeves credibility is on the line.
Instead of taking money from the elderly and people who need it, why not finally charge the big companies like Google, Amazon etc the taxes they haven't paid over the past 6/7 years!!
General rule of thumb: if you’re a bloke and on the internet, the first thing you can put ‘why don’t they just…’ in front of is probably not the solution to the problem.
@JackGladstoneHolroyde thank for the asanine statement, let's use it shall I. Why don't you read the statement before saying something that has not been said. There problem, solution, done
You should take this up with the Irish Government because that is where these companies are domiciled for tax purposes. UK Corporation Tax is 25%. Irish Corporation Tax is 12.5%. No brainer. The majority of Labour’s donors are very rich individuals/corporations who won’t take kindly to this Government increasing their taxes. Any attempt to put up taxes by say, Amazon, will result in higher prices for the consumer and companies leaving the UK to go abroad taking jobs with them.
I would suggest that it is more like 40% of pensioners NEED the winter fuel payment ,and YES it does look a spiteful and vindictive move on perceived Tory voters .I am 72 and will never vote Labour again .Never tory ,but not Labour !
@@louisboylan7623not really a subsidy when the majority of pensioners have paid NI and tax for their whole working lives. Up to 50 yrs. A bit heartless. While there are those who don’t need it, to say YOU can’t afford to subsidise the lower paid pensioners is harsh.
@@louisboylan7623Your comment is not helpful. What would your comment be if you were told that Next month your salary was £300 less than you were expecting?
@@perkinscrane how I feel is not an appropriate consideration for expenditure decisions - it baffles me how free money for the least productive, richest and most likely to own their home age group is not obviously a horrible investment.
Cunliffe thinks that the winter fuel allowance (WFA) isn't necessarily a disaster. In what universe does she inhabit where she thinks that an old person on £11,400 a year is sufficiently well-off that they do not require the allowance? Eaton thinks that voters might believe that withdrawing the WFA (whilst simultaneously awarding well-paid train drivers even more dosh) might highlight Labour's fiscal prudence to the electorate. They both demonstrate how wonderfully out of touch the posh English metropolitan middle-class are in their smug wee bubble.
@@csharpe5787 The Labour commissioned report said up 7,000 pensioners could die,this stopped the Tories from stealing it...they now going to condemn thousands to an early grave.... Saviour's in opposition... Executioners in goverment.
Realising in this episode that the media is too busy talking about nonsense rather than things which will actually affect people? Knock me over with a feather.
Crass comments on Winter fuel allowance (90% of pensioner do not need it. Total lie) by commentators. Also, it is the Stupidity of the reform that is worrying. Out of 12.5 Mln pensioners 4.5 approx do not pay income tax because they earn less than £ 12 570 pa (Personal Allowance). This group should obviously keep the allowance. As per the rest 8 mln income tax payers, they could have applied a simple tapering mechanism, starting for instance, from an income of £ 15 000 pa. There are good reasons for granting an allowance to pensioners; simply because they are much more vulnerable to cold and related sickness. Pensioners that are now facing 10% increase in energy prices, without protection. Labour also proved not to be above lying, when pretending that the reform was essential to economic stability, when the saving amounts to 1.22 per thousand of the total government spending pa. They are even lying about the presumed protection afforded by the 'triplelock' mechanism
Exactly! It was incomprehensible to me from the start that given we already have a tapering mechanism to claw back child benefit in a fair way, from those that don't need some or all of it, it should have been a no brainer to do the same thing with the fuel allowance where you can also argue that some of the recipients don't need it. You really have to wonder how allegedly smart people can make such an obvious mistake.
The uplift in pensions due to the triple lock far outstrips inflation. Way more than the £300 a year winter fuel payment. Pensioners are better off this year than last year despite losing this universal benefit ! Having said all of this, Labour have failed to communicate this effectively and that’s on them.
@@thomashobbs1498 Another total lie. The triple lock, even when is adjusted for wage increase, doesn't even cover inflation. This because the increase is applied 7 months (in case of inflation adjustment) or 9 months (in case of wage increase adjustment) after the assessment period; it is applied in April of the year following the assessment period. Obviously, inflation doesn't stop in those months but adds up. By the time the pension is adjusted, in April, the increase does not even cover the inflation in play (there is also the inflation accumulating from April to wintertime). It just take honest observation and simple math to dismantle the lie. The Lib Dems are now the progressive party.
This is the first election where pensioners were not the kingmakers of the election. Millennials and Gen Zers have been brutalised for too long. Everything in our lives is expensive and opportunities to get on in life squeezed often at the benefit of older generations. Labour is the progressive party and pensioners will have to come to terms that they are not top of the ticket for the first time in their lives.
@@thomashobbs1498thats bull shot pensioners wont be better off as the increase counter inflation. When pensioners are paying tax at £12.5 k because they wont raise personal allowances. The increase in the price of fuel has already been wiped any pension increase and Milibrains green levies will only put more people into fuel poverty
Older people are better off because they were brought up not to waste money. There were no coffees on the way to work, no ready meals grabbed on the way home, budgeting to pay fuel bills every quarter. One could argue that younger people waste the money that could be put towards buying a home. Do the sums.
I don’t think this talk is helpful. Older people did not face the savage decimation of their salaries and the twin forces of globalisation & advances in tech that young people in the West face nowadays . Graduates are 10 a penny these days and face being undercut by overseas workers and eventually replaced by AI/robots. Either way, there’s less people required to do the work. Young people could be as frugal as they like but the wages they earn have not kept pace with house price inflation, particularly in cities. I would advise young people to either pick a job that is totally immersed in robotics/AI or that has completely no chance of being replaced by robotics/AI. Have several side hustle strings to your bow to build up a strong skill set. As university tuition fees look set to rise to £15,000, it might be worth thinking seriously about whether or not this is the right decision for you. Given government policies around the world, you may wish to become a digital nomad and live in a country that treats you best.
@dcoughla681 Not everyone should have gone to university and racked up student debt. Many would have been far better off getting a job that paid a wage straight from school.
Comments like 90% of pensioners do need the winter fuel payment is insidious. Not backed up. If you take £300 from someone that is a real cut whatever their circumstances. Above average wage increases to sectors of public services are a real increase. This is not an equitable deal. Good luck with that policy.
_"Who is Labour's approach thus far design to be for?"_ That weird new international corporate professional managerial elite class. The kind of people who think they're progressives because their hedge fund did some Tweets about diversity.
What part of nationalising railways, introducing more workers rights, rescinding draconian union laws and giving inflation busting pay rises to public sector workers gave you that impression?
@@stopthetories increasing workers rights? you mean being able to claim the pitifully low sick pay of £23 per day (less if you work part-time) for a couple of extra days.. laughable, Andy's comment is spot-on.
@@stopthetories Yes, I am being a bit hyperbolic. There are a handful of more old-Labour policies in their platform. Though I am skeptical they’ll really implement all those. I predict they’ll all come with some sort of neoliberal twist which benefits only their cronies and favoured industries, rather than working class people in general.
It’s for graduate class, private & grammar school educated, rich, London centric, well connected, middle & upper middle class elites. This government is more concerned with international affairs & political, activist ideology than the welfare of its own citizens. Since Tony Blair, the Labour Party has not cared one job about working class people and, as the majority of its donors are extremely wealthy individuals/corporations and not the unions, this will continue.
@@stopthetories This is a wish list. The reason that public sector unionised workers got big inflation busting pay rises is to drag them into a higher income tax bracket. More workers rights will lead to a reluctance to hire & increased unemployment, particularly youth unemployment.
here's some basic economics New Statesmen, pensions go up to compensate for price increases due to inflation i.e pensioners ARE NOT better off, so this does not compensate for the cutting of the winter fuel allowance..
I’m not sure that you understand how the triple lock works. It’s not just inflation protection: Each year, the UK government increases the State Pension by the highest of the following three components: - The rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Prices Index, or CPI (September reading in the previous year) - The average increase in earnings (measured by the Office of National Statistics between May and July of the previous year) - A baseline rise of 2.5% So, if inflation is very low, they can receive an above inflation rise. Also, if it’s high, they get a large rise while the rest of the country receive much less. The latter happened last year.
@@davidhodgson3901 you are correct to highlight the "triple lock" but next years pension increase is being based on inflation before fuel prices increased by 9% this October nevermind all the other price increases in food etc that are still ongoing, the New Statesman is simply parroting Labour by saying next year's pension increase from April will make up for removing this year's winter fuel allowance. Added to this is that increasing numbers of pensioners are now having pay tax or pay more tax due to the freezing of income tax thresholds.
Austerity is literally spending less. Like the coalition did from 2010. Labour was elected on a promise of balancing the budget but they’re actually going to increase spending. It might be painful but it’s not austerity.
@@davidhodgson3901 austerity is when government cuts public spending to get debt deficit down. The 2010 austerity was not needed but personal champagne by those clowns that gave us brexit and was large reason why people felt left behind. If you talk to any economist they will tell you spending on public services increases economic growth. Labour were not elected to do austerity.
The 90% lady is totally pie in the sky on everything. Yes we would all like schools without problems with infrastructure This was a known issue back in the late 2000s. The school i was a governor at needed a new boiler. The lab gov would not issue any funding as they didnt see it as a priority despite the school being an integrated one with high need special needs one with a normal state one. Built in the late 70s with a hydrotherapy pool. Where did the money go ? Paying in part for translator’s at one school that had 97 different languages they left our schools with 3 spare spaces across the whole city due to mass migration which they would not fun or acknowledge.
The removal of winter fuel payments is just politically inept, pensioners WILL die this winter… a sub set of those will have been in need of those payments. The headlines will read “stammer the nanna killer” 🤷🏼♂️
@@hughwilson2219 That's an odd question... Because poverty and wealth are measured on a scale? Pensioners who are above the eligibility cut-off are not as poor as those below... Obviously.
It is not the case that 90% of pensioners don't need the Winter Fuel Allowance, it is the case that 90% of pensioners no longer qualify for Winter Fuel Allowance. Two completely different things.
It is true. The very poorest pensioners are still receiving the allowance. There are undoubtedly some who will fall on hard times but 10 per cent seems a very sensible number. Pensioners are the most secure cohort in the UK. Let's try and fix some of the others.
@@microwaves25 you're obviously not a pensioner who just misses the cut off for pension credit and you're probably not going to be living through a Scottish winter either.
A more important question which EVERYONE seems to have missed is why is the taxpayer paying out money to prop up the high prices of energy companies? Its the energy companies who have raised prices to the point that pensioners cant afford them. Winter Fuel Allowance should be scrapped altogether and the govt should force the energy companies to introduce and pay for a social tariff instead.
@@williambelford9661 no I'm a millennial who can't afford to buy a house or afford to have children and now have to live in a backward nation that decided to leave the EU because older people wanted their country back.
I do hope the young woman makes a video explaining how parroting the 90% claim ‘need vs qualify.’ That she understands the cliff edge and one day she too will be an old git needing help with fuel bills?
This is not the labour party i grew up with. The labour party of old would have stood up for the elderly and disabled, they wouldn't have treated them like criminals just for claiming benefits. They would never have tried to snoop into our bank accounts with no evidence of wrongdoing. They are more like the Tory light. I didn't vote Tory because I hate their policies of hatred toward the vulnerable and now we've got Labour enacting the same policies. If voting helped the ordinary person in the street, they wouldn't let us do it.
Which Labour Party did you grow up with ? The figures are easily available and they show that the Tories have been in government appreciably longer than Labour. As for your subsequent sentences , where is your evidence because I think you’re talking nonsense.
What policies can you point to that are negatively impacting disabled people? I ask as a disabled person. As for the WFA, 90% of pensioners don't need the benefit.
They were too lazy, and too stupid to make the cut off fairer. Only if you are really on the very lowest income will you avoid the cut, but what about the millions of others who are still poor and will find the much higher fuel bills difficult to bear. Such utterly dimwitted politics.
The twenty percenters are so much better pointing and barking from the opposition benches. The calibre (on both sides of the house)is dire. They’re out of their depth and most of us get it!
I get that Rachel is trying to do damage limitation. but there is no way if she is being fair can defend the way labour have handled the whole assisted dying stuff. It has been a total and unmitigated disaster!
How about growing the economy? That’s the true way to wealth ( private and state)and better wages- years of tinkering with tax thresholds ( ‘Broad Shoulders ’ was first used by Allister Darling) and Austerity doesn’t grow a country its window dressing- investment/ education/ training/ planning/ growth unfortunately takes time and intelligence both things successive politicians haven’t got.
It would be useful to examine the government's statistics on 90% of pensioners not needing the winter fuel payments I suspect it is a more believable 80%. The problem is it's the gatewsy benefit system where if you have income below a certain amount you qualify for a raft of state benefits the problem appears to be it's got no tapering so many folk just above the income level get no assistance where they could probably do with some tapering off of benefits not just in or out. I think many people would like to see a "fairer tax and benefit system" not so skewed to give the well advised endless ways to reduce their tax liabilities and for benefits a more tapered approach to get people interested in working as they see a real reason to work rather than just become expert at manipulating the system.
If we've had years of Tory austerity, how come people were paid not to work for so long during Covid. And people were subsidised to eat out and small companies were bailed out and paid to hang into workers they couldn't use and as a result, we have a huge budget deficit... Doesn't sound much like austerity to me.
My biggest worry for this govt is that, unlike under NuLabour, half of the people who would normally be staunch labour voters already don't support Starmer and Co and vote green and these are the voters whos votes prevented Labour disappearing in 2010. Now their voter base is wholly unreliable and unlikely to stick by them if the media turns against them, which basically means they succeed in a very big way or the party dies. Minor success wont be enough because the media will always be antiLabour, so the successes have to be undeniable. Labour will either be the biggest party after the next election or they will be a minor party about the size of the current SNP.
It's so true. The very poorest pensioners are still receiving the allowance. There are undoubtedly some who will fall on hard times but 10 per cent seems a sensible number.
@@Phil-n7c spare me. It's so easy to just hate everything and constantly be the victim. Labours been in power for a minute and hasn't even released their budget. The UK just hates all politicians and will find anyway to cut them down regardless. I'm going to give them a chance if you don't mind after a generation of Tory vandalism
The first rule of government is do not harm. This government is doing harm. They don’t have a plan. They don’t have a clue. When you are in government you cannot live by simply criticising your predecessors, deserved of not.
I think you’ve missed the point. It’s symbolic. The wealthiest generation in history has leveraged their power and wealth to insulate themselves from the impact of the last 15 years of economic mismanagement at the expense of the young. Labour saying that those of them who can afford to are going to have to pay their way is just breaking that political taboo early. Pensioners are no longer a golden goose.
A ore important question which EVERYONE seems to have missed is why is the taxpayer paying out money to prop up the high prices of energy companies? Its the energy companies who have raised prices to the point that pensioners cant afford them. Winter Fuel Allowance should be scrapped altogether and the govt should force the energy companies to introduce and pay for a social tariff instead.
Why is Labour spending so much effort placating Daily Mail and Telegraph readers who are never going to vote for them in a month of Sundays? They come across as fearful and seriously uncaring. I'm seriously disappointing. I want to see serious investment in infrastructure, including health, social care, transport and green tech. Too much time is being wasted on second-guessing the state of the UK economy in five years time and the importance of sticking to impractical Tory financial rules.
George Eaton's claim that cutting winter fuel payments will 'reassure the markets' is mistaken. It looks like the same mistake that Osborne and Cameron made after the GFC. Notice that the US economy and financial markets are strong at the moment *because* of the large US fiscal deficit. Investors are not calling for austerity.
People don’t realise that pensioners as a demographic are one of the most well off groups, more millionaires among pensioners than any other age group. That doesn’t mean there aren’t many poor pensioners too. But a universal benefit is stupid. They’re means testing it, which is sensible. Furthermore the uplift in pensions due to the triple lock far outstrips inflation. Way more than the £300 a year winter fuel payment. Pensioners are better off this year than last year despite losing this universal benefit ! Having said all of this, Labour have failed to communicate this effectively and that’s on them.
Labour have made a very small step in the right direction but I fear they have done it for the wrong reasons and that’s why we haven’t done more. The biggest problem facing this country is the ageing population crisis and it needs addressing as a matter of urgency. This is the most powerful Labour will likely be in my lifetime and they should be using that power to correct the balance of power and change the countries perspective on this. First of all they should be taking away the right to vote for anyone that’s retired for two key reasons; firstly if you can be too young to vote then you can definitely be too old to vote otherwise you’re just discriminating against the youth; secondly is that if you are not working or in education learning to work then it is not your economy and therefore why should you have a say in it? They also need to stop using the soft language around these people to fix public perception. There is no such thing as “retirement” there is just long term unemployment; and there is no such thing as “state pension” they are on benefits. People on benefits do not get free heating, free bus passes, free social care or anything else therefore we need to be removing all of it from them and tell them to be grateful for what they are given rather than being a giant self entitled leech on the country. If people cannot afford to live off their private pensions and savings then we should allow free euthanasia as a way of eliminating the ageing population crisis. By addressing this one issues Labour could easily and quickly fix the economy; fix the NHS, slow immigration whilst increasing growth, free up homes across the country elevating pressure on the housing market and reinvest the “state pension” money in education ensuring the next generation of tax payers is educated to a higher standard.
Assisted dying is not controversial if you actually ask people, almost everyone wants it, we don't let our cats and dogs suffer but we force each other to suffer against our own will. I bet 80 percent minimum of the public would think its decades overdue, so long as its done properly so cant be manipulated by anyone, i don't know a single person I've ever spoken to who doesn't agree that its more humane then to force people to suffer. What we do now to the dying is evil.
As usual do NOT compare with European countries’ figures, amounts paid to any benefits recipients and pensioners abroad… Denmark for example also a cold northern country but exceptionally happy people.
I mean I thought the strategy was quite obvious, old people don't vote Labour anymore (and never will again in the future) and young people are one of their only strong bases of support. Why would you not sacrifice old people to instead look after people who actually might vote for you? The tories have done the opposite for years, which again made perfect sense, why would they not prioritise looking after old people when that was their core vote?
Old rich people who shouldn't be able to claim a benefit are angry that they wont receive money that can be better spent on the crumbling NHS which they are more likely to need... It's baffling that this is an issue.
Absolutely. As soon as rich old people are asked to make a sacrifice they can well afford they lose their minds and throw their toys out of the pram because they’re used to getting everything.
The WFA is absolutely critical for the mental wellbeing of weathy pensioners. Can you imagine the stress if the Merc or Jag cannot be refueled to brim during the winter months because the Winter Fuel Allowance is no longer available?
I am one of those pensioners who can do without the WFA. Lucky me. Throwing the "saving" at the NHS without any reform is nuts. It's a money pit and we'll past Its sell by date. Many people are already going private for "routine" GP visits and simpler treatments, much like the NHS lost control of the dental service years ago.
@@californiadreamin8423 Nobody but you has suggested that. Who said anything about it being an either-or issue? You have a lot to say for yourself, most of it is utter tripe.
@@deadandburied7626 it would be better if they had thought this through & put it in place over summer 2025, however, they haven't. So it's a help yourself scenario. First call your local council & ask for their assistance, if they cannot provide, ask for contact information of local charity groups they recommend that might assist. Finally & VERY, VERY importantly leave bank account details & private pension etc information blank, only enter that information when you are alone, do the rest of the form first & if you get the slightest whiff that your 'helper' is not a good egg. Call your community support officer at your local police station.
The reason nobody knows about / can be optimistic about the public ownership stuff is because that is a Corbyn policy and so Starmer and his band of incompetents therefore don’t want to talk about it or promote it
Pensioners complain they will not receive £300 a year that they didn’t need, while working people have to find thousands in extra cash to cover the increased cost of their mortgages that the Tories left us.
@@thespiritphoenix3798So you would have let people lose the money they had in bank accounts and for a significant number of banks to fail completely? Funny how pretty much every major economy copied what Gordon Brown did to deal with the financial crisis (that started with sub-prime loans in America). Please define what has been economically miss managed, specifically, in the last 100 days.
