The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[JonathanH]

But - destroy half as many farms by mandating that absolutely evey new home built has as much of a solar roof as its square footage will allow, along with battery storage and grid export equipment.

Yes, quite. Trying to use the existing land footprint better should be at least part of the objective.

 

[brad465]

Yes, quite. Trying to use the existing land footprint better should be at least part of the objective.

Car parks and motorways should have large sections of solar panel roofs covering them, there's nothing else that can really be done with the space above them. Maybe go further and put small wind turbines in parts of the central reservation that generate power from vehicle draughts.

 

[GusB]

Presumably those funds will be diverted to other public services though, deemed to be more essential. Does an unemployed or poorly-paid person in their 20s, 30s, 40s or 50s get a winter fuel allowance?

Yes and no. When I was unemployed and claiming Job Seeker's Allowance, I wasn't eligible. More recently, as a claimant of Universal Credit and in the "Limited Capability for Work" category, the Winter Fuel Payment was paid automatically (and it was a bit of a surprise as I wasn't expecting it). I also didn't expect to receive a Cold Weather Payment either, but it's paid automatically when the temperatures have gone below a certain level for a few days on the trot.

The rules do change and I'm now in the position where I'm no longer claiming any benefits, so I'm not up-to-date with the current situation; perhaps @ainsworth74 could shed some light. Essentially, you need to be on one of the "gateway" benefits to be eligible, so anyone who has an illness and is in receipt of Invalidity, Incapacity, Employment Support Allowance, Pension Credit etc. (the names of the various benefits have changed and not all are current). There's also the Warm Home Discount, which is a completely separate scheme and has to be applied for through your energy supplier, but there's only a fixed budget available.

I think that Labour is right to look at these payments, but to cut the winter fuel payments before carrying out such a review is very short-sighted. Both my parents received Winter Fuel Payments - for my dad it wasn't necessary and it was more or less just a bit of pocket money; my mum had her state pension and a little bit of my dad's Armed Forces Pension on top - just enough to take her over the threshold for claiming Pension Credit.

 

[Yew]

Look at Venezuela for what socialism does.

Look at Zimbabwe in the 2010s for what Capitalism does.

Perhaps making comparisons to economic basket case countries is not the best way to evaluate economic systems?

 

[JamesT]

Look at Zimbabwe in the 2010s for what Capitalism does.

Perhaps making comparisons to economic basket case countries is not the best way to evaluate economic systems?

How do you get that Zimbabwe’s issues are the result of Capitalism? ZANU-PF is/was ideologically of the left, being supported by the Soviet Union and the Chinese. Forcibly redistributing land without compensation was at the heart of their economic problems. Those in favour of market systems tend to treat property rights rather better.

 

[Yew]

How on earth did they get Support from the Soviet Union in the 2010s?

 

[JamesT]

How on earth did they get Support from the Soviet Union in the 2010s?

Obviously they didn't, hence the tenses I used. But it was an example of how they're coming from the Left. Would you like to try explaining how you think it was Capitalism instead?

 

[nw1]

Yes and no. When I was unemployed and claiming Job Seeker's Allowance, I wasn't eligible. More recently, as a claimant of Universal Credit and in the "Limited Capability for Work" category, the Winter Fuel Payment was paid automatically (and it was a bit of a surprise as I wasn't expecting it). I also didn't expect to receive a Cold Weather Payment either, but it's paid automatically when the temperatures have gone below a certain level for a few days on the trot.

Fair enough: I was unemployed for a brief period in the late 90s part of which was in the winter months, and definitely don't remember receiving any form of winter fuel allowance.

 

[JamesT]

Yes and no. When I was unemployed and claiming Job Seeker's Allowance, I wasn't eligible. More recently, as a claimant of Universal Credit and in the "Limited Capability for Work" category, the Winter Fuel Payment was paid automatically (and it was a bit of a surprise as I wasn't expecting it). I also didn't expect to receive a Cold Weather Payment either, but it's paid automatically when the temperatures have gone below a certain level for a few days on the trot.

The rules do change and I'm now in the position where I'm no longer claiming any benefits, so I'm not up-to-date with the current situation; perhaps @ainsworth74 could shed some light. Essentially, you need to be on one of the "gateway" benefits to be eligible, so anyone who has an illness and is in receipt of Invalidity, Incapacity, Employment Support Allowance, Pension Credit etc. (the names of the various benefits have changed and not all are current). There's also the Warm Home Discount, which is a completely separate scheme and has to be applied for through your energy supplier, but there's only a fixed budget available.

I think that Labour is right to look at these payments, but to cut the winter fuel payments before carrying out such a review is very short-sighted. Both my parents received Winter Fuel Payments - for my dad it wasn't necessary and it was more or less just a bit of pocket money; my mum had her state pension and a little bit of my dad's Armed Forces Pension on top - just enough to take her over the threshold for claiming Pension Credit.

Was it definitely the Winter Fuel Payment? All the details I can see require being of pensionable age to be able to claim it - https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/eligibility

You can get a Winter Fuel Payment for Winter 2024 to 2025 if you were born before 23 September 1958.

Scotland have their own schemes, the confusingly similarly named Winter Heating Payment is available for anyone receiving benefits, though that has only existed since 2022.

 

[MP33]

Starmer is repeating the statement of a number of previous Prime Ministers, of wanting to get people off sickness benefits and into work.

I have only really met a handful of people, who I would call a Layabout, (Long or Short Haired).

 

[brad465]

Starmer is repeating the statement of a number of previous Prime Ministers, of wanting to get people off sickness benefits and into work.

I have only really met a handful of people, who I would call a Layabout, (Long or Short Haired).

This is an area that is so complex as to say the problem does not have a single cause, nor will have a single solution. To solve the problem will require multiple solutions tailored to each cause and managed/planned in such a way as to allow them to run concurrently and effectively.

However, the public by and large have a short attention span and are far more likely to want to hear it's all because of one single issue that can be solved with one simple solution. Hence why several politicians of different parties have behaved in such a way as to make the public believe they can solve their grievances in a way that comforts their minds.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes and no. When I was unemployed and claiming Job Seeker's Allowance, I wasn't eligible. More recently, as a claimant of Universal Credit and in the "Limited Capability for Work" category, the Winter Fuel Payment was paid automatically (and it was a bit of a surprise as I wasn't expecting it). I also didn't expect to receive a Cold Weather Payment either, but it's paid automatically when the temperatures have gone below a certain level for a few days on the trot.

That was probably a cost of living payment rather than specifically a Winter Fuel Payment (WFP), though I believe Social Security Scotland do make a Winter Heating Payment to some recipients of Universal Credit (and various other benefits including Pension Credit, so Scottish Pensioners could get this and their WFP) and have done for the last couple of years but that's a Scotland only payment which is only worth around £60 (better than a kick in the teeth but basically a third of the lowest level of WFP). So if it was anymore than that, it will have been a cost of living payment.

The WFP is, and always has been, a pensioner only payment. However in 2022 through to early 2024 the Government made five payments of around £300 each to people on various means tested benefits (Universal Credit being the big one) in July 2022, November 2022, May 2023, October 2023 and February 2024. Which obviously had a similar function to the WFP in that they were a payment of cash into the bank to be spent as seen fit by the recipient. All pensioners who received a WFP in those years also got a cost of living payment on top of their WFP which roughly doubled the amount of the WFP they received (depending on exact circumstances) for 2022/23 and 2023/24.

Outside of the recent past the only two items of specific support for those on working age benefits, outside Scotland, is the Cold Weather Payment and the Warm Home Discount.

The Cold Weather Payment is a payment of £25 made when temperatures either are forecast to be or actually are below zero for seven consecutive days. It's also based on the nearest weather station not what you actually experience individually. So it's perfectly possible that you village is at or below zero for seven days but the nearest weather station was not therefore no payment is due. Also whilst £25 is better than nothing if outside temperatures are at or below zero I doubt it would touch the sides of actually covering the necessary heating bill (particularly considering the shocking state of large amounts of housing stock, particularly those occupied by the very people likely to be most reliant on this state support). Pensioners on Pension Credit also receive Cold Weather Payments when they are due.

The Warm Home Discount is a £150 credit applied, usually, to your electricity bill (if your electric supplier also supplies your gas you can ask for it to be applied to you gas bill instead) automatically between September and March as long as you me the criteria in the summer before. So, for the 2023/24 Warm Home Discount you had to be receiving a relevant benefit (such as Universal Credit or Pension Credit), your supplier must be part of the scheme (which is all or most of them to be fair), and your home be one with a high energy cost (based on its characteristics like age, size, etc not the actual bill amount).

So your average person on a low income in England, Wales or Northern Ireland will probably get a £150 discount on their electricity bill and, if the weather is poor, potentially an extra £25 per very cold week. Not nothing but, I would argue, not a lot either. Particularly as Pensioners in a similar boat (i.e. those on Pension Credit) will benefit from the same help on top of their WFP.

Presumably those funds will be diverted to other public services though, deemed to be more essential. Does an unemployed or poorly-paid person in their 20s, 30s, 40s or 50s get a winter fuel allowance?

As above, if you're unemployed, poorly paid, disabled and unable to work, there is no specific provision (outside Scotland), beyond the stingy Cold Weather Payment and a Warm Home Discount you won't be getting anything.

Perhaps some illustrative examples (note, figures won't be bob on as I'm not going back to use last years figures but they'll be close enough to illustrate the point)?

Josh Lyman is 65 years old approaching the winter of 2023/24 in somewhat rundown North East of England town. Sadly for Josh he's been struggling with his mental health for a number of years following a nervous breakdown due to his high stress job so has been claiming Universal Credit with Limited Capability for Work, this unlocks no additional money anymore since that was cut in April 2017 but does at least mean that the level of grief he gets from the Jobcentre is significantly reduced. Josh rents a two bedroom housing association flat (his children and grandchildren come to visit from time to time), his rent is £476 per month (it is the North East ), he gets help with his Council Tax and after his 25% Single Person Discount and his Council Tax Support for being on a low income has £10 per month left to pay.

To meet his living costs (so his rent, Council Tax, fuel, food, water, TV licence, phone bill, etc etc) he receives his monthly Universal Credit of £803.39 of which £409.94 is for his rent (this shortfall of £66 per month is because he has an extra bedroom under the Governments rules so his rent payment is reduced by 14%, popularly known as the Bedroom Tax) and the remaining £393.45 is his personal allowance to meet his other living costs.

However, what if Josh was 66 years old approaching that same winter?

In this scenario Josh would be getting his New State Pension of £958.53 per month, additionally he would still be getting his Single Persons Discount of 25% and after Council Tax Reduction for being on a low income his total annual bill would be £31.72. He would also be getting help towards his rent via Housing Benefit of £468.09 (a shortfall of around £7.91 per month, this is due to his income, pensioners are not subject to Bedroom Tax so the extra bedroom is ignored). He will also get a Winter Fuel Payment of £200 as he is aged under 80 and lives alone.

So, by virtue of having turned 66 rather than being 65 leading into winter 2023/24 that would be an increase in income of £565.08 per month and that's with less shortfall to make up in rent (down to £8 per month from £66) and less Council Tax (down to £2.64 per month from £10). Just by turning 66. You'll forgive me but I don't buy that someone's living costs increase that dramatically when they turn 66 in comparison to being 65 (or younger).

I struggle to be that concerned by the withdrawal of the WFP as a universal benefit personally. I appreciate it's not pleasant for pensioners, particularly as it's being done this year rather than next but pensioners are already in a much stronger position than a younger person by virtue of the New State Pension being so much more generous than Universal Credit. Those pensioners who are not on the New State Pension and instead are still on the Old State Pension (this can vary wildly in value, my mum's Old State Pension is more than the New for instance, but it is often lower, sometimes considerably so) and have no other income to draw on are themselves protected by virtue of Pension Credit topping their income up to ensure that they're weekly income is at least £945.32 per month (they would automatically also receive a 100% Council Tax Reduction and the maximum amount of Housing Benefit).

I do think that there is tough cliff edge though by using Pension Credit as the determining factor to whether someone now gets the WFP or not. I'm going to switch to weekly figures for this bit as it's a bit easier to follow I think.

The full New State Pension is £221.20 per week, the Guarantee rate of Pension Credit (that is to the say the amount that you are guaranteed to have as an income) is £218.15. Someone whose only income is New State Pension therefore misses out on Pension Credit entitlement by £3.05 per week and therefore will not get a WFP. It feels deeply unfair that some whose New State Pension happened to be £218 per week and therefore got 15p of Pension Credit would get a WFP, but someone getting the full New State Pension at a few quid more would miss out.

If it was me I'd have chucked £5 on the rate of Pension Credit (and then uprate it in future years by the same percentage as the New State Pension) to ensure that anyone whose sole source of income was the New State Pension (i.e. they had no private pensions, no significant savings or capital, no other income from work, no partner with their own pensions or income from work, no other resources beyond their pension) was still protected and still got a WFP.

But in general terms I don't think losing the WFP as a universal benefit is particularly onerous. As cold and brutal as it is to say pensioners, in general, have enjoyed a great deal of protection over the last 14 years from the various cuts and restrictions placed on the social security safety net. If they have to lose one piece of that (and not even all of them will do) then I think this is not an unreasonable piece for them to lose.

Starmer is repeating the statement of a number of previous Prime Ministers, of wanting to get people off sickness benefits and into work.

I have only really met a handful of people, who I would call a Layabout, (Long or Short Haired).

This is an area that is so complex as to say the problem does not have a single cause, nor will have a single solution. To solve the problem will require multiple solutions tailored to each cause and managed/planned in such a way as to allow them to run concurrently and effectively.

However, the public by and large have a short attention span and are far more likely to want to hear it's all because of one single issue that can be solved with one simple solution. Hence why several politicians of different parties have behaved in such a way as to make the public believe they can solve their grievances in a way that comforts their minds.

I would tend to agree, there's definitely people out there who are taking the mick but there's a small fraction of the total caseload. There's possibly a slightly higher number who probably could do some sort of work but have persuaded themselves that they couldn't do anything so aren't consciously trying to fiddle things but could probably be encouraged into work. But even taken together those are small numbers overall.

At the moment I would say the main reason that the number of people who are being found as unfit for work is increasing is quite simply the problems within the NHS. There are going to be lots of people who would quite like to return to work as soon as possible but are on waiting lists for mental health treatment, for surgeries, for post surgery physio or other rehab, etc etc. If you wanted to reduce the numbers of people claiming UC on the basis of ill health the best thing you could do is fix the NHS. But, that's a) not easy and will take a long time and b) it's an easy reflex for politicians to play the "scrounger" card and get everyone nodding along about how terrible it is that there's all these people faking it to get an easy life on benefits. It's the same reflex that leads them to want to ramp up sentencing for various crimes rather than actually try and fix the criminal justice system (the former is cheap and easy, the latter is expensive and difficult even though it's the latter that would make a real difference).

The other major issue is that the Jobcentre is not remotely equipped to actually help people into work. This comes in two flavours of problem. The first is simply that the Jobcentre (and the wider Department for Work and Pensions) is held in such low regard with such low levels of trust it is actually, on the odd occasion they do want to try and genuinely help, quite difficult for them to do so as nobody that has any regular contact with them trusts them even one iota. So even if tomorrow the DWP had a damascene conversion and wanted to meet people where they were and help them find work, nobody would trust them. The immediate reaction would be "so how are they trying to take my benefits of me this time?".

The second problem is that as a culture and an organization the people in the Jobcentre aren't equipped to help people into work. In reality the Jobcentre has become basically a benefits processing department. The primarily role of a Work Coach is to check that people are seeking work in line with their Claimant Commitment, to verify any information that might be required (such as ID when they first claim), and refer them onto courses that might be beneficial. That's about it. The very best Work Coaches might have some advice they can offer about seeking work but most appointments will not have the time to really spend helping the individual and the case loads of individual Work Coaches are large enough that they simply don't have the time to spend helping people get into work.

There is the Restart scheme which people can be referred onto after 9 months of claiming UC which is supposed to provide more intensive work search support and guidance, help with employability skills, training and so on and so forth but, because the State cannot possibly do anything itself anymore, this has been contracted out to various private providers of varying quality but typically poor. And it's effectiveness is therefore extremely dubious. There are other schemes like Restart as well but all suffer from the same fundamental issue of dodgy outsourcing to providers who really aren't equipped to do the job properly and will just find ways of getting money out of their contracts.

So, we could address the issues within the NHS to ensure that the number waiting for treatment of chronic conditions begins to fall with the consequent reduction in the number of people who aren't fit for work and are instead actively seeking work again. Alongside that we could also reform the Jobcentre itself to refocus its efforts into being an organisation that is actually staffed and trained to provide tailored work coaching on a one to one basis taking a claimant first view of what an individual needs to help them into work. That would go a long way to dealing with the numbers of people who are out of work due to ill health claiming Universal Credit. Or we could just try more stick and whanging on about "scroungers" and "living a life on benefits" (has anyone who says this actually tried living on Universal Credit recently, it's not a life I'd recommended to anyone?).

One of those options is difficult and expensive but likely to be effective and will save money in the long run. One of them is cheap and easy but likely to be ineffective and will probably cost more money in the long run.

Which do we think the Government is likely to choose?

 

[nw1]

This is an area that is so complex as to say the problem does not have a single cause, nor will have a single solution. To solve the problem will require multiple solutions tailored to each cause and managed/planned in such a way as to allow them to run concurrently and effectively.

However, the public by and large have a short attention span and are far more likely to want to hear it's all because of one single issue that can be solved with one simple solution. Hence why several politicians of different parties have behaved in such a way as to make the public believe they can solve their grievances in a way that comforts their minds.

The real sad state of affairs is how many ill-informed people seem to think all the problems in society are due to those on benefit and minorities of one kind or another.

 

[takno]

Starmer is repeating the statement of a number of previous Prime Ministers, of wanting to get people off sickness benefits and into work.

I have only really met a handful of people, who I would call a Layabout, (Long or Short Haired).

The whole point of Starmer's statement was that it wasn't about layabouts. It was about people who hace lost the confidence to work, and employers who lack the confidence to hire people who have been long-term sick.

It's not even primarily focused on the benefits bill. Quite a lot of affected people have simply dropped out of the workforce, getting by using pensions, support from partners or savings. Getting those people back into the workforce - earning, spending, saving and most important paying tax - is far more beneficial to government finances than shuffling around benefits.

 

[Harpo]

The real sad state of affairs is how many ill-informed people seem to think all the problems in society are due to those on benefit and minorities of one kind or another.

Hardly surprising when the outgoing government was so prolific for years in fuelling division such as the Prime Minister’s number one issue ‘Stop The Boats’ emblazoned on his lectern and his ministers frequently talking of a ‘war on woke’.

 

[TheGuy77]

Winter fuel payments scrapped for millions of pensioners

Rachel Reeves says there is a "black hole" in the public finances due to "unfunded" overspends by the previous government.

www.bbc.co.uk

Around 10 million pensioners in England and Wales will lose their winter fuel payments under new plans announced by the chancellor.
From this autumn, those not on pension credit or other means-tested benefits will no longer get the annual payments, worth between £100 and £300.
A planned cap on social care costs and several major rail and road projects have also been axed, as Rachel Reeves said she had to make "urgent decisions" because of the previous government's "undisclosed" overspending.
Shadow chancellor Jeremy Hunt said her claims were “spurious”.
Mr Hunt said the Conservatives had been open about the state of the public finances while in power, and Ms Reeves had held talks with Treasury officials before the election.
The Scottish government said it was “deeply disappointing” changes were made to the winter fuel payment by the chancellor “without any consultation or discussion” between ministers.
The responsibility for the payment is set to be transferred to the Scottish Government this winter and replaced with a Scottish equivalent - the pension age winter heating payment.
In Northern Ireland, ministers will decide whether to follow the UK government’s decision to restrict winter fuel payments.

Keir Starmer says pensioners are better off without the payment. Seems like with cutting benefits and worsening tax rises, this 'black hole' should surely be fixed by now. Is this something that actually matters, or just another excuse for another burden on the cost of living crisis?

 

[alex397]

I support removing the winter fuel allowance from the very rich, as they can clearly support themselves. It should be means tested, though of course that would complicate it. But if things are tight that would seem a sensible move. And if young people and the disabled can only receive benefits if it is means-tested, then why not pensioners?

However, I certainly disagree with removing the winter fuel allowance from everyone who doesn’t receive benefits, as that will include many pensioners who just about get by independently, and this will unfairly make them suffer. Thats what makes this move from Labour so bad in my view. It sounds just like something the previous administration would have done (even if they are protesting it now they’re in opposition).

 

[davews]

Never mentioned is that those of us over 75 are on the OLD pension which is around £8.8k a year. Pension Credit when it was introduced was to compensate those pensioners against those getting the NEW pension of around £11k. I may be wrong in this but pension credit is around the difference between the two. Those on the new pension will indeed be marginally above the requirements for pension credit, older pensioners, ie most pensioners, will benefit but only if they have no other pensions or investments. In my view they should have set the winter fuel payment threshold at a higher level, eg £20k or even higher, so that only rich pensioners would be excluded. And nothing has been said about whether we still get the £10 Christmas Bonus....

(well over the threshold myself as have a good private pension but that said the WPA was nice in that it paid for a quarter's electricity until the recent rises)

 

[Purple Train]

So what are all these "freebies" that the likes of the Mail are complaining about, and what makes them so particularly egregious? The Mail says it has "engulfed" his premiership, although clearly I must live under a rock as the news hasn't reached me.

 

[JamesT]

Never mentioned is that those of us over 75 are on the OLD pension which is around £8.8k a year. Pension Credit when it was introduced was to compensate those pensioners against those getting the NEW pension of around £11k. I may be wrong in this but pension credit is around the difference between the two. Those on the new pension will indeed be marginally above the requirements for pension credit, older pensioners, ie most pensioners, will benefit but only if they have no other pensions or investments. In my view they should have set the winter fuel payment threshold at a higher level, eg £20k or even higher, so that only rich pensioners would be excluded. And nothing has been said about whether we still get the £10 Christmas Bonus....

(well over the threshold myself as have a good private pension but that said the WPA was nice in that it paid for a quarter's electricity until the recent rises)

I think you’re incorrect in this. Pension Credit was introduced in 2003, the new state pension was 2016. So the intention of pension credit cannot have been to make up the difference to something that didn’t exist.
The other thing to bear in mind is the old system had second state pension. https://www.gov.uk/government/stati.../dwp-benefits-statistics-august-2023#pensions is from last year as for some reason they’ve removed the statistic from the latest version.

At February 2023 the average (mean) weekly payment for people receiving a State Pension was £166.13, an increase of £6.32 since February 2022.

The nSP mean weekly payment was £173.50 (including any Protected Payments). Under the pre-2016 system the mean amount was £163.61 per week.

So an average difference of only £10/week, rather less than between basic and new. However I’d draw your attention to the graph which shows on average men on the old system receiving more than those on the new.

 

[nw1]

Mail and Express continuing to rant on about Starmer (it's either winter fuel or some story involving an apartment paid for by a donor) while most of the other papers focus on the far more concerning latest threats from Netanyahu.

The Mail and Express will never be happy until our only political choices are the Tories (under someone like Jenrick) and Reform, and 100% of the British population were born here, I suspect!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Sep 2024 ==

So what are all these "freebies" that the likes of the Mail are complaining about, and what makes them so particularly egregious? The Mail says it has "engulfed" his premiership, although clearly I must live under a rock as the news hasn't reached me.

And more to the point, why do the allegations against their best buddy Jenrick regarding Desmond not matter? Rhetorical question, of course - we all know the answer.

 

[Falcon1200]

So what are all these "freebies" that the likes of the Mail are complaining about, and what makes them so particularly egregious?

Keir Starmer's freebies: Everything you need to know - and why they're proving so controversial

The prime minister's acceptance of freebies and hospitality has dominated the political landscape this week. But what exactly has Sir Keir Starmer been criticised for, what are his party's concerns, and what has he said about it?

news.sky.com

Sir Keir Starmer has come under scrutiny over the past week for the more than £100,000-worth of gifts he has accepted.

 

[Citybreak1]

Will we get a leadership contest after the budget?

 

[Purple Train]

Will we get a leadership contest after the budget?

No.

 

[alex397]

The Mail and Express will never be happy until our only political choices are the Tories (under someone like Jenrick) and Reform, and 100% of the British population were born here, I suspect!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Sep 2024 ==

Those papers or their readers will never be happy. It’s like they enjoy finding misery in everything. Even if everyone was 100% born in the UK, that definitely wouldn’t be good enough. There would still be “woke” people, lefties and disabled people.

 

[jon0844]

Keir Starmer's freebies: Everything you need to know - and why they're proving so controversial

The prime minister's acceptance of freebies and hospitality has dominated the political landscape this week. But what exactly has Sir Keir Starmer been criticised for, what are his party's concerns, and what has he said about it?

news.sky.com

Until we make lobbying via donations illegal here and in the USA, everyone will keep doing it. God knows, the Tories have taken enough money over the years and they'd have always pointed out they were doing nothing illegal - so it's a bit odd to suddenly make out that it's bad.

The candidates wishing to take over the Conservatives are almost certainly receiving funding and no doubt being given freebies, with the hope that those who donate will get something in the future.

This is why there's a register and why there are rules on conflicts of interest. Is there any evidence that Labour has broken the rules?

I bet all hell would break loose if the story got so big that Labour decided to bring in new laws!

 

[Thirteen]

Those papers or their readers will never be happy. It’s like they enjoy finding misery in everything. Even if everyone was 100% born in the UK, that definitely wouldn’t be good enough. There would still be “woke” people, lefties and disabled people.

TBF I think that applies to those on the far left as well.

 

[ainsworth74]

Will we get a leadership contest after the budget?

Obviously not but it really isn't clear to me what the right wing types that are agitating against Starmer think they'd achieve even if he did resign? Starmer resigns, it's quite possibly that Rayner wins (though not certain) who is more left wing than him and, whoever wins, we've still got five years of Labour with stonking majority so, er, nothing really changes...

I sometimes wonder if there are large elements of the media that haven't gotten used to the idea that we have a Government with a huge majority. This is fundamentally very different to what we've since since around 2017 onwards (with the exception of the few months after the 2019 general election and before Covid).

 

[brad465]

At the same time as all the Starmer gifts were widely reported, Jenrick accepted a £75k donation from a very suspiciously-opaque company, that is probably worse than anything Starmer did, but has received nowhere near the press coverage:

Robert Jenrick's top donor received loan from untraceable BVI firm - Tortoise

Tory leadership favourite accepted £75,000 from a company whose origins are unclear

www.tortoisemedia.com

The Conservative leadership contender Robert Jenrick has accepted £75,000 in donations from an indebted company, which received an undisclosed lump sum from an untraceable BVI-listed entity.
The Spott Fitness has no employees, has never made a profit, and its most recent accounts show it owes £332,000, raising questions about the ultimate source of the funds.
In February this year the company accepted a loan from Centrovalli, a firm based in Tortola in the British Virgin Islands. The amount borrowed has not been declared, but typically these corporate loans are made against assets. In this case, it is unclear what assets the company has.

The documents state that a company called Saffron Group acted as a director for Centrovalli. Saffron Group is a high-end tax specialist that offers services for clients in Switzerland, the BVI, Hong Kong and Israel.

Moshe Freed, one of the principals at Saffron Group’s parent company Intertax, is named as the sole director of a now-defunct firm also called Centrovalli Ltd, which is registered in the UK.

When approached, Freed told Tortoise he knew “nothing about this”. He declined to comment further.

Jenrick, currently the frontrunner to become the next leader of the Conservative Party, accepted three separate donations of £25,000 each from The Spott Fitness as part of his leadership campaign on 2, 22 and 23 July. The company is his biggest donor so far this parliament.

Its online presence does not appear to have been updated in the past two years and its founder, Benjamin Hodson, ceased to be a person with significant control (PSC) last summer, although he remains listed as a director. Mark Dembovksy, a lawyer, is listed as both director and PSC.

Jenrick did not respond to requests for comment and neither did Hodson or Dembovsky.

The Spott Fitness said: “We’re still at the growth stage of our business but we measure success based on health outcomes not just simple profit versus loss accounting. We’re excited to support leaders like Robert Jenrick who share our vision of businesses having purpose beyond just shareholder profit.” Tortoise understands the firm is a permissible donor under electoral law.

Steve Goodrich, head of research and investigations at Transparency International UK, told Tortoise: “When companies fund politicians via offshore loans it raises serious questions about the money’s provenance.

“Electoral law was supposed to only allow businesses with a substantive UK presence to make political contributions, yet examples like this show it permits anonymous cash from anywhere in the world into our democracy.

“All leadership contenders should be checking their donors and the likely source of funds before accepting such generous support. The UK government’s committed to strengthening the rules around political donations, which should include this shell company loophole.”

Jenrick has already had to update his register of interests in recent months after freelance investigative journalist Peter Geoghegan revealed that the former minister had accepted donations from a dormant company. The company, Firefly Digital Limited, had filed dormant accounts for the past seven years and had reported just £1 in assets.

Jenrick is one of four Conservative MPs still vying to become leader of the opposition. He has held several ministerial roles, including Housing and Communities Secretary, during which time he approved a £1 billion luxury housing development in London proposed by Richard Desmond, a Conservative Party donor and former media mogul.

After sitting beside Desmond at a fundraising dinner, Jenrick overruled the local authority in question, Tower Hamlets in east London, as well as the government planning inspectorate, to give permission for the development. Fast-tracking the scheme also meant the billionaire avoided new council community charges, which would have cost him about £45 million.

Desmond donated £12,000 to the party a fortnight after permission for the development was granted.

I think part of the problem, and this will not sound popular to many, is that for all the disdain about MPs pay and expenses, they don't actually get paid enough for what they do. I heard somewhere that Neville Chamberlain was paid around £800k in today's money for being PM, the current PM salary is only around one fifth of that. I think it's safe to say running a country is not an easy job so justifies the money somewhat.

I'd suggest the following: significant pay increases for Ministers and MPs, but at the same time ban all gifts/donations received during office and during an election campaign, along with banning all second jobs. This will incentivise talent to apply that currently goes elsewhere (with higher pay and lower public profile), while tougher standards root out corruption and make life much harder for scroungers/grifters, who become politicians but then do the bidding of whichever 'donor' gives them the most.

Ask yourself this: would you rather have a MP paid £90k a year with generous expenses, receives a multiple of their salary equivalent in gifts and has the ability to earn six figures in a 'side-job' that they dedicate more time for, or an MP on £150-200k a year, but receives no personal expenses (i.e. office staff and facilities' expenses remain) and is banned from both receiving gifts/donations and any other work while an MP?

 

[jon0844]

MPs are encouraged to feather their nests because it's not a job with much security, so you either need to grab what you can while in the job, or try and secure a job for afterwards - which means perhaps helping a company that donated to you in order to get that job on the board, become a consultant for them or whatever.

So, I agree, it's not always a lot of money for doing the job (if you actually do it properly, unlike someone like Farage who can't be arsed and is just out and about raising money on other projects, TV appearances etc). And Nigel doesn't seem to be getting in any trouble. Sure, he's not winning the court of public opinion from a lot of people but nothing else will happen to him.

I don't really have an answer though, because I know most people would NOT be advocating to pay them more as things stand and there's really no incentive to rock the (gravy) train boat.