The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[brad465]

I was expecting them to be bad, but they've been even worse than expected. While they did inherit problems, the time when they can blame the previous government has long since passed now, and it's clear that they are completely devoid of any ideas and are floundering around.

You say that, but the Tories blamed Labour for several years after 2010. The difference this time is probably that the Tories are currently nowhere, so blaming them is pointless because the public are like "We know!"

Something not talked about that I think is contributing to this doom loop is, despite only being PM for 44 days, Liz Truss has left a profound legacy on all successors: the way the markets reacted and sank her is making everyone that follows extremely timid and cautious for fear of repeating that crash. While in some ways this is good, because what she did was a disaster, it also is preventing bold action taking place that is needed to address long-term structural problems. Instead we get sticking plasters like raising taxes just enough to fill a "black hole", and when cuts are put forward (WFA and PIP), the public scream extremely loudly against them and force the government to back down.

Whoever follows Labour will probably have the same problems, and will also face comparable backlash at any changes. They probably can't cut taxes either, even to levels before Labour came in, or else the market will sink them, and if they try to cut spending to compensate tax cuts, then the public will scream against those cuts just like they did with WFA and PIP.

No wonder competent, talented people are put off going into politics.

 

[SteveP29]

the time when they can blame the previous government has long since passed now

Has it?
I seem to remember the previous administration blaming the one before that for 14 years, even right up till the time they were jettisoned, and voters of a certain demographic still lapped it up and nodded sagely

 

[AlterEgo]

if they try to cut spending to compensate tax cuts, then the public will scream against those cuts just like they did with WFA and PIP.

No wonder competent, talented people are put off going into politics.

But PIP was a total injustice. PIP is there to assist disabled people with costs of living they incur by virtue of being disabled.

Why should they have their benefits cut to get us out of the hole?

 

[brad465]

But PIP was a total injustice. PIP is there to assist disabled people with costs of living they incur by virtue of being disabled.

Why should they have their benefits cut to get us out of the hole?

I agree it was wrong, but I'm pointing out how two different welfare types both received huge opposition, so it's reasonable to assume anyone else trying to cut welfare further will face the same problem.

I was very much in favour of WFA being cut, but it should have been done in conjunction with policies to reduce overall energy bills for all, such that cutting WFA wouldn't have impacted its claimants. All this allowance does is subsidise energy company profits.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Has it?
I seem to remember the previous administration blaming the one before that for 14 years, even right up till the time they were jettisoned, and voters of a certain demographic still lapped it up and nodded sagely

I think the biggest difference is that the Tories did something about it almost instantly, i.e the dreadful austerity policy. Labour, on the other hand, have spent over a year doing nothing particularly noticeable apart from alienating the people who actually voted for them - whilst clambering after people who will never vote for them (or certainly won't for the foreseeable future).

 

[ainsworth74]

But PIP was a total injustice. PIP is there to assist disabled people with costs of living they incur by virtue of being disabled.

Why should they have their benefits cut to get us out of the hole?

Quite, you can argue around the margins about PIP and some of it's foibles but Labour weren't talking about margins they were talking about swingeing and, frankly, nonsensical cuts. Under Labour's proposal someone who couldn't prepare a meal using a cooker (but could use a microwave), needed grab rails and a shower stool to get washed, needs to use pads to control their urinary incontinence, and needed assistance to dress the lower half of their body would not qualify for the Daily Living component of PIP. So that person doesn't need PIP? Call me old fashioned but that sounds like someone who should be getting some extra money...

I was very much in favour of WFA being cut, but it should have been done in conjunction with policies to reduce overall energy bills for all, such that cutting WFA wouldn't have impacted its claimants.

It doesn't even necessarily follow that cuts to WFA needed to be tied to wider changes to energy bills (after all working age people of all types are just expected to get on with it) but it certainly does require that Labour try to do some actual politics when they introduce changes like that. It was crackers introducing it as a standalone policy rather than as part of a wider program of budget changes. Even more crackers trying to introduce it to take effect in the same winter it was proposed rather than giving some adjustment time.

But one consistent theme of Labour's administration so far as is that they appear wholly incapable of actually doing politics and understanding how to formulate a story of what the Government's purpose is so we end up with a sequence of disjointed policies and the Government lurching from one farce to the next buffeted by whims of the media and Reform.

I mean the Renters Rights Act gained Royal Assent yesterday:

Described as the biggest shake-up to renting in England for more than 30 years, a new law giving tenants more rights was formally approved at the end of October.
The government still needs to confirm how - and when - each of the changes will come into force.
The new rules will affect more than 11 million people.

How long will I be able to rent a home for?​

Properties will be rented on a "periodic" or rolling basis, rather than under a fixed 12 or 24-month contract.
That means that tenants who wish to remain can do so, which the government says will provide greater security.
Tenants who want to leave can give two months' notice, rather than being tied in for a year or longer. The government says this will end "the injustice of tenants being trapped paying rent for substandard properties".
The Renters' Rights Bill - now known as the Renters' Rights Act - applies to England. Scotland has had periodic agreements for tenancies since 2017, but Wales and Northern Ireland still allow fixed term contracts.

Will a landlord be able to evict me for no reason?​

In the year to June 2025, more than 11,000 households in England had their homes repossessed by bailiffs following a Section 21 "no-fault" eviction.
The new law means that a landlord will not be able to sell or move into a property in the first 12 months after a tenancy begins.
After this, they will need to give four months' notice.
However, it will still be possible for landlords to evict tenants in certain circumstances.
If they damage the property, commit antisocial behaviour, or fall significantly behind paying the rent - known as rent arrears - the landlord can give notice at any point.
Tenants will need to owe three months' rent rather than two to trigger an arrears eviction.
Under the new rules, if a tenant does not leave after the four months' notice period, a court will decide whether to order possession of the property.
Landlords will also no longer be able to evict tenants for complaining about poor conditions.
A "Decent Homes Standard" will be introduced, and the new "Awaab's Law" will take effect.
Named after two-year-old Awaab Ishak who died after being exposed to mould in 2020 in his Rochdale home, this will require hazards to be repaired within a certain timeframe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn92727v8ezo

When can a landlord increase my rent?​

Landlords will need to give two months' notice, and can only increase rent to "the market rate".
If a tenant believes the amount is excessive, they can challenge the landlord at a first-tier tribunal, a type of civil court.
The Act will also end the practice of "bidding wars", so new tenants cannot be asked to pay more than the advertised price.
The changes come as average UK monthly private rents increased by 5.5% to £1,354 in the 12 months to September 2025, according to a provisional estimate by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

How much deposit will I have to pay?​

There are no changes to the rules of the protected deposit schemes, external currently operating in England to cover potential damages. The maximum a landlord can ask for to cover potential damages remains:

• five weeks' rent - if the rent for the year is less than £50,000
• six weeks' rent if the yearly rent is £50,000 or more

However, landlords will only be able to request one month's rent in advance to secure a tenancy - or 28 days' rent for tenancies with rental periods of less than one month.

What if I receive benefits or have children?​

It will be illegal for landlords and agents to discriminate against prospective tenants who receive benefits or who have children.
However, landlords and agents will still be able to do reference and affordability checks before selecting a tenant.

Can I have a pet in a rented home?​

age source,Getty Images
A landlord must consider a request to have a pet and cannot "unreasonably" refuse.
Tenants will be able to challenge unfair decisions.
Landlords will be able to require pet insurance to cover any damage to their property.

How are rules changing for student accommodation?​

Tenants in purpose-built student accommodation can be given two weeks' notice to leave.
This rule applies to specific institutional providers like university-owned accommodation or companies renting to students.
If a private landlord has been renting a house of multiple occupation to students - where the tenancy was agreed at a maximum six months before the tenancy started - landlords can evict them to allow for new tenancies.
All the residents on the contract need to be students and the landlord needs to give four months' notice.

How have campaigners and landlords reacted to the new rules?​

The Renters' Reform Coalition - which includes Shelter, Generation Rent and Citizens Advice - welcomed the changes, calling them a "generational upgrade to renters' rights".
The St Mungo's homeless charity said the government had taken a "positive, tangible step towards ensuring everyone has somewhere safe and secure to call home".
The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) said it will work with the government to ensure the rules are implemented in a way "that is fair, proportionate and deliverable".
But it said the new rules will mean prospective tenants are screened much more carefully. "We're going to have to look very, very carefully at what the risk is of those new tenants," said the organisation's Chris Norris.
"That'll be to do with their ability to pay the tenancy, their background, whether they've got county court judgments against their name, whether they've had a good experience of renting in the past".
He added landlords were still "nervous" about what will happen in the minority of cases where tenancies go wrong, and warned that the court system may struggle to deal with those wanting to challenge evictions or rent increases.

Renters' Rights Bill becomes law - here's what it means for you

The biggest shake up to renting rules in England for 30 years will affect millions of tenants.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Government should be crowing about this as this is the sort of stuff that their voters actually in general would like and might actually have a positive impact on many people. Instead we seem to have basically radio silence.

 

[BAFRA77]

The Government should be crowing about this as this is the sort of stuff that their voters actually in general would like and might actually have a positive impact on many people. Instead we seem to have basically radio silence.

Been pretty much the same with Awaab's Law coming into effect last Monday

 

[RT4038]

I was very much in favour of WFA being cut, but it should have been done in conjunction with policies to reduce overall energy bills for all, such that cutting WFA wouldn't have impacted its claimants. All this allowance does is subsidise energy company profits.

It doesn't even necessarily follow that cuts to WFA needed to be tied to wider changes to energy bills (after all working age people of all types are just expected to get on with it) but it certainly does require that Labour try to do some actual politics when they introduce changes like that.

And therein lies a problem - there are many people (working age and over working age) for whom increased energy bills are not particularly a problem - annoying, yes, but quite affordable. 'policies to reduce overall energy bills for all' will help those people as much, if not more.

Where people are in life depends very much on how things are 'affordable' - living with a spouse/another person, whether you and/or your spouse/another person has a good job and/or worked lots of overtime, had an inheritance, no children, paid off the mortgage etc etc. Got all of those (or a good combination) and bingo you've got a good life and envy from those who haven't. Conversely, someone with a combination of no spouse, lots of children, no or badly paying job or won't/can't work, big mortgage or paying rent is in trouble with the cost of living crisis and is hurting. It also depends on how big a mortgage you took out when the rate was 1% , how much you pushed the boat out on your leased SUV (other cars available!), credit card balance etc etc - when the rates change, energy prices change you are in trouble.

So should those living with a spouse/another person be taxed more heavily than those living alone? Should those working lots of overtime have the extra money taxed away? Inheritances confiscated? A no children tax? Once the mortgage gets paid off, what you would have paid gets given to the taxman? it is the only way to even out the outcomes and wealth. Should single parents be given money for a good life taxed from the married/single people who obviously have a financial advantage over them? Where would be the incentive to do better in life, to get your ducks in a row [and keep them there] if the end result is that you are taxed out of this advantage, on the basis of envy from those who haven't?

The underlying problem is that we all want a standard of living that we can't afford.

 

[Yew]

They inherited an awful situation for sure, but their inability to get a grip of public spending has compounded everything.

You don't cut your way to prosperity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Oct 2025 ==

They probably can't cut taxes either, even to levels before Labour came in, or else the market will sink them, and if they try to cut spending to compensate tax cuts, then the public will scream against those cuts just like they did with WFA and PIP.

WFA was an odd one, as cutting it for well off folks was relatively uncontroversial, they just chose too agressive of a cut-off.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

WFA was an odd one, as cutting it for well off folks was relatively uncontroversial, they just chose too agressive of a cut-off.

There is also the point that once they'd taken into account the cost of the whole means testing process, how much would they actually have saved overall?

 

[JamieL]

The underlying problem is that we all want a standard of living that we can't afford.

I don't agree with this statement. Most of those at work seek to live within their means. Even where debt is taken-on, the repayment schedule is affordable. Many of these individuals make sacrifices and choices to support some luxuries, e.g. holidays.

I am not sure that maps across to most of the aborted cost savings. WFA for example. Keeping that is a choice to shift the burden a little further against working people. Keeping the triple lock does the same. No change to PIP does the same. Etc. The result is a massive tax burden on the working populace that is just going up and up.

The relative wealth of the boomer generation is increasing, the working generations are getting poorer. And the difference is increasing. No wonder growth is stalling.

When the tines comes, Labour can go whistle if they think they are getting my vote at the next election. The only party getting my vote will be the party that offers significant and immediate tax cuts.

 

[brad465]

The only party getting my vote will be the party that offers significant and immediate tax cuts.

You are living in a fantasy land if you think ANY party will deliver that. Even Reform UK have now abandoned their massive tax cut pledge already:

Reform UK abandoning manifesto pledge of £90bn in tax cuts, deputy leader admits

Richard Tice says party will concentrate on cutting civil service and scrapping net zero once in government

www.theguardian.com

Reform UK’s deputy leader has admitted the party cannot deliver the £90bn in tax cuts promised in its manifesto, saying it would concentrate on public spending cuts once in government.

Richard Tice said key election pledges such as lifting the income tax threshold would be an “aspiration” and that once in government Reform would concentrate on cutting the civil service and scrapping net zero.


Reform’s leader, Nigel Farage, is said to be planning a speech next month to overhaul the party’s economic policy – which Labour and the Conservatives see as a key weakness. The Times reported that Farage would promise to reduce spending before reducing taxes.

Farage has previously said he expected to make £350bn worth of spending cuts over the course of the parliament – the equivalent of axing the whole schools budget every year or wiping out a third of NHS funding annually.


He has said he would find the savings via cuts to net zero, migrant hotels and diversity initiatives, but added the target figure was also widely expected to be revised.

“A manifesto is based on a point in time,” Tice told Times Radio. “The principles behind it are absolutely rock solid. We said we’ve got to make very significant savings in order to fund a different way to run the economy.

“What’s happened since then is that the state of the economy, because of the mismanagement by this Labour government, the numbers have got far worse. And we will be focusing relentlessly, as I’ve been saying, on the savings.”

Policies in the manifesto included raising the inheritance tax threshold to £2m, lifting the income tax personal allowance to £20,000 and the higher rate to £70,000 and reducing corporation tax to 15%. It also included tax relief on private school fees and cuts to fuel duty.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yeah, tax cuts are not coming - but a fairer and more redistributive tax system would be very welcome.

 

[Richard Scott]

Yeah, tax cuts are not coming - but a fairer and more redistributive tax system would be very welcome.

The problem with ideals over tax are that try and tax those with lots of money and they leave the country. They then pay no tax at all or very little into UK tax system leaving it worse off.
It's not an easy one to win.

 

[brad465]

The problem with ideals over tax are that try and tax those with lots of money and they leave the country. They then pay no tax at all or very little into UK tax system leaving it worse off.
It's not an easy one to win.

One tax we could do with is a land tax. You can set different rates based on how its used, so first homes, farmland and critical industry could have low rates, while land that is used in less desirable ways, such as by multiple property owners, mansions/country estates, grouse moors, etc., are taxed much higher. Land can't flee the country (except on geological timescales), and if wealthy landowners leave, they sell up and the land becomes available to someone else instead who then pays the tax.

 

[JamesT]

One tax we could do with is a land tax. You can set different rates based on how its used, so first homes, farmland and critical industry could have low rates, while land that is used in less desirable ways, such as by multiple property owners, mansions/country estates, grouse moors, etc., are taxed much higher. Land can't flee the country (except on geological timescales), and if wealthy landowners leave, they sell up and the land becomes available to someone else instead who then pays the tax.

If you mean a Land Value Tax, one of the key features is that it doesn’t change the rate depending on how the land is used. The only variable is how valuable the land is.
In principle it’s a very efficient tax that can replace various others. The tricky bit would be the assessments, given how problematic council tax valuation has been.

 

[Lewisham2221]

WFA was an odd one, as cutting it for well off folks was relatively uncontroversial, they just chose too agressive of a cut-off.

They scored a spectacular own-goal with WFA by announcing that they'd found money to resolve the railway pay dispute, then announcing - in practically the same breath - that they were cutting WFA. The optics of that were terrible.

The only party getting my vote will be the party that offers significant and immediate tax cuts.

I suspect you won't be voting for anybody, then...

Personally I'd be more focused on who's going to deliver better value for money from taxes.

The underlying problem is that we all want a standard of living that we can't afford.

Yes, I can't disagree with that.

Unfortunately I feel like we've developed something of a national culture of being unhappy with everything, but preferring to point the blame at others, rather than taking any responsibility for our own situation.

Yes, it's a broad generalisation, and there will always be people who fall on hard times, in circumstances that are out of their control.

Our smoking/drinking/other substance/(poor)dietary/exercise (or lack of) habits put additional pressures on the NHS. People misuse the NHS - going to A&E or calling and ambulance for things that they should really go to their GP or a pharmacist for. People demanding prescriptions for things like paracetamol, that can be obtained over the counter for far less than it costs the NHS to prescribe them. People shopping online or at out-of-town retail parks, then complaining about the death of town centres. People choosing to do most of their drinking at home (with cheap, supermarket bought alcohol), then going on to complain about the death of the pub and nightclub industry. People who drive everywhere, then complain about traffic congestion, lack of parking, limited & expensive public transport options. People who prefer to remain angry and bitter about the loss of industrial jobs in past decades, rather than moving forwards. People with more consumer goods and services/subscriptions than before, moaning that they don't have a surplus of leftover cash. It's endless. Again, yes, it's a very broad generalisation. But it paints a pretty accurate picture of society as whole, and I bet there's not a single person reading this (in the UK at least) who isn't guilty of at least one or two these.

 

[Yew]

The problem with ideals over tax are that try and tax those with lots of money and they leave the country. They then pay no tax at all or very little into UK tax system leaving it worse off.
It's not an easy one to win.

Given that we've had tax rises in the recent past, is there clear evidence of this happening on a meaningful scale?

 

[ChrisC]

One tax we could do with is a land tax. You can set different rates based on how its used, so first homes, farmland and critical industry could have low rates, while land that is used in less desirable ways, such as by multiple property owners, mansions/country estates, grouse moors, etc., are taxed much higher. Land can't flee the country (except on geological timescales), and if wealthy landowners leave, they sell up and the land becomes available to someone else instead who then pays the tax.

Grouse moors!
I actually understand why you have specifically mentioned grouse moors as grouse shooting is a sport of the rich. However, I am not sure about the value of the land. Grouse moors are to be found on land that could be used for little else. It’s mostly inhospitable moorland which apart from being used for grouse shooting would have little value and not viable for alternative use including farming.

 

[Yew]

Personally I'd be more focused on who's going to deliver better value for money from taxes.

I agree, but we're not at some point where there are vast amounts of easy wastage waiting to be plucked, the disastrous austerity experiment put paid to that. If we're wanting to see real improvements in public services (either in quality or cost), then we need to be making capital investments that will pay back in the long run.

 

[Richard Scott]

Given that we've had tax rises in the recent past, is there clear evidence of this happening on a meaningful scale?

I do know of people who have done that. I don't know if it's on a meaningful scale but any loss of tax revenue is a loss.
Any evidence that tax rises have made a net gain? If you have lower taxes potentially can raise revenue by indirect taxation such as VAT on goods as people have more disposable income?
I don't know the answer, just playing devil's advocate.
My issue is if government raises taxes and then offers things like grants on electric cars (mostly built abroad). It may be small fry, in the grand scheme of things, but I don’t want to subsidise someone's new car, especially when built abroad.
We have other daft ideas like not allowing coal mining and then importing it, again may be small fry but it would give people jobs and put money into the country especially when most of this would be exported for steel industry abroad. They're going to get it from somewhere may as well be us. All this sitting on high horse claiming to be green isn't helping anyone.

 

[Yew]

Unfortunately I feel like we've developed something of a national culture of being unhappy with everything, but preferring to point the blame at others, rather than taking any responsibility for our own situation.

A lady called Maggie sold off loads of state assets for cheap to her mates, and systematically destroyed industries large regions of our country before I was born, and somehow that's my fault?

 

[Richard Scott]

A lady called Maggie sold off loads of state assets for cheap to her mates, and systematically destroyed industries large regions of our country before I was born, and somehow that's my fault?

Don't see current government helping industry either.
Think some of those industries that were sold off weren't in a good way after industrial disputes of 1970s. I'm not disagreeing with you about selling them off as not always a sensible move.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I agree, but we're not at some point where there are vast amounts of easy wastage waiting to be plucked, the disastrous austerity experiment put paid to that. If we're wanting to see real improvements in public services (either in quality or cost), then we need to be making capital investments that will pay back in the long run.

Agreed. I'd count decent capital investment as good value for money.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Oct 2025 ==

A lady called Maggie sold off loads of state assets for cheap to her mates, and systematically destroyed industries large regions of our country before I was born, and somehow that's my fault?

Yes, I'm well aware of that. And no, it's not your fault. But see my point about being perpetualy bitter and angry about the past - even more so when it's a past that you were never present for.

Thatchers term ended in 1990 (35 years ago), that particular Tory era ended in 1997 (28 years ago) and Thatcher died in 2013 (12 years ago). Just sitting and being bitter and angry about it isn't going to change anything, doing something may just well do.

 

[brad465]

Don't see current government helping industry either.
Think some of those industries that were sold off weren't in a good way after industrial disputes of 1970s. I'm not disagreeing with you about selling them off as not always a sensible move.

The problem now is our whole system is based on short-termism; even if a government comes in that wants to help industry in whatever way, another government could come in and just reverse all that immediately, especially as destroying is easier than building. Case in-point, if Labour decided to nationalise all utilities and some strategic industry like steel properly, the Tories or Reform could come in later and easily sell it all off again, thus Labour wasted time and money.

This would be another benefit of Proportional Representation, achieving consensus on destructive stuff is much harder when no party has carte blanche to do so. Of course consensus on approving the building/setting up of essential policy is also tricky, however things that are widely popular and/or common ground for coalition parties will easily get through.

 

[RT4038]

A lady called Maggie sold off loads of state assets for cheap to her mates, and systematically destroyed industries large regions of our country before I was born, and somehow that's my fault?

Well I could be bitter about the country getting into the First World War (before I was born) and spending so much of its wealth and its people in the way it was fought. But what is the point of that? If you weren't born at the time of Margaret Thatcher, then you won't really know what a state the country was in at that time. The remedies were most likely right at the time, but we have carried on with those without an overhaul and without curbing some of the excesses which any system will produce as people work out how to exploit it. People wanted the better standards of living that the policies produced, and wanted it to improve and improve, by awarding themselves more and more beyond the point where it can be afforded. Cue our current problems.

Of course consensus on approving the building/setting up of essential policy is also tricky, however things that are widely popular and/or common ground for coalition parties will easily get through.

On the assumption that there are things widely popular (which are not merely making the situation worse) and/or common ground actually in practice there in the first place. Tax rises and service cuts do not usually come into this category.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Oct 2025 ==

I don't agree with this statement. Most of those at work seek to live within their means. Even where debt is taken-on, the repayment schedule is affordable. Many of these individuals make sacrifices and choices to support some luxuries, e.g. holidays.

This is not necessarily as individuals - it is also the country as a whole awarding itself welfare and other policies that it cannot afford. Selling property / industries to foreigners in order to get foreign currency to pay for the imports and foreign holidays. (If we didn't, the exchange rate will plummet) Then people wanting to impose a tax (in one way or another) on those foreigners' assets, which is essentially cheating them - don't be upset if they do that back to UK assets abroad of course.

The repayment schedule may be affordable now, but when interest rates rise because the country is borrowing too much or energy prices rise due to global shocks, are they so affordable then?

 

[ainsworth74]

There is also the point that once they'd taken into account the cost of the whole means testing process, how much would they actually have saved overall?

I'm not convinced that actually cost much at all. To receive a Winter Fuel Payment last winter you had to be receiving Pension Credit which is means tested already. So I'm not convinced that there would have been all that much administrative expense involved.

I actually suspect the new way of doing probably does come with far more administrative expense due to the fact that it involves a lot more legwork with people who have income over £35k have to either opt-out of the payment or HMRC have to arrange to recoup it through a change to their tax code. That feels like far more of an administrative burden than the original version.

But, they've hosed reforming the Winter Fuel Payment so we're stuck with this stupidity for who knows how long because there's not a cat in hells chance any politician of any stripe will be brave enough to tackle pensioner benefits now to spread some of the pain around.

 

[JamesT]

I'm not convinced that actually cost much at all. To receive a Winter Fuel Payment last winter you had to be receiving Pension Credit which is means tested already. So I'm not convinced that there would have been all that much administrative expense involved.

I actually suspect the new way of doing probably does come with far more administrative expense due to the fact that it involves a lot more legwork with people who have income over £35k have to either opt-out of the payment or HMRC have to arrange to recoup it through a change to their tax code. That feels like far more of an administrative burden than the original version.

But, they've hosed reforming the Winter Fuel Payment so we're stuck with this stupidity for who knows how long because there's not a cat in hells chance any politician of any stripe will be brave enough to tackle pensioner benefits now to spread some of the pain around.

Wasn’t there also the effect of more people taking up pension credit? Which of course they’re entitled to, but is still money the government wasn’t previously expecting to have to pay out.

 

[ainsworth74]

Wasn’t there also the effect of more people taking up pension credit? Which of course they’re entitled to, but is still money the government wasn’t previously expecting to have to pay out.

Oh yes absolutely, it was probably the greatest take-up campaign for Pension Credit I've ever witnessed

Whilst I'm sure the bean counters didn't see it that way it was probably actually one of the better aspects of the change. Made sure more money was actually going to people who need it rather than being given out in Winter Fuel Payments to people who had no need of it whatsoever!

But just in terms the administrative expense of means testing it, I'm not sure it will have been very much at all.

 

[BAFRA77]

Thatchers term ended in 1990 (35 years ago), that particular Tory era ended in 1997 (28 years ago) and Thatcher died in 2013 (12 years ago). Just sitting and being bitter and angry about it isn't going to change anything, doing something may just well do.

Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund value after deciding not to sell off the rights etc. to North Sea Oil (unlike the Free Market Zealot Thatcher):

19.586 trillion kroner or about £1.4 trillion

From which the annual interest is invested back in Government programmes for the benefit of the nation.

According to the chief economist at PricewaterhouseCoopers, John Hawksworth, had all this money been set aside by the UK and invested in ultra-safe assets it would have been worth £450bn by 2008. He admits that is a very conservative estimate: Sukhdev Johal, professor of accounting at Queen Mary University of London, thinks the total might well have been £850bn by now.

But hey - at least it made some of Maggie’s mates and party donors a little bit more richer and gave nice tax cuts to the richest in the nation.