The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[edwin_m]

The UK political and voting system prevents the likes of Farage ever gaining power.

However, the way Farage managed to scare the Tories into moving to the right and instigating a disastrous Brexit shows how he has managed to influence without holding power. And therefore also without having to take responsibility.

 

[Harpo]

However, the way Farage managed to scare the Tories into moving to the right and instigating a disastrous Brexit shows how he has managed to influence without holding power.

And has continued being a disruptive force for the Tories ever since, especially on all issues migration and race which he even managed to introduce into his ‘support’ for the farmers’ IHT protest.

I have, though, always been struck by Coutts, the bank that closed his account labelling Farage ‘a disingenuous grifter’ in an internal report. Wonder why he never took legal action on that aspect?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I have, though, always been struck by Coutts, the bank that closed his account labelling Farage ‘a disingenuous grifter’ in an internal report. Wonder why he never took legal action on that aspect?

Because it would have cost him lots of money to do so, whereas this way he can milk it for all its worth. "The establishment elite are trying to silence me!"

But after four and a half more years of the Reform elites greasily persuading the gullible that they are the antidote to this nasty establishment, numerical psephology will, I fear, go sharply out the window...at least there are two votes his band of snake oil salesmen won't be getting in 2029!

People don't want tough answers to difficult questions though. They want easy answers. And the fascist populist right have all the answers you want: it's the fault of the elite, it's the fault of immigrants, it's the fault of the Jews, it's the fault of Bill Gates and George Soros.

We see this with the Women Against State Pension Inequality. They don't care about pension inequality- if they did they'd be campaigning to bring the pension age back to 65 for everyone or they'd be volunteering to have their own pension age increased to 68. No, what they want is £10bn compensation, and they don't give a toss about who loses out to fund it.

Same with the winter fuel allowance.

If you're a single pensioner, Pension Credit gives you a minimum of £218 per week. But if you're single person of working age, Universal Credit gives you a minimum of £71 per week if you're under 25 and a minimum of £90 per week if you're over 25. So if your income is high enough that you don't qualify for Pension Credit then you're already getting almost three times more than the poorest working age people.

But somehow we're expected to believe that pensioners not in receipt of Pension Credit- more than 25% of whom are millionaires- are hard done to because they lost winter fuel allowance.

And don't even get me started on the farmers.

 

[RT4038]

If you're a single pensioner, Pension Credit gives you a minimum of £218 per week. But if you're single person of working age, Universal Credit gives you a minimum of £71 per week if you're under 25 and a minimum of £90 per week if you're over 25. So if your income is high enough that you don't qualify for Pension Credit then you're already getting almost three times more than the poorest working age people.

I don't think this is a reasonable comparison - if you're a single person of working age you should be working. If you are of pensionable age you are entitled to be not working. Pensioners, especially your nominal millionaires, will generally have worked hard through their lives to get to the financial position that they are in, often giving the younger generations now a better standard of living through their young lives that they would have had. Comparing their current financial position with those only starting out in life is ridiculous - if they work hard too (both educationally and in employment) they will have every chance of being in a similar position when they become pensioners.

 

[Dent]

But somehow we're expected to believe that pensioners not in receipt of Pension Credit- more than 25% of whom are millionaires- are hard done to because they lost winter fuel allowance.

Do you have a source for your "more than 25% of whom are millionaires" claim? similar claims have been made before, but it always turns out to be a misunderstanding of some statistic that actually refer to the number of people in household with a combined household wealthy of over £1m.

 

[Tetchytyke]

it always turns out to be a misunderstanding of some statistic that actually refer to the number of people in household with a combined household wealthy of over £1m.

It's not a misunderstanding of that statistic at all. 3m pensioners live in a household with household assets of more than £1m. They are millionaires.

There are many reasons why it can be argued that they're asset rich and cash poor, especially as in most cases it relates to the value of the family home*. But the fact remains that they are millionaires.

But those of us who are of working age are expected to realise our assets if we need cash.

(*if they own the family home as joint tenants- which the overwhelming majority of people do- then both owners jointly own 100% of the property. It isn't a 50/50 split.)

 

[Dent]

It's not a misunderstanding of that statistic at all. 3m pensioners live in a household with household assets of more than £1m. They are millionaires.

Living in a household with total household assets more than £1m does not make them millionaires.

Consider a household consisting of four individuals with an average of just over £250k each in assets. They are all in a household with household assets of over £1m, yet none of them are millionaires.

 

[Harpo]

Lets not forget that the state pension is a Ponzi scheme. Pensioners themselves, when they were of working age, paid for the pensions and health care of their elders, as do todays workers who will in turn be future recipients.

Luckily for us all, that is our societal structure in the UK and not an I/me ‘everyone for themselves’.

 

[jon0844]

Farage is a bit like Jeremy Corbyn, by being more successful standing and shouting at the sidelines stirring the people and getting popular without having to actually DO the work. (Please note, I'm not suggesting their political views align in any way whatsoever!).

Does he want the PM job? Well, it's not necessarily that clear as perhaps he wants the job from an egotistical view, like Boris Johnson, even if he wouldn't actually do much - a bit like Trump. However, I think he'd be quite happy to just grift and make a load of money along the way - as he's doing, and will do even better than anyone else if he secures £100m for Reform (in which case, he'll keep the grift going). It's not clear if Elon will support Reform or want to try and get control of the Tories, using Reform to keep the party from daring to move back towards the centre ground (and IMO become electable again).

Farage had to get his foot in the door and used Reform to become an MP, as without the MP status he can't really get anywhere, and I don't think he'd hesitate to throw the party/limited company under a bus to defect to the Tories and take over as leader of the party. There's ZERO chance of the current leader sticking it out until the election, unless it's called early for some reason (and Elon and the right wing media keep telling us all how Labour is just weeks away from collapse).

 

[Tetchytyke]

Living in a household with total household assets more than £1m does not make them millionaires.

Whilst you are technically correct that the definition of household can include a large group of people living together (not including people living in communal accommodation such as care/nursing homes or student halls of residence), in the vast majority of cases it means a family unit. Unless you have evidence that large numbers of pensioners are living together in hippy communes?

And if they’re married then most of the assets will be held jointly. The obvious examples include a joint bank account or the family home. When an asset is held jointly it means both parties own 100% of the asset; it isn’t a 50/50 split.

So yes, about 25% of pensioners are millionaires.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2024 ==

Lets not forget that the state pension is a Ponzi scheme. Pensioners themselves, when they were of working age, paid for the pensions and health care of their elders, as do todays workers who will in turn be future recipients.

Indeed. But where that starts to fall down is where the recipients are demanding they be given benefits that will not be available to the people now paying into the scheme.

Women Against State Pension Inequality are demanding compensation for not being allowed to retire at 60. Yet current working age people will be working until they're 68. That is certainly an interesting interpretation of being "against state pension inequality".

 

[DC1989]

Every financial decision made by the government should be subject to the Nicolas 30 ans test. Is giving 10 billion to a bunch of boomers good value for Nicolas?

It's clearly not so it's a good decision. Labours hypocrisy though deserves attention

When I read through some of the BBC & media sob stories I can hardly believe what I'm seeing. This is the best you've got? A bunch of women who retired in their mid fifties complaining

Simpson took early retirement in 2009, when she was 55, from her job in local government. She wanted to help her daughter get on in her career by taking on childcare responsibilities. “Because I had no evidence to the contrary, I assumed I’d be getting my pension at 60,” she said. “I draw up a spreadsheet for how to make my lump sum last five years, then signed on the dotted line.”

Julie Hince retired at 58 believing her savings would see her through to 60 - unaware that new rules meant she couldn't claim for a further six years.

 

[takno]

Lets not forget that the state pension is a Ponzi scheme. Pensioners themselves, when they were of working age, paid for the pensions and health care of their elders, as do todays workers who will in turn be future recipients.

Luckily for us all, that is our societal structure in the UK and not an I/me ‘everyone for themselves’.

All pensions are a ponzi scheme in that sense - the people in work are creating the value at any given time and retired people are living off their work. The only difference between public and private schemes is a lot of fancy nonsense about how having nominal ownership of capital allows you to co-opt the value of labour.

 

[Falcon1200]

Whether or not the WASPI women should receive compensation is one thing, and I understand why any Government would not feel able to commit the sum required. However, IMHO a greater issue is the cynical hypocrisy of politicians who say, and effectively promise, one thing when in opposition, but when in power and faced with economic reality, renege on that promise.

The problem for Labour is that in opposition they supported the WASPI campaign for compensation. Now in government, they are doing the opposite.

Indeed. Members of the current Government, up to and including the Prime Minister, supported the WASPI campaign;

Chris Mason: Starmer stung by Waspi women but it's least of his worries

Women affected by state pension changes believed Labour was on their side, feeding cynicism about politics.

www.bbc.co.uk

Sir Keir's words and actions, and those of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Chancellor Rachel Reeves among others, including photos of them with the Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) campaigners, left those campaigners with the impression that Labour was on their side.

Such duplicity, on the part of politicians of all persuasions, not just Labour, simply fuels the distrust and contempt many have for them, and increases the chance of someone like Farage seizing power (although personally I doubt that will ever actually happen, and hope it will not).

 

[Magdalia]

All pensions are a ponzi scheme in that sense - the people in work are creating the value at any given time and retired people are living off their work. The only difference between public and private schemes is a lot of fancy nonsense about how having nominal ownership of capital allows you to co-opt the value of labour.

A pension fund that collects contributions from employers and employees, invests those contributions in assets, and pays out pensions using the income and capital gain from those assets, is not a Ponzi scheme. Depending on the assets held by the fund it may not even be "co-opting the value of labour", for example the funds can be invested in capital equipment and projects or stores of value such as land, buildings, and fine art.

The big difference between private and public schemes in the UK is that, with the exception of the local government scheme, there is no fund of assets for public sector pensions, current pensions are paid by current taxpayers. But it is a particular feature of the UK economy: in, for example, Australia and Canada, public sector schemes have proper funds invested in real assets, some of those being UK assets.

Every financial decision made by the government should be subject to the Nicolas 30 ans test. Is giving 10 billion to a bunch of boomers good value for Nicolas?

I have not heard of this, and an internet search mostly comes up with things in French. I'm guessing it is a social media thing? But testing every government financial decision on whether it benefits 30 year olds sounds a good idea to me. They are the people who are going to pay my (public sector) pension!

 

[whitrope]

All politicians of all persuasions (with the odd exception) should not be believed or trusted in any way shape or form. As Billy Connelly once said “Don’t vote for the so and so‘s as it only encourages them” how right he was.

 

[edwin_m]

All politicians of all persuasions (with the odd exception) should not be believed or trusted in any way shape or form. As Billy Connelly once said “Don’t vote for the so and so‘s as it only encourages them” how right he was.

That line is peddled by politicians with little personal integrity, to encourage the belief that it doesn't matter because the others are no better. This may be an unpopular opinion but I'd argue most of them are actually trying to do the right thing for the country.

 

[MotCO]

It's not a misunderstanding of that statistic at all. 3m pensioners live in a household with household assets of more than £1m. They are millionaires.

There are many reasons why it can be argued that they're asset rich and cash poor, especially as in most cases it relates to the value of the family home*. But the fact remains that they are millionaires.

But those of us who are of working age are expected to realise our assets if we need cash.

They may be millionaires on paper, but until they realise their assets, they cannot access them (unless they chose to go down the equity release route, which is not something I would want to do.) So, are you saying you expect the elderly to sell up, possibly a family home they have lived in, and adapted to suit their needs, and have upheaval just when they want to settle down and enjoy their last years? And they have probably paid taxes all their lives, so why shouldn't they expect to get something back?

The issues with the Winter Fuel Allowance and the WASPI are the same. Labour criticised the Tories for daring to think of cancelling the WFA, many current Ministers (and PM) positively courted the WASPIs, and now they are in power, they have reneged on their promises. They have positively misled people who voted for them - they have got their votes under false premises.

And it is not an issue that there is no money. It is a case that Labour are spending money on schemes that they do not need to. £1.5bn was transferred to the Miners' Pension Fund when there is not a legal commitment. £500m foreign aid to farmers (but not our own.) Carbon capture £22bn whilst the rest of the world continues to produce it. Foreign aid being used on dubious schemes. Lease on Chagos Islands base when we could have (and may well) retained it.

 

[ainsworth74]

All politicians of all persuasions (with the odd exception) should not be believed or trusted in any way shape or form. As Billy Connelly once said “Don’t vote for the so and so‘s as it only encourages them” how right he was.

Whilst I understand the frustration I'm far from convinced it's a wise strategy. Simply disengaging from the electoral process opens the way for the kranks and extremists (of either side) to take control of the machinery of Government. And I'm not sure that that's going to lead to outcomes that people would be happy with.

 

[Yew]

They may be millionaires on paper, but until they realise their assets, they cannot access them (unless they chose to go down the equity release route, which is not something I would want to do.) So, are you saying you expect the elderly to sell up, possibly a family home they have lived in, and adapted to suit their needs, and have upheaval just when they want to settle down and enjoy their last years?

Why do an elderly couple need a full size family home, for just the two of them?

And they have probably paid taxes all their lives, so why shouldn't they expect to get something back?

As we are seeing in a lot of cases, they didnt, they worked until their mid-50s. Why should my money go towards funding such an extravagance, when the same would have never been afforded to me?

 

[Falcon1200]

Why do an elderly couple need a full size family home, for just the two of them?

Because it is their family home, where they raised their children, because it allows those children, and grandchildren, to come and stay, because they have friends and social activities in the area, because they do not want the upheaval and expense of moving and starting afresh somewhere else.

 

[Dent]

Whilst you are technically correct that the definition of household can include a large group of people living together (not including people living in communal accommodation such as care/nursing homes or student halls of residence), in the vast majority of cases it means a family unit. Unless you have evidence that large numbers of pensioners are living together in hippy communes?

There are various scenarios in which someone can be in a household with a total of £1m household assets yet not be a millionaire. If you are claiming that the number of people in households with over £1m equals the number of millionaires then the onus is on you to show that the number of people in any of those scenarios is zero (or at least statistically insignificant).

And if they’re married then most of the assets will be held jointly. The obvious examples include a joint bank account or the family home. When an asset is held jointly it means both parties own 100% of the asset; it isn’t a 50/50 split.

You are clearly double-counting the value of the asset if you count two people as both owning 100% or it.

 

[Yew]

Because it is their family home, where they raised their children, because it allows those children, and grandchildren, to come and stay, because they have friends and social activities in the area, because they do not want the upheaval and expense of moving and starting afresh somewhere else.

And why should the state subsidise a lavish lifestyle, with an early retirement, in an oversized house?

 

[Tetchytyke]

£1.5bn was transferred to the Miners' Pension Fund when there is not a legal commitment.

That money was the miners money which had been stolen from them when British Coal was privatised. Very different.

And they have probably paid taxes all their lives, so why shouldn't they expect to get something back?

We've all paid taxes all our lives. Why should they get compensation for not being able to retire at 60 when we will all have to work until at least 68 (and likely 70)?

So, are you saying you expect the elderly to sell up, possibly a family home they have lived in, and adapted to suit their needs, and have upheaval just when they want to settle down and enjoy their last years?

The rest of us have to sell our house if we can no longer afford it!

Lease on Chagos Islands base when we could have (and may well) retained it.

The Chagos Islands that the International Court of Justice and the UN both said we had no right to?

 

[nw1]

They may be millionaires on paper, but until they realise their assets, they cannot access them (unless they chose to go down the equity release route, which is not something I would want to do.) So, are you saying you expect the elderly to sell up, possibly a family home they have lived in, and adapted to suit their needs, and have upheaval just when they want to settle down and enjoy their last years? And they have probably paid taxes all their lives, so why shouldn't they expect to get something back?

The issues with the Winter Fuel Allowance and the WASPI are the same. Labour criticised the Tories for daring to think of cancelling the WFA, many current Ministers (and PM) positively courted the WASPIs, and now they are in power, they have reneged on their promises. They have positively misled people who voted for them - they have got their votes under false premises.

It was probably a mistake to support them while in opposition, I will say that. But at the end of the day can we afford, as a country, to give compensation to a small sub-section of the population who have been disadvantaged by pension age rises when that might mean cuts to public services and/or below-inflation public-sector pay rises? Not to mention cuts in pensions for the less-financially-blessed-on-average GenX and beyond.

When I became an adult in the late 20th century the pension age was 65, now it's 68. Yet I don't jump up and down demanding compensation from what is, at the end of the day, public money.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Whilst I understand the frustration I'm far from convinced it's a wise strategy.

I understand the frustration too, but it's a line mostly peddled by politicians who want the electorate to believe that they're all as crooked as they are. The truth is that they're not.

Compensation for these women wasn't in the Labour manifesto. Nobody was lied to.

And the reason why there's no compensation for these women is the same reason why the Tories made the changes in 1995 and 2011.

 

[ainsworth74]

So, are you saying you expect the elderly to sell up, possibly a family home they have lived in, and adapted to suit their needs, and have upheaval just when they want to settle down and enjoy their last years?

If not getting a winter fuel payment means they have to sell their home then I think they had different issues to contend with. That is, after all, what were talking about here.

I'm also unclear on why all pensioners specifically should be protected but anyone else just had to lump it and suffer? Those on the lowest income sure no problem. But all pensioners?

 

[Tetchytyke]

When I became an adult in the late 20th century the pension age was 65, now it's 68. Yet I don't jump up and down demanding compensation from what is, at the end of the day, public money.

The 2011 changes cost me three years of pension which, at current prices, is worth about £35,000.

The Women Against State Pension Inequality seem to be perfectly content for us working age people- the people who are paying their pension- to get less. It's almost as if they're a self-serving lobby group.

 

[nw1]

The 2011 changes cost me three years of pension which, at current prices, is worth about £35,000.

The Women Against State Pension Inequality seem to be perfectly content for us working age people- the people who are paying their pension- to get less. It's almost as if they're a self-serving lobby group.

Indeed, should our pensions be cut further, or should our retirement age be raised still further, to pay out to the WASPIs? Is that fair?

 

[JamesT]

That money was the miners money which had been stolen from them when British Coal was privatised. Very different.

It wasn’t stolen from them. The miners pension fund did a deal where government would underwrite the fund, in return for a share of any surplus above the funds required to pay the pensions. The miners have not had their pensions reduced.
Effectively they purchased an insurance policy but never needed to claim on it. Would you expect your premiums back if you never claimed on your insurance?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2024 ==

Compensation for these women wasn't in the Labour manifesto. Nobody was lied to.

It may not have been in the manifesto, but there are numerous instances of Labour politicians standing with signs saying they would work for compensation or a “fair solution”. Was that not a lie given what they have now done?

 

[Tetchytyke]

The miners pension fund did a deal where government would underwrite the fund, in return for a share of any surplus above the funds required to pay the pensions.

That's not quite true. The fund as it was in 1992 was split in half, with half going to pay the beneficiaries and half going to British Coal. That half was then moved into an investment fund when British Coal was privatised, with that investment fund to be repaid to the government if it wasn't used. Any surpluses from that investment fund were to be split 50/50 between the beneficiaries and the government. The surplus from the investment fund is much higher than anyone expected.

But, ultimately, it was the miners' money all along.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2024 ==

It may not have been in the manifesto, but there are numerous instances of Labour politicians standing with signs saying they would work for compensation or a “fair solution”. Was that not a lie given what they have now done?

It was a Labour commitment in the 2019 manifesto. You may recall that the electorate resoundingly rejected that manifesto, instead choosing the Conservative Party to lead the country. The Conservative Party made the changes in 1995 and 2011, so one must presume the electorate supported that change.

Since then, there's been little about it. Starmer had a photo op with the WASPI campaign group in 2021. Of course this was before Liz Truss blew up the economy. Sadly things change. Nobody could have foreseen how much damage a lettuce could do in two months.

I find it interesting that the media are so keen to blame Labour. The Conservatives made the original change in 1995 and accelerated that change in 2011. The Conservatives then had thirteen whole years to change their mind and compensate these people. They did not. And we're supposed to blame Keir Starmer?