Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

Back on winter fuel, speaking to a pensioner friend of ours this morning, she's been on her own 10 years now and I fully expected her to be one who still gets it, but she is just a few pounds a week over the amount where she could get pension credit so she won't get it.

She is really worried about the winter, has been given extra jumpers etc from family members.

I think the new government have rushed it in, agree with it being means tested but it seems like they maybe haven't done the legwork on working out the right measure.

That’s a sensible questioning of the proposals imo, unlike Tricky who just wants to have a pop at the new government and train drivers.
The other side of the coin is that I can take you to see an elderly lady who lives, about 300 metres from me, alone in a very large ‘listed’ building. The property is worth at least £5 million and, as I understand it, she has more (millions) to fall back on. Good luck to her but are we seriously suggesting she should be entitled to the same wfa as poorer pensioners?
I don’t think so…but I do accept some ‘fine tuning’ may be necessary.

[Trickytreesreds]

That’s a sensible questioning of the proposals imo, unlike Tricky who just wants to have a pop at the new government and train drivers.
The other side of the coin is that I can take you to see an elderly lady who lives, about 300 metres from me, alone in a very large ‘listed’ building. The property is worth at least £5 million and, as I understand it, she has more (millions) to fall back on. Good luck to her but are we seriously suggesting she should be entitled to the same wfa as poorer pensioners?
I don’t think so…but I do accept some ‘fine tuning’ may be necessary.

Nothing sensible to do with it.
Everyone knows, its something that should be means tested and when minimum wage gets you double what a pensioner gets, the threshold needs to be a lot higher.

Just like your goodself on many occasions, who's in power and who made the decision?
Who gave the train drivers, already on a wage punching above their abilities, just to satisfy Union pay masters?
You can't have it all your own way can you?

Sorry RA, like I mentioned with Boris's wallpaper, 2 tier would be first screaming about that. At least his wall paper donor didn't get a Downing street security pass? WTF is that all about?

Stinks of cronyism and I'll say again. This lot are no different than the Tories. Except oddly, its them attacking the poorer rather than the Tories.

[SithHappens]

That’s a sensible questioning of the proposals imo, unlike Tricky who just wants to have a pop at the new government and train drivers.
The other side of the coin is that I can take you to see an elderly lady who lives, about 300 metres from me, alone in a very large ‘listed’ building. The property is worth at least £5 million and, as I understand it, she has more (millions) to fall back on. Good luck to her but are we seriously suggesting she should be entitled to the same wfa as poorer pensioners?
I don’t think so…but I do accept some ‘fine tuning’ may be necessary.

Yeah I know wealthy pensioners who didn't need it too.

That's why I'd have preferred them to take more time. Maybe set the level based on savings like other benefits, is it 16k? Bring it in next year, give those having it taken away more notice.

There is never a perfect way of doing things unfortunately though. There will always be someone who falls in the gap.

[Ramshank72]

To go against the grain, why should pension and pensioner benefits be means tested? I mean, I understand if you want to have a cap for millionaires, but otherwise, you're just punishing those who work hard all their lives, that made sacrifices throughout their lives to put together some savings for their retirement, only to be means tested and end up with the same or less as the lazy twonk that didn't work hard or make sacrifices.

[Geoff Parkstone]

To go against the grain, why should pension and pensioner benefits be means tested? I mean, I understand if you want to have a cap for millionaires, but otherwise, you're just punishing those who work hard all their lives, that made sacrifices throughout their lives to put together some savings for their retirement, only to be means tested and end up with the same or less as the lazy twonk that didn't work hard or make sacrifices.

Unfortunately RS that is symptomatic of our society - work hard, save for your retirement and have entitlements taken away as you have done just that. Alternatively laze around, spend everything you earn and then put your hand out.

To an extent it's transitional as the generations move into workplace pensions as opposed to state benefit reliance but for another 20 years or more there will be this inequity.

[Andy_Faber]

To go against the grain, why should pension and pensioner benefits be means tested? I mean, I understand if you want to have a cap for millionaires, but otherwise, you're just punishing those who work hard all their lives, that made sacrifices throughout their lives to put together some savings for their retirement, only to be means tested and end up with the same or less as the lazy twonk that didn't work hard or make sacrifices.

Yup, to be brutal about it lazy twonks should reap what they’ve sown. BUT I’ll repeat what I always say, (the state should) help those who can’t help themselves not those who won’t help themselves.
An interesting approach might also be to set pensions based on (declared) hours worked not £ earned (ok calm down adjusted for childcare - first two kids only maybe?)

[Trickytreesreds]

It doesn't take long for hypocrisy of these charlatans to get uncovered.
People in glass houses and all that. All the same .
tick tock

When Johnson was still in No.10 and Starmer was the leader of the opposition in 2021, the electoral commission launched an inquiry into the PM’s suspect offences around renovating his Downing Street flat.

The row, which was soon dubbed the “cash for curtains” scandal, revolved around speculation a Tory peer and donor had paid for a lavish refurbishment.

So, during one PMQs, Starmer asked Johnson: “It’s been widely reported that Lord Brownlow, who just happens to have been given a peerage by the Conservative Party, was asked to donate £58,000 to help repay for the cost of this refurbishment.

“Can the prime minister, if he’s so keen to answer, confirm did Lord Brownlow make this payment for that purpose?”

Johnson claimed he had answered that question before – sparking uproar on the opposition benches – and said he had covered the costs, met certain requirements asked of him, before trying to talk about Tony Blair’s impact on the taxpayer.

Starmer called for Johnson to answer the question, adding: “The prime minister will be aware that he’s required to declare any benefits that relate to his political activities, including loans or credit arrangements, within 28 days.

“He will also know any donation will be recorded in the minister’s interest, and under law, any donation of over £500 for a political party must be registered and declared.

“The rules are very clear.”

[ramAnag]

Unfortunately RS that is symptomatic of our society - work hard, save for your retirement and have entitlements taken away as you have done just that. Alternatively laze around, spend everything you earn and then put your hand out.

To an extent it's transitional as the generations move into workplace pensions as opposed to state benefit reliance but for another 20 years or more there will be this inequity.

Aren’t we in danger of confusing entitlements and benefits?
I agree with RS that the state pension shouldn’t be interfered with on the basis that it is an ‘entitlement’ which many will have factored into future financial decisions based on the understanding of being able to rely on it as part of their income from the age of 65 (or younger if female) upwards.

‘Benefits’ however are surely different and ‘benefits’ include the winter fuel allowance. Over the last two years, because of the Russian and Gaza situations, fuel has been particularly expensive. Anecdotally my own fuel oil is currently a little over half the price it was (per litre) two winters ago and my anticipated electricity charge has fallen by approximately £53 pm since this time last year. In such circumstances I’m struggling to understand why well off pensioners should benefit more than parents with youngsters who probably have at least as great a need to keep warm and have access to hot water and hot meals as pensioners.

[Andy_Faber]

It doesn't take long for hypocrisy of these charlatans to get uncovered.
People in glass houses and all that. All the same .
tick tock

When Johnson was still in No.10 and Starmer was the leader of the opposition in 2021, the electoral commission launched an inquiry into the PM’s suspect offences around renovating his Downing Street flat.

The row, which was soon dubbed the “cash for curtains” scandal, revolved around speculation a Tory peer and donor had paid for a lavish refurbishment.

So, during one PMQs, Starmer asked Johnson: “It’s been widely reported that Lord Brownlow, who just happens to have been given a peerage by the Conservative Party, was asked to donate £58,000 to help repay for the cost of this refurbishment.

“Can the prime minister, if he’s so keen to answer, confirm did Lord Brownlow make this payment for that purpose?”

Johnson claimed he had answered that question before – sparking uproar on the opposition benches – and said he had covered the costs, met certain requirements asked of him, before trying to talk about Tony Blair’s impact on the taxpayer.

Starmer called for Johnson to answer the question, adding: “The prime minister will be aware that he’s required to declare any benefits that relate to his political activities, including loans or credit arrangements, within 28 days.

“He will also know any donation will be recorded in the minister’s interest, and under law, any donation of over £500 for a political party must be registered and declared.

“The rules are very clear.”

So to summarise:

1. To quote from this morning’s press ‘Labour promised change, all they’ve managed to change so far is their clothes’, found that amusing

2. This incident proves yet again what most here think, that Labour and The Conservatives both stink, even if the smell is slightly different

3. David Lammy says there’s no issue her, so clearly there’s an issue

4. Mrs Starmer does look nice in it though

[MadAmster]

I've just sent a clothing parcel to #10, ensuring that the combined cost of the clothes and postage don't exceed £500 so the poor bloke doesn't have to declare it. He will, however, have to pay VAT on it PLUS an £8 Royal Mail handling fee. I do hope he can put it on expenses