Ot government cuts

[KerrAvon]

We don't have enough property for the immigrants so where the fk are they going to put the early released. Maybe offer the cash incentive like with Ukraine refugees. I'm sure politicians would be the first to take up the offer

Most of the early released will go back to living with their families or partners just ad they would have done without early release.

[KerrAvon]

Labour continuously blaming the Tories for the mess we are in is expected to last how long ?

The electorate see right through it .

Get out of your metropolitan bubble Starmer .

The Tories got away with blaming Labour for the best part of 14 years

Mind you, they did have the Mail, Express and Telegraph etc. to help them.

[KerrAvon]

I'd hope they're cheering the degree of unity they found to get a vote through, but it's massively distasteful given what it's about.

They've got the optics of this very wrong from the start. The pension triple lock (*******s name, but anyway) has thankfully meant that pensioners are better off in real terms by about £800 per annum against what a standard uplift would have given them since the triple lock was introduced (and rising slightly more next year because of one of the levers), and that needed to be front and centre of their rhetoric around this.

They also failed by allowing this to become a standalone point and not as part of a well-articulated series of changes.

First real test of the government and they've messed up pretty badly, whilst targeting what should have been a far easier sell if done correctly.

I agree that Labour has expended a lot of voter goodwill upon a policy that will save only a limited amount of cash. Whether the optics are wrong depends upon who the decision is aimed at.

The reality of the last ten years is that the UK has become a very unattractive place to do business. We have made access to one of the largest trading block in the world far more difficult and we have had a series of fiscally incontinent administrations, with constantly changing administrations and policy directions.

I suspect the pension policy is actually about saying 'screw the uncertainty of the last ten years or so, we're going to make fiscally sound decisions whether they are popular or not'.

In other words, I suspect that it's about saying that the UK is now a good place to invest and create quality jobs.

Love her or loathe her, that's exactly what Thatcher did.

It may well go tits up, as it would have done for Thatcher but for General Galtieri's intervention, in which case we can go back to pretending that it's possible to have decent services without paying for them.

[flourbasher]

I don't have a plan. It's about choosing the lesser of two evils, with keeping people in prison when there isn't a bed for them being the greater.

Are you sure it’s the lesser of the two evils
It may not alleviate overcrowding and then actually increase crime levels

[Eternal Optimist]

Is that on top of the £3bn already promised?

Ukraine Pledge Totals So Far
Based on the provided information, the UK has pledged a total of £12.5 billion in support to Ukraine since February 2022, with £7.6 billion dedicated to military assistance.

Additionally, the UK has committed £3 billion per year of military support to Ukraine for as long as needed, and recently announced £600 million of “vit-al” support, including reaffirming a pledge of £242 million and $484 million worth of loan guarantees for World Bank lending.

These pledges demonstrate the UK’s ongoing commitment to supporting Ukraine in its efforts against Russian aggression.

Looks to me as though Labour are continuing to support;
1. The Military Industrial Complex/Deep State, and;
2. Feeding the 'meat grinder' in a war they simply cannot win.

Option 1. has the added benefit of transferring cash from the bottom to the top.

Of course, Blackrock, State Street and Vanguard shareholders will benefit financially from the death and destruction whilst pensioners freeze to death. What's not to like?

[KerrAvon]

Are you sure it’s the lesser of the two evils
It may not alleviate overcrowding and then actually increase crime levels

I'm not convinced that releasing a person slightly earlier than they would have been is going to drastically affect their reoffending rate.

Prisons gave up on rehabilitation years ago as staff were simply reduced to trying to keep the lid on the overcrowded pressure cookers that they had become.

I've no doubt however, that the Mail and Express will be eagerly awaiting an example of a person offending after release whilst ignoring which government the problem developed under and that a high proportion of prisoners are likely to reoffend irrespective of when they are released.

[Back of the net]

Kier Stalin has refused to rule out scrapping bus passes for the OAP.
Why doesn’t he just line everyone up over a certain age and shoot the ones who he thinks are a drain on the finances.
It’s not like the are an easy target is it.
Meanwhile to keep the union bosses happy he awards vast pay rises for some public sector workers.
It’s almost like he’s not got the best interest of pensioners at heart.
It’s a good job he didn’t in the past talk about a pensioner who had to ride the buss to keep warm.
That poor lady soon won’t even be able to afford to ride the bus.
I notice our local MPs all voted to scrap the winter fuel payments.
But but but they do care about local people and needs.

[UlleyMiller]

I agree that Labour has expended a lot of voter goodwill upon a policy that will save only a limited amount of cash. Whether the optics are wrong depends upon who the decision is aimed at.

The reality of the last ten years is that the UK has become a very unattractive place to do business. We have made access to one of the largest trading block in the world far more difficult and we have had a series of fiscally incontinent administrations, with constantly changing administrations and policy directions.

I suspect the pension policy is actually about saying 'screw the uncertainty of the last ten years or so, we're going to make fiscally sound decisions whether they are popular or not'.

In other words, I suspect that it's about saying that the UK is now a good place to invest and create quality jobs.

Love her or loathe her, that's exactly what Thatcher did.

It may well go tits up, as it would have done for Thatcher but for General Galtieri's intervention, in which case we can go back to pretending that it's possible to have decent services without paying for them.

This is exactly why I believe the optics are wrong. I'm in no doubt the WF payment changes are purely about getting the first in a series of burdens off our books, and the change should have been completely justifiable if they had very loudly talked about the growing issue of the triple lock and how it will disproportionately affect our bottom line. Pensioners are better off because of it, and in 2023 that was estimated to be at around £800 per annum above where levels would sit with only a single lever, rather than the best of the options.

The politically savvy move was for the PM to flag that the Autumn address will hurt, well ahead of that being issued. Anyone with a bit of sense can see we're caught up in a political landscape where easy fixes are offered (often with the backdrop of one or two apparent causes, despite the fact we're in a mess because of countless factors), but we need a more extensive suite of changes, and a far more holistic approach to making them. But the WF payments will always be an extremely divisive subject, and one which various media outlets will be all over to score big points, early in Labour's tenure. It was, bluntly, stupid to drop this the way they did (with no playing the tune of what triple lock costs as a lead-in), and in isolation - there are obviously other hits coming, so they could at the very least have alluded to other 'groups' getting hit to save this from being 'Labour lashing out at pensioners'. They'd also get the background win of seeing people speculate and argue what is fair with other groups they named as upcoming targets, giving them something of a sense check.

Thatcher was very well equipped to deal with being the cartoon villain, delivering (what at the time were seen as) positive economic changes whilst becoming a target for hate seemed to sit well with her, but that was a very different time. We're in a knee-jerk, hysterical, 'post-truth' (hate the term) era, and I'd be doubtful even she would have lasted a decade in a time as intense as this.

I've no doubt the intentions are good from this government, and the plan has clearly been to make Reeves appear to be the friend of big businesses, but they're failing on the PR front, and it'll be over and out in five years if they continue that, regardless of what gets fixed.

[howdydoo]

Two questions:

1. How are you going to assess wealth? The schemes used to hide income work just as well for assets.
2. If you tax wealth, why aren't the 'drinkers' going to 'drink elsewhere' as per the story you put up above?

1. You abolish the schemes. Are you suggesting the 'Super Rich' should 'get away' with it?
2. They've already gone. They're already sipping Champagne on their yachts and travelling the world on their private jets. Still happy to have their businesses and vast property and land portfolios, in the UK though.

Calling people on £50/£60k rich and wealthy and taxing them even more has got to stop.

Taking a winter allowance away, which could contribute to 4000 pensioner deaths this Winter, is just pure wrong.

[howdydoo]

Most of the early released will go back to living with their families or partners just ad they would have done without early release.

Would it be so hard to convert the unspent time into community service? Make it work like the speed awareness course system. Do the community service or stay in prison.

As for anyone in prison for posting hurty words on social media, why weren't first time offenders given community service?

Jess Phillips, Labour MP, was free to post nonsense and got away scot free. As did the resident trigger happy Millersmad moderator. we'll let him off though because I'm sure we both agree, he needs help.