I’m getting the impression that a this hoohah over items on the members list of interests are to take focus away from all the dodgy contracts.
I’m guessing that it won’t be that straight forward because there will be holding companies of holding companies to look at. I did look up one of the hotels that is being used to hold asylum seekers, and the list of directors and associated holdings is dense.
“I’m not touching you” he says with both hands on her.
Starmer looks like an anaemic rabbit in the headlights of a juggernaut. What a colossal mound of wet lettuce our PM is. I’ve seen more backbone in an invertebrate.
Politicians can be greedily stupid. Even in Singapore, with supposedly very little corruption amongst politicians, we had a cabinet minister last year who had to resign from his high paying minister post and now face multiple charges in court because of accepting gifts in forms of air tickets, football tickets, F1 tickets and even a Brompton bike. He could buy those with a day work but yet find it ok to receive those gifts from stakeholders in the private sector. Stupid or greedy I don’t know. The only consolation we have is that he will probably be punished to the fullest extent if found guilty.
Boring and the lettuce title is taken.
For any others who might want to dig further into this, it’s from 30 April 2024:
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1785303047704346728
And quite honestly, I’m in two minds about this because @Dane is right that he’s not fulfilling the whole iron-clad assertion implied here, that he will always take care of the pensioners who are struggling to cope with the increases in costs of heating.
And quite honestly, I personally am withholding my judgement until we have a better idea of what the impact is. For now, based on the state of things, I think they have the core of a decent idea, which is means-testing the payments to be able to afford it for those people who genuinely need it, again presuming that the fiscal black hole is genuine.
The problem is that people have differing situations, and the cut-off is a binary one – either you qualify, or you don’t.
The heating costs for someone in a well-insulated home with a heat pump are always going to be lower than someone who lives in an old house with an oil heater. What works for one cost-wise will not work for another. It’s also not as simple as saying “well you could move then”, because the housing market isn’t that liquid, and there isn’t enough time.
As far as I can understand, Pension Credit has a hard boundary for qualification, when in reality, you’d ideally like to see the support taper off with income. This would mean that there are potentially many vulnerable people who are just about on the wrong side of the cutoff who face a cliff edge and would be in a significantly worse position.
Furthermore, I believe I’ve read that Labour have also trotted out the argument that the state pension uprating (What is the state pension triple lock and what is it worth? - BBC News) will help cover that. It may, especially since the 4% increase outstrips the CPI and the RPI inflation for the last 12 months, which are 3.1% and 3.5% respectively. However, gas prices are going to go up 14% per unit, and I don’t even know about heating oil prices, and depending on the proportion of household expenses, this could tip them over into being unable to afford it.
Taking a step back, what Labour is essentially betting on in terms of impact, is that the pensions credit eligibility cutoff is a good indicator of whether the household genuinely needs support for energy prices, and that those people losing the payment could afford it anyway. The problem with this however is that even if the impact is limited to just a handful of people, the impact on them individually could be catastrophic.
Again, this might be a minority of pensioners, but it still means that the promise would not be fulfilled. That’s also assuming that all of Labour’s hopes with regards to pension credit takeup can be fulfilled.
It could of course still turn out that the impact is minimal, and the only people losing the payment are people who could afford it anyway. My suspicion however is that this isn’t going to be the case.
But as to the point about promises, I can see where you’re coming from, since that video was explicitly discussing the problems that some pensioners have with trying to keep the heating on. But he didn’t promise that winter fuel payments would stay for everyone, nor that energy bills would not go up (which he has no power over in any case). All he has implied is that he would take care of the pensioners who are struggling to keep the heating on, and we haven’t seen if that’s a promise that has been kept or not. I think it’s an immense risk that quite likely means it will not be kept, but they seem confident that it will be.
Either way, I’m not sure it’s something they should want to be spending precious political capital on, unless they’re confident about their ability to limit its adverse impacts. I’m not confident that is the case, but I think we at the very least ought to wait for the autumn budget to see.
EDIT:
Link to inflation data: Inflation and price indices - Office for National Statistics
I just find the political framing of this to be terrible. It’s being portrayed as going around to pensioners houses and cutting off their gas supply. Had they said that they were going to incorporate the payment into the pension then that would have been more acceptable (and because it pushes some pensioners into tax, it does reduce the cost.)
The fact is that these payments don’t do much to keep pensioners warm. Proper insulation does. I noticed that Bill Esterson was attending a fringe meeting regarding improving insulation programmes. They know that these schemes work and are a very good investment. Why they haven’t combined it, I don’t know.
My guess? Money. There isn’t the money for it.
But this government has to reverse that mindset of previous governments that expenditures are expenses. They have to invest in the country. There are many things which will only be possible with an investment from the government. I’m sure that private capital would be more than willing to support that, and so avert that whole fear of tanking markets Truss-style.
The previous scheme was funded by a surcharge on the energy companies.
Generally speaking, if you are spending money that is simply current account you have to cover it with tax revenues. If you are spending money that is seen as having a long term benefit then that can be regarded as investment and public sector borrowing can be used.
I don’t know if that is what they have planned. However, there are some areas that are probably ripe for savings. The asylum system has gone from around 500m to 4 billion since they stopped processing claims. If they can clear the backlog there will be big savings. However, it does depend on what contracts have been put in place. I suspect that many of these have been made in bad faith.
I’m hoping Labour use this is a starting point to reform and codify parliamentary ethics and rules. Not sure they will have the parliamentary time for it, even though it’s so important. I think I was reading something a few months ago about how Labour simply doesn’t have enough parliamentary time for their entire programme.
Overseas climate aid is morally and strategically the right thing to do.
It was a manifesto commitment and linked to how they would reduce bills, so I fully expect them to honour it, just a question of whether it is one of the things that get announced in the first year or not.
How the fuck is this even newsworthy from the so called neutral BBC? Not a single mention of stuff from the Green party.
Even moreso after lying through his teeth on national radio about holding MP surgeries in Clacton. He’s not held a single one yet but has been to the US how many times? No mention of those things.Charalatan.
I think they would have been damned either way - The Conservatives have been accusing labour of plotting to push pensioners into paying tax since before the election.
And, we’ve seen that even left wing support has neglected to differentiate between the better off pensioners and those struggling when launching their criticism of Starmer and co.
I’m sick to the back teeth of hearing left-wingers whining on that Starmer hasn’t created a socialist utopian state within days of taking office. I do find the delay in the budget odd, though. The last time there was a change of government this was done within one to two months. However, I suppose the last time there was a change the previous administrations were legal and above board.
The budget is due to take place at the end of October. We’ve had a summer recess and now conference season eating into the time available, so the ‘delay’ if any isn’t by much - and I think the current circumstances are probably far harder to navigate than the last changes.
Not going to dispute that point, however the reason given for removing the winter payments (Costing £1.8 billion I believe) was to " Save the economy".
It would be more morally right to not fleece pensioners in our own country, while sending 6 times that amount overseas.
Boring? Starmer is digging enough holes for himself, doesn’t need our help.
