5 years hard labour ?

[Corolly Poly]

7 minutes ago, Bper said:

The thing is we don't know the exact relationship they have,its not always about political gain or publicity, people do have friends and sometimes genuinely just want to show support. 

True but I wouldn't credit NF with any vestige of altruism 

[Bper]

The UK government recently proposed a 22.3% pay increase for junior doctors, which includes a 4% rise backdated for 2023-24 and an additional 6% for 2024-25. This offer, though short of the 35% initially sought by doctors, was recommended by the (BMA) as a significant step forward. Additionally, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced limiting the Winter Fuel Allowance to pensioners on pension credit to address a £22 billion budget shortfall. Pensioners are saying they are being penalised and this isn't fair.

Some have suggested removing the allowance for pensioners living abroad or with substantial private pensions to further target financial aid to those most in need. She has also said that there will be tax increases in the October budget. What taxes are likely to be raised.?

[Basil-BarryC]

1 hour ago, Bper said:

The UK government recently proposed a 22.3% pay increase for junior doctors, which includes a 4% rise backdated for 2023-24 and an additional 6% for 2024-25. This offer, though short of the 35% initially sought by doctors, was recommended by the (BMA) as a significant step forward. Additionally, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced limiting the Winter Fuel Allowance to pensioners on pension credit to address a £22 billion budget shortfall. Pensioners are saying they are being penalised and this isn't fair.

Some have suggested removing the allowance for pensioners living abroad or with substantial private pensions to further target financial aid to those most in need. She has also said that there will be tax increases in the October budget. What taxes are likely to be raised.?

The next step could be to remove free bus travel for pensioners and also charge for prescriptions. Seems as if Labour have declared war on pensioners 🙄

[Cyker]

While I welcome the pay rise for public sector workers, it does seem a bit of a low blow to start hitting up pensioners - TBH I still don't understand why they are so reluctant to go after tax dodging companies like Amazon and Apple.

If they can bring energy prices down then the winter fuel thing might not be so bad, esp. if it's means tested - There are a lot of 'pensioners' out there who have millions to their name who IMHO shouldn't be receiving the same levels of pension support as someone who's been stuck in low-level jobs, barely made ends meet and has sod all to their name.

 

[Haliotis]

3 hours ago, Basil-BarryC said:

The next step could be to remove free bus travel for pensioners and also charge for prescriptions. Seems as if Labour have declared war on pensioners 🙄

I can fully understand why you say that, Barry.   I watched on TV the statement by Chancellor Reeves,  She said she would not hit working people by increasing income tax, NI or VAT.  But she has scrapped the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners not on pension credit or benefits.  Today, on CBNews, Martin Daubney ended his bulletin with a warning to “watch out, they may be coming for your pension.”

The reason I feel uneasy about this, is because I am wondering whether Reeves recognises that pensioners are working people who are just retired.  Or does she view us as a group who are living on privilege, and ripe for assessment differing from “working people”?

Pensioners do not have to be eligible for pension credit or benefits to be at risk due to the high energy costs.  It is probable that there will be people on these benefits who are better off than pensioners on no benefits, and this latter group could well be put seriously at risk by her decision.  Therefore, unfortunately, she may have made the first bad decision in the short time she has been in office.

[Bper]

On 7/31/2024 at 4:11 PM, Haliotis said:

I can fully understand why you say that, Barry.   I watched on TV the statement by Chancellor Reeves,  She said she would not hit working people by increasing income tax, NI or VAT.  But she has scrapped the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners not on pension credit or benefits.  Today, on CBNews, Martin Daubney ended his bulletin with a warning to “watch out, they may be coming for your pension.”

The reason I feel uneasy about this, is because I am wondering whether Reeves recognises that pensioners are working people who are just retired.  Or does she view us as a group who are living on privilege, and ripe for assessment differing from “working people”?

Pensioners do not have to be eligible for pension credit or benefits to be at risk due to the high energy costs.  It is probable that there will be people on these benefits who are better off than pensioners on no benefits, and this latter group could well be put seriously at risk by her decision.  Therefore, unfortunately, she may have made the first bad decision in the short time she has been in office.

We are made to feel greatful for the small scraps we are given and to be thankful for it. What is wrong with people in this county.,We have been consistently lied to. No politicians has ever or will ever do what is right for the people they serve, which is us.😡

 

[Haliotis]

On 7/31/2024 at 10:01 PM, Bper said:

We are made to feel greatful for the small scraps we are given and to be thankful for it. What is wrong with people in this county.,We have been consistently lied to. No politicians has ever or will ever do what is right for the people they serve, which is us.😡

 

Agree entirely.   In her statement, Reeves made repeated reference of “Party before country” in accusing the Tories.  I think that Ministers and MPs often find it difficult to avoid adhering to the party line, particularly when under pressure from above.  However, having sown the seeds of accusation, the current Chancellor will now have to very careful about party faith unless she is prepared to risk that accusation coming back to bite her.

[Bper]

49 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Agree entirely.   In her statement, Reeves made repeated reference of “Party before country” in accusing the Tories.  I think that Ministers and MPs often find it difficult to avoid adhering to the party line, particularly when under pressure from above.  However, having sown the seeds of accusation, the current Chancellor will now have to very careful about party faith unless she is prepared to risk that accusation coming back to bite her.

Well, Labour wanted government, and it's already becoming evident that problems are starting to unravel. It's a tricky situation. Ministers and MPs walk a fine line between party loyalty and doing what they think is right for the country, allegedly. The Chancellor's accusations about the Tories prioritising their party could as you say come back to bite her if she's not careful. It's almost like she's set a high standard for herself now.IMO hitting the winter fuel payment for pensioners is a bad decision that could have been better thought out. For example, why didn't she cut the payment for those who receive both a private and state pension? Also, removing it from those living overseas could have been another sensible approach.

[FROSTYBALLS]

A former pensions minister highlighted this week that the Government may well have to row back on this as the 12+ year old computer systems DWP use (and these are largely updated 40 year old systems) won't be able to means test these one-off winter fuel payments, and civil servants know this.

[Bper]

40 minutes ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

A former pensions minister highlighted this week that the Government may well have to row back on this as the 12+ year old computer systems DWP use (and these are largely updated 40 year old systems) won't be able to means test these one-off winter fuel payments, and civil servants know this.

There is obviously a clear need to upgrade these systems to meet modern requirements. This would no doubt involve significant investment and time, and it begs a question why have these software systems not been upgraded long ago.Surely by doing this it could provide a long term solution that benefits not just this program, but many others administered by the DWP.On the other hand, the immediate need for winter fuel payments means that waiting for a system overhaul might not be practical. The government might need to consider alternative approaches, such as simplifying the means testing criteria, using temporary manual processes, or even finding ways to bypass means testing for this year to ensure timely support.

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

Back around 2012, Government did carry out some updating, but as the existing systems were around 40 years old then, they had difficulty getting people with experience of the outdated programming languages. Presumably, as this was the time of austerity, they also couldn't afford to entirely replace the older systems. 

As money is supposedly short today, there are presumably other priorities over and above this.

[Haliotis]

I do not agree that the winter fuel payment should be means tested for those who receive both the state and a private pension.  My reasons are (a)my private pension was financed by my employer and myself. (b)I have paid into it by NI, and probably more than those who get benefits. (c)I did not cause, our contribute to, the mess that resulted in spiralling energy costs. (d)The income from my private pension is taxed heavily because the pre-tax allowance has not kept pace with inflation, and most of that allowance is used up by the state pension.

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

I do not agree that the winter fuel payment should be means tested for those who receive both the state and a private pension.  My reasons are (a)my private pension was financed by my employer and myself. (b)I have paid into it by NI, and probably more than those who get benefits. (c)I did not cause, our contribute to, the mess that resulted in spiralling energy costs. (d)The income from my private pension is taxed heavily because the pre-tax allowance has not kept pace with inflation, and most of that allowance is used up by the state pension.

Hi Albert,IMO I think the winter fuel payment should be means tested for those who get both the state and a private pension. First, even though private pensions are funded by both employers and employees, the winter fuel payment is meant to help those who are really struggling financially. It's about making sure help goes where it's needed most.

Second, while we've all paid into the system through National Insurance, these benefits are supposed to be a safety net for those who might have trouble covering basics like heating in winter. Means testing ensures that those who genuinely need this support get it.Third, I understand that no one caused the rise in energy costs, but some people are in a tougher spot financially than others. Means testing helps make sure the hardest hit get the support they need.Lastly, I get that taxes on private pensions and the way tax allowances work can be frustrating. But fixing these issues would be better handled through broader tax reforms rather than by giving universal benefits to everyone, regardless of need.By means testing the winter fuel payment, we can ensure that limited resources are used to support those who truly need it the most.😄

[FROSTYBALLS]

National Insurance Contributions fund some benefits (eg. the state pension (which is a benefit not a right), job seekers allowance, statutory sick pay, and other unemployment benefits), and 20% of the NHS (with 80% coming from general taxation). 

Any surplus from the National Insurance Fund is used as Government borrowing.

[First_Toyota]

All Governments make choices. Essentially, they’ll dress these up in a number of ways around ‘the national interest’ or similar, but reality is they’ll prioritise those things that they think will increase their chances of the most important thing to any MP and any Government - that is, staying as an MP or a governing party. This was the case when I studied political history in the early 90s and nothing much has changed.

Thus, regardless of what they say or how they try to dress it up, Labour have, rightly or wrongly, made a conscious choice to penalise pensioners (who they’ll calculate are more likely to vote Conservative) in favour of public sector workers who they calculate are more likely to vote Labour, especially with the close links between the party and most major Trade Unions.

I worked in and around Government for many years, and have come across a few Ministers and Junior Ministers as well as a few MPs. My feeling is that most, across the party divide, do start off meaning well and wanting to ‘do the right thing.’ However, as time went on politics as a ‘career’ for the sake of having such a career became far more important than ‘public service.’ That’s where I think we are now. There is a lack of trust, and I’m afraid Rachel Reeves’ protestations about the ‘unknown’ £22bn shortfall are at best disingenuous or, at worst, an example of extreme incompetence. It’s political expedience as justification for current and future actions in the hope that she gets away with it and it’s forgotten by the next General Election.

Last year I was at a social event and happened to meet a Labour PPC. She was lovely, very well meaning and, I felt, quite sincere. But when I asked her background, it turned out she had a Father who had been a local Councillor, she’d been to a fairly good school, then Cambridge. There she’d become involved with the Student Labour Party, and after graduating she’d worked as a researcher for a Labour MP. Now (I guess) in her thirties, she’d become a PPC (and may now be an MP, she wasn’t hoping to stand in my local area) without ever having a ‘real’ job. Perhaps there’s nothing wrong in that, but in my gut it doesn’t quite sit right…

I have very little confidence in any of them these days. There is simply too much spin and too little substance, and the ‘truth’ is something most of them have a distant relationship with. 

As somebody who identifies as a centrist/traditional liberal (but not a LibDem) the problem here is that the lack of trust generally in politicians gives oxygen to extreme views on both the left and the right. That isn’t helpful and won’t end well for the UK, but I see no positive options for change even in the medium term. My own view is that Government should have as little impact on the daily lives of its citizens as possible - it exists to provide security, education and a framework of support and order that we should be able to live under and live with without too much interference in our lives. The level of national interference in local issues has, in my opinion, been far too great since the Blair Governments from 1997 onwards. 

[Bper]

52 minutes ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

National Insurance Contributions fund some benefits (eg. the state pension (which is a benefit not a right), job seekers allowance, statutory sick pay, and other unemployment benefits), and 20% of the NHS (with 80% coming from general taxation). 

Any surplus from the National Insurance Fund is used as Government borrowing.

Surpluses in the National Insurance Fund are invested in government securities, which can support government finances while ensuring the Fund can meet future obligations.

[Haliotis]

Point is, Bob, that even pensioners with a second private pension have been hit hard by a combination of inadequate allowance before tax and the sudden surge in high energy costs.  Thre fact that the previous government did not means test the WFA is an indication that they [the government] were aware of their failings.

Anyhow, Ms Reeves could have cut back the allowances given to illegal imigrants and only reduced the WFA for pensioners not receiving benefits - not killed it off completely.   It’s about time the UK citizens came first - before aliens who should not be here.

Might sound harsh, but it’s a harsh world, and these people are making it harder for the UK, and they just don’t care.

[Bper]

25 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Point is, Bob, that even pensioners with a second private pension have been hit hard by a combination of inadequate allowance before tax and the sudden surge in high energy costs.  Thre fact that the previous government did not means test the WFA is an indication that they [the government] were aware of their failings.

Anyhow, Ms Reeves could have cut back the allowances given to illegal imigrants and only reduced the WFA for pensioners not receiving benefits - not killed it off completely.   It’s about time the UK citizens came first - before aliens who should not be here.

Might sound harsh, but it’s a harsh world, and these people are making it harder for the UK, and they just don’t care.

I understand your concerns, Albert. It's true that pensioners with a private pension are also feeling the pinch due to inadequate tax allowances and rising energy costs. However, the goal of means testing is to ensure that the limited resources are directed to those who are most in need.

The decision not to means test the winter fuel payment in the past may reflect various considerations, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it was the best use of resources. With the current economic pressures, it's crucial to prioritise those who are struggling the most. As for the issue of allowances for illegal immigrants, I agree but it’s important to address such concerns through proper immigration policy and enforcement rather than by reducing support for pensioners in need. Ensuring that UK citizens, especially the most vulnerable, receive adequate support should be a priority.

 

[Corolly Poly]

‘Illegal immigrants’ aren’t entitled to benefits in the UK – Full Fact

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Corolly Poly said:

‘Illegal immigrants’ aren’t entitled to benefits in the UK – Full Fact

Those who are in the process of seeking asylum are not classified as illegal immigrants and may be eligible for certain support, such as accommodation and a small amount of financial assistance through the asylum support system.So i suppose that is a benefit.

[Corolly Poly]

1 hour ago, Bper said:

Those who are in the process of seeking asylum are not classified as illegal immigrants and may be eligible for certain support, such as accommodation and a small amount of financial assistance through the asylum support system.So i suppose that is a benefit.

Exactly. There is a distinction between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant which the previous Govt tried to suggest was not the case - tarnishing them all as illegals.

[Haliotis]

It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that all those landing in the boats immediately claim to be seeking asylum. And how do the government send them back, when they arrive without any identity (papers discarded) and refuse to say where they originally came from?  They can’t be sent back to France - once on our shores France has no responsibility for them.

One thing is for certain - they are using up resources badly needed for the UKs legitimate population.  The continual influx indicates that the arrivals of these boat people are far from peaking, and they are gradually destabilising our economy.  They are causing social unrest, and it is probable that the established, legitimate migrants are becoming very concerned by the risk that the indigenous population may turn on them too.

The Tories failed to find a solution, and the then opposition (who are now the government) frequently criticised them - possibly quite rightly - for doing nothing, so now this government is going to get its knuckles rapped if it, too, fails find a solution.

Villains have been around as long as history itself, but we in the UK are now seeing violent behaviour which we once thought only happened in other countries.

When I was a young man, law and order was administered in what current liberalists deem unacceptable but, for me, that discipline is far more preferable to the lawlessness into which we seem to be sliding.

[Corolly Poly]

Much of the recent violent behaviour seems to be from English knuckle-draggers inappropriately targeting groups they believe to be responsible for all of their problems due to them swallowing wholesale disinformation posted on social media.

[Cyker]

IMHO they're just using any excuse to be violent animals. No matter what you do they'll just find some other reason to blame it on; They are like the naughty kid in school, just doing it for attention.

Best to not pander to them and look after the good ones instead, lest the good ones learn from them.

 

[Bper]

3 hours ago, Haliotis said:

It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that all those landing in the boats immediately claim to be seeking asylum. And how do the government send them back, when they arrive without any identity (papers discarded) and refuse to say where they originally came from?  They can’t be sent back to France - once on our shores France has no responsibility for them.

One thing is for certain - they are using up resources badly needed for the UKs legitimate population.  The continual influx indicates that the arrivals of these boat people are far from peaking, and they are gradually destabilising our economy.  They are causing social unrest, and it is probable that the established, legitimate migrants are becoming very concerned by the risk that the indigenous population may turn on them too.

The Tories failed to find a solution, and the then opposition (who are now the government) frequently criticised them - possibly quite rightly - for doing nothing, so now this government is going to get its knuckles rapped if it, too, fails find a solution.

Villains have been around as long as history itself, but we in the UK are now seeing violent behaviour which we once thought only happened in other countries.

When I was a young man, law and order was administered in what current liberalists deem unacceptable but, for me, that discipline is far more preferable to the lawlessness into which we seem to be sliding.

Hi Albert,when migrants arrive by boat and claim asylum in the UK, they’re exercising their right under international law. The UK is supposed to carefully review these claims, but the system has been struggling for years. Many asylum seekers throw away their papers, making it hard to verify their origins. The UK uses interviews and other methods to identify them, but this is a slow and difficult process.Many believe the Home Office doesn’t prioritise this issue enough.

Returning asylum seekers to their home countries is also problematic without proper documentation. Even when the UK was part of the EU, sending people back to France under the Dublin Regulation wasn’t common. While it’s understandable to worry about resources,tens of thousands of asylum seekers do put a strain on services, however many will eventually contribute to the economy.There are real social tensions, but this focus should be on individuals rather than generalise. Providing accurate and honest information to the public can help reduce fear and any misunderstandings. 

Both past and current governments have struggled with this. The situation is difficult and needs international cooperation and well balanced policies. Rising violence is a concern, but it's not solely caused by asylum seekers, economic factors and policing also play a role.The recent riots were triggered by tragic events in Southport and misinformation on social media suggesting that the person involved was an illegal immigrant. This led to far-right activists and others, frustrated by the perceived impact of migration, taking to the streets.The government needs to stop making unrealistic promises about solving the problem while failing to make real changes. Social unrest has been building in many areas for a long time. People are worried about how government policies affect their lives, especially when they see migrants being housed in expensive hotels while many are struggling with financial difficulties. Additionally, the perception that the government is more concerned with its international image than addressing domestic issues only fuels frustration.