We know all the anti Labour posts are really just about VAT on school fees!

Banks will be required to tell the benefit system if people have savings of more than £16,000, the cut-off point for claiming benefits, or have been abroad for more than the four weeks allowed for universal credit claimants. Inspectors will then investigate and seek to recover overpayments.

So my AIBU…
YABU - It is not just the school fees, honest! I preferred ‘honest Boris’ and ‘man of the people’ Rishi. Or that lovely Liz, we were so much safer with them!
YANBU - The posts are so blatantly motivated by the VAT on school fees that it has becoming utterly boring. Jog on ‘disgusted of Hampstead’ and join the local comp!

This transparently manipulative "YABU/YANBU" dichotomy has all the skill, engagement, self-awareness and credibility of those pop-ups that try to force you to say "No thanks; I HATE saving money!" when you decline to give your email and mobile number to get some paltry savings code and instead simply want to proceed to site content.

People are allowed to dislike Labour for any or no reason. And the Conservatives are not the only other party in the UK, especially the parts of it that secretly aren't England.

I don’t think a suspicion should have to be present. What an unnecessary administrative faff. Why not just give HMRC the ability to scan bank accounts for what looks like undeclared income or savings. If AI picks up some regular payments into your bank from someone other than your employer, or one off large transactions these could be probed further.

The amount of people that don’t declare rental income from a 2nd property etc is really high.

You're wrong, the banks have to allow the state access to your bank accounts at any time with no evidence of fraud. The state shouldn't have unfettered access to people's bank accounts.

Happy for you to report this. I did not mean it to be transphobic, or offensive, but having reviewed the definition of transphobic - "having or showing a dislike of or strong prejudice against transgender people" - I don't think it is. However, if it offended you, I apologise - that was never my intention.

Totally agree!!

Which will then reduce year on year as pupils have to move into the state schools bulge classes as their parents can no longer afford independent schooling. Then independent schools start to close down as there is very little surplus margin in most, which in turn snowballs the pupils moving into state.

Remember, these are the state schools that will get on average less than 1 extra teacher to deal with the influx from the mythical £1.6B. The ones that people already complain about.

But don’t worry, it’s all been costed, just like Labours claims before they came into power.

i think they’ll only manage 1 term if they continue as they’ve started.

A very childish and simplistic view of politics. "Our team are great, your team are rubbish." "No your team are the rubbish ones, we're the best".

Many will agree with VAT on school fees but oppose the removal of WFA. Some will agree with the removal of the WFA allowance, but oppose VAT on schools. Some will think the WFA cut off income is far too low, and VAT should only be applied to school fees above a certain threshold, i.e. elites, not lower middle class target market schools, or perhaps levied at a different rate.

Some will think Labour freebies are not that bad, but given their attack lines on the Tories they are hypocrites.

Urgh, in a grown up political landscape we should be able to play the ball, not the man.

My point to you is that the government already has the power to request your bank statements if they suspect fraud.

Now they propose to ask the bank to check in real time your account if they suspect fraud.

Why should it be that paper statements are a better way to manage fraud? It isn’t. Correct me if I am wrong, but the proposal is not to proactively monitor - the request must still made on suspicion

I really would like to see the UK attitude to this focussed grouped. I do think the majority of Brits put the protection of the revenue much more important than anyone’s right to privacy

Looking at the pp on what it covers it looks like it applies to UC not child benefit etc

I think if it did include CB people wouldn't be keen. Basically if it's impacting someone else then ok

Don't you see the difference between having unfettered access to millions of people's bank accounts at any time and investigating fraud?

We could also make the argument that the state should collect everyone's DNA in case they commit an offence.

Where does state intrusion into your private life end?

Labour settled disputes with the unions by paying what the pay review boards recommended. All these pay disputes racked up because of the Tories.

Unions advocating for their members is what they do. It's negotiation.

Public sector and private sector pay has now had about the same growth in real terms since the recession. Private sector wages are always more volatile.

I really would like to see the UK attitude to this focussed grouped. I do think the majority of Brits put the protection of the revenue much more important than anyone’s right to privacy.

These proposals on one level are exactly the same; if they suspect fraud, they can ask the bank to monitor your account. A bank has a legal duty to prevent fraud.

So how is this any different to what happens now? It is likely to be more effective in capturing fraud?

No I disagree with caving into unions. I really find the BMA abhorrently greedy asking for ‘full pay restoration’ when everyone is earning less in real terms than they were 20 years ago. So tone deaf.

But that’s not unexpected. That’s unions through and through - wanting to give millions and millions away without a thought as to where the money is coming from, or whether it could be put to better use.

Labour just caved on millions for pay rises. I take from your posts you are pro everything Starmer does and that was fine?

Be that as it may, not everyone who is unhappy with the government is solely focused on school fees.

The state shouldn't act as though you're guilty and have done something wrong. We have the democratic principle of presumption of innocence. We are also entitled to privacy. I don't want people having unfettered access to my finances.

Applying for benefits is often a protracted, humiliating experience and the state already have a lot of private information on you including for example, access to your medical records.

As I already stated, the DWP can request statements if they suspect fraud.

But that’s not unexpected. That’s unions through and through - wanting to give millions and millions away without a thought as to where the money is coming from, or whether it could be put to better use.

Well he's been humiliated by the vote against the removal of the winter fuel allowance at his own Labour conference so there's that.

But what is the functional difference between bank statements and the DWP requesting the bank check your account in real time? Banks already monitor accounts with AI. Suspicion of fraud is something legally they must address?

It’s the law! Easily justified and already has been by the Tory Party in the last government. How banks will actually do this interesting because I think it must be that AI analyses your account (btw they are doing this privately already!)

With benefit fraud estimated to cost £10 billion a year and running at twice pre-pandemic levels, Starmer will announce plans for a Fraud, Error and Debt Bill to tackle the problem.
Banks will be required to tell the benefit system if people have savings of more than £16,000, the cut-off point for claiming benefits, or have been abroad for more than the four weeks allowed for universal credit claimants. Inspectors will then investigate and seek to recover overpayments.
Organised crime is thought to be a growing problem in defrauding the benefit system and where criminal gangs are suspected, the bill will give investigators power to apply for court orders to search property and seize assets.

I'm not sure I have a problem with that
It is not saying that the whole of everyone's accounts will be open for scrutiny

You do realise that a lot of pensioners would not have had the wherewithall to plan for retirement? I am only just a pensioner and have always worked minimum wage jobs around my children. I worked 3 part time jobs totalling 55 hours every week for years none of which would have given me a decent pension.

We luckily own our home but are downsizing to a park home so we should be okay but if we rented we would struggle if one of us were left on our own.

It's not about lying on the form. It's about the government having the right to look at your bank account at any time without permission. That includes everyone on benefits for example pensioners, child benefit claimants and so on. It's millions of people.

The government shouldn't have the right to snoop on your finances without permission. If they suspect fraud, the DWP can already request bank statements.