To wonder what could Starmer do, to turn things around?

It’s only recently that pensions have been dubbed “benefits”. Start means testing and the link with qualifying years of NI contributions will have to be removed. Anyway it would be electoral suicide, particularly for the party with the oldest voter base.

Very convenient for them. It saves them a drubbing. I suspect a number of those would go LibDem or hung.

@Thegoatliesdownonbroadway

"There are so many people out there and on here, who begrudge people who have paid taxes for 40 years or more, some sort of comfortable existence in their old age. It's a return to Victorian era thinking."

Well life expectancy in 1948 was 66 for men and 77 for women whereas today it is 79 for men and 83 for women.

The current pension scheme represents a transfer of taxation from the younger generation to the older generation with the older generation having more wealth than the younger generation.

It's hardly fair is it especially when there is no way that the level of benefits that today's pensioners receive will be available to the younger generation when they retire.

Or we could have equality between the age groups, where an OAP on £50k pays the same taxes as a 25 year old worker? Instead we have pensioners who pay less taxes on the same income levels AND get state benefits (pension) on top! How is that fair? We need to start looking after and incentivising our younger people, i.e. today and tomorrow's workers rather than forever shafting them more and more, otherwise the "workers" will beggar off abroad and our economy will further deteriorate, not to mention, pensioners will struggle having fewer and fewer workers to look after them and pay for them. We're rapidly approaching the end-game of the pensioner ponzi scheme.

There are so many people out there and on here, who begrudge people who have paid taxes for 40 years or more, some sort of comfortable existence in their old age. Its a return to Victorian era thinking.

@taxguru

"We need to tax the people who are the richest and give benefits to those who are the poorest. Simples."

Except taxation is already at its highest since 1948.

Increasing taxation halts economic growth and if you means test the state pension then you reduce the incentive to save for a private pension.
Again the left really need to look at the secondary impacts of their ideas or simply stop doing ideas.

they agreed to the recommendations for public sector pay awards. this was needed unfortunately due to years of this not being done.

Resign

@Alwaystired94

"and again, voting for parties for policies that aren't funded is a stupid idea. Whether thats Reform or any other party. "

I fully agree with you and it's not only stupid but damaging to the economy, future generations and interest rates.

But that said most voters fall for it and it gets candidates elected!

@Alwaystired94

"I will give them all some grace due to the 22bn black hole, so that still leaves a fair amount not accounted for."

Well to be accurate £11 billion of the £22 billion shortfall was of Labour's own making- wage increases to junior doctors and train drivers etc.

@Alexandra2001

"We ve got the Tories to thank for that, 65% debt to GDP when they came in 2010, not its nr 100%."

Nice try but Labour maxed out even more on debt than the Tories did- debt to GDP was 36% when Labour took over in 1997 and was 70% in 2010 - so they effectively increased it by 100%. Whereas the Tories increased it by just over 50% (which is still unacceptable).

and again, voting for parties for policies that aren't funded is a stupid idea. Whether thats Reform or any other party.

I will give them all some grace due to the 22bn black hole, so that still leaves a fair amount not accounted for.

@Alwaystired94

"just makes it even more ridiculous that so many people would vote for policies that cannot be enacted."

Well to be fair the Greens manifesto was under funded even more and was in excess of £200 billion so voting Green would have been more ridiculous than voting Reform.

Also the LibDems weren't far off being under funded by nearly £100 billion but they managed to get 72 MPs!

Because that's not how tax and benefits work. Taxes are paid on various criteria such as income, house value, spending etc. so someone earning more, spending more or saving more will by definition be paying more tax. Benefits are the safety net for those who need them. Why should a "rich" person receive any benefits at all? NIC isn't a savings scheme, it's a tax. State pension isn't an investment return, it's a state benefit. We need to tax the people who are the richest and give benefits to those who are the poorest. Simples.

I agree with your second paragraph.

The flat rate State Pension has only recently been introduced. Means testing it would be really expensive. Plus do you means test everyone who is already in receipt of SP, or introduce it from a future date? Either option would be unfair.

It would all be wildly unpopular and make the controversy around the WFA decision like a storm in a teacup.

Badenoch will backtrack. Although she does say she never makes gaffes...

Why should anyone, regardless of wealth, who has paid in NI, bear in mind, the wealthy have paid more tax and NI in the first place, not receive a pension???

I think he's doing alright. They've got 15 years of Tory mess to clear up. As pp have said - Brexit is a problem not of their making

The specific review into the NHS reports in 3 months time, not years & the one into Social care is being bought forward and will have interim reports which will be acted upon.

Can you name a dozen reviews? or did you just make that up?

But the point here is "what were the Tories doing to the NHS for the last 14 years that reviews are even required?"

2000 babies die needlessly in the UK due to sub standard maternity care... that takes some doing....

Not a problem IF they set the means testing at a high level, say £50k or £100k income (like what was done for child benefit and free childcare). That would mean the vast majority of pensioners wouldn't be affected and only the richest of pensioners would see the impact.

Of course, that's what Labour should have done with the winter fuel allowance, rather than set the cut off at the ridiculously low threshold for pension credit. We'd not have seen anywhere near the howls of protest if the WFA was only removed from, say, higher rate taxpayers!

But with respect, that's exactly what Labour said too, i.e. "we'll fix the NHS" but now they've had to set up dozens of quangos/reviews that are going to take a few years to actually come up with policies to do it!

It looks like the opposite is incoming due to high borrowing costs and being maxed out already

We ve got the Tories to thank for that, 65% debt to GDP when they came in 2010, not its nr 100%.

& once again the Tories for borrowing costs, 1.8% pre, 4.5% after she wrecked the economy.... even after Hunt, they've been around 4.0% to 4.5% for much of his tenure.

Now 4.6% and falling.

Maybe Reeves will steal Badenoch's idea of means-testing the state pension.

Although given the horror being expressed amongst even the Tories, maybe not.

www.ftadviser.com/state-pension/2025/1/17/kemi-badenoch-says-tories-would-look-to-means-test-triple-lock-/

Drop the austerity approach and start spending.

It looks like the opposite is incoming due to high borrowing costs and being maxed out already

Drop the austerity approach and start spending.

Realise that when the Conservatives claimed we needed austerity in 2010 it was untrue and spinning the exact same line makes Labour look like the Tories.

Oh agreed, just the only part i remembered them talking about was taking the 'woke' out of schools. I knew they hadn't funded it either - just makes it even more ridiculous that so many people would vote for policies that cannot be enacted.