Defence Secretary John Healey resigns and calls out Rachel Reeves

[Fillies4DeclanRice]

John Healey has become the latest government minister to resign, basically saying he cannot do the job of keeping the UK safe because Labour's economic model is in such a mess.

His resignation letter effectively says the government needs to spend far less on welfare benefits and net zero, and start taxing less and spending more on defence.

This is total chaos now.

Like the education tax supposedly going on new teachers in state schools, the soggy toast breakfast clubs are a gimmick. Said by Labour just for votes, when in reality achieved nothing.

Pensioners need to be taxed more, but it needs to be in a progressive way.

There are pensioners out there pretty much living at subsistence level on the state pension. Taxing them is pointless.

There are also pensioners out there who are sitting on huge amounts of untaxed wealth in pension funds. Taxing them would actually raise some revenue.

Measly benefits? Some are getting more than others get working a full time job with overtime!

For those banging on about not being able to afford net zero, you know which country’s energy bills have been much less affected by the Iran war & high gas prices? Spain. Because they built more renewable energy than we did.
Leaving aside the fact that the rightwing parties beloved of many on this thread are full on climate science denial let’s burn all the fossil fuels until our cities are underwater from rising seas and crops are failing from heatwaves… anyway leaving aside those minor details about this being totally insane… It’s actually 100% sensible national security policy to switch to renewable energy, because we don’t have to depend on Russia or Iran or Trump’s America to supply it and the price doesn’t depend on who’s starting a war this month.
The rightwing press froth at the mouth about Ed Miliband but they have no actual viable alternative vision that wouldn’t be more expensive and screw over future generations.

If you means test the state pension then you disincentivise anyone paying into a private pension. This will mean more people will rely on the state pension.

I would raise the tax threshold from the current £12k-ish to £20k or even £22/23k.
People would spend more which is good for the economy and a lot of the shortfall would be recouped via VAT.

If the triple lock was dropped how do you propose the rise in pensions is financed? Many workers get over 2.5 % every year . Even with the rise this year the increase in the council tax wiped it out!

I didn’t mention the triple lock 🤷🏼‍♀️

You’re the only one who hasn’t!

No they don't.

PIP for example is a maximum of £778.80 a month. Hardly the luxury lifestyle that right-wing tabloids like to suggest disabled people live...

You do realise that apart from NI, pensioners are taxed the same as everyone else - income and savings? Which taxes other than NI do they not pay?

No. Currently you are automatically enrolled in a pension scheme when starting work and all the government would need to do is remove the option for workers to opt out.

So which specific pensioner benefits do you propose are cut?

Britain’s top four energy quangos have seen costs balloon and staff numbers surge by up to 380pc amid Ed Milliband's Net zero push, new figures reveal.

Ofgem, the Climate Change Committee, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) and Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC) have all exploded in size over the past decade as Britain races to cut climate emissions, a study from the Taxpayers Alliance (TA) found.

Among the biggest beneficiaries is the little-known LCCC, which administers the UK’s multibillion-pound annual net zero subsidies to generators.

LCCC is a private limited company, wholly owned by Ed Miliband, in his role as the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

“It has grown to administer more than 560 contracts for difference [the UK system for subsidising renewables], with nearly 50 GW of low carbon electricity generation capacity linked to the contracts.”

Britain’s top four energy quangos have seen costs balloon and staff numbers surge by up to 380pc amid Ed Miliband’s net zero push, new figures reveal.

Last year, Ed Miliband went to Beijing to strike an energy deal with China on behalf of the British taxpayer. The Government say the deal will ‘enhance cooperation on renewables and grid modernisation’.

The details of this China deal remain hidden from the public. Why?

In response to a Freedom of Information request, Miliband’s Department used the exact same line that Keir Starmer tried to use to keep the Mandelson documents under lock and key. After months of questions, they retreated behind an opaque plea for diplomacy, arguing that publishing the deal would ‘prejudice relations’ with Beijing. So Ed Miliband’s own department thinks that if the British public sees his secret energy deal with the Chinese Communist Party, then it might damage his relationship with China. Why?

Guess you happy for the UK to rely on China.

Some don’t get much more state pension, especially if they’re on the old pension. I don’t get the full amount that’s always stated

It's actually 812 GBP per month

Ministers shouldn't automatically resign if they don't get the funding they want. Every single minister believes their portfolio is important - but they have to be realistic and make the most efficient use of the money allocated to them. Having said that, education and health spending has a multiplier effect - especially education - so should automatically have priority.

I think this resignation reflects badly on Healey's commitment and attitude, and he is helping to destabilise Starmer's cabinet further. We need a government of team players, not career politicians.

@Falafelouisa I would means test the state pension & scrap NI & have one tax. Also pause the triple lock.

Focusing on benefit cheats or Starbucks is not going to change the country economic fortunes.

Maybe the state pension should be taken away from those getting public sector pensions, that would be a good start.

None of us know whether it is a career move or genuine belief based on classified information. Looking at the state of the world, it is more likely to be the latter. Regardless of what all the happy clappy be kind crowd think.
Just look around you and open your eyes. And ditch the prejudice that it is the warmongering Tories or the bidding of Trump to up defence spend.
What if we are genuinely in danger and unable to defend ourselves? Would you then say he did it for the right reasons?

They’ve paid into it!

Depends on the threshold you set. I'd start at something high like £100k and let "fiscal drag" catch more people as the years pass. That way, those on low incomes won't be affected, but those on very high incomes will be. Let's face it, someone with an income of £100k doesn't need state pension nor any other state benefits. That kind of level also wouldn't impact on people not bothering to make their own provisions. The number of pensioners with income over £100k has doubled in the last few years!

Or you could set it at the same £60k as workers starting to lose child benefit, with similar tapering rules to child benefit claw back. Would impact a lot more people, so more squealing, but again, someone on £60k really doesn't need all their state pension and someone on £80k doesn't need any of it.

The Russians have already "accidentally" cut/tried to cut internet cables with ship anchors. The solution to this is building additional cables so that there is spare capacity. If one is cut internet traffick continues on the others while the cable is repaired. It's also having special repair ships which can patch the damage cable (we do). Additionally a lot has gone into building in sensors that can detect very subtle vibrations on the sea floor to know when something is happening near the cables (I don't know how it works). All of that comes out of non defence spending. And even though the navy is in a bad shape generally they have I think put money into developing autonomous underwater vehicles which presumably are patrolling.

Those measures can also apply to power cables from wind turbines. It's actually presumably easier to protect them as the turbines are usually in 50 metre or shallower water. Which is a large potential area as our coastal shelf stretches out really far. But it's presumably easier to detect bad activity than it is on the deep-sea. Whereas the fibre optic cables have to reach all the way to France/Norway etc.

So I think the regular public might not be aware of the vulnerabilities but the people in charge of internet traffic etc are. It's also why I don't think only focussing on the defence budget alone is a good idea. It matters, but some of the "civilian" infrastructure and spending is also part of the picture.

A small minority will have "paid in" by making voluntary extra class 3 contributions which really are just "paying in" by buying more years.

Everyone else paying NIC has simply been paying tax, as NIC is just tax by another name. It's never been some kind of personal savings account.

Or make pensions liable to NIC, or better still, scrap NIC and just increase income tax rates to compensate.