To think that with over 1million pensioners in poverty, removing the WFA makes Labour the nasty party, who tell blatant lies?

[TealTraybake]

And hypocritical lies at that. Just a few months ago Labour ‘vowed to be the party for pensioners’

‘Nearly 1 million people aged over 66 in the UK are living in deprivation, according to government statistics, the highest number since comparable records began.
Labour, which analysed figures from Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) records, has vowed to be the party for pensioners, with plans to insulate millions of homes and reduce energy bills. It has also “committed to retaining” the triple lock which guarantees annual rises to the state pension’

I understand the WFA should be means tested - but the current threshold is far too low. Food prices have gone up. Energy prices have gone up. Some pensioners need that WFA 🥺.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/16/nearly-1m-uk-pensioners-deprivation-official-figures

I'm confused by your post. Why do you think that it is in your view racist to say that we should stop giving aid to India. It was supposed to have stopped in 2015 after India said they didn't want it.

Racism works both ways, your comments demonstrates this.

I’m white 😂 and pretty ashamed of the good old fashioned racism which always comes about from our older generations. As can be seen in this thread.

So you assume younger people can't be racist?
Did you miss that between 30 July and 7 August an estimated 29 anti-immigration demonstrations and riots took place across 27 towns and cities in the UK. Many of these were violent, with participants of all ages (mainly young) attacking mosques and hotels housing asylum seekers?

Your remark has identified you as ageist.

This is coming from the poster who called people in boats “part of the problem.” Racist comments on this thread with the justification of protecting the elderly are pretty clear and they are disgusting. Many from posters who have now outed themselves as faux leftists. Pointing out what is on this thread does not make one ageist. Its fact.

This.

Just been watching some pensioners on Channel 4 who were on Christmas Island in the 1950s. Britains Atomic Bomb Scandal.

Why is it disgusting to protect the elderly who most need help?
I have already stated that the more affluent pensioners do not need the money.

There is a distinct difference between not liking people of colour and not wanting more illegal immigrants to come into this country whilst we are in the middle of a financial crisis.
It’s not racist to want controlled immigration.

Yea that hole is getting bigger. Way to go using an outdated and racist term to explain I’m not racist but…

Oh, here we go.......
Pathetic!

If it walks like a duck…

True.

But take the WFA allowance over 52 weeks of the year and the £200 for a single person it doesn't actually make that much difference.

Maybe they could say those on basic state pension get £50 for single person and that'll balance it out.

But calculations are never as straight forward as a single sum.

You still haven't answered my question on why you think it's racist to stop overseas aid to countries like India who don't actually need the money.

@itsgettingweird You could say that for other benefits though. The cold weather payment of £25, the £10 Christmas bonus, the warm home discount scheme of £150, the cost of living payments towards food bills and fuel costs that the Government gave people (not sure if they're still helping with those for people on low incomes).

Nice attitude. It’s just a discussion on a discussion forum. How would I know what you do or don’t know? Did you mention you were 71 before? No you didm’t, so your sarcasm is unwarranted.

I remember all the threads before the election where posters waxed lyrical about how much better Labour would be and how they'd look after the vulnerable. Now it's wall-to-wall justification of freezing pensioners to death, the greedy lot who own homes when you've still got 12 years on your mortgage, it's SO UNFAIR. How things change

I think those 'difficult decisions' and 'pain' will get more real when they creep out of the easy to vilify pensioner age range

And here we are for more Labour hypocrisy. Starmer accepted gifts of dresses for his wife. What? Who does that???

Who thinks it’s ok to accept gifts these days?

This Labour Party are amateurs. Maybe they could gift the pensioners some warm clothes, cos they can’t afford to put the heating on.

Even Carrie Johnson wore rented out dresses / outfits. Her wedding dress was rented fgs (though I believe they spent ridiculous amounts on wallpaper). Still the optics are bad and this again shows labour for who they really are.

If some one shows you who they are - believe them. And this incompetent bitter amateur Labour lot are just getting started. 🤮

It’s as warranted as you clearly think patronising stating the bleedin obvious is. My age has nothing to do with your assumption that someone else doesn’t understand the welfare system and treating them to the Dummies’ Guide version.

I didn’t mean to be patronising, but you are fully intending to be obnoxious. I hope you go and stand on an upturned plug when you are only wearing socks.

Now. Good day to you.

Someone did show us who they were, multiple times, hence the Tories are no longer in power.

Or would you prefer the far right, or perhaps martial law? What are the options, I’d love to hear your solution because let’s be honest more people were plunged into poverty under Tory rule than any other time in recent history.

Is it best those pensioners impacted by this weren’t. Of course. You’d have to be an idiot to argue against that. The harsh reality is there is insufficient to go around, so do you want your left leg or your right leg. Those are the choices they’ve been left with. Do you want a working NHS (insert name of any public service) or something else.

We live in a democracy where it’s fine to criticise, but some of your comments come across as vitriolic naivety.

IMO, the sensible line to take would have been to have left the WFA for non-tax paying pensioners, so the cut-off would be £12,570. As that threshold is fixed until 2028, by which time (subject to earnings/indexation) most pensioners will be paying tax on the basic state pension, that will be another tussle.

And, as a tax-paying pensioner of 68, I don't have a gripe with losing the WFA. At 86, I hope still to be a tax payer, and not to have to depend on the state for largesse.

@UhHuhHuH
Not sure why you feel the need to bring the tories into this thread or to be personal. Modus operandi of some I suppose.

This thread is about Labour. It is about the havoc they’re are wreaking in such a short time. Nothing vitriolic about it. it’s purely factual - you don’t like the facts.

I was at the GPs earlier this afternoon. It was full of pensioners and disabled. I was the youngest there by far. Had a longish wait - about 30mins. Enough to listen to several of them talking. All of them without fail disgusted by Starmer “And now he’s going to take my bus pass on top of everything” etc etc.

No handing out of pay rises to train drivers. They do not need a pay rise. How much are labour spending on that? Back pay and all. Awful. He’d be better concentrating on fully automating the railways to get rid of the greedy union staff once and for all. It’s possible.

Tax the uber high earners more. The billionaires. The corporate tax evaders etc etc.

Spot on.

Rayner now cancelling the right to buy scheme. Another hugely hypocritical move. She benefitted from this scheme to the tune of about £50k. You might Labour would have chosen a different person to go with this news. They are unashamedly hypocritical. They really do make me feel sick.

fwiw my view is that the right to buy scheme should never have happened. That is not my point.