To think incompetent hypocrite Starmer has lost the respect of the people and his own party in record time?

[TealTraybake]

An excoriating letter from Rosie Duffield who resigned today..

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rosie-duffield-resignation-letter-starmer-labour-b2620603.html#comments-area

Been bad enough for her to resign, I wonder what will happen next. Does she know something we don’t?

So, this is all good enough for you, is it? Is this the Labour party you voted for?

Not really. If disability benefits for pensioners included a mobility component (which attendance allowance doesn’t because it considers mobility issues after age 66 to be age related and not down to disability) then pensioners would have the same opportunity to qualify automatically for a blue badge as recipients of PIP and ADP. It’s long been thought that AA should offer a mobility component for those who had mobility issues before age 66. That policy is set at government level.

I understood they held an election after that and won it pretty convincingly so that indicates the electorate disagreed with you. Interestingly Corbyn won more votes in 2019 than Starmer in 2024.

Either way as far as I'm concerned they are all a bunch of corrupt charlatans. The tories are about to elect another loser as their leader and probably someone was part of the last bunch of incompetent crooks and offer that as choice to Starmer. Where is the choice? I don't want to vote for any of these people.

This. There’ll be something for everybody in the budget.

No, they predicted it would be the outcome of means testing WFA

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/05/tory-winter-fuel-allowance-cuts-puts-4000-lives-at-risk-claims-labour

Well they've brought in the VAT on private school fees, which seems to be what most people who voted Labour voted on the basis of, so he's fine, can cling onto power for 5 years on that basis alone.

If all pensioners who are entitled take up pension credit, that will not only wipe out the savings from means testing, but will add more to the benefits bill.

That’s not how allocation of funds work in government. And if not solely eligibility for pension credit that is the determiner. It’s pension credit, UC, Income Support, jobseeker's allowance, employment and support allowance, child tax credit or working tax credit.

Thank you. Unfortunately there's no way to contact them. There's no email address, no telephone number only this bloody form which has timed out now.

It's not like I'm asking for money just the ability to use it disabled space.

I said MOST in need, See my post above, it’s not just pension credit eligibility.

Whether they win an election or not is irrelevant. The proroguing of parliament was unlawful and against the constitution. The lack of respect for the rule of law should concern everyone, regardless of political views.

I don't need an attendance allowance I have a husband. He helps me a lot.

What makes you think it won’t happen (praying you are correct!)?

We all need to go right back in history before laying the blame on any single party.

In the last financial year the UK spent £108 billion on interest repayments servicing national debt. That is £1 for every £8 raised in tax revenue. It is also equivalent to about £3,850 per annum for every UK household. In other words, taxes are higher by 15% to cover this cost, with the majority falling on the higher earners.

This interest is paid on a debt mountain of £3 trillion. You can split it broadly into thirds. The first £1 trillion was handed over by Labour in 2010. Another £1 trillion was added by the Conservatives between then and 2024. The remaining third is largely down to the Great Recession and Covid, where I am convinced the same actions would have been taken by either government. You can split that last £1 trillion equally between the two parties.

Some debt is sensible. We are neither Norway nor Singapore so a sovereign wealth fund is not on the cards anytime soon. But £3 trillion is high and unsustainable where, after 25 years of containment, inflation is back with us once more. So far we have heard there will be no return to austerity and no increases to the four forms of taxation that contribute 86% of tax revenue.

Reeves' budget next month is going to be interesting. Unless Labour has discovered some form of miraculous economic management that all the brains in the world have so far failed to discover, we will see some massive U-turns and a change of rhetoric.

Neither party over the last 25 years has clean hands when it comes to sound economic management.

@ByMerryKoala no, the research was that 4,000 excess deaths had been prevented by the introduction of the WFA, and they said that would be reversed under the Tories. That can only have been looking at removing it as a whole, as the 4,000 deaths prevented came from introducing it as a whole.

They (misleadingly, tbh) used it to say the Tory policy of means testing would cause 4,000 deaths. They were partly able to do this because the Tory manifesto just said "means testing" but didn't specify a level, so they gave a figure for removing it all. But the research was not that 4,000 deaths would come from means testing it.

"The Conservatives’ policy of means testing the winter fuel allowance for pensioners could contribute to almost 4,000 extra deaths this winter, Labour has said"

I’m ambivalent about the new government. But if people on lower incomes consistently need hundreds of pounds to cover their essential bills, isn’t that a problem with energy costs being too high? And the government is setting up a nationalised energy company which aims to alleviate that.
Is it sustainable for the welfare state to perpetually cover people’s essential bills because of a dysfunctional capitalist system, be those housing costs, high energy bills (with companies posting huge profits) or by subsidising low pay?

I was making a point that people who've never had to fill in a form, will struggle enormously. It's humiliating when a form takes an hour to complete and then you're told you've done it wrong, go away. Or start all over again.

@ByMerryKoala yes, as I've said, they were misleading in their use of that figure.

The Department of Transport is responsible for that legislation. In any case, it’s certainly not Starmer to blame for your blue badge form woes.

The inconvenience to fill out a form is in no way, shape or form a reason to keep WFA a blanket benefit.

Oh, okay, they were lying about the threat of means testing the winter fuel allowance until they were in striking distance of governance? Got you. Stand up bunch, really.

If you look on your council’s website there should be a contact number for blue badge applications. Otherwise you could call the council’s switchboard and ask to be put through. Councils administer blue badges so there will be someone who deals with applications.
You might also have some success contacting your local councillor/MP/CAB. I do blue badge applications at work from time to time and they shouldn’t be as complicated as yours has been.

Part of the black hole was Hunt's calculation that public pay would rise by just 2%. How was this ever going to hold?

I'd describe trying to burn asylum seekers alive as far-right thuggery.
I felt disenfranchised and disillusioned with the last governement- I didn't try and burn down my local Tory MP's office with him and his staff inside.

This is the crux of the problem and one that the Everything Should Be Free brigade refuse to acknowledge.

There need to be big cuts to government spending - including benefits, PIP, DLA, final salary government pensions, civil service, foreign aid, everything.

Unless the debt can be brought under control, we're heading for national bankruptcy and IMF enforced cuts which could mean the end of the welfare state and NHS.

@ByMerryKoala yes, that's correct. They were using research that said introducing the WFA prevented 4,000 excess deaths. And then when the Tories said they'd means test it, they said that that was almost 4,000 deaths that may result from that policy. The Tories didn't give a level for means testing in their manifesto, they just said "means testing" which is arguably what allowed labour to suggest the highest possible figure of almost all the previously prevented deaths. I mean, theoretically it could have been true, if the means testing had been well below the pension credit limit for example.

To be fair, presenting the worst possible outcome of another party's policy is pretty standard. For example, when Labour was calling for it, Hunt was very clear that changing non-dom status would not raise more money. Until of course he introduced a policy to change non-dom status, when suddenly it would raise money.