Time for a new PM and Chancellor?

[Whenwillitgetwarm]

I wrote this on another thread but feel it should have its own thread.

Although I voted Labour (the current Tory’s are too insane), I think it may be time to swap out Starmer and Reeves. If this is done early, there’s enough parliament time left to bed a new PM and Chancellor in.

They both lack ideas, seem confused, no vision etc. They had 14 years to think up workable plans. Coming in and throwing their hands up saying there’s no money so they can’t do anything is very poor. They want to continue austerity on the sly. They indulge in stupid culture wars like VAT to rob Peter to pay Paul (and Paul won’t see a penny anyway). They have bad advisors and are arrogant. It looks like they are just excited to have the job titles and don’t know what to do.

Get a top two who will come up with a bold plan. We’re in the gutter so there’s opportunities to deliver quick wins. They don’t always need funding, simple policy changes can make big and quick differences. If they gave each department a target to deliver one quick legislative win by Christmas, we’d start 2025 differently.

Unfortunately we’re stuck with two people who can’t believe their luck, and who are afraid of the Daily Mail, Murdoch, some loud Redwall types and bots on X who wish our country economic harm. They are weak.

If Labour were a football team, there would be fans screaming for Starmer to be sacked now.

This is not about getting rid of Labour. I believe there is talent in the wider party, much more than in the Conservatives who hollowed out their party under Johnson. Nevertheless I just don’t think Starmer and Reeves should have their roles.

If you would like to start another thread feel free.

It was another poster who made the case for voting intention and I supplied info

Relax Labour are in, they’ll do well or not, it’s on them.

Is no one happy about Labour in for 4.5 more years

Thought you’d all be it’s great happy days

I think you’ve disingenuously misinterpreted our posts.

@EasternStandard Read the long time political thread on chat. Most are disappointed in their abysmal PR. We don’t shy away from criticism like the cheerleaders for other parties. They’ve done some ok stuff that’s not been publicised which I’m sure you’ll be pleased about.

I’m more seeing posters lashing out at random mners, it’s not great, but not much joy there either re the new gov

Read the long time political thread on chat

No thanks

Did you study social history at school or Uni? Who told you that the older pensioners will get WFP? You are mistaken. WFP is now means tested, not by age, but by income. Only older pensioners on pension credit can now get WFP: The pension credit brings pensions up from £169 to £218, not the £221 which is the new state pension for those who retired more recently.

What do you think Britain looked like in 1945? The war with Japan ended in August 1945, Do you think those serving in the war abroad came home, went to work and everything was peaceful? Anyone over 80 lived during that war. They were evacuees, sent to homes and people they did not know. They carried gas masks everywhere. They missed their parents, Some never saw them again. Those who were not evacuated risked bombing, injury, bomb shelters and underground railways. There were few clothes, strict rationing, The decade after the war ended was a struggle, but they bore it to be free of people like Hitler, to give us freedom, not just the military, but the civilians. We owe those civilians who kept Britain going a debt of gratitude, not facing hypothermia.

Now you say they went through nothing.

It took some time for fathers to return to their families. The Nazi government under Hitler left Germany in a mess. It took a long time to process the military and civilian population. There were thousands of British and foreign men in concentration camps, Thousands of Jews and displaced people working in Hitler's 'workhouses'. They all had to be released and helped. The British Army was in Germany a long time. The soldiers were away from their families and missed their children's growth.

Back in Britain people were homeless from bombing. Single mothers hoping their husbands would return: millions did not. Those bombed out spent days queuing in housing departments. Schools were bombed, or badly damaged. Many civilians were disabled in the war. There were tens of thousand disabled, some found jobs, others could not. There are still people alive who returned from the war. Even more who died in the past decade. Did you know thousands of civilians died too, for our future? Thousands were disabled. How were they to go to work to save for a pension? It wasn't a world like today: very few had jobs which had superannuation, such a public sector workers. There was no NHS. People relied on charity much of the time.

Rationing continued for another 8 years. During that time there were epidemics of London smog, and polio. There were more food shortages in some areas than during the war. Homes had to be rebuilt or replaced. There were jobs to come home to: deaths did that. The average working man's wage 10 years after the war was about £5 a week. From that they paid tax and National Insurance. Before 1948 people paid for the doctor a system called PANEL where for six old pence a week the GP treated the family.

The Labour Government won the election after the war on a promise that no one would have to pay anything for health treatment. It was all free: they did not have to pay the GP. They paid national insurance instead, a percentage of wages. They no longer needed to budget for health. The then government also passed another Act at the time: The National Assistance Act 1948. In that, people would have sick pay, unemployment pay and a PENSION when they retired. Because of that, unless you worked in the public sector, few companies offered a private pension. Why should they? The state pension was enough to live on, or so they thought.

They are supposed to be the 'children of promise' who voted for the labour government because it promised them 'cradle to grave' care, that they would never have to pay for health or pension if they paid national insurance.

They are supposed to be the 'children of promise' who voted for the labour government because it promised them 'cradle to grave' care, that they would never have to pay for health or pension if they paid national insurance.

The youngest people who voted for the Attlee government were born in 1924, they’re 100 this year. As I pointed out earlier, your maths really is atrocious.

Well that’s a load of waffle @llizzie
I don’t need a history lesson. My late dad actually was in the forces in WW2. My late mum, 9 years younger would still be older than the people you are talking about. She was a child during the war.

I know pension credit is awarded by income not age - but due to changes in the state pension it’s mostly older people who qualify (look up the criteria for the Savings Credit element).
Making WFA means tested isn’t disrespectful to veterans or the war dead in any way.

I think a lot of young children born around the time of the war suffered from health effects because of rationing. It went on into the early 1950s. Then of course there were lots of very young children who lost parents or had parents injured either due to military action or the bombings.

I'm not sure young children born around the time of the war made much direct contribution to the war effort, but they certainly suffered as a consequence of it.

OK but what does that have to do with the winter fuel allowance?

I’m sure many were affected. That’s not quite what @llizzie is suggesting though.
Like I said, my late mum was a war child (born 1930, so older and more aware than most of those referenced earlier). Granted her family were in reserved occupations, but I’m pretty sure the health impact of mining was more of an influence on them than the war.

Well I had a relative who had a several health conditions, at least two of which I believe probably came about due to rationing and poor diet during the war. They died relatively recently so lived a long life despite these conditions.

I am not sure how having less money to help heat themselves due to curtailment of the WFA would have helped them.

I don't know why you singled me out to insult. Obviously you cannot get through your day without targeting someone. I feel sorry for people who have no or little understanding of the most vulnerable in the community. I would certainly not want to encourage your attempt at whatever you want to achieve.

Since you mention them, those born in 1924 and returned from the war in 1945 - on reached 21 and could vote. They may well have been the youngest voters, but that isn't the point, is it? They married and had children of the promise. Their parents and grandparents suffered the privations of war.

Their and their children struggled after the war, to rebuild Britain, build houses and ne new infrastructure. They worked 48 hour weeks, not including meal breaks, for their £5 a week. They put the 'Great' back in Britain by hard work and little to show for it, because otherwise, there struggle against Hitler would have been in vain, and the war and civilian dead would have died for nothing.

They won our freedom, freedom to do what we wanted in life, to study, travel, have a home, raise a family. Perhaps a bit of USSR social history might tell you how lucky we were to have had parents, grandparents, and great grandparents all working and fighting to make us free...

free for the likes of people to insult others. You can do that, because your ancestors fought for your right to do so.

That's not my understanding but I checked for you

''Dieticians have long argued that wartime rationing provided the healthiest diet the British population has ever eaten, leading to dramatic post-war improvements in the nation's health''

And

''The wartime food shortages forced people to adopt new eating patterns. Most people ate less meat, fat, eggs and sugar than they had eaten before. But people who had a poor diet before, were able to increase their intake of protein and vitamins because they received the same ration as everybody else''.

And since we're talking anecdata - no-one in my family of that generation suffered ill-health effects from their war-time diet and were remarkably long lived in line with their peers

Pointing out that your maths doesn’t add up is a fact, not an insult.

I’m the child of two people who were born during one world war, grew up in a depression and fought and nursed through the Second World War. Neither of them would have recognised “struggle”, their lives made them incredibly resilient and they’d be appalled at the way you’re weaponising them to make cheap political points. The fact is that there are very few people left now who can remember the war and the few who are left aren’t the ones complaining about losing £150.

Sentimental tosh. You're basically saying that you don't give a damn about today's working age people and about young disabled people. They are not worth less, and they have spent 14 years being shat on? If that's fine with you, you're just another hypocrite. All these people going on about the poor pensioners - where was your outrage when it was younger vulnerable people getting it in the neck?

@efacsen my parents would have thrived on the UK rationed diet! But my dad was born in Nazi occupied Holland and suffered starvation and rickets in the winter of 44 - 46, and my mother spent 2 years in a Japanese prison camp in Indonesia.

No one is lashing out.

Busy reading the Mail's vitriol about free cars etc. I suspect

Exactly the UK had a very favourable war-time/post war experience -thanks to the US N Atlantic food convoys plus farms allotments/gardens [not overrun by thieving brutal armies] compared to mainland Europe and Russia. Your poor mother

Of course they are it’s almost cartoon level in that pp

I take it they saw the poll image, but they should avoid looking up what others are saying

Politico for example

I feel sorry for people who have no or little understanding of the most vulnerable in the community

I think you will find most people posting do. Quite a few of us have had to deal directly or indirectly with 14 years of the disabled being hounded, for starters.

They won our freedom, freedom to do what we wanted in life, to study, travel, have a home, raise a family

I think you need to sit back and contemplate the impact that of 14 years of the Tories has had on all of those freedoms.

It is beyond parody.

There are people who do not get the WFP this year because they miss the deadline. The government say pensioners only need £218 a week to live on. If pensioners have less than that, they can claim pension credit which brings their income up to £218. The new pension is £221, just £3 over the limit for claiming pension credit, which opens the door to a whole lot more benefits, including WFP, housing, teeth, glasses, and more, which pensioners on £221 cannot claim. Just £1 over in some cases. With pension credit, there are benefits worth more than the basic pension or the new pension.

THAT is grossly unfair.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can practice living the life of a disabled person or pensioner who cannot work. You take the labour government's side, the government says that all a pensioner needs is £218 a week. Try it. See if your government is right. DON'T keep your heating on and see if the WFP would make a difference. How about the disabled? Live like them. Spend a week in a wheelchair or bed, with the heating off, and see how you manage. Don't forget you need to pay a helper, a gardener, a cleaner, someone to do everything YOU cannot do. You like the government, see if they are right.

I suppose I am selfish, in that I am looking at the situation for disabled people, who can only have help with heating if they are on means tested benefit. The DLA is not means tested. There are disabled people who were born disabled, some who were involved in accidents, some who developed a disease which the NHS cannot cure. Many are no better off than pensioners. They might have DLA, but they could also have other income: living with parents or grandparents or husband, partner. They need to keep the house warm, especially if they cannot move about. I qualified for it last year, and the cold weather payment. I live alone. That was an extra tax free sum of £600. This year nothing, because I don't quite qualify for means tested benefits.

If Starmer and Reeves had announced that they INTENDED TO END THE PAYMENT in winter 2025 and would debate in in the spring, that would have been more acceptable for people. They could have prepared for it. There has NEVER been a vote in Parliament on it. It was as much a surprise to MPs as it is to the disabled.

Those two did not give pensioners a chance to see if they can get the pension credit. I don't know if you have seen DLA application forms. They are a book of about 40 pages, and you have to get letters and signatures from all the different people you need help from in order to fill it in and send it. Then it has to be read and 'ticked' by people, and Parliament hasn't even opened yet.

You do know that the claim forms for DLA, PIP and pension Credit have been the same for years? Labour didn't invent them on July 5th.

I understand you are angry about the winter fuel payment and I understand that. But you are blaming Labour for other things that they simply are not responsible for.

The government say pensioners only need £218 a week to live on. If pensioners have less than that, they can claim pension credit which brings their income up to £218. The new pension is £221, just £3 over the limit for claiming pension credit, which opens the door to a whole lot more benefits, including WFP, housing, teeth, glasses, and more, which pensioners on £221 cannot claim. Just £1 over in some cases. With pension credit, there are benefits worth more than the basic pension or the new pension

THAT is grossly unfair

Yes it is unfair.

But.

All those rates were set in April. By the Tory government
@llizzie