Would you vote for Labour/Getting rid of Triple Lock at the next general election?

[mybiggreenfrog]

Yes (YABU)
No (YANBU)

Or maybe not so much of a transformative change to see a politician booting a problem into the long grass for someone else to deal with.

The question I guess is does the political capital gained with the bond markets outweigh that lost from the pensioners ?

Which will bring the cost down

And the Tories didn’t? With all their cronyism (read corruption), badly executed referendums and endless churn of useless PMs?

Wait, I thought that was the Tories? I’m so confused…

Ah, come on, you didn't mention the free driving lessons! Don't let the truth stand in your way.
The utter crap believed on here is worrying.

It was. The damage they inflicted will take at least two terms to repair.

Precisely
Turkeys/ Christmas spring to mind

I’ll always vote Labour but yes would be in favour of scrapping the triple lock

I totally agree. I hope we can now have some stability to properly implement these proposals, and that there will be enough intelligence amongst the electorate to accept that real change will take a longer period to achieve, and stick with it. If we keep these short sighted approaches, where politicians are only interest in stating in power short term and go for populist fads, we will never see real change.

We are a wealthy country. But there needs to be large scale, long term changes to ensure that basics like health, housing, social care and education are invested in and protected for all our sakes.

This is not a poor/ unemployed people thing.

The very vast majority of us are not wealthy enough not to depend on these services and we all not to ensure that they are prioritised.

A few pounds saved by keeping taxes down goes nowhere of you are having to pay American style health bills, or the £1300 per week or cost to for my grandmother's care hom for the last 2 years of her life.

All but the most wealthy are better off protecting these public services over the long term than saving a little bit on our tax bill.

I will wait to see the whole manifesto package before deciding.

It’s still a double-lock, so above-inflation increases.

But if it does reduce state pensions for our generation, that’s good.

We can plan for that. What we can’t plan around is a debt crisis or a tax spiral.

This is baby steps but a good sign that this govt might be willing to do at least some unpopular but necessary things.

In the context of this, the PP was saying that there are no benefits given to asylum seekers.

However the IFS said that a double lock on the pension would save £9bn a year. So £5bn in the context of what we’re discussing here is not a drop in the ocean

People are responding to this announcement as though pensions are never going to increase again and everyone will get poorer as a result.

The plan is that they will still increase by 2.5% each year regardless.

That's not unsubstantial. And perfectly reasonable given that tax payers have to fund it.

I'm not sure it would make me vote Labour, as a swinging voter in general. But it's not the big steal from Granny that some of those lacking in comprehension skills on here seem to be making it out to be.

I totally take that point - but to me this felt very different to the kind of kicking into the long grass we’ve seen over social care for the past decade or more.

Clearly, the proof will be in the pudding, but I have to admit that for the first time in a long time, I personally feel cautiously optimistic that we might finally have a Prime Minister with a genuinely bold vision, and the political will to fight to achieve it.

It’s still a double-lock, so above-inflation increases.

How does that work when it’s tied to inflation? How often has inflation been less than 2.5%?

Where did you see that?

Alternative asylum accommodation will cost more than hotels Press release
Date: 20 Mar 2024

• The Home Office expects its large sites programme to cost £1.2 billion and believes the sites will now cost £46 million more than using hotels

https://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/alternative-asylum-accommodation-will-cost-more-than-hotels/

I don’t see it this way. I think people of my age are aware that it’s going against our interests. But honestly the country can’t afford all of its expenditure, and something has to change. Otherwise there will be nothing available to support anyone. People of my age however have the time now to try to save more for our retirement.

About half the time.

244 months out of 452 since 1989.

19 out of 37 years.

Completely agree with decision to remove the triple lock. It was a brave thing to do given the risks, but it was the right decision. I don’t know how I’ll vote when we have our next GE, but it’s made me more likely to vote Labour.

At least Burnham seems to be intent on making some real change. With Starmer, it only seemed like a slogan, as he was too worried about ruffling feathers.

How?

What specific Labour policy do you feel has "ruined" the country and in what way?

Not trying to start a bun fight. Just genuinely curious. I see this sentiment a lot on MN but never with any rationale.

I’m not sure if people deliberately try to spout misinformation to suit their purposes, or they just genuinely don’t look up any figures before confidently stating things that aren’t true. But it doesn’t add much to the debate if we aren’t working from the facts

Just editing to clarify, this wasn’t aimed at Eastern Standard, but at the PP they were correcting

Burnham told Times Radio this morning that it might not be until nearer 2040 that this can all start so it won't just be this election there will be another election after

Brilliant. So 14 years of extra taxes and reduced pensions, there will be a different government by then which never promised social care system. How convenient

I think it needs to go. I support a basic level pension but we need to be pushing people to make private provision.

But I think it needs to be phased in to give people enough time to prepare.

If you are 20 then its removal is of no importance. If you are 50 that’s a different story.
I have no intention of voting labour but would consider it if they committed to lowering income tax / or preferably increasing thresholds.

And scrap the 100k, 62% tax trap.

Same.

What on earth are you talking about? For the first two years you have to prove that you have the means to support yourself without any help from the government. After that, it's definite leave to remain and indefinite leave to remain.

I have been through the process. If your partner is going through the process then he shouldn't be claiming. If he is in the process and legal (I said ILLEGAL immigrants) then it's fine.

The key issue is whether their status has “No Recourse to Public Funds” (NRPF).

• Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR): generally allows access to public benefits, subject to the normal eligibility rules. GGOV.UK+1
• Settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme: generally allows access to benefits, subject to the normal rules. GGOV.UK
• Pre-settled status: benefits can be available, but additional “right to reside” requirements can apply. GGOV.UK
• Skilled Worker, Health and Care Worker, Student and many other temporary visas: normally have NRPF, meaning they cannot claim most benefits such as Universal Credit or certain housing assistance. GGOV.UK
• Some benefits aren't classified as public funds, so even someone with NRPF may qualify for things such as New Style Jobseeker's Allowance, New Style ESA, Statutory Sick Pay, Maternity Allowance or State Pension, if they meet the relevant contribution/eligibility requirements. GGOV.UK+1
• There are also exceptions and special arrangements for certain refugees, protected persons and people whose NRPF condition has been lifted. GGOV.UK

So “immigrant” by itself doesn't determine whether someone can get benefits — their specific immigration status does.