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

[mybiggreenfrog]

Yes (YABU)
No (YANBU)

I'm happy to move from the triple lock to the double lock (what is being suggested). it is a reasonable response to our circumstances. I'm 63 so it will directly affect me.

However, I won't vote Labour.

How many times in the last decade?

You said ‘Legal immigrants don’t get benefits’ and now have just posted a number of situations where they do. My partner is entitled as he falls within one of those categories. A number of my friends also

I understand your cynicism, and honestly, I think modern politics has made cynics of a lot of us, but the fact is we wouldn’t have the NHS or the public health act if the governments of the past had thought like that. It has to be a good thing for governments to be pushing for big, radical changes even if they take time. And a new government with any sense won’t immediately scrap the social care reforms. Look at Sure Start, a long term policy brought in by one government, scrapped by another, now being brought back again. That’s the kind of short sighted policy making cycle I really hope Andy Burnham can break us out of.

I wouldn't vote for Labour even if you paid me!

As a pensioner who has just enough private pension not to qualify for any additional financial support, of course I'm not happy about losing the triple lock. The UK is the meanest with regard to pensions in Europe, if not the 'civilised' west. I've paid tax all my life and feel I have had sod-all benefit. I'd support it if it was genuinely universal social care, but this won't pay for it, and I'll have had to sell my home by 2040 while my pension dwindles. Even then, I'm betting that I STILL won't qualify. So I lose all round.

PS. One of the reasons I have such a meagre private pension(s) is that, unlike those in the public sector, I had to start from scratch every time I changed my job. Any work history of 2 years or less at a time (common in my industry) generated exactly £0 pension. My loss again.

About 40% of the months (51 out of 120).

Three out of ten years below 2.5%. Two years at exactly 2.5%.

So, still about a half.

Fine the clarification is 'Legal immigrants in the first two years'.

That's why a point system is absolutely needed here asap.

The National Audit Office says £4.36 billion.

It is very much a question of perspective. It would be reasonable to assume that the asylum seekers are benefiting from a good percentage of this money. They are not.

There are under 40,000 waiting for a first decision, in hotels and barracks. There are about 90,000 awaiting appeal. Let’s pretend they all get the larger welfare payment of under £50 per week. (We’ll call it £50. This is padded because many in hotels only get £10 per week). This is a total welfare payment of £338,000,000 per year. Not even half a billion.

Independent think tanks consistently estimate NHS costa for asylum seekers at around £300 billion annually.

These are the two main direct costs, besides housing. The asylum seekers pay for their own clothes and toiletries and phone bills and do not pay utilities. Housing is the only big cost left, and we have well over £3 billion for the housing of 140,000 people annually.

That’s £21.000 per person per year for housing, in a crowded asylum hotel in the first instance, then in an HMO or (rarely) family housing. The total cost of maintaining a single occupancy public housing unit in London, allowing for proper upkeep, is currently quoted at £8700 pa.

And many of the asylum hotels are utter crap.

So why can’t the £3billion or so allocated for housing be halved?

There are many problems with the asylum system. Greedy contractors is a big one.

Settled immigrants get benefits

And it takes five years now, at least, not two.

There is nothing on this earth that would make me vote for Labour.

I am not opposed to ending the triple lock (and I qualify for my state pension next spring). However, I don't think it will change that much and I don't think it will suddenly release all the spare money many people think, but at least it will stop everyone bleating on about it and blaming pensions for the economic mess we are in

To follow up on cost, it looks like the big asylum contractors have been making profits of 10-15%. That doesn’t sound unreasonable initially.

However, they don’t actually have much capacity, and they hire numerous very expensive subcontractors who in turn farm out work, and so it goes. Profit is taken at every step and the real work is done by the bit players at the end of the chain.

The system has been criticised by the National Audit Office for its lack of transparency.

TBF Labour are probably the only party that could remove the triple lock. Can you imagine what Labour would have accused the Conservatives of if they had tried it when they were in government.

But what happens if after her possible election she steps down/is forced out? You would I hope vote for the politics not her personality

The UK has had a points based system for absolutely years.

There are a wide range of ways someone can apply to be here in the UK.
The largest are work. Employers will sponsor a person from abroad to come and work here. Boris scrapped the need for the employer to try to fill the vacancy from within the UK first. I have no idea if that has been reinstated.
Then students. Universities rely on the overseas student as they can charge them an arm and a leg comparative to UK students. And there are plenty of rich enough people in China or India who will pay. They don’t all go home and often secure a job here at the end of their visa.
Then marriage. Two years. And then you get full ILR. No points based system here.
Once a person has ILR they can apply to be a British Citizen.

There are many smaller other categories too.

But the points based system has been with us for years for Work and Student categories.

Wouldn’t vote labour

She seemingly is the best they have but I suspect would be replaced if there was another candidate for the job. Compared to her former colleagues like Braverman or Jenrick and Truss she is streets ahead.

I think getting rid of the triple lock is good. But it's not enough to get me to vote Labour in the next election.

Yes. The triple lock implies that the state pension is an ever increasing fraction of average wages. That is obviously not sustainable. There was a period when this was a reasonable policy as a catch up after pensions had fallen back relative to average wages. That period is now over.

I am also very much in favour of the state intervening to increase the quality and fairness of social care provision.

Then again posters thought Starmer would stay, and Kemi wouldn’t.

That's politics for you! 24 hours is a long time apparently

It is, and that goes for Labour. As it did for Starmer. Still, posters were adamant about him staying, and got it wrong.

I’m actually really interested to hear Kemi Badenoch’s conference speech now. I do think she’s a capable and intelligent politician, so I really hope she rises to the challenge and sets out some big forward looking ideas.

More recently, I think she’s fallen a bit into the old “nasty party” trap, but hopefully the conference speech will be a reset and we’ll hear more of what she’s actually for, and less sniping about what she’s against.

And all the posters who are blinded by spite towards pensioners have not yet twigged that they stand to benefit from the national care service, not today's pensioners.
It will mean their inheritance - if they have not managed to prise if off their parents before they die - is more likely to come to them than it is now.
But no, carry on pensioner bashing. After all, we all know that today's workers will never grow old.

A provisional yes.

A proper National Care Service with a cap on costs in exchange for ending the triple lock sounds like a fair deal for older people, but I want to see the details of exactly what is going to happen & when before committing myself to voting for it.