A year of Starmer What do you think?

trisher I don’t think you’re taking on board what myself and others have been saying - the secret to election success is in the message being put forward in a way that is hitting the right buttons for the electorate, not what the detail of policies themselves are. People will mainly agree that they want a fairer society, but they actually vote based on their gut feeling about which party can do the governing job best. If a particular policy is relevant to them they may be swayed (if they believe it will actually be delivered) but the main factor is confidence in the leadership to manage the country. That sounds cynical I know, but the previous Labour approach didn’t work and in my view never will work, so we have to move on.

Maizie I'm not sure how pensions are actually funded is relevant to the points "Doodledog* and I have raised.

I was responding more to Pippa, really.

But in a way, it's connected to idea of the role of the state and the 'worth' of the individual. Do you have to have 'worked hard' all your life to be entitled to any support at the end of it? Are those who have been unable to 'work' less entitled because they have made no monetary contribution? Who does the state's money belong to? Who should say how it is to be spent?

I can see that the idea of there being a finite amount of money around and the way it is doled out in the current system being taken for granted doesn't leave room for much questioning of the system, but looking at it from the angle of the state creating and spending money before taxation seems to widen the scope.

Or perhaps I'm just rambling...

Thanks for your response, Doodledoog. I need to consider it carefully.

I've been thinking about the points you made about the relationship of the individual and the state, Maizie. It is a complex question, but I will have a go at answering it, although the answer will be both long and simplistic.

We probably are all specks of dust, but nevertheless, whilst the dust particles are combined to make humans who live in societies, we have to find a way to make that work .

In an ideal world, it would be good if we could all do what we wanted, with enough money (or whatever we decided to use instead) to have access to the resources to do so, and the security of knowing that the state would educate us, support us when we needed it and look after us when we are ill or grow old. Realistically, however, this would be likely to end up with too few people wanting to do the looking after, or to provide the resources for the rest, and it would all fall apart. Think Morlocks and Eloi in The Time Machine.

We need, therefore to reward those who contribute to society at large*, and the way that capitalist societies do that is through the exchange of money. Opting out of this way of doing things would mean opting out of the ability to trade with other nations, and would also restrict most of us to having to deal only with people local to where we live.

* This is separate, IMO, from contributions we all make to our own lives and families, which is not to say that these contributions are not valuable in their own way - it's just that everyone who has a family contributes to it, so those who also contribute to society by producing things, or by making it run more smoothly should see the benefit of that.

How we decide which contributions to society are more valuable than others is where political viewpoints come into play. Some would argue that scarcity value and market forces are what makes some roles more valuable, so brain surgeons (who are always the poster boys and girls in this sort of analogy ) get paid more than the roadsweepers who are always the metaphor for those at the bottom of the pile. Others would say that all of us need clean roads, but only a few need brain surgery, so the reverse should be true. Either way, there are differentials.

Then we need to sort out how to ensure that we have enough people able to do all the things that we need as a society, whether that is providing practical/necessary things such as food or water supply, or cultural ones such as art and poetry. We educate people accordingly and allow or deny individuals access to levels education that give them choices about how to spend their working lives - how this is done is another political choice.

On top of that, we are all different when it comes to things like health and abilities. Some can't contribute as much as others in a quantitative way, but can offer all sorts of valuable assets in other ways. Again, how we deal with that depends on political will and outlook.

Personally, I support the idea that we should contribute according to ability, and take out according to need. I think that the way to pay for that is to tax those who have more, and give to those who have less. After that, however, I think that we should be left to spend our money how we like, and not to be told that we can afford to pay for things that others get free, simply because we have saved. If taxation is done fairly in the first place, we should not be penalised twice.

I think that there should be an assumption that we will all contribute to society (not just to our own families) so that the 'burden' of paying for health, education and things like roads and other services does not fall to some and not others. How this would be enforced is again, a matter of political will. I would prefer it to be done by making as much as possible a quid pro quo arrangement - you can't take out unless you have put in, unless there is a reason why this is not possible.

As regards pensions, if they are to be a universal benefit, then either everyone or no-one should pay in.

Casdon

Who are the people who won’t comment on the policies you are talking about trisher? I’m sure you realise that all opinions have equal validity, and just because you think something is a no brainer and see a clear way to get there that doesn’t make it a fact, there are other people who won’t agree with you - for other LP members it is the route that’s the issue, which a number of us have commented on, for others it may well be the policies themselves. That doesn’t actually mean they are wrong, it means they aren’t interested, have their own strong beliefs which are contradictory, or aren’t convinced by the arguments. We have to move on in a pragmatic way and stop getting carried away with the ideals.

Casdon Is it just an ideal to think that everyone should have a place to live, enough to eat and decent healthcare? I would have thought they were the basics of any civilised country, and that actually not providing the basics costs more in the long run in policing, crime, social costs and other expenses.

Maizie I'm not sure how pensions are actually funded is relevant to the points "Doodledog* and I have raised.

In any case, pensions aren't directly relevant to the OP. However, what they do show is that tinkering with benefits and giving firm guarantees are going to upset somebody - and not always the people you think will be upset. We're back to JAMs again, who make up the biggest group who are likely to feel they're getting a bad deal.

FWIW I think that £250pw UC plus (presumably) housing costs is a ludicrous amount.

I agree with all the points raised in your post, growstuff.

I know I am going to have to let it go, but the sheer unfairness of it all was rammed home to me when I left work at 58 (a luxury, I know). I expected to have to pay pension contributions/NI until I was 60, but despite having 42 years of contributions at that point, I discovered that I have to pay until the age of 66 to get a full pension because of COPE. So about £800 a year for 8 years on top of all the NO I have already paid.

My friend left work because she and her husband chose to buy a house three stops on the train away from her work, and she considered this too far to travel. She never went back to paid employment, but got her contributions made for her - from unemployment benefit at the start, then from the contributions that were made when she got child benefit for her three children, who were spaced out so that this went on for decades. Because the family had chosen to live on one salary they were able to claim various grants and rebates, at the expense of couples who were contributing twice. She now looks after grandchildren so continues to get her NI paid, and will get a full pension if she continues to do so until she qualifies to claim it.

How is this fair? She has a University education, so it wouldn't have been a case of having to work to pay for childcare, and in any case, her NI was paid for the first two until they were 16! I think it went down to the age of 12 for the last one, but even so, a 12 year old would need, at most, an hour or so after school - not full time childcare.

Pippa I know there is no annuity element of state pensions, but I don't see the relevance of that, as the payments were compulsory for those who worked. It is not unreasonable for contributors to expect a payback, or it would basically have been a compulsory contribution to the previous generation's pension, whether they had worked or not. Workers didn't design the system, and in any case an annuity based one would be too risky as it would depend on interest rates and so forth.

I don't think that a state pension should be based on the value of contributions - low earners should get the same as higher ones - but it should, IMO, be based on the number of contributions made, so that those working for longer get more pension. There is an argument for those who started work at 16 being able to claim before those who didn't pay in until they graduated, for instance.

Congratulations on your pension, growstuff. I still have four years to wait for mine.

^ This is a lie as pensions are paid out of tax - including NI tax - and decided by the government. They are not a pot out of which you can get an annuity.^

I'm afraid that this is untrue, too, Pippa. Technically, with our Fiat Money system, nothing is paid from taxation. Government spends before it taxes. Tax regulates the amount of money in the economy and, once again, technically, taxation actually destroys the surplus money.

Accepting that this is so would work rather powerfully against the accepted belief that everyone should 'work' for what they receive. It would support the view that the state has a responsibility for all its citizens and a duty to ensure that that they are all cared for. This is the philosophical question that Doodledog's earlier post brought to mind.

What do people see as the responsibility of the state for their welfare, and, conversely, what do they think their duty to the state should be?

Are we specks of dust in a chaotic universe or are we part of a mutually supporting community?

Who are the people who won’t comment on the policies you are talking about trisher? I’m sure you realise that all opinions have equal validity, and just because you think something is a no brainer and see a clear way to get there that doesn’t make it a fact, there are other people who won’t agree with you - for other LP members it is the route that’s the issue, which a number of us have commented on, for others it may well be the policies themselves. That doesn’t actually mean they are wrong, it means they aren’t interested, have their own strong beliefs which are contradictory, or aren’t convinced by the arguments. We have to move on in a pragmatic way and stop getting carried away with the ideals.

trisher There are plenty of women who didn't need to work even after their children had grown up. In some cases, they are eligible for Pension Credit if they find themselves single.

Another anomaly is that women who worked and paid occupational pension while they still had young children don't receive the full entitlement for those years because it is assumed that COPE has replaced the state pension. However, if they had stayed at home, they would have received state pension.

The system really is still a mess and many people have every right to feel they've been treated unfairly.

One thing that could and really should be done is to abolish higher rate tax relief for pension contributions because they are a subsidy to the better off by the state.

Anyway, I've just received notification that my first ever state pension payment is due to be paid on Monday and I refuse to waste my remaining years moaning about how unfair it is.

There is no use criticising the pension system - it's a mess. It is part universal benefit - we all get the same Basic amount for the same number of years no matter what level we paid NI at. It has then had 'pats on the head' tacked on - I have no idea what the political name for that is, and they then realised the basic wasn't enough so gave us a Pension Guarantee amount which we would get if we didn't have sufficient other pensions or funds. Then people complained they were not getting the Guarantee because they had paid into tiny little pensions after being told they should do so, so the government added on Pension Savings Guarantee. Pension Guarantee is not seen as enough so it is a gateway benefit to Council Tax benefit, NHS Low Income Benefit, Cold Weather payments, etc., etc.,

The nonsense of this was then seen and they changed it as they realised just how complicated it had become so the next generation now gets a different Universal Basic Pension (if they have enough years) which includes, for all, the Pension Guarantee. They were told they had to work more years to get this. This is a lie as pensions are paid out of tax - including NI tax - and decided by the government. They are not a pot out of which you can get an annuity.

It is unlikely that they will change this - except for tweaking as we die off. It must cost a fortune to run!

I like the idea of the Australian system but feel suspicious of my liking for it. However, as far as I can everyone, from a very low income, has to pay 10% of their earnings into a pension. These are companies, not the government. The government adds a 1.5% pension contribution to those with very low incomes (rather than ours which gives tax breaks to high earners) If at the end of the day, this does not provide you with a sufficient pension, there is a means-tested pension. However, I think this only came in during the 1990s so many are left on legacy pension systems (as we would are when fundamental changes are made) and at the momemt, more have to claim than will in the future.

I think.

Is this better - it changes nothing for current pensioners but, in our case could improve things for our ACs and even more so for our GCs. But I feel there must be a catch

Doodledog when you criticise "friends who didn't work" and who will get pension credit if their husband dies. I assume you are criticising the system which was introduced to give women credits for the years they spent at home raising children? Are you really saying that was wrong? Most of my friends with husbands or partners will, should they die, receive a portion of their occupational pension for the rest of their life time.

I think one of the major reasons people won't comment on the policies is that they know basically and fundamentally they are sound and morally right. They then need a reason not to support them, so they come up with the LP can't be trusted with finance or I don't like the leader. Basically it is the concept of supporting the party which will support my lifestyle without worrying me about things I know shouldn't happen in a civilised society. And of course once the Tories are in power you can claim they are trying their best and/or they are doing things you didn't expect them to. Result you have a relatively clear conscience and someone to blame when things get worse.-It was them left wingers in the LP, the leader couldn't be trusted, they said they wouldn't sell the NHS.

Casdon

I agree Doodledog. You summed up the reality well when you said it’s a balancing act between sticking to principles and taking human nature into account. The tightrope to making the party electable again that Starmer is walking is a tough one, and it’s completely counterproductive for the Corbynistas to keep chucking bricks at him - it’s time to get behind him or ship out.

Yes

I agree Doodledog. You summed up the reality well when you said it’s a balancing act between sticking to principles and taking human nature into account. The tightrope to making the party electable again that Starmer is walking is a tough one, and it’s completely counterproductive for the Corbynistas to keep chucking bricks at him - it’s time to get behind him or ship out.

MaizieD

Doodledog

I thought the policies were from Momentum. Not that it matters to me, as I liked a lot of Momentum's policies, but I could see why you might not have wanted to announce their involvement on a forum like this one ).

I didn't want to say who they were from because I didn't want to create bias. Like the experiment someone mentioned earlier where people were given a set of policies and asked what they thought about them. They liked the policies until they were told they were Labour policies, then backed right off (I've actually seen that done as a vox pop).

But as I didn't get any response from my 'subjects' ...

You're right about Momentum.

Sorry if I have 'outed' you sooner than you wanted.

I thought I must have been wrong about their being Momentum policies, as you explained upthread that they were Labour ones. I do understand what you are saying though, and will now stop digging. . .

However, I don't think those proposals as a whole would appeal to the JAMs, who comprise the group Labour needs to bring back.

I think this is true, as are your points about pensions (and I speak as one who is currently forking out to plug the 'opted out' gap in my own). I am already disgruntled at having the same state pension forecast as friends who didn't work, and who would, if they outlived their husbands, be entitled to pension credit and get more than I will, simply because I paid into an occupational pension and they didn't.

As I have banged on about before, I do not think that means-testing is ever fair, but whereas IMO nobody has the right to say what others can 'afford', clearly a family on UC are going to need a lot more to live on than a single person who has paid off a mortgage. Then again, neither do I think that someone should find themselves disadvantaged because they have paid off a mortgage.

It's tricky. I wouldn't change my voting allegiance if this policy were mooted, but to be fair, I'm not really just about managing, and I am fairly dyed-in-the-wool Labour.

I suppose it comes down to a balancing act between sticking to principles, and taking human nature into account. In the end, it is human nature that decides voting behaviour, and unless a party is voted in, they can't do anything they want to do, so a 'one step at a time' approach is probably sensible.

The inequalities in society today go much deeper than inequities in the pension system, though (close to my heart though they are ). There are generations growing up with little or no chance of ever being in a position to get off the treadmill of zero hours contracts, insecure incomes and the cruelty of being kept out of the NI system by earning too little to pay for the very basic protections it buys.

If we are to call ourselves a civilised country, never mind a liberal democracy, that has to be ironed out, and we need to find a way to give everyone a chance to have a stake in society. I appreciate that I am preaching to the converted when it comes to many on this thread, but to bring it back to where we started, I do think that these ideals are the ones held by Sir Kier, and that he would do all he could to bring them to fruition if he is given a chance to try.

Doodledog

I thought the policies were from Momentum. Not that it matters to me, as I liked a lot of Momentum's policies, but I could see why you might not have wanted to announce their involvement on a forum like this one ).

I didn't want to say who they were from because I didn't want to create bias. Like the experiment someone mentioned earlier where people were given a set of policies and asked what they thought about them. They liked the policies until they were told they were Labour policies, then backed right off (I've actually seen that done as a vox pop).

But as I didn't get any response from my 'subjects' ...

You're right about Momentum.

I thought the policies were from Momentum. Not that it matters to me, as I liked a lot of Momentum's policies, but I could see why you might not have wanted to announce their involvement on a forum like this one ).

MaizieD I think they do define themselves, perhaps not openly but it's obvious from the comments. Anything slightly to the left of Margaret Thatcher is 'far left'. You can move to the right as far as you like

MaizieD

growstuff

Maizie is trying to do what the focus groups did.

I'm not!

I'm just sick of posters (not so much the Labour voting ones) popping onto LP threads and telling us all about being too left wing and then ducking out of defining just what they mean by 'left wing'. Note that not a single 'right winger' has evaluated those policy suggestions.

It's so frustrating. How can you discuss anything with people who won't define their terms?

Ignore them. They won't vote Labour anyway.

If it goes ahead in that form, it will be taken apart by the opposition.

Firstly, questions will be asked about funding it because, as you know as well as I do, people don't understand MMT.

Next, presumably if the suggestion is that UC is increased to £250pw, pensions would also need to be increased to the same amount. There would be considerable resentment from people who have "bought back" years to boost their pensions.

Another point would be about wage differentials. A considerable number of people currently earn just over £15 and have trained for the jobs they have. In some cases, they've paid for the training and they're not going to be too happy that any unskilled person in employment can earn almost the same as they can. Wages would need to increase across the board, which would probably lead to inflation and the £15 not buying as much as expected.

It's also noticeable what's missing, eg. investment in school buildings, hospitals, police numbers, etc.

I like the proposals for more council housing, green jobs and broadband.

However, I don't think those proposals as a whole would appeal to the JAMs, who comprise the group Labour needs to bring back.

growstuff

Maizie is trying to do what the focus groups did.

I'm not!

I'm just sick of posters (not so much the Labour voting ones) popping onto LP threads and telling us all about being too left wing and then ducking out of defining just what they mean by 'left wing'. Note that not a single 'right winger' has evaluated those policy suggestions.

It's so frustrating. How can you discuss anything with people who won't define their terms?

Maizie is trying to do what the focus groups did.

MaizieD so this autumn, not for the last election?
Seem ok to me
I do wish Labour supporters would support rather than undermine

MaizieD please tell us where your pledges came from.

Not 'pledges', Iam64; policies put forward for debate at the next Labour Conference this autumn.

I was really trying to find out how outrageously left wing they might, or might not, be considered to be.

That free broadband would have been a godsend for children learning at home during the past year. Though, the promised lap tops never really materialised, so many would have still had to use their parents' phones...