Gransnet forums

News & politics

Disappointing Queen’s Speech fails those in desperate need now

(32 Posts)
DaisyAnne Tue 10-May-22 21:18:22

I thought we needed to move on from discussing the Queen to discussing the Politics of the speech. This is from a press release. The Verdict from the National Pensioners Convention which I thought would be relevant to many if not most of us.

Comment by Jan Shortt, General Secretary, National Pensioners’ Convention

In the middle of one of the worst cost-of-living crises in living memory the government had a real chance to step up and help those most affected – our oldest and poorest. But today they failed, showing little compassion for the immediate struggles of vulnerable people.

The National Pensioners’ Convention had hoped the Queen’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament today (Tuesday, 10th May) would contain measures to provide real, and urgent financial assistance to those overwhelmed by inflationary prices, and a more than doubling of energy bills.

Instead, they outlined legislation promising longer term changes, which frankly will not help those having to choose between buying food or paying their rent or energy bills right now.

People on low and fixed incomes pay a much higher proportion of their income on essentials – there is no way they can find the extra money when costs rise so rapidly.

Spiralling energy costs, rocketing inflation and a succession of government policies which have lowered the real value of pensions and benefits, mean millions more face poverty in the coming months. It is a disaster that is only set to get worse as we approach autumn and another round of energy hikes.

But it is not just government’s lack of provision for the cost-of-living crisis. The NPC has concerns about what they have promised – they are outlined below:

*Order – we are concerned that this will prevent democratic protest by older people in circumstances where government policy undermines the dignity and respect for pensioners. It also must take account of the Bill of Rights.

*Conversion therapy – we disagree with the fact that the ban does not cover transgender and our LGBT working party will be asking for the government to meet with us to listen to our members concerns.

*Energy Security Bill – long term on sustainable energy – been ongoing for years with no progress. What about the poverty and deprivation now?

*Mental Health Bill – not before time but we need to digest whether it will address the amount of funding needed to make it work.

*Bill of Rights – we will monitor. The rights of older people have been seriously eroded in recent years and we will be looking for this to be tackled in any new legislation,

*Financial Services Bill – at last, legislation to give access to cash. However, there is still the issue of banks already closed on high streets. We need to know how the government will support communities where there are no banks and very little transport to get to the nearest one.

*Renters Bill – again long overdue, as an increasing number of older people are among those having to rent in the private sector. Along with the Social Housing Regulation Bill, we would hope to see much needed decent homes standards applied across the board.

*On-Line Harms Bill – needs to put more emphasis on the responsibilities of platform providers who make profit from their services; compensation for those scammed direct from platform providers and more funding to deal with scammers.

I'm neither endorsing this nor disagreeing. I thought it was a good structure for discussion.

You can find the original here

Whitewavemark2 Wed 11-May-22 16:43:35

Did anyone watch Patel refusing to take questions in the QS debate?

Cooper said that she is the first Home Secretary ever not to answer questions in the QS debate.

growstuff Wed 11-May-22 16:43:46

There won't be fewer homes, unless somebody is going to bulldoze empty properties.

Smileless2012 Thu 12-May-22 09:26:02

As I've posted, not all private landlords have properties on BTL and as the law's to be changed, and section 21 will no longer be an option for landlords, those that had planned at some point in the future to make the property they let their home, are less likely to want to have a tenant.

I'm sure many like us had thought things through before letting but couldn't have known that this change was going to happen. We've been letting out our flat for 20 years and now need to decide whether or not we want to risk having a tenant that may never leave.

Short term lets are not appropriate for anyone wishing to make the property they rent, their home.

MaizieD Thu 12-May-22 10:15:20

Whitewavemark2

Did anyone watch Patel refusing to take questions in the QS debate?

Cooper said that she is the first Home Secretary ever not to answer questions in the QS debate.

This is a link to a clip of the incident.

I saw it last night and couldn't believe my eyes. Not only did Patel refuse to take a question from her opposite number (she didn't refuse to answer questions, she wouldn't even let Cooper ask them!) but her behaviour when she sat opposite Cooper reminded me forcibly of a defiant teenager making faces at a teacher (and I've seen plenty of them)

Is this the next step for our government to evade all accountability? Refuse to even hear any opposition questions ?

(I was going to say 'refuse to answer opposition questions', but Johnson already does that by waffling at length without once addressing the question)

twitter.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1524376173970698240

DaisyAnne Fri 13-May-22 11:21:33

Thanks for the link Maizie. I think this government now feels it isn't governing, it is commanding.

OakDryad Fri 13-May-22 11:58:12

Isn't this just another breach of the general principles of the Ministerial Code? I can see in Commons procedure that:

Questions, although customarily addressed to specific ministers, are directed to the cabinet as a whole. Members may not insist upon receiving answers, nor may they insist that specific ministers respond to their questions ...

In response to a question, a minister may:

provide an answer;
defer an answer;
explain briefly why an answer cannot be provided at that time; or
say nothing.

www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/our-procedure/Questions/c_g_questions-e.html

I cannot find anything that says a minister can prevent a question from being asked. Can anyone help me out here?