Keir Starmer aka Captain Flip Flop

If something pops up on Facebook that I agree with before I re post it I check up on who originally posted it. And recently a couple of posts about the WFP have originated from people who also post videos of Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson. Which is why I keep querying the motive ie not a genuine concern about a specific issue but a desire to discredit the government and encourage confrontation.

Things didn’t improve for us under the previous govt, and for many many people things got worse. That’s factual.

I haven’t seen anybody disagree with that, despite Labour supporters’ claims on this or other threads . . .

but

That’s exactly what I said about the last Labour government, and we’re still feeling the impact of that now. That’s factual.

Mollygo

^Things didn’t improve for us under the previous govt, and for many many people things got worse. That’s factual.^

I haven’t seen anybody disagree with that, despite Labour supporters’ claims on this or other threads . . .

but

*That’s exactly what I said about the last Labour government, and we’re still feeling the impact of that now. That’s factual.*

Which ‘us’ do you mean, and in what context Mollygo?

I can’t agree with such a sweeping statement, because there are winners and losers from all policies and over all terms of government, whichever party is in power.

MaizieD

^Those people who are only receiving benefits, including the state pension, do not need the PA to be increased since these are not taxable.^

To clarify, Dinahmo, I thought on earlier threads about the personal allowance that we had established that the state pension would be taxable if it were to exceed the personal allowance. At the moment neither the 'new' or the 'old' basic state pension exceeds the PA but there is potential for this happen if the pension rises but the PA remains frozen.

I',m just asking for clarification because, as it is written, you seem to imply that the state pension isn't taxable because it is a benefit. I suspect that is not what you intended..

You are quite right. The state pension is taxable if the recipient receives other income which takes them over the threshold. The point I was trying to make was that any one receiving pension credits plus the state pension would not have any tax to pay, even if the total of those "benefits" exceeds the PA. This is based upon current figures not a possible increase in the SP.

I do think that all those currently not receiving the pension credit but are entitled to it should claim. It is not difficult to do on HMRC's website.

Here's a link for any one who wishes to claim or who would help someone not used to using computers. It can also be claimed by post.

www.gov.uk/pension-credit/how-to-claim

Casdon
Just to explain . . .
Us is a plural pronoun people use when they’re referring to more than one person in a group. In this instance I used it in referring to my DH and myself together, though I’m quite sure that we weren’t /aren’t the only ones impacted by Gordon Brown’s actions.

As for the sweeping statement - 🤣🤣🤣
There are so many on GN, that the floors must be immaculate!

Dickens During the pandemic/lockdown(s) government pumped money into the economy - much of which I believe ended up in the pockets of the wealthiest. Where do they spend their wealth - conspicuously? Designer handbags? Jewellery? I think they spend it more quietly - on education, ensuring the continuation of the privileges of wealth, on health, property and investments. And their accountants, who accommodate their need to legitimately avoid tax as far as possible.

Who are these people? I can think of Michelle Mone and her ilk who have transferred large amounts offshore, formed companies to purchase PPE and then included family members in those companies. And then of course large yachts were purchased with with the owners posing on the deck with bottles of champagne 9MM again).

The govt did help to a certain extent with the SEISS which the rules for claiming were very strict. Many self employed individuals did not qualify for this including some on here.

They also guaranteed Bounce Back Loans - the maximum lent was £50k. They were intended to support businesses but many directors misused the money by using it to fund personal spending. Perhaps they are the people that you were thinking of?

The furlough scheme was successful in keeping people in employment

I’m not a child Mollygo, nor am I academically challenged. What I was asking was whether you were talking about yourself, the Gransnet ‘us’, or about the whole population of the UK. A reasonable question I believe. I wasn’t a pensioner when Gordon Brown left office, but I believe that as a group pensioners were on average better off in 2010 than they were by the end of the subsequent Tory governments, but I may be wrong on that. I’ll find out.

ifs.org.uk/publications/how-have-pensioner-incomes-and-poverty-changed-recent-years

Mollygo

^Things didn’t improve for us under the previous govt, and for many many people things got worse. That’s factual.^

I haven’t seen anybody disagree with that, despite Labour supporters’ claims on this or other threads . . .

but

*That’s exactly what I said about the last Labour government, and we’re still feeling the impact of that now. That’s factual.*

I've no problems tracing back any political issue. Such and such a law on 2006 or whenever later was changed by X and Y law so we now find ourselves in this situation: and the Labour or Conservative parties' actions had certain consequences. Thatcher's selling of social housing, or the decision to go to war in Iraq, are examples.

It's when bits and bobs of half informational are used inaccurately to create false narratives is the problem.

Casdon, you asked, I answered.
Yours is the sweeping statement approach, so you will undoubtedly apply your findings to the whole population.
Do feel free to look up whatever you want.
You believe . . . but I know.

It won’t affect the fact that I know the impact on DH’s pension was and is detrimental by several thousands.
We still have paperwork about it we collected at the time.
This also applied to many of the people we knew at the time, some of whom we still know now. Strangely enough it also came under discussion with my DD’s in-laws and their friends when we met up around the time of her marriage and since.
But hey, if we’re criticising the Labour Party, the sweeping statement makers will say I must be wrong.
They should consider themselves fortunate that they weren’t affected, or they’d know too.

We weren’t pensioners back then either, but we saw the impact of his actions both them and now.

I’m just more interested in the impact on the majority of any policy decisions than I am in the impact on the minority Mollygo. So often people relate everything to the personal impact rather than the wider. Don’t misinterpret that to imply that I don’t have empathy for people who lose out because I do, and I certainly don’t want anybody to be unable to heat their home, or to live on the poverty line - as I’m positive the government don’t either.

What?
Another sweeping statement, and even worse, saying that individuals don’t matter IYO.
🤣🤣🤣

I’m not interested in playing juvenile games Mollygo.

Mr Dog's pension was affected too, and that, combined with moving my pension age forward, has made a big difference to our finances in retirement. But that was one policy years ago, and GB is not in government now. There were many things that Blair and Brown got right, as well as wrong. How far should we go back to blame different people for things that have nothing to do with the people in power now?

We had a choice at the election - to keep a self-interested bunch of liars in power or to start again with a new cabinet who promise integrity and policies based on equality. Of course they won't get everything right. They won't always be able to do the things they said they'd do either, but at least the things they are aiming for are decent.

As I see it, we have a choice now, too. We can hope for the best and give them a chance, or we can moan and grot and complain about everything they do before they've had a chance to do it properly. The end result will be the same - their policies will be go through, and they'll either succeed or fail, whether we spend the next four or five years feeling hopeful or bitter. I'd rather look on the bright side - negativity is bad for the soul.

Mollygo, you are absolutely right, you have had personal experience.

It is early days yet for Keir Starmer and his government - but I always felt that he said what appeared to be needed to be said.
He didn't make me feel that he would be someone to be trusted but to be fair to him he was supportive of most of the action taken during COVID. When the rubbish hits the fan - you want your political parties to be reasonably cohesive on issues that were dominating the world. For what it's worth - although BoJo and his ilk were caught out flexing the rules they were not the only ones - quite a few people did - along with others up and down the country.
Now we have a change of government it will take a while for them to get their feet settled under the desk. We lost an exceptional Conservative MP who brought a lot of much needed funding for long needed projects in the area, for a Labour MP who rented a house in the locality to say he was resident in the area.
If this new MP can keep up the work of the predecessor because it affects my home area, then I will be impressed - but he has not said anything of any real substance yet about his intentions. But then he is unlikely to know what is needed because he's never lived here or experienced life here!! But he is new, so I'm willing to wait to see what he does. So far, we have seen lots of local media news with him posing in photos overseeing projects completed by his predecessor who really should be taking the credit for his work for the past few years.
Rachel Reeves says she is uncovering black holes but is also hiding her figures under the cover of the previous chancellors - but then it's rare that a numbers person has not massaged figures to present things in a better or worse view depending on the circumstances.
So Keir Starmer does appear to be flip flopping but as other pp have said - not much of it was in the manifesto - but when I read their manifesto (as I did for most of the parties) I was hard put to see what they actually planned to do when in power other than wait and see until they actually got there.
Well, they are there now - so now we must wait until they make some decisions and then upset a few citizens of the UK when they are revealed.
But I am intrigued by the fact that they have been able to jail rioters for their recent actions so quickly and efficiently - so why is there such a backlog of other legal cases that take months or years to achieve anything purposefully. Have the legal profession been sat on their hands for the past few years?

I think people affected by the tax grab on pension pots by Gordon Brown have every right to feel aggrieved, because whilst it wa as long time ago, the effects are being felt now. I am not partisan on this issue because neither myself nor Mr M were affected by those changes, so I have no axe to grind. However I can certainly see why those whose pensions have been reduced as a result of that tax grab (as it was then called) because that reduced pension will go on for the rest of their lives. Meanwhile, Mr Brown, along with all other previous government ministers, of every political persuasion, doesn’t have to worry about his publicly funded, extremely generous pension.

GrannyGravy13

Exactly maddyone , whether or not the Conservatives would have removed it we will never know, the bottom line is that Labour have removed it.

They have given Pensioners four pension payments to save for their winter fuel bills. How are they meant to save when many are living hand to mouth as it is!

I agree GrannyGravy13.

I agree with you Casdon and Doodledog. There are always winners and losers when changes are introduced or life bites you. I am not going to catalogue my losses but it’s a lot and not only money.

Going back to to the opening post to provide some more context.

First of all this was a longer interview that Starmer did with Jackie Brown of Good Housekeeping Magazine as part of the series Readers Ask The Leaders. The full interview is here. The bit about the pensioners he met in 2022 is at 15 minutes. Starmer talks about the need to stabilise the economy, to stabilise prices. The question of the WFP does not come up.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBaLN58bOGo

Starmer tweeted the clip himself on 30 April 2024 here. It was in the run up to the local elections that week:

x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1785303047704346728

He tweets: My Labour Party will always be on the side of pensioners let down by the Tories.

He is talking about the need to stabilise the economy, an economy that he claimed the government had lost control of to the detriment of pensioners (and anyone else on a limited income for that matter but he was answering a question posed by a pensioner).

Personally, I think it’s unfair to blame the previous goverment for the major cause of inflation in 2022 which was the war on Ukraine - although there are arguments to be made about why the UK is so vulnerable to volatility in the wholesale energy market. This is something Labour is now addressing with GB Energy.

However, prices and inflation were already rising steadily before the war took hold as these charts show:

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9428/

Inflation that was at 11.1% by October 2022 is now down to 2%. Energy unit prices have come down several times since the peak of the crisis. The energy cap is expected to rise slightly later this year but that doesn’t mean consumers use up to that limit.

My question is why was the woman who was reluctant to heat her home not managing? I’m not trying to blame but trying to understand. If she was 84, she would have received at least £1,000 of help in 2022 - WFP of £600 and EBSS of £400 and morehelp if she was receiving pension credit. So was she receiving all the help that she was entitled to? Is she receiving all the pension she is entitled to? A lot of women aren’t. I've even heard of more than once case where the people hadn't even realised that the WFP was higher that year or that they were getting an extra £66 a month help from EBSS. The extra money was sitting in their bank account and they hadn't realised. It's all about information and sometimes it doesn't get through to the people who need it most. Some had heard the news saying the energy cap was £4,279 - not really understanding what that meant but assumed that their bill was going to that much if they put their heating on. I heat a large house and my annual bill that year after WFP and EBSS was £330.

I think the major failure here is the fact that so many pensioners are not receiving the income that they should be; whether it’s underpaid state pension or pension credit which is a gateway to other benefits. Where was the systematic policy over the last fourteen years to ensure that people are paid what they are entitled to? Over that fourteen years, the government had no less than nine Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and seven Pensions Ministers. Sixteen ministers in fourteen years; billions of pounds in underpaid pensions and 800,000 people who are said to be eligible for Pension Credit and not receiving it. That’s shocking.

When you read about how badly the DWP handled the equalisation of the state pension age you realise just how little joined up thinking there is and how much reluctance there is to acknowledge and tackle the big problems. Part of the problem is severe under investment in the IT systems that the DWP needs. That became apparent during the WASPI enquiry and little seems to have changed since then. Former Pensions Minister until September 2022, Guy Opperman, has recently admitted this. 12+ ageing computer systems that are not up to the job. At least Reeves has acknowledged that there’s an issue with underpayment of benefits. It’s just a pity that she didn’t postpone the withdrawal of WFP until this had been resolved. That said there might be mitigating measures in the Autumn Statement. We really do need to wait and see.

Some info swampy1961 on the rioters:

"But I am intrigued by the fact that they have been able to jail rioters for their recent actions so quickly and efficiently - so why is there such a backlog of other legal cases that take months or years to achieve anything purposefully. Have the legal profession been sat on their hands for the past few years?

quick answer is

Most of the rioters pleaded guilty so went straight to magistrates court which is quick as the police do not have to prepare a detailed case - therefore quick results

But those pleading Not Guilty will be faced with the long wait as others who are in the long queues for Crown Court and issues with legal aid etc.

BevSec

Mollygo, you are absolutely right, you have had personal experience.

As do I. Well, as does my husband, which comes to the same thing. As I said, that happened decades ago and was done under Gordon Brown, who is not in the cabinet, so has no bearing whatsoever on Starmer’s regime today.

We are in a different world now.

Of course we are in a different world, but it seem strange that we are not allowed to criticise a party who impacted negatively on our world now if it’s the Labour Party, whilst LP fans on here are keen to criticise Conservatives, in the recent and more distant past.

Do I criticise Conservatives? Yes I do. . Brexit was wrong and I voted against it, but at least I voted.
The NHS-definitely, but researching it, the LP evidently didn’t leave it in too good a state either.
COVID-there were a lot of things that were wrong, but no one knows how the Labour Party would have handled it without the benefit of hindsight.

Mostly it was the dishonesty that was wrong. For example, saying what people should not do, then doing it themselves.

There are dishonest politicians in the all parties.

*Think of Starmer’s dishonesty in demanding that Sunak withdraw his decision to remove WFA to fill a black hole, then deciding to do exactly that using the same reason, a few months later.
(And being excused by LP supporters ^because it wasn’t in his manifesto^)* 🤣🤣🤣

.
But then GB’s actions only affected a minority so those it affected don’t matter if you’re looking at the wider picture.

The same way as the Labour Party’s decision on WFA will only affect a minority so it doesn’t matter.

The details are to follow but it seems that Rachael Reeves is planning changes to inheritance tax. The 7 year tax rule will be abolished and all gifts of money will be taxed at 40 per cent presumably according to Guido Fawkes. I wonder what will happen to the tax thresholds too?
More dampening down of the middle group….

‘Personally, I think it’s unfair to blame the previous goverment for the major cause of inflation in 2022 which was the war on Ukraine - although there are arguments to be made about why the UK is so vulnerable to volatility in the wholesale energy market. This is something Labour is now addressing with GB Energy.’
Isn’t one of the reasons that the previous government got rid of our gas storage facilities ?

MayBee70

‘Personally, I think it’s unfair to blame the previous goverment for the major cause of inflation in 2022 which was the war on Ukraine - although there are arguments to be made about why the UK is so vulnerable to volatility in the wholesale energy market. This is something Labour is now addressing with GB Energy.’
Isn’t one of the reasons that the previous government got rid of our gas storage facilities ?

Gas storage
The Rough storage facility, owned by Centrica, the parent company of British Gas, provided 70% of the UK gas storage capacity for more than 30 years before it shut in 2017 following