Keir Starmer aka Captain Flip Flop

Taxing the WFP would seem a simple option for those already paying tax. For a basic rate taxpayer, a coding adjustment of £1000 would clawback £200.

However, it might require some people to self assess just as those higher earners subject to the Child Benefit clawback have to do.

There’s an inherent problem in asking people who may already be struggling week-to-week, to put money aside for tax.

I also see unfairness because the state pension is taxable while pension credit is not. If all someone has is an income topped up by Guaranteed Pension Credit to £218 pw then they are going to be under the tax threshold but for someone whose income comprises a State Pension of £218 plus some other income that just takes them over the theshold, they will have the whole pension taken into account in calculating their tax liability.

There will be people now who have State Pension and Additional State Pension that, without any other income, takes them over the tax threshold. The maximum weekly Additional State Pension (aSP) is £218.39 paid on top of basic state pension. I know a few older women who have inherited their husband’s state and aSP entitlement, or a good percentage of, and have pensions in excess of £300 a week. The maximum you could have is £388 pw. The trade of is that they have little or nothing in the way of works pensions.

This why former Pensions Minister Steve Webb has been in the news again talking about widows who are being underpaid state pension:

www.theguardian.com/money/article/2024/aug/10/uk-state-pension-thousands-underpaid-widows-widowers-dwp

It has never been more important to make sure that you know what you are entitled to and claim it.

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..

Means testing is expensive to manage. I think that the only way in which it could be done would be via tax returns. However, there are many people who have income from an employment who do not submit tax returns.

Therefore, the answer, as many have mentioned, is to ensure that everyone claims the benefits to which they are entitled. Those people who are only receiving benefits, including the state pension, do not need the PA to be increased since these are not taxable.

Increasing the PA would benefit those who receive a private or employment pension which takes them above the current PA. But that's a different question.

The two are not linked.

Given that the Tories were in power for 14 years and Labour for less than 6 weeks I don't understand why some Tory supporters are getting their knickers and/or their pearls in a twist about the way in which the former govt were referred to.

I can assure you that many LP members and supporters were equally pissed off with Blair (perhaps not pearl clutching) when he was PM. They will be out in force once Labour has been in power for more than a few weeks or months.

Chocolatelovinggran

Agree absolutely Dickens. I hold everyone in public office to account, whatever their political affiliations, and hope that everyone has the same clear - eyed view of these people, whether or not they represent the same views .

I agree. I can honestly say that I can't think of anyone on here who slavishly defends the government now, or the LP in opposition.

This is another reason why the veiled references to 'some people' are so exasperating. I have no idea who is being referred to.

Agree absolutely Dickens. I hold everyone in public office to account, whatever their political affiliations, and hope that everyone has the same clear - eyed view of these people, whether or not they represent the same views .

Mollygo

Well said Dickens.
I wouldn’t argue with your overall view of the last government, but that shouldn’t mean I can’t criticise this one.

I agree Mollygo.

All governments should be held to account by us, regardless, because they are there to serve us.

How we do it on here though is, I think, important.

When Rishi Sunak acknowledged defeat, he did it with civility and dignity - he was gracious towards Starmer calling him “a decent, public-spirited man who I respect” whilst Starmer praised his predecessor's "dedication and hard work".

Just saying - as they say!

Well said Dickens.
I wouldn’t argue with your overall view of the last government, but that shouldn’t mean I can’t criticise this one.

Well said Dickens. I didn't vote Labour or Conservative and I am watching carefully what the Labour party do in future.

Primrose53

eazybee

I spent some time trawling through past posts on News and Politics from 2020 onwards, and the level of vituperation from a few persistent posters against the Conservative was truly shocking. Some are still doing it while at the same time attempting to prevent any criticism of the present government.

You are correct eazybee, I have been aware of this too. It seems they think it’s fine to run down the Conservative party for all those years but that’s not enough for them. They then have to carry on but getting digs in against anybody who makes comments they don’t like against Labour.

Why can’t they just be happy to support their party and leave it at that?

You are correct eazybee, I have been aware of this too. It seems they think it’s fine to run down the Conservative party for all those years but that’s not enough for them. They then have to carry on but getting digs in against anybody who makes comments they don’t like against Labour.

I don't know who the 'they' are being referred to here - but as one who has been critical of the Tory party then I'm going to take the liberty of assuming I can be one of the they?

When a party is 'in power' it has an Opposition which legitimately questions its policies and ideology - that's its raison d'être. So why would the electorate - whether on here or anywhere else, not do the same?

I voted for Starmer's Labour Party - but here's the thing, I don't believe he's 'sainted' nor infallible, nor that he or his party should be immune from criticism or being held to account. I think the decision to restrict the WFA to pensioners in receipt of pension credit is wrong for reasons I've stated. I also believe his Chancellor is subscribing to the misconception that the economy is run like a household budget in order to deceive the public into accepting the 'there-is-no-money' fallacy. I won't delve further into that because it is not the point I'm trying to make.

I would also add that I believe the Tories, had they remained in government, would eventually have gone down the same path towards removing the WFA- hence their consultation document in which this option was mentioned. In my opinion, Starmer - in order to appeal to the widest 'audience' - the captains of industry and commerce, would-be investors, etc, wanted to give the impression that he could be as 'tough' as the Tories on public-spending so that he could distance himself from the Corbyn-era Labour party politics.

IMO the last Tory government were incompetent, self-serving and, in some instances, corrupt, and relied on short-term popular fixes to deal with long-term problems, and I make no apology for saying so now and have said so previously.

In spite of having voted for Starmer's LP - I will hold him and it to account in exactly the same way as I did the previous government.

... as one of the 'they'.

The Daily Mail's headline following the Conservative's defeat in the General Election was, as I remember, 'Let us be gracious in defeat.' Quite right. This can be followed by 'Let us be magnanimous in victory.' which was generally the case. I was therefore surprised at the continuing level of antagonism expressed repeatedly by some posters against the Conservatives, past and present. Yesterday's posts on this thread were an example.
There is no rule against reading past posts; they are there for everyone to see if they wish. I deliberately did not quote examples and most certainly not names; I am uncertain of the protocol concerning quoting from past threads, besides which many are not relevant to current issues; posters have left, changed names or even opinions. But to read expressions of outrage against opposition parties' criticism of the current government from its supporters who have systematically done the same for the previous five years is hypocritical. I am happy to challenge posters on a current thread if I see fit.

To be told that one may not use a nickname coined by a previous politician or share a video which apparently justifies that name by posters is beyond their remit, as is attacking an apparently new poster for daring to start a thread.

Some posters, (that word again), have been suspended for particularly vicious attacks and others banned for unpleasant behaviour which seems to be emerging once more.

JaneJudge

It’s against talk guidelines to talk about other threads anyway from what I gather

It's not easy to gather the rules, I agree .

But whether people are named or referred to obliquely makes no difference to that - they are still being talked about, but are sitting targets as they are denied the right to speak in their own defence.

It’s against talk guidelines to talk about other threads anyway from what I gather

Can we please move away from 'Some Posters' and 'they'?

It's so passive aggressive. If someone has a point to make about a particular person or people, why not quote them if they've trawled old posts for evidence, or at least say who it is they are picking on? It is every bit as personal to dig at people 'anonymously' as it is to be honest about who is on the receiving end of the digs, and it denies them the right to post in their own defence, so is very unfair.

Primrose53

eazybee

I spent some time trawling through past posts on News and Politics from 2020 onwards, and the level of vituperation from a few persistent posters against the Conservative was truly shocking. Some are still doing it while at the same time attempting to prevent any criticism of the present government.

You are correct eazybee, I have been aware of this too. It seems they think it’s fine to run down the Conservative party for all those years but that’s not enough for them. They then have to carry on but getting digs in against anybody who makes comments they don’t like against Labour.

Why can’t they just be happy to support their party and leave it at that?

Pot kettle black Primrose.

Primrose53
Why can’t they just be happy to support their party and leave it at that?

Maybe they’re afraid the criticisms might turn out to be true.

They certainly were about Starmer’s demand that Sunak withdraw plans for removal of the WFA from pensioners to fill the black hole, then his U-turn once he was in power for exactly the same reason.

It’s there for all to see and hear, and saying it wasn’t in his manifesto doesn’t change that.
Of course it wasn’t in his manifesto. He wouldn’t risk people seeing that just after he said Sunak was wrong for doing it.

eazybee

I spent some time trawling through past posts on News and Politics from 2020 onwards, and the level of vituperation from a few persistent posters against the Conservative was truly shocking. Some are still doing it while at the same time attempting to prevent any criticism of the present government.

You are correct eazybee, I have been aware of this too. It seems they think it’s fine to run down the Conservative party for all those years but that’s not enough for them. They then have to carry on but getting digs in against anybody who makes comments they don’t like against Labour.

Why can’t they just be happy to support their party and leave it at that?

🤔

Yes actually I think eazybee is on to something….

Hardly an astounding finding, surely eazybee? People will continue to fight from their entrenched positions on both sides of the fence for what they believe in, all politicians and their policies are fair game, and I have no doubt that there will continue to be controversial posts from all comers. Some people fight dirtier than others, but that certainly isn’t peculiar to one political party’s supporters, far from it.
In fact, I don’t see how political debate could ever be anything else - as long as we all draw a line at personally insulting each other.

Would it have anything to do with the way boris and co behaved, though?

I spent some time trawling through past posts on News and Politics from 2020 onwards, and the level of vituperation from a few persistent posters against the Conservative was truly shocking. Some are still doing it while at the same time attempting to prevent any criticism of the present government.

Just a quick note to posters - our Prime Minister is Sir Keir Starmer. I have seen no one describe him as St Keir Starmer.
I expect some people have been speed reading: easy mistake to make.

rafichagran

BevSec

Thank goodness you are staying thehappy gardener😘

Ditto.

Another ditto

You obviously didn’t read the post above by GNHQ. 😉
Obviously.