Starmer's speech 27th Aug 24

Thank you Siope and Doodledog

Particularly doodledog since we don’t pay NI.

In fact, I think there are a lot of measures that could be taken to make tax (and not just income tax) fairer and more redistributive, but I genuinely don’t see any appetite for those kind of structural changes from this government (not, of course, from the last one).

To reiterate, this is exactly the same as it would have been if the Tories remained in office.
So you mean the Tories were ruthlessly impoverishing pensioners, and soaking the old? Surely not!

In the election campaign, Sunak's constant reiteration that 'Labour are after your pension' was based on their not repealing the policies that he brought in (namely the freezing of the personal allowance). Did he think people were too dim to realise that that didn't just affect pensioners, but anyone whose income hovers around that level? Only the remarkably self-interested would see it that way, surely?

Admittedly, it is harder for older people to increase their income (and arguably there is no reason why they should have to after a lifetime of working), but pensioners are not 'rinsed' when they pay tax, or 'soaked' by a frozen personal allowance, as is often suggested on here. I would rather see the allowance rise, along with the state pension, but I don't see why pensioners shouldn't pay the same rates of tax as other groups.

Sorry, 5%, not 10%. We’d have to be in an unholy mess (again) before pensions increase 10% year on year.

Labour has also said it will freeze the personal tax-free allowance at its current rate of £12,570, meaning that when state pensions – currently £11,502 – rise above £12,570, as they are predicted to do before the next general election, the state pension will be subject to tax for the first time.

Labour have said they will keep to the Tory timescale on freezing the personal allowance until 2028, which is (barring the unforeseen) before the date of the next election.

There is no guarantee - or likelihood, sadly - that state pensions will rise that much.

Assuming that pensions rise 3% next April, they will be £11,587. Another 3% in April 2026 means 11,934, and one more similar rise in 2027 (the last date before the freeze ends) only gets to 12,292.

Even if pensions rose at 10% a year by 2027 they would be 13,314, so if the threshold didn’t increase, £744 would be taxable, which is £11.44 per pension payment.

To reiterate, this is exactly the same as it would have been if the Tories remained in office.

Freezing the tax threshold will affect anyone on a low income - not just pensioners. Pensioners are not being singled out here, just treated in the same way as everyone else. 'The old' are not being 'soaked' - they are just being asked to pay their way in the same way as families and younger people are.

I would like to see both the minimum wage and the point at which people can claim PC increased, but whatever happens there will always be people just on the wrong side of every means-tested border, and on the whole they will be there because of their contributions and/or savings. In many ways it would make more sense to cap fuel bills for everyone, so there is no deterrent to saving, and fewer people are forced onto benefits.

Oh I don't know, I think they might just be callous and unimaginative.

Political reality
We now know that the winter fuel payment will be withdrawn from 10 million pensioners after Reeves announced the universal payments are to be means-tested. When higher fuel bills are taken into account, those 10 million pensioners will have to find an extra £800 this winter if they are to avoid the dreaded choice between heating and eating.

Labour has also said it will freeze the personal tax-free allowance at its current rate of £12,570, meaning that when state pensions – currently £11,502 – rise above £12,570, as they are predicted to do before the next general election, the state pension will be subject to tax for the first time.

So the pain will fall on pensioners, and instead of soaking the rich, Starmer intends to soak the old.
Politically, it makes perfect sense for Labour. Pensioners, of course, are less likely to vote Labour than young people: in this year’s general election the “crossover age” at which voters became more likely to vote Conservative than Labour was 63. So Starmer is ruthlessly impoverishing Tory voters to enrich Labour supporters.

I wouldn't let that go, but here is help in the meantime:

www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/money-legal/benefits-entitlements/pension-credit/

(also check out your local MP's Facebook page, it may be on there)

Wyllow3

I wrote to my LP MP and reply was full of information how to get help claiming PC and urging people to do so, I think its been counted in.

Our Labour MP promised to send me the info when the announcement was made. Still waiting.

I wrote to my LP MP and reply was full of information how to get help claiming PC and urging people to do so, I think its been counted in.

David49

There is so much bias in the press, you really can’t believe anything they print, not just politics either, they do influence opinion greatly. Even the BBC has editorial bias on many issues, but they are the least biased

Bias exists everywhere not just in the press.

David49 there’s a very positive article on Angela Rayner in Vogue although it’s not known for its political insight.
Does seem surprising to me that first steps from Labour have provoked hysterical reactions and that’s without any full Budget announcement. I thought Victoria Derbyshire did a good job for pensioners against a tone deaf treasury minister. Incidentally if 880000 pensioners claim pension credit and then WFA, wouldn’t that sink the budget?

There is so much bias in the press, you really can’t believe anything they print, not just politics either, they do influence opinion greatly. Even the BBC has editorial bias on many issues, but they are the least biased

There is being a member of the Opposition, and there is being deliberately oppositional.
What a fantastic phrase.
There is being a member of the opposition and there is being deliberately oppositional as happens on here, to anyone who speaks about the LP in terms you don’t like.
Thanks for that. 👏👏👏

Wyllow3

I don't care about the portrait but I do about stirring half truths around the media, I think its very damaging in terms of trust in MM.

Me too. Making stories out of nothing, and embellishing them to make the government sound bad is getting really boring.

We all use the same phrases as we speak the same language. That doesn't mean anything. Should no politician use phrases that others have used? There is being a member of the Opposition, and there is being deliberately oppositional.

I don't care about the portrait but I do about stirring half truths around the media, I think its very damaging in terms of trust in MM.

MissAdventure

Who cares, frankly?

Exactly.

Ah, thank you.

MissAdventure

I'm wondering where it was stated that Starmer moved the portrait?
Was it in the news?

The tale of what came out when MissA as regards the portrait is actually a trivial - but good- example of how the media manipulates.

The initial announcements (done my googling time wise) was that it was "removed" "taken down" and even, yup, "gets rid of"

Immediate reaction, shock horror, Starmer baddie (except much ruder terms) etc etc. Major Priti Patel speech on subject. Psychological speculation....

By the next day we found out it had just been moved

We've had a summer of half baked similar statements.

Who cares, frankly?

He used Sunak’s argument, that he’d said was wrong. He used Thatcher’s phrase-maybe he thought it was appropriate the same as she did.

Who knows why he did that?

He used her phrase.

I used 'cod psychology' so will address that. It means someone pretending to understand something that another has done, based on no actual psychology. Which describes exactly how deciding that something said 30/40 years ago is somehow haunting Starmer and making him get rid of a portrait comes across.

I wouldn't want MT looking at me either. Or Stalin, for that matter. Not because they once said something I have also said (??), but because they would not inspire me to good. If Priti Patel ever got into Downing Street I dare say she would remove pictures of Starmer, Blair and Brown for the same reasons.

It would help if the things he is being castigated for were actually noteworthy.

Moving a portrait?!?