The continuation of the first 100 days.

Oreo

Pippa22

Why not begin by removing the Winter Fuel Allowance from recipients who pay higher rate tax ?

Perhaps also remove the £3,000 plus that we all contribute to that MPs receive to pay towards heating their second homes ? That seems a very, very generous sum that they receive on top of other generous expenses.

After all “ We are all in this together “. Oh no we’re not , that was the other lot.

I think that £3,000 is an outrageous amount, and I know it isn’t set by the MP’s but they have accepted it.

😮 £3,000 pa towards the cost of heating their second homes?
£3,000 pa would more than pay to heat the homes of most pensioners!
One rule for them, another for the rest of us.

Why is this nonsense about MPs having. £3,000 allowance for heating their second homes being perpetuated? Did no-one do a fact check before posting it?

www.reuters.com/fact-check/uks-reeves-does-not-have-3400-pound-heating-allowance-contrary-online-claims-2024-08-06/

£2, 700 isn’t much less than the figure quoted £3,000 tho is it?
That’s what RR claimed on her office and residential expenses according to your link.

All MP’s get a really good allowance for not only their offices but for their houses. Bet they wouldn’t like that to be cut.

My point, Oreo, is that there is actually no such thing as a £3,000 heating allowance for MPs

This thread is perpetuating a distortion of the truth and encouraging negative thinking about MPs.

Whitewavemark2

Thursday

The Constitution

The government is proposing to banish all remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords in the biggest shake-up of parliament in a quarter century.
The UK’s 92 remaining hereditary peers – who have inherited their titles from their parents – will lose their right to sit and vote in the upper chamber under proposals put forward by ministers on Thursday.
The move would complete reforms first made by Tony Blair’s government, which revoked the 700-year-old right of all hereditary peers to sit in the Lords in 1999. Just 92 of them, elected from the whole group, were allowed to remain until an agreement could be reached to phase them out altogether.
All 92 hereditary peers who now hold seats in the Lords are white men, and their average age is just under 70. They have continued to top up their numbers by holding byelections when one of them retires or dies.

The government’s bill will mean that there will no longer be any hereditary peers in the upper chamber. The earl marshal and the lord great chamberlain, who had been expected to keep their seats because of their ceremonial functions, will also be removed.

Should get rid of all of them £300 quid a day to sign in- scandalous

“MPs can claim for energy costs for their constituency office, as well as their residential accommodation (if they represent a non-London constituency),” the spokesperson added. “They cannot claim for utility bills on their private homes. Whilst there is no specific upper limit on energy claims for constituency offices and residential accommodation, MPs do have an overall budget cap they must stick to for office costs (36,550 pounds in London and 33,020 pounds elsewhere) and accommodation (29,290 pounds in London and 19,940 pounds elsewhere).”

So the £3,000 is not a specific amount but could be paid out of their overall expenses of up to £29,290 for accommodation.

Mollygo

Whitewavemark2

The “fatal” motion will not succeed unless the government wishes it to do so.

So it doesn’t necessarily mean that this is the end of the issue, merely a spanner thrown into the works.

Starmer has a difficult choice.
Stand strong and support his minister who decided it is a good idea (even though Starmer thought it wasn’t under the previous government).
OR
Back down or at least defer the issue and look as if he really cares about pensioners.

My bet is that he will raise the pension credit level to help those marginal pensioners just above the threshold. An increase in pension level due to the triple lock has already been announced.

I will be amazed if many/any Labour MPs defy the whip on this issue

I'm glad that at least one person followed the Reuters Fact check link, Allira 😄

I did - myth busting. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be looked at on the current situation but I also did some googling and found similar accusations in Feb 2023 in DM and Express, except somehow now its Labour there is a pile on there wasn't before.

There’s always a pile on. Just that this time it’s about Labour.

The whole purpose of subsidising MPs' expenses was to ensure that the opportunity to become on e of the nation's legislators was open to all, regardless of their personal wealth. It was to democratise the system, which was traditionally confined to people with wealth. Who, naturally, mostly ran the country in a way which favoured them...

While some MPs have been prepared to game the expenses system I am not willing to believe that this is common to all MPs. And I am happy to accept that the expenses are needed to keep access to being an MP open to as many people as possible.

I would like people to have access to MPs, no sign of our labour MP since they were elected !

That's a worthwhile reminder Maizie - as was the reminder above that MP's can only claim heating expenses on one home if they reside outside of London, but I think it would be a good gesture to publicly forgo an element of it.

I don't expect to see my MP unless I choose to go to an event, but I have always had emails answered, and she gets 100's every week.

Bridie22

I would like people to have access to MPs, no sign of our labour MP since they were elected !

Same here and no response to emails.
Mind you the Green Party who asked me to vote didn’t respond when I asked them what their position was on the ability to change sex. Perhaps I’m asking the wrong questions ITO.

No you aren't Mollygro as I asked them the same question and was fobbed of!!

It’s encouraging to read that the unofficial opposition has stepped up to the plate. The trade unions might be the last hope for some sense in government. Whoever would have thought it?

I am away walking in the New Forest for a few days, so will catch up when I get back.

Actually not a lot to report.

Peter Kylie announced that the governments attitude towards universities will change from the brick-bats that they have been receiving recently to a more supportive environment - recognising their contribution to innovation and development.

There is other gossipy bits but nothing much. Unless anyone knows better😊

Interesting , that there are ‘no’ current conversations regarding today’s vote in WFA .
I for one am very interested !

NanaTuesday it’s not today- the vote is tomorrow.
Don’t forget to email your mp. I am hoping that a lot of Labour MPs will abstain if they are not brave enough to vote against.

Also the trade unions are against the government. Good. Some integrity in politics at last.

There’s no question of the WFP not going through, that’s why it isn’t being discussed. What is there to say at the moment? We will have to wait for the budget to see if there is any mitigation for poorer pensioners, but in my view there is no chance at all that stopping the WFP will be rescinded.

Casdon

There’s no question of the WFP not going through, that’s why it isn’t being discussed. What is there to say at the moment? We will have to wait for the budget to see if there is any mitigation for poorer pensioners, but in my view there is no chance at all that stopping the WFP will be rescinded.

Agreed there is going to be no U turn but it would make it easier if Pension Credit was relaxed to help those just above the threshold.

Starmer did look embattled on TV yesterday

Agreed David49. That would be the right thing to do in my opinion. Nobody wants to see people cold this winter, but there is more than one way to achieve that, and universal WFP is not the answer.

Simple solution to this mess: compromise.

Take the WFA and just add it to the November pension payment as a taxable part of pension. Poorest won't be paying tax, others lose up to 45% depending on marginal tax rate. Hardly any implementation expense.