The problem with means testing is that those just over the threshold can be hurt. I agree with removing the WFA from the richest pensioners, or people like myself ( not rich, but won't miss £300) but I think this could have been done better - maybe by just removing it from higher rate tax payers.
The right wing press have made a huge fuss out of it, as expected. They usually hate handouts too Of course I don't want people to suffer, and I'm pretty sure they'll adjust it to ensure no one suffers. The threshold is nearly impossible to set though, whoever is close to the limit/above it will always feel cheated. I really hope they start taxing the top of the pyramid more too to make up for it. The sad thing is we'll still be in ****loads of debt, just not bleeding money as fast...
I suppose they could scrap cancer treatment on the NHS... Liz Truss considered scrapping all NHS cancer treatment after crashing economy, book claims (msn.com)
<sarcasm> Reform would have sorted it all out, if only they were elected, there'd be loads of money for everyone! </sarcasm>
We could just have UBI and take the complexity and the cost that comes with it out of most/all of this stuff.
Peter Mandleson gracefully and generously distancing himself from the job of U.K. ambassador to the USA - because he’d prefer to be Chancellor of Oxford University. So Starmer is expected to pick another one of his mates, probably someone who has ‘donated’ something to him (Lord Alli gave him clothes!) or Labour. Ambassador roles have always been gifts from the US President to his cronies, but when did this become a thing for us? These jobs were always usually filled by civil servants, people who had worked for decades in the foreign office actually learning how to be an ambassador. The exception was Peter Jay, son in law of PM Jim Callaghan who gave him the Washington job, to an outcry of nepotism (fair enough). The current incumbent is a proper career diplomat, Karen Pierce. In other news Rachel Reeves is demanding budget cuts from all departments (including health and education) prior to the autumn budget and she has been advised that the only way to close the ‘black hole’ in spending long term is to means test the state pension. I don’t think she’d do this, but I’m learning that anything not specifically ruled out by this government should be expected.
Lots of talk about what the government might do. I'm going to reserve my judgment until they actually do any of these things.
Lead item on the BBC News now. As an occasional cigar smoker I’d never light up in a pub garden anyway, it’s obviously anti social (especially as a cigar takes a lot longer than a gasper to smoke). I don’t like having smoke waft over me either. The idea that Starmer is peddling that smoking is crippling the NHS is bullshit though. That would be obesity and all its co-morbidities. Tobacco is taxed more here than anywhere except for Australia and possibly New Zealand. The revenue raised dwarfs the notional spend on treating smoking related illness. Banning tobacco, the obvious end point of this puritanical drive, will ultimately reduce revenue for public services. Just hypothecate the tax on tobacco (and booze) to make sure it all goes to health services. And the logic of restricting access to something bad for you would imply that alcoholic drinks, processed foods, driving a car, crossing the road and almost every other human activity should also be on the road to banning. Presumably in this country cannabis will never be legalised because it’s not healthy for you.
They're also thinking of banning potholing because of the dangers involved and the cost of rescue when people get into trouble. The thing is, if they did ban it, it would just go underground, wouldn't it? (I know you've heard that one, but I couldn't resist).
The smoking thing is an odd one. I couldn't give a **** one way or another really, but there are bigger fish to fry - why float this now? Odd, too, that Reeves's first announcement was the WFA thing. Perhaps it was necessary because of payments becoming due quite soon. Again, it's not something that exercises me greatly (although I think it will need to be finessed to protect the poorest OAPs), but it's bad optics when you've (rightly) just settled disputes with the junior doctors and the train drivers. Starmer was so disciplined in managing public opinion during the election campaign, but seems to have taken his eye off that ball since taking power. He's got 5 years though, I suppose - get the tricky stuff out of the way now. I don't accept all the righteous outrage about the WFA change not being in the manifesto, though. Why would they do that and let the whole campaign be focussed on that one issue? Did Cameron campaign on austerity? Everything now will be down to the budget in October. If they raise taxes on the richest and keep spending cuts to a minimum, I'll be happy. Otherwise, I'll be the first to criticise.
Not sure the tricky stuff will go away. The forecast is that household incomes will (on average) go up 3% 2024/25 - but only by 2% for the duration of the rest of the Parliament. Of course it’s an economic forecast and therefore questionable. But the government itself is betting the house on helping to generate ‘growth’ to pay for everything through increased tax revenue. Until this materialises, if it does, we have austerity policies by the look of it.
he managed public opinion but now hes in power he dosent have to worry about it anymore and hes not the tories man init
Apparently the uks loosely regulated job market is the cause of the drowning deaths on the french side of the channel Still It keeps wages down
Anyone catch the program on C4 last night about Trump? There's some seriously delusional people in the US, regardless of their political affiliation. please log in to view this image Matt Frei speaks to insiders, friend and foe, and those who know Donald Trump close-up as he asks: how scared should we be if Trump wins the US presidential election this November https://www.channel4.com/programmes/trump-should-we-be-scared
