UK Politics

[Kurosagi]

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

 

 

And so begins the next round of parliamentary psycho-drama <sigh>.

 

McDonnell getting in early with the first rebellion and tbf Starmer/Reeves has gifted the opportunity earlier than left leaning MPs perhaps imagined. Starmer's been doubling down this weekend, he can't give a free vote so will have to whip it and McDonnell doesn't give a f**k about the whip now after what's happened to Corbyn so will encourage others to follow his lead.

 

It's going to be a very long five years if "tough decisions" becomes the repeated mantra for Austerity 2.0 and a euphemism for continuing to f**k over everyone who isn't paid via offshore accounts.

 

[steviewevie]

8 hours ago, Kurosagi said:

 

And so begins the next round of parliamentary psycho-drama <sigh>.

 

McDonnell getting in early with the first rebellion and tbf Starmer/Reeves has gifted the opportunity earlier than left leaning MPs perhaps imagined. Starmer's been doubling down this weekend, he can't give a free vote so will have to whip it and McDonnell doesn't give a f**k about the whip now after what's happened to Corbyn so will encourage others to follow his lead.

 

It's going to be a very long five years if "tough decisions" becomes the repeated mantra for Austerity 2.0 and a euphemism for continuing to f**k over everyone who isn't paid via offshore accounts.

 

Hasn't McDonnell had whip suspended already?

I wouldn't be surprised if McDonnell and few others like Sultana and Burgon quit Labour and joined Corbyn's independent lot.

Think there will be plenty of abstains in the vote, not sure how many will actually vote against, and what punishment will be this time. Last time was King's speech so not sure will be suspensions again, especially if loads of them.

Wouldn't be surprised to see some concessions or promises or deal done...Reeves and Starmer must see how badly this is playing when it doesn't really save them much money compared to the sh*t load they already spend on pensions. Or maybe they will want to stick it out but if it's a cold winter as soon as there's a story about pensioners freezing because can't afford bills it will be all over the front pages.

 

[lost]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

there will be plenty of abstains in the vote, not sure how many will actually vote against, and what punishment will be this time.

 

 

[steviewevie]

Whoops

 

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

seeing as this govt already looking like a one term one suddenly the tory leadership election seems more important.

[steviewevie]

Greens who did oppose HS2 now back it.

 

[Ryan1984]

15 hours ago, Kurosagi said:

 

And so begins the next round of parliamentary psycho-drama <sigh>.

 

McDonnell getting in early with the first rebellion and tbf Starmer/Reeves has gifted the opportunity earlier than left leaning MPs perhaps imagined. Starmer's been doubling down this weekend, he can't give a free vote so will have to whip it and McDonnell doesn't give a f**k about the whip now after what's happened to Corbyn so will encourage others to follow his lead.

 

It's going to be a very long five years if "tough decisions" becomes the repeated mantra for Austerity 2.0 and a euphemism for continuing to f**k over everyone who isn't paid via offshore accounts.

 

I’ve been widely supportive of Starmer so far but really not sure how much longer he can continue with these “tough decisions”/“the last lot left it in a mess” (I know the Tories got away with the latter for 14 years) messages.

 

We need some hope.

[kaosmark2]

8 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

I’ve been widely supportive of Starmer so far but really not sure how much longer he can continue with these “tough decisions”/“the last lot left it in a mess” (I know the Tories got away with the latter for 14 years) messages.

 

We need some hope.

There needs to be something kind and positive in the budget. I think individual policy bits like what's happened so far are hard to judge on before a first budget, but that has to show something. Whether it's a tax on the wealthy, uplifting of child benefit, a restructure of council tax that leaves the poorer better off, or something else, there needs to be some hint from it that lifts people up.

[steviewevie]

36 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

I’ve been widely supportive of Starmer so far but really not sure how much longer he can continue with these “tough decisions”/“the last lot left it in a mess” (I know the Tories got away with the latter for 14 years) messages.

 

We need some hope.

The certainly don't seem bothered about even trying to maintain any sort of honeymoon because they're doubling down on this stuff. I guess the thinking is no point being all positive when realistically things won't improve for a while. Maybe they have a year or so where they keep blaming the tories, and maybe things will be improving enough by next election for voters to give them another term, or maybe they won't be and it will be Jenrick winning in 28/29. There is a lot to do, and a lot that could go wrong. They need to sort out the fundamentals...cost of living, NHS waiting times, crime.

I am assuming that it will be a tough budget this autumn, a fairly sh*t winter, and then something more positive next spring.

[steviewevie]

Apparently govt wants 100% pension credit takeup by those eligible, and if that were to happen that would wipe out the £1.5bn savings made by the winter fuel payment cut.

[steviewevie]

Will Rachel Reeves still be chancellor by next election?

BET NOW!

[steviewevie]

The all important Robert Peston tweet

 

Governments get into a mess when pragmatic decisions that go wrong become tests of authority and principle.  This is the tragi-comic fate of Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer following their decision to abolish universal pensioner entitlement to the winter fuel payment.  

The chancellor announced the controversial welfare saving to prove to investors that she is serious about improving the health of the public finances. Her logic was that if she was having kittens about the £22bn current year “black hole” that she says the Tory government bequeathed her - and my goodness she doesn’t tire of telling us how anxious she is - so too would be the City of London and  investors. 

That is why she engaged in a “lite” version of Osborne’s 2010 austerity.  And her advisers and colleagues keep telling me she was only doing what Treasury officials  told her was essential to prevent a fall in the price of government debt and an associated rise in market interest rates. 

This justification however is laughable, as I normally tell them.  And I mean that literally.  Because when I talk to City investors controlling gazillions, they snort and giggle at the idea they would have turned against the self-defined iron chancellor if she hadn’t taken £1.4bn from pensioners.  

The point is that tens of billions of pounds will be needed to fix UK public services, and that £1.4bn is smaller than a rounding error.  

The idea that Reeves’s fiscal credibility - which is high in any case - would be made or broken by the pensioner raid is absurd. 

Even on the basis that it is an inefficient use of public money, because rich pensioners don’t need it, she could have waited till her October budget before deciding whether to means test the energy subsidy - and she could have announced the change in a strategic fashion along with assorted tax rises and spending re-allocations.  

If her Treasury officials told her otherwise, as her political colleagues insist they did, then its market intelligence is rubbish and it is not the institution it once was. 

As it happens, Treasury sources tell me Reeves’s defining characteristic is she is more old-school, small “c” conservative Treasury than they are, and that the pensioner squeeze was all her. 

Either way, the argument is no longer about market economics, if it ever truly was. 

It is now about competence and who is in charge.  

If Starmer and Reeves are bullied into a u-turn by left wing MPs, the Tory press and trade union leaders, despite their enormous commons majority, then there would be a question about their ability to do what Starmer calls “tough, unpopular” things.  

So early in his term, that would be a problem. 

This is why, in their every utterance, they now talk about taking cash from pensioners as the very bedrock of their big ambitions to restore confidence in the UK and generate world-leading economic growth.  

The point is that a gambit that was never at inception necessary to keep the confidence of investors has now acquired market significance: investors would look more warily at UK government debt and sterling, if Starmer and Reeves cave when the political heat is turned up, however ill-conceived the initial policy.

 

https://x.com/Peston/status/1833175652847042899

 

[steviewevie]

 

another one already suspended...those suspensions will likely become permanent...

[steviewevie]

another one bites the dust

 

[kaosmark2]

Gotta say, I'm more worried about kids being in poverty than pensioners getting a top-up to their holiday funds.

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Gotta say, I'm more worried about kids being in poverty than pensioners getting a top-up to their holiday funds.

Agree 100%.

But pensioners carry more political weight...there is more sympathy...and they vote.

[steviewevie]

15 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Gotta say, I'm more worried about kids being in poverty than pensioners getting a top-up to their holiday funds.

plus it isn't topping up holiday funds for all of them, some need it, or at least feel they need it. 

[kaosmark2]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Agree 100%.

But pensioners carry more political weight...there is more sympathy...and they vote.

So mainly I'm saying that if you're not going to go against the govt because it's the king's speech and you've got assurances that something better will happen in the budget.... I have no sympathy for rebelling now. I get the political narrative around it, but I will heavily criticise MPs that rebel here and didn't last time.

 

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

plus it isn't topping up holiday funds for all of them, some need it, or at least feel they need it. 

I'm fine with questioning the threshold. If there's a problem with the means testing then adjusting the line for this (and the other) benefits is good thing. I don't want pensioners in poverty. But it being means tested should ideally only hurt the millions of wealthy pensioners who are getting this payout unnecessarily.

 

The means testing could be badly done, and yeah, in that case, try and push an amendment through to uplift the threshold. But rebelling here feels like vote-chasing to me, not integrity.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

 

 

I'm fine with questioning the threshold. If there's a problem with the means testing then adjusting the line for this (and the other) benefits is good thing. I don't want pensioners in poverty. But it being means tested should ideally only hurt the millions of wealthy pensioners who are getting this payout unnecessarily.

 

The means testing could be badly done, and yeah, in that case, try and push an amendment through to uplift the threshold. But rebelling here feels like vote-chasing to me, not integrity.

but currently the threshold is based on whether receive pension credits which has two problems...loads don't claim it who could for whatever reason...and there are still some who are just above the threshold that are still on relatively low incomes and will miss this payment.

I'm not sure how rebelling is vote chasing, some are probably receiving a lot of correspondence from worried pensioners in their constituencies who they're supposed to represent. I think it will likely be a few of the usual lefties who vote against, but there may be a bunch of abstainers or people who mysteriously can't make it to parliament for the vote.

Also...feels a little bit of a good excuse from both sides for certain leftwing MPs to leave the PLP.

[lost]

The press appear to have dug out an old labour report from 2017 when it looked like May was about to means test the winter fuel payment saying it would kill 4000 pensioners.

[steviewevie]

28 minutes ago, lost said:

The press appear to have dug out an old labour report from 2017 when it looked like May was about to means test the winter fuel payment saying it would kill 4000 pensioners.

That was when they were a party of protest, not tory-lite

[Neil]

14 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Hasn't McDonnell had whip suspended already?

I wouldn't be surprised if McDonnell and few others like Sultana and Burgon quit Labour and joined Corbyn's independent lot.

Think there will be plenty of abstains in the vote, not sure how many will actually vote against, and what punishment will be this time. Last time was King's speech so not sure will be suspensions again, especially if loads of them.

Wouldn't be surprised to see some concessions or promises or deal done...Reeves and Starmer must see how badly this is playing when it doesn't really save them much money compared to the sh*t load they already spend on pensions. Or maybe they will want to stick it out but if it's a cold winter as soon as there's a story about pensioners freezing because can't afford bills it will be all over the front pages.

 

its normally only people with govt positions who get disciplined for going against the whip.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

They love Sir Keir at the TUC.

OAPs hate him.

Labour MPs are scared of him.