Starmer’s chronicles

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

This is a terrible idea, it will create a two tier benefit system

That happens anyway when a new benefit is introduced. When an existing claimant is transferred over to the new benefit, there is Transitional protection, where the amount of money they receive stays the same.


Going to be complicated legislating what constitutes a new claim, A review is treated as a new claim. A change of circumstances can trigger a new claim for UC. If somebody on PIP reports a change of circumstances where their overall condition has worsened and might have their PIP increased, is it on the old rules or the new ones?


As with the Winter Fuel Allowance, it would've been better to pause and come up with a workable and agreeable system, rather than go for the quick fix.

The Conservatives brought in a two-tier State Pension system in 2016 - don’t remember you complaining about that…

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The Conservatives brought in a two-tier State Pension system in 2016 - don’t remember you complaining about that…

in what way ?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Paul

Things not going so well ...



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cj937xylzyet

A proper considered unrushed consultation with disabled people might have avoided this but instead the government dressed it up as reform when it was all to do with Reeves and the treasury trying to save money.

---------- Post added at 13:43 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

That happens anyway when a new benefit is introduced. When an existing claimant is transferred over to the new benefit, there is Transitional protection, where the amount of money they receive stays the same.


Going to be complicated legislating what constitutes a new claim, A review is treated as a new claim. A change of circumstances can trigger a new claim for UC. If somebody on PIP reports a change of circumstances where their overall condition has worsened and might have their PIP increased, is it on the old rules or the new ones?


As with the Winter Fuel Allowance, it would've been better to pause and come up with a workable and agreeable system, rather than go for the quick fix.

Indeed quick fixes usually end up as poitical disasters thus governments suddenly have to do U turns.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

in what way ?

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...20since%201978.

Currently, the full basic (old - pre-2016) State Pension is around £176 per week, whilst the full basic (new) State Pension is around £230 per week.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...20since%201978.

Currently, the full basic (old - pre-2016) State Pension is around £176 per week, whilst the full basic (new) State Pension is around £230 per week.

So true, as it always have been , every change means winners and losers

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...20since%201978.

Currently, the full basic (old - pre-2016) State Pension is around £176 per week, whilst the full basic (new) State Pension is around £230 per week.

isn't that topped up by pension credit

Originally Posted by papa smurf

isn't that topped up by pension credit

Not if your weekly income is above £227 per week (if you have other pension income, such as work pensions, or some other Social Security benefits), or if you have over £10k savings, this can reduce the amount of Pension Credit you are eligible for.

[Russ]

Unless I'm missing something blatantly obvious here, hasn't just about every governing party done at least one u-turn on some massively unpopular policy in the past 50+ years?

In principle, what's the difference between this and the poll tax u-turn, for example?

Originally Posted by Russ

Unless I'm missing something blatantly obvious here, hasn't just about every governing party done at least one u-turn on some massively unpopular policy in the past 50+ years?

In principle, what's the difference between this and the poll tax u-turn, for example?

There’s a pretty monumental difference between a policy born of hubris in the 3rd term of the most consequential post-war prime minister of this country’s history (and which brought her down), thereby narrowly rescuing a general election 2 years later than nobody thought the Tories would win and, on the other hand, a government less than 12 months old, sitting on an epoch-defying majority of 156.

Thatcher and her party had by 1987 come to think they could do no wrong and Labour was gifting them permanent power by sticking with Neil Kinnock. It was obvious the poll tax was unpopular but they pressed on because they had drunk their own kool aid, bought their own propaganda, etc etc etc.

Starmer has no such excuses. He has a majority, he’s fresh in the job, and if this wasn’t merely the latest in a string of un-forced errors he would have a pile of political goodwill at his disposal. For him to mess up this badly, this soon, and to have to be seen appeasing backbenchers as if he thinks losing the vote is a serious possibility despite his massive majority … that’s mismanagement on a catastrophic scale.

He has no political capital left now. There’s no way he can lead Labour into the next election. I’ll not be remotely surprised if he’s out of No.10 a year from now.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

A proper considered unrushed consultation with disabled people might have avoided this but instead the government dressed it up as reform when it was all to do with Reeves and the treasury trying to save money.

Indeed quick fixes usually end up as poitical disasters thus governments suddenly have to do U turns.

Spot on.

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Spot on.

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

Give an incompetent numpty the wrong job and the finances will never add up

[nomadking]

The principle behind the community charge was valid. Why should one person on their own pay the same as 6 adults living next door? It wasn't a quick fix to reduce spending.
It was widely agreed that the rates system needed changing, but nobody could agree on how.

Originally Posted by nomadking

The principle behind the community charge was valid. Why should one person on their own pay the same as 6 adults living next door? It wasn't a quick fix to reduce spending.
It was widely agreed that the rates system needed changing, but nobody could agree on how.

The ‘principle’ was deliberately oversimplified and misrepresented to justify a tax that was intended to expose Labour-run councils that tended to charge more. The adults who previously had paid one sixth of the rate on a house, now forced to pay an equal share to their sole-occupant neighbour, were meant to blame the Labour council and vote Tory instead. To make matters worse, the tax was deliberately misrepresented as a ‘community charge’, a payment for services, which was supposed to justify it being the same flat rate paid by all, with a few exceptions who were eligible for a discount.

The problems (for the Tories) were first, people saw through it and didn’t blame their local council for the level of the charge, they blamed the government for badly-constructing the system and, second, when you’re compelled to pay a public authority a contribution to its entire operating costs regardless of how much or little you use it, you aren’t paying for services, you’re paying a tax. People understood that, and looked to this new tax to behave equitably. And by design, it did not.

[Kursk]

Sir Keir Starmer, 12 May 2025 - Immigration

"Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they’re written down, often they’re not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together".

https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...ce-12-may-2025