Starmer’s chronicles

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don’t mind either, as long as they keep to the mandate.

But I disagree in part with your stance that if an MP or councillor changes parties they should automatically submit themselves to a re-election. If they have pledged to achieve things which have proved difficult or impossible to achieve with the party to which they belonged and have changed to a party that will help them better to achieve it, then that’s acceptable in my book.

However, if they’ve decided they no longer wish to go for what they set out in their manifesto, then I agree they should submit themselves for re-election.

I know that many people vote for parties, but our electoral system does not work like that. We vote for candidates, not for political parties or Prime Ministers.

This is inherently contradictory. It’s extremely unlikely someone can defect from one party to another and it substantially be “the same manifesto”.

Originally Posted by jfman

The country facing an election every two years might actually force parties to reckon with the issues that they refuse to touch, which arguably debilitate the country for even longer.

Because we don’t already have a problem with short-term thinking

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Because we don’t already have a problem with short-term thinking

I could have been clearer - I wasn’t suggesting formalising that. But if it happened a few times it might make parties address unpopular issues because of how unsustainable it is.

The UK needs action on a number of issues it’s almost impossible to touch because parties tie themselves up in manifesto commitments unsuitable for reality.

• Benefit cuts
• Raising taxes
• Ending the triple lock
• Affordable housing
• Immigration
• Council tax reform

To name a few.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

This is inherently contradictory. It’s extremely unlikely someone can defect from one party to another and it substantially be “the same manifesto”.

Not at all. If the only way an MP can fulfil the promises he or she made to voters is to join another party that would allow these promises to be fulfilled, then I think that is acceptable.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not at all. If the only way an MP can fulfil the promises he or she made to voters is to join another party that would allow these promises to be fulfilled, then I think that is acceptable.

But the promises the MP made to their voters is in their Party's manifesto, not another Party's manifesto. The Conservative Party's manifesto is not the same as Reform UK's and Reform UK's is not the same as Restore Britain's. Yet MPs have moved from the Conservative Party to Reform and one MP has moved from Reform to Restore.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

I could have been clearer - I wasn’t suggesting formalising that. But if it happened a few times it might make parties address unpopular issues because of how unsustainable it is.

The UK needs action on a number of issues it’s almost impossible to touch because parties tie themselves up in manifesto commitments unsuitable for reality.

• Benefit cuts
• Raising taxes
• Ending the triple lock
• Affordable housing
• Immigration
• Council tax reform

To name a few.

here we go again with the triple lock,trust me when you're living on a state pension you'll think differently

[Jaymoss]

The day they put the state pension into the welfare budget the vilifying of those on welfare exploded

My father has good personal pensions but he locks down on the state pension even though he does not need it as he paid into it and so on.

He started on his soapbox about how the welfare budget was now more than the income tax take but then refused to accept the state pension itself makes up over half of that. And when you include those on housing benefit and pip it increases the difference even more

For years those is power have tried to make those on benefits pariahs and it is working.

All this and my limited understanding makes me think it is all BS and propaganda because if the Welfare budget really is higher than the income tax take then how the feck does the country run . I just do not buy it

Personally I think it is inevitable that the state pension becomes means tested and I understand why but I know the boomers and forgotten generation effected even though in reality they have enough to live on easy (not alll but some) I know it was all paid for over the years but it has all been spent long ago so it also has to come out of the tax take but for transparency I would rather see it not included in the welfare budget

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

here we go again with the triple lock,trust me when you're living on a state pension you'll think differently

If the state pension needs to be higher in general - and how to fund that so it’s sustainable (higher taxes) - then that’s a debate worth having. It’s also a different one from whether it should uprate at the higher of earnings, inflation or 2.5%.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

The day they put the state pension into the welfare budget the vilifying of those on welfare exploded

My father has good personal pensions but he locks down on the state pension even though he does not need it as he paid into it and so on.

He started on his soapbox about how the welfare budget was now more than the income tax take but then refused to accept the state pension itself makes up over half of that. And when you include those on housing benefit and pip it increases the difference even more

For years those is power have tried to make those on benefits pariahs and it is working.

All this and my limited understanding makes me think it is all BS and propaganda because if the Welfare budget really is higher than the income tax take then how the feck does the country run . I just do not buy it

Personally I think it is inevitable that the state pension becomes means tested and I understand why but I know the boomers and forgotten generation effected even though in reality they have enough to live on easy (not alll but some) I know it was all paid for over the years but it has all been spent long ago so it also has to come out of the tax take but for transparency I would rather see it not included in the welfare budget

to get the full state pension you have to pay taxes for 35 years ie work,yet to get benefits you just have to sit on your arse all day,that's what upsets pensioners who have grafted all their lives.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

here we go again with the triple lock,trust me when you're living on a state pension you'll think differently

Is anybody suggesting the pension shouldn't go up with inflation? If not, what's the problem?
Because it's applied on an annual basis, the rises tend to be higher than the original intent. Just a quirk of the system and how the real world operates. It's the understanding of these sorts of things that is grossly absent in general, not just in politics.