|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 11, 2024 8:20:58 GMT
I thought only 1 labour mp voted against and the remaining abstained or didnt turn up |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 11, 2024 8:25:32 GMT
I thought only 1 labour mp voted against and the remaining abstained or didnt turn up[/] |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 11, 2024 8:34:55 GMT
Here's another. If the boot was on the other foot they'd be getting rinsed, and rightly so. These holier than thou merchants deserve exactly the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 11, 2024 8:38:27 GMT
As things stand the threshold for this payment will be a hard limit at about £13k per year. The average energy bill is about £1100/1200 a year, getting on for close to 10% of the income for a pensioner who sits just over that threshold after all the energy price rises . Would you settle for your energy bill being near 10% of your annual salary? Would it break you? It would break me I can tell you That’s what Labour have just done for people on £13001 and above. They could have at least have had the decency to raise the limit to match the living wage for crying out loud Pension credits threshold for a single pensioner is £11,343 so worse than your figures in terms of comparing energy prices vs income.. The living wage threshold you mention, roughly £24k is much fairer way which would mean all those living just on the state pension only would qualify for WFA. As I said in an earlier post, reeves should have delayed the policy for one year in order to set up fairer thresholds and give pensioners time to budget for the shortfall. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 11, 2024 8:40:29 GMT
Here's another. If the boot was on the other foot they'd be getting rinsed, and rightly so. These holier than thou merchants deserve exactly the same. im embarrassed for her. thats worse than my dog ate it |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 11, 2024 8:40:59 GMT
I thought only 1 labour mp voted against and the remaining abstained or didnt turn up Byrne is now an independent he got the Labour whip withdrawn for voting against the government last month. You'll do well to find a better more dedicated constituency MP than this man in fairness...... |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 11, 2024 8:48:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 11, 2024 8:49:32 GMT
I thought only 1 labour mp voted against and the remaining abstained or didnt turn up Byrne is now an independent he got the Labour whip withdrawn for voting against the government last month. You'll do well to find a better more dedicated constituency MP than this man in fairness...... Edited in light of the fact the fella did put his balls on the block and stick by his principles. A good man and an example to any politician of how they should act. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 11, 2024 9:00:26 GMT
I thought only 1 labour mp voted against and the remaining abstained or didnt turn up Many of the MPs with the whip removed also voted against. The media seems to want to ignore that though and only speak about this Jon fella. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 11, 2024 9:10:03 GMT
Byrne is now an independent he got the Labour whip withdrawn for voting against the government last month. You'll do well to find a better more dedicated constituency MP than this man in fairness...... He's blatantly misrepresenting his action there though. It's all spin to stay on the gravy train. I liked this but on hindsight I think it is wrong. From what I can see Ian did vote against it (https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/1840#ayes). Seems the media are trying to make out that all the Labour MPs with whip withdrawn didn't vote against it. Its as if they don't want the left wing Labour MPs to have any credit. Even Jon Tricketts wiki has been updated to say: "In September 2024, Trickett was the only MP from the Labour Party to vote for a parliamentary motion which would block the Labour government's plan to means test the Winter Fuel Payment for pensioners" This is typical British media who hate the left wing (Labour aren't left wing just a handful of MPs) and want to try and group those with a conscience in with Starmers cronies. The responses to that tweet shows the bots and algorithms out in action too. Every comment saying he abstained when he didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 11, 2024 9:11:24 GMT
That Ian Byrne seems a good un
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 11, 2024 9:23:21 GMT
Thatcher never lost the 'milk snatcher' moniker.
Reeves will forever be associated with being the pensioner punisher.
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 11, 2024 9:25:32 GMT
That Ian Byrne seems a good un Fair play, he's been misrepresented there. Goes to show you shouldn't post shit off twitter all the time 😳 |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 11, 2024 9:28:53 GMT
He's blatantly misrepresenting his action there though. It's all spin to stay on the gravy train. I liked this but on hindsight I think it is wrong. From what I can see Ian did vote against it (https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/1840#ayes). Seems the media are trying to make out that all the Labour MPs with whip withdrawn didn't vote against it. Its as if they don't want the left wing Labour MPs to have any credit. Even Jon Tricketts wiki has been updated to say: "In September 2024, Trickett was the only MP from the Labour Party to vote for a parliamentary motion which would block the Labour government's plan to means test the Winter Fuel Payment for pensioners" This is typical British media who hate the left wing (Labour aren't left wing just a handful of MPs) and want to try and group those with a conscience in with Starmers cronies. The responses to that tweet shows the bots and algorithms out in action too. Every comment saying he abstained when he didn't. I'd unlike it bud. Makes you look nearly as big a prick as the dickhead that fell for it. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 11, 2024 9:31:05 GMT
Byrne is now an independent he got the Labour whip withdrawn for voting against the government last month. You'll do well to find a better more dedicated constituency MP than this man in fairness...... He's blatantly misrepresenting his action there though. It's all spin to stay on the gravy train. I’m confused mate, what’s he done? |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 11, 2024 9:45:19 GMT
He's blatantly misrepresenting his action there though. It's all spin to stay on the gravy train. I’m confused mate, what’s he done? Apologies bud I got hooked. I'll edit it and take my 20 lashes from the leftists as penance. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 11, 2024 9:48:02 GMT
I’m confused mate, what’s he done? Apologies bud I got hooked. I'll edit it and take my 20 lashes from the leftists as penance. You’ve let yourself down, you’ve let the leftists down…… |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 11, 2024 9:54:37 GMT
Apologies bud I got hooked. I'll edit it and take my 20 lashes from the leftists as penance. You’ve let yourself down, you’ve let the leftists down…… The leftists have let the pensioners down |
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Sept 11, 2024 10:18:45 GMT
So, looks like plenty of them don’t even have the guts to be open about what they’ve agreed to do to the pensioners. Abstaining, not making it or some other lame reason is poor behaviour….so much for the change they promised in MP behaviour with morals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Sept 11, 2024 10:25:52 GMT
You’ve let yourself down, you’ve let the leftists down…… The leftists have let the pensioners down They are not leftists mate, not by a long stretch! |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 11, 2024 10:43:09 GMT
Apologies bud I got hooked. I'll edit it and take my 20 lashes from the leftists as penance. You’ve let yourself down, you’ve let the leftists down…… You sound like my mum. |
|
ian57
Youth Player
Posts: 349
|
Post by ian57 on Sept 11, 2024 11:48:01 GMT
Here's another. If the boot was on the other foot they'd be getting rinsed, and rightly so. These holier than thou merchants deserve exactly the same. im embarrassed for her. thats worse than my dog ate it two faced self serving cunt wipes the lot of them. They are nothing short of a fucking embarrassment and a disgrace to humanity. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 11, 2024 13:34:54 GMT
You’ve let yourself down, you’ve let the leftists down…… The leftists have let the pensioners down Don't get us lefties mixed up with the liberals please  |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 11, 2024 14:01:01 GMT
You’ve let yourself down, you’ve let the leftists down…… The leftists have let the pensioners down You've got two different facets of the Labour Party at play here both at the same time; the far left "Corbynistas" who will always vote against any benefit cut, and the centrist Labour members who vote for means testing because they feel means testing the benefit is far more equitable than either universality or stopping it altogether. As a principle, universality is wrong. Any state benefit should be means tested. Anything less results in the benefit becoming a right (i.e. the state pension). In a world where there is a £22bn gap on the nations finance and other parts of society are going to have to foot the bill for it, it is hugely disingenuous as a principle to give rich pensioners a universal benefit. Personally, I would have simply added the average energy bill for the UK (according to Ofgem) onto the state pension, and made that the curt off point for the Winter Fuel Allowance. Instead, Labour have said they are saying a anyone on Pension Credit will qualify for it (despite there being poor take up of it). On a socio-political level, anyone thinks the Winter Fuel Allowance should be universal is plain wrong. It is a benefit not a right. |
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Sept 11, 2024 14:07:24 GMT
I suppose if youre going to start off by making ridculous policies which do untold damage to your party you may as well do it right at the start.Easy tartget easy implemented.And now lets seee how long it takes to sort these tax loopholes out.
I wont hold my breath.
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 11, 2024 14:08:15 GMT
The leftists have let the pensioners down You've got two different facets of the Labour Party at play here both at the same time; the far left "Corbynistas" who will always vote against any benefit cut, and the centrist Labour members who vote for means testing because they feel means testing the benefit is far more equitable than either universality or stopping it altogether. As a principle, universality is wrong. Any state benefit should be means tested. Anything less results in the benefit becoming a right (i.e. the state pension). In a world where there is a £22bn gap on the nations finance and other parts of society are going to have to foot the bill for it, it is hugely disingenuous as a principle to give rich pensioners a universal benefit. Personally, I would have simply added the average energy bill for the UK (according to Ofgem) onto the state pension, and made that the curt off point for the Winter Fuel Allowance. Instead, Labour have said they are saying a anyone on Pension Credit will qualify for it (despite there being poor take up of it). On a socio-political level, anyone thinks the Winter Fuel Allowance should be universal is plain wrong. It is a benefit not a right. I was watching a bit of the parliamentary debate about it yesterday and picked up on the promise to get more people on pension credit. Apparently if the full uptake entitled to claim it did so the bill could be bigger than the saving made by cutting the WFA. Somebody far cleverer than me might be able to find a way of levering in HHSRS claims for excess cold as a way of embarrassing the government. Even if they went nowhere an uptick in claims made would be embarrassing, not that they'd care I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 11, 2024 14:13:46 GMT
Here's another. If the boot was on the other foot they'd be getting rinsed, and rightly so. These holier than thou merchants deserve exactly the same. Putting this into perspective…..Liverpool Riverside is one of the poorest most deprived areas of North West England where 38% of children live in poverty & where 18% or 22,500 of it's constituents are over 65. Well done duck, hope you sleep well this winter as some of your constituents suffer from cold or malnutrition. Remember her name folks KIM JOHNSON……Speaking up Liverpool Riverside my arse. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 11, 2024 14:14:07 GMT
You've got two different facets of the Labour Party at play here both at the same time; the far left "Corbynistas" who will always vote against any benefit cut, and the centrist Labour members who vote for means testing because they feel means testing the benefit is far more equitable than either universality or stopping it altogether. As a principle, universality is wrong. Any state benefit should be means tested. Anything less results in the benefit becoming a right (i.e. the state pension). In a world where there is a £22bn gap on the nations finance and other parts of society are going to have to foot the bill for it, it is hugely disingenuous as a principle to give rich pensioners a universal benefit. Personally, I would have simply added the average energy bill for the UK (according to Ofgem) onto the state pension, and made that the curt off point for the Winter Fuel Allowance. Instead, Labour have said they are saying a anyone on Pension Credit will qualify for it (despite there being poor take up of it). On a socio-political level, anyone thinks the Winter Fuel Allowance should be universal is plain wrong. It is a benefit not a right. I was watching a bit of the parliamentary debate about it yesterday and picked up on the promise to get more people on pension credit. Apparently if the full uptake entitled to claim it did so the bill could be bigger than the saving made by cutting the WFA. Somebody far cleverer than me might be able to find a way of levering in HHSRS claims for excess cold as a way of embarrassing the government. Even if they went nowhere an uptick in claims made would be embarrassing, not that they'd care I'm sure. Your second sentence is key to this and I'm very surprised nobody here has picked up on it before now:- "Apparently if the full uptake entitled to claim it (Pension Credit) did so the bill could be bigger than the saving made by cutting the WFA."The Labour Treasury knows that means testing WFA will only save about £1bn. The whole point of the debate around means testing WFA is that it is far better to target that assistance and give it to people who need it than it is to give money away to rich people who don't. It's the principle of fairness and equality. Changing WFA to means tested means that any future benefits handed out, created, or developed by the Labour government will also be based on means testing and NOT universality precisely because that's the fairest way of doing it. I'm equally as surprised that the Corbynistas have fallen hook, line and sinker so asily for the right wing Conservative Press line...or am I? |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 11, 2024 14:14:59 GMT
The leftists have let the pensioners down You've got two different facets of the Labour Party at play here both at the same time; the far left "Corbynistas" who will always vote against any benefit cut, and the centrist Labour members who vote for means testing because they feel means testing the benefit is far more equitable than either universality or stopping it altogether. As a principle, universality is wrong. Any state benefit should be means tested. Anything less results in the benefit becoming a right (i.e. the state pension). In a world where there is a £22bn gap on the nations finance and other parts of society are going to have to foot the bill for it, it is hugely disingenuous as a principle to give rich pensioners a universal benefit. Personally, I would have simply added the average energy bill for the UK (according to Ofgem) onto the state pension, and made that the curt off point for the Winter Fuel Allowance. Instead, Labour have said they are saying a anyone on Pension Credit will qualify for it (despite there being poor take up of it). On a socio-political level, anyone thinks the Winter Fuel Allowance should be universal is plain wrong. It is a benefit not a right. whist i agree with some of that until they make a fair way of ensuring the right people get it. They have not and as a result some of the poorest pensioners will lose out. Not all those losing can claim pension credit, some are just above the threshold. Until they got that fair outcome it should have remained a universal benefit. I agree that all state benefits be means tested but only if they meet certain conditions and that you dont start taking thousands off average people because they are £1 over the claiming threshhold. For example you can argue the case for taking state pension of an ex doctor on a £60k pension but not of a nurse on a £12k pension. More difficu It is very hard to get right but very easy to get wrong as winter fuel has proven |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 11, 2024 14:26:35 GMT
I was watching a bit of the parliamentary debate about it yesterday and picked up on the promise to get more people on pension credit. Apparently if the full uptake entitled to claim it did so the bill could be bigger than the saving made by cutting the WFA. Somebody far cleverer than me might be able to find a way of levering in HHSRS claims for excess cold as a way of embarrassing the government. Even if they went nowhere an uptick in claims made would be embarrassing, not that they'd care I'm sure. Your second sentence is key to this and I'm very surprised nobody here has picked up on it before now:- "Apparently if the full uptake entitled to claim it (Pension Credit) did so the bill could be bigger than the saving made by cutting the WFA."The Labour Treasury knows that means testing WFA will only save about £1bn. The whole point of the debate around means testing WFA is that it is far better to target that assistance and give it to people who need it than it is to give money away to rich people who don't. It's the principle of fairness and equality. Changing WFA to means tested means that any future benefits handed out, created, or developed by the Labour government will also be based on means testing and NOT universality precisely because that's the fairest way of doing it. I'm equally as surprised that the Corbynistas have fallen hook, line and sinker so asily for the right wing Conservative Press line...or am I? You're surprised that people on the left wing don't support pensioners who earn £11,500 per annum as an individual or £17,500 as a couple (less than 9k each per annum) losing their winter Fuel allowance? Why does that surprise you? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." In a time of record inequality, you're surprised that people on the left wing don't support removing a critical benefit for people earning less than 9 grand a year? |
|
