|
Post by baldrick on Sept 11, 2024 0:09:47 GMT
Wow, this is from the Guardian........and the Guardian is a friend of Lablour! "As the nights begin to draw in, the brief euphoria of 5 July increasingly feels like something that happened in a lost time of sunny innocence. Today, amid deep dismay, the House of Commons approved the government’s ill-conceived and dangerous plan to withdraw the winter fuel allowance from most pensioners in England and Wales. Rachel Reeves has reportedly given ministers and civil servants until Friday to draw up departmental savings. In some parts of Keir Starmer’s administration, meanwhile, minds are at least partly focused on interesting and exciting policies – but the Treasury is spreading a familiar sense of fear and foreboding. What this highlights is simple enough: that there are two strands of this government. One is recognisably left-of-centre, and is personified by a handful of key cabinet ministers: Angela Rayner, Ed Miliband, the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, and Louise Haigh, who is in charge of the transport brief. This grouping’s priorities are manifested in such policies as improving people’s rights at work, creating a new, publicly owned energy company and gradually renationalising the railways and reregulating local buses in England: all well-intentioned and avowedly social-democratic proposals that serve as instant reminders that the Tories are no longer in charge. The other key Labour tendency, however, has a rather different mindset – and given that its representatives include the prime minister and the chancellor, it is much more powerful. In their own way, Reeves and Starmer are as stereotypically Labour as their more left-leaning colleagues, but they are statist technocrats rather than merchants of social change: their shared quest, it seems, is to put the government machine back in working order and cling on to its orthodoxies in the hope that they can be restored, while somehow sparking renewed economic growth. This is really a bureaucrat’s prospectus, all about such apolitical concepts as competence and efficiency. It reflects Starmer’s time as the director of public prosecutions, and Reeves’s spell at the Bank of England. And its most vivid illustration is the three-pronged insistence that will define the immediate political future: that supposed fiscal rectitude must prevail, that no really ambitious thinking can be brought to the tax system and, as a consequence, that meaningfully lifting the country out of the hole it has been stuck in for 14 years is going to have to wait. Treasury spreadsheets, it seems, have decided our fate – and the national malaise may be about to deepen even further." Labour in trouble Until relatively recently, The Guardian was a charitable foundation, so can I believe what you've linked? 😇
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 7:41:55 GMT
Wow, this is from the Guardian........and the Guardian is a friend of Lablour! "As the nights begin to draw in, the brief euphoria of 5 July increasingly feels like something that happened in a lost time of sunny innocence. Today, amid deep dismay, the House of Commons approved the government’s ill-conceived and dangerous plan to withdraw the winter fuel allowance from most pensioners in England and Wales. Rachel Reeves has reportedly given ministers and civil servants until Friday to draw up departmental savings. In some parts of Keir Starmer’s administration, meanwhile, minds are at least partly focused on interesting and exciting policies – but the Treasury is spreading a familiar sense of fear and foreboding. What this highlights is simple enough: that there are two strands of this government. One is recognisably left-of-centre, and is personified by a handful of key cabinet ministers: Angela Rayner, Ed Miliband, the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, and Louise Haigh, who is in charge of the transport brief. This grouping’s priorities are manifested in such policies as improving people’s rights at work, creating a new, publicly owned energy company and gradually renationalising the railways and reregulating local buses in England: all well-intentioned and avowedly social-democratic proposals that serve as instant reminders that the Tories are no longer in charge. The other key Labour tendency, however, has a rather different mindset – and given that its representatives include the prime minister and the chancellor, it is much more powerful. In their own way, Reeves and Starmer are as stereotypically Labour as their more left-leaning colleagues, but they are statist technocrats rather than merchants of social change: their shared quest, it seems, is to put the government machine back in working order and cling on to its orthodoxies in the hope that they can be restored, while somehow sparking renewed economic growth. This is really a bureaucrat’s prospectus, all about such apolitical concepts as competence and efficiency. It reflects Starmer’s time as the director of public prosecutions, and Reeves’s spell at the Bank of England. And its most vivid illustration is the three-pronged insistence that will define the immediate political future: that supposed fiscal rectitude must prevail, that no really ambitious thinking can be brought to the tax system and, as a consequence, that meaningfully lifting the country out of the hole it has been stuck in for 14 years is going to have to wait. Treasury spreadsheets, it seems, have decided our fate – and the national malaise may be about to deepen even further." Labour in trouble Until relatively recently, The Guardian was a charitable foundation, so can I believe what you've linked? 😇 It's an opinion piece, not something that is claiming to be 'fact' as in a report. The interesting thing is that the Guardian is Labour supporting. If they are printing things like this, this early into this government's tenure, then it doesn't bode well.
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 11, 2024 8:32:25 GMT
Until relatively recently, The Guardian was a charitable foundation, so can I believe what you've linked? 😇 It's an opinion piece, not something that is claiming to be 'fact' as in a report. The interesting thing is that the Guardian is Labour supporting. If they are printing things like this, this early into this government's tenure, then it doesn't bode well. Precisely, it's an opinion piece (by John Harris) which can be seen through that optic. Strictly speaking, it's not Guardian endorsed either, although I suspect it is close to their readership views. Fwiw, I'm not convinced as to why Labour is spending so much political capital on this issue. There are better ways to go about this, such as means testing, tapering, or making it taxable. However, what I won't do is simply dismiss it because it was written by a charity.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 11, 2024 9:00:12 GMT
But that's not the case here Nobby, they are not publishing their report to raise funds. They are producing objective reports globally. They are not raising funds for kids or famine. They have registered as a charity as they are a non profit making organisation. Registering just as many non profit organisations do. Their specific objective is to look at global corruption. You write as if they are some tinpot organisation just looking to raise a few quid and can be ignored. Do you not want someone independent to take an objective global view, not attached to any one Government and hold people to account. How do we otherwise understand Government corruption? Because your attitude seems to be that we can just ignore it as its a charity. Or have I misread you. So therefore, I further take it that you do not believe that a charity can publish a report that is of use as it 'will be biased' so when the Samaritans produce a report on ways to reduce suicide it shouldn't be listened to as it is biased, nor Oxfam on famine, nor Save the Children or raising children out of poverty..... interesting. Terry, of course they are biased. They may be a non-profit organisation, but they have costs so therefore they need funds! They have a need to promote alleged areas of corruption to attract the funds. It's the fact the post was put up as a sort of, "look at this" ! As if the words presented were true and honest, when they are blatantly not as the report creators have a vested interest in making the claims worse than they probably are. Does this "charity" have access to the government information regarding the funds given out, or are they making assumptions? OK Nobby you win! No charities research and publications should be believed as they are all biased and are simply out to raise cash. I will tell my colleagues at the Samaritans at the next AGM to stop doing research and publications on the causes of suicide and tell them just to advertise instead. I will ignore the research of Cancer Research UK and tell my cousin to ignore the advice of MacMillans because they are only out for themselves and are trying to raise money off him. I shall tell my sailing friend to ignore the RNLI if ever he gets into difficulty at sea as when they issue instructions what to do when you get into difficulty in a storm they only want him to set up a direct debit...... From Transparency website - In the UK - Since 1994, Transparency International UK has worked with the UK and devolved governments, parliamentarians, civil society and the business community to play a critical role in tackling corruption at home, addressing the UK’s global corruption footprint, and helping multinational companies prevent corruption by guiding them towards robust anti-corruption and integrity measures in their operations and sustainability strategies. We are also the movement host to two major Transparency International global programmes (Defence and Security, and Global Health) in tackling corruption in those sectors on behalf of the wider Transparency International coalition.Funding - Transparency International receives funding from a range of donors, including government agencies, multilateral institutions, foundations, the private sector and individuals. Funding may be unrestricted or tied to specific projects or programmes. It is our policy to accept funding – whether monetary or in kind – from any donor, provided that does not impair our independence to pursue our mission or endanger our integrity and reputation.Transparency International consists of more than 100 chapters – locally established, independent organisations – that fight corruption in their respective countries.They are respected - ... provided 264 corruption-related legal submissions, made to hold wrongdoers accountable. They change perspectives - Our joint advocacy strengthened commitments by states parties to the UN Convention against Corruption on cleaning up business, revealing the secretive owners of companies, protecting the public’s resources, whistleblowing and gender. For the first time at the global level, this resolution recognises sexual corruption – “sextortion” – as a form of corruption, one that mostly affects women and girls.They work for the citizens not Governments - In 2023, we continued to lead the push for disclosure of financial data on COVID-19 emergency funds in 11 countries, so that citizens can know how these public funds were spent. This data is actively being used to hold governments to account and to draw lessons for the management of public funds in future crises, ensuring that corrupt actors are unable to exploit emergencies for financial gain.But of course, that is all probably bulls*** and simply they just want to raise money to keep themselves going and cannot be believed or trusted as they are a charity.
|
|
bluetornados
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 14,767
Member is Online
|
Post by bluetornados on Sept 11, 2024 11:22:36 GMT
Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak clash on winter fuel payment cuts at PMQs..by Owen Amosichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/1024/cpsprodpb/b45f/live/28bd4080-702f-11ef-b02d-c5f3b724a1ea.jpgKeir Starmer is being grilled over cuts to winter fuel payments later at Prime Minister's Questions Rishi Sunak says Starmer is "taking money away" from 10 million pensioners, starting with those on incomes of £13,000 In response, Starmer accuses Sunak and the previous government of leaving a "£22bn black hole" in public finances The government is cutting the payment - worth at least £200 - for around 10 million pensioners, although people on certain benefits will still get it
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 11:23:56 GMT
Terry, of course they are biased. They may be a non-profit organisation, but they have costs so therefore they need funds! They have a need to promote alleged areas of corruption to attract the funds. It's the fact the post was put up as a sort of, "look at this" ! As if the words presented were true and honest, when they are blatantly not as the report creators have a vested interest in making the claims worse than they probably are. Does this "charity" have access to the government information regarding the funds given out, or are they making assumptions? OK Nobby you win! No charities research and publications should be believed as they are all biased and are simply out to raise cash. I will tell my colleagues at the Samaritans at the next AGM to stop doing research and publications on the causes of suicide and tell them just to advertise instead. I will ignore the research of Cancer Research UK and tell my cousin to ignore the advice of MacMillans because they are only out for themselves and are trying to raise money off him. I shall tell my sailing friend to ignore the RNLI if ever he gets into difficulty at sea as when they issue instructions what to do when you get into difficulty in a storm they only want him to set up a direct debit...... From Transparency website - In the UK - Since 1994, Transparency International UK has worked with the UK and devolved governments, parliamentarians, civil society and the business community to play a critical role in tackling corruption at home, addressing the UK’s global corruption footprint, and helping multinational companies prevent corruption by guiding them towards robust anti-corruption and integrity measures in their operations and sustainability strategies. We are also the movement host to two major Transparency International global programmes (Defence and Security, and Global Health) in tackling corruption in those sectors on behalf of the wider Transparency International coalition.Funding - Transparency International receives funding from a range of donors, including government agencies, multilateral institutions, foundations, the private sector and individuals. Funding may be unrestricted or tied to specific projects or programmes. It is our policy to accept funding – whether monetary or in kind – from any donor, provided that does not impair our independence to pursue our mission or endanger our integrity and reputation.Transparency International consists of more than 100 chapters – locally established, independent organisations – that fight corruption in their respective countries.They are respected - ... provided 264 corruption-related legal submissions, made to hold wrongdoers accountable. They change perspectives - Our joint advocacy strengthened commitments by states parties to the UN Convention against Corruption on cleaning up business, revealing the secretive owners of companies, protecting the public’s resources, whistleblowing and gender. For the first time at the global level, this resolution recognises sexual corruption – “sextortion” – as a form of corruption, one that mostly affects women and girls.They work for the citizens not Governments - In 2023, we continued to lead the push for disclosure of financial data on COVID-19 emergency funds in 11 countries, so that citizens can know how these public funds were spent. This data is actively being used to hold governments to account and to draw lessons for the management of public funds in future crises, ensuring that corrupt actors are unable to exploit emergencies for financial gain.But of course, that is all probably bulls*** and simply they just want to raise money to keep themselves going and cannot be believed or trusted as they are a charity. Calm down Terry. I'm just pointing out that any organization/charity etc will always produvce reports that suit or fit their narrative, so therefore have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Look at this Labour Party. in 2017 they produced a report from their own analysis that stated that the Winter Fuel Allowance had reduced deaths within the OAP ranges by 4,000 people! So, if their own report shows this, why have they stopped it? Will 4,000 people die unnecessarily, or was the report 'biased'?
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,511
Member is Online
|
Post by oldie on Sept 11, 2024 11:42:06 GMT
OK Nobby you win! No charities research and publications should be believed as they are all biased and are simply out to raise cash. I will tell my colleagues at the Samaritans at the next AGM to stop doing research and publications on the causes of suicide and tell them just to advertise instead. I will ignore the research of Cancer Research UK and tell my cousin to ignore the advice of MacMillans because they are only out for themselves and are trying to raise money off him. I shall tell my sailing friend to ignore the RNLI if ever he gets into difficulty at sea as when they issue instructions what to do when you get into difficulty in a storm they only want him to set up a direct debit...... From Transparency website - In the UK - Since 1994, Transparency International UK has worked with the UK and devolved governments, parliamentarians, civil society and the business community to play a critical role in tackling corruption at home, addressing the UK’s global corruption footprint, and helping multinational companies prevent corruption by guiding them towards robust anti-corruption and integrity measures in their operations and sustainability strategies. We are also the movement host to two major Transparency International global programmes (Defence and Security, and Global Health) in tackling corruption in those sectors on behalf of the wider Transparency International coalition.Funding - Transparency International receives funding from a range of donors, including government agencies, multilateral institutions, foundations, the private sector and individuals. Funding may be unrestricted or tied to specific projects or programmes. It is our policy to accept funding – whether monetary or in kind – from any donor, provided that does not impair our independence to pursue our mission or endanger our integrity and reputation.Transparency International consists of more than 100 chapters – locally established, independent organisations – that fight corruption in their respective countries.They are respected - ... provided 264 corruption-related legal submissions, made to hold wrongdoers accountable. They change perspectives - Our joint advocacy strengthened commitments by states parties to the UN Convention against Corruption on cleaning up business, revealing the secretive owners of companies, protecting the public’s resources, whistleblowing and gender. For the first time at the global level, this resolution recognises sexual corruption – “sextortion” – as a form of corruption, one that mostly affects women and girls.They work for the citizens not Governments - In 2023, we continued to lead the push for disclosure of financial data on COVID-19 emergency funds in 11 countries, so that citizens can know how these public funds were spent. This data is actively being used to hold governments to account and to draw lessons for the management of public funds in future crises, ensuring that corrupt actors are unable to exploit emergencies for financial gain.But of course, that is all probably bulls*** and simply they just want to raise money to keep themselves going and cannot be believed or trusted as they are a charity. Calm down Terry. I'm just pointing out that any organization/charity etc will always produvce reports that suit or fit their narrative, so therefore have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Look at this Labour Party. in 2017 they produced a report from their own analysis that stated that the Winter Fuel Allowance had reduced deaths within the OAP ranges by 4,000 people! So, if their own report shows this, why have they stopped it? Will 4,000 people die unnecessarily, or was the report 'biased'? People who need it will get it.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 12:10:03 GMT
Calm down Terry. I'm just pointing out that any organization/charity etc will always produvce reports that suit or fit their narrative, so therefore have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Look at this Labour Party. in 2017 they produced a report from their own analysis that stated that the Winter Fuel Allowance had reduced deaths within the OAP ranges by 4,000 people! So, if their own report shows this, why have they stopped it? Will 4,000 people die unnecessarily, or was the report 'biased'? People who need it will get it. No they won't. There are many many people who are just over the threshold who need it. I can't believe you support this disgusting decision by this government.
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 11, 2024 12:22:40 GMT
Update on Tata Steel. "An annual payment of £27,000 will be given to thousands of workers being made redundant at Britain's biggest steelworks under the government intervention to reduce the fallout from closure. As many as 2,800 jobs are to be lost despite the previous government issuing £500m of funding. In return, the company would invest £750m." news.sky.com/story/rachel-reeves-defends-500m-subsidy-for-steel-job-losses-13212770
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 12:45:35 GMT
Update on Tata Steel. "An annual payment of £27,000 will be given to thousands of workers being made redundant at Britain's biggest steelworks under the government intervention to reduce the fallout from closure. As many as 2,800 jobs are to be lost despite the previous government issuing £500m of funding. In return, the company would invest £750m." news.sky.com/story/rachel-reeves-defends-500m-subsidy-for-steel-job-losses-13212770It is costing Tata 1.2 billion to convert to the electric arc plant. The government are providing 500 million towards that cost. The conversion is necessary to meet UK emission standards, hence the government helping to pay. So, the British Government are contributing to the loss of jobs in the reckless race towards Net Zero. In the meantime, China and India are laughing as they will still use cheap coal-powered stations to supply the energy needed to manufacture their steel, which they will then import into the UK. The overall result means fewer British jobs and no decrease whatsoever in emissions.
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 11, 2024 12:57:53 GMT
Update on Tata Steel. "An annual payment of £27,000 will be given to thousands of workers being made redundant at Britain's biggest steelworks under the government intervention to reduce the fallout from closure. As many as 2,800 jobs are to be lost despite the previous government issuing £500m of funding. In return, the company would invest £750m." news.sky.com/story/rachel-reeves-defends-500m-subsidy-for-steel-job-losses-13212770It is costing Tata 1.2 billion to convert to the electric arc plant. The government are providing 500 million towards that cost. The conversion is necessary to meet UK emission standards, hence the government helping to pay. So, the British Government are contributing to the loss of jobs in the reckless race towards Net Zero. In the meantime, China and India are laughing as they will still use cheap coal-powered stations to supply the energy needed to manufacture their steel, which they will then import into the UK. The overall result means fewer British jobs and no decrease whatsoever in emissions. We'll have to agree to disagree on the benefits or not of net zero. What I do find interesting is that the government is helping here but as I understand it, refusing to help H&W in Belfast.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,511
Member is Online
|
Post by oldie on Sept 11, 2024 13:12:54 GMT
People who need it will get it. No they won't. There are many many people who are just over the threshold who need it. I can't believe you support this disgusting decision by this government. How do you know they will need it? You don't. I am hoping this signals the end of universal state benefits with zero means testing. We cannot afford it and it distorts the economy. Time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 14:09:25 GMT
It is costing Tata 1.2 billion to convert to the electric arc plant. The government are providing 500 million towards that cost. The conversion is necessary to meet UK emission standards, hence the government helping to pay. So, the British Government are contributing to the loss of jobs in the reckless race towards Net Zero. In the meantime, China and India are laughing as they will still use cheap coal-powered stations to supply the energy needed to manufacture their steel, which they will then import into the UK. The overall result means fewer British jobs and no decrease whatsoever in emissions. We'll have to agree to disagree on the benefits or not of net zero. What I do find interesting is that the government is helping here but as I understand it, refusing to help H&W in Belfast. I don't know what the issues are with H&W, but the issues at Port Talbot are all about Net Zero.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 14:16:27 GMT
No they won't. There are many many people who are just over the threshold who need it. I can't believe you support this disgusting decision by this government. How do you know they will need it? You don't. I am hoping this signals the end of universal state benefits with zero means testing. We cannot afford it and it distorts the economy. Time to move on. How do you know they don't need it? You don't. If you are wrong though, people could die. The Winter Fuel Allowance has been in place for something like 22 years. Sprnding 1.5 billion 'distorts the economy', yet you are happy that the government has just committed approx. 11 billion in public sector pay rises and given Ed Milliband 11,2 billion to give to African countries for their Net Zero projects?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 11, 2024 14:46:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 11, 2024 14:51:49 GMT
We'll have to agree to disagree on the benefits or not of net zero. What I do find interesting is that the government is helping here but as I understand it, refusing to help H&W in Belfast. I don't know what the issues are with H&W, but the issues at Port Talbot are all about Net Zero. It wanted a £200m loan guarantee, which was deemed by this and the previous government as too risky. It's part of a consortium to build new navy support ships so arguably a strategic asset worthy of support.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,511
Member is Online
|
Post by oldie on Sept 11, 2024 18:41:21 GMT
How do you know they will need it? You don't. I am hoping this signals the end of universal state benefits with zero means testing. We cannot afford it and it distorts the economy. Time to move on. How do you know they don't need it? You don't. If you are wrong though, people could die. The Winter Fuel Allowance has been in place for something like 22 years. Sprnding 1.5 billion 'distorts the economy', yet you are happy that the government has just committed approx. 11 billion in public sector pay rises and given Ed Milliband 11,2 billion to give to African countries for their Net Zero projects? They don't. The growth in pension pay is greater than the £300 pa fuel allowance
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 606
|
Post by aghast on Sept 11, 2024 18:58:04 GMT
I think there is a lot of faux outrage about the winter fuel allowance. A lot. If a party other than Labour had proposed it as part of their spending plans, and the need to cut back on universal benefits, we wouldn't have heard a peep from the usual suspects.
I would say it doesn't play well in the country and with Labour's core support, and I'm surprised they did it so quickly. But it's done, and the principle of scrapping an expensive and unnecessary handout to people who don't need it is correct. Those who need it most will still get it.
Talk of people dying because of it is sensationalist and a bit disgraceful.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,511
Member is Online
|
Post by oldie on Sept 11, 2024 19:05:33 GMT
I think there is a lot of faux outrage about the winter fuel allowance. A lot. If a party other than Labour had proposed it as part of their spending plans, and the need to cut back on universal benefits, we wouldn't have heard a peep from the usual suspects. I would say it doesn't play well in the country and with Labour's core support, and I'm surprised they did it so quickly. But it's done, and the principle of scrapping an expensive and unnecessary handout to people who don't need it is correct. Those who need it most will still get it. Talk of people dying because of it is sensationalist and a bit disgraceful. Very precisely.
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 2,275
|
Post by trymer on Sept 11, 2024 19:08:03 GMT
Just imagine if the tories would have done this...the screeching and screaming from the usual suspects on here would have been deafening...but no, its a good idea now because labour have done it, such double standards some people have. Watch the media feeding fest when pensioners die this winter,my MP voted to do away with the payments I cant wait to see him and tell him what a scumbag I think he is.......probably be just before the next election when he shows his face again.
|
|