Here’s a pivotal passage from Keir Starmer’s speech to Labour Party Conference this afternoon, acknowledging what has been criticised as an overly gloomy and doom-laden tone but characterising it as a necessary pre-requisite to the change Britain needs:
I feel frustrated that reeves etc never seem to make the strongest arguments for the winter fuel payment cut, which is pensioners are now likely to be the richest group in the country vs the poorest when it started . Why do you think this quite obvious point is rarely articulated?
on PR but the period of 2010 - 2024 revealed that most of the austerity was imposed on poorer sections of the population. Child allowances enabled me to raise my two children during the 1970’s and also restricted my family to two children because of my financial circumstances. The austerity that restricted child benefit to two children condemned larger families to poverty. The failure to restrict WFA to pensioners on pension credit was part of the Tory policy to encourage most pensioners to vote Tory, which they do. That it wasted £1.4 billion on pensioners who do not need it, was indefensible. Government resources are limited at any time so benefits should only go to those who need them.
One thing I find interesting is that Cameron's suggestion of only take it from higher rate tax payers - as he did for child benefit is in many ways a more left wing position ('hit the rich!') whereas what they've actually done is a more right wing position ('benefits should be a safety net for the very poorest').
It's an interesting example of how a lot of the Cameroon instincts punished the middle classes - which I suspect is almost as much a reason as Brexit as to why they ended up turning against them.
I feel frustrated that reeves etc never seem to make the strongest arguments for the winter fuel payment cut, which is pensioners are now likely to be the richest group in the country vs the poorest when it started . Why do you think this quite obvious point is rarely articulated?
If you're going to be cynical about it, well, Osborne got what he wanted, was Chancellor for six years, and his party was in office for 14 years....
I accept that Cameron was very impressive
on PR but the period of 2010 - 2024 revealed that most of the austerity was imposed on poorer sections of the population. Child allowances enabled me to raise my two children during the 1970’s and also restricted my family to two children because of my financial circumstances. The austerity that restricted child benefit to two children condemned larger families to poverty. The failure to restrict WFA to pensioners on pension credit was part of the Tory policy to encourage most pensioners to vote Tory, which they do. That it wasted £1.4 billion on pensioners who do not need it, was indefensible. Government resources are limited at any time so benefits should only go to those who need them.
One thing I find interesting is that Cameron's suggestion of only take it from higher rate tax payers - as he did for child benefit is in many ways a more left wing position ('hit the rich!') whereas what they've actually done is a more right wing position ('benefits should be a safety net for the very poorest').
It's an interesting example of how a lot of the Cameroon instincts punished the middle classes - which I suspect is almost as much a reason as Brexit as to why they ended up turning against them.