UK Politics General Discussion

[jon81uk]

Yes in a savings pot called a pension which you put money into every day you work. Your savings are separate to this. And those with large valuable houses may choose to downsize later in life and invest the money for their kids/grandkids.

But there is no point having money sat in a savings account while claiming you don't have enough money to eat and heat your home.

 

[rob666]

I thought there were cracks in pension credit eligibility, like not being eligible if you’re married or similar, that means that some people don’t qualify for pension credit at all regardless of means?

Sorry Matt, only just caught up with this.
Yes, if you are married to a very rich person, you get your pension, but no pension credit.
You aren't in any way poor, you have a loaded partner!
Pension credit is for those without major capital, income or savings, but still don't have enough money to live.
A safety net if you like.
If you have large amounts of savings, you are expected to spend those to subsidise your pension...if you have more than 10k in savings, you will not get as much.

 

[GaryH]

But there is no point having money sat in a savings account while claiming you don't have enough money to eat and heat your home.

Ahh yes so there we go. Use your savings to spend on your overpriced energy to survive in the winter. Like I said to Matt, when you get old, work hard and put a little away in savings so your kids and grandkids can have a good education and a home when you die isn’t allowed under Labour. Or let’s say they use their savings to pay for their energy each year then need to go into a nursing home and have to sell their house too. They are potentially left with nothing. When you are a pensioner in this situation please do come back to this forum and tell us how you fell about it.

 

[Matt.GC]

Ahh right, so you’re saying they should use up their savings, or sell their valuable assets to pay for the heating bills. And it matters because the amount a pensioner has in savings affects how eligible they are for pension credits and thus heating allowance.


Matt, no disrespect to you, but you do seem to view things with a very black or white attitude.l and with little compassion. There are so many variables involved in all these situations and I think perhaps when you reach the age where you do start thinking of retiring, or leaving money to grandchildren or your own children, including the nice house you have rather than give it to the government, then you will only then I think start to appreciate the situation many now find themselves in.

Yes. Yes I do absolutely think that people with money in the bank should pay their own bills. Don't you?

What compassion am I missing? Giving people who don't need it a £300 bung every winter, no questions asked, whilst a third of children are living in relative poverty and national debt as a percentage of GDP is 92% is morally wrong. Would you not agree?

No disrespect to you either, but it appears to me that you've contradicted yourself. A few posts ago you were saying that you've been referring to the Pension Credit benchmark for Winter Fuel Payments all along. Then immediately afterwards you've branched off into talking about savings, assets, and "they've worked all their lives". This seems to imply to me that you think that a heavily indebted government presiding over full prisons, full hospitals, and rising poverty, should be giving out free cash as some sort of retirement reward with little regard for the wealth of the recipient?

As for when I retire in 26 years time (predicted), I can only hope that I am still in a fortunate position, and I'm planning for that. Me and my partner have already discussed the possibility of downsizing should we need the money for social care or if our pensions aren't big enough. We will also forfeit part of our inheritance from our parents when they pass (1 already died last year) to help our children buy homes by passing it straight to them. We both expect our full state pension (the age of which we'll be allowed to take it out from will rise by then), but if we are very fortunate by retirement age and don't need it should the government means test it, I will understand, and will even vote for it.

Basically, I'll carry on managing my finances like I have all my life so far. I'll pay my taxes, I'll "work all my life", I'll continue to contribute to my pension scheme whilst I can, and I hope that, should I fall on hard times, there will be a safety net there to look after me. I won't expect winter fuel voting bribes to keep me in a big house or keep my savings intact. In fact, I'd prefer that they put the retirement age up, means test my state pension, and tax me more whilst I'm working so that the Pension Credit threshold can be raised and a National Care Service be setup. That would benefit me, and many others, far more than stuffing my bank account with cash.

 

[jon81uk]

Ahh yes so there we go. Use your savings to spend on your overpriced energy to survive in the winter. Like I said to Matt, when you get old, work hard and put a little away in savings so your kids and grandkids can have a good education and a home when you die isn’t allowed under Labour. Or let’s say they use their savings to pay for their energy each year then need to go into a nursing home and have to sell their house too. They are potentially left with nothing. When you are a pensioner in this situation please do come back to this forum and tell us how you fell about it.

I am hoping that I won't be in that situation via a workplace pension, savings and home ownsership. I expect to have enough money saved to see me through retirement.

There is nothing stopping someone giving money to their grandkids. But surely you can see that anyone, irrespective of their age shouldn't be prioritising savings or their grandkids over heating their home and their own wellbeing. Why should someone over 67 get £300 to heat their home and keep hold of their savings, while someone 27 is not able to save any cash while paying to heat their home and feed their children?

 

[Matt.GC]

Like I said to Matt, when you get old, work hard and put a little away in savings so your kids and grandkids can have a good education and a home when you die isn’t allowed under Labour.

Oh it's allowed alright. It's just that I don't think it should be subsidised by the state. I'm afraid that your mask has completely slipped there.

What if a working age person wasn't getting paid enough to pay the heating bill from their wages, but was sat on savings and living in a big house? Would you suggest they should be given Universal Credit, and £300 for the hell of it? Because I certainly wouldn't.

 

[rob666]

They are potentially left with nothing.

We come into this world alone.
We leave this world alone.
Everything else is optional...

We owe nothing to the generations before and after, and we can't expect to be carried by the state so we can advance our genes.

 

[GaryH]

Sorry but totally disagree. When you have kids you want them to have as good a start in life as possible. You don’t want them to struggle getting a home, or having a good education especially with the costs of everything now. You want to leave your lie feeling that your children have a good future ahead of them.

So no, I don’t agree that someone should have to use their savings to pay for heating their home. Like I said, if they use their savings then need care they then need to sell their home to pay for it and then they are left with nothing.

However, if they were to substantially raise the savings threshold from £10k to say £50k then I may agree with the cut in fuel payments as because the interest they get from the savings should cover heating costs without affecting their investment and can still leave the money to their kids. Like I said, hit the energy companies which are charging us higher than the rest of Europe to fund allowing the elderly to heat their homes.

£10k these days is nothing to leave your family when you die. £20k in 10 years is going to be very little too. Not even a deposit for a home anymore.

We owe nothing to the generations before and after, and we can't expect to be carried by the state so we can advance our genes.

So why are we bothering trying to tackle climate change if we owe nothing to future generations? Couldn’t disagree more with this statement.

Anyway, I’m also going to duck out of this conversation especially regarding pensioners for reasons cited by others further before this page. No disrespect to anyone here but I find the lack of compassion shown by some really quite disturbing. I’m sure if we were to come back to this forum when we are retired and old those opinions will have greatly changed.

 

[rob666]

So why are we bothering trying to tackle climate change if we owe nothing to future generations? Couldn’t disagree more with this statement.

Meant to be personal not international...


I'm only a few years from retirement, and got my attitude from my long retired mum.
She spent the winter fuel allowance on Cointreau, poured it in large quantities over ice cream to keep her warm in the afternoons.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

If I lost my job tomorrow, they'd laugh me out of the Job Centre if I put a Universal Credit claim in. And rightly so, because I'm not poor.

If your house is your only property, it is not considered as part of your wealth for Universal Credit. In fact, as long as you meet the unemployment and savings criteria (less than £16,000), they will most likely help pay your mortgage for you.

Your spouse's income would be taken into account though, and you would have to open a joint claim.

Universal Credit is tapered, rather than cliff edged.

 

[Matt.GC]

Anyway, I’m also going to duck out of this conversation especially regarding pensioners for reasons cited by others further before this page. No disrespect to anyone here but I find the lack of compassion shown by some really quite disturbing.

Touche. I find the idea that taypaxers should fund people's savings or help Jeremy Clarkson avoid his taxes lacks huge degrees of compassion. That really is quite disturbing.

 

[rob666]

Just under a million pensioners are not claiming their full entitlement to benefits.

They are the ones most likely to suffer fuel poverty.

Forty percent of "borderline" pensioners have not checked their eligibility for pension credit.

So it is as much a lack of education, awareness, and willingness to claim benefits...as a lack of government support.

 

[Benzin]

Given that most education in this country is free (student loans notwithstanding) all the way to university, why would any grandparent need to save up to get their grandchildren a "good" education?

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Given that most education in this country is free (student loans notwithstanding) all the way to university, why would any grandparent need to save up to get their grandchildren a "good" education?

To fund a house purchase in a "decent" catchment area, or additional private tutorage, music and arts lessons, etc.

There are plenty of ways that the ideologically driven of us on the left can game the system too.

 

[rob666]

Serves you right for gosling.

 

[Matt N]

It’s been an… interesting week in UK politics!

One key development is that yesterday, the Assisted Dying Bill was voted through by 330 votes to 275. This means that assisted dying is now one step closer to being legalised in the UK under specific circumstances.

Another key development, though, is that the fastest-growing petition in UK history (I think?) has now emerged, requesting a fresh general election under the pretence that Starmer “lied to the country” and “broke his promises”. Around 3 million people have signed it, and it’s been promoted by individuals including Elon Musk and Michael Caine.

I have to say, I’m now starting to wonder if the next 5 years will be as stable as I’d hoped they would be. The Starmer ministry seems very unpopular with the wider public, possibly more so than any other government I’ve known (and that’s saying something given the last one), and it does seem like people are not at all happy with the way Labour are going about things, on the whole. I fear we could be in for a choppy 5 years leading to the next general election.

I personally broadly support many of the decisions made by the current Labour government, but with the way public opinion is currently tipping, I would not be stunned to see Labour ousted at the next election, and I would be absolutely stunned to see them win anywhere close to the 411 seats they won in July. Even if they do improve things, I have this feeling that it won’t be enough for the electorate; the US election proves that things simply quietly improving isn’t really enough for the electorate anymore, and I feel that we may follow the US in electing a further-right government in the next election, whether that is Farage and the Reform Party, Badenoch and a reformed Conservative Party, or someone else entirely.

 

[AT86]

A week is a long time in politics.

The next election is 4 and half years away. It’s an eternity. Way to early to know what might happen.

Getting the ‘bad news’ out the way once a new government comes into power so it’s all forgotten by the time the next election rolls around is pretty standard.

 

[rob666]

Matt...three million tories have had the strength to tick an online box.
Not surprised in the slightest.
The right wing press make a meal of it.
Two surprises in a line.
Nice to see you are waking up to politics a bit.

For me the assisted dying is the important one.
As the resident old git, who is well aware of "quality of life" units, I want access to that nice legal pill at the end.
My choice, nobody elses.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

It’s been an… interesting week in UK politics!

One key development is that yesterday, the Assisted Dying Bill was voted through by 330 votes to 275. This means that assisted dying is now one step closer to being legalised in the UK under specific circumstances.

Another key development, though, is that the fastest-growing petition in UK history (I think?) has now emerged, requesting a fresh general election under the pretence that Starmer “lied to the country” and “broke his promises”. Around 3 million people have signed it, and it’s been promoted by individuals including Elon Musk and Michael Caine.

I have to say, I’m now starting to wonder if the next 5 years will be as stable as I’d hoped they would be. The Starmer ministry seems very unpopular with the wider public, possibly more so than any other government I’ve known (and that’s saying something given the last one), and it does seem like people are not at all happy with the way Labour are going about things, on the whole. I fear we could be in for a choppy 5 years leading to the next general election.

I personally broadly support many of the decisions made by the current Labour government, but with the way public opinion is currently tipping, I would not be stunned to see Labour ousted at the next election, and I would be absolutely stunned to see them win anywhere close to the 411 seats they won in July. Even if they do improve things, I have this feeling that it won’t be enough for the electorate; the US election proves that things simply quietly improving isn’t really enough for the electorate anymore, and I feel that we may follow the US in electing a further-right government in the next election, whether that is Farage and the Reform Party, Badenoch and a reformed Conservative Party, or someone else entirely.

The fastest-growing online Parliamentary petition in UK history, is the one which called for the government to Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.

Archived Petition: Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.

The government repeatedly claims exiting the EU is 'the will of the people'. We need to put a stop to this claim by proving the strength of public support now, for remaining in the EU. A People's Vote may not happen - so vote now.

petition.parliament.uk

Many, if not all, of the current backers of the petition calling for another general election were happy to dismiss the online petition system then. They said that the decision had been made, it was the will of the people, yadayadayada... Very much a pot, kettle, black situation. Never mind the fact that in all of our democratic decisions the winner never has a national majority. The winner of a referendum is simply the side which gets the most votes, but doesn't take into account the people who didn't vote in the first place. The same measure which says that Labour must stand down because most of the country didn't vote for them, means that we shouldn't have left the EU because most of the people didn't vote to leave.

Additionally, the Parliamentary petitions service isn't actually very good at authenticating signers. All you have to do is provide a UK postcode and declare that you're a British citizen, which is easy enough for anyone to do as it's literally a check box. Elon Musk has been pushing this on his online playground.

Importantly though, the reason why we have constitutional limits on parliamentary terms is so that the government actually has a chance to govern, and doesn't have to react to populist movements. There will be another election, in four and a half years time. There is a system which allows people to change their minds, the same couldn't be said of the Brexit referendum. We're never allowed to discuss that again, the decision has been made, it's over.

 

[Dave]

Reform UK got over four million votes in the last election, conservatives nearly nine million.

So only 23% of the people who voted for a right wing party in an election less than 6 months ago have signed an online petition. It’s really a non story. Add to that the people who have signed the petition faking post codes from other countries because space Karen has fired them up….

Polling is a better predictor but seen as Labours strategy seems to be to do all the unpopular things in one go this year even that won’t indicate the outcome of an election that’s 4+ years away.

Labour do need to sort out their messaging and PR though as it has been crap so far.

The government has a big majority and therefore is stable, also remember Thatcher was polling terribly in her first year or so in power yet went on the win re-election twice.