| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
'how am I meant to heat this massive house without handouts?'. I jest.
This feels like an error to me, they are now left with a scramble to try and find a way to means test it without letting asset rich/income low pensioners in through the backdoor, because that will just be fuel to ridicule the government 'he lives in a castle and gets it and widow Doreen who lives in a 2 up 2 down doesn't.
The average Brit can barely count to 10 so the usual semi-literate paper propaganda will overrun any logical explanation for outcomes.
Thoughts? My feeling was always that the threshold felt low and that the comms around the objective of the policy were a mess but I can't see how they can easily means test this accurately.
Martin Lewis advocates for using council tax bands A-C as a proxy for household income when determining Winter Fuel Payment eligibility, rather than solely relying on Pension Credit. He believes this could help ensure more vulnerable pensioners receive the payment.Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
Whatever way they means test this, it will not end well.
I put a post together about 5 mins ago on this but didn't post as i wasn't happy with my own thought's, as a starter maybe his suggestion is quite reasonable, you are right there isn't an easy end to this.
Will this help Labour? Not sure it will - the damage has already been done.
Get Starmer , Reeves, Rayner , Powell, Cooper , Lammy gone , the lot of them
I don’t understand this view. Memories are extremely short in politics. There’s 4 years until the next GE.
You must be blind and have your fingers in your ears
The Labour Party has lost millions of voters and they won't be coming back unless starmer gets lynched , takes his cabinet with him and policies are changed
Even then so much damage has been done
I.think this goes a good way towards explaining why.
How bad is Kemi Badenoch by the way?
A schoolboy political error in the first place. Right sentiment but handled ineptly: hence the u turn. He can't afford many more of these.
Yes 4 years is a very long time - I don't think any of this will play much part in the next election it'll be long forgotten.
The economy grew ahead of schedule and net immigration halved in 2024.
If the economy continues to grow they'll probably get back in relatively easily at the next election.
The Reform voting base is very volatile and quixotic. Your right, there's plenty of time for Labour to turn things around but they can't afford any more missteps and they need to show they stand for the common man. In the greater scheme of things the Tories have a much bigger problem; they're haemorrhaging voters right, left and centre ( literally)
You are having a laugh ��
At the very best labour might win the most seats and possibly form a coalition
But I don't even see that if Starmer and his cabinet stay , they are toxic and hopeless
I think it is a bit daft to make predictions on an election four years ago at this stage. Any analysis of pretty much any election shows that polls years ahead of elections will change.
But I do think Labour have instantly lost the goodwill they had as a new government and generally been pretty poor so far. Personally I think Starmer has actually conducted himself quite well, but this isn't a presidential system and it's about what they do on the ground. The huge majority makes internal conflicts more likely too. I think that will increase, specifically on the Labour left, and why not? If they don't agree with policies, they can rebel and the party will still win parliamentary votes, so there's limited real impact.
I don't think Reform will be going away. They are a huge threat to the two main parties and are already shaping the political discourse far more than their five MPs would suggest they will.
I am not convinced the disagreement with the policy really has that much to do with with how they handled it.. A lot of people who are opposed to the change probably think it should be universal, an opinion that I have no time for whatsoever. Time will tell.
I saw Brown's intervention around using higher rate payers as the cut off, that isn't focussed enough for me.
This should never have been about saving money and Reeves/Starmer made it all about that initially. They seem to get in a muddle on loads of issues between 'savings' and actual reform of a system that isn't fair or isn't working.
We might see how powerful HQ is eventually. Some Tories seemed to make it a pretty consistent habit to vocalise their opposition to something and then mysteriously be won over at the last minute, the logical explanation is the whips exert more and more pressure the closer a vote might be, as you say, labour have a majority that in most cases will mean they have nothing to worry about but there are a few votes where it could hit.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote