Winter Fuel Vote

https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/1840#notrecorded

May have to email my MP and asked her why she voted. She's no different to the Tory that got voted out for not having a back bone.

 

You're actually highlighting how poorly paid some work is and how it just isn't worth it for some people. You also have disability issues and medical issues post covid. You've also childcare issues to factor in.

It's easy to label people workshy. It's much harder to find solutions that help a broad range of people in their real lives.

Of course there are real life scroungers who plunder the public purse.... Think Windsor is their surname. Popping out sprogs galore, begging for 40% payrises at a time they are making record monies from 'owning' sea beds and letting windfarms be built. Evading inheritance tax, companies as charities to evade more tax. Imagine the millions that have been lost to the taxpayers purse.

There's a lot wrong with our world, I really wouldn't focus ire firstly at people desperately scraping by.

 

I agree that no overt racist should be allowed to stand for election but the right to a fair vote (even for a racist voter) is fundamental. If there are rightly no racist candidates then the racist voter won't be able to vote for one. It's up to the moderate politicians to govern fairly, making ordinary peoples' lives better, so that the electorate don't get pulled to the extremes.

Our current voting system was designed for the 18th century when the only voters were wealthy male land-owners, it's not fit for a modern country.

 

It's going to go around in circles because its a subject that throws up all sorts of opinions. I dont focus solely on this demographic - in private I moan about everything

I'll not get started on the royal family etc!

What I will say is that when you say it isn't worth it for some people, that highlights the benefits problem/trap that some people get into - they have something to compare it with, which in my eyes you shouldn't . You should always be better off working than on benefit - both financially and mental health wise

 

I agree on the latter part... Which shows the issue of poor wages. The benefits are there to catch people. If work paid better at the lower amount, if proper living wage was paid, if the gig economy wasn't so exploitative, benefits would be needed much less and the cliff edge would be less of an issue.

 

And as more old people vote Tory than not, Starmer can thus purge the ballot box as the Tories tried with voter ID.
Yes, I am that cynical.

 

I dare say its been like this for years - I think these issues are magnified when the chips are down.

One of the problems that Labour have caused is that everything since they got in power has been downbeat - there has been nothing chipper at all. It's supposed to be a fresh start and all they've promised so far is more tax and more crap - its like the reds getting a new manager and them saying its going to be the same as the manager before - abit of something positive wouldnt go amiss!!

 

The analogy would work if a new reds manager came in with no money to spend, having to sell half your squad, your stands unsafe, your employees on strike and you couldn't seed the turf.

 

I didn’t say you did,I was asking a question.

 

Let’s be controversial. I consider myself a socialist. I certainly take no offence to being labelled a lefty (this seems to be bandied about as an insult these days!) - but I don’t think having a universal, non-means tested fuel benefit for the elderly was right; especially given the financial restraints the country is under.

So I have to say I support the scheme in its current form being scrapped.

However, whether or not where he’s drawn the line in the sand is correct is a point of debate for sure.

One thing I do know is that every single oap I personally know (which is my grandmother, her brother and sister, friends’ parents and my neighbours who we are friendly with) are all more cash rich than me and the Mrs, who both work full time but are paying a mortgage and raising three kids. We could do with a few hundred quid more than any of them - and we get nothing.

But I don’t NEED more - I can cope. So wouldn’t want it. Why do most of the pensioners? Do they NEED it?

I’d suggest the majority of those that now don’t qualify for heating allowance don’t need it either. My nanna used to spend it on Christmas presents or just forgot it had been paid in.

That’s not to say there won’t be some who suffer from the policy. I get it. Some will struggle hugely, some might qualify for pension credit and not know, all sorts of issues.

But let’s say he reduced/adapted universal credit for those of working age, or reclassified disability in some cases to make people fit for work - both policies of the previous government by the way - would they not affect some innocent vulnerable people too? Would that not make some people unfairly out of pocket and unable to heat their homes?

What’s the better answer?

The economy is in a complete mess. This policy was never going to be popular whatsoever. Don’t for a second think it would be being done if it wasn’t seen to be necessary. All the things like chasing tax avoiders especially amongst higher earners etc will be done too. But that takes time and isn’t enough. They don’t have the money to pay out hundreds universally to pensioners, especially with an ever aging population.

Judge them after five years - or at least after a reasonable time - after they’ve adopted multiple policies to reshape the economy and the country. Don’t judge them on one policy after barely two minutes.

 

Says the wealth is not shared fairly and then votes to continue paying £300 p.a. to millionaires? What a genius!

 

Yet the slackers in high society families living off increasingly sizeable generational wealth are 'hardworking individuals' who should be defended when their lolligagging lifestyles come under the threat of greater tax.

 

To be fair I doubt there’s too many millionaire pensioners in Hemsworth fev and normy - but it is pretty short sighted and let’s face it he’s done it to make a name for himself not for his constituents. He knew it’d make the square root of **** all difference - it’s just a stance taken to raise his profile imo.

I do think there could have been more thought to who would still get the benefit - but you can’t justify giving hundreds out universally to people based solely on their age when a very decent proportion of them have more cash and assets than the majority of working families.

 

And the policy of giving it twice to two rich pensioners living in the same house was always just idiotic but nobody has had the balls to say it

 

This is really poor on Jon Trickett. A quick read into his background & him being a lifelong socialist would tell you he isn’t doing this to raise his profile. He’s really not that kind of person

 

As a person who as just lost this benefit I am in agreement with you.

 

The same people defending Labour on here would be out on the streets which pitchforks if this was done by the Conservatives.

Blinded by their hatred of the tories.

 

Similarly so, those hating these policies would be offering figurative fellatio if they came from the mouth of "Boris" Johnson.

Let the bodies pile high.

It's not a black and white situation.

 

Fair play. It was just an opinion and I’m happy to be proven wrong on it assuming you are right on his background - I hold my hands up and admit I didn’t do him the justice of reading what you have about him.