Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

Thanks

Well the state pension is an absolute pittance so perhaps the goal of not punishing people who very much depend on it is worth the cost of letting well-off old Tory-voting fascists get theirs tax free as well. Doesn't mean private pension can't be taxed still, although sure wish mine wouldn't be.

[Sheilbh]

Thanks

Well the state pension is an absolute pittance so perhaps the goal of not punishing people who very much depend on it is worth the cost of letting well-off old Tory-voting fascists get theirs tax free as well. Doesn't mean private pension can't be taxed still, although sure wish mine wouldn't be.

Yeah that's why I'm broadly supportive of the triple lock even if lots of the generation war types dislike it (and I sympathise with a lot of their other points). Of course the other side is that over 80% of pensioners own their homes outright so have basically no housing costs beyond council tax (and there are benefits on that which may apply for some pensioners) - especially with other benefits like the winter heating allowance, no TV licence etc.

But it is, by some distance, probably the most expensive policy in government.

There has been a very real fall in pensioner poverty which is very positive:

[Tamas]

There has been a very real fall in pensioner poverty which is very positive:

With all the 2004+ first generation immigrants (hello!) and Generation Rent starting to retire in a decade or two, I recon that's bound to reverse.

[Gups]

Thanks

Well the state pension is an absolute pittance so perhaps the goal of not punishing people who very much depend on it is worth the cost of letting well-off old Tory-voting fascists get theirs tax free as well. Doesn't mean private pension can't be taxed still, although sure wish mine wouldn't be.

Yeah that's why I'm broadly supportive of the triple lock even if lots of the generation war types dislike it (and I sympathise with a lot of their other points). Of course the other side is that over 80% of pensioners own their homes outright so have basically no housing costs beyond council tax (and there are benefits on that which may apply for some pensioners) - especially with other benefits like the winter heating allowance, no TV licence etc.

But it is, by some distance, probably the most expensive policy in government.

There has been a very real fall in pensioner poverty which is very positive:

The reduction in pensioner pverty took place before the introduction of the triple lock (2010). If anything it's gone up since then.

[Josquius]

It is a bit of a problem in the country today that there's a lot of hate for pensioners, everyone looking to the rich grey-Tories with their lovely house bought for £5000, living it up.... Poor pensioners are really forgotten.
But yes. It was largely New Labour where that poverty was slashed.

I am tempted to say we need to levy more taxes on poverty...but then that's not a completely harmless thing to do. For every pensioner living it up there's one struggling to get by who just happens to have a nice house they bought in their 20s and where they've lived their whole lives. As logical as it is the shift the pensioners out of these houses to free them up for those who actually need them, forcing people out of their home does not sit well at all.
Cracking down on buy to let/massive taxes on subsequent homes owned is one that seems fairly harmless.

[Sheilbh]

There has been a very real fall in pensioner poverty which is very positive:

With all the 2004+ first generation immigrants (hello!) and Generation Rent starting to retire in a decade or two, I recon that's bound to reverse.

Maybe - but they're all of the generation that have been required to have pension pots (which is why the OECD rates the UK as one of the most sustainable pension systems in Europe). Plus for generation rent there is going to be a big have and have not divide from inheritances from those 80% of pensioners who are outright homeowners (and their kids). I think for all the inequality now it will be nothing compared to the situation in the next twenty years or so when boomers (not just in the UK, but also all the other mad housing market countries) die and their wealth is transferred.

Not something I worry about as my parents have always told me they fully intend to spend every penny enjoying retirement (As they should).

Separately again on just how brutal Starmer's purge of the left has been. First of all in just selecting about 100 Starmer loyalists for safe seats that hadn't chosen a candidate and now re-admitting Diane Abbott into the Labour Party in order to block her from being a Labour candidate:

Diane Abbott to be banned from standing for Labour
Britain's first black female MP faces end of her 37-year career in parliament
Patrick Maguire, Steven Swinford
Tuesday May 28 2024, 8.20pm, The Times


Diane Abbott was being investigated after sending a letter to a newspaper in which she likened the discrimination suffered by Jewish people, the Irish and Travellers to the bullying of redheads
WIKTOR SZYMANOWICZ/ANADOLU AGENCY VIA GETTY IMAGES

Diane Abbott will not be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate in the forthcoming general election, in a move that is likely to end her 37-year career in parliament.

The MP for Hackney North & Stoke Newington — the first black woman elected to parliament — had been suspended from the party since April last year and the Labour leadership has concluded that there are no circumstances in which she will stand under its banner on July 4.

She had the Labour whip restored on Tuesday afternoon, Labour sources confirmed. However, they are adamant that she will not be endorsed as a candidate by Labour's national executive committee. It is believed that the move is a precursor to allowing her to leave politics "with dignity".

Last week Sir Keir Starmer promised a resolution to the case before June 4, his party's deadline for candidate selection, which falls three days before the legal close of nominations.

On Tuesday morning the BBC reported that the party's internal investigation into a letter by Abbott to The Observer, in which she likened the discrimination suffered by Jewish people, the Irish and Travellers to the bullying of redheads, had concluded six months ago, without any update on her status as an election candidate.

Abbott, 70, is said to have been issued with a formal warning by the party and was told to complete an "antisemitism awareness course". She did so in February, having apologised publicly and withdrawn her remarks.

Sources close to the left-wing MP told the BBC that Labour leadership was deliberately "dragging out the process in order to block her from being a candidate at the election". It is understood that the decision to exclude her is final and will not change even in the event she issues a further apology.

Once confirmed, the ban on Abbott standing for Labour for a tenth term in the Commons will inevitably be met with outrage from the Labour left, as well as MPs and trade unions uncomfortable with her prolonged exile from Starmer's parliamentary party.

Momentum, the Corbynite campaign group, described the revelation that the internal investigation had already concluded was "outrageous". A spokesman said the delay in resolving her status as a candidate "confirms that the Starmer leadership is trying to force Britain's first black woman MP out of parliament".

Starmer and his shadow cabinet ministers have repeatedly insisted that the disciplinary process to which Abbott was subjected was independent, and have been careful to praise her as a historic "trailblazer" while condemning her comments on racism.

Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, told the Politico website on Tuesday that Abbott "has a proud history of standing up for her local community and being a strong representative for the Labour Party", but added that the decision on whether she could stand was for the party's ruling national executive committee.

Her exclusion will allow the Labour leadership to impose a new candidate in Hackney North, where Abbott won a majority of more than 33,000 votes in 2019. Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader who sits for the adjacent seat of Islington North, was expelled from the party last week after declaring his intention to stand as an independent candidate in protest at his ban on seeking the party's nomination.

While Labour insiders are anxious to play down any perceived parallels between the two cases, the party's decision to block Abbott's candidacy means that neither the leader nor shadow home secretary who fought the 2019 general election will appear on the ballot in 2024.

Doesn't sit well with me - I have issues with Abbott but I fundamentally quite like her.

As with the lies/broken promises from Starmer's leadership campaign, I think there is another side to the effectiveness of changing the party which is pretty brutal and ruthless like this. Could be wrong but I imagine if he wins those criticisms will become a lot more prominent whenever the honeymoon ends.

Edit: And as I say restoring the whip to force her to resign is brutal - quite nasty politics.

[Josquius]

I'm really not a fan of Abbot at all but yes, that's really shitty. Same sort of stuff as the driscoll business.
Theres selecting your people where there's a free space then there's unseating established people in favour of yours.

[garbon]

It is not a good look.

[Sheilbh]

It is not a good look.

I think it just comes across as vindictive.

And in today's announcement from the Tories: "scrap rip-off degrees" to fund apprenticeships instead.

National Service. Tax free pensions. Scrap degrees for apprenticeships. It's all defensive and all aimed at shoring up the core elderly Tory vote. There's literally no attempt to win over anyone else so far.

Not sure when the parties are launching their manifestos but we can probably guess what they'll be like. Also striking are Labour being very cautious on spending and tax pledges while the Tories are just throwing them around - like you can guess which party expects to be in power and actually have to deliver on their promises.

Edit: Meanwhile, in the Lib Dems

Edit: Also Sunak today campaigning in Bosworth - Labour target 380, where the Tories currently have a majority of 26,000

[Jacob]

What does "target 380" mean?  That if Labour ranks Tory ridings in terms of where they should focus their effort, Bosworth is number 380 from the top?

[Sheilbh]

What does "target 380" mean?  That if Labour ranks Tory ridings in terms of where they should focus their effort, Bosworth is number 380 from the top?

Basically - not just Labour v Tory but assuming there's a uniform swing across the country Bosworth is number 380 from the top of Labour's list of target seats
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

Edit: And sorry typo - should have said target seat.

[Josquius]

Starmer saying its not true Abbot has been barred from running.

U turn? Abbot just shit stirring? Misunderstanding?

[HVC]

Wonder how badly labour can mess up their majority term

Haven't even gotten a chance at a majority and already messing up

[Sheilbh]

It is not a good look.

On this, don't know how true as I'm always a little dubious of Peston - but this is even worse:

Robert Peston
@Peston
Diane Abbott received a private letter from the Labour Chief Whip yesterday telling her that she was back in the parliamentary party, as @AnushkaAsthana revealed.  Abbott believed that would be the precursor to her own announcement that she would be retiring, to be accompanied by a flurry of tributes for her service from Starmer and others.  That elegant departure had been under negotiation for weeks I am told - which is why she felt badly let down when the Times was briefed that she had been banned from running in this election. All she wanted, I understand, was the dignity of being able to say she was choosing to stand down.  This looks like a mess that could have been avoided

I think it's also as with the ruthless side of Starmer maybe a little straw in the wind/thing to watch if he becomes PM. It sounds like a face-saving deal had been set up for Abbott who's been an MP for 37 years whatever you think of her that would allow her to leave amid lots of tributes to Britain's first black female MP - and someone or other within Starmer's team briefed the Times to undermine that. Either the message of the "changed Labour Party" was seen as more important or, possibly, a factional Labour right figure really wanted to rub the Labour left's face in it. And this undermines the Labour whip - why would any MP trust a deal made with the leadership if they know it might get briefed like this in the press?

It reminds me a little bit of the way so many of Starmer's key promises from the leadership campaign have gone, or that Labour policy announcements got reversed where there's been lots of briefings from "senior Labour figures" or "senior" people in Starmer's team that x policy needs to go. I slightly wonder the extent to which there are people around Starmer basically trying to bounce him into positions through briefings or the extent to which there are some on the Labour right close to him who are basically using their position and briefings to push their own agenda. Either way, not a good look.

I'd add seen a few left-wing people from minorities draw attention to the sometimes lack of respect from within Labour to women and minority MPs especially when compared with the Tories. Labour have far more women and minority MPs but are far worse at promoting them to powerful leadership positions. Labour seats tend to be reluctant to nominate minority candidates (many have spoken of "imputed bias" as a big obstacle: "we'd fully support a black/Asian candidate, unfortunately everyone else in this constituency is a massive racist"). And there are signs of minority communities swinging more Tory - particularly British Indians but early signs in the Bengalis and African community too. I think Labour need to seriously think about proving why they're the best party to support women and minorities, but also that they are a party through which women and minorities can actually rise and achieve power (and get respect internally).

Starmer saying its not true Abbot has been barred from running.

U turn? Abbot just shit stirring? Misunderstanding?

Possibly a u-turn given the reaction with plausibly deniable press briefing going down badly - or a faction around the leadership pushing their own agenda. But also "no decision has been taken" is not the same as "no decision will be taken, as briefed to the Times".

[garbon]

I wonder how long Starmer will last once in power.