Politics in General

[Marc Meakin]

I know a lot of people don't like Owen Jones, but in one of his few non-Israel videos, I think he's done a good job of exposing Starmer's Labour over the winter fuel allowance.

Disclaimer , I haven't watched the video (I'd sooner watch Oasis) but I think means testing winter fuel allowance isn't so terrible.
I know as someone approaching pensionable age it smacks of Turkeys voting for Christmas , but Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney don't need it and those that cannot afford it surely by definition are entitled to pension credit.

Maybe I should put this in unpopular opinions thread

[Gavin Chipper]

I think it's about the exact implementation. On the face of it, it might just seem like a tax on the rich, but in practice it's not.

[Marc Meakin]

I think it's about the exact implementation. On the face of it, it might just seem like a tax on the rich, but in practice it's not.

I personally think this winter fuel payment cap (means test)
Is the tip of a very large future iceberg whereby the retirement age will shoot up towards 70 and private pensions will be compulsory and the NHS will probably go down a means test route by the next Labour government

[Callum Todd]

I know a lot of people don't like Owen Jones, but in one of his few non-Israel videos, I think he's done a good job of exposing Starmer's Labour over the winter fuel allowance.

I switched off after the first sentence. I highly doubt he can satisfactorily defend that assertion and it's just a horrible way to open a video if his goal is to actually persuade people, rather than just preach to his choir. Maybe this sort of style is why "a lot of people don't like" him.

[Elliott Mellor]

I know a lot of people don't like Owen Jones, but in one of his few non-Israel videos, I think he's done a good job of exposing Starmer's Labour over the winter fuel allowance.

I switched off after the first sentence. I highly doubt he can satisfactorily defend that assertion and it's just a horrible way to open a video if his goal is to actually persuade people, rather than just preach to his choir. Maybe this sort of style is why "a lot of people don't like" him.

I never bothered switching on in the first place after seeing "Owen Jones" mentioned.

[Gavin Chipper]

I totally understand that his style can be grating, but I will summarise some of the main points (I have not independently fact checked this):

1. Owen Jones says Labour claiming that there is this previously-unknown-about hole in the nation's finances was something that had already been predicted that they were going to do (he'd previously talked about it), and it was really just a way to push through cuts they didn't want to be scrutinised on before the election. The cuts to the winter fuel allowance were not in the manifesto and not put to the public before the election.

2. Rachel Reeves (the chancellor) had called for an attack on the payments back in the Ed Miliband days, so this isn't a surprise from her.

3. Means testing in this manner doesn't work and punishes the vulnerable. Only pensioners in receipt of pension credit are eligible for the winter fuel allowance, but about 30% of those eligible for this credit don't actually receive it (some people don't claim stuff they are entitled to), so not only will they not get the credit they are entitled to, but they will lose out on the winter fuel allowance as well. So it's a double whammy.

4. If all the pensioners who were entitled to credit claimed it, it would more than wipe out the savings made from this, so the entire policy is based on the assumption that people won't claim what they are entitled to.

5. People just below the threshold for pension credit are still struggling anyway.

6. Last year it was estimated by the House of Commons Energy Committee that there were almost 5000 excess deaths last year caused by cold homes. And analysis by Labour themselves in 2017 (when Starmer was in the shadow cabinet) warned that Tory plans to cut winter fuel allowance would increase excess deaths by about 4000 that winter.

7. Labour could instead have just increased taxes on the well-off but have chosen not to.

8. In a previous election (2017) Rachel Reeves tweeted saying it was Labour who would stand up for pensioners, defending the triple lock and winter fuel payments. Angela Rayner tweeted similarly.

9. This is a rich country, but the wealth is concentrated with the richest 350 households having a combined wealth of the entire economy of Poland.

10. Some Labour MPs voting for this were apparently reported crying about it, but voted for it anyway.

[Callum Todd]

I totally understand that his style can be grating, but I will summarise some of the main points (I have not independently fact checked this):

[Summary]

Thanks Gev. Maybe if Owen Jones has been able to keep his tone as level as yours I would have listened to him for longer

Mostly sound stuff. I think I don't quite share his apparent conceptualisation of how causation works so that makes points 3, 4, and 6 sound a bit off to me. And 9 is just a weird comparison that, like his intro, feels more like an attempt at sensationalism than actually illuminating his audience. But otherwise fair enough.

[Marc Meakin]

I totally understand that his style can be grating, but I will summarise some of the main points (I have not independently fact checked this):

1. Owen Jones says Labour claiming that there is this previously-unknown-about hole in the nation's finances was something that had already been predicted that they were going to do (he'd previously talked about it), and it was really just a way to push through cuts they didn't want to be scrutinised on before the election. The cuts to the winter fuel allowance were not in the manifesto and not put to the public before the election.


2. Rachel Reeves (the chancellor) had called for an attack on the payments back in the Ed Miliband days, so this isn't a surprise from her.

3. Means testing in this manner doesn't work and punishes the vulnerable. Only pensioners in receipt of pension credit are eligible for the winter fuel allowance, but about 30% of those eligible for this credit don't actually receive it (some people don't claim stuff they are entitled to), so not only will they not get the credit they are entitled to, but they will lose out on the winter fuel allowance as well. So it's a double whammy.

4. If all the pensioners who were entitled to credit claimed it, it would more than wipe out the savings made from this, so the entire policy is based on the assumption that people won't claim what they are entitled to.

5. People just below the threshold for pension credit are still struggling anyway.

6. Last year it was estimated by the House of Commons Energy Committee that there were almost 5000 excess deaths last year caused by cold homes. And analysis by Labour themselves in 2017 (when Starmer was in the shadow cabinet) warned that Tory plans to cut winter fuel allowance would increase excess deaths by about 4000 that winter.

7. Labour could instead have just increased taxes on the well-off but have chosen not to.

8. In a previous election (2017) Rachel Reeves tweeted saying it was Labour who would stand up for pensioners, defending the triple lock and winter fuel payments. Angela Rayner tweeted similarly.

9. This is a rich country, but the wealth is concentrated with the richest 350 households having a combined wealth of the entire economy of Poland.

10. Some Labour MPs voting for this were apparently reported crying about it, but voted for it anyway.

At least he didn't say that the majority of pensioners are Tory Voters and a lot of them will be dead by the time Labour will have suitable oppostion

[Elliott Mellor]

I totally understand that his style can be grating, but I will summarise some of the main points (I have not independently fact checked this):

1. Owen Jones says Labour claiming that there is this previously-unknown-about hole in the nation's finances was something that had already been predicted that they were going to do (he'd previously talked about it), and it was really just a way to push through cuts they didn't want to be scrutinised on before the election. The cuts to the winter fuel allowance were not in the manifesto and not put to the public before the election.

2. Rachel Reeves (the chancellor) had called for an attack on the payments back in the Ed Miliband days, so this isn't a surprise from her.

3. Means testing in this manner doesn't work and punishes the vulnerable. Only pensioners in receipt of pension credit are eligible for the winter fuel allowance, but about 30% of those eligible for this credit don't actually receive it (some people don't claim stuff they are entitled to), so not only will they not get the credit they are entitled to, but they will lose out on the winter fuel allowance as well. So it's a double whammy.

4. If all the pensioners who were entitled to credit claimed it, it would more than wipe out the savings made from this, so the entire policy is based on the assumption that people won't claim what they are entitled to.

5. People just below the threshold for pension credit are still struggling anyway.

6. Last year it was estimated by the House of Commons Energy Committee that there were almost 5000 excess deaths last year caused by cold homes. And analysis by Labour themselves in 2017 (when Starmer was in the shadow cabinet) warned that Tory plans to cut winter fuel allowance would increase excess deaths by about 4000 that winter.

7. Labour could instead have just increased taxes on the well-off but have chosen not to.

8. In a previous election (2017) Rachel Reeves tweeted saying it was Labour who would stand up for pensioners, defending the triple lock and winter fuel payments. Angela Rayner tweeted similarly.

9. This is a rich country, but the wealth is concentrated with the richest 350 households having a combined wealth of the entire economy of Poland.

10. Some Labour MPs voting for this were apparently reported crying about it, but voted for it anyway.

I'm going to ignore points 2, 9, and 10 as they don't add anything to this discussion and are at best tangential/sensationalism (which isn't really a surprise from Owen Jones and I'm surprised anyone still takes him seriously). I don't think 1 really adds much to this discussion either, even if it's certainly very sly if true. Point 8 is a bit distorted as well - they aren't abolishing either of them, and that argument reads as though they are.

I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea for the allowance to be more restricted than it currently is - I don't really see why someone who is really well off needs this benefit, however if at least the substance of points 3 and 6 is correct then I can certainly get behind the idea that it's not a particularly well-planned policy and is quite thoughtless. It probably raises more questions as to whether the pension credit system needs re-evaluating (a look at what it currently is suggests that you'd struggle even if you was a fair margin above the threshold so no longer qualifying for the winter fuel payment will be impactful to these people).

[Gavin Chipper]

I think 1 is actually very important, if there's anything in it. It would be a straightforward case of deceiving the electorate, and quite disgraceful.

I also don't think it's necessarily bad for it to be more restrictive than it is, but it's important how it's done.

The insistence that they won't do anything like raising income tax on the highest paid seems a bizarre red line for them.

To me it's not enough just that they're not the Tories. We should be able to have better than this lot.

[Callum Todd]

I totally understand that his style can be grating, but I will summarise some of the main points (I have not independently fact checked this):

1. [...] The cuts to the winter fuel allowance were not in the manifesto and not put to the public before the election.

7. Labour could instead have just increased taxes on the well-off but have chosen not to.

The insistence that they won't do anything like raising income tax on the highest paid seems a bizarre red line for them.

I think this is the real point here. So Labour have got in and have discovered (or had their secret expectations confirmed that) the treasury is on its arse. Given they didn't make many pledges about cutting stuff and saving money (or many pledges about anything for that matter) in the election campaign, I don't think it makes too much sense to pan them for doing stuff that was "not put to the public before the election" unless you go in for this idea that they knew how bad things were before the election.

So I think the real important question here to determine one's position on Labour's budget-related actions since taking government is:

How much did the state of public finances take them by surprise when they entered Government?

If you think the answer is something like 'not very', then the question is why did they not say so before getting into Government and be honest in the election campaign about the sort of frugal (dare I say 'austere'?) policies that might be necessary when they take office?

If you think the answer is something like 'a lot', then it doesn't make any sense to criticise them for coming up with cost-saving policies they didn't campaign on. The question is why this unpopular policy rather than something like raising taxes on high earners?

Either way, to me the next - and more important - question is: what do we do about the seeming state of perverse incentives in our politics? All large political parties now seem to be almost entirely concerned with how best to improve their chances at the next election, whether they be in the midst of a campaign or 5 years prior to one.

Why are parties are so obsessed with electioneering and the taboo of breaking an election pledge, even in the light of context-changing new information, that they would rather do something unpopular like this than cross that "bizarre red line" of raising taxes (even if only on highly paid people) - something that, in the election campaign, they repeatedly stressed they would not do if elected? Or if they did know about the financial situation beforehand, why would they lie about that and save the unpopular stuff until it was too late for it to hurt their election chances?

[Mark Deeks]

If Labour knew how bad the finances were, and decided to NOT CAMPAIGN AROUND THAT, they're mad. It seems more likely that they genuinely didn't know.

[Marc Meakin]

If Labour knew how bad the finances were, and decided to NOT CAMPAIGN AROUND THAT, they're mad. It seems more likely that they genuinely didn't know.

Maybe but it smacks of a government with a large enough majority to survive at least one more GE and by the time they are at risk we would have got used to it.
Basically this parliament they can pretty much get away with any policies not in the manifesto knowing it will get through
See Thatcher and Poll Tax

[Ian Volante]

If Labour knew how bad the finances were, and decided to NOT CAMPAIGN AROUND THAT, they're mad. It seems more likely that they genuinely didn't know.

Maybe but it smacks of a government with a large enough majority to survive at least one more GE and by the time they are at risk we would have got used to it.
Basically this parliament they can pretty much get away with any policies not in the manifesto knowing it will get through
See Thatcher and Poll Tax

Thatcher and the Poll Tax? Not sure that was particularly successful.

[Mark Deeks]

"Ok so there's a massive problem with the finances. Should we blame the people whose fault it is?"

"No no, let's take the hit for this one and ruin our own momentum."

This new Labour lot might not be too good at politicking, time will tell, but there's no way they're that bad.

[Marc Meakin]

If Labour knew how bad the finances were, and decided to NOT CAMPAIGN AROUND THAT, they're mad. It seems more likely that they genuinely didn't know.

Maybe but it smacks of a government with a large enough majority to survive at least one more GE and by the time they are at risk we would have got used to it.
Basically this parliament they can pretty much get away with any policies not in the manifesto knowing it will get through
See Thatcher and Poll Tax

Thatcher and the Poll Tax? Not sure that was particularly successful.

Yeah they just call it council tax now
The concept of unpopular policies being passed through parliament was the point I was making

[Ian Volante]

Maybe but it smacks of a government with a large enough majority to survive at least one more GE and by the time they are at risk we would have got used to it.
Basically this parliament they can pretty much get away with any policies not in the manifesto knowing it will get through
See Thatcher and Poll Tax

Thatcher and the Poll Tax? Not sure that was particularly successful.

Yeah they just call it council tax now
The concept of unpopular policies being passed through parliament was the point I was making

Council tax is quite different to the Community Charge as was.

On your main point then, a government with a decent majority can do whatever they like in theory.

[Marc Meakin]

Well within reason.
I'm guessing even a few Labour MPs would risk losing the Whip to a killing of first born policy .

[Marc Meakin]

Do you think Israel , and in particular its leader ,
I won't name him (for no political reasons) has been going after it's enemies with impunity because Russia is at War with Ukraine ?
I'm probably stating the bleeding obvious here

[Gavin Chipper]

Israel can do what they want because countries decide what's "right" and "wrong" based on whether the act is committed by a pre-determined ally or not. Israel is an ally of America, Britain etc. so therefore they are the goodies. It's so transparently BS but it is what it is.

[Marc Meakin]

I'm liking the cut of Kemis Jib

[Marc Meakin]

Israel can do what they want because countries decide what's "right" and "wrong" based on whether the act is committed by a pre-determined ally or not. Israel is an ally of America, Britain etc. so therefore they are the goodies. It's so transparently BS but it is what it is.

All points taken , but the hostage situation may have been the catalyst for the Israeli escalation of war but the prolonged attacks on Hezbollah outside of Gaza is continuing as nobody has the clout to challenge it

[Gavin Chipper]

I'm liking the cut of Kemis Jib

She's so bad she makes Powell the good Enoch.

[Tal Lessner]

but the prolonged attacks on Hezbollah outside of Gaza is continuing as nobody has the clout to challenge it

Are you kidding?

I love the "prolonged attacks" bit... Especially considering Hezbullah has been bombing Israel for 11 months refusing any attempt to end hostilities.

What is Israel supposed to do here? Continue the "nice" rounds of letting Hezbollah bomb civilians with only minor retaliation?
They had 11 months to stop that shite, started entirely by Hezbollah.

About the original comment, have no idea what the this has to do with Russia (other than Russia probably selling weapons Iran, who arms Hezbollah).
Also, keep in mind that in terms of the so called "Leader" Lebanon and Gaza are complete opposites.
While in Gaza he blocks any ceasefire agreement attempt because of his Nazi government allies and their fanatic religious lebensraum ideology.
In Lebanon it was the exact opposite, he tried avoiding escalation for a long time, while actually the pressure to strike in Lebanon came mostly from military leaders and from the political left - the same people calling for ceasefire in Gaza (Yes, most of the top people of security and defence services including the defence minister, do want a ceasefire in Gaza, it's the loonies on the far right stopping it). Netanyahu is a scared piece of shite whose entire agenda is to keep himself as prime minister. Him and the Nazis don't really care about the fact people in the north have been away from what's left of their homes for 11 months. Just like he doesn't care about the hostages and keeps the pointless massacre in Gaza going.

But seriously, back to Lebanon, people seem to forget that apart from the horrid occupation and killing in Gaza & West Bank. Israel is also surrounded by other forces who will annihilate should they have a chance. And as Hezbollah's actions have shown over the past year, also without much of a chance.
Israel is not at fault for being much stronger than Hezbollah, but when antagonising a much stronger force, one should know when to pull the breaks, and they had 11 months to do so.

[Marc Meakin]

I'm liking the cut of Kemis Jib

She's so bad she makes Powell the good Enoch.

You must have read my mind , she comes across as Enoch light
She makes valid points about integration but her language is clunky.
Kuensberg though is useless.
After footage of her saying she was middle class until she worked at McDonalds was surely a question to ask her rather than trying to get her to say she hates Muslims

[Gavin Chipper]

Presumably Hezbollah's attacks 11 months ago coincide with Israel's genocide in Gaza.

This is not an endorsement of Hezbollah and their actions, but the hate of Israel doesn't come from a vacuum.

Plus that thing with the pagers can only be described as terrorism.

[Tal Lessner]

Presumably Hezbollah's attacks 11 months ago coincide with Israel's genocide in Gaza.

This is not an endorsement of Hezbollah and their actions, but the hate of Israel doesn't come from a vacuum.

No.
Hezbollah launched the attack on 8th October. Following the 7th October massacre.
Sure, they can hate Israel, Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 17 years until 2000 almost 25 years ago. But this doesn't change the fact that they initiated an attack, refuse to end it, and you're trying to justify it by presuming.

[Gavin Chipper]

OK, I might be wrong about the dates. I'm not justifying though but I do think each side has to be held responsible for its own actions. Being a lot more powerful and being able to unleash hell does come with that responsibility.

[Tal Lessner]

OK, I might be wrong about the dates. I'm not justifying though but I do think each side has to be held responsible for its own actions. Being a lot more powerful and being able to unleash hell does come with that responsibility.

And Israel was responsible trying to avoid full scale war for 11 months. But I guess internal Lebanon politics and Iran backing is more important for Hezbollah than not being attacked with full force.
I really can't see how Israel is supposed to act. Continue with business as usual, let Hezbollah throw some rockets, bomb some of their launchers in response and wait for the next attack tomorrow?
What exactly are the expectations here?

[Gavin Chipper]

Well going back to the initial attacks, Israel were very quick to start attacking Gaza and I've read a few sources saying Lebanon's attacks started in support of Gaza due to this, even if it did start very quickly after the Hamas attack itself.

But we're looking at this quite reactively. What should Israel have done given the Hamas attack, given the Hezbollah attacks etc. But years of occupation etc. creates terrorists and this mindset. It would take an entirely different type of approach. But it's difficult to break the cycle now.

If they were serious about peace they would change leader for someone that doesn't have this history and make moves towards a peaceful solution. Perhaps get the help of other countries - not America or any country that has a pre-determined side - to be involved in peace negotiations and solutions for the future.

[Tal Lessner]

Well going back to the initial attacks, Israel were very quick to start attacking Gaza and I've read a few sources saying Lebanon's attacks started in support of Gaza due to this, even if it did start very quickly after the Hamas attack itself.

Oh, yeah, keep this line. Hezbollah joined the attack on Israel. Hezbollah declared war without being attacked or occupied in any way.
Keep defending the indefensible.
Here's one for you - Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation encouraged by Iran to attack Israel without being provoked. How is that for you instead of some insane mental gymnastics?

But we're looking at this quite reactively. What should Israel have done given the Hamas attack, given the Hezbollah attacks etc. But years of occupation etc. creates terrorists and this mindset. It would take an entirely different type of approach. But it's difficult to break the cycle now.

Again, no occupation in Lebanon.

If they were serious about peace they would change leader for someone that doesn't have this history and make moves towards a peaceful solution. Perhaps get the help of other countries - not America or any country that has a pre-determined side - to be involved in peace negotiations and solutions for the future.

Nobody said Israeli government is looking for peace. But in this case there was no on-going conflict before. Hezbollah started the escalation, and Hezbollah refused to end it. Putting the blame on the horrible leaders of Israel is a bad joke here. But at least to some extent, Israeli forces have taken your advice, and changed the leader - of Hezbollah.

So you started by justifying Hamas attacks, and now you're justifying Hezbollah because their lovely innocent friends are attacked and they're just here to help? You should really stop thinking in black and white and in terms that anybody attacking the evil Israel (evil no doubt) is completely innocent.

[Gavin Chipper]

No, you mistake an attempt at an explanation as a justification.

In terms of justification, your early posts in this thread came across to me as very pro-Israel and a justification of everything they were doing and then there was this big reveal that you didn't support them. So maybe it's a lesson that making black and white assumptions about what other people are thinking isn't always advisable.

[Marc Meakin]

No, you mistake an attempt at an explanation as a justification.

In terms of justification, your early posts in this thread came across to me as very pro-Israel and a justification of everything they were doing and then there was this big reveal that you didn't support them. So maybe it's a lesson that making black and white assumptions about what other people are thinking isn't always advisable.

It has to be said that the majority of the Gernan people did not advocate the Final Solution in the same way the nation of Israel are not behind The Israeli government's perpetual war against tolertorists over brokering for peace and the inevitable 2 state solution in Gaza.
I'm sure the same could be said of the Lebanese people backing Hezbollah

[Tal Lessner]

No, you mistake an attempt at an explanation as a justification.

In terms of justification, your early posts in this thread came across to me as very pro-Israel and a justification of everything they were doing and then there was this big reveal that you didn't support them. So maybe it's a lesson that making black and white assumptions about what other people are thinking isn't always advisable.

In my opinion the explanation was in order to justify the attack. Sorry if I'm wrong here. Regardless, this explanation is at best a poor excuse, they didn't think for a second they would actually help Hamas militarily. Nobody thought so or thinks so.

I'm here for interesting discussions, my early posts came as pro Israeli because:
1. At the time it looked from discussions here that nobody seems to take into account the 7th Oct massacre, and say what you want about Israel's genocidal tendencies, that massacre required extreme homicidal insanity, one that even Israel is not capable of.
2. At the time of our initial arguments, Israel's response was still mostly justified in my opinion.

Since then, many months have passed, and situation has changed. It's clear that Israel's goals in Gaza are no longer destroying Hamas & the return of the hostages as Israel claims, but purely just keeping the war going for Netanyahu to appease his Nazi government partners and keeping himself in power. Every single action from Netanyahu since 7th Oct is first of all weighed in terms of its affect on his political power, he is a dangerous man, he's not nearly as powerful as he has been up until 2019.
And like all crazy tyrants in the past, when having his back against the wall, he'll turn on his own people and country.

As for me personally, I go regularly to the protests in favour of a ceasefire deal with Hamas. Just like I was going regularly up until a year ago to the protests against the judicial "reform".
Every political argument with friends/family/colleagues other than here, I'm the "Gavin Chipper" condemning my own country and government.
I detest my country, I detest its government, the racist fascists who voted for it, the (not as much but still very) racists and fascists from the "opposition" (basically saying "we want to be racists, but not with Netanyahu"). I even find myself cheering for whoever plays against the Israeli national football team.
But then I come here, and I see all the posts here basically saying that Israel has no right to properly defend itself. So I find myself for the only time in my adult life, taking my racist fascist country side.
Seems to me that it's much easier to ignore basic facts once one has taken a side about a place far far away.

[Gavin Chipper]

Anyway we've had what looks like a terror attack in Tel Aviv and Iran have chucked missiles in. Pretty bad stuff, in isolation and for any future prospects of peace.

[Marc Meakin]

Anyway we've had what looks like a terror attack in Tel Aviv and Iran have chucked missiles in. Pretty bad stuff, in isolation and for any future prospects of peace.

Very understated Gev.
I'm cancelling my Amazon order for a 5 year diary

[Gavin Chipper]

I don't actually watch that many Owen Jones videos (despite what you might all think), but I happened to watch this one on Iran's attack on Israel. I do think he made some good points, including about what Keir Starmer said and about human shields.