They Just Can't Help It Can They .Kemi Badenoch Edition

[gulliver1]

Picking Kemi Badenoch as leader shows the Cons still haven't listened The British people sent a clear message to the Cons on july 4th.   The Tory leadership election shows it was all about themselves and their party. Badenoch has in the past made offensive comments about autistic children and suggested she would get rid of the maternity allowance and slash the minimum wage.Where Labour are delivering to the Public by extending maternity rights ,and raising the minimum wage for millions of hard working low paid workers.And a record investment in the Health sevice.

[ynnafymmi]

@12.02.Who said i had"proof on camera",it certainly wasnt me.

[ynnafymmi]

@11.48.Okay,i voted for them Naomi,but i didnt think that they would just be as venal as the Tories,or throwing money at other countries old people(and dictators)while ignoring our own old people.

[andres]

The last Government helped us through the energy price increase. With that and the WFA people were warm last winter. I dread to think how some are going to manage during the next months. 

 

[jourdain2]

Me too, andres - we have savings so can dig in to keep the house at 22C (needed by Mr.J2 - heart condition etc.). Others won't have that cushion.

But, hey!  It's all very sad, but they'd lived their lives, hadn't they? 

[andres]

Jourdain,^^^ I have savings so I will be alright. A few years ago we were told --Save, save, save. Now we are being penalised in some ways because we did save .

 

[jourdain2]

Yes, I agree. Topsy-turvey world.  :(

[ynnafymmi]

^@the above.Yes,its a strange world where our own government prefers African dictators and Palestinian terrorists other than their own old people.But what the heck....

[bednobs]

i still dont get all the fuss about wfa.  when talking about benefits for example child benefit, people who contribute to these posts say things like they shouldnt be increasd or available.  Why should pensioners benefits be sacrosanct?  why didnt pensioners save for the years they dont work?  why dont pensioners give up their TVs, phones and fags and hoidays (as is regularly recommended for other benefit recipients)?The WFA amounts to less than £15 per month per person for a couple.

[andres]

11.06--nicebloke, Like your mum I have lived in my present house for over 60 years and well remember the days when we used to look forward to  Dad coming home on leave. We then had his Army coat over us on the bed. Then when he was demobbed he brought a couple of Army blankets . But times have moved on since then and no way do I want to go back in time. I don't suppose your mum is still living with coats on the bed for warmth but thousands of pensioners  will. Especially the ones just over the limit for Pension Credit. 

[ynnafymmi]

@13.52.I cant recall anyone on AB saying that Child Benefit shouldnt be increased or not available.

[andres]

^^^The ones just over the limits will not get the WFA.

[bednobs]

lol just like you recall the cast-iron promise made about wfa!

 

[bednobs]

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1861742.html

just one example for you

prhaps you could give me your example re wfa now?

[ynnafymmi]

Look it up yourself clever clogs.

[Deskdiary]

Just two months before the election Starmer was having a go at Sunak with an allegation about the Tories stopping the winter fuel allowance, so whilst Labour did not make any promises over the WFA, given how vociferous SKS was against Sunak, to any observer this was a clear implication Labour would not yank it.

[bednobs]

a clear implication is not a cast - iron promise.

ps i dont really have any skin in the game of WFA and may well thik differently if i did i guess, i just get peed off with the hypocrisy between peoples attitudes about various benefits. 

[ynnafymmi]

Are you implying that all us in favour of WFA are also against Child benefits?

[bednobs]

no.

[Deskdiary]

No, of course something implied is not a promise, but you can see the problem right? Two months prior to the election he was having a go at Sunak, and yet when they won it was one of the first things they did. At best it doesn't look good, at worst he must have known at the time of him having a go at Sunak that if Labour won he was going to yank it.

[vulcan42]

" why didnt pensioners save for the years they dont work?  why dont pensioners give up their TVs, phones and fags and hoidays (as is regularly recommended for other benefit recipients)?The WFA amounts to less than £15 per month per person for a couple."

I worked all my life, during the latter years the companies I worked for were bought out and on each occasion a new pension was added. It meant, in theory, I would retire with the state pension and four other smaller pensions, which added together was a good amount. Came the 80's world financial crisis, three of those pensions were wiped out. I retired with the state and one small pension. I continue to pay income tax which is deducted from the small pension so any increase in the state, 20% is transferred to this pension and it decreases in value. We have been told we receive an extra £400 next year. 20% will be transferred for tax puposes, leaving £320, the 300 will replace the WFA and that leaves £20 per year increase. Because I will now be paying more income tax I might see a yearly increase of a few pounds.

I don't have a TV, my phone was a present from my son and I don't smoke. Holidays? what are those. We're not all spendthrifts, some us of victims of circumstance.