Means testing a winter fuel payment so it’s not being used to put down deposits on next years cruise isn’t exactly “pitting workers against pensioners” is it? But then the Morningstar is half ill-researched waffle, and half conspiracy theory nonsense.
The rise in the state pension this year from the triple lock is several times higher than the winter fuel payments people would be missing - this is even after setting aside the fact that means tested pensioners can still get access to both.
This whole situation reeks of the unions flexing their muscles to try to set a precedent early where they can sway policy. It’s a storm in a teacup if you look at the numbers involved.
The headline is accurate, they are quoting the UNITE general secretary, who is making the accusation.
And Graham fits the description very aptly.
How a trade unionist can claim authority based on 4% of the membership is beyond me. No wonder she’s so incredibly unpopular within the union.
It isn’t better that they are giving a platform to fellow idiots.
I would expect a current Labour party supporting Lemmitor to call unions “idiots”.
so it’s not being used to put down deposits on next years cruise
That’s not what this is preventing. You made this up.
This is simple austerity, which is a punishment for poor people. Kier’s openly pro-rich, pro-corporation. If you (or he) were so worried about rich people having too much money, you would support the suggestion in the article: a wealth tax. But you don’t actually want that. It’s okay to want poor people to suffer. Just admit you want austerity, like Kier has. It’s a very accepted political position, the biggest parties agree. You don’t have to hide it.
There is a difference between being pro-austerity, and being pro means testing.
Do I agree with the bar being set at being in receipt of pension credit? Fuck no, that’s far too low given you’re talking about a scenario where pensioners have less than 10k/yr and would be spending over 10% of their money on heating.
But, pensioners with a full state pension, and a private / workplace pension on top, sitting in a big house they bought in the 80s to raise a family in, all of whom have since moved out, and is now worth several hundreds of thousands of pounds, really don’t need the extra cash.
So there should be a cut off, but not where it currently is. Ultimately, this shows the state pension is still too low if an extra payment is required so people don’t freeze. If the state pension was higher, to the point this payment wasn’t needed, then I think it would be a sensible place to put the limit, because pensioners with extra income (like private or workplace pensions) fundamentally shouldn’t need it, because the state pension should be the base line.
I’m fully expecting a level of wealth taxing to be announced in the budget - it really isn’t something you want to leak before hand because the ultra wealthy will move their money elsewhere, cos they’re parasites - but if Reeves doesn’t bring one in, then she and Starmer are going to have a very tough time.
Complete rubbish. Nearly all the benefits are means tested, why should this one be any different?
Better argument.
The one benifit going to a popularion statitically more likely to vote tory.
Is not means tested under a tory government.
When all other benifits have faced replacement and extra testing above simple means.
