UK Politics

[cycle tramp]

The return of the sausages!
Yes, a policy to which I can agree

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMzcTNh8Y0

[Jdsk]

Winter fuel payments:

One Labour MP voted against the government and 50-odd didn't vote.

Presumably the one will have the whip suspended and the others will be triaged for reason.
...

No suspensions:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... g-by-whips

Party conference calls for reversal by show of hands.

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

Winter fuel payments:

One Labour MP voted against the government and 50-odd didn't vote.

Presumably the one will have the whip suspended and the others will be triaged for reason.
...

No suspensions:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... g-by-whips

Party conference calls for reversal by show of hands.

Jonathan

My worry is that Starmer seems to be relishing his "unpopular decisions" treating them as a sign it's working. Sort of "no pain, no gain" attitude and the "pain" is a sure sign his strategy is working. Daft attitude but to me it appears the way he's working at the moment.

I think his long term challenge is that many voters are slow and resistant to changing their support. I think Truss was probably a significant cause of the Conservatives losing the last General Election. Her impact was strong enough to motivate enough to abandon the Conservatives. I wonder if the Winter Fuel Allowance and how many commentators, organisations, etc. are speaking out against the cut is going to be enough to switch support away from Labour and it will be hard for them to recover lost support. Next election Conservatives already accumulating campaign material '"Within days of being elected Labour imposed severe cuts on the most vulnerable despite and not mentioned in their manifesto" (and it will ring true).

Starmer is already rated as less popular than Sunak's worst and once there it can be hard to change peoples' minds. I suspect significant growth that then provides additional tax income to allow increased spending will be slow with delays and 5 years likely wont be long enough eg delay in Gov. measures creating sustained growth then delays in that generating sustained tax revenue increases then delays until a budget that can release more public service spending, then delays before that is seen as improvements in public services.

Keir Starmer now less popular than Rishi Sunak, poll suggests
The latest Opinium poll reveals that Starmer’s approval rating has plunged below that of the Tory leader Rishi Sunak, suffering a huge 45-point drop since July. While 24% of voters approve of the job he is doing, 50% disapprove, giving him a net rating of -26%. Sunak’s net rating is one point better....

Ian

[cycle tramp]

Twenty grand to help his son pass GCSE's? Gosh if only his son's school received that amount - then perhaps more pupils could have benefitted.....

[pwa]

My test is along the lines of "If a police officer accepted the same gift / favour in the course of their duties, would it be perceived as okay?" And if the answer would be "No" for a police officer, why would it be any different for a PM or one of his ministers?

Police officers and MPs operate under different rules - not surprising, they have different roles to play in society.
(Should a police officer follow exactly the same rules as a Judge?)

I suspect the only reason police officers operate under different rules in this matter is because MPs make the rules for both of them. So for MPs the question is what bungs they can accept, whereas for police officers bungs are forbidden.

[Stradageek]

Winter fuel payments:

One Labour MP voted against the government and 50-odd didn't vote.

Presumably the one will have the whip suspended and the others will be triaged for reason.
...

No suspensions:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... g-by-whips

Party conference calls for reversal by show of hands.
Jonathan

Why oh why oh why, in this age of computers that can do everything, did they not simply introduce a sliding scale of winter fuel payments biased to be more generous to the less well off? No cut-offs, just a simple continuous algorithm.

It would be fair and help the most vulnerable, you might even call it a 'socialist' solution.

[mattheus]

Twenty grand to help his son pass GCSE's? Gosh if only his son's school received that amount - then perhaps more pupils could have benefitted.....

Who was given 20 grand?

Think you need to check what actually happened.

[djnotts]

^ Stradageek: "Why oh why oh why, in this age of computers that can do everything, did they not simply introduce a sliding scale of winter fuel payments biased to be more generous to the less well off? No cut-offs, just a simple continuous algorithm."

But what data does one enter in order to rank millions of people in "well off" order? No one organisation, public or private, holds info on individual and/or household "wealth". None knows value of e.g. housing nor ownership/trusts etc. None knows my total savings nor could put a value on my share of the family home.
Income does I accept better lend itself to analysis via Inland Revenue - it "knows" my pension income, State and from past employment, and my tax band. But it would take significant effort to investigate my savings, never mind physical assets.

[mattheus]

My test is along the lines of "If a police officer accepted the same gift / favour in the course of their duties, would it be perceived as okay?" And if the answer would be "No" for a police officer, why would it be any different for a PM or one of his ministers?

Police officers and MPs operate under different rules - not surprising, they have different roles to play in society.
(Should a police officer follow exactly the same rules as a Judge?)

I suspect the only reason police officers operate under different rules in this matter is because MPs make the rules for both of them. So for MPs the question is what bungs they can accept, whereas for police officers bungs are forbidden.

Incorrect - police CAN accept gifts. But as with politicians, there is guidance:

"The Police Act (1996) includes a provision that permits Police Forces to
accept gifts, loans, donations, hospitality and sponsorship in accordance
with legislation. "

[Psamathe]

To me this report (if true) seems to highglight very inappropriate behaviour

Rachel Reeves is pushing for the UK’s tax and spending watchdog to upgrade its national growth forecasts to reflect the economic boost Labour says can be achieved from its blitz of planning reforms.

In a development that could open up additional spending headroom for the chancellor before next month’s budget, the Treasury has held talks with the Office for Budget Responsibility to try to persuade its officials that unblocking the planning system could drive up growth.

OBR is meant to be independent and not subject to political pressures to "adjust" their estimates to suit politicians.

Ian

[pwa]

Police officers and MPs operate under different rules - not surprising, they have different roles to play in society.
(Should a police officer follow exactly the same rules as a Judge?)

I suspect the only reason police officers operate under different rules in this matter is because MPs make the rules for both of them. So for MPs the question is what bungs they can accept, whereas for police officers bungs are forbidden.

Incorrect - police CAN accept gifts. But as with politicians, there is guidance:

"The Police Act (1996) includes a provision that permits Police Forces to
accept gifts, loans, donations, hospitality and sponsorship in accordance
with legislation. "

Forces? What about individuals, because that is what we are talking about. How would it look if a Chief Constable accepted gifts of clothing for them and their spouse? We:d all call that corrupt. There is the obvious impression that decisions might be swayed by personal gain. How much more so if the recipient is in even higher office?

[mattheus]

Incorrect - police CAN accept gifts. But as with politicians, there is guidance:

"The Police Act (1996) includes a provision that permits Police Forces to
accept gifts, loans, donations, hospitality and sponsorship in accordance
with legislation. "

Forces? What about individuals, because that is what we are talking about. How would it look if a Chief Constable accepted gifts of clothing for them and their spouse? We:d all call that corrupt. There is the obvious impression that decisions might be swayed by personal gain. How much more so if the recipient is in even higher office?

Oh, you want me to do some more research? ok I have a few seconds ... first relevant hit:
www.humberside.police.uk

A further guiding principle is that police officers and staff should not accept the offer of any gift, gratuity or hospitality if to do so might compromise their impartiality or give rise to a perception of such compromise

The offer of a gift, gratuity or hospitality should be declared irrespective of whether or not it is accepted or rejected by the recipient. This demonstrates integrity, particularly in instances where there is a concern over the motivation behind the offer of the gift, gratuity or hospitality. The principle of transparency is of key importance, not the nature or value of the gift, gratuity or hospitality.

Sound familiar?
There's some leeway/judgement built-in, and the emphasis is on transparency. You declare what you get, and from whom.

Seem like a good system?

[pwa]

Incorrect - police CAN accept gifts. But as with politicians, there is guidance:

"The Police Act (1996) includes a provision that permits Police Forces to
accept gifts, loans, donations, hospitality and sponsorship in accordance
with legislation. "

Forces? What about individuals, because that is what we are talking about. How would it look if a Chief Constable accepted gifts of clothing for them and their spouse? We:d all call that corrupt. There is the obvious impression that decisions might be swayed by personal gain. How much more so if the recipient is in even higher office?

Oh, you want me to do some more research? ok I have a few seconds ... first relevant hit:
www.humberside.police.uk

A further guiding principle is that police officers and staff should not accept the offer of any gift, gratuity or hospitality if to do so might compromise their impartiality or give rise to a perception of such compromise

The offer of a gift, gratuity or hospitality should be declared irrespective of whether or not it is accepted or rejected by the recipient. This demonstrates integrity, particularly in instances where there is a concern over the motivation behind the offer of the gift, gratuity or hospitality. The principle of transparency is of key importance, not the nature or value of the gift, gratuity or hospitality.

Sound familiar?
There's some leeway/judgement built-in, and the emphasis is on transparency. You declare what you get, and from whom.

Seem like a good system?

No, not really. Transparency is better than the opposite, but not taking gifts would be better. And the news that our government ministers are accepting personal gifts of clothing and holiday accommodation from well-heeled benefactors has me feeling that come the budget, I'll be paying particular attention to whether those on very high incomes are being asked to shoulder the burden of the fiscal shortfall more than the rest of us, or whether all those nice things have done the trick.... It is a tacky practice that undermines trust.

[mattheus]

...
There's some leeway/judgement built-in, and the emphasis is on transparency. You declare what you get, and from whom.

Seem like a good system?

No, not really. Transparency is better than the opposite, but not taking gifts would be better. And the news that our government ministers are accepting personal gifts of clothing and holiday accommodation from well-heeled benefactors has me feeling that come the budget, I'll be paying particular attention to whether those on very high incomes are being asked to shoulder the burden of the fiscal shortfall more than the rest of us, or whether all those nice things have done the trick.... It is a tacky practice that undermines trust.

<my bold>

Well, that's a fair personal view to take.
(I presume you went through the same analysis with the governments of the previous 14 years?)

[pwa]

...
There's some leeway/judgement built-in, and the emphasis is on transparency. You declare what you get, and from whom.

Seem like a good system?

No, not really. Transparency is better than the opposite, but not taking gifts would be better. And the news that our government ministers are accepting personal gifts of clothing and holiday accommodation from well-heeled benefactors has me feeling that come the budget, I'll be paying particular attention to whether those on very high incomes are being asked to shoulder the burden of the fiscal shortfall more than the rest of us, or whether all those nice things have done the trick.... It is a tacky practice that undermines trust.

<my bold>

Well, that's a fair personal view to take.
(I presume you went through the same analysis with the governments of the previous 14 years?)

Like many people, probably most people in the UK, I think one of the jobs of the national government is to do a degree of wealth redistribution. So I am always in favour of that. I think we need to ramp that up a bit now. But the recent revelations that, for instance, the Starmers get posh clothes bought for them by a wealthy benefactor makes me wonder if that softens any resolve Keir might have had to get the wealthy digging deeper into their pockets. With Tory PMs I have always assumed they won't harm the interests of the wealthy.