Sir! Keir! Starmer!

And as someone almost at pensionable age I do struggle with the concept of folk retiring with only a State Pension to support them; did they put nothing aside whatsoever and/or never have a private/works pension during their working lives?

Yes a lot of people can barely afford to live week to week – putting aside money for retirement is a luxury.

Yes a lot of people can barely afford to live week to week

Undoubtedly true but there are a lot more that either naively think (expect) the state to provide a comfortable retirement or just live for now maximising their current lifestyle at the expense of retirement.

Pensions were never intended to cover 30 plus years of comfortable retirement which people now expect. If you want that you have to pay for it either taxes or privately.

or just live for now maximising their current lifestyle at the expense of retirement.

Not an entirely unnacceptable life goal if you ask me. Who wants to work their bollocks off saving money so you can sit in a care home dementedly staring at the walls waiting for death? **** that!

What about the period between retirement and care home, I’m at least hoping for a few years of active fulfilling life before senility sets in. Anyway it’s personal choice but don’t moan if you spend today and have to live off beans and watch the heating costs later.

Unless you live in Rone’s parallel financial dimension someone has to pay at some point to fund your living costs.

There appears to be at least a couple of individuals on this thread who wish to conserve the status quo ……“nothing tooo radical please”

I’ve yet to read the memories or biography of a conviction politician like Benn or Truss who didn’t think the civil service were thwarting their plans at every turn. I tend to think it’s a combination of the mentality of the  types of folks who aspire to high political office, the democratic process being party a beauty pageant and the Dunning-Kruger effect

or just live for now maximising their current lifestyle at the expense of retirement.

dazh
Not an entirely unnacceptable life goal if you ask me. Who wants to work their bollocks off saving money so you can sit in a care home dementedly staring at the walls waiting for death? **** that!

(Rambling post alert.)

^^Agreed. I’ve already had to dip into my small pension at the age of 56 and next year I might literally be homeless as the house is sold to fund my old mum’s residential care. They might defer payment, the might not. They dont know at this stage.

If that comes to pass, I’ll be drawing a further circa £5K out to get a small van  to use as a micro camper to live in. I’ll park up outside my lads for to use their shower and that. Lol

Anyway… No idea if I’ll be around into retirement age and I don’t want to live in a bedsit. Been there, done that.

Seeing social care up close and personal these days has utterly convinced me that it’s a shit time to be old and infirm I’m this country. When my quality of life starts to diminish significantly ill be taking an ‘alternative route’ unless I qualify for assisted dying.

So yeah, practicalities of roof (van) overhead and ‘living for now’ mean I’ll be skint in later life… but I still consider myself luckier than many!

or just live for now maximising their current lifestyle at the expense of retirement.

dazh
Not an entirely unnacceptable life goal if you ask me. Who wants to work their bollocks off saving money so you can sit in a care home dementedly staring at the walls waiting for death? **** that!

(Rambling post alert.)

^^Agreed. I’ve already had to dip into my small pension at the age of 56 and next year I might literally be homeless as the house is sold to fund my old mum’s residential care. They might defer payment, the might not. They dont know at this stage.

If that comes to pass, I’ll be drawing a further circa £5K out to get a small van  to use as a micro camper to live in. I’ll park up outside my lads for to use their shower and that. Lol

Anyway… No idea if I’ll be around into retirement age and I don’t want to live in a bedsit. Been there, done that.

Seeing social care up close and personal these days has utterly convinced me that it’s a shit time to be old and infirm I’m this country. When my quality of life starts to diminish significantly ill be taking an ‘alternative route’ unless I qualify for assisted dying.

So yeah, practicalities of roof (van) overhead and ‘living for now’ mean I’ll be skint in later life… but I still consider myself luckier than many!

When my quality of life starts to diminish significantly ill be taking an ‘alternative route’ unless I qualify for assisted dying.

Yup. Currently watching the assisted dying debate (where’s the thread BTW?) and I’m getting a bit annoyed at all the arguments about coercion, people thinking they’re a burden on their familes etc. If people are worried about being a burden on their families that’s because they will be! It’s a no-brainer.

Yeah, I am in a similar situation, at 55 it is only the past few years I have been able to save anything into a pension, so it won’t be much when I do retire. I will have partial UK and German state pensions which will be more per month than just the UK state pension alone. and of course with the huge disparity of asset and wage inflation that has occurred over the past 40 years, any investments now are buying smaller and smaller crumbs from the pie.

IMO basing pension provisions on stock, shares and bonds is a bit of a grift to get the general public emotionally invested into the markets when 99% of the benefits flow to the already wealthy. It is a terrible way of organising pension provision, but it is neoliberal orthodoxy so no body wants to question it.

I have a decent job now, and if I had a similar level job from in my early 30’s I would probably have been able to plan my retirement much better and buy a house, but that hasn’t been my life. I still think I am lucky to now have the job I do late in my working life many/most won’t even get such a lucky break later in life.

I think lots of people on STW don’t realise the reality of most peoples lives outside their bubble, they seem to really believe in meritocracy already existing rather than it being an ideal to strive for. They seem to believe they work harder and smarter than those who earn less than them, and therefore those who earn less are lazy, stupid and underserving. They will make the right noises to publicly display they are on the “good” side of the culture war, but when it comes to policies that could actually improve lives, they obfuscate the issues, they dismiss the problems, argue against the solution, they reveal their true convictions rather than the culture war façade they want people to see.

Eh? How did that happen?

Carry on.

I put the “why didn’t these people just out a grand a month into a private pension fund? I bet its because they spent all their money on “living it up””” comments in the same box as the “why don’t homeless people just buy a house like the rest of us? I bet it’s because they like being homeless and drinking Special Brew”

I think lots of people on STW don’t realise the reality of most peoples lives outside their bubble, they seem to really believe in meritocracy already existing rather than it being an ideal to strive for.

When discussing meritocracy I always find there are always two important things to remember.

Firstly the initial use of it was by Michael Young in “The Rise of the Meritocracy” which was a satirical take on the current education system.

Secondly when his son Toby Young (yes that one) failed to get into Oxford he phoned them up to complain and got him in.

So kinda proving the point of his book.

I think lots of people on STW don’t realise the reality of most peoples lives outside their bubble,

I couldn’t agree more. Some folk on here don’t seem to realise how difficult life is for large swathes of the population. Living for now my arse. Most people working for minimum wage in horrible jobs don’t have the luxury of putting money aside. I should know, I was one of them for most of my working life. I’m not any more but I haven’t forgotten what it is like.

I didn’t have any form of pension until I was in my late thirties. There simply wasn’t any money spare at the end of the month. The only reason Mrs F and I have a mortgage is because her parents let us live with them for several years in order to save enough money.

I think lots of people on STW don’t realise the reality of most peoples lives outside their bubble

It’s worse than that. They are sticking two fingers up to people. Let’s debate semantics instead, lalala I can’t hear you, I’m doing alright.

Then there’s the old man politics, snide agendas and talking about the UK like it’s still the same as 40 years ago.

Let’s not forget the sad cases and self righteous, who admit they’re only on social media to wind up political opposites (is it going well boys… it’s men isn’t it, middle-aged men) because they have got too much time on their hands!

IMO basing pension provisions on stock, shares and bonds is a bit of a grift to get the general public emotionally invested into the markets when 99% of the benefits flow to the already wealthy. It is a terrible way of organising pension provision, but it is neoliberal orthodoxy so no body wants to question it

Indeed.

The acceptance and misunderstanding of the value of the market is outrageous.

The market can’t create money it can only – to add insult to injury, swill pre-existing government money about.

Those bonds that make up investments – came from prior government spending.

It’s a huge trap that accumulates and concentrates wealth for the few.

I’m not sure there’s a whole lot we can do about it – as Tory doctrine over the way our money system works as been absorbed as fact.

It’s clearly a construct but a really persistent one.

Very few politicians save Zack Polanski are prepared to challenge the current narrative on monetarism.

I’ve pretty much given up a lot of hope this year that things are going to get better for many people.

And whilst there is a massive blind defence of all Starmer’s shockingly poor ability to address material issues that might change our lives for the better – there doesn’t seem that much to discuss.

They seem to believe they work harder and smarter than those who earn less than them, and therefore those who earn less are lazy, stupid and underserving.

That is the tory way and gives a nice excuse for the privileged to not have to acknowledge their privileges. I have had many a discussion with these people as I am surrounded by them at work and where I live. They really do not want to get it.

Keir Starmer has a plan. And next week he will let us know what it is.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/32038935/sir-keir-starmer-government-oil-tanker-change/

Apparently the first phase of action has been completed:

“That’s why, next week, I am setting out our Plan For Change, which will be the next phase of action across ­government.”

These poor pensioners, if the loss of £6 per week is pushing them into poverty, I think most of us would consider that they’re already in poverty. And as someone almost at pensionable age I do struggle with the concept of folk retiring with only a State Pension to support them; did they put nothing aside whatsoever and/or never have a private/works pension during their working lives?

Some people live their entire lives dependent on the state. The vulnerable, especially those with mental health problems, are unlikely to apply for additional payments while the older pensioners born up to 1951 (when the new state pension began) can be on very low pensions (£101.55 pw is one government threshold)

One route to access WFP is Pension Credits and the form is 24 pages of questions and notes; some with mental health issues will have difficulties even contemplating that

The difference between the vulnerable and MPs is that MPs get their claims made and are fully supported, while the vulnerable are not, e.g. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall has claimed £3758.14 for her constituency home between April and July alone https://www.theipsa.org.uk/mp-staffing-business-costs/your-mp/liz-kendall/4026

Equitable? No, the vulnerable needed support before cutting WFP

An interesting editorial in today’s Guardian. The first sentence :

Sir Keir Starmer’s reboot is clearly a strategy to win over voters disillusioned with the government’s performance.

Is that true…… with the next general election still over 4 years away is Starmer really already trying to win back disillusioned voters?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/02/the-guardian-view-on-keir-starmers-reset-it-needs-a-vision-to-tackle-britains-challenges

It is a pretty damning editorial, it sounds as if it was written by a STW “Lefty”! And with it coming from the Guardian Morgan McSweeney won’t be very happy.

Edit : Apologies, yesterday’s editorial.

Is that true…… with the next general election still over 4 years away is Starmer really already trying to win back disillusioned voters?

His constant appeasement of the ‘right’ is bewildering. What for – it doesn’t work.  The right think he’s a communist and will not give him the benefit of the doubt next time.

Also why does he have a reboot / relaunch of new pledges/plan/points every few weeks – which he won’t stick to anyway.

This government is thus far a vapid failure of muddled planning, sketchy economics and awful decision making.

The budget has saddled them with a mess of their own making.  It would take some serious unwinding and back-peddling which I do believe eventually, at the last minute they will have to do something to affect material conditions instead of pretending they need high-finance for growth or simply lose the next election.

From the Guardian slug  – “The prime minister faces scrutiny as voters demand bold action, not recycled policies, to address Britain’s deepening economic and social concerns”

Really? What has anyone with half-a-brain being saying for at least 10 years.

Well, Starmer’s speech was mostly about adding a target of trebling the number of new infrastructure projects to the existing house building targets.

What were the first questions from press and media in the Q&A afterwards…? Immigration, immigration, immigration…

Yes, everyone is obsessed with immigration as the issue to solve which will make their lives better.  I am convinced that most people wouldn’t notice if net migration was 0 (well they would as services would be even worse but they wouldn’t link those things)

When people are constantly told that immigration is a massive problem a lot of them believe it (but they are not stupid of course)

I haven’t seen the speech yet, so how much government money is being allocated to the house building program?

What were the questions from press and media in the Q&A afterwards…? Immigration, immigration, immigration…

Didn’t watch the speech but glad reducing immigration isn’t one of the targets. I think labour are coming round to the view that you can’t diffuse an issue like immigration by ceding ground to the right wing on it. Far better to make the positive case and accept the reality that it’s required than pretend it can be eradicated. Hopefully they’ll start to do the same on some other issues too like taxing the rich and greater state control of utilities and services.

What were the first questions from press and media in the Q&A afterwards…? Immigration, immigration, immigration…

The media appear to just slavishly follow whatever the man-frog has to say and have allowed the Reform mob to set the agenda. They are just absolutely obsessed with immigration and ‘small boats’. I don’t think it’s anywhere near representative of the concerns of most voters.

Thought the speech was ok. I was also immediately struck by the emphasis on immigration from the journalists. I did tut (under my breath) but have actually decided to lodge a complaint with the BBC, as the first question was from a BBC journalist.

Didn’t watch the speech but glad reducing immigration isn’t one of the targets.

A week ago Starmer pledged to reduce immigration:

UK’s Starmer pledges to reduce immigration with points-based reform

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-net-migration-falls-year-june-2024-11-28/

Yup, reducing immigration still on the cards (and with recent record high levels should be pretty simple to achieve) but why the need for BBC, Sky, etc to put it front and centre all the time, as if nothing else (including areas touched on in this speech) matters…?  [ rhetorical question really ]

I don’t think Starmer’s speeches are in anyway connected to physical reality half the time. They often sound like an agency session to rebrand a poor product.

Just another reset of vague ideas that will probably disappear from the agenda.  We have to see the real world consequences of these ideas take shape – and for that it won’t be done with private investment. Until they stop with this utter rubbish then don’t expect things to be better. You’ve kind of got to be comfortable with the idea that fixing things is going to take a load of government money not private funds – which is inefficient and benefits mostly the lender.

I did detect a slight shift in his tone though that maybe this cringy conservative speak he came to power with – might be fizzling a bit.

Brass tacks works. But deliver.

Immigration has been made a talking point by all parties and the media.

I’d simply just concentrate on fixing mainstream issues a la material conditions then people will eventually (not all of them) realise that most the UK’s problems aren’t actually related to too much immigration but under investment and poor political will.

Push the fix button and change the narrative is the direction of travel.

To respond:

I think lots of people on STW don’t realise the reality of most peoples lives outside their bubble, they seem to really believe in meritocracy already existing rather than it being an ideal to strive for. 

This “bubble” you refer to, I’m looking across my entire extended family and everyone I know well in it either has lived (relatively) well as a pensioner or those of my generation are either early retired or will in the next couple of years – and while all will get the full State Pension (as all have worked enough ‘years’), we’ve also all put aside (either with work schemes or privately).

Now, I’ve 100% sympathy for those who couldn’t work but the rest of you that haven’t put aside, what did you think was going to happen when you couldn’t earn any more?

what did you think was going to happen when you couldn’t earn any more?

An easy question to ask when your rent + bills is alway less than your income. Now, what do you think would happen to people where that is not the case, if they didn’t pay their rent and bills?

An easy question to ask when your rent + bills is alway less than your income. Now, what do you think would happen to people where that is not the case, if they didn’t pay their rent and bills?

It’s like I’ve never been in that position…

Stay in a cheaper place, buy cheaper stuff etc etc.

what did you think was going to happen when you couldn’t earn any more?

Die?

Stay in a cheaper place, buy cheaper stuff etc etc.

Christ you think people haven’t already tried that? If you’re trying not to sound out of touch with reality you’re not doing a very good job. Enjoy your pension, I’m sure you worked very hard for it. ?

nah, I can’t be arsed responding to that bollocks.

When people are constantly told that immigration is a massive problem a lot of them believe it

Yup, hopefully if today marks a turning point and Starmer continues to refuse to have the agenda dictated to him by Tory and Reform UK politicians, and a media which so willingly obliges, people might stop believing that they need to consider immigration (and small boat arrivals in particular) as a huge issue which needs to be tackled with such urgency.

I see that Sky News in this piece claims “the prime minister dodged questions about why migration was not one of the six milestones” and yet Sky News in their own clip show that he didn’t dodge the question at all.

He clearly answers the question and it is obvious that it is because he doesn’t see immigration as a higher priority to the other six issues.

https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-reveals-new-milestones-but-bringing-down-migration-fails-to-make-list-13267441

Chris Mason on the BBC has achieved what I previously thought was impossible… he’s even worse than Laura Kuensberg

A week ago Starmer pledged to reduce immigration:

I don’t think Starmer has any intention of reducing immigration because he knows social care and the NHS would collapse without it. That’s why he’s not including it in his targets like Sunak did.

social care and the NHS would collapse without it.

If you click on my link above you will see this :

“Where we find clear evidence of sectors that are over- reliant on immigration, we will reform the Points Based System and make sure that applications for the relevant visa routes, whether it’s the skilled worker route or the shortage occupation list, will now come with new expectations on training people here in our country.”

Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Although I think that the whole Points Based System is absurd, and typically Tory. The whole point of wealthy countries encouraging immigration to them is so that migrants can do the sort of jobs which nationals of those countries would rather not do. Not to give them the best most highly paid jobs, as the Tories obviously believe, ffs

Postwar mass immigration into the UK, and also in much of Europe, was characterised by unskilled or semi-skilled employment opportunities, something which the UK and Europe should be extremely grateful for, especially during the reconstruction period. Mass immigration certainly wasn’t fueled by the need for highly skilled or professional people, that would have been absurd.

Ironically we need to give opportunities to the descendants of immigrants to access well paid professional jobs before poaching skilled professionals from overseas, imo.

Regardless, Starmer is sitting on a piping lava hot PM throne

Immigration, NHS etc are all side shows with minimum impact on people .

Get the energy cost down and he will rule for another term. i.e. more disposable income for people

Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me

I don’t disagree. But he needs to figure out how to raise wages and cut the costs of training to the point where people here will want to work in those sectors. There aren’t many young working class people willing to do those jobs for minimum wage whilst at the same time having to fork out thousands for training and student loans etc. Far easier and cheaper to bring in foreign workers trained elsewhere. Reducing immigration by training people who live here is going to cost a shitload of money that Rachel Reeves will no doubt say we can’t afford.