Chancellor Rachel Reeves told Channel 4 yesterday that she “can’t leave welfare untouched”, as speculation mounts that additional costs will be added to the Motability scheme.

In the interview Reeves said  ‘You know we’ve now committed to doing reform in a different way, but we can’t leave welfare untouched.

‘We can’t get to the end of this Parliamentary session and I’ve basically done nothing.

‘Because if more and more of our money that we spend as a government is spent on welfare, you’ve got less for the NHS, you’ve got less on schools and you have to put more on people’s taxes.’

Reeves gave no details of what she intended.

But the press have been briefed that the chancellor is considering ending exemption from VAT and insurance tax premiums for Motability cars.  Whilst this would not reduce the benefits bill in any way, it would increase the amount of tax paid by claimants using the Motability scheme.  This could result in around £1 billion a year in extra revenue for the government.

The possibility of removing luxury car brands such as BMW and Mercedes from the scheme is also being considered, as the inclusion of these vehicles causes such outrage in some sections of the press.

More details about what the Chancellor has planned may not emerge until the budget on 26 November.

You can watch the Channel 4 interview here.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    She is appalling this government just keep spending money we don’t have and then hit the disable and most vulnerable people how does she expect us that are on pip to come up
    With extra money if she takes insurance tax premiums and pay more taxes when we don’t have enough to live on this parliament and PM doesn’t care about the British people why don’t they stop taking raises every year that would save a lot of money. as long as they get their money it’s ok 

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    It's high time the general public faced up to the fact that government (whichever party) have a finite amount of money to allocate between all competing projects and need to keep a tight rein on expenditure. If we want to live in a society that has a broad moral compass and is compassionate to its poor, sick and disabled members, the only ways to fund that are a) increase government borrowing, b) increase government income (e.g. taxation) or c) make difficult choices about what the money is spent on. There is no magic money tree and there will always be people who game the system, whether it is fraudulent claimants or tax avoiders.  We don't live in the "best of all possible worlds"; we live in THIS one. 

    The majority of people are NOT disabled and have no idea what that is like on a day to day basis; I had no real understanding until it happened to me, 15 years ago.   I have definitely felt that I have been demonised by the media, the DWP and the benefit claiming system; more so during the last few years. I don't qualify for the Motability Scheme, but I was appalled to learn that luxury car brands were available. I was even more appalled to read articles in the media suggesting that you could get a "free luxury car" if you had "mild anxiety"; I know that this is a lie, designed to further demonise the disabled in the general public's mind.  The Motability Scheme is there to provide a lifeline for disabled people who would otherwise be unable to get out and about. 

    I have come to the conclusion that most people are motivated by self interests and only concerned about how the budget will affect them. Unless and until the general voting public takes a less self centred approach on how the country's finances are managed AND the government of the day puts the interests of the poor, sick and disabled above its own  desire to get re-elected, those sections of society will continue to suffer. I can't see that happening anytime soon, if ever.

    "You get what you pay for".  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Rosie My apologies Rosie, you deserve all the support you need. But the 'magic money tree' concept is a neoliberal mantra that is designed to give bail outs to the rich and austerity for the rest of us.
      As disabled people, we are not obliged to doff our caps and wring our hands when Reeves lies about the reasons why the NHS is collapsing, wages do not pay the rent and everything has to be privatised.
      I voted Labour hoping for a change from Tory austerity but Reeves and Co. have their eyes firmly on their next career in the City. That's why Thames Water is given public money to subsides shareholders. ATM it's socialism for the rich and austerity for the rest of us.
      I have no shame or qualms about demanding my benefits because I put other people's kids through education, funded cancer treatment for others and paid for free university education for people Starmer's age while I was working. It's quid pro quo. Now come on Reeves. Cough up! It's my turn to need help not your super rich chums lining you up for your next job.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Rosie I'm afraid you're wrong about the magic money tree. It does exist. It's in the Caymans.

      Beyond that, there is no limit to the amount government can spend, as any entity that borrows in its own currency can make repayments in its own currency at any time by printing more money. As long as taxation is kept in balance, this does not cause inflation and promotes full employment.

      The fastest way to inject massive growth into the economy would be to institute a UBI system. By pumping cash into the 'bottom' of the economy you drive economic activity amongst people who now have the means to buy things. That creates profits fcor businesses, who pay tax on those profits, and that is the case for every transaction (potentially in an infinite chain).

      Keynesian economics has proven that for every £ injected into the economy in government spending, more than a £ is added to GDP, and therefore to government revenues.

      Labour have a vast majority that could be used to fundamentally change the economics of this country in ways that have previously been impossible due to vested interests. That they are choosing not to tells you everything you need to know about where their priorities lie.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Rik Sounds very authentic until you ask the golden question. So why haven't some government somewhere in history snapped you up to be our saviour?
      Your superior intellect would be a massive bonus for the country. So why have you decided to enlighten just us disabled people when you could enlighten the whole world where they're all going wrong?
      All them people who went to university for years studying economics seem to have wasted their time it seems, they're totally wrong. But you are right. Thanks for the educational 👍
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Rik @Rik TLDR
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Spectralis I AM disabled. I am not trolling myself!! All I was trying (and obviously failing) to say is that people will usually vote out a government that increases income tax, so politicians are always looking for ways to cut expenditure, rather than doing the right thing.  Disabled people seem to be the current target, which I find deplorable. BTW I've never thought that running a country  is just like running a household budget. 

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    I find it frustrating that people complain about Motability users buying BMWs and Mercedes (FYI, I have a VW Touran on Motability). The luxury car makes available from Motability, are the most basic lower end models from these makers. As we know, in the past 20 years or so, Mercedes, BMW, have had to extend their range to include cheaper smaller cars to compete in times of austerity. 

    Also, and more importantly, many Pip claiments are in full employment, pay their taxes, etc. If they can afford a 9-10k up front, non returnable, payment, to drive a car they prefer for 3 years, why shouldnt they? All their Pip mobility allowance goes on the lease each month, so there are no free cars. Then after 3 years, the car is returned to Motability, and they have to start again from scratch, if they choose to; up front payment, monthly lease payments, etc.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @John M And you have the option to extend your motability lease for a further two years as well, as we did with the previous car, which by the way was a Citroen C5 Aircross!!! :-P
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    I’m fed up of people thinking that disabled claimants who qualify for motability get free cars, If you want a better model vehicle you need to pay a premium mine was £2000 before the increase in December.
    I looked at the prices just yesterday online and i was horrified at the cost of most of the cars as i said i paid £2000 for my vehicle if i ordered the same vehicle yesterday its gone up to £5000 a £3000 increase.
    who could afford that.
    I’m afraid if they reduce the cost when i come to renew, I shall just take the money that motability pay and go elsewhere.
    I heard the CEO of car scheme makes 3/4 of million per year.Unless that was his bonus.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    I find it ironic that welfare is never "cut" it is always "reformed" implying it was bad and made better ... Bit like "targeting resources" also means cuts but sounds better.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    Welfare is not untouched because ESA migration to Universal credit means you are worse off than you were if you were getting the severe disability premium to the tune of £70 per month !
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Monique I believe you are not worse off as transitional protection payment is added to a UC payment if one was previously claiming ESA and in support group and migrating. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Monique Not everyone is worse off
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Monique I migrated and I’m a lot better off ! I get to keep the contribution based ESA , not sure if that’s because I’ve been an unpaid carer for 28 years ? I actually was not aware there was 2 kinds of ESA and I was receiving contribution based as well as income related , I just got informed I was on new style ESA  in a letter . I don’t know your situation but having the severe disability premium does carry over in the form of getting council tax reduction. ( possibly just for carers ) UC are clueless in this migration , it took me nearly 5 months to get mine sorted then found out they class the transitional protection money as income  when it comes to council tax so my bill went up from £29 a month to £150 which effectively cancelled out the promised TP ! I went to CAB  to sort this out . No one knows what they’re doing with this migration or new council tax rules .  The system gives with one hand and takes away with another . Everyone seems to think getting carers allowance means getting actual money when in most cases it’s an underlying benefit that paid my NI as I had to give up work to be a carer .  You are supposed to be guaranteed to be NOT worse off migrating from ESA.  Some information says you only keep TP for a year however if you had the severe disability premium you keep the TP until it erodes . If you haven’t seen a benefit expert I would highly recommend seeing one at CAB . I’ve also never heard anyone talk about UC effectively bringing back the bedroom tax as now housing benefit has been taken over by UC if one of my adult disabled  children  left I’d have to pay 14% of the rent myself which in my case would be£53 a month and getting a council house swap or an elusive downsize to a new council property is so impossible I can’t  imagine how difficult they have made it ! 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Monique You should not be if you are already on ESA as you have transitional protection.  I get the same as I did on ESA/SDP
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    I contacted motability and they said these are only rumours and speculation. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    Let's hope Reform don't get in next time or I doubt there will be  any welfare state as they are very much in favour of the American way 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    Universal Credit: Do You Really Have to Give DWP Your Bank Statements?

    Interesting article – any thoughts?

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @Susan im on guaranteed pension credit..  they have contacted me this week saying THEY ARE going to MAKE SURE IM GETTING THE RIGHT AMOUNT  and to make sure i have incoming and outgoing ready when they phone me ?   is this the snooping bit  we've been warned about? checking our bank statements?  .. they surely KNOW my incoming and outgoing??  so they really just want my bank statements ? 🤷🏼
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @HL Very interesting. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @HL Watch Black Belt Barrister on uTube & others on this subject.

      No is the answer unless you are under review or investigation the DWP cannot attempt a "fishing" exercise.

      Ask - 1. Why - 2. Either of the above  get it in writing.

      Discrimination Act  2010 me thinks 🤔 not sure which year!

      Really good podcast casts on this subject...will need to brush up if asked...I will not give them any bank statements. Yes, they can stop your benefits,  which also contravenes Dis Act! 




  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    I agree that luxury cars do not need to be in the motability scheme. It's not necessary at all.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Suzie Ok Why do politicians highlight benefit fraud and not mention tax avoidance/evasion Benefit fraud~£1.2 billionOften exaggerated, highly visible. Easy to fool you Tax avoidance/evasion£35–£90 billionUnder-discussed, legally murky easy to hide from you    People really do need to wake up to tax evasion 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    The economy is slowly being degraded by Labour trying to go too far too fast. Elderly and disabled citizens have been the targets so far, Benefit claimed are the new bogeymen.The government are hoping the economy will just pick up, so sick of hearing it is not us it's the mess the other lot left us with.Thats what the other lot said for 14 years.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    Does anybody whether changing the rule about VAT on mobility cars could result in
    VAT being charged on all mobility equipment. Currently disabled people don't pay VAT on mobility aids. I'm concerned that could be the impact of any change.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Susan The current system for VAT exemption on car lease payments is specifically only for those supplied by Motability to those on DLA mobility, PIP mobility, Armed Forces Independence Payment, Mobility supplement.

      The current VAT exemption for electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters designed for disabled use appears to not be specific to Motability or those on benefits. But due to them being things designed for disabled people. Disability aids as it were rather than cars.

      Disability adaptions to cars are also VAT exemption outside of Mobility but not the car itself.

      So if the government abolishes the VAT exemption for cars supplied by Motability. I think is likely that would not effect the status of electric wheelchairs or mobility scooters designed for disabled use supplied by Motability. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @John You say on pip to use but what about military veterans who claim war pensions or armed forces payments     
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Barrie Cooper Higher down payments on cars barrie 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Barrie Cooper It should not do

      I think the VAT exemption for car lease payments is specific to Motability and other charities (if any exist) providing cars for disabled people on PIP to use.

      While the VLAT exemption for things like electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters designed for disabled use I think is universal, applies regardless of who provides them for lease or sale. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    Starmer was using Luke Mortimer who is a 12 year old quadruple amputee in a photo op today. The media coverage fails to mention if Starmer told him about his plans to further cut the benefits he would have got when he reaches 18, so as to not incentivize him into being lazy. And wished him good luck when his 18 trying to survive on £72.90 a week, no UC health element and no PIP until he is 22 and once he is 22 no tax exemptions for any Motability vehicle, and thanks to the previous government no severe disability premium and no independent living fund. And warned him that the £72.90 would be means tested and subject to a full conditionality and sanctions regime so he will need to do what a DWP work coach tells him or else. As apparently he told him Britain's not Broken.

    Starmer said people like Luke inspire him. Unfortunately he did not mention what people like Luke inspire him to do. As that appears to be to call them a unsustainable burden that is unfair on tax payers and to cut their benefits.

    As Luke looked happy in the photo op. I have to wonder if Starmer is living up to his promise to bring honesty back into politics. As if Stamer had been honest with him I think he would have been far from happy. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Mike If you're waiting for Starmer to be honest you'll be waiting until you meet your maker. The man hasn't got an honest bone in his body. He despises disabled and sick people.
      So don't expect any help from this cruel,sorry excuse of a man.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Bronc
      For 25 years plus UC standard allowance is £400.14 a month. When Luke Mortimer is 25 he will get more than that as he will also get PIP and a UC health element.

      When Luke Mortimer reaches 22 he should be eligible for PIP and UC health and I would expect be in the severely disabled for life group. So in the case of those two benefits from the age of 22 will not be worse off than current claimants today.
      But, he will be far worse off than people before him due to:
      Below inflation increases in benefits since 2010.
      The ending of passporting of those severely disabled from a young age to non means tested non time limited income replacement disability benefits.
      The plan to make people not eligible for PIP and not eligible for UC health element until they are 22, creating a void in disability benefits between 18-21.
      The cut in government funding for specialist residential colleges for disabled young adults to learn independent living and vocational skills, to enable them to live independently and earn a living.
      The abolishing of the Independent Living Fund, and Severe disability premium which were designed to enable severely disabled to fund care support to enable them to live independently.
      The abolishing of the social fund that included funding of white goods, carpets, furniture for severely disabled people moving into their first place of their own.
      The cuts to funding / change in funding priority away from the most disabled to the less disabled for access higher education funding and for access to work funding.

      So as you can hopefully see he is going to get far less support, particularly to live independently, and to pursue education and employment, than he would have got. And the above cuts are just those that I can think of their are probably more. And as you can hopefully appreciate the cuts are directly contrary to the stated past and present government aim of getting more disabled people to live independently and work. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Mike What about for 25 years plus?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Bronc For those aged 18 to 24 standard UC is £316.98 a month.
      £316.98 a month times 12 months in a year.
      Devided by 365.25 days in a year taking into account leap years.
      Times 7 days in a week.
      Equals £72.90 a week.
      Which is as intended as for those aged 18 to 25 contributions based JSA is £72.90 a week. And currently those two benefits are supposed to be equal. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Bronc Standard UC for a single person is £400.14pm
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    No government makes money they just take from the productive sector. Obvious but some people seem to think governments are made of money. A lot of it is borrowed too. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Indianan A tory (blue labour too) are always out to scapegoat people they don't want to help. It is as simple as that. They always find money for everything else specially if it will help their rich masters and friends and obviously themselves. 
      There is always money for wars and new armaments
      There is no money for hospitals and schools
      There is money for expenses
      There is money for tax cuts for the rich
      There is no money for training people
      There is no money for investment in improving living conditions
      There is no money for housing
      There is plenty of money for any other thing!
      Its funny how when something is needed they are worried about the debt but when its for making the rich richer, and for adventurism and wars they don't worry about the debt
      During WW2 we borrowed money from the US under lend lease and took nearly 70 years to pay it back which by that time was not worth very much due to inflation and the erosion of the value of money. 
      To me this is the age old quest for a moral justification for selfishness

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @BigGov The problem is how the Government manages the money. When they want something, they manage to find it, not to mention how much is spent on controversial ideas regarding migrants and on the various ongoing wars. 
      How much money was lost on the Covid schemes where MPs were making money from inflated contracts, and the products were not fit for purchase? Are they chasing back the money? No. 
      I have many more examples, but I won't go into detail. A quick Google search will provide that.
      It is the same issue with the NHS and local councils. They do not manage budgets adequately and then complain they are broke. If money were better managed, low-income workers (including nurses) would get better pay. 
      MPs and the PM manage to find money in the budget for increased benefits, significantly discounted meals, second homes, expenses and so on. Don't see them taking a pay decrease or reducing the benefits they receive. They are the real ones taking advantage of public money, but now they decide to fill the money gaps they created by taking it from the disabled, carers (who save the NHS millions a year), low-skilled workers and anything else they can squeeze from the working classes. 
      So, in relation to your comment. Yes, I agree the Government is not made of money, and they do borrow millions, which have to be paid back with high interest rates. 

      However, if the money the Government receives were better managed, including by the NHS, local councils, etc., and if management and CEOs were paid reasonable salaries (rather than highly inflated), we would be in a much better situation.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @BigGov This video will explain to you how money is created by the government and turned into assets


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @BigGov I have to disagree with you completely on that point! Government does not borrow money from the productive sector this is completely wrong. Government borrow money and print bonds for which they pay interest long term over 20 or 30 years. When governments borrow money they pass that on to business as assets which they then use.  The problem is that government goes on cutting taxes when they cannot afford to do so and then they borrow money to plug the shortfall they themselves have created. This helps the rich who get their money right away and also helps the banks who provide the loans which is money the government has borrowed by issuing bonds. 
      By creating money through bonds the government then gives it to the business who create wealth from it. The budget as people like to think is not your household budget and should not be thought of as such to balance the book. This is where our economic illiterate politicians and many others get it completely wrong. I suggest you should watch a documentary made by Richard Murphy on this subject as it will be very educational to those who do not understand basic economics! 

      https://www.youtube.com/shorts/45y0b171Ajk


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @BigGov True
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    People here forget the NI Contributions is an Insurance premium. When you are unemployed, sick, or disabled and even in death. People pay very high NI contributions every month which works out to thousands on top of the taxes they pay to the government. For those people who get are unable to work the government makes contributions to keep their payments up. The system should not be run by governments it should be set  up as a autonomous government department answerable to us. yes I have also heard the old tired statements that they are paying from today's contributions ? Really ? Are we so naive they cannot take a loan to cover that and pay interest ? It is a ponsie scheme to rip us off even after paying taxes. Wake up people it is an insurance scheme that we pay high premiums towards. For those who do not work there are contributions made on their behalf to cover that too. For those who have worked those are high premiums. It should be independent of the DWP and be run like an insurance company and not by some tin pot minister telling us what we are or are not entitled to with changes every year. There has to be a clear social contract. This is a rip off with out money!!!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    Luxury cars shouldn't be in the scheme i agree, and neither should convertibles, it's rediculous seeing someone with supposed mobility problems driving around in a wee low down car with the roof back in summer, like really.
    Have to say though, as someone who can't sit in a standard car like a focus, astra etc, the higher up cars advance are so unfair.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @JUSTINA I doubt there are that many out there    You have to put a sizeable amount down to get a luxury car and who would have a spare 8 to 9 thousand pounds 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @JUSTINA What business is it of yours what kind of car someone decides to use their award on? Are you wanting to make sure that disabled cars can be identified on the road to show that the person is disabled or in your words (supposed Mobility problems) so you can point your judgementmental and jealous  Finger?  Because really this is about your narrow mindedness. Would you feel happier if mobility cars were old wrecks and painted the same colour. Maybe a sign on then (SUPPOSED MOBILITY PROBLEMS)! You need to realise people who get mobility cars get them for various reasons YOU should be happy for them it's you and people like you that are causing people with mobility issues to be targeted by this jealousy and stigma 

      "It's ridiculous seeing someone with supposed mobility problems driving around in a wee low down car with the roof back in summer, like really" 

      It's ridiculous that you are so petty as to even write this comment 😡
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @JUSTINA “Supposed” you do know not all disabilities are visible and why shouldn’t they have a decent car. Hey you’d like those horrible blue ones back so everyone knew what they were for. Disappointed to see this view on this site. It’s not welfare that’s the issue 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    BMW and Mercedes is ridiculous. There should be a mid range, moderate variety of cars to choose from. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Sam Disabled people should have the same choice as non disabled.  People seem to forget that the more expensive the car the more deposit has to be put down upfront.  Some people need a bigger car as well to accommodate wheelchairs and other mobility/health aids.  There is too much in the press about free cars, motability cars are not free.  We pay up front and the monthly fee.  Sadly this government are creating a divide and making disabled people seem like scroungers.  Many of us have worked all our lives but rely on this extra support that we get to be able to live a semi 'normal' life.  If they remove the vat exemption it will just make cars more expensive to us and rake in more tax for the government.  Until they walk a mile in our shoes they will never understand.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @James Optics?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Sam If they are competitive priced to mobility then it really is up to them which manufacturers to use. It all comes down to costs nothing else really matters
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    I have said it before, but if the disbaled community want to protect itself, IT MUST VOTE at the General Election, although the choices are bad or worse....one of the reasons why Reeves will not touch the triple  lock is that pensioners VOTE.  Yet the state pension, which the Government, if not pensioners, see as a benefit and is by far the largest slice of the DWP budget and with a rapidly ageing population this will have to be addressed.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @godgivemestrength Down voters - what is your problem??
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Ala If it was a private insurance we would be suing for our payments in exchange for our premiums (Naively called contributions) What a rip off!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Matt An average income of 25,000 pounds a year works out to nearly 3000 pounds in premiums or contributions as they are defined as. It is still an insurance and no minister should have control over this at all! That works out to a monthly payment of 250 pounds for insurance and if it was run independently you would be able to sue them when they don't pay out when it is due. We just let our governments do whatever they like without our money!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Matt It's a benefit for those who have paid into a National Insurance scheme which amounts to 13% of a person's income. Expensive when compared to other private pension schemes. NI is an insurance and it should be run by a autonomous company and away from any government control and interference for sickness, unemployment and yes even pensions! That way the government can stop touching out money and get on with other important things instead of robbing us and then making us feel guilty for what we pay into
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Ala Really stupid. I've just made it across, and although there were no big mistakes or hostile treatment, there was still a lot of unnecessary and repetitive back and forth with the journal, telephone calls to confirm what had already been verified etc. Such a waste of resources when I'll be applying for my state pension in  7 months
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    Starmer and co said they would bring back honour and integrity and honesty to politics. And restore public trust in politics. So I think they should have delivered on that first.

    I think MPs in parliament and when on the media should have to wear large logos of their party's donors and their individual donors and donors of any organization they get paid by, and any other employers, if they receive over x amount of money or benefits in kind from them. With the words sponsored by above the logos. Also any major investments or shareholding they have or their immediate family has. The lists should be on the ballot paper by their name, and next to their name in any newspaper article covering what they say or written by them.

    Also a lies count since the last election, and if a career politicians previous totals. Lies counted would be any lies told in parliament, and any lies said in the media, TV, radio, newspapers, social media. And could include lies by omission that is deliberately misleading by creating a false impression by the selective use of facts. The lies count could be overseen by a independent commission on honesty in politics. And the lies count prominently displayed on a hat they are required to wear in parliament and when on TV. And stated after their name at the start of any TV or radio appearance, social media post or newspaper article.

    MP Joe Blogs (x number of lies told this parliament) sponsored by .. and with financial interests in ... Says..... 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    There has also been talk of a taxi tax. This lot really are prepared to stoop to new lows and chase pennies off the poor, whilst ignoring the obvious….taking more off big corporations and making the super wealthy pay their fair share. It will be another one sided, dogs dinner of a budget.
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.