A dictionary exemplar:
Sir Keir has criticised Mr Hunt for holding a “huge giveaway to some of the very wealthiest” by abolishing the lifetime allowance for all pension pots.
The Chancellor’s policy will mean that pensioners can save more than the current limit of £1.07m without incurring tax charges that the Government says are preventing many from remaining in work.
On Tuesday night, Sir Keir led 176 Labour MPs through the Commons lobbies to vote against the change, and the party has pledged to reverse it if it wins the next general election.
When he stood down, the Government passed secondary legislation, titled the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013,
Isn’t Sir Keir’s own policy of allowing doctors to have larger pension pots than everybody else also a “huge giveaway to some of the very wealthiest” then?
“Huge giveaway” = letting people decide what to do with their own money.
How on earth did Sir Kneel fail to recognise that this would be used to demonstrate what a hypocrite he is on the subject?
Maybe HMG should pass a new law stripping past DPPs of this nice little earner. And the judges too. Is there any other group in this happy posish?
What combination of keye does one need to type for that lauhing emoji with tears sprouting from the eyes?
And, what’s more. most of the people that will benefit from this are state employees like doctors or bureaucrats by the way the DB benefits LTA is calculated. Most private sector employees / s/e funded by private business or their own endeavours rarely have >£1.07million pension pots. Large corporates also have high paid people banging up against the LTA but they do other things to mitigate it.
I know the emoji that you mean. It’s called “joy”.
Nothing from Murphy on this. Is he hoping for a call from Starmer?
If Spud’s seen this he’s probably abusing himself in to a stupor over the thought of being able to do the same:
Surely Keir Starmer only has to go into a television studio and answer “yes” to the inevitable question: “So will you personally be surrendering your LTA exemption with immediate effect?” and he would enjoy the benefit of never again having to stand his round when the Shadow Cabinet goes out for a drink.
Who would not want as PM someone who saw that as a fair trade? Commissars have never heard of noblesse oblige!
Opposing something because it’s not a priority even though it might be net good is a strange line of opposition, but we’re hearing it a lot.
The argument would presumably be that abolishing the way we pay the WFA or devolving say minimum wage or planning to LAs or a change in child car-seat regulation if you have 3+ kids or whatever should not be opposed on their lack of merit, but because they’re not a priority. Blooming Nora, the entirety of the foreign development aid budget (communicable diseases excepted) is not currently a priority to the british punter, so does the argument mean we increase, maintain or slash. I’ve no frigging idea. I just want to smash Rachel Reeves’s face in because she deploys this ‘not a priority’ argument the most.
Surely Keir Starmer only has to go into a television studio and answer “yes” to the inevitable question: “So will you personally be surrendering your LTA exemption with immediate effect?”
Have you been hiding on Mars? The MSM is so desperate to get rid of the Tories they won’t ask such hardball questions and if there was a rick they would he won’t do the interview. That sort of questioning is for muck rakers like Guido* or GB News.
*As defined by the Economist.
“Huge giveaway” = allowing people to reduce their dependency on the state.
Somewhere I think I’ve still got (bought in an Aachen flea market for 1DM, so I guess there are plenty about) a 100 milliard (10^11) Reichsmark note, overprinted in red 1 billion (10^12).
Some years ago my wife and I were members of a 6-person team which won a local “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” competition.
Sadly the prize was paid in (old) Turkish lira – I recall that we ended up with about 11p each….