Mr Celine
Senior Member
Both new state pension and 'old' state pension increased by 4.8% this year.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-and-pension-rates-2026-to-2027#state-pension
Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Both new state pension and 'old' state pension increased by 4.8% this year.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-and-pension-rates-2026-to-2027#state-pension
Psamathe
Legendary Member
The change is for future increases.
Psamathe
Legendary Member
UK Food inflation 5.1% in August 2025.
CXRAndy
Epic Member
Thank goodness, your hard earned private pension is going to fund government projects 
View: https://x.com/i/status/2044842301432672574
View: https://x.com/i/status/2044842301432672574
briantrumpet
Timewaster
This is a fair summary of Starmer's failings as PM. He seems to want to be aloof from the politics of it all, and just be a mid-level manager of a regional accountancy firm.
https://archive.ph/AIcjf
"The Mandelson scandal is damaging in part because it illustrates a broader truth: that Labour’s biggest problem is that there is a Starmer-shaped hole where the prime minister should be. If you don’t have a prime minister who is able to set a direction and adjudicate between departments, you get a government that is deadlocked and drifting on national defence.
If you don’t have a prime minister who is willing to use the bully pulpit of government to argue consistently for something, anything, you are not going to get welfare reform, or renewed public services, or a deeper relationship with the European Union, or economic growth, or any of the half a dozen priorities that the government cycles through in a given week.
It is ultimately not surprising that Starmer might oversee a government in which no one is certain what is or isn’t a deal-breaker when appointing a US ambassador, given he oversees a government whose intent is so hard to read on so much else."
https://archive.ph/AIcjf
"The Mandelson scandal is damaging in part because it illustrates a broader truth: that Labour’s biggest problem is that there is a Starmer-shaped hole where the prime minister should be. If you don’t have a prime minister who is able to set a direction and adjudicate between departments, you get a government that is deadlocked and drifting on national defence.
If you don’t have a prime minister who is willing to use the bully pulpit of government to argue consistently for something, anything, you are not going to get welfare reform, or renewed public services, or a deeper relationship with the European Union, or economic growth, or any of the half a dozen priorities that the government cycles through in a given week.
It is ultimately not surprising that Starmer might oversee a government in which no one is certain what is or isn’t a deal-breaker when appointing a US ambassador, given he oversees a government whose intent is so hard to read on so much else."
Psamathe
Legendary Member
It will be interesting to see how Ms Badenoch handles Monday. If her record in post is maintained Starmer will have an easy time as she'll be missing a completely open goal (again). But knowing it's coming, what will be claimed by Starmer, etc. well in advance I'd hope she's spending the weekend training, learning background, etc.
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Prediction: Starmer will be all over his brief, however concocted, will answer Badenoch's charge in his first reply, and she'll just stick to her script no matter what, as she's incapable of listening to a reply and adapting her questioning based on responses.
She'll then upload her edited performance onto the Tories' YouTube channel claiming that she savaged him.
Last edited:
midlandsgrimpeur
Senior Member
It's odd as by all accounts Starmer was instrumental in getting rid of Corbyn and momentum and pave the way for his leadership. He seems to be ruthless when needed in some respects and wished to be PM. Now he is there though he seems happy to relinquish decision making and control to others. All of which begs the question as to why he went to such lengths to assume control of the Labour party?
bobzmyunkle
Veteran
Maybe you're missing something. But then again maybe there was no conspiracy.
midlandsgrimpeur
Senior Member
Who said anything about a conspiracy? I am just surprised (and disappointed) at how apathetic Starmer has been, particularly on domestic policy. On foreign affairs, Trump, Ukraine et al he has been impressive, but overall I am very disappointed, I thought he would be a far stronger leader.
bobzmyunkle
Veteran
I was commenting regarding the lengths Starmer went to to become Labour leader. He was just a figurehead for Labour Together - there very definitely was a conspiracy.
As for his domestic policy performance - I think he's a bit clueless generally as a politician. Maybe it's just that the domestic policy decisions demanded by his puppet masters are more at odds with anything traditionally Labour, whereas the policy conflict is less on foreign policy.
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Incidentally, for those getting in a froth about Mandelson... at the risk of being accused of whataboutery, when Johnson was appointed Foreign Secretary...
CXRAndy
Epic Member
These labour mps just pour petrol on the fire of the starmer debacle 
View: https://x.com/i/status/2045793304252670419
View: https://x.com/i/status/2045793304252670419
swee'pea99
Member
What I don't get about the whole Mandelson thing is, even as the graun delivers the standard issue Captain Mainwaring:
it also quotes, in the same article, one 'Ciaran Martin, a former senior civil servant with past involvement in vetting work', as saying:
So, which is it? Are they supposed to tell ministers or aren't they?
it also quotes, in the same article, one 'Ciaran Martin, a former senior civil servant with past involvement in vetting work', as saying:
So, which is it? Are they supposed to tell ministers or aren't they?
