Starmer the pensioner harmer....

To be mortgage or rent free is a good thing, its only when those things dissappear do you realise how much money the banks and mortgage companies make. When i became mortgage free the tsb didnt want to know, they put barriers up to prevent me making a final payment, were unavailable, charged a fee. They want to keep you in debt, encourage you to get into even more debt by increasing your mortgage for home improvements etc.

Even though i have money, the cost of stuff is horrendous, it dissappears quickly, even though i have a bit, the value of it is disgustingly low, its like having bundles of Monopoly cash, but it only buys a stick of chewing gum.

If you are in debt you are a slave, you are being ripped off, so in that sense Starmer is right. If you are in debt make it no 1 priority to pay it off, you are bleeding to death slowly, or in some cases, fast.

This is central to how the country is run, that being in debt, being able to judge how much the government can borrow and pay back is seriously wrong.

Put me in charge, i will pave the streets with gold, benefits will be top draw, we can bristle with new tanks nuclear weapons.....and still have a zillion in the bank. The government is so incompetent it takes my breath away, it chooses to be bankrupt, of all the oxbridge trained economists....the only task they have is to keep debt repayable.

And have failed. The debt we have cannot be paid back, we are bankrupt.

I'd put my money on most top politicians from both parties are very rich people, some by enjoying large inheritances and some by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, I suspect Starmer is in the latter group.  
That the daily shame highlights Starmer's position is typical childish Rightist garbage. 

If the government can repair the damage done to the economy then everyone will benefit in the future. i.e. use the system for the benefit of the many not the few.

“Over a million pensioners will still receive the winter fuel payment, while many others will also benefit from the £150 warm home discount to help with their energy bills over winter, and we have already seen a 115% increase in pension credit claims following the launch of our awareness campaign.”

How many pensioners are there like myself and my wife, both over eighty, who do not need the WFA?

'Need' is a tricky word. My wife and I are very careful and as such have more than enough to meet all our needs despite having an income not much above pension credit levels. We do not 'need' the WFA. A couple who go on two cruises in the spring and autumn may find their income stretched a bit as the electric bills came in at Christmas. They 'need' the WFA.

Far better to reduce government spending by 50% , reduce working age benefits packages to a total of 75% full time minimum wage , restrict claiming working age benefits to a maximum of 5 years between ages 18-66 (or OAP age - whatever that currently is)
Stop all the made up MH/''anxiety'' payouts (the new ''bad back'' and make people take personal responsibility for their lives
Why on earth ae we now feeding breakfast to all primary schoolkids?
That's their parents' job - not mine 

Ah yes. School kids

Here's the reality

In the 1960's the ratio of house prices to average income meant that most married couples with children who were in the process of buying a home with a mortgage could manage on ONE income plus the tax allowances society granted a married man in expectation he would provide for his family.

In our street a number of wives had part time jobs and one woman who lost her husband in a dodgy overseas oilfield caper with mercenaries in Nigeria worked full time.

A veritable army of grandparents uncles and aunts across the street ran a rota system. With my grandmother a permanent resident we could count on a supply of free beer from the guy across the road who gave grandma free Guinness from his brewery job employee allowance in exchange for her looking after his daughter with us from 4 to six. Simon, the son of the widow I mentioned, got looked after from about 8 till coming to school with me, then from 4 till his mum came home at 6 because that was the right thing to do.

From time to time we'd be looked after for a few hours in our friend's house etc etc.

Professional Childcare was just unheard of.

Today however

Debt To Income ratios of six to one and upwards ensure that a couple with a mortgage have nothing left after two full time jobs. My eldest, when she worked in a nursery, started to receive kids from 6am from parents rushing off to their two hour office commute. She would feed them, take them to school, collect them after school ended, bring them back to the nursery, feed them dinner and help with homework until their parent collected them at 6pm

Throughout the year most of the children saw more of my daughter and her fellow workers than their own parents.

The cost was extortionate not that Sarah saw much of it.

That's why kids eat at breakfast clubs

Government Policy and what it does to housing costs

Yes - 

BUT
Your daughter worked in a nursery where the parents paid for childcare out of their own money  - not mine
The case for feeding all primary kids breakfast in school FOC out of taxpayers money is allegedly that many kids go to school in the morning suposedly ''starving'' as their waste of oxygen parents neglect to  feed them - preferring to spend their taxpayer funded benefits on booze/fags/tattoos /sky tv /trendy trainers/drugs etc 
Thus letting parents abdicate all responsibility for the nutrition of their own children .
I repeat it should be the parents responsibility to feed their children - not mine