this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
14 points (93.8% liked)

UK Politics

3084 readers
82 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I wish people would stop complaining about the WFA cuts. Those that need them still get them, and triple lock pensions are going up by an estimated £460.

Even if they lose out on their £150, they're still going to make a gain on £310.

[–] tenebrisnox@feddit.uk 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Isn’t the concern that “Those that need them still” won’t get them? There is a HUGE amount of unclaimed benefits in this country. Many old people can’t cope with the level of tech you need to apply (you can’t just phone up or pop into a benefits centre in most parts of uk).

[–] anonymous111@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I get your point, but that is a principle that shouldn't be applied. You could use the same logic to give anyone any benefit, just incase.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

How is that a counter argument?

"Sure you have a point, but I'm not going to listen to it because I don't want to"

[–] anonymous111@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

I might be entitled to a benefit, maybe. So you better give me that benefit just in case.

Apply that same reasoning to other situations.

Give the elderly disability benefit, they may be entitled, maybe not. Do it just in case.

Or to another area: you may not need antibiotics, but just have them in case you miss out on them.

Sure, you catch everyone but it costs a lot of money.

To take this to an absurd conclusion: I a 29 year old, may be entitled to a pension. I haven't checked, or applied, but give it to me anyway, just incase I am entitled.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

The amount of people claiming it went up massively thanks to the news surrounding WFA.