“…I do think it was rather unwise of TM to pledge the same amount of foreign aid at the same time as her chancellor was hinting at withdrawing the pensions triple lock and possible tax increases.”
Careful, jackdaw. I suggested that very thing in another question and was told it was “weak”. I attempted to add a little strength to my argument with some figures and asked why my suggestion was considered weak. Answer came there none. Page 2 of this question on Friday at 22:35 and my answer half an hour later:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1549067-2.html
I believe you also contributed. I didn’t get involved in the “is the State pension a Benefit” debate. I’ve stated many times that I consider fully funded State Pensions are not “Benefits” (with a Capital B) any more than occupational pension payments are. Those who have not fully funded their State pensions receive retirement age Benefits. The reason why the triple lock was introduced (and it’s not that generous) was because State pensions had suffered around two decades (at least) of relative decline compared to earnings. The last two or three years (which Mrs May describes as the “changes that have benefited pensioners which they should consider”) go nowhere near to redressing that balance.
I would indeed be very surprised if the funereal Mr Hammond remains Chancellor should the Tories be returned to officce.