There’s a headline in some six months after winning a GE many didn’t expect to see, only 4.5 years to go…,,
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?
- Thread starter Flounce
- Start date
Rat Boy thinks voters will thank the Government for scrapping WFA…
Voters will thank Labour for scrapping winter fuel payments, Wes Streeting claims
Health secretary says Labour were forced to make unpopular decisions in its first six months in power
www.independent.co.uk
portslade seagull
Well-known member
Next advising price rises due to the budget along with price rises advised by the supermarkets. Job losses expected too. Plus a monetary think tank now advising inflation will rise back to 4%. Not a great start
Society is fundamentally poorly structured. The UK is a fantastic place to live if you are over 50 and have made use of the many very generous offers that are available if you are able to use them.
* Deferring up to 60k a year - or up to 180k in back payments - to a pension, tax free if you run your own company, or with tax back/added if you don't - and then if that does well on the markets, realising gains from it (imagine if you put that into rolls royce 4 years ago!). Deferring your tax to a later date, and becoming more tax efficient when you do.
* 20k tax free per annum tax free in an ISA. Again, you can do very well off the gains in this tax free. Pick the right funds/stocks and you can absolutely clean up here.
* Triple lock pensions (although state pensions are better in europe.
* Free healthcare - what an incredible benefit. We all benefiot from this, but you will really use it more in your older years.
* most people over 50 who bought a home will have benefitted from the major house price rises of the past 30 years, and if you are downsizing, all of those gains are tax free.
Now - i like all of these benefits. My biggest regret is not jumping on the first two in my twenties at a low level as compound interest would have made any retirement pot alot easier (if you are young or have younger kids tell them to use this stuff immediately if they can).
But compare them to what is available to young people or young families.
Yes child benefit exists, but only at a low level and it tapers off at 60k now - which as a salary does not go that far at all. If you're a single earner household with a family, you've spent your monthly allowance on mortage/rent, food and getting to work.
House prices are insane, the cost of childcare is phenomenal - and when you get to school age, the system is crumbling - around 7% of kids are out of school, and alot of schools are disrupted as they are not set up to work with SEN profiles (up to 18% of child population are now registered SEN, and suspected that this figure is actually close to 30%).
Want a higher education? that will leave you with 50k debt.
The cost of going to work is insane - and many more.
Much of this stuff is engineering because older people vote, and younger people are more interested in doing reali life adult things and being independent.
A mixture of the luxury life and then the cost of normal life leads to anaemic population growth. Our birth rate is beginning to tank, and our systems only work because the young working people pay for the old people.
For at least the past 17 years, and probably longer, we have had a pretty generous tax system but that has come with fewer and reduced services.
We also got into the habit, during austerity, in keeping wages low and freezing them - and whilst we had lower inflation, people didn't notice the creep... but they do now. Compare this to the US economy, where rates for jobs are usually 3-4x higher than in the UK. Yes, everything costs way more there too - but the point is we have only just started to accept higher pay to catch up with everything costing double.
Labour should have been bolder in their election promises, and not got scared and committed to no tax increases - which have now seen them in an unholy mess whilst they dance around the reality that tax is likely needed to increase - because people want basically want the services back.
Pretty much all of the media is already against labour anyway, so this is easy to pounce on. What they are suffering now, is because they have played a bad political game and got themselves into a hole.
Labour can't be seen to raise anything. So they raise NI on businesses as it is not a tax on the people, but in reality it is another cost on businesses, which is silly as the cost of running a business is super high these days - whereas NI has been cut twice recently by the tories.
They say they want growth and there is a black hole. Well i see a brexit sized gap there. And i see countries like Poland and Lithuania doing great buisness and becoming very strong economies whilst they fill the void that we left.
There will undoubtebly be a load of very good stuff that they are doing, but the comms behind this isn't hitting home.
Personally - i think that's their major problem. the WFP could have been easily argued in this context, especially as the poorer sections of society are still covered. Farm tax too. They are going after major landowners, but it has been argued so poorly.
* Deferring up to 60k a year - or up to 180k in back payments - to a pension, tax free if you run your own company, or with tax back/added if you don't - and then if that does well on the markets, realising gains from it (imagine if you put that into rolls royce 4 years ago!). Deferring your tax to a later date, and becoming more tax efficient when you do.
* 20k tax free per annum tax free in an ISA. Again, you can do very well off the gains in this tax free. Pick the right funds/stocks and you can absolutely clean up here.
* Triple lock pensions (although state pensions are better in europe.
* Free healthcare - what an incredible benefit. We all benefiot from this, but you will really use it more in your older years.
* most people over 50 who bought a home will have benefitted from the major house price rises of the past 30 years, and if you are downsizing, all of those gains are tax free.
Now - i like all of these benefits. My biggest regret is not jumping on the first two in my twenties at a low level as compound interest would have made any retirement pot alot easier (if you are young or have younger kids tell them to use this stuff immediately if they can).
But compare them to what is available to young people or young families.
Yes child benefit exists, but only at a low level and it tapers off at 60k now - which as a salary does not go that far at all. If you're a single earner household with a family, you've spent your monthly allowance on mortage/rent, food and getting to work.
House prices are insane, the cost of childcare is phenomenal - and when you get to school age, the system is crumbling - around 7% of kids are out of school, and alot of schools are disrupted as they are not set up to work with SEN profiles (up to 18% of child population are now registered SEN, and suspected that this figure is actually close to 30%).
Want a higher education? that will leave you with 50k debt.
The cost of going to work is insane - and many more.
Much of this stuff is engineering because older people vote, and younger people are more interested in doing reali life adult things and being independent.
A mixture of the luxury life and then the cost of normal life leads to anaemic population growth. Our birth rate is beginning to tank, and our systems only work because the young working people pay for the old people.
For at least the past 17 years, and probably longer, we have had a pretty generous tax system but that has come with fewer and reduced services.
We also got into the habit, during austerity, in keeping wages low and freezing them - and whilst we had lower inflation, people didn't notice the creep... but they do now. Compare this to the US economy, where rates for jobs are usually 3-4x higher than in the UK. Yes, everything costs way more there too - but the point is we have only just started to accept higher pay to catch up with everything costing double.
Labour should have been bolder in their election promises, and not got scared and committed to no tax increases - which have now seen them in an unholy mess whilst they dance around the reality that tax is likely needed to increase - because people want basically want the services back.
Pretty much all of the media is already against labour anyway, so this is easy to pounce on. What they are suffering now, is because they have played a bad political game and got themselves into a hole.
Labour can't be seen to raise anything. So they raise NI on businesses as it is not a tax on the people, but in reality it is another cost on businesses, which is silly as the cost of running a business is super high these days - whereas NI has been cut twice recently by the tories.
They say they want growth and there is a black hole. Well i see a brexit sized gap there. And i see countries like Poland and Lithuania doing great buisness and becoming very strong economies whilst they fill the void that we left.
There will undoubtebly be a load of very good stuff that they are doing, but the comms behind this isn't hitting home.
Personally - i think that's their major problem. the WFP could have been easily argued in this context, especially as the poorer sections of society are still covered. Farm tax too. They are going after major landowners, but it has been argued so poorly.
Last edited:
fly high
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,914
Stop singing……….But this goes back to your fundamental misunderstanding of the figures you posted.
I am not aware that Labour are 'increasing the spend on immigrants'. The 'overspend' is from the last government.
Indeed, by scrapping the Rwanda scheme, spending on asylum issues will see an immediate saving of around £800m.
Home Office budgeting and asylum overspends | Institute for Fiscal Studies
The Home Office has repeatedly spent far more than budgeted for asylum, border, visa and passport operations in recent years.ifs.org.uk
View attachment 194754
If you believe Labour are indeed increasing the spend on immigrants - then please provide the evidence to show this.
Number of migrants living in hotels soars under Labour as asylum costs top £5bn
The number of migrants living in hotels has risen by 20 per cent in three months, official data shows
search.app
The numbers of asylum cases and the management of immigrants has never been more expensive, and until drastic action is taken British taxpayers will continue to underwrite the whole circus. I don’t think anyone sane disputes this.
These costs of course are not just hotels and accommodation, but the whole legal and admistration of this unwanted demand, some of which are costs spread across different Govt departments. If the Government concede its 5bn pa you can bet your life it’s much higher.
They are stupid, but not that stupid.
Brilliant post.
Yes, the promise to not raise tax has made Labour a lame duck government in the space of 6 months.
It was the same promise that was made by the tories, who preposterously proposed to lower tax too.
And they would have got away with it because we don't seem to care that the NHS is in crisis
This is the dialogue the country wanted.
It is the dialogue that journalists goaded both sides with.
While goading each with the Farage stick ("why aren't you going to stop the boats like Farage will?").
If Labour had been honest and said they think the economy is much worse than Sunak claims and may have to raise tax.....
...we would probably still have Sunk as PM, on the 'devil you know' principle.
Sunk would have accused Labour of 'scare mongering' and 'talking down the economy'.
And the media would have played along.
As the likes of Potty and others have been saying for years, Starmer was not popular and there was no way he could deliver.
So, basically, the UK does not want a Labour government because it won't allow Labour to plan around what Labour would need to do to succeed.
Promising tax increases precludes being elected.
Starmer cannot U turn on tax unless he does so in the first year
And even if it works well we will be told we were lied to
And a queue of whining callers will tell Nicky Campbell their taxes have gone up and Labour must be booted out.
At the end of the day we get the governments we deserve.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 28,106
Stop singing……….
Number of migrants living in hotels soars under Labour as asylum costs top £5bn
The number of migrants living in hotels has risen by 20 per cent in three months, official data shows
The numbers of asylum cases and the management of immigrants has never been more expensive, and until drastic action is taken British taxpayers will continue to underwrite the whole circus. I don’t think anyone sane disputes this.
These costs of course are not just hotels and accommodation, but the whole legal and admistration of this unwanted demand, some of which are costs spread across different Govt departments. If the Government concede its 5bn pa you can bet your life it’s much higher.
They are stupid, but not that stupid.
As has already been explained to you, the savings figure you quoted was the unbudgeted overspend of the last Government. It seems some are that stupid
The Government are now 'taking drastic action' by processing the backlog of Asylum seekers and getting rid of the costs of housing them. As highlighted on a number of occasions, we could have actually cleared the whole backlog and got rid of the vast majority of hotel and accomodation costs for the same amount we 'gave' to Rwanda.
So the money now spent on the Rwanda 'Plan' is sufficient to have processed the whole backlog of asylum seekers twice over with money to spare
Rwanda ‘laughing all the way to the bank’ as £290m cost of scheme could have paid for 400,000 asylum claims
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rwanda-scheme-290m-cost-400000-asylum-claims/
Anyone still trying to claim the asylum seekers 'issue' isn't the result of deliberate Government strategy
I can't imagine why you are completely ignoring all evidence, because you certainly wouldn't have an agenda would you
Wouldn't have got elected though - and we'd still be with the Tories.
So - what do you think we should be doing with asylum seekers? Which was my question to you. Is you solution not to spend any money on them at all and just deport them (somehow cost-free)? Come on - what is your cost-minimal solution?Stop singing……….
Number of migrants living in hotels soars under Labour as asylum costs top £5bn
The number of migrants living in hotels has risen by 20 per cent in three months, official data shows
The numbers of asylum cases and the management of immigrants has never been more expensive, and until drastic action is taken British taxpayers will continue to underwrite the whole circus. I don’t think anyone sane disputes this.
These costs of course are not just hotels and accommodation, but the whole legal and admistration of this unwanted demand, some of which are costs spread across different Govt departments. If the Government concede its 5bn pa you can bet your life it’s much higher.
They are stupid, but not that stupid.
Did you read all the article by the way? It's hardly Labour's fault.
One of the ironies is that there are people now who not only think Labour can't fix the NHS/education/etc., without raising taxes...
they also think that Sunak could have fixed the NHS/education/etc., without raising taxes.
They still think this.
They think that the reason that Labour can't fix the (see above) is because Labour are shit
And they think that the tories can (see above) because the tories are not shit.
Even if Labour had said they would have to raise tax, and lost the general election because of it...
and even if the Tories then either continued their 15 year record of ruining the NHS/education and so on...
or attempted a fix by raising tax . . . .
the potty and Carzeiss types would still say that the Tories were doing a better job than Labour would have done.
Anyway, I am going to hope that Labour does a U turn and raises taxes before the nation goes round the U bend.
If that 'betrayal' loses them the election in 4.5 years, so be it.
they also think that Sunak could have fixed the NHS/education/etc., without raising taxes.
They still think this.
They think that the reason that Labour can't fix the (see above) is because Labour are shit
And they think that the tories can (see above) because the tories are not shit.
Even if Labour had said they would have to raise tax, and lost the general election because of it...
and even if the Tories then either continued their 15 year record of ruining the NHS/education and so on...
or attempted a fix by raising tax . . . .
the potty and Carzeiss types would still say that the Tories were doing a better job than Labour would have done.
Anyway, I am going to hope that Labour does a U turn and raises taxes before the nation goes round the U bend.
If that 'betrayal' loses them the election in 4.5 years, so be it.
Lenny Rider
Well-known member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 6,141
Unfortunately my generation, and the one before it, and regardless of the colour of the political rosette the various Governments, will be depicted in history as abject failures.
We failed to eradicate poverty, when we had the wherewithal (f*** me I'm quoting Bill Archer now
) to do it.
We failed to fight racism head on, missing the obvious chance was a black teenager, Stephen Lawrence, was murdered over 30 years ago.
The state owned the power companies, the railways, the telephone company, yet all were sold off, with many making a huge profit in the process, and now the predominantly foreign owned companies can effectively charge what they like.
We have more foodbanks in the UK than branches of Macdonalds.
I actually thought on the night of 1st May 1997 that Tony Blair was the man to turn it all around, and change all of our lives for the better, sadly I was wrong.
I actually like Sir Keir, but almost feel he's like the little boy with his finger in the dyke (if your still allowed to use this word)
I hope he can turn it round, because if he doesn't Farage might yet be the next cab on the rank, and god knows what that will bring.
We failed to eradicate poverty, when we had the wherewithal (f*** me I'm quoting Bill Archer now
) to do it.We failed to fight racism head on, missing the obvious chance was a black teenager, Stephen Lawrence, was murdered over 30 years ago.
The state owned the power companies, the railways, the telephone company, yet all were sold off, with many making a huge profit in the process, and now the predominantly foreign owned companies can effectively charge what they like.
We have more foodbanks in the UK than branches of Macdonalds.
I actually thought on the night of 1st May 1997 that Tony Blair was the man to turn it all around, and change all of our lives for the better, sadly I was wrong.
I actually like Sir Keir, but almost feel he's like the little boy with his finger in the dyke (if your still allowed to use this word)
I hope he can turn it round, because if he doesn't Farage might yet be the next cab on the rank, and god knows what that will bring.
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,914
Of course I have an agenda, I see British Governments of all flavours taking a shit on British taxpayers, and their interests more widely.As has already been explained to you, the savings figure you quoted was the unbudgeted overspend of the last Government. It seems some are that stupid
The Government are now 'taking drastic action' by processing the backlog of Asylum seekers and getting rid of the costs of housing them. As highlighted on a number of occasions, we could have actually cleared the whole backlog and got rid of the vast majority of hotel and accomodation costs for the same amount we 'gave' to Rwanda.
I can't imagine why you are completely ignoring all evidence, because you certainly wouldn't have an agenda would you
The immigration costs are just the pointy end of this shithousery, but there are plenty of others like care costs for the elderly and energy prices. The social contract between Governments and citizens has been under strain for a while but lot will oversee its break if they continue to indulge pet projects that are not in the interests of British taxpayers.
It’s that simple.
nevergoagain
Well-known member
Not going to disagree with much here as I think you raise very valid points, especially the property ladder, I think that's the one thing in my life more than any other I have seriously benefitted from.
Not so sure with the US comparisons, pay may be more in some areas but their legal minimum wage is miles below us. Our benefits typically outweigh US companies, the guys I used to work with were very jealous of our pensions, sick, holiday benefits etc.
There are also a lot of benefits for younger people that we didn't have, the obvious and huge one being the digital age. So many more opportunities to work remotely, collaborate with people immediately overseas, explore and publish anything you want. My last 5 years of work were virtually all from home whereas the previous 30 years were spent slogging it up on Southern fail/Thamestink wasting 3/4 hours of my day for nothing.
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,710
I think some of your cost/benefit analysis is slightly skewed. Old people benefitting from the savings they have made all their life while young people do not - that isn't because the system is skewed towards old people, it's because young people haven't yet had the time to do it. It's certainly true that someone who has taken advantage of 40 years' pension benefits and ISA opportunities is better of than a 20 year old who hasn't, but that's hardly the government's fault. The young will (or should) get their turn at the same benefits.
I don't agree that being older and more often ill qualifies as a benefit, even if treatment is free.
House prices? If the government had simply got out of the market and stopped trying to skew it in all directions, it would have been better IMO. I agree that prices have been artificially inflated, and those on the housing ladder (in the right parts of the country) have benefitted - though, as you say, not until they sell up and buy somewhere smaller.
As for the young ones, there are far more SENs around now than there were back in the day. Assuming that they are all needed, this is a massive advantage that young people have over older people - older people did not have such generous access to SENs, so (unless there is genuinely a huge increase in the number of children with Special educational Problems) they didn't have a quarter of the help that children do now. Remember that baby boomers (much maligned though they are) were educated in classes of 50 with 1 teacher and 0 educational assistants.
I agree that childcare prices are ridiculous. They need to cut the staffing ratios, as the Tories under Truss were planning to do.
From the late 1970's to about 2000, we lived in an era of growth and prosperity and rising wages. Since then, we have stagnated. Various reasons for that, but lack of tax and lack of government action isn't one of them IMO. Governments nowadays feel that everything is their responsibility; the 7% of kids out of school that you mention is one of the things that is nothing to do with the government, that's entirely the fault of the parents (though the closing of schools during covid certainly contributes to that particular malaise.) Governments are hopeless at generating wealth; they always have been. What is needed, if wealth is your aim, is for the government to step back and stop putting obstacles in business's way.
I wasted a lot of breath on someone who wants to get rid of all inheritance tax but selected only to focus on the societal group who still pay the least inheritance tax. I am sure this is not your stance so there is no reason to get shirty with me.
The fact (if it is fact) that farming in the UK is so hard that it is barely viable is a separate issue.
Given that farmers have benefitted from the absence of inheritance tax since Thatcher changed the rules, if their businesses are still only millimeters away from bankruptcy, and paying some inheritance tax would push them under, then it means there is a major problem associated with farming finances.
If this is woven into a narrative that includes some attempt to fix the problem and make farming viable then, and only then, would I agree that Labour should reverse the re-introduction of some inheritance tax on some farmers in order to help save the sector.
Thus I would agree with you and one or two others that it is unfair to take away this farmer tax break provided you accept that farming in the UK is essentially unviable, owing presumably to decades of mismanagement by successive governments.
But I can't accommodate the argument (made by another poster, not you) that the end game is to remove all inheritance tax from everyone in society. If that is the end game then it should start with the rest of society who pay full inheritance tax, not farmers who are now being asked to pay some inheritance tax. It is the lack of logic here that set me off because, on the face of it, farmers are still getting a better inheritance tax deal than the rest of us.
Remember it is him not me who is proposing that farmers represent a special case, and yet he is doing so as part of a narrative that requires that farmers are not a special case, and that nobody should pay inheritance tax. If inheritance tax for all of us is wrong, why focus on the group that pays the least inheritance tax to pursue the argument. Either farmers are a special case or they aren't.
It is that which has caused me to post so many exasperated comments on this thread. There is no reason why you should accuse me of trolling.
This is one of the key things for me.
Why are they a 'special case' in the first place? It's presumably to do with food production and keeping us all fed. But other businesses also provide essentials for the public.
Really - the main answer is for us, the public, to pay properly for the food we eat. It's the artificial suppression of prices by supermarkets (in the main) that makes farming unviable in many respects. If we paid fairly for the product farmers provide - then they would be viable.
Precisely.
And yet a couple of irritable folk are accusing me of being a troll for questioning this.
Listening to PMQT, why can't there be a new 'rape gang' inquiry while at the same time, the tories support the bill and actions that Labour propose?
This includes measure that would prevent parents like the bastard Sharif taking his daughter out of school so he cold torture her.
Labour will win the vote, and yet the take home is that Labour are refusing to look into 'rape gangs'.
Badenough is claiming that the review published in 22, and the recommendation they failed to act upon, is flawed because it mentions Rochdale by name only once.
But they set up the inquiry.
Badenough is spinning this well, but when you dig deep she appears to me to be being disgraceful.
And yet I see no reason why Labout can't create a specific inquiry into rape gangs.
If it is needed.
But is it?
What is it we don't know?
This includes measure that would prevent parents like the bastard Sharif taking his daughter out of school so he cold torture her.
Labour will win the vote, and yet the take home is that Labour are refusing to look into 'rape gangs'.
Badenough is claiming that the review published in 22, and the recommendation they failed to act upon, is flawed because it mentions Rochdale by name only once.
But they set up the inquiry.
Badenough is spinning this well, but when you dig deep she appears to me to be being disgraceful.
And yet I see no reason why Labout can't create a specific inquiry into rape gangs.
If it is needed.
But is it?
What is it we don't know?
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Badenough, Sunk, Potty....fantastic
Government own stats, 880k do fall between the cracks in being poor but unable/unknowing to claim means tested benefits.