[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?

[tedebear]

I thought it was democractic, but it didn't need to be abided by? Maybe thats what was meant...

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Well, speaking as the boss that nobody wants to work for it looks very much like it is aimed at businesses that are making vast profits but will actually affect all the businesses that are not making vast profits.

I said on here many times during all the arguments about language (is employees NI a tax … who are working people etc etc) that it makes no difference and only the policies matter.

However it’s worth considering what mentality it takes to refer to employees as the only working people, automatically assuming that business owners are not working people. There’s a hint of the same old same old class war there isn’t there?

Dropping the threshold for employers NI to include everyone who works 8 hours a week will have a massive effect.


The chancellor who introduced the new policies for taxation on business said that the effects would be either lower profits, increased prices or reduced wage growth for staff. So it would seem to me that the ‘working people’ will be affected massively all be it indirectly.

Are there any economists who have said this will lead to economic growth?

We all want to see the massive corporations pay their fair share, the Amazons of this world are bleeding us dry but because we cannot untangle the legislation in order to force them to pay their fair share we have hit all the low hanging fruit.

So that’s a no then. You’ve somehow managed to write 7 paragraphs and not address my question once.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

How was not democratic?
David Cameron called an election and in his party's manifesto he promised an in/out referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.
Both side were given ample time to present their arguments to the general public and the public then cast their votes, a clear majority voted to leave.
What was undemocratic about that process?
Or is just undemocratic because you lost and you still haven't worked out how to untwist your knickers?

Where have you been for the past 8 years?

You’re like an Argie trying to deny the hand of God goal.

 

[Rdodge30]

So that’s a no then. You’ve somehow managed to write 7 paragraphs and not address my question once.

I have said I think it’s a catastrophic policy so I’m not quite sure why you would ask me if I think it’s a good policy.

Do you think it’s a good policy?

To be clear I think it will be bad for business, bad for the economy and bad for the workforce- thought I’d made that clear

 

[Half Time Pies]

You’d be surprised.

I’ve been working with a local company recently. The owner mentioned how he was a great employer because he organised furlough for his staff. Now this chap is pretty dodgy, a quick check of companies house revealed that he has the best part of £1m sitting in his accounts, oddly, this was not the case pre-pandemic. I wonder where the profits came from?

I’d suggest that there are countless operators like him.

I think there were some businesses that were not affected by a fall in revenue during the pandemic and were able to make savings from furloughing staff. My accountants at the time immediately furloughed a whole load of staff, and used the pandemic as an excuse for a drop in their levels in customer service. They were unlikely to suffer a fall in revenue as their clients still needed their accounts done regardless of the pandemic.

 

[Half Time Pies]

Recent events have shown to me how difficult it is to get any change through in this country, governments have to tread so carefully without upsetting the WASPI women or the rich farmers etc! Whatever they do is heavily criticised and so governments tend to target areas of the economy with the least resistance such as small businesses! Nobody from the small business community is up in London protesting like the farmers have been yet the damage done by NI increase will have much bigger ramifications.

As a small business owner I have been told by my accountant that the increase based on my current staffing levels will cost an extra 18K a year and I have got to recover that from somewhere. I am currently 2 members of staff down, and instead of replacing them I am considering offshoring them. Potentially two less jobs in the British economy but desperate times call for desperate measures!

 

[Zeberdi]

Except they aren't. They are proposing ideas quickly and then entering into lengthy "consulation periods". The new Employment Rights Bill...kicked into 2026 "at the earliest". Consultation on phasing out fossil fuel vehicles by 2030 is another one.

The government has difficult decisions to make. We all know that. So make the difficult decisions. Stop dithering and fannying about.

Not sure whether you are referring to ideas or laws?

If the latter, they require consultations with expert parties (ie in industry/NGOs etc), the Law Commission may be involved and carry out their own research and consultations, existing law may need to be amended or codified with every new Statute, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel need to draft a legally workable bill that can be presented to Parliament, Bills need to go through several Readings and Committee stages before going to the HoL where it is likely sent back with further amendment that will need to be timetabled into a parliamentary session for debate.

Governments don’t just have ‘ideas‘ and click their fingers to make something law, it’s a complex and long process and every reform of existing law must either repeal or incorporate what is already on the statute books. Environmental law eg phasing out fossil fuels is part of our existing obligations under the COP29 and Paris Agreement so international law is also relevant here - these long term targets are to allow the fossil fuel industry to adapt domestically and globally. No Government could get an agreement to ban fossil fuels overnight - it has to be done in consultation with the industry.

Policy proposal is often presented first in a White Paper (a policy document) that also needs to be drafted and subject to a long consultation period before the proposals are drafted as a Bill. The White Paper on Devolution was published on 16 December, The Plan to Get Britain Working was published as a White Paper in November etc etc

Turning ‘ideas’ into law isn’t as simple as you seem to suggest.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Far too slim a margin for such a seismic decision. Totally undemocratic.

However, on the subject of the EU, it should never have gone to the public vote. That was a huge mistake. One which we should not repeat.

There should be no referendum on our return to the EU. It just needs to happen.

Thankfully, Starmer is doing this by stealth.

No point consulting the same thickos that voted Leave. He understands this.

Should have been best of three?

 

[Wallace]

As I said. I don’t care about democracy when it comes to rescuing the country from bankruptcy.

Referendums are the last sanctuary of dictators.



Do what needs to be done. No point asking the dumbos again.

Wow, you really are unhinged.

How many referendums have they had in North Korea, did Stalin hold a referendum on building the Gulags?

You can have a day off tomorrow and spend all day dreaming about Ursula Von der Lyen.

 

[The Clamp]

Should have been best of three?

Probably just keep at it until I get the result I want

 

[papachris]

Seen a fair bit of criticism of Tony Blair on this thread. It always makes me think how different things might have been with John Smith as PM

 

[armchairclubber]

I thought it was democractic, but it didn't need to be abided by? Maybe thats what was meant...

Whether it be a referendum or an election, democracy can only really be achieved or declared when the electorate are given honest options.

That's why this country now fails miserably, particularly with the affiliations of our press and media, as well as what I will just call underhand, or hand in glove, powers of overseas involvement and persuasion. (of course that's all in the eye of the beholder)
Fed a load of pathetic bollox most of the time, folks shouldn't kid themselves.

Merry Christmas to all

Courtesy of Cold War Steve.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I have said I think it’s a catastrophic policy so I’m not quite sure why you would ask me if I think it’s a good policy.

Do you think it’s a good policy?

To be clear I think it will be bad for business, bad for the economy and bad for the workforce- thought I’d made that clear

I asked you why.

I get that, as a business owner, it may cost you more in the short term, but most businesses pass costs on to consumers. And if your business doesn’t have that elasticity built in, then there’s got to be question marks about the long term sustainability of your business, particularly in a global market.

But you’ve not explained any of the economic reasons why you think it’s a bad policy other than “Labour are bad, and they hate rich people”, which is regurgitated that makes you look like one of the ignorant idiots that’s blindly followed right wing policy over the past 14 years, which has left this country in the worst state it’s been in for decades with stagnating public services, huge govt debt, salaries that haven’t progressed, a housing market that isn’t accessible for many etc etc.

So, I’m asking you to think beyond your bubble and explain why this is such a poor policy outside the personal short term harm to yourself. Do you truly believe that generating more tax via businesses to help pay for a) the huge hole the Tories left and b) so Labour can pay for some of their own policies to deal with the dreadful public services that have regressed to such an extent over the past 14 years that most people recognise they’re unusable now.

Please, give me something to work with here.

 

[Rdodge30]

You continue to be condescending and disrespectful when you post to me , duly noted- no need to apologise, we both know that would be disingenuous.

Either you simply haven’t read what I’ve written or you simply haven’t understood what you’ve read.

The WFA policy is aimed at the wealthy but they have also hit people who can’t afford it.

The farmers inheritance tax policy is aimed at the wealthy buying up farmland as a tax dodge, but they have also hit people that can’t afford it.

Whether the business NI policy is aimed at the wealthy or not I’m not so sure, we all know the businesses like Amazon are the ones that should be paying more, but they have also hit people that can’t afford it.

Whether you disagree with me or not it should be clear why I think those policies are bad. Bad for the economy and also bad politics.

 

[Balders]

I've sort of given up on Politics (bad person in a democracy) but it's just become an extension of many things in life where people just want someone/something to blame. For the last "x" number of new incumbent parliaments, the incoming party has inherited some kind of black hole in Public Finances - this is nothing new!
I do have a modicum of sympathy for the Tories - in the last few years global events have cost Countries all around the world money that they didn't have - Covid wasn't the Tories fault, nor was Putin's war on Ukraine, to name but two, but let's just play the blame game depending on which side you have chosen to sit. How the Tories handled Covid is a different matter, but at the end of the day, it cost us money that we didn't have.
Whether this latest Budget is going to be good for the Country long term, who knows, but I'm yet to read anything from experts outside of Parliament that short term is going to be other than more pain.
Regardless of who is in power, there is only so much money to go round. I've not voted in the last two General Elections, primarily because I don't believe any current Political Party can make a difference, and until proved otherwise, that's my prerogative

 

[dsr-burnley]

I asked you why.

I get that, as a business owner, it may cost you more in the short term, but most businesses pass costs on to consumers. And if your business doesn’t have that elasticity built in, then there’s got to be question marks about the long term sustainability of your business, particularly in a global market.

This is true, so far as it goes. but let's take it further. Yes, we have a business that is on the edge and can't pass its costs onto consumers. Yes, it's got question marks about sustainability. And yes, at least some of these businesses are going to go bust.

But perhaps we need to think about more than the effect on the business owner. What about the effect on the staff? They had jobs, now they haven't got jobs. That should surely be seen as a downside to this tax.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

How was not democratic?
David Cameron called an election and in his party's manifesto he promised an in/out referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.
Both side were given ample time to present their arguments to the general public and the public then cast their votes, a clear majority voted to leave.
What was undemocratic about that process?
Or is just undemocratic because you lost and you still haven't worked out how to untwist your knickers?

""The referendum was not legally binding." There’s no one source that can prove this statement true (although here’s a respectable one). That follows from the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 didn’t say anything about implementing the result of the vote. It just provided that there should be one."

From that I read there was an expectation that if the result was 'leave' then we would leave.

The problem is Cameron* never considered that the vote would be to leave. So there was no contingency for how to leave. And indeed he did not think to make it a 70/30 bar for change, as was the case when we joined (with a huge majority).

*This is why Cameron is Britain's worst ever PM.

As it happens I am over it, and agree with Starmer that we should not start dicking about trying to rejoin.
At the moment.
When the nation is largely of one mind that we have to accept the situation and move on.

For Starmer to start stirring that pot again now would be political suicide.
So those who are agitating for a new referendum are simply playing into the hands of Farage and his crazed followers in the tory party.

 

[Half Time Pies]

I asked you why.

I get that, as a business owner, it may cost you more in the short term, but most businesses pass costs on to consumers. And if your business doesn’t have that elasticity built in, then there’s got to be question marks about the long term sustainability of your business, particularly in a global market.

But you’ve not explained any of the economic reasons why you think it’s a bad policy other than “Labour are bad, and they hate rich people”, which is regurgitated that makes you look like one of the ignorant idiots that’s blindly followed right wing policy over the past 14 years, which has left this country in the worst state it’s been in for decades with stagnating public services, huge govt debt, salaries that haven’t progressed, a housing market that isn’t accessible for many etc etc.

So, I’m asking you to think beyond your bubble and explain why this is such a poor policy outside the personal short term harm to yourself. Do you truly believe that generating more tax via businesses to help pay for a) the huge hole the Tories left and b) so Labour can pay for some of their own policies to deal with the dreadful public services that have regressed to such an extent over the past 14 years that most people recognise they’re unusable now.

Please, give me something to work with here.

Well the Government must be banking on the fact that most business won't be able to simply pass these costs on to consumers through higher prices or we are going to have another huge inflation problem!

 

[dsr-burnley]

""The referendum was not legally binding." There’s no one source that can prove this statement true (although here’s a respectable one). That follows from the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 didn’t say anything about implementing the result of the vote. It just provided that there should be one."

From that I read there was an expectation that if the result was 'leave' then we would leave.

The problem is Cameron* never considered that the vote would be to leave. So there was no contingency for how to leave. And indeed he did not think to make it a 70/30 bar for change, as was the case when we joined (with a huge majority).

*This is why Cameron is Britain's worst ever PM.

As it happens I am over it, and agree with Starmer that we should not start dicking about trying to rejoin.
At the moment.
When the nation is largely of one mind that we have to accept the situation and move on.

For Starmer to start stirring that pot again now would be political suicide.
So those who are agitating for a new referendum are simply playing into the hands of Farage and his crazed followers in the tory party.

Of course it wasn't legally binding, because under the UK constitution it can't be. But it was clearly stated (in both referendums) that the government would do what the people decided.

It should be stressed that there were not two referendums about joining the EC. The 1975 referendum was about whether or not to remain in the EEC, not whether to join (we were already in). The result was to be decided by a simple majority.

Again for the second referendum, this time about the EC (not the EEC) which was a very different organisation. The EEC was a trading bloc, the EC is a political union. Again, the politicians took us in without a referendum, and the referendum was whether or not to confirm their decision. For that reason, it would have been inappropriate (IMO) to demand a super-majority. A parallel case would be the Scottish independence referendum. This was the first chance the electorate had to give an opinion, and the majority was for staying in the UK. There would certainly be grounds for repeat referendums to have a requirement for a super-majority, if only to stop see-sawing between In and Out every year or two.

 

[Pavilionaire]

How was not democratic?
David Cameron called an election and in his party's manifesto he promised an in/out referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.
Both side were given ample time to present their arguments to the general public and the public then cast their votes, a clear majority voted to leave.
What was undemocratic about that process?
Or is just undemocratic because you lost and you still haven't worked out how to untwist your knickers?

It was democratic in the sense that everyone got to cast a vote, but the campaigns were misleading, especially Leave. My father in law voted Leave because he was passionate that immigration was too high and adamant the country was full. Millions thought like him, they thought we would "take back control of our borders". If he could have foresen what would have transpired he would never have voted Leave.

Too many lies, not enough facts. The whole Referendum campaign showed the UK up for not understanding the EU. The ignorance on all sides was astounding, which for those of us who understand the EU well the vote outcome is so hard to take.