[Politics] Labour manifesto 2024

[WATFORD zero]

Imho if they’d announced that plan a couple of months back for example, they’d still achieve a vast majority.

There can’t be many marginal voters left who’d want the cutting off our noses economic strategy to continue.

I'd agree that growing the economy by £100B per year would be obvious and you wouldn't imagine many voting against it. But equally, quite a few thought that cutting the economy by £100B per year was obviously stupid and not many would vote for it

Maybe time for a poll

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Only when you do something stupid like announcing unfunded tax cuts ala Truss. I think most people (and the city) would deem re-joining the customs union as eminently sensible.

Bit like telling the markets you're selling the countries gold. All parties are guilty of making huge errors.

I'm hoping for a little stability. Then hammering the banks etc can start.

 

[Machiavelli]

Disingenuous? To say that Labour's plans are really bad, and also that all the parties are the same (so please don't bother to vote; and let me sneak down to the polling station when you aren't looking, and put a sly X by the name of the Tory candidate)? Gaslighting? Bullshit? Sneakiness?

Surely not

None of that detracts from the fact that it's astute to identify the changes to planning law and the material repercussions of those changes will prove a prominent and popular line of attack on the next government.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Not building in the south east but building in the north is certainly NIMBYism - it's a textbook definition

True.

But to be fair there are a lot more towns and cities in the North that could do with regeneration and investment.

That's exactly was 'levelling up' was supposed to achieve, but like everything else the Tories touched, it failed miserably.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I agree with the environmental (green-belt) concerns about massive house-building projects, and think that developing brown-field sites and converting derelict buildings should be the prime targets.

But not much point building the majority of new homes in the north if the majority of jobs (and people) are based in the south-east - unless you can persuade some of those companies to relocate from London to the north?

Agree.

But it is possible - see the BBC for example.

 

[BLOCK F]

Agree.

But it is possible - see the BBC for example.

Sort of like Brighton and Hove Albion upon Tyne, do you mean?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Agree.

But it is possible - see the BBC for example.

This is what I originally though the levelling up program would address i.e. it would be a sustained strategy to develop business in areas where it is needed, and to address the south/south east north inbalance. Turns out it was just a few quid for village halls here and there.

 

[clapham_gull]

Did the meek get anything ? cos they have a hell of a time.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

None of that detracts from the fact that it's astute to identify the changes to planning law and the material repercussions of those changes will prove a prominent and popular line of attack on the next government.

Sorry, are you defending Potty?

Take two aspirin and you'll feel better in the morning

 

[albionalba]

Sort of like Brighton and Hove Albion upon Tyne, do you mean?

At least the away fans wouldn't be close to the pitch...

No Income Tax, No VAT - are they getting their manifesto from Only Fools and Horses?

Next line relevant too - "No Money Back, No guarantee" ( a bit like choosing a new manager)

That’s how I feel, and I’ll be voting for them. Until manifestos are released, I always fear something unpalatable being snuck in at the last minute, but there’s nothing in there to scare the horses.

Continues the horses theme, but just about right so I'll accept it warts and all.

 

[Machiavelli]

This from the IFS, which hits the nail on the head:

But delivering genuine change will almost certainly also require putting actual resources on the table. And Labour’s manifesto offers no indication that there is a plan for where the money would come from to finance this.

This was not a manifesto for those looking for big numbers. The public service spending increases promised in the “costings” table are tiny, going on trivial. The tax rises, beyond the inevitable reduced tax avoidance, even more trivial. The biggest commitment, to the much vaunted “green prosperity plan”, comes in at no more than £5bn a year, funded in part by borrowing and in part by “a windfall tax on the oil and gas giants”.
Beyond that, almost nothing in the way of definite promises on spending despite Labour diagnosing deep-seated problems across child poverty, homelessness, higher education funding, adult social care, local government finances, pensions and much more besides. Definite promises though not to do things. Not to have debt rising at the end of the forecast. Not to increase tax on working people. Not to increase rates of income tax, National Insurance, VAT or corporation tax.
One public service where there are big promises is on the NHS. Labour has recommitted to the workforce plan, to getting rid of all waiting times more than 18 weeks, and to more hospitals. Big promises, but that will require big spending too.
All that will leave Labour with a problem. On current forecasts, and especially with an extra £17.5bn borrowing over five years to fund the green prosperity plan, this leaves literally no room – within the fiscal rule that Labour has signed up to – for any more spending than planned by the current government. And those plans do involve cuts both to investment spending and to spending on unprotected public services. Yet Sir Keir Starmer effectively ruled out such cuts. How they will square the circle in government we do not know.

 

[Titanic]

Did the meek get anything ? cos they have a hell of a time.

and the cheesemakers?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Agree.

But it is possible - see the BBC for example.

From all the billions of pounds of work needed, it's obvious that the Palace of Westminster is no longer fit for purpose. Maybe open it as a museum for the public, move parliament to a new custom built building in Preston, where Government could actually be carried out efficiently like every other parliament, make a huge indent into the house price crisis and then see who wants to represent 'us'.

Or would that be too much like real levelling up

 

[Weststander]

This from the IFS, which hits the nail on the head:

Personal view, I think other taxes will increase, once in power. It might be from the autumn statement.

 

[albionalba]

Did the meek get anything ? cos they have a hell of a time.

Don't they have some big inheritance coming down the line at some point?

 

[BLOCK F]

This from the IFS, which hits the nail on the head:

Quite.

 

[BLOCK F]

Personal view, I think other taxes will increase, once in power. It might be from the autumn statement.

Inevitable, I reckon.

 

[Insel affe]

Like this one, Lords would have to retire at 80 under Labour plans, I think at it should be lower to be honest though, maybe around 70.

Lords members would be forced to retire at 80 under Labour plans

Sir Keir Starmer has promised to "modernise" the Lords with new rules and by phasing out hereditary peers.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Machiavelli]

Personal view, I think other taxes will increase, once in power. It might be from the autumn statement.

Don't think it's personal to you. Given they're deliberately not responding to questions on CGT, as you indicated in the OP, this is one of the likeliest. I'd like them to be honest in their manifesto but, when its key rival has consistently stretched the principle of honesty to the point of oblivion for 14 years, it's hardly surprising that they've gone down this route. If they do the same in the next election, then they'll have failed in Starmer's aim to restore trust to politics.

 

[Insel affe]

I'd like them to be honest in their manifesto but, when its key rival has consistently stretched the principle of honesty to the point of oblivion for 14 years, it's hardly surprising that they've gone down this route. If they do the same in the next election, then they'll have failed in Starmer's aim to restore trust to politics.

so in layman's terms if you say nothing, you can do anything.