[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Hotchilidog]

Other than Ed Milliband's enthusiasm for a new green industrial strategy there is little to get excited about what Starmer and Reeves have been offering this week.

The offer at the moment seems to be not make things worse but not make them much better. Banging on about growth isn't going to cut it, as Truss found out. It's wishful thinking not serious governance.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

there's a difference between having some broad brush policies on major topics, and narrow tax & spending announcments. Starmer should be doing more the former, rather than tired hit and run opposition on issue of the day. if people dont like those strategic policies, he can ignore the complaint, or adjust the policy. its 12-18mths to an election, time to get across ideas, trying to squeeze everything into a 4-6 week election, competing on presentation and electioneering razmataz might not be his strongest hand.

I think an occasional tired hit and run policy announcement addresses the grumbling of those who want more tired hit and run policy announcements.

I personally can't even be bothered to read, let alone dissect and critique the latest hit and run policy announcement. It is of no interest to me at this present time.

Have a think about how you would like your ideal politician to behave and then consider whether this is likely to play well with the great mass of muppets out there upon whose votes any aspiring PM will rely.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Google maps is quite useful

 

[Swansman]

It doesn't matter. The only game in town presently is 'get the tory shower out'.

And then by the next election or next election again, the game in town will be "get the labour party out". Similar anywhere in the world you look.

Rinse and repeat forever, until the "reformist", "moderate", "lets just go with the general status quo ehh" has destroyed enough for democracy to be abolished.

 

[borat]

Might win an election because he appeals to moderates etc

Bland centrism (i.e status quo) may well win the election but doesnt equate to significant/radical changes which are desperately needed - Energy, NHS, Housing etc. Very confident that anything moderately significant Starmer proposes will be watered down significantly or binned once hes in power.

 

[nicko31]

And then by the next election or next election again, the game in town will be "get the labour party out". Similar anywhere in the world you look.

Rinse and repeat forever, until the "reformist", "moderate", "lets just go with the general status quo ehh" has destroyed enough for democracy to be abolished.

I feel this is different though this time. The Tories have gone to a dark place, like their Republican friends in the US they are a threat to democracy.

 

[pb21]

This is why I keep saying that he should not say what he plans to do. It just triggers people to say he can't, or it won't have any effect etc.

But of course of he does what I want he will be criticized for making no policy announcements.

On this occasion I wonder if perhaps the only labour policies that would suit you are conservativy policies. Oh well, never mind.

People moan that Starmer isn't offering any alternatives, then moan when Starmer offers some alternatives

 

[nwgull]

Bland centrism (i.e status quo) may well win the election but doesnt equate to significant/radical changes which are desperately needed - Energy, NHS, Housing etc. Very confident that anything moderately significant Starmer proposes will be watered down significantly or binned once hes in power.

After the last 4 years of populism driven by a right-wing faction within the Conservative party, bland centrism sounds very appealing.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And then by the next election or next election again, the game in town will be "get the labour party out". Similar anywhere in the world you look.

Rinse and repeat forever, until the "reformist", "moderate", "lets just go with the general status quo ehh" has destroyed enough for democracy to be abolished.

It has never been the case that I have ever considered it necessary to get the labour party out. On reflection it was probably good to get the Callaghan government out in 79, but sadly what came after was much worse (Thatcher and Privatization).

When Corbyn was leader of labour I went for a while urging people to vote tory (yes, Johnson) so labour would have to ditch Corbyn. That was the only game in town for a while. I changed my mind, however when I realized just how bad Johnson was.

So, no, not rinse and repeat. From your lofty perch high above we mere mortals and our feeble democratic process you have lost touch with the detail of the lives of we mere mortals (not sure you ever were in touch with it, judging by the evidence you put before us).

 

[jcdenton08]

Bland centrism (i.e status quo) may well win the election but doesnt equate to significant/radical changes which are desperately needed - Energy, NHS, Housing etc. Very confident that anything moderately significant Starmer proposes will be watered down significantly or binned once hes in power.

The public was offered a radical alternative (Corbyn) and turned it down. Sorry, they don’t want it.

 

[nwgull]

It has never been the case that I have ever considered it necessary to get the labour party out. On reflection it was probably good to get the Callaghan government out in 79, but sadly what came after was much worse (Thatcher and Privatization).

When Corbyn was leader of labour I went for a while urging people to vote tory (yes, Johnson) so labour would have to ditch Corbyn. That was the only game in town for a while. I changed my mind, however when I realized just how bad Johnson was.

So, no, not rinse and repeat. From your lofty perch high above we mere mortals and our feeble democratic process you have lost touch with the detail of the lives of we mere mortals (not sure you ever were in touch with it, judging by the evidence you put before us).

Whilst I certainly didn't want Johnson to win, my preference if he had to win was that Labour were annihilated so that the adults could be allowed back into the room in the Labour party.

 

[nicko31]

Looks like the Telegraph already has the knives out for Starmer.

For the record the capital gains free threshold will be halved next week to £6000 and halved again to £3000 in April 2024.

Can someone remind them who is actually in office?

 

[peterward]

The old 'no point in trying to get the wealthy and powerful to pay their fair share of tax' defence. Haven't heard that since Kwarteng used it to justify abolishing the top rate

it isnt that at all, its pragmatic reality imho. The old tax this or that for ideological basis rather than realism.

If it works and brings in more, great, Id be delighted, i dont know anyone whos non dom or super wealthy. But I genuinely don't think it will and history shows people and their moeny move, resulting in less tax take overall.

The logical question is, is that is the reality, is that still actually preferable? To enact ideological "class warfare" policies that do little or nothing to benefit treasury?

 

[peterward]

surely you just keep monitoring the tax take and tweek accordingly?

starmer and reeves haven't said, "we've done tax now, so we're going outside to play"

The only dynamic of any taxation is will it work and bring in more revenue, but it's never as simple as moving from 20% to 25% brings in 5% more. We all know it doesn't work that way, people will move, companies will move or stop spending/expanding, potentially fold and/or even lay off staff potentially adding to benefits costs. I'm neither a high or low tax ideologue, just whatever works best and in certain economic cycles its proven lower tax brings in more not less overall.

Its a bloody difficult balancing act, and it moves with the seasons. I've no problem with increased taxation if it works and doesn't do more overall damage than good or bring in less not more.

Thankfully, I think Starmer is far more grown up and pragmatic about that, as was Blair when compared to Corbyn.

 

[BBassic]

it isnt that at all, its pragmatic reality imho. The old tax this or that for ideological basis rather than realism.

If it works and brings in more, great, Id be delighted, i dont know anyone whos non dom or super wealthy. But I genuinely don't think it will and history shows people and their moeny move, resulting in less tax take overall.

The logical question is, is that is the reality, is that still actually preferable? To enact ideological "class warfare" policies that do little or nothing to benefit treasury?

But what's the solution?

If we can't tax those who can afford to pay more because they'll just go away.
If we can't tax the poor because they're...poor.

Tax the middle class?

 

[beorhthelm]

Looks like the Telegraph already has the knives out for Starmer.

For the record the capital gains free threshold will be halved next week to £6000 and halved again to £3000 in April 2024.

Can someone remind them who is actually in office?

that is quite a curious headline.

 

[peterward]

But what's the solution?

If we can't tax those who can afford to pay more because they'll just go away.
If we can't tax the poor because they're...poor.

Tax the middle class?

the middle classes already have the highest tax burdens as a percentage of earnings.. The Jacob Rees Moggs of this world will have well paid tax planners exploiting legal loopholes, trusts etc to reduce their tax % to less than PAYE middle class earners.

All governments need to find ways to generate and create wealth, business and industry more than just take it. With the flawed economic model of the world as is, the only solution is to grow the UK PLC pie so there's more for govt. to re distribute. I know Blair is much reviled for many reasons, but New Labour had the balance of pro business with social justice and i hope Starmer does too.

Means imho doing everything possible to encourage people to come or stay to give more tax revenue, and not drive them away, which is what present Tory corporation taxes will do too. It is a difficult balancing act, and no party has cracked it, but social justice costs a lot of money and I wish we didnt live in a world where the super rich didn't just up sticks and move, but we do

Starmers green industry revolution (whilst funded by borrowing) is still a better solution to grow.an industry and ceate wealth, and if they want 3B to invest in NHS, they should really overhaul procurement and costs. My ex Mrs used to work for 3M in NHS procurement and its a wasteful often disorganised system that leaks money.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The only dynamic of any taxation is will it work and bring in more revenue, but it's never as simple as moving from 20% to 25% brings in 5% more. We all know it doesn't work that way, people will move, companies will move or stop spending/expanding, potentially fold and/or even lay off staff potentially adding to benefits costs. I'm neither a high or low tax ideologue, just whatever works best and in certain economic cycles its proven lower tax brings in more not less overall.

Its a bloody difficult balancing act, and it moves with the seasons. I've no problem with increased taxation if it works and doesn't do more overall damage than good or bring in less not more.

Thankfully, I think Starmer is far more grown up and pragmatic about that, as was Blair when compared to Corbyn.

And do you know what works best?

Since all governments muck about with tax it is arguable that none know what works best.

However tax levels are not set to maximize government income. They are set to maximize voter approval and votes in the next election, balanced against the extent to which the tinkering will do damage to the economy.

I always found it amusing that the people who were crying about the damage done to the economy by the fact that the Bee Gees and Sean Connery were 'forced' by Labour to be 'tax exiles' were the same people moaning about their own tax burden. They should be honest and say that they are wealthy, could pay for private health, and education for the kids, and therefore don't wish to pay any tax. It is viewpoint. It is the 'working men and women and their families' argument that underpinned Thatcher's view that there is no such thing as society.

I happen to think differently, and that means viewing tax as necessary to fund the socialist elements of society that we hold dear, like the NHS, the armed services and state education.

 

[WATFORD zero]

it isnt that at all, its pragmatic reality imho. The old tax this or that for ideological basis rather than realism.

If it works and brings in more, great, Id be delighted, i dont know anyone whos non dom or super wealthy. But I genuinely don't think it will and history shows people and their moeny move, resulting in less tax take overall.

The logical question is, is that is the reality, is that still actually preferable? To enact ideological "class warfare" policies that do little or nothing to benefit treasury?

So asking non-doms to pay their fair share of taxes is 'idealogical class warfare' now ? I think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from

 

[Crawley Dingo]

I feel this is different though this time. The Tories have gone to a dark place, like their Republican friends in the US they are a threat to democracy.

How? Details please.