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

[Beach Hut]

Very fair

@Beach Hut doesn't believe Starmer/Labour, but he does believe every word written on a post-it note by a spotty intern 14 years ago.

Heartwarming.

Missed the point totally about what was being compared but carry on

 

[Weststander]

1. Never hear of him. I can't be very left, then... so much for all that Marxism training I've supposedly had (according to the late Fairy, formerly of this parish).
2. After-timing. You can always find someone with a niche opinion, @BenGarfield, for example and...
3. and yes, the world. Perhaps Broon should have stuck with his 'prudent' instincts. But he would have received no apology from the Mail, Sun and Express had the UK uniquely avoided the crash. I think he may have been guilty of chasing rainbows at the end of his chancellorship in the hope some of the shine might decorate his leadership cachet, but overall, weird though he is, I'd not single him out as whipping boy.
4. <sigh> Aftertiming again. I don't know any sensitive labour voters (in the way you mean it). Just cross ones.

And you were a bit needlessly rude to @Thunder Bolt. I expect she raise one eyebrow. A tiny bit.



(Footy was good wasn't it!)

It’s giving perspective where people on nsc claim, often you?:
1. Brown’s chancellorship was in no way the cause of the financial collapse. It was all the US and elsewhere. After lobbying he dismissed efforts to tighten regulation of UK financial institutions. This isn’t after timing, it was widely discussed at the time, some experts predicted what eventually happened.
2. Completely ignoring the events and lack of sufficient regulation up to (1), nsc’ers claim that Brown appeared to save the world’s economic system. He gets credit for using an already used measure QE, but without (1) the UK would’ve been sitting far better.

They do not balance out. Austerity (which Brown also proposed in May 2010) caused ten years or more of pain, real lives hurt.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

1. Never hear of him. I can't be very left, then... so much for all that Marxism training I've supposedly had (according to the late Fairy, formerly of this parish).
2. After-timing. You can always find someone with a niche opinion, @BenGarfield, for example and...
3. and yes, the world. Perhaps Broon should have stuck with his 'prudent' instincts. But he would have received no apology from the Mail, Sun and Express had the UK uniquely avoided the crash. I think he may have been guilty of chasing rainbows at the end of his chancellorship in the hope some of the shine might decorate his leadership cachet, but overall, weird though he is, I'd not single him out as whipping boy.
4. <sigh> Aftertiming again. I don't know any sensitive labour voters (in the way you mean it). Just cross ones.

And you were a bit needlessly rude to @Thunder Bolt. I expect she raise one eyebrow. A tiny bit.



(Footy was good wasn't it!)

Thank you. I wasn’t referring to GB’s record as a Chancellor, as a whole, just the reaction to the banking crisis. I didn’t agree with selling off the gold reserve.
Somehow, Westander thinks I am a Labour supporter when I haven’t voted Labour since the 90s, but he feels it’s some sort of an insult, so makes him feel better. I have never pretended to understand economics unlike my daughter, who is a Chartered Tax Accountant.
Yes, he was rude to me, but it was late, so he was probably tired and emotional. It happens to all of us.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It’s giving perspective where people on nsc claim, often you?:
1. Brown’s chancellorship was in no way the cause of the financial collapse. It was all the US and elsewhere. After lobbying he dismissed efforts to tighten regulation of UK financial institutions. This isn’t after timing, it was widely discussed at the time, some experts predicted what eventually happened.
2. Completely ignoring the events and lack of sufficient regulation up to (1), nsc’ers claim that Brown appeared to save the world’s economic system. He gets credit for using an already used measure QE, but without (1) the UK would’ve been sitting far better.

They do not balance out. Austerity (which Brown also proposed in May 2010) caused ten years or more of pain, real lives hurt.

The vast majority of of parliament and all parties were pushing not to tighten regulation (some wanting significantly less than Brown), anybody lobbying to tighten it were in a very small minority. Brown now says it was a mistake, but again that is with hindsight, and to tighten regulation at that point would have been the opposite of what all capitalist countries were doing at the time. I wonder how that would have gone down

This is an interesting read long before any mention of QE, but I have heard similar from multiple sources.

The weekend Gordon Brown saved the banks from the abyss​

World markets were in a death spiral. There was a vertiginous sell-off across the board as investors dumped stocks, commodities and currencies. The markets had no faith in their own ability to stabilise, nor in the capacity of governments to rescue them. The crisis of capitalism so long predicted by communists had arrived even if they were no longer in a position to take advantage of it. Every major index was plunging, day after day. Wall Street suffered the worst week in its history. Stocks on the Dow lost 18% of their value in five days.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/feb/21/gordon-brown-saved-banks

 

[Weststander]

The vast majority of of parliament and all parties were pushing not to tighten regulation (some wanting significantly less than Brown), anybody lobbying to tighten it were in a very small minority. Brown now says it was a mistake, but again that is with hindsight, and to tighten regulation at that point would have been the opposite of what all capitalist countries were doing at the time. I wonder how that would have gone down

This is an interesting read long before any mention of QE, but I have heard similar from multiple sources.

The weekend Gordon Brown saved the banks from the abyss​

World markets were in a death spiral. There was a vertiginous sell-off across the board as investors dumped stocks, commodities and currencies. The markets had no faith in their own ability to stabilise, nor in the capacity of governments to rescue them. The crisis of capitalism so long predicted by communists had arrived even if they were no longer in a position to take advantage of it. Every major index was plunging, day after day. Wall Street suffered the worst week in its history. Stocks on the Dow lost 18% of their value in five days.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/feb/21/gordon-brown-saved-banks

I totally agree that the Tories would’ve followed the same path.

But not Vince Cable or Robert Peston, they dined out for years afterwards for smelling a light touch rat early on.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Thank you. I wasn’t referring to GB’s record as a Chancellor, as a whole, just the reaction to the banking crisis. I didn’t agree with selling off the gold reserve.
Somehow, Westander thinks I am a Labour supporter when I haven’t voted Labour since the 90s, but he feels it’s some sort of an insult, so makes him feel better. I have never pretended to understand economics unlike my daughter, who is a Chartered Tax Accountant.
Yes, he was rude to me, but it was late, so he was probably tired and emotional. It happens to all of us.

Bit of a misunderstanding I expect. Westy is a good lad. All the best.

 

[Machiavelli]

You’re clearly out of your depth on economics, city regulation and the 00’s. You tried deflection, lazily and wrongly assuming I was against Germany’s actions. Perhaps some Guardian pieces will educate you.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/mar/24/farewell-fsa-bleak-legacy-light-touch-regulator

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/dec/12/labour-regulations-city-rbs-collapse

I agree with most of what you've said in this and in previous posts, but disagree on:
-- QE came much later than you're allowing, it was 2009 not 2008 when the financial sector was on the brink, and required urgent action
-- you're right about Peston and Cable, but these were lone voices (and they only became prominent later in 2007 when Northern Rock collapsed), there really wasn't a widely articulated view that the financial sector was under-regulated (beyond a few pockets of left-wing academia and bear-ish city insiders, eg Roubini). To the contrary, those working in finance were Masters of the Universe.
-- articles from 2011 and 2013 isn't going to convince me that the issue of city/financial regulation was raised when it mattered, ie by early 2007 or before that.

 

[Weststander]

I agree with most of what you've said in this and in previous posts, but disagree on:
-- QE came much later than you're allowing, it was 2009 not 2008 when the financial sector was on the brink, and required urgent action
-- you're right about Peston and Cable, but these were lone voices (and they only became prominent later in 2007 when Northern Rock collapsed), there really wasn't a widely articulated view that the financial sector was under-regulated (beyond a few pockets of left-wing academia and bear-ish city insiders, eg Roubini). To the contrary, those working in finance were Masters of the Universe.
-- articles from 2011 and 2013 isn't going to convince me that the issue of city/financial regulation was raised when it mattered, ie by early 2007 or before that.

Thanks for your intelligent contribution, as ever. I work in the financial sector, some colleagues predicted the derivatives pack of cards collapse from the mid 90’s. They weren’t experts, but had read articles from some economists.

Have you heard of Yanis Varoufakis? I didn’t realise he was an unknown. From the left, he became a very articulate poster boy across Europe on the inequity of austerity, particularly he and many claimed that northern Eurozone had benefitted from the 00’s borrowing boom (their exported goods to eg Greece), then were too tough on the Med nations up to their eyeballs in debt. He was often a guest on Newsnight.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks for your intelligent contribution, as ever. I work in the financial sector, some colleagues predicted the derivatives pack of cards collapse from the mid 90’s. They weren’t experts, but had read articles from some economists.

Have you heard of Yanis Varoufakis? I didn’t realise he was an unknown. From the left, he became a very articulate poster boy across Europe on the inequity of austerity, particularly he and many claimed that northern Eurozone had benefitted from the 00’s borrowing boom (their exported goods to eg Greece), then were too tough on the Med nations up to their eyeballs in debt. He was often a guest on Newsnight.

IIRC, Varoufakis didn't cross my radar until after 2008. I used to be able to stay up to watch Newsnight, but my memory is not good enough to remember too much of the output back then.

 

[dazzer6666]

I might be in a minority of one, but it was particularly galling to see Hector Sants rock up at Barclays.

you 100% weren’t - I reported to him (indirectly - one level below) ! It was abundantly clear to us from very early on he wasn’t well - think the stresses of the crisis had taken their toll (unsurprisingly) - I remember him actually dropping off during a meeting. He didn’t stay long, but unfortunately (in my view at least) long enough to leave us with one of his FCA acolytes running our function

 

[AK74]

you 100% weren’t - I reported to him (indirectly - one level below) ! It was abundantly clear to us from very early on he wasn’t well - think the stresses of the crisis had taken their toll (unsurprisingly) - I remember him actually dropping off during a meeting. He didn’t stay long, but unfortunately (in my view at least) long enough to leave us with one of his FCA acolytes running our function

As Sants was asleep at the wheel during his time at the FSA, it doesn't surprise me that he nodded off during a meeting a few years later!

And don't get me started on Bob Diamond and Rich Ricci...

 

[Weststander]

IIRC, Varoufakis didn't cross my radar until after 2008. I used to be able to stay up to watch Newsnight, but my memory is not good enough to remember too much of the output back then.

Agree with your posts about asset wealth, but who to affect?

Putting aside IHT as I know many, many folk in the 40’s and 50’s who have a worth on a different level and some to the average family in Sussex, so they IHT is 25 years away, would you include such folk? A common scenario is as follows:

£1m home, next to no mortgage.
A €250k home in Spain or France, no mortgage.
One or two BTL’s with fantastic equity.
Investments under wealth management.

There are a awful load of people in Southern England with a scenario like that.

It goes under the radar as people only focus on Non-Dom’s and billionaires.

Has your wide reading picked up on this chasm too?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Britains favourite bar steward as John Major commented

 

[dazzer6666]

As Sants was asleep at the wheel during his time at the FSA, it doesn't surprise me that he nodded off during a meeting a few years later!

And don't get me started on Bob Diamond and Rich Ricci...

I have a few stories that might involve them……

 

[Machiavelli]

Agree with your posts about asset wealth, but who to affect?

Putting aside IHT as I know many, many folk in the 40’s and 50’s who have a worth on a different level and some to the average family in Sussex, so they IHT is 25 years away, would you include such folk? A common scenario is as follows:

£1m home, next to no mortgage.
A €250k home in Spain or France, no mortgage.
One or two BTL’s with fantastic equity.
Investments under wealth management.

There are a awful load of people in Southern England with a scenario like that.

It goes under the radar as people only focus on Non-Dom’s and billionaires.

Has your wide reading picked up on this chasm too?

I haven't read that widely on IHT, and am nowhere near as familiar with the nitty gritty of people's 'estates' (if that's the right word) as you are. But, yes, you're right, there are a significant number in that or similar situations and, yes, they're precisely the kind of people that would need to be targeted, but only a small %.
It could be done in part by addressing council tax, which is ripe for reform, and is hugely iniquitous. Second and multiple homes and, even more, vacant homes should be targeted too. Wales has gone some way down that route.
As a replacement for council tax, to the extent that I know about such things, a Land Value Tax wouldn't be the worst option.

Rather than nitty-gritty, it's far more a basic logic that I'm operating off, which is informed by Piketty, and goes like this:
-- shift taxation from labour towards assets, as the former should be encouraged, and produces wealth
-- have extremely gradated taxation on assets, eg 0,5% pa on £1m; 1% on £2m; 3% on £5m; and increasing the % on extremes of wealth.
All of this will only be possible with a proper and rigidly enforced register of assets/wealth. I'm aware of the difficulty of catching liquid assets, and all of this is in part possible with serious restrictions on tax havens, and cross-national agreement. We can either move towards such a situation, or not. I suspect we won't, but that more or less leaves us where we are now.
Note that the scenario you've indicated there is mainly of illiquid assets so, at the very least, they can be brought within the net. Doing so will also impact upon property prices which I think the pair of us think is long overdue. Only the British obsession with property would welcome inflation in that realm, while hating it elsewhere. The housing stock should be for the public to live in, not as investment vehicles in my view.

 

[Weststander]

I haven't read that widely on IHT, and am nowhere near as familiar with the nitty gritty of people's 'estates' (if that's the right word) as you are. But, yes, you're right, there are a significant number in that or similar situations and, yes, they're precisely the kind of people that would need to be targeted, but only a small %.
It could be done in part by addressing council tax, which is ripe for reform, and is hugely iniquitous. Second and multiple homes and, even more, vacant homes should be targeted too. Wales has gone some way down that route.
As a replacement for council tax, to the extent that I know about such things, a Land Value Tax wouldn't be the worst option.

Rather than nitty-gritty, it's far more a basic logic that I'm operating off, which is informed by Piketty, and goes like this:
-- shift taxation from labour towards assets, as the former should be encouraged, and produces wealth
-- have extremely gradated taxation on assets, eg 0,5% pa on £1m; 1% on £2m; 3% on £5m; and increasing the % on extremes of wealth.
All of this will only be possible with a proper and rigidly enforced register of assets/wealth. I'm aware of the difficulty of catching liquid assets, and all of this is in part possible with serious restrictions on tax havens, and cross-national agreement. We can either move towards such a situation, or not. I suspect we won't, but that more or less leaves us where we are now.
Note that the scenario you've indicated there is mainly of illiquid assets so, at the very least, they can be brought within the net. Doing so will also impact upon property prices which I think the pair of us think is long overdue. Only the British obsession with property would welcome inflation in that realm, while hating it elsewhere. The housing stock should be for the public to live in, not as investment vehicles in my view.

I’m not of the left (taxation wise) but have kind of come round to your way of thinking.

There’s an out of control, last 28 years, virtuous (for them) circle where eg in Sussex households are sitting on net wealth of say £1.5m upwards, many, more than that. With the occasional blip such as now, their family wealth is growing exponentially. I see people making £55k payments to the SLC to write off their offsprings loan at age 22 x each kid. Huge 40% deposits paid to get their 25 year olds new homes at the best mortgage rates. Grandparents pay public school fees and will find the VAT just an annoyance. Grandparents engineer their pension scheme wealth to move down two gen’s. This isn’t just a handful of the financially elite, there’s so much wealth in this neck of the woods. An anecdote, some of the people doing this we know are ‘Labour’ supporters. It’s human nature it appears to maximise family wealth with no limits, but talk that governments should hit just the super rich.

Then today in this ‘monsoon’, there’ll be people in Brighton wet and cold.

Something’s got to give, shirley?

 

[dazzer6666]

I haven't read that widely on IHT, and am nowhere near as familiar with the nitty gritty of people's 'estates' (if that's the right word) as you are. But, yes, you're right, there are a significant number in that or similar situations and, yes, they're precisely the kind of people that would need to be targeted, but only a small %.
It could be done in part by addressing council tax, which is ripe for reform, and is hugely iniquitous. Second and multiple homes and, even more, vacant homes should be targeted too. Wales has gone some way down that route.
As a replacement for council tax, to the extent that I know about such things, a Land Value Tax wouldn't be the worst option.

Rather than nitty-gritty, it's far more a basic logic that I'm operating off, which is informed by Piketty, and goes like this:
-- shift taxation from labour towards assets, as the former should be encouraged, and produces wealth
-- have extremely gradated taxation on assets, eg 0,5% pa on £1m; 1% on £2m; 3% on £5m; and increasing the % on extremes of wealth.
All of this will only be possible with a proper and rigidly enforced register of assets/wealth. I'm aware of the difficulty of catching liquid assets, and all of this is in part possible with serious restrictions on tax havens, and cross-national agreement. We can either move towards such a situation, or not. I suspect we won't, but that more or less leaves us where we are now.
Note that the scenario you've indicated there is mainly of illiquid assets so, at the very least, they can be brought within the net. Doing so will also impact upon property prices which I think the pair of us think is long overdue. Only the British obsession with property would welcome inflation in that realm, while hating it elsewhere. The housing stock should be for the public to live in, not as investment vehicles in my view.

How do you practically implement a wealth tax on assets ? How often (and how) do you value property, particularly if it’s abroad ? Other assets like artworks etc (if you don’t include these, that‘s where money will go) ? Liquid assets are arguably easier to capture - interest payments and suchlike are already reported to HMRC by banks and have been for donkey’s years.

 

[A mex eyecan]

Sorry to appear so negative on this but surely no matter what format of taxation/redistribution, call it what you will will not ever end up having the impact on the super wealthy that people may crave.

With such wealth comes the ability to engage the services of the very best taxation advisors, solicitors, accountants et al. Taking you back to where you started whereby they will know the ways around the rules, be aware of all the loopholes etc etc and end up paying little more than they do now.

 

[Machiavelli]

I’m not of the left (taxation wise) but have kind of come round to your way of thinking.

There’s an out of control, last 28 years, virtuous (for them) circle where eg in Sussex households are sitting on net wealth of say £1.5m upwards, many, more than that. With the occasional blip such as now, their family wealth is growing exponentially. I see people making £55k payments to the SLC to write off their offsprings loan at age 22 x each kid. Huge 40% deposits paid to get their 25 year olds new homes at the best mortgage rates. Grandparents pay public school fees and will find the VAT just an annoyance. Grandparents engineer their pension scheme wealth to move down two gen’s. This isn’t just a handful of the financially elite, there’s so much wealth in this neck of the woods. An anecdote, some of the people doing this we know are ‘Labour’ supporters. It’s human nature it appears to maximise family wealth with no limits, but talk that governments should hit just the super rich.

Then today in this ‘monsoon’, there’ll be people in Brighton wet and cold.

Something’s got to give, shirley?

Yup. Wealth entrenches wealth (Piketty has a very simple formula here which is, under capitalism and without proper regulation/taxation regimes, r > g, ie the rate of return on capital is greater than growth, which is another way of saying that labour suffers while assets accumulate. Broadly, between 1920s and 1980 in many western countries, g > r. Not only were growth rates high, but socioeconomic mobility was high too (it isn't when r > g). People will find their way around systems to avoid tax. That's fine. HMRC, etc need to be on top of things. The first way around this is to boost their numbers and give them teeth.
The money accrued should be spent on energy transition, NHS, social care and education for me. As much as I'm against private education, I take your point about the profile and reasons of those that are using it. My response is that the state should substantially improve provision for SEN, which has been slashed since austerity was introduced (and was going to need more money anyway with increased diagnoses).

 

[Weststander]

Yup. Wealth entrenches wealth (Piketty has a very simple formula here which is, under capitalism and without proper regulation/taxation regimes, r > g, ie the rate of return on capital is greater than growth, which is another way of saying that labour suffers while assets accumulate. Broadly, between 1920s and 1980 in many western countries, g > r. Not only were growth rates high, but socioeconomic mobility was high too (it isn't when r > g). People will find their way around systems to avoid tax. That's fine. HMRC, etc need to be on top of things. The first way around this is to boost their numbers and give them teeth.
The money accrued should be spent on energy transition, NHS, social care and education for me. As much as I'm against private education, I take your point about the profile and reasons of those that are using it. My response is that the state should substantially improve provision for SEN, which has been slashed since austerity was introduced (and was going to need more money anyway with increased diagnoses).

Adding to your shopping list - CAMHS and Wellbeing should have a multiple more clinical psychologists and consultant psychiatrists. Some health authorities now only intervene when there’s been an attempted suicide. This is criminal.