Forum menu
Nicely summed by John Crace:
Defections tend to be one-day wonders. An awkward photo op with your new party leader. Thirty minutes in the limelight at prime minister’s questions. And then oblivion. Seldom to be seen or heard of again.
Labour must have been hoping that Natalie Elphicke would follow a similar trajectory. Another embarrassing day for the government. Tories wondering if the game is up if Rishi Sunak can’t even keep the rightwing headbangers in his party on side. It hasn’t quite panned out like this. The reverberations of Nat’s defection have continued into a second day. And the embarrassment is almost all Labour’s.
"Grace Blakeley pointing out in answer that the main problem isn’t just her politics but the fact that she openly came out and defended a rapist and belittled his victims, trying to interfere in the judicial process on the way, causing her to be suspended from Parliament."
I think the bigger problem is that the second part of that sentence seems to actually be 'politics' more of the time nowadays.
Getting back to the more important stuff… Jeremy ‘Silent C’ Hunt has been doing the rounds this morning and seems to be describing the economy of another country. One that only exists in his head.
Apparently we’re living in the midst of an economic miracle and we’ve never had it so good.
He also seems to be hinting at having another tilt at Trussenomics before the general election with unfunded tax cuts
…and why not? It went so well last time
Time for Tory myth-makers and their friends in the press to do their magic...... forget about the last 7 years, focus on the bright future, and don't let Labour trash the economy like everyone knows they always do.
Will Rishi Sunak finally abandon the Rwanda nonsense, which is not winning the Tories votes and is helping to make Reform UK politically relevant, and start banging on about "the fastest growing G7 economy"?
And if he does how will Labour respond - by lurching further to the right in a desperate attempt to convince voters of their conservative credentials and how they can be "trusted" with the economy?
I think the bigger problem is that the second part of that sentence seems to actually be ‘politics’ more of the time nowadays.
No it was an extreme case of politicians trying to interfere on a private level as opposed to the more routine case of them whining about writing laws badly and not being happy with how a judge understands their word salad.
He also seems to be hinting at having another tilt at Trussenomics before the general election with unfunded tax cuts
There you go again opposing much needed tax cuts for working people. Truss's tax cuts failed because they were targeted at the rich. Tax cuts for working people would be an economic boost and would mitigate the effects of Truss's failed experiment. I'm confused why you and other progressives are opposed to them.
There you go again opposing much needed tax cuts for working people
… renowned as the Tories are for their absolute commitment to targeting tax cuts at ‘working people’ and not their rich mates?
… renowned as the Tories are for their absolute commitment to targeting tax cuts at ‘working people’ and not their rich mates?
I presume you missed the two cuts to NI which primarily benefitted people on the basic tax rate? You're right that Truss's cuts were focused on the rich, which is why they didn't work. Since then though they've been focused on working people.
All the while the tax threshold for paying income tax remains frozen (iirc introduced by Sunak in the aftermath of COVID) meaning that those on lower incomes are paying more tax than they were before. Christ even some of sensible Tories argue that you should pay income tax if you earn minimum wage.
All the while the tax threshold for paying income tax remains frozen (iirc introduced by Sunak in the aftermath of COVID) meaning that those on lower incomes are paying more tax than they were before.
Very true. My preferred method of tax cuts would be to restore the link between the thresholds and inflation and raise them to what they should be if they weren't frozen, but until that happens anything else that reduces the amount of tax working people pay is welcome. Are labour proposing to address the thresholds? I haven't heard anything about that, and centrist labour supporters on here seem to want higher taxes which seems a bit of an odd position for progressives to take.
You have to factor in when discussing tax - currently the BoE/Government is paying people with money around 5% on assets.
So people with money are already getting a tax cut via interest income.
That interest income is equivalent to running a large government deficit. So let's not pretend a tax cut needs funding.
You can't simply talk about tax as a means to fund things. It's role is redistribution or deleting money from the economy to stem inflation from government spending. We don't have inflation from government spending but from supply shocks.
The whole thing is a pig's ear skewed towards those with wealth.
It’s role is redistribution or deleting money from the economy to stem inflation from government spending.
Yup. Fiscal policy is the most effective instrument to implement progressive redistribution, not that you'd think that from the centrists on here. All I'm hearing from them is that they want taxes for working people to be higher so that we can 'pay for' stuff. And they wonder why some working people vote tory!?
It's your definition of "working people" that's the problem. Arguably lots of people currently paying taxes on their working income could and should be paying more, while others are paying too much, especially when the share of their income going into non-optional expenditure such as utilities and rent has risen so much in recent years. Lumping all workers together when discussing tax changes is over simplifying in search of an argument.
Defending Tory tax cuts that throw crumbs to the less well off, while handsomely rewarding those on upper incomes, is the odd thing going on here. Tax reforms aimed at those whose income comes from capital not work is indeed needed. That doesn't mean that all workers need and should get tax cuts at a time where the state should be doing more not less.
Arguably lots of people currently paying taxes on their working income could and should be paying more
So what's the threshold at which they should be paying more? 20k, 30k, 40k, 50k?
while handsomely rewarding those on upper incomes
Again, what's your threshold for 'upper' income?
As a typical case study I have a good friend who is a senior probation officer earning around 44k per year. A single mother with a daughter about to go to university. She's been hugeley impacted by the increases in energy bills, food prices, and interest rates on her mortgage, and is now worrying that she won't be able to cover the contribution required towards her daughters living expenses at university (on top of loans). Is she 'upper income' who should be paying more tax? I can assure you she would disagree.
"My" thresholds? Any tax cuts should be targeted at those earning under £30k, with the same increase in benefits for those who can't work. Those earning over £50k should be probably be paying more. All that should come after changes to taxes on capital and wealth, where the real changes are needed. Having a nice big barney about giving tax breaks to people on £40k is lovely for the Tories... and doesn't help the people who really need help, or form part of any half decent strategy for increasing investment without runaway inflation. It's unsurprising that a government on the way out will throw the chance of future tax breaks at "working people"... one way to cover up failure in government is to offer a pretence of at least doing it on the cheap... when the truth is that we're all paying more in tax thanks to the way the Tories have been running the country.
So what’s the threshold at which they should be paying more? 20k, 30k, 40k, 50k?
That looks like SRIT which is more progressive (but still bound to UK banding). Obviously you'll be against that.
Why do we even have NI anyway? Makes no sense paying two taxes at the same time which go to the same pot.
Any tax cuts should be targeted at those earning under £30k
So you think anyone on more than 30k can afford the increases in the cost of living and mortgages? I don't disagree that tax cuts should be targeted at those on lower incomes, and that could very effectively be done by raising the thresholds to where they should be if they weren't frozen, but I reckon you're way off if you think >30k is comfortable enough to absorb all the recent increases.
And those on 50k are already paying significantly more tax thanks to the threshold for the higher rate being frozen, and you want to make them pay more?
I reckon you’re way off if you think >30k is comfortable enough to absorb all the recent increases.
I don't think that. I think that those under £30k need the help more, and would still be worse off than they were not that long ago even with the help. We're nearly all worse off. And room for tax cuts, if/when it comes, should be targeted at those genuinely struggling while living very meagre lives, not the well off on £40k+ in their big homes with big mortgages and higher than average bills.
I don’t think that.
But you don't think they deserve/need a tax cut. So presumably your message to anyone earning between 30-50k (like my friend) is 'shit happens'?
not the well off in their big homes with big mortgages and higher than average bills.
The friend I referred to above lives in a two-bed terrace with no garden and drives a 10-year old skoda. 🤔
I'm in that bracket. Time is shit money wise. I appreciate how much harder it is for others.
The friend I referred to above lives in a two-bed terrace with no garden and drives a 10-year old skoda.
And others are far worse off.
The answer to none of this is tax cuts right now though, it's sorting out the shit all around us... health, schools, trains, roads, energy...
I appreciate how much harder it is for others.
It is, but your differentiation between those on lower incomes and those on 30k-50k is false. Why do you want to punish the people who don't earn massive amounts but are comfortable enough not to be starving? Most of the people in this bracket are key-workers who we couldn't do without such as teachers, paramedics, police officers, social workers, junior doctors, nurses etc. Seems odd that you don't think this cohort of people should be given a little bit of help to cope with stuff that's beyond their control. 😕
And others are far worse off.
Yes but I'm not arguing that they shouldn't get the support they need. Quite the opposite in fact.
your differentiation between those on lower incomes and those on 30k-50k is false
If you think the problems facing those on lower incomes is the same as those on middle incomes... well... I disagree. Do I think that we're all worse off? Yes.
Also, the whole idea that "help" should come from tax cuts, not improving living standards through the means available to the state... well, it's all very Tory... very American even. The essential staff you talk about need higher staffing levels and increased wages.
Why are you all arguing about how well off you are at a given level of income? Household income and number of dependents are the main factors, then there's a whole host of other things that you might not need or might be forced to pay for. Someone on £30k who cohabits with someone else on £30k in a small flat in a town centre within walking distance from their job is going to have a lot more disposable income than someone on £30k whose partner left them and two kids and needs a car to get to the only job they could find etc etc.
Or even worse... three kids*. And that's where benefits come in. Direct taxation levels are crudely based on income levels. Adjusting for circumstance and need beyond a crude assessment of income is done though benefits, which the Tories want to cut.
[ the consensus between the parties as regards not paying benefits beyond the second child is plain wrong ]
well, it’s all very Tory… very American even. The essential staff you talk about need higher staffing levels and increased wages.
The only thing I care about is that working people can afford a decent life, and I'm not interested in trying to divide those at the very bottom with those slightly better off than them. The real divide is between those who derive their income from wealth and assets and those who have to work for it. Totally with you on wealth taxes and capital gains, and if it was down to me I'd abolish income tax altogether and massively hike taxes on wealth and assets instead. Whether working people get help via higher wages or lower taxes is pretty irrelevant, especially in the public sector as it's just recycling money between govt accounts. The bottom line is almost everyone who needs to work is (a lot) poorer now than they used to be, and fiscal policy is the best method for addressing that both for those on low incomes on those in the middle.
I liked that last post of yours Dazh... any disagreement I have with it just nuance really, based on "how" you do that stuff. Too often we've seen "help for workers" via tax cuts mean crumbs for the people who most need it, and a bolstering of the wealth of higher earners... paired with reductions in services that the former group need far more that the later.
All I’m hearing from them is that they want taxes for working people to be higher so that we can ‘pay for’ stuff
Now your just making shit up to cause trouble and provoke people. No one has said they want taxes to increase for the lowest paid as you insinuate with that kind of wording there.
Now your just making shit up to cause trouble and provoke people. No one has said they want taxes to increase for the lowest paid as you insinuate with that kind of wording there.
Nope. The tories are proposing further cuts to NI (or even aboloshing it), and labour centrists on here (and elsewhere) think that's a bad idea because 'we can't afford it'. The end result will be higher taxes for working people.
The other point is that I'm challenging the idea that paying tax is somehow a noble thing because it contributes to society and permits us to do stuff. The only thing it does is control inflation and provide a highly efficient mechanism for redistributing wealth and affecting economic behaviour. If we don't use that ability to redistribute then it's just a money destruction mechanism which might be useful in macro-economic terms but fairly irrelevant for anything else.
if it was down to me I’d abolish income tax altogether and massively hike taxes on wealth and assets instead
Then C&H becomes an effective tax minimisation strategy...
The other point is that I’m challenging the idea that paying tax is somehow a noble thing because it contributes to society and permits us to do stuff.
It still does. This is just the same MMT argument all over again. Taxes not directly paying for government spending does not mean that taxes are irrelevant. They are absolutely key.
They are absolutely key.
Yes for controlling inflation. But if you're not going to use them for redistribution, for instance by reducing income taxes and NI for working people and increasing taxes on the rich, then they're worthless as a policy tool. I suppose it comes down to what sort of economy we want? Do we want a massively divided economy where enormous sums of money are hoarded by a small minority who don't work and consume an awful lot, or do we want an economy where people feel secure and are motivated to contribute via work and other activities? If the latter then we need to reduce taxes on working.
How about you increase taxes on the rich (by removing their multitude of means of avoiding tax), and get on with the job of fixing public services, while also keeping inflation under control. The path out of our current cost of living crises isn't just a simple tax break... although that's what Sunak is likely to be offering come an election (knowing he won't be around to worry about it not working).
All this talk of tax reduction ignores the main reason why they are doing it.
It's part of the scorched earth policy - cut taxes, Labour come in & immediately have to raise them or will have to do it at some point in the future - then all the headlines will be here comes Labour to steal your hard earned money.
Starmer won't fall for it. He is committed to the same fiscal prudence/taxation as the Tories.
All they need is a poster of an old dear laying on the floor and a caption saying do you want an ambulance or richer billionaires?
Labour come in & immediately have to raise them or will have to do it at some point in the future
Why will they have to do that? The accepted economic narrative is that 'we have no money' and from that it follows that taxes must be raised. But if Reeves is going to follow the US model of Biden's securonomics then that will also involve ignoring the national debt and boosting investment to generate growth. Assuming that works in the same way it has in the US then taxes won't need to be raised. They won't admit to any of this now of course and will stick to the 'we have no money' nonsense but they'll quietly bin that when in power and we won't see any major tax rises.
Economic growth in the US since Bidens investment in public infrastructure- 8 - 9%
Economic growth in the UK during the same period of austerity with zero investment - pretty much **** all!
They only follow the US model of capitalism when it suits them
The global financial system still (just) backs the US economy to be vibrant and downright large enough to 'justify' investing in infrastructure.
I doubt they'll be so charitable with a piss-ant 6th place economy based heavily on services.
They only follow the US model of capitalism when it suits them
The rebuilding infrastructure is a new thing though after they let it collapse. The yanks are good about lying about their model as well.
Its like how they rant about state support for industries but then lob money for "defence" contracts which just happen to keep the entire industry going eg Boeing. Or Darpa for how the state can interfere and guide industrial development on a massive scale.
To be fair they do have a good tradition of occasionally slapping down dodgy business execs who take the piss a bit too much unlike with us and the serious farce office.
The Americans jail their fraudsters
I argue its more sometimes. Either when they have pulled back the curtain a bit too far to the plebs and hence risk damaging trust to much or they have ripped off someone who has good political connections. Often in the latter case someone who inherited the wealth and is slowly wasting it through stupidity.
Economic growth in the US since Bidens investment in public infrastructure- 8 – 9%
Economic growth in the UK during the same period of austerity with zero investment – pretty much **** all!
They only follow the US model of capitalism when it suits them
Well yes exactly which is why I've been banging on for years about the power of the public purse.
You know who was on Biden's original stimulis team? Professor Stephanie Kelton - leading MMT proponent.
This is why it's vital to push back on any lies from either administration but particularly Labour that they've run out of money. You can't keep harping on about the state of the public finances ~ Biden's lot are running large deficits. Via interest income and government spending.
Growth follows public investment. (Which is why Reeves' stupid idea of growth coming before public spending is twaddle.)
A 'negative' public balance is a positive private sector balance. As long as we target the correct areas (loads) we are cooking on solar power.
And of course the UK does State Corporatism choosing to funnel finances away from the public good and straight to powerful pockets.
https://twitter.com/guardianopinion/status/1784630050421453232?t=WaQGmgtstC6DD0OJIgnv9w&s=19
It also matters how you invest it. This lots only contribution to infrastructure investment is 100 billion of public money on a completely pointless white elephant commuter train line from the midlands into somewhere nearish to London.
Idiots!
The ROI for all that will doubtless be shockingly bad. Im hoping an incoming Labour government would spend its money a bit more wisely than that
"Do we want a massively divided economy where enormous sums of money are hoarded by a small minority who don’t work and consume an awful lot"
I thought the issue is that, at the margin, they don't consume as much (as a % of income) as poorer folk, they invest more. Which drives up asset prices. Also, poorer folk are more likely to spend any extra incomme locally. So consumption of goods and services will be more if the poor earn more and the rich less.
So consumption of goods and services will be more if the poor earn more and the rich less.
Wealthy are very good at purchasing big ticket items which consume way more resources and materials than the poor, per individual - like big houses, multiple cars, and going into space. The relative increase that the poor need is hardly likely to put a dent in that. That's what taxation is for - to limit what the wealthy can take from the rest of us.
Waiting list for a Rolls Royce is over a year. I'd imagine a RR takes a few more bits of metal than the average Astra.
Anyway Sunak is doing another one of those obvious be scared of North Korea speeches today. Talk about rummaging around the bottom of the box.
So he's doing an election broadcast - we all know what he'll say.
"Due to imminent threats we are cancelling the election as there is a danger Labour might get in"
Dont forget the "ouch my keks are too tight" prat pose beloved of these pathogens.
Dont forget the “ouch my keks are too tight” prat pose beloved of these pathogens.
They got a memo saying manspreading is a good thing so thought why not do it standing up too.
I presume that for his usual dramatic effect he’ll be stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier or in front of a tank
Please God please let someone recreate this with an actionman tank and doll. Eagle eyes options
I presume you missed the two cuts to NI which primarily benefitted people on the basic tax rate?
It benefits those who earn up to the NI limit the most, so folk on at least £50k.
Don't I remember you all telling me that £50k was a lot and the 'average' was £38k?
He is committed to the same fiscal prudence/taxation as the Tories.
Go back a few pages - it's needed to be elected because otherwise the client media will be 101% out for Labour.
Have you learned NOTHING from the last 30 years or so?
it’s needed to be elected because otherwise the client media will be 101% out for Labour.
Citation needed. The right wing rags billionaire owners arent stupid and so will only be holding back if its not just to be elected but willing to carry on policies to serve them.
Have you learned NOTHING from the last 30 years or so?
Clearly you havent. We could take the obvious 1997 case of how the tories admitted their fiscal rules were a trap which if by some miracle they had won wouldnt have been kept.
Watching the little fellas speech, can anyone tell me which country he is talking about please?
Damn humans, wanting to keep their rights... so glad I'm not hu... oh, shit.
Who would have predicted this, say, 8 years ago? Well, apart from everyone.
Still hoping they'll be throughly rejected on this platform later this year... but long term? I suspect this is where his party, and probably the UK as a whole, will end up.
The rest of it is just gaslighting bollocks
You've simply fallen for Labour pessimism binners, we are living in a New Jerusalem, Sunak just said so.
Get with the program!
So basically Labour will give me cancer, let North Korea invade and inject me with socialist nanobots.
Well, if the alternative is another 20 years of Tory rule......
Hiya,
Just read Sunak's dramatic speech, wow, what a complete shock...
The reality seems to be sour grapes of losing support in his own party, his rubbish performance... Oh yes, and actually coming second in a two horse race, that none of us was invited to participate in. Just seems to be a slow death march to tory oblivion...Well one can hope cos I hate the lot of the self serving tossers...
JeZ
His speech seems a bit contradictory.
Talking about doomsterism whilst saying how dangerous the next five years will be.
Talking about choice between future and past seems a somewhat dubious stance for the party which has been in power for the last 14 years.
Sunak says he refuses to accept the "doomsterism and cynical narrative of decline" that Labour hope will "depress people" into voting for them.
But he's more than happy to try & scare people into voting for them... Just give us an election date & go & AI in America.
I find his tone and delivery - head prefect talking to a group of naughty 1st years - monumentally irritating
Want us to trust in him to keep us safe... yet is ready to bugger off to California at a moment's notice should things really get dicey back in Blighty.
Go back a few pages – it’s needed to be elected because otherwise the client media will be 101% out for Labour.
Have you learned NOTHING from the last 30 years or so?
That's a really weird response to my comment! I said that it won't be a "trap" set by the Tories because under Starmer a Labour government will match the Tories on spending and taxation.
Here's what I said:
Starmer won’t fall for it. He is committed to the same fiscal prudence/taxation as the Tories.
Which bit of that are you arguing against?
I find his tone and delivery – head prefect talking to a group of naughty 1st years – monumentally irritating
This is his main problem. Starmer at least comes across as a normal-ish bloke, and Johnson did too despite his posh name and eton background. Sunak though just comes across as a patronising posh c*** and he'll never be able to change that. Maybe it's something to do with the fact Starmer and Johnson are both massive drinkers and Sunak is a pious teetotaller?
Nah, it's cos he's just not up to the job
Sunak though just comes across as a patronising posh c*** and he’ll never be able to change that. Maybe it’s something to do with the fact Starmer and Johnson are both massive drinkers and Sunak is a pious teetotaller?
As a pious teetotaler may I patronising suggest that you are better than that Daz.
Or has years of drinking impaired your judgement?
I wish Charles Kennedy had been teetotal. I still really miss him in UK politics.
I wish Charles Kennedy had been teetotal. I still really miss him in UK politics.
Too ****ing right. Robbing British politics of Charles Kennedy is just one more thing which I can add to my list of reasons why I am unimpressed by alcohol.
Sunak though just comes across as a patronising posh c*** and he’ll never be able to change that.
+1. He's like a teacher who doesn't really know what subject he's teaching, just that he's in charge of a classroom of unruly students and he needs to use his "authority" to lord it over them.
He can't relate to any of them on a personal level, he doesn't really know his subject well enough to be teaching it so he's just standing at the front rather peevishly telling us all that we'll all suffer if we don't just shut up and listen to him.
And also that we can't go and complain to the headmaster about him cos he's pulled the class out of the Educational College Headmaster's Responsibilities (ECHR)... 😉
Nah, it’s cos he’s just not up to the job
TBH I always thought sloppy seconds was always a caretaker pm, just keeping the lights on.
Overly keen to jettison ECHR is worrying, never thought I’d see them coming for our human rights in my lifetime.
As a pious teetotaler may I patronising suggest that you are better than that Daz.
Another STW humour failure 🙄
Seriously do you guys take such easy offence in real life?
Another STW humour failure 🙄
I assume that you are not referring to yourself. Relax - it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.
Seriously do you guys take such easy offence in real life?
I don't think that was a case of taking offence - more like pointing out where you've made a bit of a crass comment, giving you the opportunity to think and learn a bit.
.
it wasn’t supposed to be taken seriously.
I can assure you I don't take (almost) anything seriously that's written here. 🙂