Forum menu
Why would you vote for someone just because they wanted to get elected? I always thought everyone who stood wanted to get elected.
I’m ready to break pledges
Surely not. That would make as much of a liar and hypocrite as Boris Johnson. I don't believe it.
Only if you’re a big fan of using false equivalence to try and wash the reputation of our beloved Brexit delivering PM.
This thread really does remind me of arguing about religion, no matter what Starmer states or says, it's put into a negative way, even those pledges, in black and white, on his website and signed are not good enough, as with religion, if only he had the initials JC he'd be way more believable 😂
no matter what Starmer states or says, it’s put into a negative way, even those pledges, in black and white, on his website and signed are not good enough,
Certainly not in my case - I think those 10 pledges are absolutely excellent, which is precisely why I regularly post them on this thread.
They are concise, direct, easy to grasp, and provide a genuine alternative to Tory policies.
Starmer just needs to keep arguing for what he believes in. There is very little in those 10 pledges that the majority of people wouldn't see as commonsense.
Looks like there’s an even harder route back to the party for Corbyn now 😳
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61210585.amp
Who cares?
Oops wrong thread!
This thread really does remind me of arguing about religion, no matter what Starmer states or says, it’s put into a negative way, even those pledges, in black and white, on his website and signed are not good enough, as with religion, if only he had the initials JC he’d be way more believable
Following a neoliberal line in a collapsing neoliberal economy is completely counter-intuitive.
And for the JC comment - he was saddled with a tax and spend chancellor so all is not compatible with the way the monetary system operates in this country to deliver the best economic outcomes.
Unless we break tax and spend (with the likes of the ridiculous windfall rubbish on energy companies) we are designed to fail again and again.
This leaves an opening each time for the kings for the spin of the free market - the Tories.
We can do nuance if we want? (Or you could just explain what common ownership might mean in the context of energy.)
Who cares?
He cares because when Starmer doesn't cut it, it's easy to go back to giving Corbyn a hard time rather than holding the current leader to account.
Amazing.
Whats he done now? Declared the allotment an independent nation state and formed an alliance with Putin
Oh....
Who cares?
How remarkably shortsighted.
I couldn't give a monkeys about Corbyn. He created the mess that he now finds himself in.
The issue here however is that Starmer and the Right are laying the groundwork to exclude anyone who is opposed to NATO from the party, something which Tony Blair in his wildest dreams could not have imagined possible.
And if opposition to NATO is grounds for exclusion from the party then it is perfectly logical to extend that same principal to another much cherished institution which provides the backbone to our democratic society - the monarchy.
Can republicanism have a place when patriotism is so important during a time of international tension and turmoil? Surely these people who insult Her Majesty should be kicked out of the party?
And what about that thousand year old institution in our ancient and globally admired mother of all parliaments, the House of Lords?
Or any other issue which contradicts the stance taken by the Leader of the Party? Surely there is no place for people with such disloyalty?
The latest development with regards to Corbyn simply shows how willing Starmer is to move the goal posts to wherever he feels it is necessary, to silence opposition.
I couldn’t give a monkeys about Corbyn. He created the mess that he now finds himself in.
same here, hence, Who cares?
NATO was signed into being by Atlee. I'm not surprised the Labour party take a dim view of those that oppose it.
NATO was signed into being by Atlee. I’m not surprised the Labour party take a dim view of those that oppose it.
LOL! We have now reached the point where something has to be supported because it was Labour Party policy 70 years ago!!
Dinosaurs!!
Yeah, like the NHS I guess?
Bloody principles. Why can't Labour stay vague and not commit to anything?
Yeah, like the NHS I guess?
Odd comparison. Why didnt you go for clause 4 instead?
Looking at that bbc article the thing which stands out is the rather selective quotation and interpretation put on things. Seems about the same level as the daily mails variant as opposed to the times and co.
Yeah, like the NHS I guess?
Oh this gets better...... because the the creation of the NHS was a good idea all other Labour policies from 70 years ago should still be supported today.
Are you okay nick?
Odd comparison.
Not really, they're both long standing post war Labour policies that have had continuous Labour support and stood the test of time. I don't think there's been a moment in Labour's post war history where either the NHS or NATO haven't been at the core of their offering to the public. It would be odd given the situation in Ukraine if Labour endorsed a candidate who suggested that we should leave NATO or break up the NHS for instance.
When Corbyn was leader of the Labour Party withdrawal from NATO was not Labour Party policy. Corbyn was perfectly entitled to his opinions then and there is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be entitled to his opinions now.
Obviously some people believe that the only valid opinions are those of Starmer. Although most people aren't quite sure what they are, including probably Starmer himself.
Obviously some people believe that the only valid opinions are those of Starmer.
Oh you are funny.
Yes of course he's entitled to his opinions, no-one has said that he shouldn't be. But if some of his opinions now (like leaving NATO) aren't compatible with Labour's current policy, he can hardly be surprised by the news that he's made it more difficult to be readmitted to that party.
He is in the party, but he doesn’t have the parliamentary whip. Not sure he wants it back either.
aren’t compatible with Labour’s current policy
That's a very strange attitude which appears to attach no value in inner-party democracy.
People don't just become members of a political party because they agree with all its policies, often it is precisely because they want to make a difference and influence policy.
He is a member.
I don’t think there’s been a moment in Labour’s post war history where either the NHS or NATO haven’t been at the core of their offering to the public.
I must have missed labour banging on about NATO in general election campaigns like they do the NHS. Whether NATO is good or bad isn't really the issue though is it? The problem is that Starmer is the most authoritarian and intolerant labour leader in living memory. He's acting like a tinpot fascist. On issues he decrees are out of bounds he demands conformity and crushes any dissent or debate. Given my own views on various issues it's clear to me that I wouldn't be welcome in today's labour party, or would be expelled if I already was. Which is ok as I wouldn't want any association with a quasi-stalinist, intolerant and conservative organisation such as Starmer's labour party. It's a good job I left when I did. And yet Starmer and others will still expect me to vote for them. 🤷🏻♂️
Sorry, I was wrong, he does want the whip back…
Mail & Torygrah (owners) wont be pleased
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1518455400357675008
In reality, it's putting a five year limit on non-dom status (they'll give it another name) so that it can only be used by visitors (workers or otherwise) rather than residents. It's closing a tax loophole that is abused in plain sight. Exactly what any government should be doing. A good commitment.
That’s a very strange attitude which appears to attach no value in inner-party democracy.
NATO membership has been policy for decades, I mean the answer is probably raise the matter through the annual conference, if it attracts enough interest it's debated and voted on isn't it? Until that happens I don't think its controversial to expect MPs (out of all the party membership) to sign up for something or least hedge one's bets about it. If Corbyn had said, "I don't personally agree, but it's PLP policy, I'm content to support it on that basis", i don't think it would have been controversial
And yet Starmer and others will still expect me to vote for them.
I think you've made it pretty clear that you can't support Labour currently. I don't think the current views express by its previous leader would change that would it?
I don’t think the current views express by its previous leader would change that would it?
My support or non-support for labour has got bugger all to do with the previous leader and everything to do with the current leadership. If they gave Corbyn the whip back it wouldn't change much*. Labour is (or should be) a democratic party which promotes debate, encourages new ideas and forumlates policy based on that and its founding principles. Currently it's the very opposite of that.
*TBH I have no idea why he wants it back. He'd be better off standing as an independent.
Currently it’s the very opposite of that.
I think they sort all that out at the annual conference. Policy is decided, and that's it for the year. I don't think you can expect a constant debate (by whom?) and just make up policy on the hoof continually. That would be the Anarchists (joke)
If Corbyn had said, “I don’t personally agree, but it’s PLP policy, I’m content to support it on that basis”,
Out of curiosity have you read/heard what he actually said? Instead of the bbc/daily mail interpretation?
I don't listen to Times Radio, but here's a snippet from the Morning Star...
Today Corbyn is on record, in a Times radio broadcast, as saying: “I don’t blame Nato for the fact that Russia has invaded Ukraine. What I say is look at the thing historically and look at the process that could happen at the end of the Ukraine war.”
He also said: “The issue has to be: what’s the best way of bringing about peace in the future? Is it by more alliances? Is it by more military build-up?"
“Or is it by stopping the war in Ukraine and the other wars … that are going on at the present time, which are also killing a very large number of people? And ask yourself the question: do military alliances bring peace? Or do they actually encourage each other and build up to a greater danger?”
How is this war stopped? And at the "end" of that war, what scenario leads Ukraine's neighbours to think... "this NATO thing, let's do away with it"... and why?
He is a member.
Oh bless, Kelvin trots this out!
He won't be a member of the Labour Party in 2 years time if he seeks reelection to Westminster. He won't be allowed to stand as the Labour candidate and standing against Labour results in automatic expulsion. For all intents and purposes Starmer has expelled him.
Besides as I said I couldn't give a monkeys about Corbyn it's the wider implications. If opposition to NATO justifies refusing the Labour whip then it will justify refusal party membership.
What has and is happening to the Labour Party is quite sinister. Democracy is being destroyed even more effectively than it was under control-freakery New Labour.
If opposition to NATO justifies refusing the Labour whip then it will justify refusal party membership.
Drama!
While Labour has overly restrictive rules for its membership (I can't be a member, as I'm not prepared to follow their rules on supporting candidates for other parties at elections), the whipping system for MPs is an entirely separate process. You could argue that the whole whipping system should be done away with, and I'm sure you'd make a good case for that if you wanted to... but you can't claim that the rules for those wanting to represent the party as an MP and the rules for party members are the same thing. That's not true for Labour, or for any of the other parties with more than one MP.
If opposition to NATO justifies refusing the Labour whip then it will justify refusal party membership.
But it doesn't, his removal of the whip was down to his response to the independent report on anti-semitism within the labour party.
The NATO statement is just more of Corbyn pushing the information he put forward within the Stop the War letter and giving Labour a headache in any parliamentary exchanges on the current conflict in Ukraine and Russian aggression.
While we have a first past the post electoral system we only have the illusion of democracy.
labour absolutely have to be fairly bland to attract the centralist voters that they'll need to be into power. let them get in and start to do some good.
Democracy is being destroyed even more effectively than it was under control-freakery New Labour.
I find it amazing that self identifying left of centre posters on here are so willing to turn a blind eye to the destruction of internal labour party democracy. The first principle of any political party in this country should be democracy. If they can't or aren't willing to exercise democracy within their own organisations, how can they be trusted to protect and exercise it when in power?
the destruction of internal labour party democracy
More drama!
Party democracy has always been a mess... the fun and games that take place during every Labour conference to avoid anything like one member on vote on policy means that it's always been a bit of a sham.
And at the “end” of that war, what scenario leads Ukraine’s neighbours to think… “this NATO thing, let’s do away with it”… and why?
Well I am sure you know the answers dont you? Or are you, like the bbc and the daily hate, just going to decide on what he means?
As for drama. Try and be honest what would your response have been if Corbyn had done anything similar? Bearing in mind all the centrists loons spent the entire time ranting and raving about nonexistant purges what would have happened if Corbyn had actually done the similar level of purges that Starmer is going in for.
labour absolutely have to be fairly bland to attract the centralist voters that they’ll need to be into power. let them get in and start to do some good.
In case you havent noticed that was tried and the entire political spectrum was dragged hard to the right and anything vaguely left wing is now considered "far left".
So care to explain how it will work better this time round?
If they can’t or aren’t willing to exercise democracy within their own organisations, how can they be trusted to protect and exercise it when in power?
I honestly didn’t think you were that naive. The most cursory glance at the history of the Labour Party will remove the scales from your eyes .They’re political parties for goodness sake, this behaviour is baked in
Just don’t vote for them, no one has a gun to your head. At the same time, don’t project into them the party you think they should be rather than the party they are - slightly left of centre establishment
In case you havent noticed that was tried and the entire political spectrum was dragged hard to the right and anything vaguely left wing is now considered “far left”.
So care to explain how it will work better this time round?
Don't know why this penny isn't dropping.
Rachel Reeves ...
Asked if Mr Corbyn would have made a bad prime minister, she said: “Yes, I’m pleased that he’s not prime minister, but I don’t like the prime minister we’ve got either, and that’s why I’m campaigning for Keir Starmer to be the next prime minister – a Labour prime minister.”
Yeah but you got Johnson you dumb ass.
Food banks for all!
Centrism in action.
This character spends all her press time justifying taxes to pay for things - when the Tories have run roughshod all over that very recently.
Yeah but you got Johnson you dumb ass.
do you think that Rachel Reeves voted for Labour in the last GE? Or do you think she voted Tory?
I voted for Labour, I’m also pleased we didn’t get Corbyn. I’m also not a centrist.
slightly left of centre establishment
Labour was founded to represent and progress the interests of working people in parliament and make the establishment work for them. Today's labour party is some distance from that principle. It's basically now just a vehicle for people who want a political career to achieve their ambitions without having to join the tories. Only one thing counts in the current labour party, and that's the protection of the careers of labour MPs.
Only one thing counts in the current labour party, and that’s the protection of the careers of labour MPs.
Well, ONE of the things the Labour Party must do is try to return as many Labour MPs to parliament as possible... otherwise how does it really get to represent and progress the interests of working people in parliament ? Being concerned about Labour MPs not losing their seats is part of that. So it's easy to throw the accusation of "protecting the careers of Labour MPs" at the "party". I've not met a Labour MP that doesn't work their arses off to try and improve the lot of working people, to the obvious detriment of their own lives and careers in some cases.
Your choices are at the next election, the Tories or Labour, decide which one matches what you want more closely and vote for it. If that compromise is too wide, vote for a different party. Getting the hump with a party because it isn't what you want it to be is a waste of your time.
It's that's simple.
It’s that’s simple.
So the option of launching attack after attack on the current leadership of a party and then use that to install your own dream team is no longer an option?
I voted for Labour, I’m also pleased we didn’t get Corbyn.
Impressive.
I’m also pleased we didn’t get Corbyn.
I can't compute this. Above you said I had a binary choice between labour and the tories. Applying that logic to this statement suggests you preferred Johnson as PM to Corbyn. Much as I dislike Starmer, and irrespective of how I might vote (labour probably, through gritted teeth and despite my protestations), I would still massively prefer Starmer to Johnson as PM. I can't get my head around anyone professing to be anti-tory being pleased that Corbyn lost in 2019, especially given the luxury of hindsight we now possess.
I can’t compute this
Clearly. I voted Labour in the knowledge that if they won I'd get a PM that I personally didn't think would be good at the job (in the same way I didn't think Brown was or Milliband would've been) because I don't think any of them was a good leader.
I don't get to chose the leader of the labour party, mostly i haven't been that impressed with anyone that Labour have chosen in the last few years, including the current one.
I voted Labour in the knowledge that if they won I’d get a PM that I personally didn’t think would be good at the job
Fair enough, but you said you were pleased we didn't get Corbyn, so not a massive leap to conclude that you preferred Johnson, seeing as he was the only alternative.
Are Labour making policy based on facts and with the principle of doing the best thing for the economy - or playing silly political games?
Which is it and what are the facts that support a change of policy from their position on Non Doms in 2015?
so not a massive leap to conclude that you preferred Johnson
It is given that you know my politics well enough after all the discussion we've had on here, and what I've said on this and other political threads, But whatever.
It is given that you know my politics well enough
Hence my confusion, because that statement about Corbyn doesn't seem to be consistent with what I know. As for my own views about Starmer/Labour, my criticisms of him/them are not that I don't want them to win the next election, but that I don't think they will if they persist with their unhinged obsession with Corbyn and his supporters, and Rachel Reeves' comments are a perfect example of it.
I thought you were complaining a while back that people took things you say on here too literally?
For clarity "I'm personally pleased that Corbyn didn't get to be PM as I think he wouldn't have been any good. However I would've still preferred him over Johnson every day of the week".
Are Labour making policy based on facts and with the principle of doing the best thing for the economy – or playing silly political games?
Depends on whether you consider making everyone who lives here pay their taxes here as a "silly political game". There will be a loss for the treasury if/when some current life long non-doms decide to move out of the UK, yes. Should they be bribed to stay here with a big open tax loophole for them to exploit in plain sight...? I'm sure the owner of the Daily Mail would say that it's absolutely fine and correct that we do.
Depends on whether you consider making everyone who lives here pay their taxes here as a “silly political game”. There will be a loss for the treasury if/when some current life long non-doms decide to move out of the UK, yes. Should they be bribed to stay here with a big open tax loophole for them to exploit in plain sight…? I’m sure the owner of the Daily Mail would say that it’s absolutely fine and correct that we do.
Non-Doms do pay taxes here, it's on their earnings outside of the UK that they are not paying taxes, if they wish too.
What Ed Balls, and others know is that these Non-Doms can just funnel their earnings outside the UK to tax havens, and no need to worry about paying any tax on it, that was one of the fundamental reasons that the UK government came up with the Non-Dom annual payments, to try and get them to pay something into the treasury pot.
their earnings outside of the UK
And I refer you again to the Daily Mail... the owner of which ensures that he owns it via offshore companies... so as a non-dom he doesn't pay UK taxes on his earnings from it, even when he onshores it... despite, arguably, its main business being very much based in the UK... being a UK newspaper publisher. So, lives here, does his business here, most of his customers are here... doesn't pay his tax here.
Allowing people to keep life long non-dom status is itself a "silly political game", and reform is needed to stop long term British residents avoiding paying UK tax that they would otherwise have to pay without non-dom status.
Some non-doms will suck it up and pay more to the UK treasury, some will move away from the UK. Would the end result be a net gain or loss for the UK treasury? No one really knows for sure. Is that a good enough reason to let people keep life long non-dom status to avoid paying tax here? I'd say no. You and the owner of the Daily Mail think otherwise.
try and get them to pay something into the treasury pot
It was an interesting attempt to reduce the use of non-dom status... that just raises the bar for how rich you need to be for non-dom status to make financial sense. The idea that Lord Rothermere paying a £30k annual fee is in anyway meaningful compared to the loss of tax to the treasury due to his non-dom status is laughable.
Some non-doms will suck it up and pay more to the UK treasury, some will move away from the UK. Would the end result be a net gain or loss for the UK treasury? No one really knows for sure. Is that a good enough reason to let people keep life long non-dom status to avoid paying tax here? I’d say no. You and the owner of the Daily Mail think otherwise.
I believe HMRC did a review a few years back after the changes in the remittance basis and the charge being applied to Non-Dom's, i think the outcome was that there was a reduction in taxation from Non-Dom's due to this, but again there are many metrics involved in this, as not all Non-Doms are multi-millionaires who can afford to pay 30 or 60k a year to offset tax from outside the UK.
It would be good to have an actual report released on the benefits of removing, or keeping the Non-Dom status, but again, there are many tax avoidance routes that can easily map over any removal of this, just look at the big 4 accountancy firms, they are constantly assessing how to reduce their customers tax liability, they make profit from people paying them lots of money to avoid paying HMRC their fair share.
It will still be a prediction, the reality after a rule change is unknown.
Ultimately, if you think it's okay for people to be permanently UK resident and keep life long non-dom status... I don't agree with you, even if removing their status did decrease the UK tax take (and I don't think it would, but no one can be sure either way).
I'd personally bin most of the tax confusion in the UK tomorrow if it were possible, but there are so many that are interlinked, not just within the UK, but outside with tax treaties, law, etc.
I think tax is something that has been a nightmare for every government, some come in with good intentions, see the mess and give up, others just ignore it from the start!
but there are so many that are interlinked, not just within the UK, but outside with tax treaties, law, etc
It is all interlinked, and putting a time limit on non-dom status (or at least doing away with life long non-dom status) is the start, not the end, of a massive change to tax rules, with international complications. Lots of hard work, for sure. But what do we have a government for…?
But what do we have a government for…?
To protect the wealth and power of those who already possess it? You want to make tax fairer and simpler? The solution is fairly obvious, abolish income taxes and tax wealth and consumption instead.
How does that make it simpler, if you’re taxing consumption against wealth how exactly does that work across all assets being bought, and against what, actual wealth, perceived wealth,etc, etc?
Some examples would be good?
Tax on consumption is regressive as consumption constitutes a greater proportion of lower incomes.
Dazh loves to make the difficult sound so simple it's obvious... but yes, shift the tax burden from income to wealth... much easier said then done, wealth is even easier to hide and/or offshore... but done it must be. But back to the matter in hand... a special life long tax status for the people who live here but inherited non-dom status from their father is the lowest of low hanging fruit in our "one rule for us, another for the richest" tax system, that protecting it is a big obvious two fingers up to everyone else. Labour should do away with it. As should the Conservatives.
Tax on consumption is regressive as consumption constitutes a greater proportion of lower incomes.
Current taxes on consumption, yes.
But, for example, having a tax on flights that increases with every flight you take... that could be a more progressive tax on consumption. Same for paying VAT on all household energy use above a threshold, but not below. All sorts of ways to make taxes on consumption more progressive. We tend not to do so though, because, well... 🤷🏻
You're right though, in most cases, taxes on wealth and income are easier to make progressive than taxes on consumption. Well, until it gets to the super rich, and then they find ways of paying proportionally less and less. Which brings us back to long term non-dom tax status... there's no excuse for keeping it.
At last the line of attack makes so much more sense in this context.
https://twitter.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1518948829583839232?t=Si1wYZYFvY_NWF0oTPjFyw&s=19
Was bloody obvious to me ages ago.
I just see a loophole for every attempt, the reason i ask for examples is simple, such as:
Two people buy a rolex, one has saved for a decade, it's his dream watch, £1000 a year in an ISA has got him one which costs half his annual salary. An EPL footballer buys the same watch that costs him 1 days salary, how do you get a different level of taxes to match the wealth if you're aiming it at consumption?
It's the same with aiming it at wealth, as stated above, the rich make an art out of appearing poor, they have companies owning their assets, family owning their assets, etc, i think on that last assessment of some of the Unexplained Wealth Orders in the UK, there were some 12 year olds who appear to own expensive London apartments and sports cars!
By the time a new government has set up a structure to tax consumption, the accountancy firms have packages and models available to minimise any tax exposure yet again. It takes governments years to get changes to tax, it takes the tax avoidance specialists days to find any ways to reduce tax payments for their customers.
wealth is even easier to hide and/or offshore
The majority of wealth in this country is in the form of property. You can't offshore that. Financial assets are also easily dealt with by passing a law to ban off-shoring. As for taxing consumption, well we already do that through VAT, fuel duty, duty on cigarettes and alchohol etc.
None of this is difficult for a government with the will to do it. If a political party can't sell the abolition of income tax to a population which mostly relies on selling their labour then they need to get better PR people.
Yes, we tax consumption, lots of different levels, luxury taxes were brought in for this, but again, this is at the product, not the person so hard to understand the framework you would have to differentiate from someone buying a rolex who earns 20k a year, and someone buying one who earns 20 million a year.
You can buy and sell property offshore easily enough, Tony Blair showed us that, as have many more people, have a look at the most expensive building in London, 1 Hyde Park and the ownership framework for all those flats!
you would have to differentiate from someone buying a rolex who earns 20k a year, and someone buying one who earns 20 million a year.
Don’t be daft, who buys a Rolex if they earn 20k a year? Those sort of goods are the ones you tax more, and use the money to remove tax on every day goods that normal people buy. The point is that you can use fiscal policy to reduce inequality and mitigate externalities.
As for wealth taxes, they’re massively more progressive than income tax. Why should someone with no savings on an average income pay more tax as a proportion of their entire estate than a millionaire?
Don’t be daft, who buys a Rolex if they earn 20k a year?
Don’t be daft, who buys a Rolex if they earn 20k a year?
I gave the example earlier, someone who may have wanted one through life or whatever, saved up for a decade to buy it. It was just an example against one person saving a long time to buy something that is a luxury, against a sports star, or banker who might see it as a days salary. All you'd do by taxing anything that's deemed a luxury more, is make it even more inaccessible to those on lower wages, truly making them only available to the rich.
Again, just the flip side to the argument, same with wealth taxes, not sure about the statement about wealth and entire estates, we already have things like council tax bandings and so on, not sure how you could swap out income tax and aim it at someones estate value, as you're going to get into the whole perceived wealth, rather than actual wealth argument.
the guardian: labour on ‘thin ice’ at local elections despite poll lead, warn party chiefs.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/26/labour-on-thin-ice-at-local-elections-despite-poll-lead-warn-party-chiefs
WTAF?!?
Labour chiefs have warned the party it is unlikely to be able to spin a compelling story of victory after next week’s local elections, calling Tory claims of 750 losses “ludicrous” and suggesting Labour may even lose “red wall” seats.