Forum menu
I personally cannot think of one single reason why the Guardian would spread baseless lies
.
I can think of one.
1) They want to sell papers and subscriptions to make profit.
That makes even less sense. Are you seriously suggesting that there isn't a market for a quality liberal newspaper which doesn't spread baseless lies about a centrist government?
The market is currently overcrowded with newspapers happy and willing to attack a Labour Party prime minister, the Guardian doesn't need to join in to sell papers and subscriptions. Nor is it what their current readers are likely to want.
Think of another reason and in the meantime have you got any views on the claim that Natural England furious that years of work has been undone......do you think they are perfectly happy and the planned beaver releases will go ahead?
And what about the Natural History GCSE, do you think that will go ahead too?
No current political party in the UK can change this, if Starmer went after a massive wealth tax the markets would close him like a Truss.
Nobody has the will! They have a stonking majority and can legislate anything as a result. If the media won't be "good chaps" neither should the government. (Our politics is predicated on only "good chaps" running the show, Johnson broke that and we should be explaining to our media that unless they sort themselves out Leveson II will start, followed by appropriate legislation).
Before anyone points out the flaws, we've had 24 plus years of this rubbish and it needs to change and minor tweaks aren't going to cut it.
No idea why a non-story about beavers would get anyone so excited, but it obviously worked!
Why is it a "non-story"? It is very obviously a story if it is true that Downing Street has blocked planned releases of beavers and the introduction of a Natural History GCSE.
And opposing something purely on the grounds that it was a Tory government idea is nothing to get excited about?
It is a shame that rule doesn't seem to apply to austerity, economic policies, etc, when Tory policies are repackaged and offered up as a great Idea which must at all costs be implemented, despite their history of failures.
Nigel F is on LBC at the moment if anyone wants to feel angry for the rest of the day.
It is a shame that rule doesn’t seem to apply to austerity, economic policies, etc, when Tory policies are repackaged and offered up as a great Idea which must at all costs be implemented, despite their history of failures.
From yesterday's Guardian editorial :
But Labour should ignore siren voices and prioritise fair income distribution, rising living standards, balanced trade and a green transition. Instead, Ms Reeves champions the financial sector, deregulation and public service cuts. That is why swimming pools are under threat of closure in the West Midlands, a region where one in three adults are obese. That is why the NHS is hiring “corridor care” nurses. It is why the poorest people in Britain are leading shorter lives. This agenda has failed for 14 years; why would it, even in milder form, work now?
The Guardian have really got it in for the current Labour government! Poor Starmer, not only has he lost the support of 46% of people who voted Labour six months ago but now he losing the support of the Guardian!
Although the great news for Starmer is that he still has plenty of support on STW political threads, and who doesn't value STW political approval?!? 🙂
I think that I might have re-evaluate my description of Centrists being “Tory-Lite”
I said four years ago that Labour under Starmer is basically returning us to Cameron’s government of 2012. Not happy to be proved right.
I also think that their somewhat childish tax policies failed to appreciate any of the psychological complexities of the situation.
The farmer inheritance tax issue could have been solved in a heartbeat by simply insisting that the inheritor physically runs the farm for xx years in order to receive the rebate. This could apply to any business passed from parent to child. Smaller farm owners were spectacularly pissed off with it because they would have needed to pay tax while the huge farms could get away with clever accounting.
Likewise, there is a distinct jealousy aspect towards higher earners that’s embedded deep in Labour (and on here). I’m lucky in that my job pays me quite well for what I do, but I wouldn’t do it for free. So if you tax me back down to the level where I could just take a boring 9-5 job and be at home every night for the same money, I’d do that. And you’ve just lost all that tax. Same as the ridiculous 62% marginal rate. Thanks, but no thanks- I’ll progressively increase my part time element until it’s not an issue.
It’s interesting that the ridiculous salary sacrifice tax dodge of electric vehicles wasn’t addressed, but that’s perhaps because a huge number of higher rate public sector workers take advantage of it? I use it, but WTAF should it be possible for me to drive a £50,000 car for a massive saving, and literally have that funded from the public purse?
I also think that their somewhat childish tax policies failed to appreciate any of the psychological complexities of the situation.
That they were dealing with a bunch of welfare queens? Admittedly they missed the one they really should have taxed to the hilt namely the CGT rollover relief. Which does seem to be a major contributor to farmland prices and needs some really dedicated arguing to try and defend.
The farmer inheritance tax issue could have been solved in a heartbeat by simply insisting that the inheritor physically runs the farm for xx years in order to receive the rebate. This could apply to any business passed from parent to child
Ok but we hit the obvious problem of defining "run". I could "run" the farm with paid employees doing most of the work and keeping up my old job until the point I can sell it off. This would be even more convenient for other business types.
Likewise, there is a distinct jealousy aspect towards higher earners that’s embedded deep in Labour (and on here).
Ah the politics of envy claim which confusingly is often deployed alongside the "champagne socialism" one. Whilst I am glad you wouldnt do your job for free although slightly confused its apparently a binary choice you do realise there are plenty of people doing massive hours for not much above free? Its good you have the choice though to reduce the workload unlike them.
Or spend much more and bother with the popular tax rises.
I'm with you all the way Dazh. But I'll repeat my question... how have the baby steps towards higher spending (even when called "investment") and higher future taxes (eg IT for landowners) gone down so far? While I'd love to think that doing much more of both quicker would have a different result, I fear the economic and political fallout would be more likely to accelerate the UK's shift to right wing populism... especially with what's happening in the USA, even in advance of the handover.
So if you tax me back down to the level where I could just take a boring 9-5 job and be at home every night for the same money, I’d do that.
If you are making £100,000 a year I don't believe there is a tax system in existence that will result in your bottom line being the same as someone stocking shelves in Tescos. Funnily enough, every pay rise I've ever had has resulted in me getting more money. I might end up paying higher tax on a proportion of it but I still end up with more money.
Look at Nordic countries for examples of how having progressive tax rates doesn't result in the most desirable jobs being the low paid no responsibility type. Turns out these jobs often aren't that interesting and, shockingly, you make less money.
I'm disappointed I'm not seeing more being done. I know results will take years, but they've had 6 months and are still working on plans, I'm not surprised markets, media and public are getting frustrated. I agree this is currently feeling like the coalition but without call me Dave and good pr .
Ok but we hit the obvious problem of defining “run”. I could “run” the farm with paid employees doing most of the work and keeping up my old job until the point I can sell it off. This would be even more convenient for other business types
Sure, but you've basically provided new wording for the same thing after thinking about it for a few seconds so it's not insurmountable. Huge landowners will always take the piss and I suspect they'll already have a plan to work around the new law anyway.
There aren't that many farms, HMRC could employ someone to visit random ones and see who's literally shoveling the shit around.
Whilst I am glad you wouldnt do your job for free although slightly confused its apparently a binary choice you do realise there are plenty of people doing massive hours for not much above free?
What's your point? I'm not calling for tax to be increased on the lowest earners. To be honest your whole paragraph doesn't make much sense.
Ah the politics of envy claim which confusingly is often deployed alongside the “champagne socialism” one.
But you're equally hypocritical because it's fine to pay people more provided you agree with it personally. So where do you draw the line and say that the doctor is entitled to a high salary but a lawyer isn't?
We live in a spectacularly unequal society. I pay significantly more tax than the lowest paid but as a percentage of my income it's *less*. And then there are laws that actually encourage me to work less and pay even less. How is that fair?
Do you have the stats to back that up?
Sure, let me just open the master database of salary sacrifice owners and neatly collate the information for yo-- obviously bloody not, but if you need a car and you have the option of pay fifty percent less, why wouldn't you? Google it, it's promoted by every single NHS trust.
Sure, but you’ve basically provided new wording for the same thing after thinking about it for a few seconds so it’s not insurmountable.
No I havent because it can still be gamed to shit. That your next stab is having people turn up to see if someone is "shovelling shit" shows doesnt really help your case. Thats working on a farm and not running run.
To be honest your whole paragraph doesn’t make much sense.
I was commenting on your lazy idea about how you have the luxury of reducing the hours worked vs many others. The comment about "work for free" seems to indicate a lack of understanding of tax brackets as well.
But you’re equally hypocritical because it’s fine to pay people more provided you agree with it personally. So where do you draw the line and say that the doctor is entitled to a high salary but a lawyer isn’t?
I have absolutely no idea where you just invented this from. Are you reading a different forum at the same time and confusing comments?
Funnily enough, every pay rise I’ve ever had has resulted in me getting more money. I might end up paying higher tax on a proportion of it but I still end up with more money.
There are a few weird edge cases where you can end up losing out. There is one around child allowances and a couple of others I think but they are very edge and apply to a small increase only.
Of course at the lower end moving off benefits its far more of a problem.
Google it, it’s promoted by every single NHS trust.
You're making huge assumptions there. Do you think that the lowest paid healthcare assistant will be driving a new Polestar to work on their very low salary, they can probably barely survive never mind sacrifice money for food and bills to drive an electric car?
The argument that it is available to all in the NHS is also a daft one as many will not be able to afford it. It's a very similar argument to the pension allowance changes made last year. Whilst it is true that it is theoretically open to all, how can someone working 40-50hrs a week on minimum wage afford to put £60k per annum in their pension pot?
how have the baby steps towards higher spending (even when called “investment”) and higher future taxes (eg IT for landowners) gone down so far?
The reaction from business and the right wing was entirely predictable, but not something they should pay much attention to. The reaction of voters to the stark inaction and lack of ambition is a much bigger problem, one which has wiped out Labour's (smaller than it should have been) poll lead from the election. Labour were elected on the promise of change, and they haven't changed anything. To change stuff you need to spend a lot of money. To spend money you need to raise taxes (lets put the MMT thing aside for now). The problem though is that Labour have raised taxes on the wrong people and broken their headline manifesto promise in the process. That's why their vote share is tanking, not because they are spending more money (even if it's not enough).
The problem though is that Labour have raised taxes on the wrong people
Companies (except the smallest) and landowners.
"No, not those with wealth, others."
Companies (except the smallest)
No one is buying th NI rise as a tax rise on business. It's a tax on workers. Labour might think they're being very clever with this ruse but the judgement of the voters is that it's a tax rise that will be passed directly on to them and that means labour have broken their headline manifesto promise not to raise taxes on working people. Raising taxes is bad enough for a govt, but doing so by breaking a manifesto promise is the worst of all worlds.
Tax rises, broken manifesto promises, lack of ambition, and no sign of the promised 'change'. It's little wonder Reform are within 1% in the polls.
That your next stab
Stab? Do you genuinely think this is personal?
Once again Starmer must be thanking the lord that he delivered Kemi Badanoch as leader of the opposition.
Given what’s gone on in the last week, Kemi decided to use her questions at PMQs to blather on about the Chagos Islands.
Finger on the nations pulse there Kemi
No one is buying th NI rise as a tax rise on business
If you’re operating in the UK, employers NI is one of the hardest business taxes to avoid. Offshoring your profits to reduce UK taxes on those is BAU for the largest companies. Conversely the impact of employers NI is reduced for the smallest companies.
Once again Starmer must be thanking the lord that he delivered Kemi Badanoch as leader of the opposition.
Yeah Starmer is a very lucky man, I can't see his luck ever running out.
Now every time there is any criticism of the Labour government you can spurt out "oh look at the Tories, aren't they awful?"
I reckon the next general election is in the bag for Labour.
It’s not so much a case of pointing out that the Tories are awful - that’s a given - but that when faced with an open goal their new leader is the political Kai Havertz
Its all rather reminiscent of a certain former Labour leader who I’m forbidden to name
The main beneficiaries of this would appear to be Farage and Co
It’s not so much a case of pointing out that the Tories are awful – that’s a given
And yet you felt the need to remind us, just in case not everyone on stw was aware.
Its all rather reminiscent of a certain former Labour leader who I’m forbidden to name
Oh come on, don't be shy, who have you got in mind?
Its all rather reminiscent of a certain former Labour leader who I’m forbidden to name
You just can't help yourself can you?
UK stalls Chagos Islands deal until Trump administration can ‘consider detail’
The UK government will not sign off a deal to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius until Donald Trump’s administration has had a chance to consider the future of the joint military base, Downing Street has confirmed.
Here's a thought, how about the UK decides its own foreign policy and doesn't ask permission from a hard-right demagogue of the same ilk as Elon Musk, Yaxley-Lennon, and Nigel Farage?
This cracked me up :
Keir Starmer’s official spokesperson said: “We will only agree to a deal that is in the UK’s best interests and protect our national security.
What have the Chaos Island to do with "national" security? They are six thousand miles away in the southern hemisphere ffs. At least be honest and admit that the issue here is "the UK’s best neocolonialist interests". Plenty of countries can deal with their "national" security without owning bits of rocks six thousand miles away.
Chagos Islands is all about the USA military presence. Obvs. They are a security partner (even if we wish otherwise) and we need them because of the threats as regards Russia and China (no they won't just leave us be because we don't share a border with them).
They are six thousand miles away in the southern hemisphere ffs. At least be honest and admit that the issue here is “the UK’s best neocolonialist interests”
That would be a lie though. The UK basically has zero interest in those islands. Our only interest is as a USA client since it is a vital resource for them. If not for the US we would have got rid of them back in the 50s along with everything else in the area.
Of course that doesnt mean the current deal is exactly a good one. The Chagos islanders seem to be still getting screwed over with the island being handed, along with a bunch of cash, to Mauritius whose claims to the islands are rather slender and seem if anything less interested in the islanders.
Our only interest is as a USA client since it is a vital resource for them
Fair comment. The UK can no longer punch above its weight as it once did - at the time of the Falklands War the Royal Navy was still the third largest navy in the world. Which was crazy considering the size of the UK and that by then the British Empire had all but ceased to exist.
Yeah a sloppy comment. “The West’s best neocolonialist interests” would be more precise. Although the main benefactor of Western neocolonialism might be the United States Western countries generally, including the UK, also benefit.
Edit : Although not "zero interest" imo, I'm not giving you that! Limited to be a better description I reckon.
Chagos Islands is all about the USA military presence. Obvs.
Obviously. But the deal between the UK and Mauritius is a UK foreign policy issue. It is not for the United States to dictate to the UK what its foreign policy should be. Not even Donald Trump should have that right.
No one is buying th NI rise as a tax rise on business. It’s a tax on workers.
Can you explain this please?
Well I am business owner and I am an employee, therefore the available "pot" of money to pay for employees (including me) is diminished. Most businesses have to recover that additional NI either by raising prices or paying it out of profit, or reducing people. As much as i am a left leaning human corp tax (if applied fairly) is a way better tax. I've explained elsewhere that the tax changes made by Labour costs the business a salary equivalent therefore no new job in the business and if someone wanders off no replacement. So in short 10 to 15% reduction in my team. Extrapolate that into a 2000 person business that's a lot of jobs.
Will repeat what i said way back, not Labour, not Tories not ****wit Farage either can or want to change the current system as they "think" it benefits them. The wealth transfer is staggering.
Not forgetting the massive increase in the NI threshold which has been a huge boon for smaller businesses of course.
I'd be willing to bet that wages increase more in real terms under this labour government than they did in the last five years under the tories, or even on average over the whole Tory disaster class, so all this right wing scaremongering will prove, as it always does tbf, to be completely wrong.
It’s not so much a case of pointing out that the Tories are awful – that’s a given – but that when faced with an open goal their new leader is the political Kai Havertz
That an excellent analogy, because you are shouting at the opposition when your own 70 million striker doesn't even seem to know where the goal is, what a banjo is and what the ****s that round thing is that everyone else seems so interested in.
Here’s a thought, how about the UK decides its own foreign policy and doesn’t ask permission from a hard-right demagogue of the same ilk as Elon Musk, Yaxley-Lennon, and Nigel Farage?
Unfortunately he is (I still struggle with this) going to be POTUS in a few days.
There's no use in pretending a UK can do very much to think outside of the box. The US will decide our foreign policy and the money markets will decide our monetary/fiscal policy. The bit in Love Actually where Hugh Grant puts the US president in his place is not based on true events.
doomanic
Full Member
No one is buying th NI rise as a tax rise on business. It’s a tax on workers.
Can you explain this please?
I'd like to hear more on this too. I assume it is something along the lines of businesses will simply try to suppress wage rises and not now recruit team member 10 even if the other 9 are sinking under their workload. But that is true of anything that impacts profits. And kelvin is right that employer's NI is a very good tax to target as it is pre-profit, so companies will struggle to offshore amounts to dodge it and if they do try, there are the employee's records (payslips etc) to show it.
Obviously. But the deal between the UK and Mauritius is a UK foreign policy issue. It is not for the United States to dictate to the UK what its foreign policy should be. Not even Donald Trump should have that right.
"The west" collaborates on defence. Diego Garcia is important to the west in the same way that Faslane is; it isn't as simple as the UK in isolation. Why run an aircraft carrier when you can run a land base?
There’s no use in pretending a UK can do very much to think outside of the box. The US will decide our foreign policy
Certainly they will, because the current UK government will let them and even encourage them to do so. My comment was simply a suggestion of an alternative approach.
There is absolutely no reason for it to be like that. Do you think the French government, for example, asks permission from the United States President what they should do with territory that they have control over?
Ah, I hear you say, but what about the "Special Relationship". This special relationship whereby the United States tells us what to do and we do what we are told, isn't that important?
Well the answer to that question is what are the disadvantages for France in having its own independent foreign policy and not being welded to a ridiculous term coined by a Tory Prime Minister?
That an excellent analogy
It is. Keir Starmer is the Erik Tan Hag of politics, hired with ridiculous amounts of expectation and promises of outlandish success, only to turn out to be a dithering technocrat who unable to provide his team with any sort of vision or motivation. How long before we hear him tell us to trust in the process?
I’d like to hear more on this too. I assume it is something along the lines of businesses will simply try to suppress wage rises
They won't try to suppress wage rises, they'll just pass the 2% rise directly on to their employees. My employer has already said as much, and many other employers, large and small, will be doing exactly the same. The only employers who won't will be those with a unionised workforce and long term fixed wage structures. The important thing though isn't the technicalities. Yes technically it's not a tax on workers, but the vast majority of voters will come to a different conclusion, and that's a big problem for Starmer and Reeves. In fact not only will voters think it's a tax on them, they'll also conclude that Starmer and Reeves are being dishonest and deliberately misleading, which is an even bigger problem for them.
Employers will squeeze their workforce if they can. Any additional cost that can't be mitigated will be used as excuse. Any successful raising of taxes on business needs to be hard to avoid. If you work for a large company, earning a large wage, and they are cutting your wages... take that up with them.
Kelvin - it would be great to remind you and others that not all employers are the same, not all are large companies, not all have huge reserves of cash or operate where the owners earn multiples of their staff's income.
I know of a small business where the changes are going to add additional pressure when things are already difficult, the owner has already suspended taking additional money from the business other than their really very average salaried income, which is actually less than the highest paid member of staff there.....
Agreed. But any tax on business, that can't be avoided, has the same effect. Fine to argue "don't increase tax on business" in the current economic climate. But don't pretend Employers NI isn't a tax on doing business, that is exactly what it is. And yes, many companies will struggle to pay that extra tax right now... and the small increase might even push some to the wall. At least with this tax there's help for the smallest companies [ Employment Allowance doubled ]. And for medium size up, the tax scales with size.
Fine to argue “don’t increase tax on business” in the current economic climate. But don’t pretend Employers NI isn’t a tax on doing business, that is exactly what it is
Its fine to argue this so long as you dont pretend its anything other than a tax on wages paid and as such any business will be subtracting this from the pay increase. Out of all the employer taxes available it is the one which is most closely correlated to the employees pay.
Well unless its a private limited partnership in which case the partners can award a increase to themselves without worrying about it.
They won’t try to suppress wage rises, they’ll just pass the 2% rise directly on to their employees. My employer has already said as much, and many other employers, large and small, will be doing exactly the same. The only employers who won’t will be those with a unionised workforce and long term fixed wage structures. The important thing though isn’t the technicalities. Yes technically it’s not a tax on workers, but the vast majority of voters will come to a different conclusion, and that’s a big problem for Starmer and Reeves. In fact not only will voters think it’s a tax on them, they’ll also conclude that Starmer and Reeves are being dishonest and deliberately misleading, which is an even bigger problem for them.
Your employer is cutting wages to fund the NI increase? Is that not illegal? Or do you mean allowing wages to fall below inflation?
Either way it sounds like you should leave for a better employer and more money if it's that's option for you, as it is for most employees.
I've been promised a healthy raise come pay review time later in the year. I'm not counting my chickens obviously but my employer has always been honest about these things, so I'll be surprised if it turns out they're lying this time. Surprised and then, within minutes, updating my cv.
Wage growth under the tories was a pitiful 0.3% per year in real terms. All labour have to do is beat that, which should be easy even while improving public services. The biggest risk imo is that they don't shout loudly enough about their achievements, allowing the right wing media to control the narrative, as they are doing with this wage growth stuff.
Weird tax on business that is also paid by State Schools, Charities, Government Departments, the NHS etc. It is perfectly easy to avoid you just substitute some of your workforce for off-shore staff as Curry's announced they were doing yesterday.
Currys already has offshored their IT and back office staff to India. Nothing new there.
State schools etc pay business rates etc as well. Doesn’t mean rates aren’t primarily a tax on business.
This is how it works, taxes on business are heavily resisted… why do you think governments have been stealthy increasing taxes on employees waged earnings for the last decade instead? The shift of the tax burden away from company owners, and onto employees, helping to erode real take home wages while shareholders do quite nicely thank you very much… that’s the story overlooked while the papers wang on about the cost to businesses (yes, tax on businesses increases their costs, as does the minimum wage, maternity leave, redundancy laws, working hours directives and all sorts of other measures needed to redistribute wealth and help workers live their lives).
They won’t try to suppress wage rises, they’ll just pass the 2% rise directly on to their employees.
Err...
What is the mechanism for that in the immediate term? Pay cuts? Cessation of chocolate rations? It might be possible to do a bit by giving less shifts to part-timers, but given when employer's NI kicks in, it wouldn't be much. Redundancy? That would be ridiculous.
It can be 'done' in the medium to long term by keeping a lid on pay rises and recruitment, but I struggle to see how it can be 'passed' on immediately...
Perhaps dazh can enlighten us?
The Employer’s NI rise is the result of having a lawyer and his careful use of lawyerly double speak in charge of the country. It’s not a direct tax on employees but will at the very least reduce the hiring appetite of companies because the cost per employee from their point of view has risen. Law of unintended consequences writ large. Another case is around private pensions. I think the IHT move on them was broadly right because too many were using them as wealth transfer plans rather than providing for later life, but quite a few people I know have said they would rather spend the money now than leave it to be taxed. Thing is, they are spending it on holidays abroad, so the wealth is simply being lost overseas.
None of this matters; there is no appetite for tax rises (mostly ever) in a low growth environment.
You have to get the economy boosted first. Reeves' central absolute mistake was to piss everyone off apart from those that don't understand taxation's real purpose, and expect growth.
It's of no use to anyone.
Her fiscal rules despite us shouting from the roof tops have been silly beyond belief.
They've not achieved anything. Was pointed out time and time again.
Boxing yourself to appease whom?
This situation is not going anywhere good until they do a turnaround on understanding the accurate sequences of spending and taxation.
It's truly ridiculous.
Remember the BoE continue to pay interest on reserves whilst there is no money for society.
Recalibrate your understanding of how it all works and then nothing Reeves does makes much sense.
Have you seen the latest poll with Labour in 3rd?
And this morning I get an email from Linked In recommended jobs..........Economic Adviser for Labour Markets at The Treasury. The advert says they already have 30 people trying to figure out how policy changes affect labour markets but they need another one. Whereas I suspect clarity of thought at the top might just cut through the lot of 'em. And here's something for private sector employees to chew on.....there is a 28% of salary contribution to the Civil Service defined benefit pension scheme.
And here’s something for private sector employees to chew on…..there is a 28% of salary contribution to the Civil Service defined benefit pension scheme.
That's great but the base salary is probably lower also.
Good pay and working conditions in the public sector is a positive thing for all employees, as it helps raise the bar for all jobs.
Defined benefit schemes are no longer offered to new employees in the private sector as the liabilities have the tendency to threaten their sponsoring employers with bankruptcy..........why can't such thoughts also apply to the very department of the Government charged with looking after the taxpayer's money?
Base salary is mid £50's k and based in Darlington
Yet... shareholders benefits can be protected. It's all part of the shifting of the costs of running companies, and states, from the owners of companies to their employees. "Unaffordable" employer provided pension provisions are jettisoned... it's down to the workers to fund their retirement from their wages... profits are maintained, share value protected.
I'm in the private sector, alway have been. Had a final salary pension for the first 9 years of my working life. Remember those? Nothing like that out there for anyone starting out now. I have no wish to see public sector workers thrown down the same "you're on your own" mineshaft as the rest of us.
Just a little reminder of where our Labour government stand on the issue of Gaza in the context of the (not yet confirmed0 ceasefire. Of course we expect Starmer to speak like a hideous hypocritical liar, but I'm disappointed that Darren Jones also lent his voice to the chorus of shame.
Kelvin, I don't need being patronised on pension arrangements. I used to run some. DB schemes no longer exist because they no longer made any financial sense - it's not a screw the workers save the companies argument, it's simply the maths which worked when the employees worked until they were 65 and died at 70 didn't work when then died in their 80s. If private sector employers were told they had to contribute 28% of salary to DB schemes for all employees we would have mass closures within weeks. The ownership and role of the public sector is different but that doesn't excuse it from some degree of financial responsibility, especially the department which is actually meant to stand for financial responsibility.
it’s simply the maths
Growing GDP, inflated asset bubbles and rising productivity equalling greater financial inequality and lowering living standards for many suggests your maths might not be correct no matter how simple.
The squeeze on earnings and work based benefits like pensions, have not been made for business survival that is the myth of neoliberal dogma, they have been made to increase the profits for the few.
I don’t need being patronised on pension arrangements
Feel free to consider how your own posts come across.
Companies say they can’t afford “generous” pensions. Workers still need pensions and need to set aside more of their earnings to build their own pot (of course suppressed earnings and rising cost of living means many simply can not).
Companies say they can’t afford higher taxes. Governments use fiscal drag and other stealth tactics to get more workers to pay more tax from their own earnings.
Same arguments. Companies can’t carry the costs, so employees must. Those that own shares in companies keep getting richer.
First inflation was down and now growth forecasts are up. Great work from Reeves and Labour.
Great work from Reeves and Labour.
I'm sure a 0.1% rise in GDP will have voters flooding back to the fold. Woohoo! We're all going to be rich!
First inflation was down and now growth forecasts are up. Great work from Reeves and Labour.
1) You might think 0.1% tick in either direction is significant but it's really not.
2) if that GDP forecast of 1.6 comes to light I will eat my hat - no point getting excited at a forecast. They're often wrong or revised down.
3) Even the Tories managed 1.6% growth or more 9 times in the last 14 years and that was considered flat.
It's like folk have just lowered the bar to give Labour a chance. Just to remind you we wanted better than the Tories.
(Also Rach ought to know that Interest on reserves is a £34bn pa subsidy to banks at currently. More than enough to fill that black-hole 1.5 times if she wanted to.)
One of the worst things to happen to pensions for the young was the smoking ban (as the culmination of the prevalence of smoking reducing drastically through the 80s/90s).
I’m sure a 0.1% rise in GDP will have voters flooding back to the fold. Woohoo! We’re all going to be rich!
Anyone who has truly deserted labour based on the last six months must be quite fickle, in which case I can't see why actual positive economic news wouldn't bring them back.
Makes a break from all the naval gazing and self-loathing at least!
Anyone who has truly deserted labour based on the last six months must be quite fickle
Oh absolutely without doubt. It is generally accepted that the Labour vote six months ago had very little to do with any profound belief in the Labour Party or Keir Starmer and everything to do with a strong rejection of the ruling Conservative Party.
The landslide that Labour won in July was built on sand, as the fact that only 54% of Labour voters now say they would vote Labour if there was a general election tomorrow testifies.
The government saying to voters "trust us" simply isn't enough, especially when they keep reminding voters how shit things are.
The latest opinion poll (fieldwork was carried out two days ago) has Labour in third place behind both the Tories and Reform who are tied :
https://twitter.com/sixthgalaxy/status/1879968735429366170
Liz Truss must find it reassuring to see that as Prime Minister Starmer has made Labour as unpopular as she made the Tories when she was Prime Minister.
I think idea to tweak/relax the mortgage rules which is in effect to drive GDP is bonkers and desperate.
We all know where that will end up.
Amazing that the drive from Labour to emulate all the flaws of failed economic mechanisms is a now reality from the 'grown-ups.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdryy33v13ko?s=09
Anyone who has truly deserted labour based on the last six months must be quite fickle
To me it shows how desperate people were for change and it's not being offered. (We all knew this though? - don't bullshit your way into power.)
Look, people have less patience with Labour and a higher expectations - it's been mess after mess with no hope and no actual decent effort to turn anything around.
Also, think along these lines - people are fatigued by neoliberalism which the Tories offer and now Labour; the change in party has largely been a continuation of that with lots of seriously stupid decisions.
People don't want austerity; we don't want to hear the city described as the jewel in the crown. We don't want to see our politicians loading up on free stuff etc. Hearing tough choices and no money - whilst offering up 3bn a year for Ukraine. Just plain stupid.
Material conditions. We're at the bottom people want out.
It's not rocket science.
Labour haven't even been able to offer competent conservatism either.
So what do you expect?
Personally I never expected labour to complete a miraculous turnaround within six months, or even within five years, so I'm not surprised that hasn't happened.
The positive economic news is welcome though, why wouldn't it be?
All I want is sensible grown up governance, and from my point of view that's exactly what we're getting so far.
I think if you looked at the past accuracy of poll results from 4.5 years before the next election you'd find they weren't very accurate so I don't think we need to worry too much about them.
Labour's strategy of doing the more unpopular, but necessary things early in the term seems clear enough so you'd expect some negativity in the first year or two.
But most voters aren't that engaged with daily politics and won't fully form their election views until much closer to the time, by which time I think we'll have seen some good progress across a range of issues.
Personally I never expected labour to complete a miraculous turnaround within six months, or even within five years, so I’m not surprised that hasn’t happened.
And why would the wider electorate expect a "miracle" within six months? They don't of course. The reason that nearly half of those who voted Labour in July say they wouldn't vote Labour if a general election was held now is because they strongly disapprove of the direction that Starmer is taking. It has nothing to do with a miracle not taking place.
I think if you looked at the past accuracy of poll results from 4.5 years before the next election you’d find they weren’t very accurate so I don’t think we need to worry too much about them.
If you look at past accuracy of opinion polls you will note that they are invariably correct. All the opinion polls for a couple of years before July's general election were predicting electoral meltdown for the Tories and a landslide victory for Labour.
That is precisely what happened - the worst election result in 200 years for the Tories and one of the biggest majorities for Labour in modern times.
The margin of error for opinion polls is typically about 3% which might have affected whether Reform UK won one seat or five seats but it certainly didn't affect the overall picture.
Labour are currently polling about 25-26% even if for whatever reason you wanted to double the typical margin of error that is devastatingly bad.**
Of course you might reassure yourself that with four and a half years before the next general election there is plenty of time to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic but many people might suggest that a change of course would be more appropriate.
Edit : ** The Tories sacked their prime minister when their support fell that low. And at least they had the excuse that they had been in power for 12 years which typically even without a crisis usually suggests that voters are likely to want a change. What is Starmer's excuse?
First inflation was down and now growth forecasts are up. Great work from Reeves and Labour.
A great headline. Ever considered working for Pravda or Private Eye?
Personally I never expected labour to complete a miraculous turnaround within six months, or even within five years, so I’m not surprised that hasn’t happened.
I dont think anyone was dumb enough to think that though aside from some ultra new labourites who really did buy into the "after the election he will be radical" claim they were telling everyone else.
Labour’s strategy of doing the more unpopular, but necessary things early in the term seems clear enough so you’d expect some negativity in the first year or two.
Aside from this isnt really true. They have done some unpopular stuff but its tinkering round the edges and not really addressing the core issues.
so you’d expect some negativity in the first year or two.
.
Aside from this isnt really true
Indeed, Tony Blair's approval ratings were huge in the first five years of his premiership. They collapsed after he decided to throw his weight behind a hard-right US Republican president and backed a bloody war which achieved nothing significant beyond killing over a hundred thousand civilians.
All I want is sensible grown up governance, and from my point of view that’s exactly what we’re getting so far.
That should be a given (yes I know it isn't). A lot of people want some actual positive change as well as the grown up governance. You may be happy with that being all you get but it won't get them re-elected.
And why would the wider electorate expect a “miracle” within six months? They don’t of course. The reason that nearly half of those who voted Labour in July say they wouldn’t vote Labour if a general election was held now is because they strongly disapprove of the direction that Starmer is taking.
Because they have been spoon fed lies for years and told they can have the results they want via methods that chime with their own prejudices. That's not worked very well for the last 14 years of populist rule, lots of pandering to voters whilst the services and living standards crumble.
Labour are doing what they think is the right thing to sort some of the mess the Torys left, will they succeed, I hope so but hey might not. One thing I am more sure of is they are doing the things they think are right to improve the state of the country in the long term, that's not something you could ever accuse the Torys or Reform of.
I'm happy with the lack of popularity, the crunch will come in another 4 years, if people haven't seen the fruits of the unpopular policies by then the poop will hit the fan and we will be back to more downward spiral under the populist right. The fear is it will take more than 5 years to undo 14 years of Tory incompetence.