Forum menu
But, in any case, if certain folk are happy
Who's happy? Certainly not me, I welcome all posts and discussion unlike many others here who always want to shut other people down or prevent any sort of debate or disagreement. The more disagreement the better as far as I'm concerned.
They really don’t know what they’re doing do they?
I think they're damned if they do, six of the other. Reeves manifesto pledges were; 1. day to day spending matched by tax receipts, this she's sticking too despite it being reasonably hard in the current climate, and 2 debt falling as share of the economy, which is where all politicians can eff about as "define debt" becomes the catch. I think both Tories and Labour were looking at the same wiggle room pre-election, and are spinning it to meet their own needs.
The risk of the Truss-alike market reaction is partly why Reeves is treading carefully I think, but the current fiscal rules look to be discreated by just about everyone, and that a bit of headroom to boost investment is now seen as sensible. I can imagine however that post budget headlines of "Runaway Inflation Fears" and "Interest Rates Set to Soar" from the usual suspects are probably keeping her awake.
No one wanted or forced jonv to flounce, he did it all on his own.
Well - he didn't. Reading back over the last few days, there's an increasing spiral of condescension and vehemence, a sense of a "pile-on", if you will, and it's a real shame you can't see it. Where this place becomes a hot mess is when threads become point-scoring exercises - we're adults, we can hold different opinions and admit mistakes, but genuine attempts to hold good faith discussions so often get dragged down into this morass of pointless, infuriating division.
Should anyone care that Sue Gray earned more than the PM, if she’s worth the money then why care, there are literally hundreds of civil servants earning more than the PM, but that’s not the story, it’s because it’s Sue Gray, and now she’ll just go somewhere else out of sight, earn the same and be less effective.
I think there is more to it than that. The average voter probably doesn't know who Sue Gray is and doesn't care. That could have easily been left to blow over but she 'resigned' anyway.
WFA is different as the average voter is aware of that and doesn't generally agree it should have just been stopped. See my simple solution up there on stopping it properly by ensuring those who genuinely need it get it via entitled benefits. Maybe doing it properly would have meant removing it next year with a years notice to ensure those entitled to additional benefits get them. It was not an emergency to sort out by any stretch of the imagination and was simply cocked up.
I can imagine however that post budget headlines of “Runaway Inflation Fears” and “Interest Rates Set to Soar” from the usual suspects are probably keeping her awake.
She's almost certainly worried about a Truss-like market reaction, which is why she should be getting ahead of it by explaining and defending her actions and the benefits that will have. Markets react to uncertainty, inconsistency and incompetence. Reeves and Starmer are displaying all three of those quite spectacularly. She also has the power to mitigate any negative reaction if it materialises. Time to grow a pair I think.
Time to grow a pair I think.
Agree 100%, it's way past time that they got things gripped. Even if, behind the scenes 'things' are improving, the view from the cheap seats hasn't been reassuring.
I think there is more to it than that. The average voter probably doesn’t know who Sue Gray is and doesn’t care. That could have easily been left to blow over but she ‘resigned’ anyway.
I caught up with some pals who work at a left leaning think tank. So this is all just hearsay which is free to be discarded...but some might be interested anyway so....
By all accounts Sue Gray was a major problem for the functioning of the government. She was a dreadful micromanager and insisted on signing off most decisions and almost all appointments. She then sat on these things so nothing of note has got done. This procrastination has got to the point that people have been speculating that its deliberate. After all, what shes mainly been good at in her previous job at the civil service was...blocking things. Admittedly these things being blocked were the worst of the previous adminstations brain farts. The simplest explanation is that, like all micromanagers, they eventually get overwhelmed by sheer volume.
She has also been responsible for the planning the 'first 100 days' in terms of politics and strategic comms. This has been baffling because these are things that shes not got any background or qualifications in. Figuring out how things are going to land in the media and electorate is well out of her wheelhouse. It's gone as expected, excaterbated by the lack of people who are qualifed, who's job applications are still sitting in her inbox. There's no Malcom Tucker types, going around killing stories about gifts - and then kicking in heads of MP's so it doesnt happen again. It's just Sue, the person who thought it was a good idea to be paid more than the PM.
It's no suprise that she's gone. Because ~nobody~ can get anything done, ~everybody~ had it out for her. The media hasnt forced her out, if anything they are behind the curve on all this. Had she not resigned, the briefings would have continued until she did. See also cutting spad salaries.
OFC, the buck stops at the top, and seeing as he likes football, people had been wondering the whole time why he was putting a goalkeeper in at center forward. Also when seeing how badly it was going, how it got to the point of mutiny. One of the ironies is that for all Sue Grays faults as a micromanager, Sir Kier has sinned in the opposite direction, delegating to the point of disinterest.
So for those of you feeling very dissapointed with how its been going, you are in good/bad* company with all the think tanks, advisors, NGOs and donors. This amount of organisational dysfunction this soon has people feeling really let down.
might all be bollocks, but its the internet, so here you go
* delete as appropriate
@nickc, it'll be easier to try this approach first, and if it's not working, to switch to spend, spend, spend, but it's not easy to do it the other way around.
I'd love the government to keep the WFA, increase budgets, spend tens of billions on green initiatives and so on, but i go back to Occams Razor, if a new government are making unpopular decisions, then it's because of the information they have and the guidance provided by experts, rather than the more convoluted 'Reeves just wants to do her own thing and who cares about public opinion'.
might all be bollocks, but its the internet, so here you go
Definitely not bollocks IMO. Generally what is reported in the media is the tip of the iceberg of what's really going on. If the media (especially friendly media like the guardian) are reporting about 'dysfunction' then you can bet it's much worse than that. It all supports the view that the problem here is Starmer and the people around him. Those of us who never liked him to start with pointed to his political naivety and inexperience, but I don't think any of us thought he'd match that with the managerial incompetence we've seen. I reckon the thing they're most guilty of is hubris following their victory over Corbyn and the left and that they could repeat that in govt only to find out it's much, much more difficult. My main question now is how long the labour party give him before questions and gossip about the leadership begin?
@nickc, it’ll be easier to try this approach first, and if it’s not working, to switch to spend, spend, spend
They've already made that switch. 22bn on (pointless) CCS, 57bn on infrastructure a few weeks after hyping up a 22bn 'black hole' and tax rises to fill it.
57bn on infrastructure a few weeks after hyping up a 22bn ‘black hole’ and tax rises to fill it
They have always been clear about borrowing to invest in infrastructure, while balancing day to day spending.
My main question now is how long the labour party give him before questions and gossip about the leadership begin?
I think its premature to start talking about Starmer being forced to resign. If push comes to shove the vast vast numbers of Labour MP who've Starmer's campaign to thank for their positions aren't about to launch into that sort of utterly destructive internecine warfare. Or they'd be pretty bloody stupid to at least.
Starmers campaign was terrible, unless you think disenfranchising voters is good. Labour MP's should thank the tories for imploding, reform for taking votes from the tories, and tactical voters, the labour campaign is last on the list of what they should be thankful for.
Cool, it doesn't change my thoughts that all the box-fresh MPs are going to commit political suicide any time soon.
I think its premature to start talking about Starmer being forced to resign. If push comes to shove the vast vast numbers of Labour MP who’ve Starmer’s campaign to thank for their positions aren’t about to launch into that sort of utterly destructive internecine warfare. Or they’d be pretty bloody stupid to at least.
The three party leaders most responsible for Labour's recent election victory have all already resigned.
my thoughts that all the box-fresh MPs are going to commit political suicide any time soon
I agree with that, but I suspect he might not be leader by the next election.
Good to see led by donkeys are also holding the new labour government to account too and are not a labour affiliate .
Trying to pretend it’s all going just okay is just simply ignoring reality
I'm not sure anyone has claimed everything is going OK. No doubt you can provide examples of those who have.
We all think there have been problems and disappointments. I really need to see some strong positive moves in the budget to feel reassured my vote was well placed.
But it would be a big help to the discussion if the whole absolute black and white tone of the debate from some was scaled back. The world is full of grey.
Just not Sue anymore.
They have always been clear about borrowing to invest in infrastructure
Three weeks ago Reeves was cancelling road projects to fill her black hole for fear of the pound collapsing, now she's spending 80bn, rewriting fiscal rules and borrowing more whilst the price of 10-year gilts has increased. You call that clear?
Three weeks ago Reeves was cancelling road projects to fill her black hole for fear of the pound collapsing, now she’s spending 80bn, rewriting fiscal rules and borrowing more whilst the price of 10-year gilts has increased. You call that clear?
She's spending £80 billion, she must be as rich as Jeff Bezos!
So i take it by your post you want the government to tighten their belts and spend less via austerity?
but I suspect he might not be leader by the next election.
I'm reminded more and more of the early days of Blair/Brown. There was the same "maintain the same spending pledges" message from Brown that upset all his MP becasue they wanted restrictions on single-parent benefits lifted, and even a donation scandal bought about by Bernie Ecclestone's successful intervention to get F1 cigarette advertising excluded from a bill being introduced to otherwise ban it. Something something history repeating...
I don't think anyone in the country wanted 'more tory' but I don't think anyone was expecting this shambles either.
So i take it by your post you want the government to tighten their belts and spend less via austerity?
On the contrary, I want her to spend a hell of a lot more. But it has to be done with some clear ideological direction, consistency and most importantly stubborn resolve to see it through. At almost every juncture Starmer and Reeves have flip-flopped or given in to outside pressure. In 2017 and 2019 McDonnell presented a plan to spend approximately 250bn to restore public services, invest in british industry and improve working conditions across the economy. Part of that plan was how they were going to manage the inevitable market and media reaction in relation to a potential devaluation of the currency. Reeves should pick up the phone and ask her predecessor for some advice.
Part of that plan was how they were going to manage the inevitable market and media reaction in relation to a potential devaluation of the currency
McDonnell also pledged (like Reeves) not to increase VAT or income tax, although he did say he would raise corporation tax. I remember as well a "fully costed" spending pledges claim- that was somewhat undermined by the fact that they'd excluded any plans that may have had to pay for the re-nationalisation of the water industry.
Veering about all over the shop before getting finally to the right place seems to be the way Starmer operates. Let's hope he gets it under control.
Good to see led by donkeys [sic]
I'm normally a fan of their campaigns, they get straight to the point. I'm not convinced that rooting through a judge's previous judgements context-free becasue you disagree with a way he's sentenced people with whom you have an affinity (the leadership of Led by Donkeys have all come from a climate or environmental campaigning background) adds much to the debate overall.
I can see the point their making about a piece of reasonably harsh legislation, I can't see Labour being in a rush to get rid of it given the experience of Jan 6th, Farage's populism, anti-Trans protesting and rise of the far-right under the disguise of 'Free speech activism'
I probably wouldn't say McDonnell and his views on how to run the country would have a positive effect on the UK with his anti-capitalism and dream to run the treasury and the country as a socialist utopia.
The law isn't legal, Labour are challenging the judgment that said it wasn't legal. This isn't a case of not getting round to scrapping the law the courts have already effectively done that, they are actively still trying to introduce it.
It is a bad law, everyone knows it, it was pushed through without parliaments approval and labour are still following that path.
Lets face it, much praise has been heaped on Starmer as a "former human rights lawyer", well now he is on the opposite side of the fence removing human rights.
I probably wouldn’t say McDonnell and his views on how to run the country would have a positive effect on the UK with his anti-capitalism and dream to run the treasury and the country as a socialist utopia.
socialist utopia, are you Kemi Badenoch?
McDonnell's approach would have totally had a more positive effect on the UK. Bit touchy for Starmer to ask him for advice now though seeing as Starmer hit him with his iron rod for daring to show some compassion.
and dream to run the treasury and the country as a socialist utopia.
Oh give over, McD wanted to do nothing of the sort. If you seriously think rebalancing treasury focus towards working people and away from the corporate and financial elite is 'socialist utopia' then there really is very little hope for any sort of better society. It's quite pathetic really.
I’m not sure anyone has claimed everything is going OK. No doubt you can provide examples of those who have.
Overall, pretty steady, nothing amazing, but neither anything horrific.
McDonnell’s approach would have totally had a more positive effect on the UK
I'm all for a bit of counter-factualism, but his plans did involve increasing corporation tax from 19% to 26%. Given that 99.2% of all companies in the UK are classed as small businesses (0-49 employees) and 56% of all businesses are single owner operator, I'd imagine increasing the taxes of handymen and hairdressers would've been somewhat counter productive and a difficult sell.
It's always a fudge which-ever way you split the bill.
I’d imagine increasing the taxes of handymen and hairdressers would’ve been somewhat counter productive and a difficult sell.
Wasn't the exact same argument made about the minimum wage?
Anyway I'm always astonished at the ability of right wing propaganda to persuade the likes of argee that evil socialist utopians are not on the side of working people whereas free market capitalists are. Unless of course argee is a multi-millionaire in which case his suspicion of socialists is entirely justified. 🙂
Good to see in any case that Reeves and Starmer are inching slowly towards something that looks a bit more like the stuff McD would have done, however incompetently they're doing it. Who knows maybe they'll double down and inject 100bn into the NHS and local authorities to complete the job?
Given that 99.2% of all companies in the UK are classed as small businesses (0-49 employees) and 56% of all businesses are single owner operator.
Do they pay corporation tax if they are not incorporated? I wouldn't have thought that most sole traders wouldn't do so.
So after a bit of googling.
https://www.gov.uk/corporation-tax
You must pay Corporation Tax on profits from doing business as a:
limited company
foreign company with a UK branch or office (also known as an ‘overseas company’)
club, co-operative or other unincorporated association, for example a community group or sports club
2.1 million actively trading Ltd companies, so at least a million sole traders and teeny tiny companies who's profits are probably their take-home Regardless, I'd imagine it'd effect the taxation of more than a handful. I'm not saying its right or wrong, it's just never clear cut, every option is going to have consequences for some group or other.
(To be clear I’m agreeing with the poster pointing out that corporation tax is not relevant to sole traders)
Yep, always easier when it's the other fella picking up the 7% increase in their taxes.
Oh give over, McD wanted to do nothing of the sort. If you seriously think rebalancing treasury focus towards working people and away from the corporate and financial elite is ‘socialist utopia’ then there really is very little hope for any sort of better society. It’s quite pathetic really.
And to think McDonnell would be a rousing success, given his history and more importantly, how an actual western economy interacts and works is fanciful at best, but the responses backing him on here are telling.
I’m all for a bit of counter-factualism, but his plans did involve increasing corporation tax from 19% to 26%. Given that 99.2% of all companies in the UK are classed as small businesses (0-49 employees) and 56% of all businesses are single owner operator, I’d imagine increasing the taxes of handymen and hairdressers would’ve been somewhat counter productive and a difficult sell.
It’s always a fudge which-ever way you split the bill.
Small 'rate' corporation tax (which most small traders pay) was going to 21% over 4 years that would cover a massive chunk of those business with profit under £300,000. Lots. It had been 21/20% for many years before.
Main rate was going from 19-26% and stands at 25% now
I'm a small rate trader and pay the current 19%. But ayou pay many more taxes on the way you distribute your profits than back then.
Point is they Labour had a plan.
One tax rate in isolation tells you nothing about the big picture.
Exactly thecaptain, PROFIT. Therefore the argument goes that if you invest some/all of that profit back into your company, TO ENCOURAGE GROWTH, that money isn’t taxed.
Unlike the current model of make loads of profit, pay bugger-all corporation tax and make yourself even richer. And somehow that’s going to grow the economy is it? (cynical emoji).
And to think McDonnell would be a rousing success, given his history and more importantly, how an actual western economy interacts and works is fanciful at best, but the responses backing him on here are telling.
How a western economy 'interacts.'?
The piece you're missing in the puzzle is looking after your country and its public services should come first. To keep kowtowing this market nonsense is why things have fallen apart, and why many misunderstand the value of what is important for people.
Get the priorities right and everything works. You will get growth, investment and a dynamic private sector if the goverment builds on a solid state system that underpins all that is necessary to drive a healthy economy and its population.
I'm not saying there aren't political choices involved - but economies are built from the ground up.
The economy is desirable to invest in when the government generates opportunities - and thus growth - and this in itself strengthens currency value if you want to go there.
Exactly thecaptain, PROFIT. Therefore the argument goes that if you invest some/all of that profit back into your company, TO ENCOURAGE GROWTH, that money isn’t taxed
Exactly.
This is often missed when people talk about corporation tax.
And to think McDonnell would be a rousing success, given his history and more importantly, how an actual western economy interacts and works is fanciful at best
Given that 'expertise' seems to be prized on here and among centrists, I suspect McDonnell knows a tad more than you about the working of western economies seeing as he was shadow chancellor for quite a few years. If you look at what he was proposing rather than swallow the right wing propaganda about revolutionary marxist socialists, you'll see it wasn't anything particularly radical that hadn't happened before. Given what's happened since with public services at the point of collapse, the economy stagnant and the cost of living through the roof, I reckon that more than supports the view that in 2019 we needed McDonnell's plan much more than what we actually got. Reeves and Starmer seem to be realising that too, however belatedly and unenthusiastically.
(I don't know if it's been said - but a Sole Trader is not the same as a Ltd Company but both can be in the form of one person or a small business. Either way corp tax applies to the company - and sole traders pay income tax/N.I on profits.)
Personally having gone through both - I reckon they're very close in Tax liablity now.
They have always been clear about borrowing to invest in infrastructure
That's an accounting fudge anyway - same pot, front pocket back pocket trick. Like lots of government accounting
The trick is as follows. If government spend on 'investment', that goes into the CDEL pot (capital). About 85% of whatever government spends on that will come back as tax, but you can pretend it is all borrowing. The rest of spending (current spending) goes into the RDEL (resource) pot. Again about 85% of whatever is spent there will come back as tax, but you can pretend it is 100% tax by reallocating the tax that comes back from CDEL spending. That's how you get current spending balanced by taxation. Once you realise what the trick is you can see they can spend whatever they want and as long as enough of it is marked as 'investment' their silly rules are met