Forum menu
Spend much more… and don’t bother with unpopular tax rises
Or spend much more and bother with the popular tax rises. Corporation tax, wealth taxes on the very rich, windfall taxes on utilities and tech companies, taxes on second homes and asset capital gains etc... There are 10s of billions available if they had the courage to do it, and they'd benefit at the polls by being able to demonstrate that they are on the side of working people. At some point a political party is going to have to start making the case for more punitive taxes on the rich, because otherwise we face a fiscal doom loop. Better that the labour party in govt does it than trying to do it while in opposition.
There are 10s of billions available if they had the courage to do it, and they’d benefit at the polls by being able to demonstrate that they are on the side of working people. At some point a political party is going to have to start making the case for more punitive taxes on the rich, because otherwise we face a fiscal doom loop. Better that the labour party in govt does it than trying to do it while in opposition.
This. They've got a massive majority in Government, the Tories still can't land any sort of sensible blow so the time to do the unpopular stuff is now. Get it done and the positive outcomes will start to filter through before the next election. If you go into the next election with 6 months to go saying "we'll need to increase taxes" and you've achieved very little in the previous 4 years, then you're toast.
The more dithering and delay and procrastination, the more severe the impacts further down the line. This has been seen in transport and climate policy for decades, this idea that some magical tech will come along and fix everything so we don't need to do much now and won't someone think of The Economy?!
And where we've ended up at is like doing nothing to the house for 15 years then finding out that it needs a complete and very expensive refurb whereas if you'd done it properly with a long term investment plan of fixing up this room, painting that wall etc, you'd still have a sound house.
Tulip Siddiq has just resigned.
I can't say that comes as a surprise, the links were clear from Day 1 and the conflict of interest alone made her unsuitable for her role. If wrongdoing is proven, then even more so.
It also means Starmer won't have to keep defending at least one prominent Labour politician with a Muslim surname. Such things don't play well to the UK man in the street in 2025.
Honestly, half the problem seems to me to be how spending is messaged.
"Spending" == bad. "Investing" sounds much more positive.
"Tax and spend" just sounds like you got 20 quid off a mate and are planning on blowing the lot on a carry and a four pack of Beater, but "Tax and invest" makes it sound a lot more like you are actually GAF about the future of the country. You can also use "investment" as a stick to beat people that sound off about it. I mean, who would not want to see several billion more invested in improving services?
Of course, it also means that you have to follow through on it.
I’m more concerned than encouraged
Well yes so am I, the growth in support for Reform is hugely concerning, especially when they are just 1% behind Labour! The little silver lining in an otherwise huge dark cloud is that at least at this point in time, according to YouGov, Labour have only definitely hemorrhaged 5% of their support to Reform.
Which is something that genuinely surprises me. And when you consider that more support has hemorrhaged to the LibDems and the Greens it suggests that the situation isn't quite as disastrous as might first appear. It also suggests that offering radical alternative policies could possibly win much of this support back. Certainly those who have switched to the Greens and Reform.
Only 54% of people who voted Labour six months ago saying that they would vote Labour again if there was a general election tomorrow is staggeringly bad though.
It also means Starmer won’t have to keep defending at least one prominent Labour politician with a Muslim surname. Such things don’t play well to the UK man in the street in 2025.
You wait until they find out that the leader of the Conservative Party is black or that the Chairman of Reform UK is called Muhammad Ziauddin Yusuf
Ey up!
FacePalm.jpg.
Tulip Siddiq has resigned as the government’s anti-corruption minister after she was named in a number of corruption probes in Bangladesh involving her aunt, the country’s former prime minister.
We are doomed.
EDIT, sorry, I'm late to the party - I need to keep up... the news rolls faster on here than in 'the news'.
Only 54% of people who voted Labour six months ago saying that they would vote Labour again if there was a general election tomorrow is staggeringly bad though.
Which considering the numbers were staggering bad back then really aint great news.
Tulip Siddiq has resigned as the government’s anti-corruption minister
She really should have been suspended or sacked a while back. Private Eye was reporting several years back on it and the one job you cant have someone even vaguely connected with corruption is as anti-corruption minister.
Don't know how to best explain this? How about "the country is on a gradual slide into a mass working poor" wealth from working and middle class families is being hoovered up by the rich.
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.
"Jobs knackered" as we say in the North East.
Yeah I think the problem with the UK is that collectivley 'we' still think we have gravitas on the global stage, and 'we' did as a major player at the captains table inside the EU.
'we' are going to learn some hard truths.
Rejoin is the best thing we could do for the economy. Never happen.
No 10 blocks beaver release plan as officials view it as ’Tory legacy’
Exclusive: Natural England furious that years of work has been undone, with minister urged to push policy through
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/14/no-10-blocks-beaver-release-plan-tory-legacy
Can anyone make sense of that ^^ Guardian "exclusive"?
The first paragraph reads :
Downing Street has blocked plans to release wild beavers in England because officials view it as a “Tory legacy”, the Guardian can reveal.
And the last paragraph reads :
A government spokesperson said: “This story is categorically untrue. The government is working with Natural England to review options on species reintroduction, including beavers.”
So what is the truth? I am no great fan of the Centrists who now control the Labour Party but I categorically refuse to believe that they would be so pathetic and petty as to block an excellent idea simply because Boris Johnson backed it!
The article also claims that Downing Street has blocked the introduction of a Natural History GCSE because that too is seen as a Tory idea.
If these claims are nonsense, as I feel sure they must be, why the **** is the Guardian publishing an "exclusive" and giving them credence?
And the introduction of beavers is actually an important and sensible way to try to counter some of the disastrous consequences of humans ****ing up the environment and climate:
Prof Richard Brazier, who has conducted much of the beaver research in England, said: “From our research over the last 10 years and the wider research around beaver reintroduction globally, the overwhelming consensus on the impacts of wild-living beavers is hugely positive. It is high time that we humans recognised that we need their help and did so by launching the coherent, national-scale strategy on beaver reintroduction that is desperately needed to recover nature and build resilient ecosystems across England and Wales.”
It' doesn't take long for the article to fall apart....
Typical tabloid reporting as always...
Downing Street officials, who were not in favour of the policy as they view it as a “Tory legacy”, sources said.
What's a downing street official? the guy who changes the blue cakes in the gents urinals? The lady who sweeps the pigeon crap off the outside steps?
Who are these mysterious 'sources'?
It's nothing more than an opinion piece, and a terrible, inflammatory one, at that.
Honestly, all UK news papers are nothing more than vox pops these days, apart from maybe the Private eye.
I don't care if its the Mail or the Graun. It's mostly all complete trash - if you read an article and in the first paragraph or two it becomes blindingly obvious it's trying to trick you through use of persuasive and ambiguous language, it's not news, it's just toilet water.
It’s nothing more than an opinion piece, and a terrible, inflammatory one, at that.
So the Guardian are now churning out inflammatory anti-Downing Street opinion pieces dressed up as factual "exclusives"?
Why do you think that might be? That's a serious question btw, I personally cannot think of one single reason why the Guardian would spread baseless lies which are likely to damage a Labour administration. But I am open to suggestions.
Edit :
Typical tabloid reporting as always…
Wtf, the Guardian has a long history of tabloid reporting?? I am no great fan of the Guardian but I have never heard of it being described as a typical tabloid.
Maybe 'tabloid' was my wrong choice of words....but I use the term to describe any 'news' entity that publishes deceitful and underhandely written articles.
None of them are that far away from red tops like the daily star writing about Gemma from Southend covering her baps in chip grease, don't get excited, she works at the Golden Cod on the high street, it's all above board.
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.
This one's stonker; from the front page on the Graun website:
In 2025, quality, factual journalism will be more important than ever. With mistruths and misinformation easily spread online – and by some of those in power – it’s vital that journalism stands up for the truth.
If you want to support a strong, independent media, please consider joining the readers helping fund the Guardian on a monthly basis today.
lol, I've seen more convincing 'news' on Gbeebies. FFS
Wtf, the Guardian has a long history of tabloid reporting?? I am no great fan of the Guardian but I have never heard of it being described as a typical tabloid.
In retrospect, I think 'tabloid' is actually correct, in the context I was using it:
tabloid
/ˈtablɔɪd/noun
noun: tabloid; plural noun: tabloids
a newspaper having pages half the size of those of the average broadsheet, typically popular in style and dominated by sensational stories.
"the tabloid press"
The print Guardian is berliner not tabloid papersize iirc
They are all as bad as each other, even the Indie are at it.. this ones a beut!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dementia-hard-soft-water-risks-b2678410.html
The headline reads: Landmark study links household water to degenerative diseases – is your area affected?
And if you start reading the article with no critical thinking, you'll get very worried.
If you make it to the end of the article though, you'll see quotes from actual experts on the matter saying that everthing above is essentially a sensationalist fabrication.
So you've just wasted 3 mins of your life reading a load of tosh.
As least they (the indie) have the decency to out themselves as sensationalist liars in the very same article though, so it's marginally better than the daily mail?
Got to admire the transparency :-/
The print Guardian is berliner not tabloid papersize iirc
It's a generalisation? would it please everyone if I just call them all trash rags, instead? I'm not particularly concerned with semantics that detract from the (very obvious) point.
Im just being a ridiculous pedant matty?
The print Guardian is berliner not tabloid papersize
Nope, it’s a tabloid in size.
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?