UK Government Thread

Posted by: n0b0dy0ftheg0at

↑

Why not space tours? 😉

...I'll keep an eye on the cost - Bezos may have made them cheap enough by then! 🚀

Posted by: failedengineer

↑

So, you state pension haters, what do you propose?  Reduce it?  Tax it more?

It should be means-tested, I don't see a reason to tax it more than any other source of income.

The state pension itself isn't very generous for people who have nothing more than that to survive on. However, about a quarter of pensioners are absurdly rich (household assets of over a million pounds is the standard ONS statistic), they could certainly contribute a lot more to the upkeep of the state that has supported and helped them out so generously through their lives.

Even if it was means-tested do honestly think those in greater need will received a higher pension? Or will it just be the better off who end up with nothing.

My parents receive pension credits which brings them up to a comfortable amount to live off. And of course pension credits are means-tested.

stricter entrance criteria for PIP - good
same savings enforeced in scotland - good
most serious disabilities not requiring reassessment - good
single capability assessment (no duplication) - good
Permanent above inflation rise to universal credit

i missed the bit about stealing pensioners walking sticks?

i missed the bit about stealing pensioners walking sticks?

I was being silly for effect/emphasis.

But my point remains:

Why the **** are we scrapping around, likely creating new victims, to save £5bn in 5 years time - when we're actively turning our backs on a probable extra £100bn per year in GDP? Simply by rejoining the European Single Market and Customs Union.

It all seems a bit daft to me, but then I'm no political genius like our current ministers and MPs.

The state pension itself isn't very generous for people who have nothing more than that to survive on. However, about a quarter of pensioners are absurdly rich (household assets of over a million pounds is the standard ONS statistic), they could certainly contribute a lot more to the upkeep of the state that has supported and helped them out so generously through their lives.

A million pounds seems like a lot of money to someone working, and in good health, but if it's all you've got to buy food, care and a new hip the perspective changes a bit. Maybe I'd be happier to put my hand in my pocket if the government had been a bit less happy to stuff cash into the bank accounts of Thames Water shareholders and the like.

Posted by: binners

↑

Meanwhile, HM opposition are using the opportunity of everyone talking about the benefits bill to make some major policy announcements… 

So they’ve just let voters know, ahead of the local elections,  that the Tory’s will no longer be having anything to do with any of that woke, climate-change nonsense and the world can just burn for all they care. Not that anyone will notice, of course, as Kemi carries on trying to out-Reform Reform  

You can't expect the Tories to oppose benefits cuts can you? Starmer-Reeves are carrying out the sort of austerity policies which the Tories would never have got away with - the outcry from the Labour benches would have been so great with accusations of Tory callous cruelty.

So focussing on daft environmental issues seems a reasonable tactic for the Tories. Although "Labour" are already on the case.

More Tory policies from Starmer's government  :

https://archive.is/2025.03.17-154713/https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/treasury-accused-of-being-nasty-to-bats-in-pursuit-of-growth-sxmw5hzj0

Posted by: thecaptain

↑

about a quarter of pensioners are absurdly rich (household assets of over a million pounds is the standard ONS statistic), they could certainly contribute a lot more to the upkeep of the state that has supported and helped them out so generously through their lives.

a million quid in assets certainly sounds like a lot (and let's be clear - it's definitely better to have it than not have it!) but if £900,000 of that is the home you live in, it's not so clear cut.

House price increases don't always add a lot to real wealth (in the sense of money you can actually spend) because you always have to live somewhere. You can only "cash in" that increase if you can downgrade (by moving somewhere significantly smaller or moving to a town that's much cheaper) or if you don't need a house any more (mostly because you're dead). For everyone else a doubling of house prices doesn't actually help much because you get twice as much when you sell and pay twice as much to get into the new place...

Also, the pensioners who have a million quid in assets are probably the ones who paid in more in tax than they received in upkeep from the state across their working lives, for obvious reasons...

I have no fing idea how to fix any of this.

Although Labour's attack on bats actually has much more in common with Donald Trump :

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250124-red-herring-why-trump-wrongly-blames-a-fish-for-la-wildfires

Bats in the UK were safer under a Tory government than they will be under "Labour"

Sod the environment eh? The environment is part of the anti-growth coalition!!

Posted by: ernielynch

↑

Starmer-Reeves are carrying out the sort of austerity policies which the Tories would never have got away with

i dont see it, actually im seeing a much more measured approach, apart from, of course the innumerable folk who died in the last six months due to the cut of WFA.

the SM/CU comment above, regardless of how the numbers stack up, no PM is going to go near that, with that as the title...

What? No politician will say "we wouldn't have to be making as many of these tough decisions if we had an extra £100bn in annual GDP by simply restoring our EU membership"?

It seems quite an obvious point to make to me. What with the view that a government should act in the best interests of its citizens and all that.

🤷‍♂️

a million quid in assets certainly sounds like a lot (and let's be clear - it's definitely better to have it than not have it!) but if £900,000 of that is the home you live in, it's not so clear cut.

House price increases don't always add a lot to real wealth (in the sense of money you can actually spend) because you always have to live somewhere.

Yes you do have to live somewhere, a £250K flat for example, leaving you £750K in cash which should do nicely to see you through to your death (£37K per year if live for 20 years, ignoring any interest on top of state pension).  Or you could just drawdown against it which although not that cleaver gets you money you need without moving.

Having a £1MM house and saying you are not wealthy is a but ridiculous.   

Posted by: n0b0dy0ftheg0at

↑

Changes aimed to save 5Bn by 2030...

Be nice if Labour took one of the few sensible reform policies and stopped paying interest to the banks on central bank reserves (including the rather large sum creating by quantative easing).

Whilst the reform figures of 35 billion a year seem to be rubbish the more serious people (including the FT) proposing that interest is only paid on some of it (bringing us in line with the EU and Japan) would in a worse case scenario save 5 billion a year immediately.

Said it before, as a small business person with a team of 12 the collective amount of tax from Corp Tax, PAYE, NI, Dividends, VAT, BIK then community charge, vat on fuel and so on the amount of tax we collectively pay is staggering

My community charge is £400 a month i have to earn about 7k a year to pay just that. So my actual charge is 585 a month.

More than half of everything this business produces is taxed probably 60% that's £500k 

I have no problem paying tax but not sure where it all goes? 

It’s paying pensions in large part. There’s lots of other stuff as well. 

I have no problem paying tax but not sure where it all goes? 

I have no problem paying tax, I'm not sure where it all goes and yet I don't feel the need to ask a rhetorical question about it to make a point either.

Meanwhile, HM opposition are using the opportunity of everyone talking about the benefits bill to make some major policy announcements… 

 

So they’ve just let voters know, ahead of the local elections, that the Tory’s will no longer be having anything to do with any of that woke, climate-change nonsense and the world can just burn for all they care. Not that anyone will notice, of course, as Kemi carries on trying to out-Reform Reform  

So ****ing what?

Badenoch is an irrelevant **** unless she takes the Tories into a merger with Reform. When the result will out-nasty anything in any case.

Her position on anything has no meaning, no relevance, no nothing.

They're dealing with the cost of the state pension by increasing the access age. They can get away with that because it 'only' affects younger people. It's on its way up to 70 and probably beyond. There are sections of society who don't live far beyond 70 on average, so once the boomers have enjoyed their lengthy state funded retirements, the days of being expected to work until you die will soon be upon us.

The retirement outlook for millennials and younger generations is already seriously grim. Means testing on top would be diabolical. Any party enacting that would surely never be elected again.

Posted by: oldmanmtb2

↑

I have no problem paying tax but not sure where it all goes? 

We used to get an annual record of the tax we paid and exactly how it was split across government spending. Not sure that's still done.

So ****ing what?

Her position on anything has no meaning, no relevance, no nothing.

It does though, doesn't it? Because democracy doesn't work unless you have an effective opposition. And reform just lobbing hand grenades from the sidelines isn't an effective opposition, no matter what they'd like people to believe.

It was the same when Magic Grandad accidentally became leader of the labour party.... the Tories had a free pass and could do whatever the hell they liked because they knew the opposition was an unelectable joke. And just look where that got us?

Did you see Helen Whately this afternoon? Dear god! To quote Malcolm Tucker - a woman so dense that light bends around her. Thats literally all they've got left. An idiot in search of a village. And I highlighted Badanochs statement this afternoon to prove exactly your point... the Tory party is now so detatched from reality that they are a complete irrelevence.

So, much as I'm enjoying the Tories disappear up their own firmaments, chasing Nige and Reform off to the right like headless chickens, I can't help the feeling that its hardly going to end up being healthy for our democracy

Posted by: oldmanmtb2

↑

Said it before, as a small business person with a team of 12 the collective amount of tax from Corp Tax, PAYE, NI, Dividends, VAT, BIK then community charge, vat on fuel and so on the amount of tax we collectively pay is staggering

My community charge is £400 a month i have to earn about 7k a year to pay just that. So my actual charge is 585 a month.

More than half of everything this business produces is taxed probably 60% that's £500k 

I have no problem paying tax but not sure where it all goes? 

 

I know the feeling. As a worker being hit for an effective graduate tax, national insurance, income tax and then VAT amounts to about 70% taxation.

Then to see the huge profits some big businesses make without paying any tax and no real attempts being made to tax unearned wealth, it's all a bit sickening.

The people who actually do the work in this country have been properly screwed over and I'm not surprised more of them are apparently deciding that a life on benefits is preferable. 

We desperately need to redress the balance back towards workers primarily, and then also help out smaller businesses.

Posted by: binners

↑

So ****ing what?

Her position on anything has no meaning, no relevance, no nothing.

It does though, doesn't it? Because democracy doesn't work unless you have an effective opposition. And reform just lobbing hand grenades from the sidelines isn't an effective opposition, no matter what they'd like people to believe.

It was the same when Magic Grandad accidentally became leader of the labour party.... the Tories had a free pass and could do whatever the hell they liked because they knew the opposition was an unelectable joke. And just look where that got us?

Did you see Helen Whately this afternoon? Dear god! To quote Malcolm Tucker - a woman so dense that light bends around her. Thats literally all they've got left. An idiot in search of a village. And I highlighted Badanochs statement this afternoon to prove exactly your point... the Tory party is now so detatched from reality that they are a complete irrelevence.

So, much as I'm enjoying the Tories disappear up their own firmaments, chasing Nige and Reform off to the right like headless chickens, I can't help the feeling that its hardly going to end up being healthy for our democracy

So from attacking Tory governments to attacking Tory opposition, to paraphrase you it's literally all that you have left. 

And it's absolutely classic whataboutry ........ never mind how shite the current Labour government are just look how shite the Tory opposition is. And for good measure blame Jeremy Corbyn as well. 

Blame everyone except St Starmer.

Remind me again why you hated the last Tory government so much binners I can't remember. It obviously had nothing to do with their right-wing policies was it their incompetence or something else, what exactly?

Posted by: ernielynch

↑

And it's absolutely classic whataboutry

Its also about as accurate as binners knowledge of charity funding. 

For both May and Johnson the tories did respond to an opposition which actually offered an alternative by offering a broader mix of policies including Johnsons levelling up and there were the "Red May" comments with analysis of the tory offering showing it was the most left wing in decades.

Now, obviously, they were mostly lying about them but they did respond because there was actually an opposition offering policies different to the ongoing thatcherite fantasy which had already started running into the problem that asset stripping the country is great until you run out of assets to give away cheap and the rent comes due.

If we take the tories now, exactly what are they supposed to do? Labour are offering austerity on steroids so they can either go for the radical option of moving to the left of them, very risky, or move further rightwards to try and keep their differences. At which point they run into the farage issue.

Head above the parapet time for me. 

Labour? No. No. No.

Just off the phone from a friend of near 30 years. A friend I admire immensely.

She has always worked, including as a single parent after her husband left her and their children behind to be with a string of other women. 

Worked in retail, a care home, you name it, she did anything it took to find her kids the best chance she could in life. She's done everything she can for her children to the point where I just don't know how she held herself together at times. 

She went through a no fault eviction a few years back and now, finally, has a place she can call her "own" again rather than knowing she can be moved from the temporary accommodation at the drop of a hat.

This all going on whilst dealing with MS, gradually eroding her physically and mentally. 

She is in tears tonight. As it stands she will lose the daily living component of her PIP, some £100 a week. She has more than enough points to qualify for the higher rate as the rules stand but hasn't got 4 points in any one descriptor. Getting 4 points+ in any of the descriptors is incredibly difficult as the DWP and government know. 

This is a terrible decision and it's completely contrary to saving money in the long term. There must be a lot of people feeling just as worried and betrayed as her tonight.

She said, "they (politicians) are all the f****** same" and I couldn't bring myself to disagree with her. 

What a mess.

Yesterday we had complaints about speculation from the usual suspects, so it's curious that they've gone quiet now details have been confirmed.

If we take the tories now, exactly what are they supposed to do? Labour are offering austerity on steroids so they can either go for the radical option of moving to the left of them, very risky, or move further rightwards to try and keep their differences. At which point they run into the farage issue.

Yup, obviously it can't happen under Badenoch (although Runcorn might finish her off) but the sensible thing for the Tories imo would be to move just slightly to the left of Labour, something which wouldn't be massively difficult!

That niche in the UK political spectrum is mostly underoccupied with the LibDems still making no significant progress following the long-term damage caused by Nick Clegg.

Moving further to the right would be pointless for the Tories because as you suggest that niche is now firmly in the hands of Reform. Besides Badenoch has done precisely that and it has done the Tories no favours at all.

The main changes in support for UK political parties since the general election last July is a very significant collapse in support for Labour and Reform support almost doubling, support for other parties, including the Tories, hasn't changed that significantly.

However as I understand it it is not simply a case of Labour losing support to Reform, in fact far from it. It would appear that Labour have mostly lost support to the Tories and in turn the Tories have lost support to Reform.

So the Tories are actually benefiting from Labour's lack of popularity it's just not obvious because they are losing at least as much support to Reform. 

The benefits to the Tories if they moved very slightly to the left would be twofold imo. Firstly an greater likelihood of winning over Labour voters. And secondly it would likely take some of the wind out of Reform's sails.

Right now Badenoch making the case for hard-right policies is simply helping Reform because she is doing their work for them. What the Tories need is a leader who denounces hard-right policies and convinces potential Tory voters that Reform has no answer and nothing to offer, instead of doing the opposite and agreeing with them.

Having said all that if I was a half sensible Tory Party member I wouldn't worry with any of that and I would simply join the Labour Party.

Posted by: binners

↑

Because democracy doesn't work unless you have an effective opposition

Instead of tacking the real issues around increasing inequality and taxing the rich, its all about punching down on the less fortunate people in society who cant fight back (Disabled/Unemployed/Immigrants)

The £5bn quoted from the reforms could easily be recovered, by making those who have >£100m of assets pay the same amount of tax as the rest of us.

Yesterday we had complaints about speculation from the usual suspects, so it's curious that they've gone quiet now details have been confirmed.

Been a bit of a constant theme now hasn't it?

Hopefully this will solidify that when Reeves and Kendall said they would be tough on benefits before they were elected - they weren't lying.

It's so dumb-ass.

The *saving of 5bn will give nothing back but take so much from people.

*Government's can't save obviously. Everything is done on new spending  (adding to the economy) and taxation (taking away.)

Worth remembering that when a government removes money from the economy it likely contracts.

So no GDP increase either.

Callous, dumb Tory thinking - ideological purity in wide-screen.

Yesterday we had complaints about speculation from the usual suspects, so it's curious that they've gone quiet now details have been confirmed.

Been a bit of a constant theme now hasn't it?

Hopefully this will solidify that when Reeves and Kendall said they would be tough on benefits before they were elected - they weren't lying.

It's so dumb-ass.

The *saving of 5bn will give nothing back but take so much from people.

*Government's can't save obviously. Everything is done on new spending  (adding to the economy) and taxation (taking away.)

Worth remembering that when a government removes money from the economy it likely contracts.

So no GDP increase either.

Callous, dumb Tory thinking - ideological purity in wide-screen.

The £5bn quoted from the reforms could easily be recovered, by making those who have >£100m of assets pay the same amount of tax as the rest of us

They don't need to recover anything. There is no capacity to save at all. They are simply removing money from the economy.

(For sure tax wealth as always.)

It's all being done under the notion that Thatcher's model was accurate on the economy. 

It's not.

Yesterday we had complaints about speculation from the usual suspects, so it's curious that they've gone quiet now details have been confirmed.

You mean this?

  binners

Full Member

I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve seen what it is they’re actually proposing. 

I suspect that the jury is still out as far as binners is concerned and he is thinking long and hard about the issue.

Binners is never in a rush to be judgemental when it comes to politics. No wait, he is. Maybe he can't make up his mind what pictures to post?

I suspect that the jury is still out as far as binners is concerned and he is thinking long and hard about the issue.

Studying all the Toynbee columns for something along the lines of reform of traffic lights so the sick can get to work faster.

Also, the pensioners who have a million quid in assets are probably the ones who paid in more in tax than they received in upkeep from the state across their working lives

I hope most of that tax went on defence, education, health, infrastructure and all the other things our tax pays that we benefit from. To get back more than you pay in you have to seriously **** up and spend most of your life in prison. 🙂

Only a tiny part of the tax you ever pay is ever going to come back in "upkeep".

Those pensioners living in million plus houses should be taxed on the wealth and income - they should be encourage by the tax system and market forces to downsize and move to a less economically active area where it's cheaper and they won't be excluding the more productive age groups from somewhere convenient and suitable to live. Single pensioners occupying a million plus family sized home in London isn't good for the economy, or even for them.

If surviving on a million quid is such a hardship, surely those with more should be willing to support the miserable poverty-stricken wretches who haven't managed to amass such a modest sum.

Posted by: rone

↑

Studying all the Toynbee columns

Even she is struggling now.
The last paragraph is a truly plaintive cry
"If spending cuts will be as deep as predicted, that demands a strong act of faith from Labour supporters that things will eventually get better. But remember this: every Labour government always improves the living standards of those with least, lifts more children out of poverty, revives the NHS, schools and local councils. In this dark economic moment, it takes trust to believe Starmer and Reeves too will, in the end, do as Labour always does."

Posted by: Edukator

↑

Also, the pensioners who have a million quid in assets are probably the ones who paid in more in tax than they received in upkeep from the state across their working lives

Ithey should be encourage by the tax system and market forces to downsize and move to a less economically active area where it's cheaper and they won't be excluding the more productive age groups from somewhere convenient and suitable to live. Single pensioners occupying a million plus family sized home in London isn't good for the economy, or even for them.

There's already a massive incentive for people to move to a smaller house in cheap towns. That's why we already have so many clapped out seaside towns where only wrinklies and junkies live! If despite that incentive large groups of retired people want to stay in their communities close to their friends, families and support networks, then that seems fair enough.

Of course, if you want to pursue the line that benefits claimants shouldn't live in expensive towns and balanced communities don't matter, then presumably you'd also be in favour of stopping Housing Benefit in those same markets?

Besides, if you're really concerned about tax revenue, why are you lot so keen to force oldies to sell up? They'll only go and spend the money, mostly on the Algarve. Wait a few years and the state can have a big whack of that money through inheritance tax...

Posted by: Edukator

↑

Also, the pensioners who have a million quid in assets are probably the ones who paid in more in tax than they received in upkeep from the state across their working lives

To get back more than you pay in you have to seriously **** up and spend most of your life in prison. 🙂

Only a tiny part of the tax you ever pay is ever going to come back in "upkeep".

This is, by the way, completely wrong. 20%-40% of households in the UK get more from the state than they pay in (depending on how you treat pensioners). But obviously in a progressive/redistributive tax and benefits system you have to have some people that "get out" more than they pay in - otherwise there would be no point in having it!

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/comment/give-or-take-whos-making-a-positive-net-tax-contribution/

It also depends on how you calculate "benefits" of the tax system, people who profit from assets receive benefits from law and order, government infrastructure, the education and welfare of their employees beyond the "take" they receive in their personal lives. As an employee you can probably draw a more direct line between what you give and take, as a asset owner you also take a percentage of the advantage of those you stand on the shoulders of to lift your wealth higher.

Posted by: MonkeySpacePilot

↑

people who profit from assets receive benefits from law and order, government infrastructure, the education and welfare of their [peers] beyond the "take" they receive in their personal lives

So do everyone else. 🤷

Right now Badenoch making the case for hard-right policies is simply helping Reform because she is doing their work for them.

Which is why she, and the Tories under her so-called leadership are an irrelevance unless they merge with Reform.

I don't give a toss what she thinks.

I am still interested in why a Labour government, hand-wringing over cutting benefits to save £5bn in five years time won't even acknowledge the extra £100bn per year GDP we could have pretty much overnight from (re)joining the Single Market and Customs Union, though.

I guess it must be a priorities thing.

So do everyone else

But not an equal share. Some get a far greater benefit than others

But obviously in a progressive/redistributive tax and benefits system you have to have some people that "get out" more than they pay in - otherwise there would be no point in having it!

That's why we run deficits. There has to be net government money in the economy. (which drives GDP.)

This is what the Labour lot don't understand.

The tax system is there to help with the distribution of that.

Paying for stuff is not an issue - government money is meant to prop up the stuff that doesn't work so well and be the back-stop (based on outcomes defined by policy and resources.) The private sector is designed to take over once the state has done its job.

Where it's delusionary - is expecting the private sector to fill in the gaps as the state shrinks. That just simply leaves people in a mess.

It really isn't a complex system if we can decide on good outcomes - the money is there - you just need a party to get their head around it and stop pandering to The Daily Mail way of thinking.

As always, and explained in the Spirit Level - lift the bottom up and the rest gets better.

I am still interested in why a Labour government, hand-wringing over cutting benefits to save £5bn in five years time won't even acknowledge the extra £100bn per year GDP we could have pretty much overnight from (re)joining the Single Market and Customs Union, though.

Worse than that they don't get pounds from another source. Only the UK government can create pounds.

So when you export you give away real resources for pounds - which is something the UK government can supply whenever it wants.

As said many times -most economic thinking is back to front.

Look at Trump - he's likely using up US resources now to get dollars back via exports. It makes no sense. You may as well use imports and resources from other places if you want to optimise what you have - and in his case everyone wants the dollar!

I am still interested in why a Labour government, hand-wringing over cutting benefits to save £5bn in five years time won't even acknowledge the extra £100bn per year GDP we could have pretty much overnight from (re)joining the Single Market and Customs Union, though.

Worse than that they don't get pounds from another source. Only the UK government can create pounds.

So when you export you give away real resources for pounds - which is something the UK government can supply whenever it wants.

As said many times -most economic thinking is back to front.

Look at Trump - he's likely using up US resources now to get dollars back via exports. It makes no sense. You may as well use imports and resources from other places if you want to optimise what you have - and in his case everyone wants the dollar!

It really is time to acknowledge Tax and Spend doesn't work as an accurate description of finances and just as importantly no party actually wants to tax the correct group of people anyway. There is no appetite for big taxation where it counts.

So austerity is all we are going to get because of this unless someone is prepared to run a bigger deficit - and that's taken of with Fiscal rules.

It's totally Thatcherite and self-imposed.

You didn't have to be an expert - even a couple of years ago, to realise growth wasn't going to come to allegedly pay for the state. Many of us said as much. The record was there.

SPEND FIRST - FIX STUFF - GROWTH - TAX is the correct process.

Spending plans have been increased by twice as much as planned tax increases. Most spending increases are also front loaded (spend it soon), while much of the tax increase is about future tax take (inheritance tax changes for example). 

So do everyone else. 🤷

You really need to try reading and thinking a bit more.

I see some of the centrists have now started to realise what a sham this "labour" government is, just the right wingers still trying to obfuscate and justify their hard right stance.

Even the new right wing German government have realised they need a big spend into the economy, 500 billion more for infrastructure and defence, including an additional 100 billion for renewable energy, while the austerity dogma obsessed UK government are raiding disability benefits and downgraded their renewable energy commitment from 28 billion to what do we have now 5 or 3 billion, and that will probably evaporate soon as the tempretures rise.

Posted by: Oakwood

↑

Right now Badenoch making the case for hard-right policies is simply helping Reform because she is doing their work for them.

Which is why she, and the Tories under her so-called leadership are an irrelevance unless they merge with Reform.

 

I don't give a toss what she thinks.

It would be remarkably stupid if Reform were to accept a merger with the Tories. Currently Reform's main selling point is that they are not one of the three established parties, they particularly attract disaffected Tory voters. A merger with the Tories would instantly undermine that main selling point.

Reform would be very daft to accept a merger which they don't need and would likely damage them especially as they currently have a reasonable chance of emerging as the largest party after the next general election.

Well that means Badenoch is even more of an irrelevance, then.

🙂

The whole Tory Party is currently irrelevant, not just Badenoch. Starmer has taken over the part of the political spectrum which the Tories have traditionally occupied and the Tories moving further right, as they are attempting to do, won't help them because that position is now occupied very effectively by Reform.

Which is why I suggested that their only realistic option to deal with the existential threat they are facing is to move very slightly to the left of the Labour Party, that part of the UK political spectrum is currently underoccupied, unlike the overcrowded right of the spectrum. 

And moving very slightly to the left of Starmer's Labour wouldn't be such a big deal for the Tories imo, it would still put them mostly to the right of Thatcher.

And moving very slightly to the left of Starmer's Labour wouldn't be such a big deal for the Tories imo, it would still put them mostly to the right of Thatcher

In terms of direct financial support Tories have offered more up than Starmer - in previous months.

(That said Tories put way too much emphasis on tax cuts being the golden nugget.)

Fiscally left would be the king-maker. Just don't call it left-wing or centrist's would shit themselves more about the the government doing its job properly.

What a bizarre world.