Rishi! Sunak!

Grace Blakeley pointing out in answer that the main problem isn’t just her politics but the fact that she openly came out and defended a rapist and belittled his victims, trying to interfere in the judicial process on the way, causing her to be suspended from Parliament.

The Labour Party shouldn’t be touching her with the proverbial barge pole

Lisa Nandy drew the short straw tonight, trying to defend this.

Elphicke will be a political irrelevance in two weeks – or less.

For the very small proportion of the UK population who are politically engaged, this is a very big deal.

For the vast majority of the population, they don’t know who she is; they care even less and she will not be a factor in their voting intentions.

I would have preferred Starmer to say…thanks but, no thanks.

To summarise the debate about Elphicke into one word – froth.

Not one single person in the BBC QT audience put their hand up when asked whether they thought Elphicke would be an asset to the Labour Party.

Elphicke being welcomed into the Labour Party seems to have pissed off a fair few Labour politicians and party members for very little in return.

Keir Starmer to unveil Labour plan to tackle small boat crossings

Anyone want to take a guess on which part of the country he will be unveiling the plans?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68984778

You have posted it on the wrong thread poops.

You’ll get told off.

Elphicke can be seen as…asset, liability or irrelevance.

She is definitely the latter.

Today’s news is tomorrow’s chip paper sums it up.

Nicely summed by John Crace:

Defections tend to be one-day wonders. An awkward photo op with your new party leader. Thirty minutes in the limelight at prime minister’s questions. And then oblivion. Seldom to be seen or heard of again.

Labour must have been hoping that Natalie Elphicke would follow a similar trajectory. Another embarrassing day for the government. Tories wondering if the game is up if Rishi Sunak can’t even keep the rightwing headbangers in his party on side. It hasn’t quite panned out like this. The reverberations of Nat’s defection have continued into a second day. And the embarrassment is almost all Labour’s.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/09/labour-crash-and-burn-party-cant-defend-natalie-elphicke-defection

“Grace Blakeley pointing out in answer that the main problem isn’t just her politics but the fact that she openly came out and defended a rapist and belittled his victims, trying to interfere in the judicial process on the way, causing her to be suspended from Parliament.”

I think the bigger problem is that the second part of that sentence seems to actually be ‘politics’ more of the time nowadays.

Getting back to the more important stuff… Jeremy ‘Silent C’ Hunt has been doing the rounds this morning and seems to be describing the economy of another country. One that only exists in his head.

Apparently we’re living in the midst of an economic miracle and we’ve never had it so good.

He also seems to be hinting at having another tilt at Trussenomics before the general election with unfunded tax cuts

…and why not? It went so well last time

https://news.sky.com/story/recession-is-over-with-a-bang-but-will-voters-forgive-the-government-for-years-of-economic-disappointment-13132634

Time for Tory myth-makers and their friends in the press to do their magic…… forget about the last 7 years, focus on the bright future, and don’t let Labour trash the economy like everyone knows they always do.

Will Rishi Sunak finally abandon the Rwanda nonsense, which is not winning the Tories votes and is helping to make Reform UK politically relevant, and start banging on about “the fastest growing G7 economy”?

And if he does how will Labour respond – by lurching further to the right in a desperate attempt to convince voters of their conservative credentials and how they can be “trusted” with the economy?

I think the bigger problem is that the second part of that sentence seems to actually be ‘politics’ more of the time nowadays.

No it was an extreme case of politicians trying to interfere on a private level as opposed to the more routine case of them whining about writing laws badly and not being happy with how a judge understands their word salad.

He also seems to be hinting at having another tilt at Trussenomics before the general election with unfunded tax cuts

There you go again opposing much needed tax cuts for working people. Truss’s tax cuts failed because they were targeted at the rich. Tax cuts for working people would be an economic boost and would mitigate the effects of Truss’s failed experiment. I’m confused  why you and other progressives are opposed to them.

There you go again opposing much needed tax cuts for working people

… renowned as the Tories are for their absolute commitment to targeting tax cuts at ‘working people’ and not their rich mates?

… renowned as the Tories are for their absolute commitment to targeting tax cuts at ‘working people’ and not their rich mates?

I presume you missed the two cuts to NI which primarily benefitted people on the basic tax rate? You’re right that Truss’s cuts were focused on the rich, which is why they didn’t work. Since then though they’ve been focused on working people.

Anyone want to take a guess on which part of the country he will be unveiling the plans?

Is it Stornoway? Sheffield? Penzance? Or the place where the whole small boats thing is actually happening?

All the while the tax threshold for paying income tax remains frozen (iirc introduced by Sunak in the aftermath of COVID) meaning that those on lower incomes are paying more tax than they were before.  Christ even some of sensible Tories argue that you should pay income tax if you earn minimum wage.

All the while the tax threshold for paying income tax remains frozen (iirc introduced by Sunak in the aftermath of COVID) meaning that those on lower incomes are paying more tax than they were before.

Very true. My preferred method of tax cuts would be to restore the link between the thresholds and inflation and raise them to what they should be if they weren’t frozen, but until that happens anything else that reduces the amount of tax working people pay is welcome. Are labour proposing to address the thresholds? I haven’t heard anything about that, and centrist labour supporters on here seem to want higher taxes which seems a bit of an odd position for progressives to take.

You have to factor in when discussing tax – currently the BoE/Government is paying people with money around 5% on assets.

So people with money are already getting a tax cut via interest income.

That interest income is equivalent to running a large government deficit. So let’s not pretend a tax cut needs funding.

You can’t simply talk about tax as a means to fund things. It’s role is  redistribution or deleting money from the economy to stem inflation from government spending. We don’t have inflation from government spending but from supply shocks.

The whole thing is a pig’s ear skewed towards those with wealth.

It’s role is  redistribution or deleting money from the economy to stem inflation from government spending.

Yup. Fiscal policy is the most effective instrument to implement progressive redistribution, not that you’d think that from the centrists on here. All I’m hearing from them is that they want taxes for working people to be higher so that we can ‘pay for’ stuff. And they wonder why some working people vote tory!?

It’s your definition of “working people” that’s the problem. Arguably lots of people currently paying taxes on their working income could and should be paying more, while others are paying too much, especially when the share of their income going into non-optional expenditure such as utilities and rent has risen so much in recent years. Lumping all workers together when discussing tax changes is over simplifying in search of an argument.

Defending Tory tax cuts that throw crumbs to the less well off, while handsomely rewarding those on upper incomes, is the odd thing going on here. Tax reforms aimed at those whose income comes from capital not work is indeed needed. That doesn’t mean that all workers need and should get tax cuts at a time where the state should be doing more not less.

Arguably lots of people currently paying taxes on their working income could and should be paying more

So what’s the threshold at which they should be paying more? 20k, 30k, 40k, 50k?

while handsomely rewarding those on upper incomes

Again, what’s your threshold for ‘upper’ income?

As a typical case study I have a good friend who is a senior probation officer earning around 44k per year. A single mother with a daughter about to go to university. She’s been hugeley impacted by the increases in energy bills, food prices, and interest rates on her mortgage, and is now worrying that she won’t be able to cover the contribution required towards her daughters living expenses at university (on top of loans). Is she ‘upper income’ who should be paying more tax? I can assure you she would disagree.

“My” thresholds? Any tax cuts should be targeted at those earning under £30k, with the same increase in benefits for those who can’t work. Those earning over £50k should be probably be paying more. All that should come after changes to taxes on capital and wealth, where the real changes are needed. Having a nice big barney about giving tax breaks to people on £40k is lovely for the Tories… and doesn’t help the people who really need help, or form part of any half decent strategy for increasing investment without runaway inflation. It’s unsurprising that a government on the way out will throw the chance of future tax breaks at “working people”… one way to cover up failure in government is to offer a pretence of at least doing it on the cheap… when the truth is that we’re all paying more in tax thanks to the way the Tories have been running the country.

So what’s the threshold at which they should be paying more? 20k, 30k, 40k, 50k?

That looks like SRIT which is more progressive (but still bound to UK banding). Obviously you’ll be against that.

Why do we even have NI anyway? Makes no sense paying two taxes at the same time which go to the same pot.

Any tax cuts should be targeted at those earning under £30k

So you think anyone on more than 30k can afford the increases in the cost of living and mortgages? I don’t disagree that tax cuts should be targeted at those on lower incomes, and that could very effectively be done by raising the thresholds to where they should be if they weren’t frozen, but I reckon you’re way off if you think >30k is comfortable enough to absorb all the recent increases.

And those on 50k are already paying significantly more tax thanks to the threshold for the higher rate being frozen, and you want to make them pay more?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-12644069/How-frozen-income-tax-bands-cost-average-worker-following-Septembers-inflation-reading.html

I reckon you’re way off if you think >30k is comfortable enough to absorb all the recent increases.

I don’t think that. I think that those under £30k need the help more, and would still be worse off than they were not that long ago even with the help. We’re nearly all worse off. And room for tax cuts, if/when it comes, should be targeted at those genuinely struggling while living very meagre lives, not the well off on £40k+ in their big homes with big mortgages and higher than average bills.

I don’t think that.

But you don’t think they deserve/need a tax cut. So presumably your message to anyone earning between 30-50k (like my friend) is ‘shit happens’?

not the well off in their big homes with big mortgages and higher than average bills.

The friend I referred to above lives in a two-bed terrace with no garden and drives a 10-year old skoda. 🤔

I’m in that bracket. Time is shit money wise. I appreciate how much harder it is for others.

The friend I referred to above lives in a two-bed terrace with no garden and drives a 10-year old skoda.

And others are far worse off.

The answer to none of this is tax cuts right now though, it’s sorting out the shit all around us… health, schools, trains, roads, energy…

I appreciate how much harder it is for others.

It is, but your differentiation between those on lower incomes and those on 30k-50k is false. Why do you want to punish the people who don’t earn massive amounts but are comfortable enough not to be starving? Most of the people in this bracket are key-workers who we couldn’t do without such as teachers, paramedics, police officers, social workers, junior doctors, nurses etc. Seems odd that you don’t think this cohort of people should be given a little bit of help to cope with stuff that’s beyond their control. 😕

And others are far worse off.

Yes but I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t get the support they need. Quite the opposite in fact.

your differentiation between those on lower incomes and those on 30k-50k is false

If you think the problems facing those on lower incomes is the same as those on middle incomes… well… I disagree. Do I think that we’re all worse off? Yes.

Also, the whole idea that “help” should come from tax cuts, not improving living standards through the means available to the state… well, it’s all very Tory… very American even. The essential staff you talk about need higher staffing levels and increased wages.

Why are you all arguing about how well off you are at a given level of income?  Household income and number of dependents are the main factors, then there’s a whole host of other things that you might not need or might be forced to pay for.  Someone on £30k who cohabits with someone else on £30k in a small flat in a town centre within walking distance from their job is going to have a lot more disposable income than someone on £30k whose partner left them and two kids and needs a car to get to the only job they could find etc etc.

Or even worse… three kids*. And that’s where benefits come in. Direct taxation levels are crudely based on income levels. Adjusting for circumstance and need beyond a crude assessment of income is done though benefits, which the Tories want to cut.

[ the consensus between the parties as regards not paying benefits beyond the second child is plain wrong ]

well, it’s all very Tory… very American even. The essential staff you talk about need higher staffing levels and increased wages.

The only thing I care about is that working people can afford a decent life, and I’m not interested in trying to divide those at the very bottom with those slightly better off than them. The real divide is between those who derive their income from wealth and assets and those who have to work for it. Totally with you on wealth taxes and capital gains, and if it was down to me I’d abolish income tax altogether and massively hike taxes on wealth and assets instead. Whether working people get help via higher wages or lower taxes is pretty irrelevant, especially in the public sector as it’s just recycling money between govt accounts. The bottom line is almost everyone who needs to work is (a lot) poorer now than they used to be, and fiscal policy is the best method for addressing that both for those on low incomes on those in the middle.

I liked that last post of yours Dazh… any disagreement I have with it just nuance really, based on “how” you do that stuff. Too often we’ve seen “help for workers” via tax cuts mean crumbs for the people who most need it, and a bolstering of the wealth of higher earners… paired with reductions in services that the former group need far more that the later.

All I’m hearing from them is that they want taxes for working people to be higher so that we can ‘pay for’ stuff

Now your just making shit up to cause trouble and provoke people. No one has said they want taxes to increase for the lowest paid as you insinuate with that kind of wording there.

Now your just making shit up to cause trouble and provoke people. No one has said they want taxes to increase for the lowest paid as you insinuate with that kind of wording there.

Nope. The tories are proposing further cuts to NI (or even aboloshing it), and labour centrists on here (and elsewhere) think that’s a bad idea because ‘we can’t afford it’. The end result will be higher taxes for working people.

The other point is that I’m challenging the idea that paying tax is somehow a noble thing because it contributes to society and permits us to do stuff. The only thing it does is control inflation and provide a highly efficient mechanism for redistributing wealth and affecting economic behaviour. If we don’t use that ability to redistribute then it’s just a money destruction mechanism which might be useful in macro-economic terms but fairly irrelevant for anything else.

if it was down to me I’d abolish income tax altogether and massively hike taxes on wealth and assets instead

Then C&H becomes an effective tax minimisation strategy…

The other point is that I’m challenging the idea that paying tax is somehow a noble thing because it contributes to society and permits us to do stuff.

It still does. This is just the same MMT argument all over again. Taxes not directly paying for government spending does not mean that taxes are irrelevant. They are absolutely key.

They are absolutely key.

Yes for controlling inflation. But if you’re not going to use them for redistribution, for instance by reducing income taxes and NI for working people and increasing taxes on the rich, then they’re worthless as a policy tool. I suppose it comes down to what sort of economy we want? Do we want a massively divided economy where enormous sums of money are hoarded by a small minority who don’t work and consume an awful lot, or do we want an economy where people feel secure and are motivated to contribute via work and other activities? If the latter then we need to reduce taxes on working.

How about you increase taxes on the rich (by removing their multitude of means of avoiding tax), and get on with the job of fixing public services, while also keeping inflation under control. The path out of our current cost of living crises isn’t just a simple tax break… although that’s what Sunak is likely to be offering come an election (knowing he won’t be around to worry about it not working).