UK Election!

Grant Shapps says a super-majority would be bad for accountability.

This from a man who ran three aliases to conduct his fraudulent business, threatened to sue on of his own constituents for revealing those aliases, then (when his bluff was called) backed down saying he had “over-firmly denied” using those aliases.

Accountability.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Can you afford Sky telly? I think that’s the benchmark today

There was a time when the bourgeoisie considered having Sky TV or a large television terribly déclassé. I think that attitude ended at about the time The Sopanos came out, maybe a little after that.

There was a time when the bourgeoisie considered having Sky TV or a large television terribly déclassé.

Yes, who wants one of those ghastly dishes defacing the facade of their lovely Georgian townhouse?

Well I know it’s been suggested before but I’m in favour of a single much higher tax figure along with a much much higher tax threshold.

how long before Lil’ Ol’ Rishi, looking at fun loving Ed, thinks yeah I can do that and jumps out of a plane without a parachute! :?

We’re very good at taxing productivity and very bad at taxing rent-seeking and other asset-based wealth leveraging. It’s no wonder we have a productivity crisis and a housing market that consumes our earnings disproportionately.

Can we have Ed Davey pictured riding a mountain bike please?

Even better get him an instructor for a couple of hours to teach him to jump first.

There was a time when the bourgeoisie considered having Sky TV or a large television terribly déclassé. I think that attitude ended at about the time The Sopanos came out, maybe a little after that.

And that makes me sad. I also pine for the days when having an ageing Volvo estate with moss round the windows and tartan rugs in the back was a signifier of proper breeding too.

https://x.com/WeAreCyclingUK/status/1800540891175882993?t=wwcG3jGA-yhqgXfzZxLOFA&s=19

(2) In a diversion from the government’s 2020 Cycling and walking Investment Strategy (CWIS), the Conservatives are de-prioritising active travel and pushing for a new ‘Backing Drivers Bill’.

I’ve always been amused by what different people have in mind when wanting to tax “rich” people.

A lot of people seem to consider it to mean anyone whose yearly income is more than a couple of their own monthly paychecks, or whose lifestyle they can relate to but see that it’s a bit better than their own. So you have even 27k salaries and 7 year old Golfs being viewed as rich by some.

Grant Shapps says a super-majority would be bad for accountability.

Geoffrey Cox has just said ‘the country is sleep-walking into a one party socialist state’  😂😂

Sounds good, presumably he is not talking about Starmers Labour party though.

you have even 27k salaries and 7 year old Golfs being viewed as rich by some.

So it shouldn’t be government’s role to politicise and weaponise the fact that wealth is naturally relative. Big state making things “fairer” by raising taxes does the opposite. I remember being homeless, with no transport and holes in my trainers and at no point did I think the situation would be improved if only some people were taxed more.

There was a time when the bourgeoisie considered having Sky TV or a large television terribly déclassé. I think that attitude ended at about the time The Sopanos came out, maybe a little after that.

Exactly. A couple of pages back you have someone calling free channels “Council TV” – which is the exact opposite of the meaning of that delightfully snobby phrase (eg. see todays Guardian). As a public school boy I can guarantee having Sky would not have been not aspirational to Rishi, it would have been an insult. I would say that’s why he chose it as an example – in his mind it would demonstrate he’s down with the common man.

I remember being homeless, with no transport and holes in my trainers and at no point did I think the situation would be improved if only some people were taxed more.

That is down to what is done with money rather that tax.

It’s ironic that Europe is increasingly voting to the Right, but as the Tories are being punished for not actually being right wing, Britain will lurch in the opposite direction as the only alternative option are Reform who are too new to get a foothold in parliament

They do a good job of minimizing tax paid on declared earnings but also have an envelope that is always pretty full.

HMRC have a service you can call to get it looked at.

A lot of people seem to consider it to mean anyone whose yearly income is higher than theirs by more than a couple of their own monthly paychecks

Added bold bit for clarification. But I think people above knew what I meant.

Reform who are too new to get a foothold in parliament

Do you mean that their name is too new?

Next month will mark Nigel Farage’s eighth attempt to get into parliament.

That obviously covers a good few years. Nigel Farage has been around a very long time, everyone has known about him and his constantly renamed parties for a very long time.

… the Tories are being punished for not actually being right wing …

Yeah, that’s definitely what they’re being punished for alright.

Yeah, that’s definitely what they’re being punished for alright.

Look how support for the Tories collapsed and never really recovered after Liz Truss’s mini budget.

I am sure that grimep considers that Liz Truss wasn’t right-wing enough.

? NEW: Rishi Sunak tells a year 7 child that he needs maths to become a professional snooker player

[@christopherhope]

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) June 12, 2024

but as the Tories are being punished for not actually being right wing.

I do think it’s brilliant that that’s the conclusion most Tories seem to have already reached, bless ‘em

The political wilderness beckons…..

” Labour will win, but inherit a shit show which they can’t resolve within 4 years even if they had brave, excellent ideas”

Labour don’t have to resolve things within 4 years but they do have to show they have started resolving them and the world will be a better place if they’re allowed to continue doing so. If they don’t, they’ll let the Tories, or someone worse, in for another 14 years…

I’ve always been amused by what different people have in mind when wanting to tax “rich” people.

A lot of people seem to consider it to mean anyone whose yearly income is more than a couple of their own monthly paychecks, or whose lifestyle they can relate to but see that it’s a bit better than their own. So you have even 27k salaries and 7 year old Golfs being viewed as rich by some.

Whenever I’ve had a discussion on tax with someone – they almost alway agree that wealthier people should pay more.  And usually think that the threshold for that is a little above the salary they hope to one day get themselves!  In otherwords – people who earn more than me should pay more.  if you you a fairly new teacher or nurse on £30K then perhaps that threshold in your head is £40something – becuase you can see how to progress to that without a major promotion.  If you are an experienced teacher or nurse already on £45K – then you think you should be able to be promoted to deputy head / very senior nurse without getting punished!  So probably think 60k!   Ask a 35 yr old software developer on £60K and they’ll say its really the six figures people who should pay more!  Ask the guy on minimum wage – anyone getting £27K is rich…

I’m always surprised that we really just have two rates of tax ~ 20% and ~ 40%.  Its quite a dramatic jump.  Personally I think it should probably be taxed as a household income though.  Two people on 45K pa are paying less tax that a couple with one earner on 90K and one on nothing.  If they’ve got a couple of kids that will be even more obvious.

Two people on 45K pa are paying less tax that a couple with one earner on 90K and one on nothing.  If they’ve got a couple of kids that will be even more obvious

I’d agree, however not sure how practical that would be to administer. The arguement could also be made that if one of the family choose* to stay at home it brings its own benefits, both financially (ie child care) and otherwise.

For example,  In Scotland a couple on 30k each would be 5k better off than if only one of them worked on 60k. Obviously some if not all of that would be offset depending on circumstances (child care savings, not having to travel etc)

* not everyone is able to work

I’m always surprised that we really just have two rates of tax ~ 20% and ~ 40%. Its quite a dramatic jump.

It’s not because of how marginal tax rates work. If you were earning right up to the 20% limit and get a pay rise of £1000 then you’ll pay £400 more tax and take home £600.

(Not saying this is you btw, but) Too many people think a 20% rate up to £50k and 40% above that would mean if you earn £50k you pay 20% of that, so £10k in tax, and if you earn £50,001 you pay 40% of that, so £20k in tax. When in reality at £50,001 you’d pay 40p more tax on the £1 extra and take home an extra 60p.

The other factor is that at £50k your NI contribution goes down to 2%. So combined tax and NI of 42%.

Not a huge jump from the under £50k combined tax and NI of 28%.

(Different in Scotland)

Grant Shapps says a super-majority would be bad for accountability.

Which is a bit rich from a party that’s resisted all attempts to change the voting system to anything that would make a supermajority harder.

The thing is – tax is an emotive topic. As most are saying, there is an acknowledgement that the wealthier should shoulder a bigger burden “as they can afford it”. But we have no agreement on where that boundary is. It’s also not as simple as deciding that those who have a lot of wealth in, say property, should be taxed on that wealth because, in a lot of cases, it’s only paper wealth. It could be a substantial property that, perhaps, they inherited. Or that they bought in better times and were lucky. But that wealth does nothing for them day-to-day. They aren’t earning money from it – as they aren’t selling it. I am fortunate in that I currently earn a reasonable salary. My wife is on a zero hours contract and earns little more than pocket money. For me personally, while I believe we should have better (make that functioning) public services and that I am ok with the principle that those who earn more should pay more I also feel that I’m already doing that. I despair at the waste of public money through either inefficiency, stupidity, dogmatism, the general failure to find good administration or a combination of all of them. It’s easy for those on lower incomes to say that those on a higher salary should pay a higher proportion because, like most situations like that, they know it doesn’t affect them. It’s someone else paying it. We do need a complete overhaul of the taxation system to make it simpler, more efficient and fairer. I don’t know exactly what that looks like though!

I also pine for the days when having an ageing Volvo estate with moss round the windows and tartan rugs in the back was a signifier of proper breeding too.

I’m afraid those days are gone now and little Crysanthemum’s school drop-off is now marred by people driving those frightfully garish Teslas.

Yesterday I was happy to see someone keeping up the tradition of antique dealers/French polishers/fine carpenters driving ancient Volvo estates.

The other factor is that at £50k your NI contribution goes down to 2%. So combined tax and NI of 42%.

Which was a change introduced not all that long ago IIRC. Previously, once you got to the higher rate tax band you didn’t pay any NI on the additional earnings

I think a bigger problem than tax is where the money flows.  For example (MMT fans close your ears) we use tax money to give to poor people to pay their rent, but that goes straight into the pocket of rich people directly and/or when they ultimately sell the property they’ve invested in.  The ability to buy a house to let means you are taking poor people’s money, and the ability to do that means that house then becomes more valuable to other rich people, making it harder for those poor people to buy their own houses and get out of the trap they’re in.

When you think about it, that’s pretty **** up.

Yep, ‘right to buy’ was the biggest and most devastating of all the privatisations.

Grant Shapps says a super-majority would be bad for accountability.

It’s nonsense to be honest.

https://x.com/IanDunt/status/1800790479644324339

Ian Dunt has written a very good book on Westminster…

 a super-majority would be bad for accountability.

That claim was made on this thread about a week ago.

However big the Labour majority the government will still be accountable to parliament in the first instance and then ultimately to the electorate.

The Tory Party does not have some sort of indispensable role in the democratic process.

Given Starmer’s propensity for sacking off socialists and installing dubious placemen (sic), he’d probably regard a large majority as strengthening his hand and carry on accordingly.

The Tory Party does not have some sort of indispensable role in the democratic process.

Well put. Opposition, within parties and between parties, is key. But the Tories don’t need to be at the centre of anything. Other parties can grow or be built. Remember, there was a time when we had no Labour party.

he’d probably regard a large majority as strengthening his hand

The larger the parliamentary party the more difficult it is to control, and that applies to any party.

Small majorities provide the opportunity for leaders to run a tight ship.

ffs you’d thought the leave campaign had achieved a supermajority the way they imposed the most damaging brexit possible on us, going by that if he ends up with a 400 seat majority he could abolish the royal family with the house of lords if he wanted and the right would have shit all to say about it.