UK Government Thread

when people on any extreme of the political spectrum use the term ‘centrist’ as an insult to people who are more moderate

No people are described as “centrist” because its a political term. Admittedly a problematic one just like “left”, “right” or “extreme” but so far all attempts to replace them with the political compass etc have had limited success because its such a messy subject.

In the UK its generally defined as politically right wing and socially left wing. Note though that there doesnt have to be anything “moderate” about those positions. Someone can hold extreme positions whilst still being a centrist and can be just as inflexible and unwilling to change their mind as anyone else on the political spectrum.

A lot of people like calling themselves centrists, I think they equate it to moderation or being well balanced with a mix of views.

They don’t tend to share which right wing policies keep them in the centre..

Starmer supporters should have really just voted Lib Dem leaving left wing people with their Labour Party

I keep saying this, but i don’t think any of us are ‘Starmer supporters’, we support the government at this moment in time, of which, Starmer is the PM. You give Starmer too much credit, as if he is some type of individual who has the capacity to control a party, and then an entire government, he is just a little cog in the government machine.

The fact is the Labour Party is closer to centrist than to an actual Labour Party.

Depends what you mean by ‘Labour Party’ . Historically the Labour Party, as opposed to the Fabian Society, have always promoted policies that are socially conservative (small ‘c’) with an emphasis on education, work, abstinence, public service, patriotism, law and order, and social welfare. It’s the Fabien Society (historically; intellectual, wealthier, more socially liberal) that has been the progressive wing of the party since they merged in 1900. So you could make a pretty convincing argument that Starmer’s Labour [so far] has been true to Labour’s founding principles

We’ve still got one 🙂

No we haven’t. I might not be happy with what they are doing, but they are not a Tory government.

The only difference between them at the moment is that they are not such big **** but let’s wait and see what real differences anyone notices after 5 years.

I keep saying this, but i don’t think any of us are ‘Starmer supporters’, we support the government at this moment in time, of which, Starmer is the PM. You give Starmer too much credit

You are absolutely a Starmer supporter/apologist. Starmer is the leader of the party and is shaping the party to how he sees fit so he gets the credit for that.

Starmer is infinity better than Truss, BoJo and Rishi and won a big majority from those who voted. Since 1945 the left have never won such a mandate.

Round and round…

I’m left wing. The Labour Party has always been to the right of my own preferred policies. Under every leader it has had in my lifetime. But the game I won’t play is…

”What do we want?” “Polarisation!”

”What are we against?” “Compromising with the voters!”

”Who do we hate?” “Those who seek to run the country for all, not just for me, in my way!”

You are absolutely a Starmer supporter/apologist. Starmer is the leader of the party and is shaping the party to how he sees fit so he gets the credit for that.

Never understand this type of response, as if i don’t understand my own thinking, it’s just a weird thing to write.

As for Starmer, yet again, the only reason i defend him (and the rest), is down to the amount of absurd accusations and conjecture stated in this thread around him, Reeves, etc, they’re personal attacks without any real evidence. If he were to be found guilty of something fraudulent, or similar, i wouldn’t think of backing him, and i wouldn’t care who replaced him.

It just seems to be a real hatred of Starmer that i just can’t get my head round, one minute we’re being told on this thread that he has no understanding of the treasury and so on, and has to be hand held by Reeves, etc to make decisions, then the next minute it’s all about him, he is an Elon Musk megamind style leader, it’s hard to keep up with what you folk despise about him and the rest of the cabinet, well except that they’re not left leaning socialists attempting to govern an entire country on whimsical policies that have never been attempted in the western world.

I keep saying this, but i don’t think any of us are ‘Starmer supporters’

I am and so’s my wife

Its because he turned on the left’s messiah Corbyn who turned out to be an unelectable boy.

edit: dam, beat me to it.

They don’t tend to share which right wing policies keep them in the centre..

God there’s some shite spouted on here sometimes.

On a spectrum of hard left to hard right, you can be in the centre without supporting any right wing policies.

But division has always been the best way to keep the population under control.

they’re not left leaning socialists attempting to govern an entire country on whimsical policies that have never been attempted in the western world.

WTF are you talking about? Those left-leaning ‘whimsical’ (I have no idea what that means BTW) policies were responsible for the largest period of economic growth, improvement in living conditions and quality of life, reduction in poverty and inequality and increase in wealth we’ve ever seen. The entire western world is where it is today because it implemented socialist economic policies in the 30 year period after WWII. Those policies are literally the foundation of everything we see today, and they’re now being eroded and dismantled by politicians of all colours. Poverty is now out of control, inequality is destorying and polarising our societies, and the mega rich exercise oligarchic power over millions to further their own interests. Whimsical? FFS!

They don’t tend to share which right wing policies keep them in the centre…

Well, most people accept that capitalism should be part of our world… but that the state should put limits in it, both by running or owning stuff itself outright, or by laws and regulation. Most are on that spectrum now, including people I know who declare themselves communists and those who claim that they’re all in favour of “free” markets. It’s all degrees. Should shops selling alcohol all be state owned? Or be privately owned but strictly licensed with controls over who can run them and who they can sell to? Etc…

The only question I ever really ask of politicians is what are they doing to control, limit or reduce the wealth and power of the super-rich? Given Starmer and many labour MPs willingness to accept gifts from them I think we know where they stand. Centrists seem to have this view that the super-rich are untouchable, and their job is to make the best of whatever’s left for the rest of us whilst not upsetting them. It’s a peculiarly defeatist and cowardly mindset.

Which of the declared “gift givers” is against increasing taxes and control over those with capital?

Do you consider, for example, that Lord Alli helped the Labour party get elected for his own financial gain? Sounds like a different man to me.

Which of the declared “gift givers” is against increasing taxes and control over those with capital?

Can only be Lord Waheed Alli, the life peer who sits in the house of lords on the Labour benches, and who has been a labour supporter, campaigner and donor for over two decades.

is against increasing taxes and control over those with capital?

Care to tell me what labour policies are doing that? So far the three major economic things they’ve done is refuse to abolish the 2-child cap, take away the winter fuel allowance from people who need it, and declared a crackdown on benefit fraud. When they start talking about sweeping wealth taxes, massive increases in captial gains tax and the elimination of every loophole used by the rich to avoid paying then I’ll agree. Unitl then the rest is just window dressing designed to buy them enough votes to be in power.

Tax shifts towards those with “the broadest shoulders” will be incremental, in a series of budgets. There will be no great leap forward. But Labour didn’t even wait for a budget to change the tax rules for private schooling and non-doms.

Tax shifts towards those with “the broadest shoulders” will be incremental

I think we all know what that means. Taxes will be increasing for those in the middle and will barely touch the top few percent. Like I said, they’re untouchable, and Labour are going to do nothing to change that.

Depends who you consider “the middle”. A term often used by the top 5%, to make the rest of us think they mean us.

 take away the winter fuel allowance from people who need it

Have they? As far as I can tell there’s a pretty sizable cohort of the over 65’s in the Super Rich category that don’t need a winter fuel allowance. The better off ‘Boomers’  – especially those with assets who still voted in numbers for the Tories in the summer are the obvious target for Reeve’s tax increases given that she’s promised not to increase taxes on VAT, wages, or profit. They’re clearly as a population, under-taxed and asset rich.

Then there’s the change to the Non-Dom rules. Which effects 74,000 of the Super Rich. Stupidly one was even in the paper trying to persuade the public that they’d all leave, to which the general response was a loud “Don’t let the door hit you on the arse on your way out, mate”

As far as I can tell there’s a pretty sizable cohort of the over 65’s in the Super Rich category that don’t need a winter fuel allowance.

Totally agree. I would means-test every state benefit including the state pension to ensure those who don’t need it don’t get anything. We all know though the the way they’re implementing the WFA cut is going to affect many people who do need it.

They’re clearly as a population, under-taxed and asset rich

Agree again. Like I said when they start talking about wealth taxes and increases in GGT I’ll give them credit where its due. It has to also impact those at the very top though, because if it doesn’t those in the middle will never accept the increases asked of them. Start at the top and work downwards. It’s really quite simple.

Oh, the top 1% are much harder to “catch” than the 4% below them, for sure. HRMC staffing and skills need fixing to even begin on that task.

Again though… when you say “the middle” who do you mean? And which new tax “increases” are coming their way from this government?

Start at the top and work downwards. It’s really quite simple.

Maybe, take the change in the non-dom rules, they currently contribute something like 1% to the treasury (about 9 billion) so changes to their status isn’t going to raise a huge amount in comparison with raising taxes on folks who’re not in the 1% but are still wealthy by comparison – the upper middle. Taxes on the Super Wealthy are undeniably popular (populist?) but difficult to deny charges of singling them out becasue you just don’t like them. Which is a daft way to run a govt, and is the same as accusing the Tories of hating the poor.

but difficult to deny charges of singling them out becasue you just don’t like them.

Too right I don’t like them, but that’s not the issue. It’s a simple question of fairness. If you’re going to ask people ‘in the middle’ to pay more, it stands to reason that those at the very top should pay at least the same as a proportion of their wealth/income as those in the middle. As I said, the view that the top 1% are untouchable is massively destructive. If we taxed people at the very top fairly, everyone below would be more willing to pay more themselves. Some of course will never accept it, but the majority would and we would be closer to achieving the high tax Scandinavian model that those on the left always go on about.

So far the three major economic things they’ve done is refuse to abolish the 2-child cap, take away the winter fuel allowance from people who need it, and declared a crackdown on benefit fraud.

The first one isn’t anything they’ve done, otherwise you could list 1000 policies they’ve not ‘abolished’, the second is as much taking away the WFA from people who don’t need it, and i think every government i’ve seen has declared a crackdown on benefit fraud, are you expecting governments to declare they’re going to ease up on it?

I would means-test every state benefit including the state pension to ensure those who don’t need it don’t get anything.

And then reducing the department budget by having more staff carrying out those checks and balances for every payment?

If you’re going to ask people ‘in the middle’ to pay more

Who is asking them to pay more?

Who do you mean by the middle?

 As I said, the view that the top 1% are untouchable is massively destructive.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard any politician claim that they’re untouchable, have they? The torie often claim that they pay their way. But the top 1% (ish) have had a consistent increase in taxes placed on them by successive govts including the coalition and onwards (from about 20% to nearly 28% now) At the same time, tax burden of the 50% of lowest earners has gone from 12.6% to less than 10%

take away the winter fuel allowance from people who need it,

As far as I can tell there’s a pretty sizable cohort of the over 65’s in the Super Rich category that don’t need a winter fuel allowance.

20-25% of pensioners are millionaires. Fact. I can’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be means tested, at the moment it sort of is because it’s now only going to be paid to those claiming pension credit (or other credits but that’s the pension one) but there’s loads eligible for PC that don’t claim it. Instead of helping; the opponents are spreading untruths that it is really difficult to claim; reality is that it can be largely sorted over the phone

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/pension-credit/

https://fullfact.org/economy/millionaire-pensioners/

20-25% of pensioners are millionaires.

And how many of that 20-25% are millionaires because they bought a house 50 years ago that is now worth loads of money. On that basis I am a millionaire even though I have very little money in savings (due to spending it all on my house!). My main hobby is cycling and I ride a £300 bike – not the sort of thing a proper millionaire would do now is it.

But yes people who could draw down against their million pound house should not be getting additional support for heating so maybe do some proper means testing rather than the rather blunt approach being taken.

On that basis I am a millionaire even though I have very little money in savings (due to spending it all on my house!). My main hobby is cycling and I ride a £300 bike – not the sort of thing a proper millionaire would do now is it.

You could draw down on your house and get a nicer bike, i live in a 250k house and won’t have that option in later years.

It’s not actually widespread for people to be living in million pound houses, a quick check on rightmove says 2 of them area nearby (3 miles away on a 1 mile search!), they are 5 or 7 bedroom, 4 or 5 bathroom houses with over 2 acres of land each!

If you are not on a defined contribution pension then a lot of pensioners will have to be millionaires just because of the assets they need to accrue in their pension to support paying out into old age, plus their house value.

How will means testing affect them (not just for winter fuel, but also for insulation grants, etc), as they may look rich now but in fact their accrued assets can’t support anywhere near the level of pension someone from the public sector will get.

On that basis I am a millionaire even though I have very little money in savings (due to spending it all on my house!).

Should you receive extra money to heat your million pound home? Should pensioners with million pound homes, full state pension, and either a private pension or savings (ie no pension credits)?

I keep saying this, but i don’t think any of us are ‘Starmer supporters’, we support the government at this moment in time, of which, Starmer is the PM.

Quoting this as it’s pretty much where I am at.

I voted for Corbyn twice but in reality my vote was for Labour as they were and are, overall, the best fit for my political views and pragmatism, with the Libdems/ Greens a close second.

Starmer is the figurehead, I believe him to fundamentally be a decent individual, ditto Corbyn, though I’ll freely say I wish he (Starmer) were further to the left than he is but if that were so…. We might still be enduring a Tory government. :/

Right or wrong (spoiler: It’s wrong imo) the UK doesn’t seem to want to elect a government further to the left. Yet.

I hope that changes and I hope Labour are there for that change.

Personally ill vote for the furthest left party that have an actual chance of gaining power, at the moment that is Labour. I know some of us on here don’t like that reality (I understand and sympathise) but it is the reality we have to work with none the less.

The millionaire pensioner households (the stat is calculated for a household where there is one pensioner, so many will be couples, and one may also be working) will usually have substantial savings as well as a house (perhaps two of those). Of course there are a few cash paupers who are struggling to live in mansions they can’t afford to heat let along maintain and haven’t the wit to downsize and release some of the capital they are sitting on, but they are few and far between and anyway encouraging them to downsize is a social, political and economic good for multiple reasons.

God there’s some shite spouted on here sometimes.

On a spectrum of hard left to hard right, you can be in the centre without supporting any right wing policies.

In theory yes but in practice to put it bluntly thats utter shite.  Parties seen as centrist tend one way on social and the other on economic.

For example new labours fondness for thatcherite ideals which are hard right.

dissonance

For example new labours fondness for thatcherite ideals which are hard right.

Not nit picking, just honestly clarifying, which policies do you mean?

Presumably not privately owned and run rail, or easy no fault evictions.

Plenty of legacy of Thatcherism still with us though, and very embedded. Some of it needs reversing asap, some is just too costly to reverse, some will become irrelevant over time, and there are even a few things that actively should be kept now even though it was handled horrifically at the time (sunset of UK coal for example).