Westminster Politics

RedChip said:
The last few pags of economic arguments and counter arguments has been quite interesting. I kind of see both sides. I wonder though, what if the last 14 years of Tory rule have broken the UK public services AND finances badly enough that it can't be fixed? That is it cannot borrow enough to fix the structural issues?
Click to expand...

It can borrow but will need a convincing plan for how it will be paid back. Investment has a return so some of this can be offset in a way that Truss' tax cuts cannot but our trading position and inflation are squeezing the scope of public financing options.

My view is that Labour want a closer trading relationship with Europe, and shift the tax burden back towards people who can afford it, and that will stimulate growth and lower debt to GDP making financing easier and they can cut their cloth accordingly once things improve.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Well the unfortunate reality of our political system is that only two Parties have a shot of forming a government. We can wish for PR until we’re blue in the face but the reality is the Green Party can essentially put whatever it wants in its Manifesto, because it’ll never have to act on it.

As much as I pray for a green revolution and for Capitalism to collapse, the Greens have only ever had 1 MP. So I can vote with my philosophical heart and go Green, and watch as Sunak sneaks back to No10 for 5 more years of Rwanda, Culture Wars, crumbling schools, public sector strikes, child poverty increases, rise in food & warm banks…

Or I can vote for the only other Party with a viable chance of taking power, with the knowledge that efforts will be made to improve things. Even is that is only minute, it simply HAS to be better than what we have now!

Then we can start putting pressure on Labour to do things, when they’re actually in power and CAN do things.
Click to expand...
You're going to pray for capitalism to collapse whilst voting for Keir Starmer.

We're fecked.
 
Mogget said:
You're going to pray for capitalism to collapse whilst voting for Keir Starmer.

We're fecked.
Click to expand...

Yes because, as I’ve said countless times, voting isn’t like getting a taxi, it’s like getting on a bus. It’s never going to drop you off exactly where you want to go but you have to start with (a) a bus that has a running engine and (b) one that’s heading closer to the one you’re currently stuck on.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Yes because, as I’ve said countless times, voting isn’t like getting a taxi, it’s like getting on a bus. It’s never going to drop you off exactly where you want to go but you have to start with (a) a bus that has a running engine and (b) one that’s heading closer to the one you’re currently stuck on.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm just incredibly naive but I don't think capitalism is going to collapse by us voting. Especially not voting for an establishment stooge like Starmer.
 
RedChip said:
The last few pags of economic arguments and counter arguments have been quite interesting. I kind of see both sides. I wonder though, what if the last 14 years of Tory rule have broken the UK public services AND finances badly enough that it can't be fixed? That is it cannot borrow enough to fix the structural issues?
Click to expand...

It can borrow if there's something concrete at the end of the line. The problem is that even if Starmer stuck to what he pledged, it wouldn't be enough because he doesn't understand what the problems are.

So all that is left now is that people hope that Starmer is lying again just to dupe people to vote for him. But then what?

If and when he gets in what happens then. The effects of Brexit have barely started and are guaranteed to get worse. There's no new renegotiating of Brexit as he thinks.
 
Mogget said:
Maybe I'm just incredibly naive but I don't think capitalism is going to collapse by us voting. Especially not voting for an establishment stooge like Starmer.
Click to expand...

But that’s why I pray for it, I don’t see it as a realistic outcome (at least in my lifetime) as I’m in a far too quiet minority.
 
Pexbo said:
Or vote in Starmer. Have 3-4 years of non-action while the media blame Labour for everything the Tories did in the previous 14 years and the next general election all is forgiven and forgotten and the same Tory party get in with another super majority on an anti-immigration / low tax platform.
Click to expand...


If that happens, then you cannot blame the tories alone. You have to start blaming the British public.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
I'd like to see more concrete plans and a framework of investment presented that highlights both the costs and projected benefits. There's some half decent economic analyses of the benefits of free school meals knocking about. Those are reasonable models for evaluating policies and couching the benefits of social investment in economic terms. This sort of analysis should have been expanded a while ago: This is the policy>This is the method of implementation>This is the cost>This is the expected economic benefit. Analyses of the costs of failing to invest should be highlighted and presented in a similar manner. There's plenty of highly visible projections for future debt repayments, but fewer that analyse the future costs of today's underinvestment. I think redressing this imbalance in reporting and analysis would go a long way to spurring greater action.

I wouldn't be as mad if this money Labour are saving from reneging on their Green Pledge is earmarked for investment elsewhere, but it's not. The entire schtick seems to be to tap a big red sign that says "fiscal rules" while surreptitiously shoving the "social costs" sign in a drawer.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is entirely sensible and, in an educated unbiased landscape, would be a good way to conduct a political strategy.

However, we don’t operate in such an environment for the Left. Every single utterance is scrutinised many times more than the nonesense the Tories come out with. Your flow chart in the biased right-leaning and clickbaity media stops at “This is the cost” and doesn’t get as far as “this is the benefit”. Add on the fact that the Tories are either shooting themselves in the foot or have too much built up apathy with voters, then it is clear why crystallising plans for Labour out loud is far more of a risk than benefit at this stage.

Shoving Social Cost into the drawer is a sad reality of the politics that wins elections under FPTP.
 
To add more to the list of doom.

Ironically lets start with the last attempt to insulate buildings, where we somehow managed to put flammable material on high rise buildings and now we will have to take it off and put new non-flammable material on those buildings.

Or we could mention the rotting concrete problem, which means we can't use buildings because the roof could collapse and kill everyone in them.

Which leads me nicely to the bankrupt councils issue. I wonder how we are going to keep local govt going given the long running and now critical debt problems.

I'll add the post office crisis here in the firm belief that whatever Fujitsu say we are potentially on the hook here as well.
 
Smores said:
I'll repeat what I've said to others but you're taking a narrow view of the issue, the OBR is quite clear in it's reports that the cost of delaying net zero impacts future finances negatively and that undermines our ability to control debt. Why you lot keep ignoring this is beyond me.

Like everyone our R-G is bad right now such is the change in the global economy and interest rates. However the economic risks require mitigation and they don't disappear because of politically driven fiscal management. The IMF and OBR are predicting a better R-G and increased slack in economies, 28 billion a year is nothing in that context (see increased defence spending) and supports the growth part of the R-G measure.

We need to spend wisely if we're to limit (not stop) debt growth and that starts with measures that have the best long term outcomes for public finances.
Click to expand...


In one sense it does not really matter if it is good idea or not. It does not matter if the return on investment is there. It does not matter if the human cost of not doing it is huge.

If you are borrowing the money to do it all that matters is if the people you are borrowing from will or will not lend you the money and how much they charge you for it. Not because that is right but because that is the very unfair way that the world works. Without that backing you can't get passed the first step.

I am concerned that the UK does not have the economic altitude to pull off a huge borrow to grow maneuver. The markets can do the math and see the problems just like I do. They don't have to invest in the UK and unless they are confident in the govt plans they will invest elsewhere. Coming into office with a long list of expensive commitments, knocks that confidence and that might be all it takes. Confidence in the Labour party was destroyed by Corbyn and will take time in office to build back.

(that is on those who voted him in as leader, not me who warned he couldn't win an election to save his life or keep the PLP together)

A future Labour govt will be under enormous pressure to borrow and spend. 28 billion per year isn't nothing and insulating homes might not be the best opportunity or place to spend that amount even for environmental impact. Grid storage to offset peak demand and utilize fully the intermittent renewable sources we already have for instance. might become a better way to spend the money if its available, as technologies are moving very quickly forward in that regard.

I have never voted Tory.

PS. to those who think we should borrow the money needed, put a number on it for me will you, not just the green deal but the total amount above current govt plans you would borrow to invest in the ideas you are putting forward.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
To add more to the list of doom.

Ironically lets start with the last attempt to insulate buildings, where we somehow managed to put flammable material on high rise buildings and now we will have to take it off and put new non-flammable material on those buildings.

Or we could mention the rotting concrete problem, which means we can't use buildings because the roof could collapse and kill everyone in them.

Which leads me nicely to the bankrupt councils issue. I wonder how we are going to keep local govt going given the long running and now critical debt problems.

I'll add the post office crisis here in the firm belief that whatever Fujitsu say we are potentially on the hook here as well.
Click to expand...

All true, but many on here want Starmer to pretend none of this exists, and 'bet the farm' on things that won't show any real improvement for another twenty years at least. Not sure all the young people emerging from schools, colleges and Universities in the mean time will mind waiting that long. There has to be a balance between dealing with the present and investing for the future and Starmer knows that and until he has seen what the real size of the problems he will inherit are, he is limiting expectations.
 
Drainy said:
If you are talking fiscal policy, they are literally being driven by financial realities, as has been explained probably a dozen times in the thread.

They have said they want to spend more on public services when the economy allows it. The Tories don't believe in providing public services. That's the vote.
Click to expand...

No I'm not talking about purely fiscal policy, though it certainly is a factor. Labour have barely been an opposition for the last 5 years. They regularly refuse to say that they'll reverse the ridiculous tory policies, often going as far as to say that they won't reverse them. They are literally about as right wing as the tories have been for the last 40 years. And we've all seen how disastrous that's been.

What we need is major change. A complete rebalancing of the economy and an end to the scapegoating of minority groups. Massive investment into training and education. Radical new housing strategies. etc etc etc.

And it's got little to do with what can be afforded. The debt is growing nearly every year as it is. But that money simply gets given to massive multi-nationals, fossil fuel companies like BP, and consultancy firms who simply cream off the profits while services go down the drain.

I do believe that labour would be slightly less likely to broker those deals on the back of promises for future seats on the board of said companies, but really, only slightly. I don't for one minute think that this lot are going to put the regular people first, as Corbyn or any other actual leftist would do, or plan for a better future for the next generations.

So if labour want my vote, they've got the rest of this year to change their narrative.
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

I wonder if more people are aware of the U-turn than the original pledge because the news of the U-turn has been plastered everywhere as if it's the first U-turn a political party has ever made? For example, I'm certainly seeing you post about it more than any actual Tory U-turn that they've commited when in actual power.
 
Cash-strapped local authorities across the UK took out massive 50-year loans at soaring rates of interest in the aftermath of Liz Truss’s catastrophic mini-budget, according to official figures that reveal more about the long-term cost to the public of her 49 days in office.

Figures from the government’s Debt Management Office show that after the budget on 23 September, 2022, announced by Truss’s chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng, 24 50-year loans of between £590,000 and £40m were taken out by councils at interest rates of up to 4.77 %, over the rest of that year.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...take-out-massive-loans-at-high-interest-rates
 
Frosty said:
The Greens lost an employment tribunal bought by Shahrar Ali, who was removed as a spokesperson for his 'gender critical' views: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68250071.

Expect them to become a more hostile space for the trans community going forward.

At the moment I am just not going to vote.
Click to expand...
Sweet Square said:
Thanks. I had no idea about this. A depressing read
Click to expand...
Let’s just be clear - this is what he wrote:

He wrote: 'A woman is commonly defined as an adult human female and, genetically, typified by two XX chromosomes. These facts are not in dispute nor should they be in any political party.

'We campaign for the rights of women and girls to be treated equally on the basis of the protected characteristic of biological sex, as enshrined in the Equality Act 2010.'

He also added that gender and biological sex are two separate qualities, so it’s hardly controversial what he said. It’s another depressing step into this culture war, that only really exists online.
 
How can it be justified that you pay a higher rate of tax for money you work for than capital gains?
The whole system is rigged to favour the wealthy.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
In one sense it does not really matter if it is good idea or not. It does not matter if the return on investment is there. It does not matter if the human cost of not doing it is huge.

If you are borrowing the money to do it all that matters is if the people you are borrowing from will or will not lend you the money and how much they charge you for it. Not because that is right but because that is the very unfair way that the world works. Without that backing you can't get passed the first step.

I am concerned that the UK does not have the economic altitude to pull off a huge borrow to grow maneuver. The markets can do the math and see the problems just like I do. They don't have to invest in the UK and unless they are confident in the govt plans they will invest elsewhere. Coming into office with a long list of expensive commitments, knocks that confidence and that might be all it takes. Confidence in the Labour party was destroyed by Corbyn and will take time in office to build back.

(that is on those who voted him in as leader, not me who warned he couldn't win an election to save his life or keep the PLP together)

A future Labour govt will be under enormous pressure to borrow and spend. 28 billion per year isn't nothing and insulating homes might not be the best opportunity or place to spend that amount even for environmental impact. Grid storage to offset peak demand and utilize fully the intermittent renewable sources we already have for instance. might become a better way to spend the money if its available, as technologies are moving very quickly forward in that regard.

I have never voted Tory.

PS. to those who think we should borrow the money needed, put a number on it for me will you, not just the green deal but the total amount above current govt plans you would borrow to invest in the ideas you are putting forward.
Click to expand...

Ideally, we would have borrowed during the historically low interest rates we saw 2010-2020. If the communist czech spy hamas supporter won in 2017, then we might have actually taken advantage of that, albeit later than we should have.
 
Adisa said:
How can it be justified that you pay a higher rate of tax for money you work for than capital gains?
The whole system is rigged to favour the wealthy.
Click to expand...
Capital Gains Tax is lower than income tax for both basic and higher rate taxpayers. Many countries don't have this tax at all.

The UK is already a very high tax country and people want higher taxes still? Tax policy is also pretty confused in that there are some tax efficient ways to save for retirement, eg pension and ISAs, but outside that, eg crypto or property, you get taxed shitloads on the already taxed income you invest.
Bear in mind UK state pension is one of the lowest in Europe and the cost of living among the highest.
 
Jippy said:
Capital Gains Tax is lower than income tax for both basic and higher rate taxpayers. Many countries don't have this tax at all.

The UK is already a very high tax country and people want higher taxes still? Tax policy is also pretty confused in that there are some tax efficient ways to save for retirement, eg pension and ISAs, but outside that, eg crypto or property, you get taxed shitloads on the already taxed income you invest.
Bear in mind UK state pension is one of the lowest in Europe and the cost of living among the highest.
Click to expand...

If your investments were taxed more then your pension income would be able to be taxed less...
 
TwoSheds said:
If your investments were taxed more then your pension income would be able to be taxed less...
Click to expand...
Your pension income would be taxed less because there would be less of it I suppose.
 
Jippy said:
Yep and ISAs too, but stuff like crypto and property is ineligible for both.
Click to expand...

Good. Crypto is garbage and property shouldn't be able to be amassed by one person easily so that everyone gets a chance to own some. Capitalism only works if everyone can get at least a small share of the capital.
 
Income is income. Should all be taxed the same no matter how it's been acquired.

Such an obvious loophole that can easily be closed. It's taboo to even question it though.
 
Bert_ said:
Such an obvious loophole that can easily be closed. It's taboo to even question it though.
Click to expand...


The funny part is that the plutoctrats' excuse for this is that it encourages investments (same exact excuse they use for tax breaks and tax avoidance)
 
TwoSheds said:
Good. Crypto is garbage and property shouldn't be able to be amassed by one person easily so that everyone gets a chance to own some. Capitalism only works if everyone can get at least a small share of the capital.
Click to expand...

That is not capitalism. That is communism lite. Capitalism is what is currently happening
 
4bars said:
That is not capitalism. That is communism lite. Capitalism is what is currently happening
Click to expand...

Not really, regulating capitalism doesn't mean it's not capitalism. I didn't say everybody gets given a small share of the capital (although that's how universal basic income works), I said everybody can have a share. There's no point working if you can't improve your lot by doing so.
 
TwoSheds said:
Not really, regulating capitalism doesn't mean it's not capitalism. I didn't say everybody gets given a small share of the capital (although that's how universal basic income works), I said everybody can have a share. There's no point working if you can't improve your lot by doing so.
Click to expand...

A very simplistic way to put it is that capitalism regulates itself through the invisible hand of the market. Any regulation goes against capitalism But pure ideologies like capitalism or communism will never work due to the flawed human nature that is why they never existed a pure form of it and only mix models can thrive. Where capitalism is flawed, government has to intervene like with health care, studies, justice, military and others. the same as socialism/communism with state inefficiencies.

What you are asking, small share of the capital, which I disagree because it should be a bit more than small share of capital, is interventionism so not capitalism. And yes, I agree with you, amassing an stupid amount of capital of any form should be regulated by the government. But the governments are in cahoots with capitalists so it will never happen
 
4bars said:
A very simplistic way to put it is that capitalism regulates itself through the invisible hand of the market. Any regulation goes against capitalism But pure ideologies like capitalism or communism will never work due to the flawed human nature that is why they never existed a pure form of it and only mix models can thrive. Where capitalism is flawed, government has to intervene like with health care, studies, justice, military and others. the same as socialism/communism with state inefficiencies.

What you are asking, small share of the capital, which I disagree because it should be a bit more than small share of capital, is interventionism so not capitalism. And yes, I agree with you, amassing an stupid amount of capital of any form should be regulated by the government. But the governments are in cahoots with capitalists so it will never happen
Click to expand...

Capitalism as you describe it is a mathematically unstable market system that essentially funnels all the resources to "the top", leaving everything else with nothing. So no, the invisible hand of the market doesn't regulate things. It requires intervention or there can be no consumers and so even "the top" becomes worthless. The most obvious form of intervention is redistribution of wealth through taxation and there has been no capitalist system ever that denied taxation was needed. You have to be an entirely uneducated extreme libertarian to think that. Other regulations on industry and society are also needed though, and social housing or free healthcare should be seen as no different in terms of necessity to a stable capitalist economy and society than any other form of intervention (product safety regulations, environmental regulations, policing, transport investment, education etc.)
 
Adisa said:
How can it be justified that you pay a higher rate of tax for money you work for than capital gains?
The whole system is rigged to favour the wealthy.
Click to expand...

I work in tax and have been bleating on about this (in this thread as well) for ages. The Tories are never going to raise CGT as a lot of them pay it, as they are rich (see Rishi Sunak's 2022/23 UK tax return). One of the first things I would do if I was in power would be to equalise the rates.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
I wonder if more people are aware of the U-turn than the original pledge because the news of the U-turn has been plastered everywhere as if it's the first U-turn a political party has ever made? For example, I'm certainly seeing you post about it more than any actual Tory U-turn that they've commited when in actual power.
Click to expand...

Yeah it feels like this u turn has been a bigger deal than just about every u turn the party in actual power have made. Both the BBC and guardian had live feeds on it.
 
hodgey123 said:
I work in tax and have been bleating on about this (in this thread as well) for ages. The Tories are never going to raise CGT as a lot of them pay it, as they are rich (see Rishi Sunak's 2022/23 UK tax return). One of the first things I would do if I was in power would be to equalise the rates.
Click to expand...
Oh no you can’t do that! All the rich people will leave the county or use elaborate schemes to avoid paying it because they don’t currently do exactly that.
 
Our tax laws are not fit for purpose and archaic. We need a wealth tax and that can remove the need for some of these other taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.