Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Ymx]

I wonder how often a Tory/National/republican govt end up winning after the other side has been ditched for having the economy in a rutt. And needing to pick up the pieces … and likewise when the left parties pick up leadership when the going is good.

It might not be the case, but I wonder if stats reflect and account for that.

[Rinkals]

I wonder how often a Tory/National/republican govt end up winning after the other side has been ditched for having the economy in a rutt. And needing to pick up the pieces … and likewise when the left parties pick up leadership when the going is good.

It might not be the case, but I wonder if stats reflect and account for that.

I think that you are trying to project the narrative that parties on the right are better for the economy because they understand business and parties on the left don't because... socialism.

This narrative ignores the basic principle behind business which is to make money in competition with other entities. In other words, the steps taken are for the benefit of a narrow section of society, usually the well-off, whereas parties on the left are more likely to pursue agendas which benefit more than just that narrow range of beneficiaries.

The concept of Trickle-Down economics is one of the clever tricks to feed the notion that, if policies favour the rich, then they will eventually benefit society at large, and, although this con job has been discredited, people still believe it.

[Tichtheid]

I wonder how often a Tory/National/republican govt end up winning after the other side has been ditched for having the economy in a rutt. And needing to pick up the pieces … and likewise when the left parties pick up leadership when the going is good.

It might not be the case, but I wonder if stats reflect and account for that.

It really isn't the case in the UK

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spen ... As_Pct_GDP

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_n ... t_analysis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... overnments

What does seem to happen is the the Tory governments leave public services, health and education in tatters and Labour has to clean up the mess, though they have been moved to the centre/right in the last couple of decades due to the false narrative of Conservative economic prudence, which just really means the public purse underwrites the profit making private sector, such as what has happened in rail and is happening in the health sector.

[Tichtheid]

The concept of Trickle-Down economics is one of the clever tricks to feed the notion that, if policies favour the rich, then they will eventually benefit society at large, and, although this con job has been discredited, people still believe it.

Yup, it's a total con, what does benefit everyone is a healthy, educated population and the eradication of poverty, but those investments are very long term and don't show up quickly on a balance sheet.

[I like neeps]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why ... he-wealthy

Good article from the Spectator(!!) on the unfairness of the new social care policy.

Wonder where sensible Starmer is. Surely should be pointing this out too?

[Insane_Homer]

[sturginho]

So how much will we have to pay for a passport?

[shaggy]

I wonder how often a Tory/National/republican govt end up winning after the other side has been ditched for having the economy in a rutt. And needing to pick up the pieces … and likewise when the left parties pick up leadership when the going is good.

It might not be the case, but I wonder if stats reflect and account for that.

I think that you are trying to project the narrative that parties on the right are better for the economy because they understand business and parties on the left don't because... socialism.

This narrative ignores the basic principle behind business which is to make money in competition with other entities. In other words, the steps taken are for the benefit of a narrow section of society, usually the well-off, whereas parties on the left are more likely to pursue agendas which benefit more than just that narrow range of beneficiaries.

The concept of Trickle-Down economics is one of the clever tricks to feed the notion that, if policies favour the rich, then they will eventually benefit society at large, and, although this con job has been discredited, people still believe it.

I do recall some analysis a few years back where it tried to show that trickle down economics does have an effect but it is not from the top, it is more where disposable income becomes significant enough such that eating out and having home improvements done is not something that you have to seriously budget for.

I don’t however recall the exact incomes they were discussing but I would say this is the high earners space so a income of greater than £150k.

Unable to find the analysis now but it does make some sense.

[shaggy]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why ... he-wealthy

Good article from the Spectator(!!) on the unfairness of the new social care policy.

Wonder where sensible Starmer is. Surely should be pointing this out too?

The problem that Starmer has is that he needs to offer an alternative that does not alienate that key demographic that income tax or a ‘wealth tax’ would disproportionately affect.

[Biffer]

I wonder how often a Tory/National/republican govt end up winning after the other side has been ditched for having the economy in a rutt. And needing to pick up the pieces … and likewise when the left parties pick up leadership when the going is good.

It might not be the case, but I wonder if stats reflect and account for that.

I think that you are trying to project the narrative that parties on the right are better for the economy because they understand business and parties on the left don't because... socialism.

This narrative ignores the basic principle behind business which is to make money in competition with other entities. In other words, the steps taken are for the benefit of a narrow section of society, usually the well-off, whereas parties on the left are more likely to pursue agendas which benefit more than just that narrow range of beneficiaries.

The concept of Trickle-Down economics is one of the clever tricks to feed the notion that, if policies favour the rich, then they will eventually benefit society at large, and, although this con job has been discredited, people still believe it.

I do recall some analysis a few years back where it tried to show that trickle down economics does have an effect but it is not from the top, it is more where disposable income becomes significant enough such that eating out and having home improvements done is not something that you have to seriously budget for.

I don’t however recall the exact incomes they were discussing but I would say this is the high earners space so a income of greater than £150k.

Unable to find the analysis now but it does make some sense.

Everything I've seen in the past suggests a middle out approach is more economically productive. Mainly because you get the biggest effect in the bracket where additional disposable income allows extra luxuries - an additional evening out, visit to the cinema, holiday, or means people buy a new car / computer / tv a year earlier than they otherwise would. Because that money then goes back into the real economy. Extra cash for the top end goes into savings and investments, which doesn't build the real economy up.

[Biffer]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why ... he-wealthy

Good article from the Spectator(!!) on the unfairness of the new social care policy.

Wonder where sensible Starmer is. Surely should be pointing this out too?

The problem that Starmer has is that he needs to offer an alternative that does not alienate that key demographic that income tax or a ‘wealth tax’ would disproportionately affect.

440,000 top rate tax payers out of 32,000,000 voters / 47,000,000 eligible voters.
4,100,000 higher rate tax payers from those numbers.
These will not be evenly distributed. It could be debated how much of an effect this actually would have.

[shaggy]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why ... he-wealthy

Good article from the Spectator(!!) on the unfairness of the new social care policy.

Wonder where sensible Starmer is. Surely should be pointing this out too?

The problem that Starmer has is that he needs to offer an alternative that does not alienate that key demographic that income tax or a ‘wealth tax’ would disproportionately affect.

440,000 top rate tax payers out of 32,000,000 voters / 47,000,000 eligible voters.
4,100,000 higher rate tax payers from those numbers.
These will not be evenly distributed. It could be debated how much of an effect this actually would have.

That 4.1m higher rate tax bracket is very important politically. Labour cannot simply be a party for ‘the working classes’ whatever that means.

[Biffer]

The problem that Starmer has is that he needs to offer an alternative that does not alienate that key demographic that income tax or a ‘wealth tax’ would disproportionately affect.

440,000 top rate tax payers out of 32,000,000 voters / 47,000,000 eligible voters.
4,100,000 higher rate tax payers from those numbers.
These will not be evenly distributed. It could be debated how much of an effect this actually would have.

That 4.1m higher rate tax bracket is very important politically. Labour cannot simply be a party for ‘the working classes’ whatever that means.

I know, but there's a tendency, because of the way certain parts of the media scream about it, to think that that bracket contains a lot more people than it actually does. If you asked people how much of the UK population was in that tax bracket, I reckon you'd get an answer that's a lot higher than 8% of voters.

[shaggy]

440,000 top rate tax payers out of 32,000,000 voters / 47,000,000 eligible voters.
4,100,000 higher rate tax payers from those numbers.
These will not be evenly distributed. It could be debated how much of an effect this actually would have.

That 4.1m higher rate tax bracket is very important politically. Labour cannot simply be a party for ‘the working classes’ whatever that means.

I know, but there's a tendency, because of the way certain parts of the media scream about it, to think that that bracket contains a lot more people than it actually does. If you asked people how much of the UK population was in that tax bracket, I reckon you'd get an answer that's a lot higher than 8% of voters.

It is not just certain parts of the media making it a bigger subject than it is, political parties and assorted others like to create a divide to suit their own narrative.

[I like neeps]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why ... he-wealthy

Good article from the Spectator(!!) on the unfairness of the new social care policy.

Wonder where sensible Starmer is. Surely should be pointing this out too?

The problem that Starmer has is that he needs to offer an alternative that does not alienate that key demographic that income tax or a ‘wealth tax’ would disproportionately affect.

Don't think he does - Labour managed to almost sink Theresa May on the dementia tax (which was a sensible policy) without saying anything about their own. Starmer just needs to land some punches.

[shaggy]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why ... he-wealthy

Good article from the Spectator(!!) on the unfairness of the new social care policy.

Wonder where sensible Starmer is. Surely should be pointing this out too?

The problem that Starmer has is that he needs to offer an alternative that does not alienate that key demographic that income tax or a ‘wealth tax’ would disproportionately affect.

Don't think he does - Labour managed to almost sink Theresa May on the dementia tax (which was a sensible policy) without saying anything about their own. Starmer just needs to land some punches.

Fragility in parliament does not equal fragility in the electorate. Keir looks to me like he is playing a longer game here, giving Boris plenty of rope.

[Biffer]

Yeah, just giving the firm impression of competence without giving the press anything to label you as extreme with might be enough.

[I like neeps]

The problem that Starmer has is that he needs to offer an alternative that does not alienate that key demographic that income tax or a ‘wealth tax’ would disproportionately affect.

Don't think he does - Labour managed to almost sink Theresa May on the dementia tax (which was a sensible policy) without saying anything about their own. Starmer just needs to land some punches.

Fragility in parliament does not equal fragility in the electorate. Keir looks to me like he is playing a longer game here, giving Boris plenty of rope.

It's not working for him though his approval ratings are terrible. And this isn't fragility in Parliament you have staunchly right wing daily mail and spectator angry about this policy. So his messages will get amplified.

[tabascoboy]

[Paddington Bear]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why ... he-wealthy

Good article from the Spectator(!!) on the unfairness of the new social care policy.

Wonder where sensible Starmer is. Surely should be pointing this out too?

The problem that Starmer has is that he needs to offer an alternative that does not alienate that key demographic that income tax or a ‘wealth tax’ would disproportionately affect.

Don't think he does - Labour managed to almost sink Theresa May on the dementia tax (which was a sensible policy) without saying anything about their own. Starmer just needs to land some punches.

There needs to be a reform of social care and people will hate it whatever it is. He needs this to damage BoJo but also to happen otherwise it will sink him if he ever became PM.

[Torquemada 1420]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why ... he-wealthy

Good article from the Spectator(!!) on the unfairness of the new social care policy.

Wonder where sensible Starmer is. Surely should be pointing this out too?

Am I missing something here? Unless the derisory low asset protection (£23,500 in England) is to be ditched or massively increased then surely the houses of the wealthy are
not protected at all?

I'd also throw in a counter argument here:
- many elderly are asset rich and income poor primarily due to the insane rises in house prices caused by successive Govt policy. So stigmatising them for that is pretty disingenuous.
- most of them will have paid NI all their lives precisely to pay for the NHS, care etc only for successive Govts to p*ss it all up the wall in various f**k ups ranging from wars to the ERM debacle.
- there will be a reasonable resentment from those who have saved and paid off debts throughout their working lives being expected to hand it all over to the state whilst those who have
saddled themselves in debt (also encouraged by Govt policy) get the win: win i.e. the life of Riley and then when the credit cards are maxed, Joe Bloggs picks up the tab.

[I like neeps]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why ... he-wealthy

Good article from the Spectator(!!) on the unfairness of the new social care policy.

Wonder where sensible Starmer is. Surely should be pointing this out too?

Am I missing something here? Unless the derisory low asset protection (£23,500 in England) is to be ditched or massively increased then surely the houses of the wealthy are
not protected at all?

I'd also throw in a counter argument here:
- many elderly are asset rich and income poor primarily due to the insane rises in house prices caused by successive Govt policy. So stigmatising them for that is pretty disingenuous.
- most of them will have paid NI all their lives precisely to pay for the NHS, care etc only for successive Govts to p*ss it all up the wall in various f**k ups ranging from wars to the ERM debacle.
- there will be a reasonable resentment from those who have saved and paid off debts throughout their working lives being expected to hand it all over to the state whilst those who have
saddled themselves in debt (also encouraged by Govt policy) get the win: win i.e. the life of Riley and then when the credit cards are maxed, Joe Bloggs picks up the tab.

If you're asset rich and income poor just sell your assets to increase income? Seems fairly simple.

There are poor pensioners but 25% of pensioners have a house worth 1m+. Yes people paid taxes their whole live and there are no simple solutions. But if through nothing but pure chance in when and where you were born you've had an asset that had flown up in value exponentially it's fairer to tax that rather than the people who are currently working and won't have that same benefit.

[Paddington Bear]

Think this sums up the lack of fairness of the policy reasonably well.

[Torquemada 1420]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why ... he-wealthy

Good article from the Spectator(!!) on the unfairness of the new social care policy.

Wonder where sensible Starmer is. Surely should be pointing this out too?

Am I missing something here? Unless the derisory low asset protection (£23,500 in England) is to be ditched or massively increased then surely the houses of the wealthy are
not protected at all?

I'd also throw in a counter argument here:
- many elderly are asset rich and income poor primarily due to the insane rises in house prices caused by successive Govt policy. So stigmatising them for that is pretty disingenuous.
- most of them will have paid NI all their lives precisely to pay for the NHS, care etc only for successive Govts to p*ss it all up the wall in various f**k ups ranging from wars to the ERM debacle.
- there will be a reasonable resentment from those who have saved and paid off debts throughout their working lives being expected to hand it all over to the state whilst those who have
saddled themselves in debt (also encouraged by Govt policy) get the win: win i.e. the life of Riley and then when the credit cards are maxed, Joe Bloggs picks up the tab.

If you're asset rich and income poor just sell your assets to increase income? Seems fairly simple.

There are poor pensioners but 25% of pensioners have a house worth 1m+. Yes people paid taxes their whole live and there are no simple solutions. But if through nothing but pure chance in when and where you were born you've had an asset that had flown up in value exponentially it's fairer to tax that rather than the people who are currently working and won't have that same benefit.

1) That's not what it says. It says "households worth £1m" NOT houses worth £1m.
2) House prices are not that non uniform across the UK so your 2nd sentence is invalid unless you want to load all the taxes on to Londoners. In which case I'm all ears but suspect the likes of OS won't be happy.
3) And even if the house was worth £1m and you agree someone should sell/downsize something he has worked his whole life for, who do you think is going to be able to buy the £1m houses to facilitate this transfer of capital to cash?

[Torquemada 1420]

Think this sums up the lack of fairness of the policy reasonably well.

Yes. It's a sh*tfest. Houses should be for homes and not investments. This ridiculous scenario is all down to cheap debt + coupled with the ease of getting BTL mortgages. But as has been repeatedly stated, this has been deliberate policy of both parties to hide the fact that the UK economy has been going down the sh*thole for 2 decades +.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

So it's stated the UK government is bringing forward the proposals as they are in response to a long standing problem which successive governments have failed to address (true) and on the back of a once in a lifetime pandemic (hopefully true but actual policy says we'd like a repeat) and now we've taken back control for parliament we'll allow parliament a whole one day to try and address some enormous changes to society. It's just weird, it's not even helpful to the government who've already shown in Brexit they cannot predict the outcome of NZ Vs Andora in rugby, and on the off chance this latest piece of thinking isn't oven ready they might do well to actually open it up to debate.

I do think the move is insufficient, ill applied and the raising of additional tax revenues harmful and unfair. But even if you liked just about everything being proposed you should still want some serious parliamentary debate looking into the detail

[tc27]

Without endorsing the actual policy the government gets some credit in my book for having the guts to tackle one of the big issues in the UK and making politically difficult decisions. Abolishing the triple lock on pensions is also well overdue (althiough the generational justice of this is undermined by raising tax on working adults).


Next is to deal with our dependency on foreign energy - its such an obvious strategic achilles heel. Lots of nuclear please.

[Insane_Homer]

Without endorsing the actual policy the government gets some credit in my book for having the guts to tackle one of the big issues in the UK and making politically difficult decisions. Abolishing the triple lock on pensions is also well overdue (althiough the generational justice of this is undermined by raising tax on working adults).

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2018 ... ped-world/

[Insane_Homer]

Without endorsing the actual policy the government gets some credit in my book for having the guts to tackle one of the big issues in the UK and making politically difficult decisions. Abolishing the triple lock on pensions is also well overdue (althiough the generational justice of this is undermined by raising tax on working adults).

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2018 ... ped-world/

[Torquemada 1420]

Without endorsing the actual policy the government gets some credit in my book for having the guts to tackle one of the big issues in the UK and making politically difficult decisions. Abolishing the triple lock on pensions is also well overdue (althiough the generational justice of this is undermined by raising tax on working adults).

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2018 ... ped-world/

And he's going to kill many small businesses post Boris's COVID f**k ups by raising Corp Tax to 25% which.......... or course....... none of his crony contributors will be paying a cent of anyway with their offshore structures.

[tc27]

IH if I want to see inane shit from 'full on down the well of madness' FPBE Twitter I am quite capable of having a look myself..cheers all the same

[Torquemada 1420]

IH if I want to see inane shit from 'full on down the well of madness' FPBE Twitter I am quite capable of having a look myself..cheers all the same

FPBE Twitter?

[tc27]

FBPE - Follow Back Pro European - basically a Twitter tag so those who are very very very pissed off about leaving the EU can recognise each other. Have become as radicalized and as tedious as any other political echo chamber on social media. (basically Imagine about ten thousand Insane Homers tweeting the same memes and graphics to each other 24/7).

[Insane_Homer]

IH if I want to see inane shit from 'full on down the well of madness' FPBE Twitter I am quite capable of having a look myself..cheers all the same

The signed election promises of the Prime Minister = inane shit

Top bimboing by the way, when you can't argue the facts, attack the source - fallacious ad hominem fail 1o1.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I don't mind accepting circumstances have changed from when an election pledge was made. And I don't mind in many instances them simply saying we got something wrong and we've changed our minds. The way they're going about it and the lack of debate/analysis both seem much more concerning to me.

[Insane_Homer]

I don't mind accepting circumstances have changed from when an election pledge was made.

Yup, it's very obvious duplicitous bullshit from the lying cunts.

[Happyhooker]

I don't mind accepting circumstances have changed from when an election pledge was made. And I don't mind in many instances them simply saying we got something wrong and we've changed our minds. The way they're going about it and the lack of debate/analysis both seem much more concerning to me.

They're rowing back on these promises while simultaneously asking the house of lords to wave through a load of stuff under the salisbury convention because they were manifesto pledges

[Torquemada 1420]

I don't mind accepting circumstances have changed from when an election pledge was made. And I don't mind in many instances them simply saying we got something wrong and we've changed our minds. The way they're going about it and the lack of debate/analysis both seem much more concerning to me.

They're rowing back on these promises while simultaneously asking the house of lords to wave through a load of stuff under the salisbury convention because they were manifesto pledges

They don't need the convention. Labour are supine opposition anyway. Makes for the worst "democracy".

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I don't mind accepting circumstances have changed from when an election pledge was made. And I don't mind in many instances them simply saying we got something wrong and we've changed our minds. The way they're going about it and the lack of debate/analysis both seem much more concerning to me.

They're rowing back on these promises while simultaneously asking the house of lords to wave through a load of stuff under the salisbury convention because they were manifesto pledges

There is circumstances changing circumstances in one instance doesn't mean all pledges are invalidated or need to be questioned. But sure, they're a duplicitous bunch of hypocrites if one was being nice about them.

And actually one of the starting points in my complaint in this was they're not allowing for sufficient scrutiny. The Salisbury Doctrine might have some need, but as a blanket process I'd be opposed. And anything waived through on Henry 8th or Salisbury should absolutely come with sunset clauses forcing suitable review. One suspects however they'll follow a process of saying there's nothing to see here, and then down the line blame foreign types and Covid

[Happyhooker]

Tories breaking their manifesto promise not to raise tax by raising NI to pay for social care.

Smart policy, workers (majority of who do not vote Tory) paying a tax pensioners (majority of who do vote Tory) don't pay to pay for the pensioners care.

Could be really cheeky and ask where the self-employed who ‘pay’ tax come in this scale of Tory-Not Tory.

It appears we're getting a comparatively large tax break, but thanks for the insinuation. Prat

But then, quite a few of us managed to not qualify for any covid benefits, so fuck it