Stop voting for fucking Tories

[sockwithaticket]

I must have missed it, what exactly are they trying to blame Starmer for with that playground (but likely effective *sigh*) nickname?

Don't read or post on political threads much these days but had to vent a little about this utter bellend. He can fuck right off the self serving toby

Shouting from afar will not improve women’s rights.

Cosying up to them isn't likely to do much either. Women's rights aren't really on their to do list.

What a creep Elwood is.

[dpedin]

I see the next very well thought through Tory plan for immigration is to absolutely whack up the visa fees, including the fee that they pretend is for NHS usage. I reckon it would now cost me and my wife the best part of £10k just for her visa applications if we wanted to return to the UK to settle.

It has been a problem for some time and it has made many folk think twice about coming to work in UK - many docs and nurses are already turning their back on coming to the UK to work and are going to countries that actually makes them feel valued and wanted. It just isn't financially viable for many to come here now.

[ASMO]

I see the next very well thought through Tory plan for immigration is to absolutely whack up the visa fees, including the fee that they pretend is for NHS usage. I reckon it would now cost me and my wife the best part of £10k just for her visa applications if we wanted to return to the UK to settle.

It has been a problem for some time and it has made many folk think twice about coming to work in UK - many docs and nurses are already turning their back on coming to the UK to work and are going to countries that actually makes them feel valued and wanted. It just isn't financially viable for many to come here now.

I can guarantee that the Tories are now, knowing they are going to be vaporised at the next election, already sabotaging the economy and govt departments so that Labour inherit a huge shitshow that they have no hope of fixing in the short term giving the tory scum free reign to blame it all in Labour.

[_Os_]

I must have missed it, what exactly are they trying to blame Starmer for with that playground (but likely effective *sigh*) nickname?

Starmer is now rowing back on removing the 2 child limit, which prevents claiming child tax credit/universal credit for any (third or more) child born after 2017. It was brought in to try to force parents into work, or work more hours if they do already. It has achieved putting 1.5m children into poverty, which could be alleviated by removing the 2 child limit and spending the £1.3b. The Tories brought it in with the usual class war stuff, "if they cannot afford children they shouldn't have them" type rhetoric, as well as some racism in the darker corners of the Tory support base. It was an outright attack on Labour's supporters.

Now the official position of both the Tories and Labour is that no one should have more than two children unless they are rich (this gets confusing with some Tories who also wanting to ban abortion, but no one could accuse them of joined up thinking), when it has become extremely expensive to just live a normal life in the UK, and the UK's birth rate is below replacement rate.

It's made Labour supporters particularly angry, because Labour have consistently opposed the 2 child limit under Corbyn and under Starmer, there's quotes from Labour's front bench saying it's basically evil. Now it's suddenly necessary and nothing can change. At this rate nom-dom tax rules are going to become necessary and something which cannot ever change.

When Labour get into power, the feeling of relief is going to be brief. Then Starmer and friends are going to start saying everything is fucked but nothing can change, which will mean only two possible outcomes. Starmer turns out to be a windsock and various pressure groups will get to dictate to him, unions/"remainers"/environmentalists. Starmer wins and continues this Tory administration unchanged, which would mean social and political chaos, Labour ending up as damaged as the Tories are now.

[sockwithaticket]

I must have missed it, what exactly are they trying to blame Starmer for with that playground (but likely effective *sigh*) nickname?

Starmer is now rowing back on removing the 2 child limit, which prevents claiming child tax credit/universal credit for any (third or more) child born after 2017. It was brought in to try to force parents into work, or work more hours if they do already. It has achieved putting 1.5m children into poverty, which could be alleviated by removing the 2 child limit and spending the £1.3b. The Tories brought it in with the usual class war stuff, "if they cannot afford children they shouldn't have them" type rhetoric, as well as some racism in the darker corners of the Tory support base. It was an outright attack on Labour's supporters.

Now the official position of both the Tories and Labour is that no one should have more than two children unless they are rich (this gets confusing with some Tories who also wanting to ban abortion, but no one could accuse them of joined up thinking), when it has become extremely expensive to just live a normal life in the UK, and the UK's birth rate is below replacement rate.

It's made Labour supporters particularly angry, because Labour have consistently opposed the 2 child limit under Corbyn and under Starmer, there's quotes from Labour's front bench saying it's basically evil. Now it's suddenly necessary and nothing can change. At this rate nom-dom tax rules are going to become necessary and something which cannot ever change.

When Labour get into power, the feeling of relief is going to be brief. Then Starmer and friends are going to start saying everything is fucked but nothing can change, which will mean only two possible outcomes. Starmer turns out to be a windsock and various pressure groups will get to dictate to him, unions/"remainers"/environmentalists. Starmer wins and continues this Tory administration unchanged, which would mean social and political chaos, Labour ending up as damaged as the Tories are now.

Fuck's sake. I really want to try and be optimistic about an incoming Labour government, but they're trying so hard to appeal to who they perceive the red-wall and 'sensible conservative' voters to be that they're really testing the voting intention of those on the left. They need to be careful about not alienating core support.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

It seems unlikely the electorate who voted for Brexit will accept there aren't any magic buttons to fix everything and correcting the impact of the Tories, or an ageing population, or the pandemic of Brexit, of the rise of China and India, the war in Ukraine will be slow, and not even always a path that sees progress

which is a big concern arising out of Brexit, we've already voted for one monumentally stupid course of action, so the odds are we'll vote for another. whether one quite as bad as say Farage for PM we'll have to wait and see

[_Os_]

Fuck's sake. I really want to try and be optimistic about an incoming Labour government, but they're trying so hard to appeal to who they perceive the red-wall and 'sensible conservative' voters to be that they're really testing the voting intention of those on the left. They need to be careful about not alienating core support.

You have to go on what they're saying. If they're lying, well that's on them. Only a fool goes with the "they're saying this, but don't really mean it and are trying to capture xyz category of voter, and will really do this other thing they say they're against but I quite like" method.

Before Labour won in 1997 there were plans for what they wanted to do in power, which they campaigned on, a lot of it had mixed results but it was there: ethical foreign policy, devolution, mayors, lords reform (ending hereditary peers), PFI, minimum wage, new deal/workfare, freedom of information.

Since 2010 there's been no plan, other than austerity which was about not having a plan. Then the Tories found their plan with Brexit, which was worse than not having a plan. Now on the back of all that, Starmer's big offer is slowly turning into "everything is fucked and nothing can ever change". If he actually manages to implement that for 5 to 10 years, the UK will become more politically extreme and fragmented. Hard to imagine how desperate people will be after (what would be) about a quarter of a century of stagnation and the total failure of both the Tories and Labour.

[Sandstorm]

Fuck's sake. I really want to try and be optimistic about an incoming Labour government, but they're trying so hard to appeal to who they perceive the red-wall and 'sensible conservative' voters to be that they're really testing the voting intention of those on the left. They need to be careful about not alienating core support.

You have to go on what they're saying. If they're lying, well that's on them. Only a fool goes with the "they're saying this, but don't really mean it and are trying to capture xyz category of voter, and will really do this other thing they say they're against but I quite like" method.

Before Labour won in 1997 there were plans for what they wanted to do in power, which they campaigned on, a lot of it had mixed results but it was there: ethical foreign policy, devolution, mayors, lords reform (ending hereditary peers), PFI, minimum wage, new deal/workfare, freedom of information.

Since 2010 there's been no plan, other than austerity which was about not having a plan. Then the Tories found their plan with Brexit, which was worse than not having a plan. Now on the back of all that, Starmer's big offer is slowly turning into "everything is fucked and nothing can ever change". If he actually manages to implement that for 5 to 10 years, the UK will become more politically extreme and fragmented. Hard to imagine how desperate people will be after (what would be) about a quarter of a century of stagnation and the total failure of both the Tories and Labour.

Starmer needs a plan - any plan - and to start talking about it. I'm a Tory voter who is sick of their shite and want them out. But if Labour are just Tory MK2 for the next 5-10 years, then it's all over red rover for the UK.

[JM2K6]

I must have missed it, what exactly are they trying to blame Starmer for with that playground (but likely effective *sigh*) nickname?

Starmer is now rowing back on removing the 2 child limit, which prevents claiming child tax credit/universal credit for any (third or more) child born after 2017. It was brought in to try to force parents into work, or work more hours if they do already. It has achieved putting 1.5m children into poverty, which could be alleviated by removing the 2 child limit and spending the £1.3b. The Tories brought it in with the usual class war stuff, "if they cannot afford children they shouldn't have them" type rhetoric, as well as some racism in the darker corners of the Tory support base. It was an outright attack on Labour's supporters.

Now the official position of both the Tories and Labour is that no one should have more than two children unless they are rich (this gets confusing with some Tories who also wanting to ban abortion, but no one could accuse them of joined up thinking), when it has become extremely expensive to just live a normal life in the UK, and the UK's birth rate is below replacement rate.

It's made Labour supporters particularly angry, because Labour have consistently opposed the 2 child limit under Corbyn and under Starmer, there's quotes from Labour's front bench saying it's basically evil. Now it's suddenly necessary and nothing can change. At this rate nom-dom tax rules are going to become necessary and something which cannot ever change.

When Labour get into power, the feeling of relief is going to be brief. Then Starmer and friends are going to start saying everything is fucked but nothing can change, which will mean only two possible outcomes. Starmer turns out to be a windsock and various pressure groups will get to dictate to him, unions/"remainers"/environmentalists. Starmer wins and continues this Tory administration unchanged, which would mean social and political chaos, Labour ending up as damaged as the Tories are now.

Fuck's sake. I really want to try and be optimistic about an incoming Labour government, but they're trying so hard to appeal to who they perceive the red-wall and 'sensible conservative' voters to be that they're really testing the voting intention of those on the left. They need to be careful about not alienating core support.

They're also trying very hard not to commit to anything there's unlikely to be money for in the current climate. Everything this lot does is geared towards neutering the classic attack lines against Labour. In this case, it's the magic money tree / socialists spending everyone's money nonsense. But at some point the defensive approach becomes cowardice - you have to give people something to vote for.

There's no point making promises that can't possibly be followed through on, fair enough. But there are ways of raising funding that they are too scared to mention for fear of giving the Tory press a field day. By boiling everything down to this election calculation, Labour under Starmer has given up any right to be considered a progressive party. They might still be one, but you wouldn't know it after the last six months.

The world has changed post Covid and the economic situation they will inherit is dire, no question. But that also means that maintaining the status quo and not rocking the boat because you fear various political establishments more than you care about the electorate is not going to help one bit.

[Yeeb]

It seems unlikely the electorate who voted for Brexit will accept there aren't any magic buttons to fix everything and correcting the impact of the Tories, or an ageing population, or the pandemic of Brexit, of the rise of China and India, the war in Ukraine will be slow, and not even always a path that sees progress

which is a big concern arising out of Brexit, we've already voted for one monumentally stupid course of action, so the odds are we'll vote for another. whether one quite as bad as say Farage for PM we'll have to wait and see

Oh there are magic buttons, it’s just they are electoral suicide:
Freeze / cut state pensions and put those savings into the nhs as the oldies take up 75% of the burden
Properly pay and train nurses etc that the country needs, rather than importing bank staff expensively
Concerted housebuilding national programme & planning reform
Use the navy to prevent dinghies coming across
Prisoners from abroad to be deported / countries foot their bill
Abolish public sector final salary pensions
Increase in income tax
Lowering corp tax

Labour won’t at present seek joining Eu again so no real use blaming brexit for anything, the country is now only accountable to itself - in theory they could press some magic buttons , in practice it will be more of the same muddling through the last 30 years has done

[_Os_]

which is a big concern arising out of Brexit, we've already voted for one monumentally stupid course of action, so the odds are we'll vote for another. whether one quite as bad as say Farage for PM we'll have to wait and see

Something like that is basically my big fear if Labour get in and fail badly. Brexit winning and then Labour winning by a landslide, would boiled down be a "demand for radical change". But in this scenario not much would've changed for the better.

Which would open the way for extremists on both sides and their solutions, in crude single word terms communism and fascism. One side will be desperate for redistribution of wealth, turbo Corbynism. The other (aided by the Tory supporting billionaire owned media), will in reaction turbo charge everything we've seen from that side already anti-immigration/racism/pro-authoritarian policing/anti-green climate denialism/populist noise blaming anyone that isn't them.

[I like neeps]

Fuck's sake. I really want to try and be optimistic about an incoming Labour government, but they're trying so hard to appeal to who they perceive the red-wall and 'sensible conservative' voters to be that they're really testing the voting intention of those on the left. They need to be careful about not alienating core support.

You have to go on what they're saying. If they're lying, well that's on them. Only a fool goes with the "they're saying this, but don't really mean it and are trying to capture xyz category of voter, and will really do this other thing they say they're against but I quite like" method.

Before Labour won in 1997 there were plans for what they wanted to do in power, which they campaigned on, a lot of it had mixed results but it was there: ethical foreign policy, devolution, mayors, lords reform (ending hereditary peers), PFI, minimum wage, new deal/workfare, freedom of information.

Since 2010 there's been no plan, other than austerity which was about not having a plan. Then the Tories found their plan with Brexit, which was worse than not having a plan. Now on the back of all that, Starmer's big offer is slowly turning into "everything is fucked and nothing can ever change". If he actually manages to implement that for 5 to 10 years, the UK will become more politically extreme and fragmented. Hard to imagine how desperate people will be after (what would be) about a quarter of a century of stagnation and the total failure of both the Tories and Labour.

Couldn't agree more. Starmer has no vision, no plan, and the one he claimed to have was one big lie. It's great to see everyone come round to that.

A thoroughly unprincipled individual who will say anything for power. For shame.

[tabascoboy]

Unfortunately the loudest individuals with a "vision" are people you'd hesitate to even put in charge of an ice-cream stand for 15 mins

[sockwithaticket]

Starmer is now rowing back on removing the 2 child limit, which prevents claiming child tax credit/universal credit for any (third or more) child born after 2017. It was brought in to try to force parents into work, or work more hours if they do already. It has achieved putting 1.5m children into poverty, which could be alleviated by removing the 2 child limit and spending the £1.3b. The Tories brought it in with the usual class war stuff, "if they cannot afford children they shouldn't have them" type rhetoric, as well as some racism in the darker corners of the Tory support base. It was an outright attack on Labour's supporters.

Now the official position of both the Tories and Labour is that no one should have more than two children unless they are rich (this gets confusing with some Tories who also wanting to ban abortion, but no one could accuse them of joined up thinking), when it has become extremely expensive to just live a normal life in the UK, and the UK's birth rate is below replacement rate.

It's made Labour supporters particularly angry, because Labour have consistently opposed the 2 child limit under Corbyn and under Starmer, there's quotes from Labour's front bench saying it's basically evil. Now it's suddenly necessary and nothing can change. At this rate nom-dom tax rules are going to become necessary and something which cannot ever change.

When Labour get into power, the feeling of relief is going to be brief. Then Starmer and friends are going to start saying everything is fucked but nothing can change, which will mean only two possible outcomes. Starmer turns out to be a windsock and various pressure groups will get to dictate to him, unions/"remainers"/environmentalists. Starmer wins and continues this Tory administration unchanged, which would mean social and political chaos, Labour ending up as damaged as the Tories are now.

Fuck's sake. I really want to try and be optimistic about an incoming Labour government, but they're trying so hard to appeal to who they perceive the red-wall and 'sensible conservative' voters to be that they're really testing the voting intention of those on the left. They need to be careful about not alienating core support.

They're also trying very hard not to commit to anything there's unlikely to be money for in the current climate. Everything this lot does is geared towards neutering the classic attack lines against Labour. In this case, it's the magic money tree / socialists spending everyone's money nonsense. But at some point the defensive approach becomes cowardice - you have to give people something to vote for.

There's no point making promises that can't possibly be followed through on, fair enough. But there are ways of raising funding that they are too scared to mention for fear of giving the Tory press a field day. By boiling everything down to this election calculation, Labour under Starmer has given up any right to be considered a progressive party. They might still be one, but you wouldn't know it after the last six months.

The world has changed post Covid and the economic situation they will inherit is dire, no question. But that also means that maintaining the status quo and not rocking the boat because you fear various political establishments more than you care about the electorate is not going to help one bit.

Which I definitely understand, but the right wing press are not shy of just making shit up or reporting in such a skewed fashion that it might as well be pure fantasy. If their paymasters think keeping the Tories in place makes them more money than apparently directionless Labour, then the attacks will still come and all Labour will have achieved is dampening their own support.

It's all so dispiriting.

[Sandstorm]

It seems unlikely the electorate who voted for Brexit will accept there aren't any magic buttons to fix everything and correcting the impact of the Tories, or an ageing population, or the pandemic of Brexit, of the rise of China and India, the war in Ukraine will be slow, and not even always a path that sees progress

which is a big concern arising out of Brexit, we've already voted for one monumentally stupid course of action, so the odds are we'll vote for another. whether one quite as bad as say Farage for PM we'll have to wait and see

Oh there are magic buttons, it’s just they are electoral suicide:
Freeze / cut state pensions and put those savings into the nhs as the oldies take up 75% of the burden
Properly pay and train nurses etc that the country needs, rather than importing bank staff expensively
Concerted housebuilding national programme & planning reform
Use the navy to prevent dinghies coming across
Prisoners from abroad to be deported / countries foot their bill
Abolish public sector final salary pensions
Increase in income tax
Lowering corp tax

Labour won’t at present seek joining Eu again so no real use blaming brexit for anything, the country is now only accountable to itself - in theory they could press some magic buttons , in practice it will be more of the same muddling through the last 30 years has done

These are not suicide, they're good policies voters will support:
Properly pay and train nurses etc that the country needs, rather than importing bank staff expensively
Concerted housebuilding national programme & planning reform
Increase in income tax
Lowering corp tax

These are suicide - unfortunately because they're necessary. Unions would have kittens anyway.:
Abolish public sector final salary pensions
Freeze / cut state pensions and put those savings into the nhs as the oldies take up 75% of the burden

These two I reckon many would be on the fence:
Use the navy to prevent dinghies coming across
Prisoners from abroad to be deported / countries foot their bill

[_Os_]

Unfortunately the loudest individuals with a "vision" are people you'd hesitate to even put in charge of an ice-cream stand for 15 mins

Would Truss have failed at a task in "The Apprentice"?

[Yeeb]

It seems unlikely the electorate who voted for Brexit will accept there aren't any magic buttons to fix everything and correcting the impact of the Tories, or an ageing population, or the pandemic of Brexit, of the rise of China and India, the war in Ukraine will be slow, and not even always a path that sees progress

which is a big concern arising out of Brexit, we've already voted for one monumentally stupid course of action, so the odds are we'll vote for another. whether one quite as bad as say Farage for PM we'll have to wait and see

Oh there are magic buttons, it’s just they are electoral suicide:
Freeze / cut state pensions and put those savings into the nhs as the oldies take up 75% of the burden
Properly pay and train nurses etc that the country needs, rather than importing bank staff expensively
Concerted housebuilding national programme & planning reform
Use the navy to prevent dinghies coming across
Prisoners from abroad to be deported / countries foot their bill
Abolish public sector final salary pensions
Increase in income tax
Lowering corp tax

Labour won’t at present seek joining Eu again so no real use blaming brexit for anything, the country is now only accountable to itself - in theory they could press some magic buttons , in practice it will be more of the same muddling through the last 30 years has done

These are not suicide, they're good policies voters will support:
Properly pay and train nurses etc that the country needs, rather than importing bank staff expensively
Concerted housebuilding national programme & planning reform
Increase in income tax
Lowering corp tax

These are suicide - unfortunately because they're necessary. Unions would have kittens anyway.:
Abolish public sector final salary pensions
Freeze / cut state pensions and put those savings into the nhs as the oldies take up 75% of the burden

These two I reckon many would be on the fence:
Use the navy to prevent dinghies coming across
Prisoners from abroad to be deported / countries foot their bill

Nah, Uk voters have never agreed to increase personal taxes or voted that way, which is why it’s suicide. Paying nurses more would be great and everyone thinks that, how to fund it is the big question. Mostly , people wants big evil companies to pay more, not less - they don’t care or see how higher taxes merely makes companies locate elsewhere.
Personally, I’d be in favour of re hypothecation of taxes so that tax revenue versus what’s it’s spent on is clear.

Eg in 2022 Uk stamp duty revenue was £15.4billion, latest govt housebuilding stat I could find quickly was £7.2b over 4 years ! So approx 1/10 of the stamp revenue was spent on building new houses - to me this is beyond daft.

Spending on roads £11b a year & rail £8b a year V fuel duty receipts of £25b a year

[Biffer]

Oh there are magic buttons, it’s just they are electoral suicide:
Freeze / cut state pensions and put those savings into the nhs as the oldies take up 75% of the burden
Properly pay and train nurses etc that the country needs, rather than importing bank staff expensively
Concerted housebuilding national programme & planning reform
Use the navy to prevent dinghies coming across
Prisoners from abroad to be deported / countries foot their bill
Abolish public sector final salary pensions
Increase in income tax
Lowering corp tax

Labour won’t at present seek joining Eu again so no real use blaming brexit for anything, the country is now only accountable to itself - in theory they could press some magic buttons , in practice it will be more of the same muddling through the last 30 years has done

These are not suicide, they're good policies voters will support:
Properly pay and train nurses etc that the country needs, rather than importing bank staff expensively
Concerted housebuilding national programme & planning reform
Increase in income tax
Lowering corp tax

These are suicide - unfortunately because they're necessary. Unions would have kittens anyway.:
Abolish public sector final salary pensions
Freeze / cut state pensions and put those savings into the nhs as the oldies take up 75% of the burden

These two I reckon many would be on the fence:
Use the navy to prevent dinghies coming across
Prisoners from abroad to be deported / countries foot their bill

Nah, Uk voters have never agreed to increase personal taxes or voted that way, which is why it’s suicide. Paying nurses more would be great and everyone thinks that, how to fund it is the big question. Mostly , people wants big evil companies to pay more, not less - they don’t care or see how higher taxes merely makes companies locate elsewhere.
Personally, I’d be in favour of re hypothecation of taxes so that tax revenue versus what’s it’s spent on is clear.

Eg in 2022 Uk stamp duty revenue was £15.4billion, latest govt housebuilding stat I could find quickly was £7.2b over 4 years ! So approx 1/10 of the stamp revenue was spent on building new houses - to me this is beyond daft.

Spending on roads £11b a year & rail £8b a year V fuel duty receipts of £25b a year

Scottish voters voted to increase income tax.

[Biffer]

Another thing that Tony Blair had which Keir Starmer doesn't was John Prescott. For all his faults, you could set Prescott loose as an old school labour attack dog, and then laugh off anything off message as 'John being John'. That was quietly effective in ridiculing the Tories.

[Yeeb]

These are not suicide, they're good policies voters will support:
Properly pay and train nurses etc that the country needs, rather than importing bank staff expensively
Concerted housebuilding national programme & planning reform
Increase in income tax
Lowering corp tax

These are suicide - unfortunately because they're necessary. Unions would have kittens anyway.:
Abolish public sector final salary pensions
Freeze / cut state pensions and put those savings into the nhs as the oldies take up 75% of the burden

These two I reckon many would be on the fence:
Use the navy to prevent dinghies coming across
Prisoners from abroad to be deported / countries foot their bill

Nah, Uk voters have never agreed to increase personal taxes or voted that way, which is why it’s suicide. Paying nurses more would be great and everyone thinks that, how to fund it is the big question. Mostly , people wants big evil companies to pay more, not less - they don’t care or see how higher taxes merely makes companies locate elsewhere.
Personally, I’d be in favour of re hypothecation of taxes so that tax revenue versus what’s it’s spent on is clear.

Eg in 2022 Uk stamp duty revenue was £15.4billion, latest govt housebuilding stat I could find quickly was £7.2b over 4 years ! So approx 1/10 of the stamp revenue was spent on building new houses - to me this is beyond daft.

Spending on roads £11b a year & rail £8b a year V fuel duty receipts of £25b a year

Scottish voters voted to increase income tax.

I stand corrected - but mostly, people don’t vote for higher taxes in manefestos . Tbh there can’t be more than a few dozen jocks who pay higher rate taxes anyways there so will make bugger all difference to how much they leech off the South east

[I like neeps]

Nah, Uk voters have never agreed to increase personal taxes or voted that way, which is why it’s suicide. Paying nurses more would be great and everyone thinks that, how to fund it is the big question. Mostly , people wants big evil companies to pay more, not less - they don’t care or see how higher taxes merely makes companies locate elsewhere.
Personally, I’d be in favour of re hypothecation of taxes so that tax revenue versus what’s it’s spent on is clear.

Eg in 2022 Uk stamp duty revenue was £15.4billion, latest govt housebuilding stat I could find quickly was £7.2b over 4 years ! So approx 1/10 of the stamp revenue was spent on building new houses - to me this is beyond daft.

Spending on roads £11b a year & rail £8b a year V fuel duty receipts of £25b a year

Scottish voters voted to increase income tax.

I stand corrected - but mostly, people don’t vote for higher taxes in manefestos . Tbh there can’t be more than a few dozen jocks who pay higher rate taxes anyways there so will make bugger all difference to how much they leech off the South east

What's needed is a wealth tax, as incomes haven't increased in a decade but wealth has. But nobody is voting for their house to be worth less. The fundamental problem in this country is wealth being tied up in housing meaning there's no incentive to invest in productive enterprise/new houses. And the second is all our public services (except health which should be a European insurance model tbh) are owned by lecherous asset strippers from abroad.

[Yeeb]

Scottish voters voted to increase income tax.

I stand corrected - but mostly, people don’t vote for higher taxes in manefestos . Tbh there can’t be more than a few dozen jocks who pay higher rate taxes anyways there so will make bugger all difference to how much they leech off the South east

What's needed is a wealth tax, as incomes haven't increased in a decade but wealth has. But nobody is voting for their house to be worth less. The fundamental problem in this country is wealth being tied up in housing meaning there's no incentive to invest in productive enterprise/new houses. And the second is all our public services (except health which should be a European insurance model tbh) are owned by lecherous asset strippers from abroad.

Some bits of wealth tax, yes - ending nom don status for example , cgt exemptions - but it would surely be far less efficient tax harvest and valuing people horse stables and oil paintings , when it’s far easier to tax at source like their fuel on the Aga & Aston Martin.

The truly wealthy clearly pay far too little tax, and the middle class increasingly burdened . The bottom deciles pay so little tax in total anyways, I would raise the limit and make more personal tax exempt.

Am on phone so can’t find the thing I saw before from Uk stats, but iirc the bottom 2or 3 deciles paid only 8% of the Uk income tax revenue , yet their marginal rate of all taxes was 40%+ and higher rate than those in the top deciles - those rates are surely the wrong way around !

[I like neeps]

I stand corrected - but mostly, people don’t vote for higher taxes in manefestos . Tbh there can’t be more than a few dozen jocks who pay higher rate taxes anyways there so will make bugger all difference to how much they leech off the South east

What's needed is a wealth tax, as incomes haven't increased in a decade but wealth has. But nobody is voting for their house to be worth less. The fundamental problem in this country is wealth being tied up in housing meaning there's no incentive to invest in productive enterprise/new houses. And the second is all our public services (except health which should be a European insurance model tbh) are owned by lecherous asset strippers from abroad.

Some bits of wealth tax, yes - ending nom don status for example , cgt exemptions - but it would surely be far less efficient tax harvest and valuing people horse stables and oil paintings , when it’s far easier to tax at source like their fuel on the Aga & Aston Martin.

The truly wealthy clearly pay far too little tax, and the middle class increasingly burdened . The bottom deciles pay so little tax in total anyways, I would raise the limit and make more personal tax exempt.

No I mean on houses. People through no skill have become wealthy by living in a house for 20 years. And it's massively distorted the economy. Or don't tax it but just change planning regulation to mean development is actively encouraged and the value declines naturally.

Sadly, the horse has bolted on the truly wealthy paying tax. Non Dom tax won't really work as the Non Doms will Dom elsewhere.

[sockwithaticket]

Fuck it, asset seizure/earning seizure. Whatever. You're capped at being worth 50m, anything above that goes back into the public purse. That's still a huge amount more money than anyone needs and I'd reserve the right to bring it down further, but let's start with the worst of the hoarders first.

[Yeeb]

What's needed is a wealth tax, as incomes haven't increased in a decade but wealth has. But nobody is voting for their house to be worth less. The fundamental problem in this country is wealth being tied up in housing meaning there's no incentive to invest in productive enterprise/new houses. And the second is all our public services (except health which should be a European insurance model tbh) are owned by lecherous asset strippers from abroad.

Some bits of wealth tax, yes - ending nom don status for example , cgt exemptions - but it would surely be far less efficient tax harvest and valuing people horse stables and oil paintings , when it’s far easier to tax at source like their fuel on the Aga & Aston Martin.

The truly wealthy clearly pay far too little tax, and the middle class increasingly burdened . The bottom deciles pay so little tax in total anyways, I would raise the limit and make more personal tax exempt.

No I mean on houses. People through no skill have become wealthy by living in a house for 20 years. And it's massively distorted the economy. Or don't tax it but just change planning regulation to mean development is actively encouraged and the value declines naturally.

Sadly, the horse has bolted on the truly wealthy paying tax. Non Dom tax won't really work as the Non Doms will Dom elsewhere.

Value declines naturally ? You mean like Detroit ?

Does it matter it skill was involved in becoming wealthy ?
I’m not disagreeing with you re distortions in the economy and how there should be more built , but going after people in big houses seems extremely inefficient to me when it’s cheap to tax incomes at source. These guys are all dying off anyways and their houses being sold to fund their OAP care.

[Sandstorm]

Fuck it, asset seizure/earning seizure. Whatever. You're capped at being worth 50m, anything above that goes back into the public purse. That's still a huge amount more money than anyone needs and I'd reserve the right to bring it down further, but let's start with the worst of the hoarders first.

Go after those cnuts who made millions off shithouse PPE. Then Tory donors. Then Kevballers.
The rest will soon get the message and the public will have the appetite for blood by then. French style revolution!!

[sockwithaticket]

Fuck it, asset seizure/earning seizure. Whatever. You're capped at being worth 50m, anything above that goes back into the public purse. That's still a huge amount more money than anyone needs and I'd reserve the right to bring it down further, but let's start with the worst of the hoarders first.

Go after those cnuts who made millions off shithouse PPE. Then Tory donors. Then Kevballers.
The rest will soon get the message and the public will have the appetite for blood by then. French style revolution!!

Believe me I've entertained more than a few thoughts about dusting off guillotines...

America's highest marginal tax rate was 90% in the 50s and 60s and it was still up at 70% until Reagan came in. That was an extremely fertile economic period for them. When those at the top of the earning tree don't get to hoard wealth, it goes back into the economy and benefits real people.

[sturginho]

Another thing that Tony Blair had which Keir Starmer doesn't was John Prescott. For all his faults, you could set Prescott loose as an old school labour attack dog, and then laugh off anything off message as 'John being John'. That was quietly effective in ridiculing the Tories.

Rayner has been channelling her inner Prescott lately

[Biffer]

I stand corrected - but mostly, people don’t vote for higher taxes in manefestos . Tbh there can’t be more than a few dozen jocks who pay higher rate taxes anyways there so will make bugger all difference to how much they leech off the South east

Everyone above median wage pays more in Scotland.

[Biffer]

I stand corrected - but mostly, people don’t vote for higher taxes in manefestos . Tbh there can’t be more than a few dozen jocks who pay higher rate taxes anyways there so will make bugger all difference to how much they leech off the South east

What's needed is a wealth tax, as incomes haven't increased in a decade but wealth has. But nobody is voting for their house to be worth less. The fundamental problem in this country is wealth being tied up in housing meaning there's no incentive to invest in productive enterprise/new houses. And the second is all our public services (except health which should be a European insurance model tbh) are owned by lecherous asset strippers from abroad.

Some bits of wealth tax, yes - ending nom don status for example , cgt exemptions - but it would surely be far less efficient tax harvest and valuing people horse stables and oil paintings , when it’s far easier to tax at source like their fuel on the Aga & Aston Martin.

The truly wealthy clearly pay far too little tax, and the middle class increasingly burdened . The bottom deciles pay so little tax in total anyways, I would raise the limit and make more personal tax exempt.

Am on phone so can’t find the thing I saw before from Uk stats, but iirc the bottom 2or 3 deciles paid only 8% of the Uk income tax revenue , yet their marginal rate of all taxes was 40%+ and higher rate than those in the top deciles - those rates are surely the wrong way around !

And fuck this Income Tax / NI split nonsense. It's set up that way to be able to say that higher earners are taxed at 20% more, but that's bullshit. The true income tax rate is NI + Income tax, so 32% for lower earners, 42% for higher earners.

[Yeeb]

What's needed is a wealth tax, as incomes haven't increased in a decade but wealth has. But nobody is voting for their house to be worth less. The fundamental problem in this country is wealth being tied up in housing meaning there's no incentive to invest in productive enterprise/new houses. And the second is all our public services (except health which should be a European insurance model tbh) are owned by lecherous asset strippers from abroad.

Some bits of wealth tax, yes - ending nom don status for example , cgt exemptions - but it would surely be far less efficient tax harvest and valuing people horse stables and oil paintings , when it’s far easier to tax at source like their fuel on the Aga & Aston Martin.

The truly wealthy clearly pay far too little tax, and the middle class increasingly burdened . The bottom deciles pay so little tax in total anyways, I would raise the limit and make more personal tax exempt.

Am on phone so can’t find the thing I saw before from Uk stats, but iirc the bottom 2or 3 deciles paid only 8% of the Uk income tax revenue , yet their marginal rate of all taxes was 40%+ and higher rate than those in the top deciles - those rates are surely the wrong way around !

And fuck this Income Tax / NI split nonsense. It's set up that way to be able to say that higher earners are taxed at 20% more, but that's bullshit. The true income tax rate is NI + Income tax, so 32% for lower earners, 42% for higher earners.

Been a loooong while since I studied public finance but iirc that split was because of the fundamental aims of those 2 pools:
Income tax - for general govt expenditure (ie everything but initially wars against napoleon )
National insurance - for pensions and benefits.

Going back to my earlier rant re hypothecation , there should be FAR tax for this, pays for that explanation. Aussies have a 12% superannuation tax I think that literally pays for their state pension, nice and clear and and entitlement properly funded.

[JM2K6]

Fuck's sake. I really want to try and be optimistic about an incoming Labour government, but they're trying so hard to appeal to who they perceive the red-wall and 'sensible conservative' voters to be that they're really testing the voting intention of those on the left. They need to be careful about not alienating core support.

They're also trying very hard not to commit to anything there's unlikely to be money for in the current climate. Everything this lot does is geared towards neutering the classic attack lines against Labour. In this case, it's the magic money tree / socialists spending everyone's money nonsense. But at some point the defensive approach becomes cowardice - you have to give people something to vote for.

There's no point making promises that can't possibly be followed through on, fair enough. But there are ways of raising funding that they are too scared to mention for fear of giving the Tory press a field day. By boiling everything down to this election calculation, Labour under Starmer has given up any right to be considered a progressive party. They might still be one, but you wouldn't know it after the last six months.

The world has changed post Covid and the economic situation they will inherit is dire, no question. But that also means that maintaining the status quo and not rocking the boat because you fear various political establishments more than you care about the electorate is not going to help one bit.

Which I definitely understand, but the right wing press are not shy of just making shit up or reporting in such a skewed fashion that it might as well be pure fantasy. If their paymasters think keeping the Tories in place makes them more money than apparently directionless Labour, then the attacks will still come and all Labour will have achieved is dampening their own support.

It's all so dispiriting.

Yes, absolutely. We're not quite at USA levels - our version of Fox News is watched by 3 people and a dog - but while what we do have is very influential it is still a losing proposition to try and get them completely onside, because to do so you'd have to abandon everything worth doing.

The rabid Tory press, the mentalists making up the current Tory party, and the mentalists obsessing over Corbyn aren't the vote winners. Give people a reason to vote for you beyond "we're not the Tories" and fuck the press. You're not going to stop the Telegraph and the Spectator printing lies. You're not going to stop Guide Fawkes and Skwawkbox printing lies. You're not going to stop the UKippers and the Momentum crowd screaming about broken promises and hypocrisy and immigration. They're all just noise.

I absolutely do not believe for one minute that a Starmer government would be "Tory-lite". It's weird to me that the same people who obsessively claim that he's a liar who can't be trusted with anything are also taking what he says about policy in the current environment as 100% unbending and unbreakable truth for ever and ever while completely ignoring any explanation or context. I do believe that the new Govt would actually attempt to do right by the country and attempt to govern for the people. We are in absolute hole in a variety of different ways: economically, socially, politically, environmentally. It probably will take something revolutionary to steer the best course, and these guys aren't revolutionary. So they're likely to be tinkering rather than overhauling, having convinced themselves the situation is too dire for anything else. But there's a shit-ton of money to be collected if they're brave enough, and a shit-ton of work that can be done to genuinely improve the lives of every Brit outside of the 0.001%. It just can't be done without putting some powerful noses out of joint and treading on some very expensive toes, and at some point they are going to have to stand up and prove to people that they are willing to do just that.

[Biffer]

Some bits of wealth tax, yes - ending nom don status for example , cgt exemptions - but it would surely be far less efficient tax harvest and valuing people horse stables and oil paintings , when it’s far easier to tax at source like their fuel on the Aga & Aston Martin.

The truly wealthy clearly pay far too little tax, and the middle class increasingly burdened . The bottom deciles pay so little tax in total anyways, I would raise the limit and make more personal tax exempt.

Am on phone so can’t find the thing I saw before from Uk stats, but iirc the bottom 2or 3 deciles paid only 8% of the Uk income tax revenue , yet their marginal rate of all taxes was 40%+ and higher rate than those in the top deciles - those rates are surely the wrong way around !

And fuck this Income Tax / NI split nonsense. It's set up that way to be able to say that higher earners are taxed at 20% more, but that's bullshit. The true income tax rate is NI + Income tax, so 32% for lower earners, 42% for higher earners.

Been a loooong while since I studied public finance but iirc that split was because of the fundamental aims of those 2 pools:
Income tax - for general govt expenditure (ie everything but initially wars against napoleon )
National insurance - for pensions and benefits.

Going back to my earlier rant re hypothecation , there should be FAR tax for this, pays for that explanation. Aussies have a 12% superannuation tax I think that literally pays for their state pension, nice and clear and and entitlement properly funded.

It's meant to be hypothecated, yeah, but in reality it's not. If it was, I'd have less of a problem with it, but NI is a hugely regressive tax and that needs to be fixed.

[I like neeps]

Some bits of wealth tax, yes - ending nom don status for example , cgt exemptions - but it would surely be far less efficient tax harvest and valuing people horse stables and oil paintings , when it’s far easier to tax at source like their fuel on the Aga & Aston Martin.

The truly wealthy clearly pay far too little tax, and the middle class increasingly burdened . The bottom deciles pay so little tax in total anyways, I would raise the limit and make more personal tax exempt.

No I mean on houses. People through no skill have become wealthy by living in a house for 20 years. And it's massively distorted the economy. Or don't tax it but just change planning regulation to mean development is actively encouraged and the value declines naturally.

Sadly, the horse has bolted on the truly wealthy paying tax. Non Dom tax won't really work as the Non Doms will Dom elsewhere.

Value declines naturally ? You mean like Detroit ?

Does it matter it skill was involved in becoming wealthy ?
I’m not disagreeing with you re distortions in the economy and how there should be more built , but going after people in big houses seems extremely inefficient to me when it’s cheap to tax incomes at source. These guys are all dying off anyways and their houses being sold to fund their OAP care.

Detroit the industry is gone, what's really the difference between Detroit and many Northern cities except the North got less wealthy originally and a UK safety net as opposed to US no safety net. It wasn't house prices were insane because there was monetary policy that inflated asset price without economic strategy of investing in stuff.

Yes it absolutely does matter. If someone gets wealthy through skills, hard work, ingenuity, innovation that's great. If you get wealthy through monetary policy then it requires rebalancing or you get in the state of the UK where wealthy boomers kibosh any aspiration and economic development.

[I like neeps]

They're also trying very hard not to commit to anything there's unlikely to be money for in the current climate. Everything this lot does is geared towards neutering the classic attack lines against Labour. In this case, it's the magic money tree / socialists spending everyone's money nonsense. But at some point the defensive approach becomes cowardice - you have to give people something to vote for.

There's no point making promises that can't possibly be followed through on, fair enough. But there are ways of raising funding that they are too scared to mention for fear of giving the Tory press a field day. By boiling everything down to this election calculation, Labour under Starmer has given up any right to be considered a progressive party. They might still be one, but you wouldn't know it after the last six months.

The world has changed post Covid and the economic situation they will inherit is dire, no question. But that also means that maintaining the status quo and not rocking the boat because you fear various political establishments more than you care about the electorate is not going to help one bit.

Which I definitely understand, but the right wing press are not shy of just making shit up or reporting in such a skewed fashion that it might as well be pure fantasy. If their paymasters think keeping the Tories in place makes them more money than apparently directionless Labour, then the attacks will still come and all Labour will have achieved is dampening their own support.

It's all so dispiriting.

Yes, absolutely. We're not quite at USA levels - our version of Fox News is watched by 3 people and a dog - but while what we do have is very influential it is still a losing proposition to try and get them completely onside, because to do so you'd have to abandon everything worth doing.

The rabid Tory press, the mentalists making up the current Tory party, and the mentalists obsessing over Corbyn aren't the vote winners. Give people a reason to vote for you beyond "we're not the Tories" and fuck the press. You're not going to stop the Telegraph and the Spectator printing lies. You're not going to stop Guide Fawkes and Skwawkbox printing lies. You're not going to stop the UKippers and the Momentum crowd screaming about broken promises and hypocrisy and immigration. They're all just noise.

I absolutely do not believe for one minute that a Starmer government would be "Tory-lite". It's weird to me that the same people who obsessively claim that he's a liar who can't be trusted with anything are also taking what he says about policy in the current environment as 100% unbending and unbreakable truth for ever and ever while completely ignoring any explanation or context. I do believe that the new Govt would actually attempt to do right by the country and attempt to govern for the people. We are in absolute hole in a variety of different ways: economically, socially, politically, environmentally. It probably will take something revolutionary to steer the best course, and these guys aren't revolutionary. So they're likely to be tinkering rather than overhauling, having convinced themselves the situation is too dire for anything else. But there's a shit-ton of money to be collected if they're brave enough, and a shit-ton of work that can be done to genuinely improve the lives of every Brit outside of the 0.001%. It just can't be done without putting some powerful noses out of joint and treading on some very expensive toes, and at some point they are going to have to stand up and prove to people that they are willing to do just that.

The British Fox News is the Sun and the Mail which dominate national debate.

They aren't brave enough. Yes it's possible as someone who lies about every policy platform Starmer is lying now and he's got a radical program of improvement planned... Let's hope he is. But the we'll grow the economy but we won't discuss planning reform and we won't discuss Brexit is baloney. Yes we'll improve public services but we won't spend any more money is baloney.

I hope he did find time to stand up to Murdoch at their recent fancy dinners. I hope he's willing to take on the vested interests he's cowtowing to to win elections and he's some strategic genius. But it seems unlikely, no?

[Yeeb]

No I mean on houses. People through no skill have become wealthy by living in a house for 20 years. And it's massively distorted the economy. Or don't tax it but just change planning regulation to mean development is actively encouraged and the value declines naturally.

Sadly, the horse has bolted on the truly wealthy paying tax. Non Dom tax won't really work as the Non Doms will Dom elsewhere.

Value declines naturally ? You mean like Detroit ?

Does it matter it skill was involved in becoming wealthy ?
I’m not disagreeing with you re distortions in the economy and how there should be more built , but going after people in big houses seems extremely inefficient to me when it’s cheap to tax incomes at source. These guys are all dying off anyways and their houses being sold to fund their OAP care.

Detroit the industry is gone, what's really the difference between Detroit and many Northern cities except the North got less wealthy originally and a UK safety net as opposed to US no safety net. It wasn't house prices were insane because there was monetary policy that inflated asset price without economic strategy of investing in stuff.

Yes it absolutely does matter. If someone gets wealthy through skills, hard work, ingenuity, innovation that's great. If you get wealthy through monetary policy then it requires rebalancing or you get in the state of the UK where wealthy boomers kibosh any aspiration and economic development.

Ok - if it matters, how do you propose to tax differently then someone who is a the son of an immigrant , first in his family to go to uni & get professional job and obligatory buy to let flat in addition to his £1m home in Surrey , compared with someone from old money who has a decent enough job at his uncles brokerage but inherited his £1m home in Surrey ?

[JM2K6]

Which I definitely understand, but the right wing press are not shy of just making shit up or reporting in such a skewed fashion that it might as well be pure fantasy. If their paymasters think keeping the Tories in place makes them more money than apparently directionless Labour, then the attacks will still come and all Labour will have achieved is dampening their own support.

It's all so dispiriting.

Yes, absolutely. We're not quite at USA levels - our version of Fox News is watched by 3 people and a dog - but while what we do have is very influential it is still a losing proposition to try and get them completely onside, because to do so you'd have to abandon everything worth doing.

The rabid Tory press, the mentalists making up the current Tory party, and the mentalists obsessing over Corbyn aren't the vote winners. Give people a reason to vote for you beyond "we're not the Tories" and fuck the press. You're not going to stop the Telegraph and the Spectator printing lies. You're not going to stop Guide Fawkes and Skwawkbox printing lies. You're not going to stop the UKippers and the Momentum crowd screaming about broken promises and hypocrisy and immigration. They're all just noise.

I absolutely do not believe for one minute that a Starmer government would be "Tory-lite". It's weird to me that the same people who obsessively claim that he's a liar who can't be trusted with anything are also taking what he says about policy in the current environment as 100% unbending and unbreakable truth for ever and ever while completely ignoring any explanation or context. I do believe that the new Govt would actually attempt to do right by the country and attempt to govern for the people. We are in absolute hole in a variety of different ways: economically, socially, politically, environmentally. It probably will take something revolutionary to steer the best course, and these guys aren't revolutionary. So they're likely to be tinkering rather than overhauling, having convinced themselves the situation is too dire for anything else. But there's a shit-ton of money to be collected if they're brave enough, and a shit-ton of work that can be done to genuinely improve the lives of every Brit outside of the 0.001%. It just can't be done without putting some powerful noses out of joint and treading on some very expensive toes, and at some point they are going to have to stand up and prove to people that they are willing to do just that.

The British Fox News is the Sun and the Mail which dominate national debate.

They aren't brave enough. Yes it's possible as someone who lies about every policy platform Starmer is lying now and he's got a radical program of improvement planned... Let's hope he is. But the we'll grow the economy but we won't discuss planning reform and we won't discuss Brexit is baloney. Yes we'll improve public services but we won't spend any more money is baloney.

I hope he did find time to stand up to Murdoch at their recent fancy dinners. I hope he's willing to take on the vested interests he's cowtowing to to win elections and he's some strategic genius. But it seems unlikely, no?

I can't tell how much of this is a bit.

For the record Starmer's strategy seems quite obvious and quite obviously successful: it's based on the twin pillars of neutering standard attacks on Labour and keeping the lead they've got. It allows them to attack the Tories with impunity and it gives their political opponents (including the press) little to go on. There's zero doubt it is a winning strategy for the election. I wouldn't call it genius, but it's definitely not stupid, and it's working.

What we're really arguing about here is what comes next. I don't really see how Labour fail to win the next election with their current strategy, even with your natural bedfellows screaming at everyone to not vote Labour, because they've largely been ignored (at best!) by the rest of the population for much of the last 8 years. I know it sounds really cool to slag off the leader of one of the two UK parties for playing the game with Murdoch and co, but I can't imagine how anyone seriously believes any Labour leader who wants to win isn't going to at least pay lip service to the establishment. Unless you have managed to get a populist whirlwind behind you - a real one, not a convinced-themselves-he-was-nailed-on-to-win Corbyn one, mind you - then these are the hoops you have to jump through if you want to give yourself the best chance of winning the election.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but most of what Labour can achieve for the benefit of the country can only be achieved if they win an election, including anything to do with the press and limiting Murdoch's power. I personally believe that by playing it so safe they are sometimes abdicating on their responsibilities to people as Opposition, but all that is out of the window at the moment and all eyes are on the election, which is far too far away IMO. It's a gamble - ironic, given their lack of interest in risk - but one that makes sense from their perspective, I just think it's a mistake. Given the amount of time between now and the election, making big statements about what they're going to do when they don't know just how bad things are going to get - and they ARE going to get worse according to pretty much every source you can think of - is obviously another risk and I do applaud them for not coming up with pie in the sky nonsense like nationalised broadband or whatever. The fact that they aren't committing to this stuff right now is, however, mostly meaningless. In some cases they are absolutely right to do. In others I think it's a crying shame that they are refusing to show their hand at all. And with the 2 child cap in particular, it shows the obsession with the finances overrules everything else to an extreme extent. It absolutely should be abolished, because the human cost is verifiably awful. But even that won't make Starmer change the messaging. It's essentially a practical approach taken to the extreme and shows how blinkered he can be.

This is the same as it is with pretty much everything else Starmer's done, be it how he handles dickhead MPs undermining him, any hint of anti-Semitism, the fringe cranks, Brexit, the media, protests, etc. The overriding aim is to transform Labour's public persona from the absolute laughing stock of a party they were for much of the last decade into the "grown up, serious" party that doesn't flirt with extremism, doesn't make absurd promises, isn't riddled with corruption, and is by far the better party to be given the reins and be allowed to rule the country. In comparison the Tories look like the jokes at this point. Which is great, but the huge concern is that by defining yourself by the election and by what you aren't, you don't define yourself by what you are and what you're going to do in power. I agree with the comments about a lack of vision. Starmer is pretty bloodless and doesn't seem to understand the part of the brief beyond the reimagination of the Labour party into a scandal-free serious election winning machine - the part where it's a progressive party fighting for the people, rather than just defining itself as not being what the Tories are or what the previous iteration of the party was. While I can accept some level of keeping your cards close to your chest at this stage as being sensible, it does mean the election manifesto is going to have to be pretty impressive in order to bring actual hope to people, and it also means a lot of people right now are not being given a huge amount to cling to.

But it isn't an election manifesto yet. We can certainly agree on some criticisms, and we will never agree on others. It would be good to see a bit more nuance, but I won't hold my breath!

(And no, the Sun and the Mail are not the British Fox News. As bad as the Sun and the Mail are, they a) are not even as bad as the Express let alone Fox, and b) are a million miles away from the absolute insanity of that particular Yank institution. GB News is the closest we have. Murdoch is a fact of life and there's little to be gained from making him an enemy before the election. Starmer's Labour are looking to defeat the Tories, not Murdoch. Do I worry that Starmer is an authoritarian with no interest in undoing some of the excesses of this Tory Govt? Yes. Do I know that for a fact? No. Does him dealing with Murdoch alter that calculation in the slightest? No, because I'm not an idealist, and that (sadly) is just how this stuff works in the real world.)

[SaintK]

Lockdown party goer who was for some reason given a peerage by the blonde slug swears allegience to the King's ears

[I like neeps]

Yes, absolutely. We're not quite at USA levels - our version of Fox News is watched by 3 people and a dog - but while what we do have is very influential it is still a losing proposition to try and get them completely onside, because to do so you'd have to abandon everything worth doing.

The rabid Tory press, the mentalists making up the current Tory party, and the mentalists obsessing over Corbyn aren't the vote winners. Give people a reason to vote for you beyond "we're not the Tories" and fuck the press. You're not going to stop the Telegraph and the Spectator printing lies. You're not going to stop Guide Fawkes and Skwawkbox printing lies. You're not going to stop the UKippers and the Momentum crowd screaming about broken promises and hypocrisy and immigration. They're all just noise.

I absolutely do not believe for one minute that a Starmer government would be "Tory-lite". It's weird to me that the same people who obsessively claim that he's a liar who can't be trusted with anything are also taking what he says about policy in the current environment as 100% unbending and unbreakable truth for ever and ever while completely ignoring any explanation or context. I do believe that the new Govt would actually attempt to do right by the country and attempt to govern for the people. We are in absolute hole in a variety of different ways: economically, socially, politically, environmentally. It probably will take something revolutionary to steer the best course, and these guys aren't revolutionary. So they're likely to be tinkering rather than overhauling, having convinced themselves the situation is too dire for anything else. But there's a shit-ton of money to be collected if they're brave enough, and a shit-ton of work that can be done to genuinely improve the lives of every Brit outside of the 0.001%. It just can't be done without putting some powerful noses out of joint and treading on some very expensive toes, and at some point they are going to have to stand up and prove to people that they are willing to do just that.

The British Fox News is the Sun and the Mail which dominate national debate.

They aren't brave enough. Yes it's possible as someone who lies about every policy platform Starmer is lying now and he's got a radical program of improvement planned... Let's hope he is. But the we'll grow the economy but we won't discuss planning reform and we won't discuss Brexit is baloney. Yes we'll improve public services but we won't spend any more money is baloney.

I hope he did find time to stand up to Murdoch at their recent fancy dinners. I hope he's willing to take on the vested interests he's cowtowing to to win elections and he's some strategic genius. But it seems unlikely, no?

I can't tell how much of this is a bit.

For the record Starmer's strategy seems quite obvious and quite obviously successful: it's based on the twin pillars of neutering standard attacks on Labour and keeping the lead they've got. It allows them to attack the Tories with impunity and it gives their political opponents (including the press) little to go on. There's zero doubt it is a winning strategy for the election. I wouldn't call it genius, but it's definitely not stupid, and it's working.

What we're really arguing about here is what comes next. I don't really see how Labour fail to win the next election with their current strategy, even with your natural bedfellows screaming at everyone to not vote Labour, because they've largely been ignored (at best!) by the rest of the population for much of the last 8 years. I know it sounds really cool to slag off the leader of one of the two UK parties for playing the game with Murdoch and co, but I can't imagine how anyone seriously believes any Labour leader who wants to win isn't going to at least pay lip service to the establishment. Unless you have managed to get a populist whirlwind behind you - a real one, not a convinced-themselves-he-was-nailed-on-to-win Corbyn one, mind you - then these are the hoops you have to jump through if you want to give yourself the best chance of winning the election.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but most of what Labour can achieve for the benefit of the country can only be achieved if they win an election, including anything to do with the press and limiting Murdoch's power. I personally believe that by playing it so safe they are sometimes abdicating on their responsibilities to people as Opposition, but all that is out of the window at the moment and all eyes are on the election, which is far too far away IMO. It's a gamble - ironic, given their lack of interest in risk - but one that makes sense from their perspective, I just think it's a mistake. Given the amount of time between now and the election, making big statements about what they're going to do when they don't know just how bad things are going to get - and they ARE going to get worse according to pretty much every source you can think of - is obviously another risk and I do applaud them for not coming up with pie in the sky nonsense like nationalised broadband or whatever. The fact that they aren't committing to this stuff right now is, however, mostly meaningless. In some cases they are absolutely right to do. In others I think it's a crying shame that they are refusing to show their hand at all. And with the 2 child cap in particular, it shows the obsession with the finances overrules everything else to an extreme extent. It absolutely should be abolished, because the human cost is verifiably awful. But even that won't make Starmer change the messaging. It's essentially a practical approach taken to the extreme and shows how blinkered he can be.

This is the same as it is with pretty much everything else Starmer's done, be it how he handles dickhead MPs undermining him, any hint of anti-Semitism, the fringe cranks, Brexit, the media, protests, etc. The overriding aim is to transform Labour's public persona from the absolute laughing stock of a party they were for much of the last decade into the "grown up, serious" party that doesn't flirt with extremism, doesn't make absurd promises, isn't riddled with corruption, and is by far the better party to be given the reins and be allowed to rule the country. In comparison the Tories look like the jokes at this point. Which is great, but the huge concern is that by defining yourself by the election and by what you aren't, you don't define yourself by what you are and what you're going to do in power. I agree with the comments about a lack of vision. Starmer is pretty bloodless and doesn't seem to understand the part of the brief beyond the reimagination of the Labour party into a scandal-free serious election winning machine - the part where it's a progressive party fighting for the people, rather than just defining itself as not being what the Tories are or what the previous iteration of the party was. While I can accept some level of keeping your cards close to your chest at this stage as being sensible, it does mean the election manifesto is going to have to be pretty impressive in order to bring actual hope to people, and it also means a lot of people right now are not being given a huge amount to cling to.

But it isn't an election manifesto yet. We can certainly agree on some criticisms, and we will never agree on others. It would be good to see a bit more nuance, but I won't hold my breath!

(And no, the Sun and the Mail are not the British Fox News. As bad as the Sun and the Mail are, they a) are not even as bad as the Express let alone Fox, and b) are a million miles away from the absolute insanity of that particular Yank institution. GB News is the closest we have. Murdoch is a fact of life and there's little to be gained from making him an enemy before the election. Starmer's Labour are looking to defeat the Tories, not Murdoch. Do I worry that Starmer is an authoritarian with no interest in undoing some of the excesses of this Tory Govt? Yes. Do I know that for a fact? No. Does him dealing with Murdoch alter that calculation in the slightest? No, because I'm not an idealist, and that (sadly) is just how this stuff works in the real world.)

Having dinner with Murdoch and licking his anus for favourable publicity doesn't end when you are in power. It's not like Pre Election:
"Hi Uncle Rupe, I'm on your side mate so how about we stop the silly attack articles. Dont worry, my policy platform will be palatable because I need you to rest those attack dogs you call journalists. Are we square"

That doesn't become after election:
"Haha you prick I'm actually progressive and don't align with you at all, unlucky"
The attack dogs attack every day and make your government incredibly unstable with relentless negative press. Not sure how much of a "realist" you have to be to fundamentally not understand the reality of the right wing pressure groups with a printing press we have. Newspaper proprietors have a quid pro quo arrangement with politicians. If you want Murdoch and the rest of them to like you, your politics have to be Murdoch appropriate.

Corbyn lost, we've all moved on. The problem is that Starmer is just a terrible option as PM, who as you say lacks vision beyond discipline. And as you say he has no plans on how to improve the country which is getting worse by the day. He'll win the election, super - I'll be tactically voting LD in a LD/Tory marginal. But he won't improve my life, he won't improve anyone's because he doesn't have even one solution to any one policy problem.

Britain's economic model used by the Tories and New Labour is fundamentally broken. Public services are fundamentally broken, planning is fundamentally broken, Brexit is a disaster. What does Starmer say to that - continue with the broken models and some reform we'll tell you about later. It's not good enough. What happens when he inevitably fails? Some NatCon lunatic in power. Bully for that.

[_Os_]

Britain's economic model used by the Tories and New Labour is fundamentally broken. Public services are fundamentally broken, planning is fundamentally broken, Brexit is a disaster. What does Starmer say to that - continue with the broken models and some reform we'll tell you about later. It's not good enough. What happens when he inevitably fails? Some NatCon lunatic in power.

I agree with all that, other than public services being fundamentally broken. The UK public sector could be better, but it's a funding and staffing issue not something unresolvable that needs to be replaced.

Where things are going wrong is the economic model means a smaller weaker public sector, there's no recognition that without an active capable state the sort of private sector that takes shape ends up being less productive than it could've been. No one is saying something like "the reason there's no growth, is because the public sector hasn't been invested in enough, spending there is an asset not a liability", even the far left which should understand that argument is instead focused on redistribution and not growth.

Brexit remains the giant elephant in the room, until that's revisited there can only be a muddle of different tax rises and spending cuts to fill the -4% of GDP hole (and the reduced tax take). The only other option is domestic economic reform via state driven development plans funded by debt, this can go wrong if the growth doesn't appear. Or Brexit is never revisited and there's no domestic economic reform, the "everything is fucked but nothing can ever change" option, which means a growing debt anyway just more slowly and mostly on consumption.