Westminster Politics

[Maticmaker]

As to how we get realistic action. I don't know. I'm pretty sure, though, that patient silence married to hoping hard enough isn't going to get it done.

First you have to get Labour in power with a majority that means it can move mountains, then give them time to address the problems realistically. To turn the good ship UK around, or merely to avoid the rocks (Climate, Energy, Water and Migration) in the future, is going to take three terms... at least
Last time when Labour was in a three term government with Blair and Brown, some things got done, but not a lot, Blair and Brown crossed swords and this bled Labour internally, mainly because both had differing views about how to get things done. Starmer can't afford that luxury, at the moment he seems to have his troops in the expected shadow cabinet, four square behind him.
It's now or never for Labour and for the future of the millions of ordinary folk in this country, your children, grandchildren and possibly your great grandchildren will never forgive you if you 'ba**'s it up again with internal 'left v right' machinations... this is not the time to take your ball home, because the ref appears to have missed a stone-wall penalty.

 

[Sweet Square]

It’s difficult though because as bad as the labour policies are, the conservatives are much worse and a vote for anyone but labour feels like a waste

I understand the people who will be reluctantly voting Labour as it’s a two party system or have a good local Labour MP. It’s the others who are now really into defending austerity policies and water down climate pledges that I don’t get.

The Greens lost an employment tribunal bought by Shahrar Ali, who was removed as a spokesperson for his 'gender critical' views: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68250071.

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

Thanks. I had no idea about this. A depressing read

At the moment I am just not going to vote.

Same. My current Election Day plans are

 

[Flying high]

Vote Starmer and reward the stitching-up of the left.

If I thought the tories had a chance of winning, then I might reluctantly vote labour. But the tories will get far fewer votes than last time, that much is certain. If labour win with a massive majority, then where's the incentive for them to ever put forward a left-ish manifesto again? They already think they're being 'grown up' by ditching investment, when in reality such investments are the only sensible solution to not only the climate crisis, but the general downturn this country has seen over the last 20 years.

Voting green may be little more than symbolic. They aren't a party equipped to hold many seats even if they somehow won a few dozen. But at some point we have to move away from the 2 party stranglehold, and at least a vote for them is a vote closer to my ideals and, in some small way at least, gives them extra clout going forward.

 

[That'sHernandez]

I understand the people who will be reluctantly voting Labour as it’s a two party system or have a good local Labour MP. It’s the others who are now really into defending austerity policies and water down climate pledges that I don’t get.

Thankfully I have a decent local MP, which has made voting labour for me much easier to reconcile since 2015.

What I just don’t get is, truly, for the first time in the last 14 years the electorate seems sick to their back teeth of the Tory government and yet the Labour party’s strategy is to be the Tory government

 

[Drainy]

Thankfully I have a decent local MP, which has made voting labour for me much easier to reconcile since 2015.

What I just don’t get is, truly, for the first time in the last 14 years the electorate seems sick to their back teeth of the Tory government and yet the Labour party’s strategy is to be the Tory government

I moved to one of the Labour areas that went Tory in the last election. The local Tory MP is involved in gay conversation therapy so pretty motivated to vote Labour

 

[Paul the Wolf]

The problem with Labour was choosing the wrong leader at a crucial time. There's one window of opportunity and this is it.
But the British electorate seem to like choosing weak leaders and proven liars.
What a waste.

 

[Drainy]

Vote Starmer and reward the stitching-up of the left.

If I thought the tories had a chance of winning, then I might reluctantly vote labour. But the tories will get far fewer votes than last time, that much is certain. If labour win with a massive majority, then where's the incentive for them to ever put forward a left-ish manifesto again? They already think they're being 'grown up' by ditching investment, when in reality such investments are the only sensible solution to not only the climate crisis, but the general downturn this country has seen over the last 20 years.

Voting green may be little more than symbolic. They aren't a party equipped to hold many seats even if they somehow won a few dozen. But at some point we have to move away from the 2 party stranglehold, and at least a vote for them is a vote closer to my ideals and, in some small way at least, gives them extra clout going forward.

It's the same conundrum as the US. If you're in a competitive area vote responsibly, if you are in a safe seat you can do a protest vote by voting green. If the greens end up winning that seat they have a voice in parliament, and if there is a hung parliament will potentially get concessions to supply confidence.

 

[Sweet Square]

What I just don’t get is, truly, for the first time in the last 14 years the electorate seems sick to their back teeth of the Tory government and yet the Labour party’s strategy is to be the Tory government

I think many of them are just right wingers. Starmer lied during the leadership(His campaign was getting backed by all sorts of right forces)and even Starmer career before was pretty telling. The guy is a knighted sir who upheld the decision not to prosecute the officers that killed Jean Charles de Menaces. And large sections of the PLP spent the Corbyn years getting to get him and left wing labour members.

With these people in charge of the party left wing policy was and is never going to be implemented imo.

 

[Flying high]

It's the same conundrum as the US. If you're in a competitive area vote responsibly, if you are in a safe seat you can do a protest vote by voting green. If the greens end up winning that seat they have a voice in parliament, and if there is a hung parliament will potentially get concessions to supply confidence.

Well, I am in a competitive area. It's been labour for many years but, due to boundary changes and brexit, it flipped to tory recently. I'm still confident it will flip back to labour this time. If it doesn't, then so be it. This version of labour don't deserve a huge majority. If they spend 5 years courting the right wing vote and I still vote for them, then more fool me.

 

[Drainy]

Well, I am in a competitive area. It's been labour for many years but, due to boundary changes and brexit, it flipped to tory recently. I'm still confident it will flip back to labour this time. If it doesn't, then so be it. This version of labour don't deserve a huge majority. If they spend 5 years courting the right wing vote and I still vote for them, then more fool me.

And if the Tories win then they have already committed to further public service cuts to fund tax breaks for higher earners so unless you are earning a decent wack will suck to be you, and god knows how far they will take the piss going forward

 

[Flying high]

And if the Tories win then they have already committed to further public service cuts to fund tax breaks for higher earners so unless you are earning a decent wack will suck to be you, and god knows how far they will take the piss going forward

That's the gamble, yes. But it's one labour are taking by moving so far to the right.

 

[Jericholyte2]

I understand the people who will be reluctantly voting Labour as it’s a two party system or have a good local Labour MP. It’s the others who are now really into defending austerity policies and water down climate pledges that I don’t get.



Thanks. I had no idea about this. A depressing read

Same. My current Election Day plans are

I seriously don’t get what you don’t get…given the choice in a two-Party system I’ll choose a watered down climate policy over one that denies climate change exists (see 30p Lee Anderthal and the fact that Sunak will be appearing on a TV station that happily hosts climate change deniers).

What I want from this country is far away from what either Party is offering, but then we enter the ‘Taxi vs Public Transport’ theory about political parties…

 

[Drainy]

That's the gamble, yes. But it's one labour are taking by moving so far to the right.

If you are talking fiscal policy, they are literally being driven by financial realities, as has been explained probably a dozen times in the thread.

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

 

[Sweet Square]

Ed Miliband is good example of the average Labour member.



A nice guy who wants nice things but is continuously getting duped and humiliated on a daily basis.

 

[RedChip]

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

 

[Jericholyte2]

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

I think we’re actually well past that point.

The work needed to repair the various systems (public sector, transport, energy, housing, infrastructure just to name a few) will take decades and trillions to do, even assuming that the consistent political will to do it is there.

I don’t see how, barring a major economic revolution, it can realistically happen.

 

[Drainy]

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

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

My view is that Labour want a closer trading relationship with Europe, and shift the tax burden back towards people who can afford it, and that will stimulate growth and lower debt to GDP making financing easier and they can cut their cloth accordingly once things improve.

 

[Mogget]

Well the unfortunate reality of our political system is that only two Parties have a shot of forming a government. We can wish for PR until we’re blue in the face but the reality is the Green Party can essentially put whatever it wants in its Manifesto, because it’ll never have to act on it.

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

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

Then we can start putting pressure on Labour to do things, when they’re actually in power and CAN do things.

You're going to pray for capitalism to collapse whilst voting for Keir Starmer.

We're fecked.

 

[Jericholyte2]

You're going to pray for capitalism to collapse whilst voting for Keir Starmer.

We're fecked.

Yes because, as I’ve said countless times, voting isn’t like getting a taxi, it’s like getting on a bus. It’s never going to drop you off exactly where you want to go but you have to start with (a) a bus that has a running engine and (b) one that’s heading closer to the one you’re currently stuck on.

 

[Mogget]

Yes because, as I’ve said countless times, voting isn’t like getting a taxi, it’s like getting on a bus. It’s never going to drop you off exactly where you want to go but you have to start with (a) a bus that has a running engine and (b) one that’s heading closer to the one you’re currently stuck on.

Maybe I'm just incredibly naive but I don't think capitalism is going to collapse by us voting. Especially not voting for an establishment stooge like Starmer.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

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

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

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

If and when he gets in what happens then. The effects of Brexit have barely started and are guaranteed to get worse. There's no new renegotiating of Brexit as he thinks.

 

[Jericholyte2]

Maybe I'm just incredibly naive but I don't think capitalism is going to collapse by us voting. Especially not voting for an establishment stooge like Starmer.

But that’s why I pray for it, I don’t see it as a realistic outcome (at least in my lifetime) as I’m in a far too quiet minority.

 

[Eplel]

Or vote in Starmer. Have 3-4 years of non-action while the media blame Labour for everything the Tories did in the previous 14 years and the next general election all is forgiven and forgotten and the same Tory party get in with another super majority on an anti-immigration / low tax platform.

If that happens, then you cannot blame the tories alone. You have to start blaming the British public.

 

[RedChip]

I don’t see how, barring a major economic revolution, it can realistically happen.

This is my worry, too. The chances of such a revolution are pretty small if you ignore blind optimism in technology saving the day.

 

[Vernon Philander]

I'd like to see more concrete plans and a framework of investment presented that highlights both the costs and projected benefits. There's some half decent economic analyses of the benefits of free school meals knocking about. Those are reasonable models for evaluating policies and couching the benefits of social investment in economic terms. This sort of analysis should have been expanded a while ago: This is the policy>This is the method of implementation>This is the cost>This is the expected economic benefit. Analyses of the costs of failing to invest should be highlighted and presented in a similar manner. There's plenty of highly visible projections for future debt repayments, but fewer that analyse the future costs of today's underinvestment. I think redressing this imbalance in reporting and analysis would go a long way to spurring greater action.

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

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

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

Shoving Social Cost into the drawer is a sad reality of the politics that wins elections under FPTP.

 

[Pexbo]

If that happens, then you cannot blame the tories alone. You have to start blaming the British public.

I already do?

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

To add more to the list of doom.

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

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

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

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

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I'll repeat what I've said to others but you're taking a narrow view of the issue, the OBR is quite clear in it's reports that the cost of delaying net zero impacts future finances negatively and that undermines our ability to control debt. Why you lot keep ignoring this is beyond me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have never voted Tory.

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

 

[Maticmaker]

To add more to the list of doom.

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

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

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

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

All true, but many on here want Starmer to pretend none of this exists, and 'bet the farm' on things that won't show any real improvement for another twenty years at least. Not sure all the young people emerging from schools, colleges and Universities in the mean time will mind waiting that long. There has to be a balance between dealing with the present and investing for the future and Starmer knows that and until he has seen what the real size of the problems he will inherit are, he is limiting expectations.

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[Flying high]

If you are talking fiscal policy, they are literally being driven by financial realities, as has been explained probably a dozen times in the thread.

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

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

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

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

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

So if labour want my vote, they've got the rest of this year to change their narrative.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I wonder if more people are aware of the U-turn than the original pledge because the news of the U-turn has been plastered everywhere as if it's the first U-turn a political party has ever made? For example, I'm certainly seeing you post about it more than any actual Tory U-turn that they've commited when in actual power.

 

[Frosty]

Cash-strapped local authorities across the UK took out massive 50-year loans at soaring rates of interest in the aftermath of Liz Truss’s catastrophic mini-budget, according to official figures that reveal more about the long-term cost to the public of her 49 days in office.

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

https://www.theguardian.com/society...take-out-massive-loans-at-high-interest-rates

 

[The Corinthian]

The Greens lost an employment tribunal bought by Shahrar Ali, who was removed as a spokesperson for his 'gender critical' views: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68250071.

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

At the moment I am just not going to vote.

Thanks. I had no idea about this. A depressing read

Let’s just be clear - this is what he wrote:

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

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

He also added that gender and biological sex are two separate qualities, so it’s hardly controversial what he said. It’s another depressing step into this culture war, that only really exists online.

 

[Adisa]

How can it be justified that you pay a higher rate of tax for money you work for than capital gains?
The whole system is rigged to favour the wealthy.

 

[Bert_]

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

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

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

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

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

I have never voted Tory.

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

Ideally, we would have borrowed during the historically low interest rates we saw 2010-2020. If the communist czech spy hamas supporter won in 2017, then we might have actually taken advantage of that, albeit later than we should have.

 

[Jippy]

How can it be justified that you pay a higher rate of tax for money you work for than capital gains?
The whole system is rigged to favour the wealthy.

Capital Gains Tax is lower than income tax for both basic and higher rate taxpayers. Many countries don't have this tax at all.

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

 

[TwoSheds]

Capital Gains Tax is lower than income tax for both basic and higher rate taxpayers. Many countries don't have this tax at all.

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

If your investments were taxed more then your pension income would be able to be taxed less...

 

[Jippy]

If your investments were taxed more then your pension income would be able to be taxed less...

Your pension income would be taxed less because there would be less of it I suppose.