Snap General Election called - The new UK Politics thread

[Puja]

capture 1.jpg

Well, that took less time to happen than I thought it would. If other polls start showing up like that, it could start to accelerate quite quickly if people see Green as the "sensible" vote to stop Reform.

Puja

[paddy no 11]

Randy Andy in right trouble now, there's the prospect of much mud being thrown in a commons debate...........apparently

[morepork]

Randy Andy in right trouble now, there's the prospect of much mud being thrown in a commons debate...........apparently

It’s past time the lid was lifted on this fermenting turd. If jug ears is really sincere about addressing this, he will step up for the victims, including one who took her own life. What a cancer that family is on constructive discourse.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Hope this article is wrong and Reeves isn't insane enough to raise the basic rate of tax. It would not only hit almost all workers and hit the UK's economic brakes, but it would be brutally punished by voters. If there's one group Starmer's Labour love to claim to support, it's 'ordinary working families'.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -challenge

Far better to raise taxes on unearned income (capital gains, dividends) to the rates incurred by earned income. And if that isn't enough, raise the top tax rate . . . broadest shoulders and all that.

[Stom]

Hope this article is wrong and Reeves isn't insane enough to raise the basic rate of tax. It would not only hit almost all workers and hit the UK's economic brakes, but it would be brutally punished by voters. If there's one group Starmer's Labour love to claim to support, it's 'ordinary working families'.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -challenge

Far better to raise taxes on unearned income (capital gains, dividends) to the rates incurred by earned income. And if that isn't enough, raise the top tax rate . . . broadest shoulders and all that.

Listened to Richard Murphy on this...yeah, she seems terribly incompetent...

[Son of Mathonwy]

[Son of Mathonwy]

Greens at 18% and 2nd place (again) in the latest poll. (Greens seem to score better with Findoutnow and Yougov).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

[Sandydragon]

Hope this article is wrong and Reeves isn't insane enough to raise the basic rate of tax. It would not only hit almost all workers and hit the UK's economic brakes, but it would be brutally punished by voters. If there's one group Starmer's Labour love to claim to support, it's 'ordinary working families'.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -challenge

Far better to raise taxes on unearned income (capital gains, dividends) to the rates incurred by earned income. And if that isn't enough, raise the top tax rate . . . broadest shoulders and all that.

Reeves is about to do something very silly, but since this government can’t cut spending it seems she will ignore labours manifesto commitment.

[Sandydragon]

Which policies of Blair's New Labour would you like to see emulated by Starmer's Labour?

Continuing to frame immigration as a problem will continue to hand votes to Farage, no matter what policy you propose. You will be saying Farage is right, keep immigration as the big issue and voters will go to Reform because everyone knows that they will have the more radical policy in that area.

The only way to take oxygen from Farage is to change the message completely - immigrants are not the cause of declining living standards, getting rid of them will not fix your lives any more than Brexit did when that was the miracle cure sold by Farage. There is another cause, that is inequality, and there's a different cure for that. Unfortunately Starmer is a rich man paid for by even richer men and will never make that the message.

Ignoring immigration wont work, its too far gone for that. The situation is broken - thousands of people risking their lives on unseaworthy craft isnt a sign working well. Would anyone on here disagree with that?

If the benefits of immigration had been pushed a decade ago, that might have worked. Instead, the issue was seen as racist and ignored, allowing Farage, and worse, to capitalise on it. There has to be a sensible debate around numbers, skills, etc, but Labour won't survive by trying to ignore the issue.

If Labour were to adopt a pro business approach that might help them out. So far, they have strangled more growth than they have created. Looking at how they can help the economy to grow would be a start, working with business as Blair was quite happy to do, which might then provide the money for the giveaways the Labour party wants to throw about.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt from my side here, and agree that there needs to be a big pro business approach. Small business. The same people Thatcher went after with pretty much all her policies, the "petite boulanger". I come from a pretty right of centre background, and while I am generally leaning further to the left, I still believe strongly that small, local businesses are the corner stone of the economy.

Big business, however, drains money from the economy. They rack up massive profits, which they pass on to shareholders, who save that money instead of putting it back into the economy, and pay a lower tax on their rewards than if they were employed.

First thing I would do is realign the tax system so that capital gains tax, dividends tax are aligned directly to income tax, and that you need to pay national insurance on those incomes. So a working class man making 50,000 a year pays the same tax as a rich man making 50,000 a year off his investments, because right now the latter pays less. That is neither fair nor good for the country.

We tend to look at what happened in the country AND the politics at the time, and then try to put two and two together sometimes. Did Blair have boom years because he was in power when the largest generation entered the workforce? Did he get to ride on the strong downward trend of unemployment? Because it was trending down very strongly, and continued to go down.

I would argue that Blair's success came about more because of what happened before him than what happened during his time. He reaped the benefits of the short-term (or medium term) boost to public funding given by the privatisation of services.

And that medium term boost has all gone now. We only get to feel the downside. We only see the rising prices, while the government has no leverage and no assets.

In fact, immediately after Blair has spent the money that came from these privatisations, we enter a period of "austerity" that has lasted until today and led to massive inequality and public services that are not fit for purpose.

Yet they are generally accepted facts. Public discourse around them is there, but it's not universal.

Because the Overton Window has been moved. Privatisation is a given. Big businesses are a given. Treating government like a "household" is a given. These are right leaning positions. They may align with your own views, but they are not centrist.

Shareholders help companies to expand and that normally means more jobs, which puts money back into the economy through taxation and spending. Plus theres corporation tax.

I assume you are really referring to multinationals who structure their affairs to avoid tax. Totally agree with you there.

Blair benefitted from a strong economic recovery he inherited from Major. There was privatisation income that’s fair but there was also economic growth that helped pay for greater government expenditure.

And I’d contest that privatisation is a given. The idea of renationalising the railways has polled well for a while.

[Puja]

Comedy stuff from the Labour party, reminiscent of the mid-90s Conservative party, as Starmer accused of briefing against Streeting for having been slightly less incompetent than his boss and thus a potential leadership threat: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... iefing-row

Only upshot of this is that Morgan McSweeney might be given the blame and have to fall on his sword, which would improve Starmer's leadership no end.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Comedy stuff from the Labour party, reminiscent of the mid-90s Conservative party, as Starmer accused of briefing against Streeting for having been slightly less incompetent than his boss and thus a potential leadership threat: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... iefing-row

Only upshot of this is that Morgan McSweeney might be given the blame and have to fall on his sword, which would improve Starmer's leadership no end.

Puja

This is as inept as we have come to expect.

The positive is that Starmer is going to go, there's no doubt, so the sooner the better. So any rumblings or plots bring us closer to that day.

The negative is that Streeting is a leading candidate to take over. In a clear contest with a number of options I wouldn't give him a great chance because when I last looked he was very unpopular with the membership. However with 20% of MPs support needed to get nominated there will be a very small number of candidates to face the membership vote and Christ help us he might win.

Still whatever it takes. Step one is Starmer goes. I don't think Streeting will be any better but we must attempt to improve this government, otherwise: Farage. Maybe we have to get past Starmer and Streeting.

[Danno]

Ewww don't post tanskii. She's scum.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Mahmood tells the country Farage is right:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ecome-safe