The Labour Party under Keir Starmer

[DarloRich]

The Labour government has faced a lot of on line and whopper commentary focused on an alleged 2 tier justice system.

Funny that this patriuts have been very silent about the, erm, two tier system created especially for their hero Tiny Tommy ten names.

It is odd that an actual two tier system has not been remarked upon by these people.

 

[jon0844]

They always compare with Russia for the number of people locked up for posting something online, as if that's proof we just lock people up for using their right to free speech.

We locked up a number of people who were inciting violence. Russia often 'disappears' people. Hardly a worthy comparison, and who is counting the numbers anyway?

Obviously Elon and his fanboys are quick to suggest we have no free speech (as well as the VP of the USA) but how come all the people saying these crazy things aren't being jailed? They're posting this nonsense and nothing is happening to them.

Now go to Russia and try the same on VK.

 

[MotCO]

Again there's been news stories about the impact of the NI changes:

National Trust freezes recruitment after £10m jump in costs

Conservation charity is also pausing some projects because of labour costs stemming from the autumn budget

www.theguardian.com

£10 million is a lot of money, but how much is that of their total staff costs?

Well it's not that easy to find recent data, but in 2015 it was £195 million. Unless they've been making cuts since then the impact is around 5% (probably lower as last year they saw their costs - as lot related to staff costs - increase by about £35 million).

Yes that £10 million is making things worse, but again a 5% increase is far from the only factor and the fact the press are still portraying it as the main reason is a little disingenuous.

The NI increase is twofold:

• The rate of employer’s National Insurance Contributions (NICs) will rise by 1.2%, bringing it to 15%.
• The Employer’s NI Secondary Threshold will decrease from £9,100 to £5,000.

The second part will probably affect the National Trust if they rely a lot on part-time staff, and could be a higher cost than the first part. For example, a part time worker earning £12.21 National Living Wage 12 hours a week for 52 weeks will earn £7,619. Previously there would be no NI; after April there will be an employer's cost of £393, an effective cost increase of 5.2%, and not just a 1.2% increase implied by the increase in the rate.

 

[Yew]

Has anyone checked to make sure that Rachel Reeves isn't in George Osbourne in a wig?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Has anyone checked to make sure that Rachel Reeves isn't in George Osbourne in a wig?

She's more like Denis Healey without the eyebrows or turn of wit.
She faces just the same dilemma as he did in the 1970s, of a stagnant, low-productivity economy and huge national debt, with the IMF and exchange markets hovering.
The result was price and wage control, followed by Margaret Thatcher.
Luckily we had North Sea oil then, which saw us through the next few decades.

 

[TheSmiths82]

Has anyone checked to make sure that Rachel Reeves isn't in George Osbourne in a wig?

I was just thinking earlier today I am sure she is actually a Tory who has been planted in the labour party to damage them as much as possible. I never did like Reeves much though after seeing videos of how she was treating people at the Labour conference before they won the election. She had an attitude of "I am too important to stop and talk to you".

 

[BAFRA77]

She's more like Denis Healey without the eyebrows or turn of wit.
She faces just the same dilemma as he did in the 1970s, of a stagnant, low-productivity economy and huge national debt, with the IMF and exchange markets hovering.
The result was price and wage control, followed by Margaret Thatcher.
Luckily we had North Sea oil then, which saw us through the next few decades.

The North Sea Oil would have gone a lot further if Thatcher hadn't have sold it all off - instead of ringfencing it and putting the revenue in a Sovereign Wealth Fund - as we did in Norway.

Now compare the two nations - and the standards of living today...

 

[Cloud Strife]

• The rate of employer’s National Insurance Contributions (NICs) will rise by 1.2%, bringing it to 15%.

This really would be much better and fairer if it was all taken from the gross salary. Employer contributions are just a way to introduce stealth tax rises, nothing more.

She faces just the same dilemma as he did in the 1970s, of a stagnant, low-productivity economy and huge national debt, with the IMF and exchange markets hovering.

And without the ability to sell off the family silver to cook the books.

 

[brad465]

This really would be much better and fairer if it was all taken from the gross salary. Employer contributions are just a way to introduce stealth tax rises, nothing more.

I would have at least partially reversed the base NI tax rate: Hunt cut it from 12p to 10p then to 8p. The taxpayer had barely got used to paying the lower rate and it was clearly unaffordable nationally. If Labour had said "we'll reverse these cuts, but after that, no further tax rises on working people", they'd have avoided a lot of the drama that's followed. But then there must have been no appetite among swing voters for this.

And without the ability to sell off the family silver to cook the books.

To paraphrase Thatcher, "the problem with neoliberalism is that you eventually run out of assets to strip [to create the illusion it works]."

 

[geoffk]

She's more like Denis Healey without the eyebrows or turn of wit.
She faces just the same dilemma as he did in the 1970s, of a stagnant, low-productivity economy and huge national debt, with the IMF and exchange markets hovering.
The result was price and wage control, followed by Margaret Thatcher.
Luckily we had North Sea oil then, which saw us through the next few decades.

Luckily we were also in the Common Market and its successor organisations. Meanwhile our North Sea oil revenues were squandered on tax cuts while Norway's went into a sovereign wealth fund. To put it another way, while Britain squandered the profits, the Norwegians banked theirs.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I would have at least partially reversed the base NI tax rate: Hunt cut it from 12p to 10p then to 8p. The taxpayer had barely got used to paying the lower rate and it was clearly unaffordable nationally. If Labour had said "we'll reverse these cuts, but after that, no further tax rises on working people", they'd have avoided a lot of the drama that's followed. But then there must have been no appetite among swing voters for this.

I think this is the problem that Labour find themselves in: they know fine well that there's nothing in the bank and almost no way to raise revenue, yet they don't have the courage to say that they were elected with a clear mandate to govern and that there will be tax increases. They could have got away with it if they'd abolished the employer NI contribution, as everyone would receive a fairly substantial increase in their gross salaries, which would have gone a long way to cover up that the contribution was simply transferred to the employee. They could even have abolished NI contributions full stop and moved it all into income tax, along with an information campaign that "you pay income tax and nothing else, no more stealth taxation".

It would have been unpopular in the short term, but I think everyone would be far better off for knowing that they pay a single rate of income tax and that it's very clear exactly how much tax is taken. NI contributions are, in this day and age, largely a fraud with a flat rate pension system.

 

[uglymonkey]

The country is in terminal decline ( been for a while) hastened by Brexit etc. It's unsustainable , what exactly are we getting for the highest tax take since the war? And how is democracy working for us? Conservative austerity swapped for Labour austerity. No wonder people are disengaged from politics when nothing changes, and they are then increasingly drawn towards populist , authoritarian solutions.

 

[takno]

The country is in terminal decline ( been for a while) hastened by Brexit etc. It's unsustainable , what exactly are we getting for the highest tax take since the war? And how is democracy working for us? Conservative austerity swapped for Labour austerity. No wonder people are disengaged from politics when nothing changes, and they are then increasingly drawn towards populist , authoritarian solutions.

Conservative "austerity" saw a bunch of cuts in some pretty essential services. Investment in useful or money-saving things falling off a cliff. Worse still no actual savings were realised because of the lack of investment, because vast pointless bureaucracies like NHS England were allowed to develop, and because the core civil service was increased in size without any control or reasoning as to why. All this was done following the appointment of stupidly well-paid leaders with no sense of, or experience in, public service, who often seemed to have been chosen more for their close relationships with the government rather than any skill or interest in the area they were managing.

Labour's policy involves very significant cuts to a number of these pointless publicly-funded vanity projects, which actually should help stabilise the public sector finances, opening the opportunity for better public services and/or tax cuts down the line. Moreover, since you raise the topic of terminal decline, Labour have announced and begun to enact an absolutely huge increase in investment, coupled with policies to encourage private investment, and construction industry training.

In terms of changes, I'm pleased about all the investment, and the action on bureaucracy, and I'm optimistic that the economy may be put on a slightly better footing. Day-to-day, growth and inflation are heading in the right direction. In the midst of international chaos and a deeply uncertain security environment, our currency and wider economy are both reasonably-comfortably holding their own, and we have a leadership which isn't chickening out of doing what's necessary.

Sure, I don't see any immediate specific improvements to my life, but then I didn't expect to. Changes to the wider economy and society don't happen overnight, and broadly-speaking do at least seem to have started.

 

[The Ham]

I think this is the problem that Labour find themselves in: they know fine well that there's nothing in the bank and almost no way to raise revenue, yet they don't have the courage to say that they were elected with a clear mandate to govern and that there will be tax increases. They could have got away with it if they'd abolished the employer NI contribution, as everyone would receive a fairly substantial increase in their gross salaries, which would have gone a long way to cover up that the contribution was simply transferred to the employee. They could even have abolished NI contributions full stop and moved it all into income tax, along with an information campaign that "you pay income tax and nothing else, no more stealth taxation".

It would have been unpopular in the short term, but I think everyone would be far better off for knowing that they pay a single rate of income tax and that it's very clear exactly how much tax is taken. NI contributions are, in this day and age, largely a fraud with a flat rate pension system.

As employer NI is fairly hidden from staff I suspect that most companies (especially those paying minimum wage) would have just boosted their profits rather than pay their staff more.

Also, by removing NI entirely, if you think that taking £300 (winter fuel allowance) from pensioners was bad, imagine how much worse the fallout would have been if they had to start paying tax on what others pay NI on (as pensioners don't pay NI) as a lot of pensioners with some form of other income would be impacted by it.

They wouldn't need to be on much to have lost more than what they lost in winter fuel allowance.

You could get away with reducing NI by (say) 2% and shifting that amount to income tax as that would require a significantly higher income before the loss matched a given value.

If we take the value as being £300 and employee NI being 8% if that full amount shifted to Income tax (and assuming no shift for the employers NI) then pensioners would be worse off after they earn £3,750 above the tax threshold.

For the full NI (including employer's NI) it would be significantly less than this at around £1,400.

Conversely a 2% tax shift would mean they had to earn £15,000 above the threshold (or getting on for £30,000) to "pay back" £300.

 

[Morgsie]

I could be impacted by the proposed welfare reforms, loss of money and poor mental health getting worse

 

[WelshBluebird]

as everyone would receive a fairly substantial increase in their gross salaries

You know its still a few days before April fools? There's literally no chance most businesses would transfer through employer NI to salaries. Literally zero chance.

 

[Markdvdman]

It is a disgrace. No Labour Politician has ever run a business! They do not care. To hit employers is a disgrace!!! Watch out employers going bust because of this draconian tax policy

 

[Cloud Strife]

You know its still a few days before April fools? There's literally no chance most businesses would transfer through employer NI to salaries. Literally zero chance.

Wouldn't be difficult to organise, you'd just require every business to provide monthly payslips for a year to their employees, stating how much the employer currently pays in NI on top of the gross salary, and then legally require those businesses to up the gross amount at the end of the year to the amount including employer NI. Then after that, payslips for a year would contain the new gross amount with a comparison to the old system.

If it was accompanied by a large PR campaign, it would be very difficult for companies not to up the gross amount accordingly.

 

[oldman]

If it was accompanied by a large PR campaign, it would be very difficult for companies not to up the gross amount accordingly.

The PR campaign could also explain the tax increases and/or spending cuts needed to cover about one-sixth of the government's tax revenue (IFS).

 

[The Ham]

Wouldn't be difficult to organise, you'd just require every business to provide monthly payslips for a year to their employees, stating how much the employer currently pays in NI on top of the gross salary, and then legally require those businesses to up the gross amount at the end of the year to the amount including employer NI. Then after that, payslips for a year would contain the new gross amount with a comparison to the old system.

If it was accompanied by a large PR campaign, it would be very difficult for companies not to up the gross amount accordingly.

To cover quite a number of people the government would also have to increase the minimum wage.

 

[Cloud Strife]

To cover quite a number of people the government would also have to increase the minimum wage.

Not a terrible idea. It would give people a real idea of what they're actually earning and how much the government is taking from them.

 

[The Ham]

Not a terrible idea. It would give people a real idea of what they're actually earning and how much the government is taking from them.

Indeed, I wasn't suggesting it was (although I'm sure business would find some way of trying to spin it as costing them more and other deductions, such as pensions, may actually result in a slightly lower take home pay - but they are fairly easy to deal with).

 

[317 forever]

The country is in terminal decline ( been for a while) hastened by Brexit etc. It's unsustainable , what exactly are we getting for the highest tax take since the war? And how is democracy working for us? Conservative austerity swapped for Labour austerity. No wonder people are disengaged from politics when nothing changes, and they are then increasingly drawn towards populist , authoritarian solutions.

This has enabled or at least assisted Reform's rise in the polls. They are at least in the running to win the Runcorn & Helsby by-election on May 1st.

 

[Broucek]

... what exactly are we getting for the highest tax take since the war?

I'm a pretty high earner and I pay a lot of tax. No problem EXCEPT the tax take is going up and public services are getting worse. Lots of pet partisan theories as to the causes but I've not seen many truly convincing proposed remedies

 

[Richard Scott]

I'm a pretty high earner and I pay a lot of tax. No problem EXCEPT the tax take is going up and public services are getting worse. Lots of pet partisan theories as to the causes but I've not seen many truly convincing proposed remedies

Seems to be money wasted on a lot of pointless things, see can still get an EV grant, assume that's government funded?
Where my mother lives the council have built a new cycle path with a government contribution of over £40million, no consultation and, guess what, no one uses it.
It's these sorts of things that all add up, individually they make no difference but together it doesn't help. There's no accountability now.
Organisations like NHS do need taking in hand as I'm sure massive amounts of money are wasted (purely my own speculation) as just throwing more money at them isn't working and never will work.

 

[MotCO]

Seems to be money wasted on a lot of pointless things, see can still get an EV grant, assume that's government funded?
Where my mother lives the council have built a new cycle path with a government contribution of over £40million, no consultation and, guess what, no one uses it.
It's these sorts of things that all add up, individually they make no difference but together it doesn't help. There's no accountability now.
Organisations like NHS do need taking in hand as I'm sure massive amounts of money are wasted (purely my own speculation) as just throwing more money at them isn't working and never will work.

I'm not a fan of bonus payments to civil servants, but maybe if they met stretching targets and underspent their budget by a certain percentage , then maybe they should. This may focus their minds more.

 

[Richard Scott]

I'm not a fan of bonus payments to civil servants, but maybe if they met stretching targets and underspent their budget by a certain percentage , then maybe they should. This may focus their minds more.

I agree, it's too easy when it's someone else's money.
A lot of people miss this and say the government should pay, where do they think the government get the money.
Civil servants should be more accountable for their spending.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Seems to be money wasted on a lot of pointless things, see can still get an EV grant, assume that's government funded?
Where my mother lives the council have built a new cycle path with a government contribution of over £40million, no consultation and, guess what, no one uses it.
It's these sorts of things that all add up, individually they make no difference but together it doesn't help. There's no accountability now.
Organisations like NHS do need taking in hand as I'm sure massive amounts of money are wasted (purely my own speculation) as just throwing more money at them isn't working and never will work.

Just because you don't like the schemes it doesn't mean they are pointless.

EV grants are there to incentivise people to move to less polluting vehicles. If nothing else in our cities this should help reduce the burden on the NHS in terms of respiratory conditions caused by pollution.

Cycle lanes are there partly to incentivise people to choose active travel instead of driving - again helping reduce the burden on health services. Then you also have the fact that every person who cycles instead of drives removes a car from the road on that journey improving congestion, and the fact cycle lanes themselves remove cyclists from the road again reducing congestion. I do find it quite funny the anti cycling lobby like to whinge about cycle lanes but also then whinge when they are stuck behind cyclists on the road.

As for the NHS - we spend less per capita on health than lots of other countries so the idea that it just wastes money hand over fist isn't really rooted in reality.

 

[Richard Scott]

Just because you don't like the schemes it doesn't mean they are pointless.

EV grants are there to incentivise people to move to less polluting vehicles. If nothing else in our cities this should help reduce the burden on the NHS in terms of respiratory conditions caused by pollution.

Cycle lanes are there partly to incentivise people to choose active travel instead of driving - again helping reduce the burden on health services. Then you also have the fact that every person who cycles instead of drives removes a car from the road on that journey improving congestion, and the fact cycle lanes themselves remove cyclists from the road again reducing congestion. I do find it quite funny the anti cycling lobby like to whinge about cycle lanes but also then whinge when they are stuck behind cyclists on the road.

As for the NHS - we spend less per capita on health than lots of other countries so the idea that it just wastes money hand over fist isn't really rooted in reality.

I don't like things like a cycle scheme that nobody uses. No one I know or my mother knows has ever seen anyone on it. I'd have no opposition if they'd done their research and proved it's perceived value but lical residents were just told that this is happening. I'm well aware of the intentions but they are often very different to the reality. In a congested city I'm sure they're a good investment, in a town without those issues very much less so.
Well I'm afraid I'm not supportive of paying towards EVs when government is telling us we need to cut costs. The difference made to pollution is negligible for the few EVs bought, EVs should be like any other product, bought or not through choice and market forces, I don't want my taxes effectively lining someone else's pocket. I can't afford a new car, whether it's a subsidised EV or otherwise so why should I subsidise someone else especially when they're usually massive SUVs with all their associated issues.
Whether or not we spend less on health per capita than others doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage wise spending of that money and discourage waste.

 

[Magdalia]

the tax take is going up and public services are getting worse.

Taxes go up because of lack of economic growth. Public services are getting worse because the population is getting older and sicker, and can't expand to meet increasing demand.

I've not seen many truly convincing proposed remedies

I am convinced that getting back to economic growth, and getting sick people well enough to work is the way forward.