Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)

[119]

carlo996 said:

S600BSB said:

Not that tricky, is it…

Not when you haven’t done a single thing in office

But, hey, it’ll be great right

Gotta love blind faith.

[bitchstewie]

General Price said:

We all know the left hate wealthy folks even though they still expect them to pay for everything.

I've said before that I suspect there's a large chunk of "politics of envy" to the policy if they go through with it.

It's the Labour equivalent of red meat to some of their voters.

[Wombat3]

C4ME said:

s1962a said:

Life will get more expensive under Labour. VAT on private school fees is a big issue for some.

There are approx half a million kids in private schools (approx 6%). It will barely register for most of the population.

Till a sizeable chunk of those 6% turn up wanting places in your local schools & classes have to get bigger as a result. Then the private schools that remain start charging for or withdraw access to the free use of their facilities & get even more elitest.

Its the usual thing with politicians, can't see beyond the end of next week.

[Sway]

Speed 3 said:

Sway said:

Speed 3 said:

The NHS is a monster that's a victim of it's own success and I don't know that any government can 'fix' it. I like Rory Stewart's idea of a cross-party review into what the scope of the NHS should be.

Gotta pick up on this point - the NHS is an abject failure.

So successful, that in nearly a century no other nation on earth has copied it.

Significantly underesourced compared to spend compared to peers. Outcomes awful. Etc.

Stewart is an idiot, but he's at least right on this one. However, the reality is that even if a cross party commission were established to completely redefine it's scope, structure, etc., the resistance to anything actually workable in the medium to long term would be greater than any protests the country has ever seen.

By success I meant ever more treatments being developed to keep sick people alive longer. Actually delivering all these additional tools is unaffordable for any government. We've lost sight of what the NHS should be for - primary & emergency care plus health education. Anything over and above should be self-insured.

IMO Stewart is most definitely not an idiot. A few more like in Westminster over the last decade would have led to a closer contest that the one that is over now.

The NHS is no star globally in terms of new treatment development.

Stewart is demonstrably an idiot. Firstly, not joining the Lib Dems. Secondly, being so unpalatable to the party he did join that he couldn't secure the nomination for the one role that he probably could have done well as a Tory politician - London Mayor. He comes across as a thinker, but his application sucks. That's ignoring the bloater aspect regarding his time in Afghan...

[turbobloke]

NerveAgent said:

“Life will get more expensive for a handful of people who probably vote Tory anyway” is probably a better way of putting it. It’s pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

That's the appearance Labour wants people to believe in, when it may result in more expense for others as outlined already. Agreed about the voting intention. Judging by the amount of attention the policy proposal has been getting, beyond the quadrangles of independent schools, it's by no means irrelevant on a wider basis.

[Speed 3]

Sway said:

Stewart is demonstrably an idiot. Firstly, not joining the Lib Dems. Secondly, being so unpalatable to the party he did join that he couldn't secure the nomination for the one role that he probably could have done well as a Tory politician - London Mayor. He comes across as a thinker, but his application sucks. That's ignoring the bloater aspect regarding his time in Afghan...

That says more about the current Conservative Party than it does about him.

[Sway]

Speed 3 said:

Sway said:

Stewart is demonstrably an idiot. Firstly, not joining the Lib Dems. Secondly, being so unpalatable to the party he did join that he couldn't secure the nomination for the one role that he probably could have done well as a Tory politician - London Mayor. He comes across as a thinker, but his application sucks. That's ignoring the bloater aspect regarding his time in Afghan...

That says more about the current Conservative Party than it does about him.

No, it really, really doesn't!

It's like saying that if Rayner were in the Tories, there's a problem with them if they don't elect her as Deputy PM...

[Mr Penguin]

Did Stewart go for the London Mayor as a Tory? I was under the impression he only decided to run for it after he left them.

[JagLover]

NerveAgent said:

“Life will get more expensive for a handful of people who probably vote Tory anyway” is probably a better way of putting it. It’s pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Doubt that is accurate.

Taxation in general will be going up regardless of tie colour, but Labour will very likely add extra burdens for unfavoured groups, such as motorists, and by simple maths the majority of them are not currently planning to vote Conservative.

[s1962a]

JagLover said:

NerveAgent said:

“Life will get more expensive for a handful of people who probably vote Tory anyway” is probably a better way of putting it. It’s pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Doubt that is accurate.

Taxation in general will be going up regardless of tie colour, but Labour will very likely add extra burdens for unfavoured groups, such as motorists, and by simple maths the majority of them are not currently planning to vote Conservative.

I think Labour might push more of the "higher earners" into early retirement. If you're a 45% PAYE tax payer that might be retiring in the next 10-20 years anyway, with kids in private school, and a higher than average council tax bill, you might just decide enough is enough if taxes go much higher and you decide to just cut your losses and retire. Rather than go for the real big prizes (ultra wealthy people who hide their assets and use complex accounting to avoid taxes) Labour would rather go for the easy option which is to tax the higher PAYE earners.

Boo fking hoo I hear you say - and you are quite right. But someone retiring earlier means less tax going into the system for those extra years.

[Sway]

Mr Penguin said:

Did Stewart go for the London Mayor as a Tory? I was under the impression he only decided to run for it after he left them.

I believe he wanted to run when Bailey was selected as candidate. At that time, he was still Tory.

He then left in 2019, and aimed to stand as indy for the then postponed election (due to covid), before realising he was on a hiding to nothing and dropping out.

[Electro1980]

Early retirement to avoid VAT on school fees… um… ok…

Regardless, it not going to happen. Most people wil grumble a bit, as everyone does about tax, and carry on. Retirement isn’t just a magic wand that extracts you from the economy. A few approaching retirement age might go a year or two early, not many. Most will look at the option of sitting at home and playing golf a few times a week or keeping working and being able to afford the two family holidays a year and a social life’s and go for the later whilst paying a few £ extra tax.

[Wombat3]

s1962a said:

JagLover said:

NerveAgent said:

“Life will get more expensive for a handful of people who probably vote Tory anyway” is probably a better way of putting it. It’s pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Doubt that is accurate.

Taxation in general will be going up regardless of tie colour, but Labour will very likely add extra burdens for unfavoured groups, such as motorists, and by simple maths the majority of them are not currently planning to vote Conservative.

I think Labour might push more of the "higher earners" into early retirement. If you're a 45% PAYE tax payer that might be retiring in the next 10-20 years anyway, with kids in private school, and a higher than average council tax bill, you might just decide enough is enough if taxes go much higher and you decide to just cut your losses and retire. Rather than go for the real big prizes (ultra wealthy people who hide their assets and use complex accounting to avoid taxes) Labour would rather go for the easy option which is to tax the higher PAYE earners.

Boo fking hoo I hear you say - and you are quite right. But someone retiring earlier means less tax going into the system for those extra years.

Its already happening, the issue of higher earners in their 40s & 50s leaving the workforce is well documented. Pretty clear It will only accelerate if you try & take even more from them.

[turbobloke]

The Gaza Effect has emerged early on in local elections, with a Labour 'shock defeat' to independents in Oldham.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/03/la...

[s1962a]

Electro1980 said:

Early retirement to avoid VAT on school fees… um… ok…

Regardless, it not going to happen. Most people wil grumble a bit, as everyone does about tax, and carry on. Retirement isn’t just a magic wand that extracts you from the economy. A few approaching retirement age might go a year or two early, not many. Most will look at the option of sitting at home and playing golf a few times a week or keeping working and being able to afford the two family holidays a year and a social life’s and go for the later whilst paying a few £ extra tax.

Not just the VAT on school fees. It will be the drip drip of additional taxes for the "rich" (those on higher rate PAYE tax codes) that might push people over the edge to retire early. Of course if you can't afford it you won't retire, but many higher rate taxpayers will have other assets and investments that would have am effective lower tax rate if they didn't have their main income coming in.

Why not go for the ultra rich instead? Too much hard work and stepping on the toes of their mates probably.

[turbobloke]

s1962a said:

Why not go for the ultra rich instead? Too much hard work and stepping on the toes of their mates probably.

Nutshell. Labour envy policies need to appeal to their rump vote while avoiding problems for their rich backers and fomer PM millionaires.

[Garvin]

bhstewie said:

Garvin said:

Enjoy your gloating . . . while it lasts!

Thanks Garvin I will.

This lot deserve an absolute kicking.

Yes, I can see you’re enjoying it.

Yes, ‘this lot’ do deserve a kicking.

However, if you, and others, think that any Labour implemented increased tax regime will only be suffered by the ‘bd rich’ you may well think again when Labour reduce tax relief on pension contributions - how about a blanket, say, 20% and nothing for higher rate tax payers and let fiscal drag do the rest for those who think it will never apply to them.

DCS pensions are tough enough to get a return to match existing living standards, the contributions required without any higher rate tax relief will mean personal contributions will have to go through the roof to maintain the same benefits in later life. The middle earners will bear the brunt whilst the ‘bds rich’ will just have their companies increase the contributions on their behalf which will be hidden from general ‘gaze’ as it doesn’t need a salary increase to do so.

Gordon Brown was a past master about fking with people’s pensions but the general proletariat were/are to thick to take much notice as, well, it’s far into the future . . . It’s in Labour’s DNA.

[768]

Wombat3 said:

C4ME said:

s1962a said:

Life will get more expensive under Labour. VAT on private school fees is a big issue for some.

There are approx half a million kids in private schools (approx 6%). It will barely register for most of the population.

Till a sizeable chunk of those 6% turn up wanting places in your local schools & classes have to get bigger as a result. Then the private schools that remain start charging for or withdraw access to the free use of their facilities & get even more elitest.

Its the usual thing with politicians, can't see beyond the end of next week.

Won't just be that class sizes get bigger. They'll buy the houses in the catchments with better state schools and the problem that already exists with that will get worse. It's the kids in state school who'd suffer most.

If it happens of course, Starmer's had to uturn on everything he's said so far, I can't see that being the exception.

[bitchstewie]

Love the way you pair pretend you're so concerned about class sizes at state schools.

When have either of you ever posted a single thread about it other than when Labour started talking about making private schools pay VAT?

What absolute Jackanory.

[768]

I think state school class sizes are too large today, as I did 30 years ago, but what's the point of continually posting about the status quo? Politicians only make things worse.

You presumably think class sizes of over 30 kids are fine or the extra kids are going to be personally taught by Dianne on a zoom call.