New Tory Leader

[TheGunnShow 5,995]

Oh dear, Richard Drax. Gone on saying that more wild animals should be culled.

I suppose if it means the culling of jacobus rhesus-moggus, myriami pickus-meus catesii, and suellum cowarduswomanus then I would be on board. 😉

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

51 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

The Tories are useless, hence why I don’t want to vote for them. However none of the others appeal to me either. Starmer changes direction more times than a wind sock, I find him as trustworthy as Johnson, albeit much less brazen about his total lack of principles. Reform is just reheated Thatcherism, Lib Dems a bunch of middle class NIMBY loving managerialists, Greens would leave us economic turmoil. I’ve genuinely never despised every party as much as I do currently 

Starmer is forced to change direction on spending plans because the financial plight of the country worsens with every month that passes. 

[Fen Canary 866]

20 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Starmer is forced to change direction on spending plans because the financial plight of the country worsens with every month that passes. 

I’m sure you’d have been just as understanding if Johnson had used that excuse for his levelling up failure. Starmer promised one set of policies to get elected Labour leader, and he’s now ditched them and put forward a completely differing set of policies he thinks will get him elected. No doubt once he wins we’ll be on to his third set of deeply held lifelong principles.

The man has more faces than a set of dice. He will say whatever he thinks people want to hear, and he’ll get away with it at the upcoming election simply because vast numbers are desperate to see the back of the Tories 

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

12 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I’m sure you’d have been just as understanding if Johnson had used that excuse for his levelling up failure. Starmer promised one set of policies to get elected Labour leader, and he’s now ditched them and put forward a completely differing set of policies he thinks will get him elected. No doubt once he wins we’ll be on to his third set of deeply held lifelong principles.

The man has more faces than a set of dice. He will say whatever he thinks people want to hear, and he’ll get away with it at the upcoming election simply because vast numbers are desperate to see the back of the Tories 

The Starmer flip flopping quip is just a desperate Tory ruse. Yes he wants to win, no hostages to fortune and has to adjust his offering to match economic realities but nobody should fall (yet again it seems) for the Tory false narratives, fantasies and puerile innuendo.

Separately, I still think that Sunak will go for the election in May. There is likely to be a little but of a mirage give-away tomorrow and that is probably as good as it will get now for the Tories sliding inexorably into oblivion .

[TheGunnShow 5,995]

This notion of flip-flopping is odd. We often say politicians don't listen to what the populace wants, and now we've got this as a criticism?

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

I'm quite amused by the alleged flip flopping. 

Sunak has recently scrapped HS2 but got support in the media but not the north. 

Sunak told the Israeli prime minister to go to war last October and told him he hoped he won. 

Seems like he can't make up his mind about anything and he can't stop the nut jobs in his party from opening their big mouths. 

Starmer, by comparison, has managed to get rid of the nut jobs he inherited. Dirty work, but someone had to do it. Politics is an extremely dirty business and Starmer did what he had to do to save the Labour Party from oblivion. 

To compare him in any way to Johnson is bordering on offensive. 

Edited March 5 by dylanisabaddog

[Barbe bleu 832]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Starmer is forced to change direction on spending plans because the financial plight of the country worsens with every month that passes. 

What you are in effect saying is that the set of policies the government have put in place are the optimum mix for the current circumstances and that now is not the time to change them.   Do you really mean this? 

You can't really complain that we are in financial plight which worsens with every month that passes and then support a policy of 'no change' can you? Surely if things are as bad as you say something must change, probably something big?

 

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

18 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

What you are in effect saying is that the set of policies the government have put in place are the optimum mix for the current circumstances and that now is not the time to change them.   Do you really mean this? 

You can't really complain that we are in financial plight which worsens with every month that passes and then support a policy of 'no change' can you? Surely if things are as bad as you say something must change, probably something big?

 

Don't wish to answer for Dylan - but I don't think that is what he is saying at all. Having to modify your policies in the light of events is logically not the same as accepting the current failing Tory ones. You can have different policies, direction of travel and priorities (I note Hunt going for the non-doms could be argued as the Tories accepting Labour policies if it happens - flip flopping).

[Barbe bleu 832]

3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Don't wish to answer for Dylan - but I don't think that is what he is saying at all. Having to modify your policies in the light of events is logically not the same as accepting the current failing Tory ones. You can have different policies, direction of travel and priorities (I note Hunt going for the non-doms could be argued as the Tories accepting Labour policies if it happens - flip flopping).

I'm not convinced by your argument I'm afraid.   

If the policy mix is bad it should be changed.  If you are not proposing any changes then you are in effect either  saying that the current lot have got this right or that they haven't but I'm going to hide all the changes I'm going to make.  Which one are labour going for?

I'm not talking or convinced about 'directions of travel' anyone can state a direction of travel, (mine involves 40% of S club 7, 20% of hearsay and the magic sword excaliber) I'm talking about hard proposals for the early days of a new government.  Anything else is wishful thinking.

 

Edited March 5 by Barbe bleu

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

14 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm not convinced by your argument I'm afraid.   

If the policy mix is bad it should be changed.  If you are not proposing any changes then you are in effect either  saying that the current lot have got this right or that they haven't but I'm going to hide all the changes I'm going to make.  Which one are labour going for?

I'm not talking or convinced about 'directions of travel' anyone can state a direction of travel, (mine involves 40% of S club 7, 20% of hearsay and the magic sword excaliber) I'm talking about hard proposals for the early days of a new government.  Anything else is wishful thinking.

 

You''ll have to wait for an election manifesto then !

[Barbe bleu 832]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

You''ll have to wait for an election manifesto then !

That's fair.   I hope that it actually offers choice. 

If its just more  obfuscation I'll see no reason to vote Labour. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

5 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

What you are in effect saying is that the set of policies the government have put in place are the optimum mix for the current circumstances and that now is not the time to change them.   Do you really mean this? 

You can't really complain that we are in financial plight which worsens with every month that passes and then support a policy of 'no change' can you? Surely if things are as bad as you say something must change, probably something big?

 

In the simplest of terms, we are in a mess because the economy is failing. The obvious way to reboot the economy is to borrow to do it. 

But things are so bad that we can't borrow any more. We've maxed out our credit cards. As I'm typing this there is a report on Sky News that says the only way that NIC can be reduced tomorrow is to dispense with Non Dom rule. The Conservative Party receives huge donations from Non Doms and that was a Labour idea so it shows just how bad things are. 

The only solution to boosting the economy is to renegotiate the Brexit deal to boost exports. Neither party will consider mentioning that because they don't want to risk losing votes. 

The Sky report has included a view from a political analyst who says things are so bad that the Tories are burning the house down before they hand over to Labour. They are trying to make it impossible for Labour to succeed. I've no idea if that's true but it's an awful thought. Tomorrow will be interesting. 

PS one or two posters have suggested that our economy is doing very well. It isn't. The only reason the Conservative Party would scrap Non Dom status is because things are very bad indeed. One last throw of the dice. 

 

Edited March 5 by dylanisabaddog

[Barbe bleu 832]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

In the simplest of terms, we are in a mess because the economy is failing. The obvious way to reboot the economy is to borrow to do it. 

But things are so bad that we can't borrow any more. 

 

I'm not convinced that we can't borrow more. Our deficit to gdp ratio is falling and well below g7 average.   But that's not what I am asking.  

If Labour just offers (for whatever reason) the same as the Tories why do we think that the outcomes will be any better? It will be the same policy, just with a different rosette.

Be interesting how Labour react to NI cuts (if they say anything at all). They ould match it, go further and cut more or promise to reverse it.    I think the first option is the most likely, the last the least likely- I hope I'm wrong or really what is the point?

Edited March 5 by Barbe bleu

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

12 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm not convinced that we can't borrow more. Our deficit to gdp ratio is falling and well below g7 average.   But that's not what I am asking.  

If Labour just offers (for whatever reason) the same as the Tories why do we think that the outcomes will be any better? It will be the same policy, just with a different rosette.

Be interesting how Labour react to NI cuts (if they say anything at all). They ould match it, go further and cut more or promise to reverse it.    I think the first option is the most likely, the last the least likely- I hope I'm wrong or really what is the point?

58% of the population don't want tax cuts, they want improved public services.

The reason there is little choice is that Labour wouldn't get elected on a Corbynite manifesto. We have never elected a left wing Government and it will be a long time before we do, if ever. So Labour has had to move to the middle ground. The choice you therefore have is to vote for them or for a Party that in the last 14 years has brought the country to its knees. Covid apart, they are the ones responsible for the mess we're in at the moment. Vote Labour or for the Party that gave us Johnson, May, Truss and Sunak, who between them are the most incompetent and corrupt Prime Ministers in our history. 

The proportion of debt to GDP isn't falling, it's rising. I appreciate that you may not have grasped this but you're not a Treasury Minister 

 

Edited March 6 by dylanisabaddog

[sonyc 5,541]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

58% of the population don't want tax cuts, they want improved public services.

The reason there is little choice is that Labour wouldn't get elected on a Corbynite manifesto. We have never elected a left wing Government and it will be a long time before we do, if ever. So Labour has had to move to the middle ground. The choice you therefore have is to vote for them or for a Party that in the last 14 years has brought the country to its knees. Covid apart, they are the ones responsible for the mess we're in at the moment. Vote Labour or for the Party that gave us Johnson, May, Truss and Sunak, who between them are the most incompetent and corrupt Prime Ministers in our history. 

The proportion of debt to GDP isn't falling, it's rising. I appreciate that you may not have grasped this but you're not a Treasury Minister 

 

These charts are what every voter needs to see and think about. The sources are shown under each graph. The graphs are not opinion pieces. There are of course plenty of emotional responses voters might also have, many one witnesses all the time now on national TV.

Whether people still cannot find any reason to vote for any other party is one of those things that you find in the electorate and I don't think it's worth the bother trying to open up a discussion. Rome burning and all that. I don't think there's many minds to try and influence. Talking of Labour for example there is still a good rump of folk who would not even wish them to have an opportunity and that is after 14 years and as you've stated, look who we've had as PMs (before considering the various characters in government). 

Maybe turnout will be low again. We need a change in the system but still cannot see it happening in the next 5 or even 10 years. 

Meanwhile, these 10 charts tell quite a story. Even the employment one is very interesting for the context underneath (the one 'positive' you can possibly find).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/02/conservatives-economic-record-budget-deficit-gdp-tax-tory-budget?

 

[sonyc 5,541]

As a PS to the above, Banx is usually a solid source for picking up on a slice of public opinion.

Edited March 6 by sonyc

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

Thanks @sonyc

The only answer to our current problem seems to be to turn the clock back 14 years and choose public spending rather than austerity. 

Edit this is not in reply to the cartoon but the very illuminating post above it. 

Edited March 6 by dylanisabaddog

[sonyc 5,541]

Just now, dylanisabaddog said:

Thanks @sonyc

The only answer to our current problem seems to be to turn the clock back 14 years and choose public spending rather than austerity. 

I believe so. Nothing is ever perfect in politics. It's about mediating between very different positions. There is an argument about having two centrist parties to vote for...versions of each other. And as you've stated the country will never vote for a hard left one. There is ground opening up for ever extreme positions and we're seeing that with the right now in the Tory party. If Labour get in I can easily see that the far left will begin to agitate. All a bit déja vu eh?

A Swedish friend of my wife's sister told her years ago that life is so different there. Education, health and so on are just in a different league. She said that was because taxes are so high and voters are willing to pay for fantastic services. Whereas, she stated, the British public don't wish to pay. The public here are fed the idea of lowering taxes. It's a race to the bottom, especially as society and the economy has changed so much. It's almost a nineteenth century position let alone a twentieth. 

Isn't it that 60% of councils face effective bankruptcy in the next 2 years? I may have that statistic wrong. Something must change or even more local provision will be cut further. 

[Barbe bleu 832]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

58% of the population don't want tax cuts, they want improved public services.

The proportion of debt to GDP isn't falling, it's rising. I appreciate that you may not have grasped this but you're not a Treasury Minister 

 

Im not sure that there was need for the sarcasm in the last sentence and I didn't say our debt was falling, it was deficit that I said was down.  I based this observations from the ONS January 24 statistical release , noting that January is always a bumper month for returns and its trends not figures that count: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/january2024  (headline: Public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks (borrowing) in January 2024 was in surplus by £16.7 billion, more than double the surplus of January 2023 and the largest surplus since monthly records began in 1993 in nominal terms.)

Sure, I think that Labour will struggle to get in with a mild socialist agenda but I didn't ask about electability, I asked if you thought the Tories had the optimum policy mix for the here and now. I've got an answer to that question, I dont think I agree- I think there is room for more spending- and I would like Labour to offer this to give us an alternative to the merged consensus but  let's move on now, it would become nasty and circular if we continue. 

Edited March 6 by Barbe bleu

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I believe so. Nothing is ever perfect in politics. It's about mediating between very different positions. There is an argument about having two centrist parties to vote for...versions of each other. And as you've stated the country will never vote for a hard left one. There is ground opening up for ever extreme positions and we're seeing that with the right now in the Tory party. If Labour get in I can easily see that the far left will begin to agitate. All a bit déja vu eh?

A Swedish friend of my wife's sister told her years ago that life is so different there. Education, health and so on are just in a different league. She said that was because taxes are so high and voters are willing to pay for fantastic services. Whereas, she stated, the British public don't wish to pay. The public here are fed the idea of lowering taxes. It's a race to the bottom, especially as society and the economy has changed so much. It's almost a nineteenth century position let alone a twentieth. 

Isn't it that 60% of councils face effective bankruptcy in the next 2 years? I may have that statistic wrong. Something must change or even more local provision will be cut further. 

Yes, if Labour does win it needs to be a big enough majority for the left wingers not to have a voice. You only need to look at what 60 ERG idiots did to the Tories to recognise that. 

I think (from memory) that it's 60% of councils will be broke in 5 years. Yesterday I heard a senior Tory say that councils are responsible for their own finances. That is utter nonsense and he knew it. Unfortunately the interviewer didn't know (or chose not to mention it). It's extraordinary how many people think that local councils are funded entirely by Council Tax when in fact it's probably nearer 25% of their income. 

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

17 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

That's fair.   I hope that it actually offers choice. 

If its just more  obfuscation I'll see no reason to vote Labour. 

One of the clearest divisions is on view today - Hunt it seems would rather cut taxes in small way than seriously fix the NHS / Dentistry / Care / Courts - need I go on?

Now nobody objects to a tax cut (until they can't get an NHS GP/dentist appointment - they can go privately of course 🙂 ) but it does indicate priorities for whatever cash we have!

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

6 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Im not sure that there was need for the sarcasm in the last sentence and I didn't say our debt was falling, it was deficit that I said was down.  I based this observations from the ONS January 24 statistical release , noting that January is always a bumper month for returns and its trends not figures that count: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/january2024  (headline: Public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks (borrowing) in January 2024 was in surplus by £16.7 billion, more than double the surplus of January 2023 and the largest surplus since monthly records began in 1993 in nominal terms.)

Sure, I think that Labour will struggle to get in with a mild socialist agenda but I didn't ask about electability, I asked if you thought the Tories had the optimum policy mix for the here and now. I've got an answer to that question, I dont think I agree- I think there is room for more spending- and I would like Labour to offer this to give us an alternative to the merged consensus but  let's move on now, it would become nasty and circular if we continue. 

Stop being disingenuous. The monthly deficit drops in January due to Income Tax and Corporation Tax payment dates. The simple fact is that even if the deficit drops occasionally, the debt is going to continue rising for 4 years. You might as well say that global warming is nonsense because it was a bit chilly in January. 

There is no room for more borrowing. We can't afford to build a long promised railway and Labour have had to scrap green energy plans because things are now so bad they accept it can't be funded. Both parties have accepted the situation. 

If you borrow the maximum to buy a house then ask for more to build an extension the bank will say no. That happened to Liz Truss in a quite spectacular way and no one is going to make the same mistake again. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

6 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

One of the clearest divisions is on view today - Hunt it seems would rather cut taxes in small way than seriously fix the NHS / Dentistry / Care / Courts - need I go on?

Now nobody objects to a tax cut (until they can't get an NHS GP/dentist appointment - they can go privately of course 🙂 ) but it does indicate priorities for whatever cash we have!

Yes, and people are realising that. An opinion poll at the weekend revealed 58% of the population prefer better services than an NIC cut. But I suppose everyone now is either on a waiting list or knows someone who is. 

My neighbour who is in her 40's with 2 teenage children has, like me, lost her NHS dentist. I can afford it but she has been quoted £50 a month for private dental care for the 3 of them. She doesn't have £50 a month. 

[Barbe bleu 832]

35 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

One of the clearest divisions is on view today - Hunt it seems would rather cut taxes in small way than seriously fix the NHS / Dentistry / Care / Courts - need I go on?

Now nobody objects to a tax cut (until they can't get an NHS GP/dentist appointment - they can go privately of course 🙂 

As I said above its a real test for Labour how they react to this.   Do they say nothing and accept it, promise to go further, or say they will reverse it. 

DIABD's polling suggests that they have safe ground to in effect put a tax rise.on the manifesto,  do you think they will?

The government had opened up the opportunity to put some ground betweent eh two parties. Will Starmer take the opportunity or continue to play safe?

[Barbe bleu 832]

33 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

 

There is no room for more borrowing. We can't afford to build a long promised railway and Labour have had to scrap green energy plans because things are now so bad they accept it can't be funded. Both parties have accepted the situation. 

Yes, you've been consistent in this opinion. I'd rather Labout didn't accept it and put a little more spending on the agenda (the green investment for instance) so that I have a material choice at the next election but I understand why they are not.

Its perfectly rational to say that the dial is currently where it needs to be and that tax and spend policies are about right just now. I guess i was  just a bit surprised to see you say it, it's more a YF position I would have said before.

 

[TheGunnShow 5,995]

The issue is not the taxation level, it's where the spending is going.

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

30 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, you've been consistent in this opinion. I'd rather Labout didn't accept it and put a little more spending on the agenda (the green investment for instance) so that I have a material choice at the next election but I understand why they are not.

Its perfectly rational to say that the dial is currently where it needs to be and that tax and spend policies are about right just now. I guess i was  just a bit surprised to see you say it, it's more a YF position I would have said before.

 

I'm afraid it isn't a position, it's a fact. There is no money, in fact there's less money than there was in 2010. Have a read of the link attached to sonyc's post above. It is a bit of an eye opener. The Labour Party has long been criticised for not revealing its spending plans but when they do the Tories steal them.

What they are alleged to be doing with non doms today is effectively burning the house down as they leave or perhaps one last desperate throw of the dice to attract younger working voters. They are deliberately reducing NIC instead of Income Tax because it's cheaper because people who don't work (mainly pensioners like me) don't pay it. They also know that most pensioners will vote for them regardless (unlike me). 

They could have passed the money to Local Councils to reduce the council tax burden but they won't do that because most people, in their ignorance, blame local Councils for the mess they're in. 

As to the future, Labour will not come out this early and say they're going to increase tax. If it was me I'd - 

Tax the windfall profits of energy companies 

Tax unearned income (mainly interest and dividends) at the same rates as Income Tax 

Tax Capital Gains at the same rates as Income Tax 

Close all offshore loopholes 

Introduce new laws aimed at companies and individuals who don't pay the appropriate amount of tax, be it by avoidance or evasion. I would encourage the people to view tax avoidance and evasion as being the same as drink driving. You would need to introduce specialised courts to do this because the average person in the street won't understand most tax schemes(not their fault, it's our most complex and lengthy legislation) 

Force the courts to jail tax avoiders and evaders along with their professional representatives. At the time of the last survey 58% of the staff of our leading accountancy firms admitted that their employer had asked them to lie to HMRC. These people are criminals and should be treated as such. 

If the above didn't help with Amazon, Google and Apple then introduce an online sales tax. 

It's a hobby horse of mine but we are world champions at not paying tax. One in 3 bank accounts in tax havens is controlled by a UK individual or company. That is a relatively recent phenomenon and it has to be stopped. 

I would make sure no one paid anymore than 40% of their income in income tax and NIC. It's shortsighted to do so. 

None of that should stop anyone voting for Labour but just imagine the headlines if they said that's what they were going to do. Especially bearing in mind the tax status of the owners of  Sky, The Mail, The Telegraph and the Times. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,593]

In reality it's trickle up economics. The wealthier people are, the more money they can put into investing, often picking up distressed assets. As one very wealthy friend put it, his fortune is pretty much built on other people's broken hopes and dreams, picking up assets at low prices because they're in a position where they have to sell.

[Herman 9,823]

I had to spend over £100 on a new wheel because the potholes are so bad. How many wheels will I be able to afford with my lovely tax cut? 

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

6 minutes ago, Herman said:

I had to spend over £100 on a new wheel because the potholes are so bad. How many wheels will I be able to afford with my lovely tax cut? 

You should sign up for a uni-cycle course.