Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
Vanden Saab said:
Loving the latest wheeze from Labour on making rental bidding wars illegal. The bright idea is that if a landlord advertises a property for let's say a rental price of £1500 per month they cannot accept any offer above that.
Now, even the most challenged amongst us can see what will happen. Any landlord with a brain will just put his property up for £2000ono after all if he does not get offered that he can always take a lower price. End result is a large jump in rental prices.
With this kind of thinking it is going to be a long 5 years.
I know. It's terrible that the landlords will have to reduce their prices.Now, even the most challenged amongst us can see what will happen. Any landlord with a brain will just put his property up for £2000ono after all if he does not get offered that he can always take a lower price. End result is a large jump in rental prices.
With this kind of thinking it is going to be a long 5 years.
Derek Smith said:
Vanden Saab said:
Loving the latest wheeze from Labour on making rental bidding wars illegal. The bright idea is that if a landlord advertises a property for let's say a rental price of £1500 per month they cannot accept any offer above that.
Now, even the most challenged amongst us can see what will happen. Any landlord with a brain will just put his property up for £2000ono after all if he does not get offered that he can always take a lower price. End result is a large jump in rental prices.
With this kind of thinking it is going to be a long 5 years.
I know. It's terrible that the landlords will have to reduce their prices.Now, even the most challenged amongst us can see what will happen. Any landlord with a brain will just put his property up for £2000ono after all if he does not get offered that he can always take a lower price. End result is a large jump in rental prices.
With this kind of thinking it is going to be a long 5 years.
Wombat3 said:
He's too smart to have said much that would enable you to label him a "pathalogical liar" but he is selling Snake Oil.
His declarations about income tax & NI etc are just a complete and obvious mugging-off. Its quite obvious that what hes not saying is far more important than what he is saying.
His constant flip-flopping also means I see little reason to believe much of anything he says and I also think there are clear signs of the idealogical left at work both with him and his party.
His declaration that he would never use private healthcare was really quite stark and unequivocal in the dogmatic nature of his thinking. His policy re VAT on private school fees is nothing but ill thought through dogma driven & idealogical nonsense which will have clear and obvious negative side effects.
I think this is likely to be one of the most left wing governments we have had in the UK for generations. I also think they will do significant damage precisely because of the dogmatic nature of their thinking. Such damage is usually very, very long lasting.
The sad thing is that for all that, as always, it will be the least well off who will actually suffer the most in the long run.
Overall, I think he is likely to be very bad news indeed.
What's your problem with the statement that he will not increase VAT nor income tax? I don't know what mugging off is, but that's a clear statement. His declarations about income tax & NI etc are just a complete and obvious mugging-off. Its quite obvious that what hes not saying is far more important than what he is saying.
His constant flip-flopping also means I see little reason to believe much of anything he says and I also think there are clear signs of the idealogical left at work both with him and his party.
His declaration that he would never use private healthcare was really quite stark and unequivocal in the dogmatic nature of his thinking. His policy re VAT on private school fees is nothing but ill thought through dogma driven & idealogical nonsense which will have clear and obvious negative side effects.
I think this is likely to be one of the most left wing governments we have had in the UK for generations. I also think they will do significant damage precisely because of the dogmatic nature of their thinking. Such damage is usually very, very long lasting.
The sad thing is that for all that, as always, it will be the least well off who will actually suffer the most in the long run.
Overall, I think he is likely to be very bad news indeed.
I also fail to see the connect with him stating he will not use private health care and removing tax concessions from private school fees. I'm not sure what the clear and obvious negatives are, but most research, from right and left outlets, seems to suggest that most parents will continue to pay the fees. The furore on here especially, but also generally, when a shadow labour minister sent her kids to private school seems to indicate that he has beliefs.
I feel that VAT on a service is reasonable and not ideological nonsense. There are lots of reasons why. Perhaps they are the same as his.
anonymoususer said:
I always go back to the title of the thread. He can and has.
The conservative party has been transformed. It's gone from being a viable political party to a desperate mix of dispirited folk.
No one believes now the Conservative Party can win. Least of all the Conservative Party
They are not even bothering in some constituencies.
It's over finished
It’s fabulous, isn’t it. Pass the fizz! The conservative party has been transformed. It's gone from being a viable political party to a desperate mix of dispirited folk.
No one believes now the Conservative Party can win. Least of all the Conservative Party
They are not even bothering in some constituencies.
It's over finished
Derek Smith said:
What's your problem with the statement that he will not increase VAT nor income tax? I don't know what mugging off is, but that's a clear statement.
I also fail to see the connect with him stating he will not use private health care and removing tax concessions from private school fees. I'm not sure what the clear and obvious negatives are, but most research, from right and left outlets, seems to suggest that most parents will continue to pay the fees. The furore on here especially, but also generally, when a shadow labour minister sent her kids to private school seems to indicate that he has beliefs.
I feel that VAT on a service is reasonable and not ideological nonsense. There are lots of reasons why. Perhaps they are the same as his.
1) He is changing VAT - on private school fees I also fail to see the connect with him stating he will not use private health care and removing tax concessions from private school fees. I'm not sure what the clear and obvious negatives are, but most research, from right and left outlets, seems to suggest that most parents will continue to pay the fees. The furore on here especially, but also generally, when a shadow labour minister sent her kids to private school seems to indicate that he has beliefs.
I feel that VAT on a service is reasonable and not ideological nonsense. There are lots of reasons why. Perhaps they are the same as his.
2) The big problem with all these things he is not going to touch is, what is he going to touch to pay for everything he will fix?
VAT on private school fees is due to pay for rather a lot, it seems
What research is there that shows parents will suck up an extra 20% on fees? It's guesswork. It's "safe" guesswork as a minority of people send their kids to them, so if they all give him the V, it doesn't matter one jot. At the moment. But my guesswork is that it will have plenty of unintended, but not unforeseeable, consequences. And the people who will suffer most will be the ones Starmer is aiming to get frothiest about it.
Vanden Saab said:
Loving the latest wheeze from Labour on making rental bidding wars illegal. The bright idea is that if a landlord advertises a property for let's say a rental price of £1500 per month they cannot accept any offer above that.
Now, even the most challenged amongst us can see what will happen. Any landlord with a brain will just put his property up for £2000ono after all if he does not get offered that he can always take a lower price. End result is a large jump in rental prices.
With this kind of thinking it is going to be a long 5 years.
Especially since Dutch auctions lead to higher end prices.Now, even the most challenged amongst us can see what will happen. Any landlord with a brain will just put his property up for £2000ono after all if he does not get offered that he can always take a lower price. End result is a large jump in rental prices.
With this kind of thinking it is going to be a long 5 years.
anonymoususer said:
I always go back to the title of the thread. He can and has.
Not this again! Johnson and Truss did the work, with icing on the cake from Sunak;s gaffes. Starmer breathed air as it happened.If you missed the Lord Ashcfoft and Guardian links, Starmer has failed to win hearts and minds, voters tend to prefer Tory policy but dislike the Tories more, and won't vote for them due to the people. Self-inflicted.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I think that's fair.
Starmer still seems awkward sometimes i.e. you'd have thought after a week he'd have a coherent answer for the inevitable questions about his support for Corbyn but he still made himself look daft and unprepared for being asked.
But I do think when you put them both in front of the public, as in normal people not their advisors and party members pretending to be the public, Starmer has grown on me and simply seems to "get it" more than Sunak does.
True, but at the same time it's another of these absurd purity tests; every cabinet minister and few aspiring ones will have pledged true fealty to no less than 3 prime ministers in as many years, yet the question isn't directed to them, especially Sunak himself. There isn't a pleasing answer to it, it's a feature of our political system that the forelock is tugged to whoever the party leader is at the time and those who do not do not get sweeties, so Starmer, particularly being a novice MP, tugged the forelock. Whether breaking that particular political 4th wall would harm Labour's or his prospects is clearly not something he wants to test, so we get waffle.Starmer still seems awkward sometimes i.e. you'd have thought after a week he'd have a coherent answer for the inevitable questions about his support for Corbyn but he still made himself look daft and unprepared for being asked.
But I do think when you put them both in front of the public, as in normal people not their advisors and party members pretending to be the public, Starmer has grown on me and simply seems to "get it" more than Sunak does.
philv said:
Will we see the land value tax?
I hope there is, it might go some way to unwinding the consequences of the absurd follies indulged by govt for the last 40 years.Puzzles said:
I really wouldn’t want to be a landlord right now.
Anyone sensible bailed out of it years ago; did you miss George Osborne making the pips squeak?Edited by hidetheelephants on Saturday 22 June 20:23
hidetheelephants said:
True, but at the same time it's another of these absurd purity tests; every cabinet minister and few aspiring ones will have pledged true fealty to no less than 3 prime ministers in as many years, yet the question isn't directed to them, especially Sunak himself. There isn't a pleasing answer to it, it's a feature of our political system that the forelock is tugged to whoever the party leader is at the time and those who do not do not get sweeties, so Starmer, particularly being a novice MP, tugged the forelock. Whether breaking that particular political 4th wall would harm Labour's or his prospects is clearly not something he wants to test, so we get waffle.
The best answer he can give is that he resigned in 2016, saw that the members supported Corbyn so joined the cabinet to serve the party and country and influence the party in the right direction even if he personally thought the leader was not the best man for the job.Instead he does his usual thing of giving a no comment interview and as a result looks more shifty than he needs to.
He will get a big enough majority to be able to afford to lose a few seats by being straight with the public and the MPs he would miss out on won't be the best anyway.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...
Great article about Starmer and Labour's flip flopping from a Labour member.
Great article about Starmer and Labour's flip flopping from a Labour member.
Matthew Syed said:
I worry that a future Labour government will genuflect before any campaign with sufficient momentum. I mean, look at the sheer scale of Starmer’s flip-flopping, not just on trans issues but the nationalisation of trains, renewable energy, tuition fees, Diane Abbott and, just last week, the definition of “working people”. What is his true position, his moral centre of gravity?
Murph7355 said:
1) He is changing VAT - on private school fees
2) The big problem with all these things he is not going to touch is, what is he going to touch to pay for everything he will fix?
VAT on private school fees is due to pay for rather a lot, it seems
What research is there that shows parents will suck up an extra 20% on fees? It's guesswork. It's "safe" guesswork as a minority of people send their kids to them, so if they all give him the V, it doesn't matter one jot. At the moment. But my guesswork is that it will have plenty of unintended, but not unforeseeable, consequences. And the people who will suffer most will be the ones Starmer is aiming to get frothiest about it.
1/ VAT remains the same at 20%.2) The big problem with all these things he is not going to touch is, what is he going to touch to pay for everything he will fix?
VAT on private school fees is due to pay for rather a lot, it seems
What research is there that shows parents will suck up an extra 20% on fees? It's guesswork. It's "safe" guesswork as a minority of people send their kids to them, so if they all give him the V, it doesn't matter one jot. At the moment. But my guesswork is that it will have plenty of unintended, but not unforeseeable, consequences. And the people who will suffer most will be the ones Starmer is aiming to get frothiest about it.
2/ Not VAT and, NI and tax rates.
The vast majority of parents who send their kids to private school have stated they will continue to do so. It is also the norm. Tax rises on cigarettes stopped very few smoking. The same goes, but more so, for alcohol. It is probable they will pay up. The reasons for sending children to private schools will remain.
What are these unintended but not unforeseeable, and apparently difficult to specify, circumstances?
The exemption of a service, or product, from VAT has to be justified. What justification can there be for what is an expensive item, out of reach for most of the population and enjoyed by, as you suggest, a 'minority'? A private school near me charges £17,000+ per term for boarders. That, of course, is the base charge. There are a number of oncosts. That puts it out of reach of the majority of those who have kids. Mind you, I expect some of the fee will be 'absorbed', in the same way the cuts were absorbed by a number of public services. Full details for one particular one available on request.
The financial state of the country is such that sacrifices will have to be made by many. Fewer visits to food banks is not really an option that will bring much in. The lower middle has been squeezed. Where's the money for rebuilding coming from? How about luxury goods, particularly those so far exempt from VAT?
Mr Penguin said:
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/articl...
Great article about Starmer and Labour's flip flopping from a Labour member.
What flipflopping has he done on rail nationalisation? It's all but nationalised anyway. Perish the thought a government might be moved by public pressure, like the tories were over the post office, the blood scandal, etc. Great article about Starmer and Labour's flip flopping from a Labour member.
Matthew Syed said:
I worry that a future Labour government will genuflect before any campaign with sufficient momentum. I mean, look at the sheer scale of Starmer’s flip-flopping, not just on trans issues but the nationalisation of trains, renewable energy, tuition fees, Diane Abbott and, just last week, the definition of “working people”. What is his true position, his moral centre of gravity?
turbobloke said:
anonymoususer said:
I always go back to the title of the thread. He can and has.
Not this again! Johnson and Truss did the work, with icing on the cake from Sunak;s gaffes. Starmer breathed air as it happened.If you missed the Lord Ashcfoft and Guardian links, Starmer has failed to win hearts and minds, voters tend to prefer Tory policy but dislike the Tories more, and won't vote for them due to the people. Self-inflicted.
This isn't down to Boris.
It's down to the tory infighting and changes of leadership.
This country is going to be screwed by a hard left government because the torys could not present a unified front.
hidetheelephants said:
philv said:
This country is going to be screwed by a hard left government because the torys could not present a unified front.
This sort of bedwetting is hilarious. It's just a fact.
It may have escaped your notice, but BJ was pretty darn successful.
Like him or loath him, it changes nothing.
Very few people outside of labour diehards want what labour are going to bring to the party.
Unfortunnatly the great british public are easily led, believe whatever s
te the read on twitter etc etc.We'' see if you ind it hilarious in 5 years.
Derek Smith said:
1/ VAT remains the same at 20%.
2/ Not VAT and, NI and tax rates.
The vast majority of parents who send their kids to private school have stated they will continue to do so. It is also the norm. Tax rises on cigarettes stopped very few smoking. The same goes, but more so, for alcohol. It is probable they will pay up. The reasons for sending children to private schools will remain.
What are these unintended but not unforeseeable, and apparently difficult to specify, circumstances?
The exemption of a service, or product, from VAT has to be justified. What justification can there be for what is an expensive item, out of reach for most of the population and enjoyed by, as you suggest, a 'minority'? A private school near me charges £17,000+ per term for boarders. That, of course, is the base charge. There are a number of oncosts. That puts it out of reach of the majority of those who have kids. Mind you, I expect some of the fee will be 'absorbed', in the same way the cuts were absorbed by a number of public services. Full details for one particular one available on request.
The financial state of the country is such that sacrifices will have to be made by many. Fewer visits to food banks is not really an option that will bring much in. The lower middle has been squeezed. Where's the money for rebuilding coming from? How about luxury goods, particularly those so far exempt from VAT?
(1) is a change that increases VAT on a service.2/ Not VAT and, NI and tax rates.
The vast majority of parents who send their kids to private school have stated they will continue to do so. It is also the norm. Tax rises on cigarettes stopped very few smoking. The same goes, but more so, for alcohol. It is probable they will pay up. The reasons for sending children to private schools will remain.
What are these unintended but not unforeseeable, and apparently difficult to specify, circumstances?
The exemption of a service, or product, from VAT has to be justified. What justification can there be for what is an expensive item, out of reach for most of the population and enjoyed by, as you suggest, a 'minority'? A private school near me charges £17,000+ per term for boarders. That, of course, is the base charge. There are a number of oncosts. That puts it out of reach of the majority of those who have kids. Mind you, I expect some of the fee will be 'absorbed', in the same way the cuts were absorbed by a number of public services. Full details for one particular one available on request.
The financial state of the country is such that sacrifices will have to be made by many. Fewer visits to food banks is not really an option that will bring much in. The lower middle has been squeezed. Where's the money for rebuilding coming from? How about luxury goods, particularly those so far exempt from VAT?
Either way, we won't have to wait very long before those pledges of Starmer's are broken because on (2) there is sweet FA he can do outside of those 3x items that will raise the money he needs to raise. That you cannot cite any other areas where it will come from suggests it's not written down anywhere referenceable.
Can you please show me the data that backs up your assertions on what people sending kids to private school will do? Because I don't believe there is any of any substance.
The unintended consequences are not difficult to specify if you want to think about them.
Despite the 450k available secondary spaces that someone else (sim72?) noted, our state education system is in a state. I am only primarily interested in my own area and my own kids, on which the available state secondary schools around here are all under various measures and have been for years with little sign of improvement.
If people take their kids out of the private system, the likelihood, IMO, will be those parents will either move into catchment of better schools, and/or pay for extra tuition (that may or may not attract additional taxes). Would you like me to spell out what I think the results of those actions will be on those currently "disadvantaged"?
The "lower middle" aren't the only ones who are squeezed, and this further stratification simply increases division. We ALL need to pay more if we want better services. Govts being proud of taking more people out of paying tax, as one example, needs to stop.
FWIW I tend to agree that luxury goods and services could and likely should be taxed harder. However I do not see good quality education as a "luxury" and I sure as hell don't think penalising anyone striving for that through whatever means is sensible at all. It is levelling down simply because "well they can afford it and that's not fair", without fully acnowledging that those who are taking that path are paying more than twice already.
I would be very happy for a party to say they are going to change VAT. But only if they put it on proper luxury goods. Add additional layers of it if needed. I also think it would be a good way to ensure that some of the larger corps that get people all gammony collect taxes where their business us actually done. Win win.
btw, cigarettes and alcohol comparisons are silly. Not only are they relatively affordable, even with high levels of tax, they are also addictive substances. Both of which might be more indicative reasons why people still smoke and drink. Though both, interestingly, are in decline. Which even given the other facets noted kind of doesn't support your argument very well
( smoking and alcohol. Alcohol's on less of a downward slope, and there are other interesting stats on it, not least of which that increasing duties doesn't seem to stop those being most impacted being in the most deprived areas...so again, I'm not sure the outcome is as intended).That you feel comparing good education with cigarette and alcohol consumption is sensible looks like it sums up why you're cool with the idea...and it doesn't sound like it has anything at all to do with improving outcomes.
Edited by Murph7355 on Sunday 23 June 00:33
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff