[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?

[fly high]

I think you're right on criticising the employers' NI hike, but disagree on too much.
Your claim that growth is negative is a departure from the facts -- which is why you were unable to provide any evidence for it -- and rests on your impression that it will happen. It might, it might not.
This also neglects that we're in a low growth environment and have been for 17 years, and might well be our future too irrespective of any governmental policies.
You've also repeated that old canard that 'taxing the rich' doesn't bring in higher revenues -- and presumably growth -- and have invoked history to make this claim. How on earth do you explain the high growth, high tax on the rich period of UK politics (and way, way beyond that too) of 1945-79? You've then gone on to advocate higher taxes for the rich, so I'm struggling on this one.
With you on council tax though. It's long overdue a change. As the Green Party has been arguing for decades, a land value tax would be the best option here. Failing that, the current bands need to be reviewed in line with 35 years of house price inflation and perhaps some higher ones introduced.

Is a land tax really fair? Just because the value of your property has gone up for many people doesn't mean they are rich and have the money to pay much higher council tax. Personally I think council tax should be based on income then higher income households would pay more. Surely that is fairer.

 

[abc]

I think you're right on criticising the employers' NI hike, but disagree on too much.
Your claim that growth is negative is a departure from the facts -- which is why you were unable to provide any evidence for it -- and rests on your impression that it will happen. It might, it might not.
This also neglects that we're in a low growth environment and have been for 17 years, and might well be our future too irrespective of any governmental policies.
You've also repeated that old canard that 'taxing the rich' doesn't bring in higher revenues -- and presumably growth -- and have invoked history to make this claim. How on earth do you explain the high growth, high tax on the rich period of UK politics (and way, way beyond that too) of 1945-79? You've then gone on to advocate higher taxes for the rich, so I'm struggling on this one.
With you on council tax though. It's long overdue a change. As the Green Party has been arguing for decades, a land value tax would be the best option here. Failing that, the current bands need to be reviewed in line with 35 years of house price inflation and perhaps some higher ones introduced.

Damn! I thought we were finding common ground!
The April fall in growth is factual so let’s not argue about that. ‘It might happen, it might not’ is not a coherent approach to economics or responsible government. I have never seen such a consensus amongst economists (an extremely rare occurrence!) that Reeve’s budget was anti growth and it’s proving to be the case.

Learning from history is not a ‘canard’, only the foolish or ignorant ignore the lessons of history (as Trump is doing over Ukraine). The high tax levels of the 60s and 70s were economically disastrous.

But can I get back to my original question:

You stated:” This government is so impressive. Quite likely the best in my life time, if not generations”

How do you justify this statement?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Is a land tax really fair? Just because the value of your property has gone up for many people doesn't mean they are rich and have the money to pay much higher council tax. Personally I think council tax should be based on income then higher income households would pay more. Surely that is fairer.

Perhaps a tax based on the number of working people in the house? - i.e the more people use the services, the more the household pays - seems fair to me...

Take a Poll of how many over 18s in the house and base your Council Tax on that - I dunno, they could call it something like the Poll Tax.

Oh.

 

[fly high]

Perhaps a tax based on the number of working people in the house? - i.e the more people use the services, the more the household pays - seems fair to me...

Take a Poll of how many over 18s in the house and base your Council Tax on that - I dunno, they could call it something like the Poll Tax.

Oh.

No totally wrong & you know it but why should someone on an income of £25K pay more in council tax than someone on £70K, there has to be a fairer system.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Disagree on your view on growth. Care to share the figures? You can even factor in today's 0.3% drop for April.
Your point about interest rates and inflation is dubious at best. If RR hadn't done anything, both would have been higher. RR boxed herself in by ruling out increases of the big-ticket taxes: the IFS -- or its director, Paul Johnson -- has been pretty consistent in arguing that any Chancellor should increase income tax. This would stop debt from rising, which would also impact on interest rates and the cost of government debt. But it'd be massively unpopular. At some point, the public are going to have to suck up something unpopular.

Agree with much of the rest of your list and I certainly wouldn't consider them 'so impressive'. But all of this neglects the shower of an inheritance and, in comparison to the past five administrations, they are 'so impressive'.

And because the Tories have weaponized income tax (like they have immigration) then any plan to increase it is a massive vote loser.

The swing voters seem obsessed with income tax and 'illegal immigration'. So any government, Labour, Tory or Reform has to fanny about at the edges with 'stealth' tax in order to pay for stuff while pretending to reducing taxation, or not increase it.

As always the people get the governments they deserve.

All that aside I still feel like we have grown-ups in charge for the first time in many years.
If only the voters would grow up too.....

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Is a land tax really fair? Just because the value of your property has gone up for many people doesn't mean they are rich and have the money to pay much higher council tax. Personally I think council tax should be based on income then higher income households would pay more. Surely that is fairer.

What happens when they change jobs, lose jobs, retire, get promoted? And why stop there? Maybe they could pay more for their food etc? In fact, anything to demotivate people from aspiration and earning more. You should work for Reeves. The politics of take from the haves and waste it. Bring everyone down to the same low level. By the way, I wonder what happened to Reeves' ever growing multi billion black hole.

Edit: oh shit, I've been whooshed haven't I.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

 

[abc]

As always the people get the governments they deserve.

This has long been one of my mantras BUT most of us don’t actually get a say under FPTP so that we get the government that a few swing voters decide we deserve.

That aside, yes totally. If we can’t allow a politician to admit they are fallible and change their minds or attack/pillory them so personally than no one worthwhile will enter politics, then we will get never get anywhere.

(None of the above excuses your conduct by the way Boris)

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This has long been one of my mantras BUT most of us don’t actually get a say under FPTP so that we get the government that a few swing voters decide we deserve.

That aside, yes totally. If we can’t allow a politician to admit they are fallible and change their minds or attack/pillory them so personally than no one worthwhile will enter politics, then we will get never get anywhere.

(None of the above excuses your conduct by the way Boris)

Agree with all that except....
If FPTP is binned to allow me to get a Labour MP returned in my constituency, how would that be fair on the majority who have voted for Reform?
And If a system is contrived that does allow me an MP, won't that have to be balanced by 1.5 or 2 Reform MPs?
And it really isn't 'most' of us who don't get a 'say'.
I had a 'say but my favoured candidate lost. That's tough titty on me. My eyes are dry.
Elsewhere my would-be favoured candidates won.
And so on.
We can't all have everything we want, and taking something off someone else isn't my definition of fairness.

Maybe every voter should get their own private MP.
In fact, cut out the middle man and make all decisions by referendum.

Oh....hang on....

Seriously, I am still hopeful that FPTP will deliver us fewer Reform MPs than PR would, next time.
Anyway, the argument is academic because until the Tories back PR it won't happen.
Mind you, if they lose even more seats....

 

[chickens]

I voted no in the poll, but the spending review was genuinely a move to improve Britain over the long-term and I applaud it.

Sadly, I’m far from convinced that Britain’s voters have the patience to vote for Labour again unless they see a much nearer term improvement in living standards.

Labour would need to be a three term government to reap the rewards of the seeds they’ve sown.

At best I see a future in which another party gains the plaudits for the foundations that Labour have laid.

At worst I see a future in which a future government changes course, and dismantles what they’ve set in motion.

 

[abc]

Agree with all that except....
If FPTP is binned to allow me to get a Labour MP returned in my constituency, how would that be fair on the majority who have voted for Reform?
And If a system is contrived that does allow me an MP, won't that have to be balanced by 1.5 or 2 Reform MPs?
And it really isn't 'most' of us who don't get a 'say'.
I had a 'say but my favoured candidate lost. That's tough titty on me. My eyes are dry.
Elsewhere my would-be favoured candidates won.
And so on.
We can't all have everything we want, and taking something off someone else isn't my definition of fairness.

Maybe every voter should get their own private MP.
In fact, cut out the middle man and make all decisions by referendum.

Oh....hang on....

Seriously, I am still hopeful that FPTP will deliver us fewer Reform MPs than PR would, next time.
Anyway, the argument is academic because until the Tories back PR it won't happen.
Mind you, if they lose even more seats....

The point is that we wouldn’t have had a chancellor yesterday repeatedly saying she was doing ‘what the people of Britain wanted’ havng gained power with c 30% of the vote

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The point is that we wouldn’t have had a chancellor yesterday repeatedly saying she was doing ‘what the people of Britain wanted’ havng gained power with c 30% of the vote

Good luck with that.

They day a minister claims that they are doing what they hope a tiny minority of voters want....

But in any case, when any minister does something I don't like what right to I have to skweem and skweem until I'm sick? I could do that of course, but I have never felt I have a right to get everything I want

 

[Bodian]

Perhaps a tax based on the number of working people in the house? - i.e the more people use the services, the more the household pays - seems fair to me...

As I sort the bins and recycling in my terrace, I can tell you that the family next door (two working parents) put less in their bins/boxes than the retired couple on the other side. The retired couple also drive a lot more.

 

[kevo]

Jesus Christ, the Question Time audience tonight packed to the rafters with Reform voters. I thought the audience was meant to represent how people voted at the last election? If Labour are to stand any chance at the next election they need to overhaul the BBC. When is Lisa Nandy going to pull her finger out?

 

[abc]

Whilst I think Reeves is economically incompetent and will be the author of her own downfall, I’m feeling some sympathy for her too. Trump’s determination to wreck the global economy and now the Isreal/Iran conflict, is going to make even the most brilliant chancellor’s job almost impossible if the expectation is growth, low taxes etc.

Avoiding a complete economic collapse into recession might become a laudable (and hard to achieve) objective if this carries on

 

[BenGarfield]

Whilst I think Reeves is economically incompetent and will be the author of her own downfall, I’m feeling some sympathy for her too. Trump’s determination to wreck the global economy and now the Isreal/Iran conflict, is going to make even the most brilliant chancellor’s job almost impossible if the expectation is growth, low taxes etc.

Avoiding a complete economic collapse into recession might become a laudable (and hard to

Whilst I think Reeves is economically incompetent and will be the author of her own downfall, I’m feeling some sympathy for her too. Trump’s determination to wreck the global economy and now the Isreal/Iran conflict, is going to make even the most brilliant chancellor’s job almost impossible if the expectation is growth, low taxes etc.

Avoiding a complete economic collapse into recession might become a laudable (and hard to achieve) objective if this carries on

All the chancellors from Healey to Reeves have been icompetent as they`ve followed a monetarist or neo liberal economic policy. Only Lawson had a full economics degree, and possibly only Major had any detailed knowledge of finance through having worked his way up from being a bank clerk.

 

[jcdenton08]

Jesus Christ, the Question Time audience tonight packed to the rafters with Reform voters. I thought the audience was meant to represent how people voted at the last election? If Labour are to stand any chance at the next election they need to overhaul the BBC. When is Lisa Nandy going to pull her finger out?

I didn’t see the episode, but the BBC always gets slated from all sides. The left think they’re too right wing, the libs think they aren’t heard, the right think they are too left wing and liberal.

I can guarantee on a forum somewhere else someone has posted that same post with the political names changed.

I’m grateful for the BBC and like it as it is (apart from the Football coverage on the website which is getting worse and more clickbaity)