I am not enthusiastic about Sir Keir Starmer becoming the next Labour PM but I do accept that he will be a safe pair of hands, albeit not very inspiring. He will have won mainly due to the incompetence of the current government. I am impressed with his current foreign policy statements.
Ms Raynor. I believe her when she says that she has had legal advice that she did nothing wrong after she sold her former council house. However, her legal advisors probably gave their advice based on what she told them. If she told them that she was selling her actual home, they probably took it as read. The legal advice becomes irrelevant if she did not give them the full facts. I assume that a Police enquiry could quickly establish the truth, whatever it is.
But, it had definitely been her principle residence before she got married, and would be covered by legislation that gives Private Residence Relief (no CGT to pay) if she had lived in it as her primary residence the whole time she owned it.
I think you get a three year grace period between the time you move out and the sale date before CGT comes in to play, if it was your primary residence.
I am not enthusiastic about Sir Keir Starmer becoming the next Labour PM but I do accept that he will be a safe pair of hands, albeit not very inspiring. He will have won mainly due to the incompetence of the current government. I am impressed with his current foreign policy statements.
What exactly did you find impressive about him endorsing crimes against humanity in Gaza?
I think some shipmates need to accept that Starmer is the best leader of the Labour Party they are likely to have.
Two points; living in a democracy implies allowing people to continue to make an argument. Second, even Labour's core support isn't enthusiastic about this program, and having two parties beholden to the press and handing out contracts to their corporate sponsors isn't a healthy situation.
I am not enthusiastic about Sir Keir Starmer becoming the next Labour PM but I do accept that he will be a safe pair of hands, albeit not very inspiring.
Not very inspiring is fine by me. Politicians should be boring because in my head that means they are getting on with the job of governing rather than finding extreme ways to win votes.
I am not enthusiastic about Sir Keir Starmer becoming the next Labour PM but I do accept that he will be a safe pair of hands, albeit not very inspiring.
Not very inspiring is fine by me. Politicians should be boring because in my head that means they are getting on with the job of governing rather than finding extreme ways to win votes.
Yes. A safe pair of hands is what this country needs, I think, after the disasters of the last several Prime Ministers...
I am not enthusiastic about Sir Keir Starmer becoming the next Labour PM but I do accept that he will be a safe pair of hands, albeit not very inspiring.
Not very inspiring is fine by me. Politicians should be boring because in my head that means they are getting on with the job of governing rather than finding extreme ways to win votes.
That's fine if the country is in a decent state and just needs managing. Not so much if *gestures wildly at the state of the public realm*.
The problem with the Labour Party's current policy of reining in any spending is that it's a false economy when the Tories do it and it will still be a false economy when Labour does it.
Not sending refugees to Rwanda (as long as it remains Labour policy not to) and not buying PPE off the back of a Tory Minister's friend's lorry will save some money. But more money will be saved by spending money on the NHS, and especially on social care, on Green infrastructure, reviving Sure Start, and so on.
I think a good example of this, is thinking you can fix a problem with sickness by tinkering with the benefits system. The problem is fundamentally not that people not working because they are sick, the problem is that they are sick.
The more obvious solution would seem to be treating the sick, I.e improving the functioning of the NHS probably partly by investing in it. If you get more sick to work, you are probabaly going to end up with a new secondary problem - that your workers are less productive, because they are working whilst sick and potentially taking more sick days because having got into employment they struggle because they are sick.
We probably have more sick people as a percentage of the working age population, because a) the pandemic has left a significant minority of people with long term symptoms and/or worsening of conditions they already had and b) they are sitting on waiting lists for treatment so nothing much has been done to improve their health.
Giving them less money to live off, is unlikely to improve their health, forcing them to work when they are not really well enough to do so is likely to worsen their health and cause increased financial costs and human suffering down the line.
I am not enthusiastic about Sir Keir Starmer becoming the next Labour PM but I do accept that he will be a safe pair of hands, albeit not very inspiring. He will have won mainly due to the incompetence of the current government. I am impressed with his current foreign policy statements.
What exactly did you find impressive about him endorsing crimes against humanity in Gaza?
I do not agree with the content of either question and this makes it difficult for me to give an answer.
What Doublethink said. We've already had people committing suicide and starving to death because they don't have enough money to live on. There would be more of them if it wasn't for the food banks. We've even got children with rickets, in the sixth wealthiest country in the world. It is shameful.
What Doublethink said. We've already had people committing suicide and starving to death because they don't have enough money to live on. There would be more of them if it wasn't for the food banks. We've even got children with rickets, in the sixth wealthiest country in the world. It is shameful.
Agreed. Time for the tories to disappear into the sewer full of shite in which they belong.
A recent poll (yes, yes, I know...) has them left with only 90 seats after the next General Election. Serve them bloody well right.
Still, as some of the gammon have been known to point out, it's thanks to the tories that we have the huge number of food banks currently operating...Labour never gave us that many...
The more obvious solution would seem to be treating the sick, I.e improving the functioning of the NHS probably partly by investing in it. If you get more sick to work, you are probabaly going to end up with a new secondary problem
And currently many people are already suffering from secondary problems by the time they get into the NHS, As care systems have been eroded away, early interventions are less likely to take place, and the NHS ends up acting as a social service of last resort.
There's a host of problems due to successive governments implementing austerity by cutting services and infrastructure spending, which then results in ballooning costs and lower growth much later.
An example; the Cancer Research hospital planned for Cambridge is currently in doubt due to low levels of water supply in the area. Cambridge will get cited by government as a 'tech hub' even as new housing, offices and data centres - in other words 'economic growth' - are precluded due to lack of infrastructure. Issues of this sort are replicated across the UK.
It's eminently fixable; but involves a government willing to look beyond rigid adherence to fiscal rules, fund services properly and building infrastructure, including multi-modal transport.
Take the red rosette of[f] Starmer you are destroying Labour.
Whilst I'd not normally defend Labour (some have been good I suppose) Starmer, has to play the cards he's been dealt (Bit like Alistair Darling as Chancellor previously). So, given the state of the UK finances, I think he's limited scope for maneuver. As to why the UK is in this position, it goes way back, beyond Brexit (whatever you think of that); have a look at when the UK changed policy on:
- pensions (tax raids)
- encouraging spare capital into BTL, fuelling house price inflation
- changing how inflation is calculated (see point above).
I remember this happened when I left Uni for a job in the City, almost 30 years ago. At the time thinking that raiding pensions was a brain dead decision and my opinion hasn't changed.
Whoever started it (And I'm not going to mention who) both parties have failed (they had the chance to change, but didn't) and it has lead to decades of relative decline. I think its also led to a number of unwanted outcomes as a result. Though, I think the things will have to get worse for people to accept the changes necessary to reverse the decline.
given the state of the UK finances, I think he's limited scope for maneuver.
That depends on whether you consider it necessary to stick with the particular economic policy position that the Tories adopted in 2010, or whether you consider alternative economic theories are an option. If you reject the "household budget" model that the Tories sold on the basis of thinking people would understand it rather than it bearing any relation to how a national economy works then that widens scope for manoeuvre. If you reject the Tories fiscal targets, then you widen the scope for manoeuvre. If you assess tenders for government contracts on more than just the cheapest, but include returns to the UK economy (eg: give contracts to businesses that will employ people in the UK) then you widen scope for manoeuvre. If you utilise the full range of monetary powers available to a sovereign national government (eg: government can (almost) literally print money, simply instruct the Bank of England to issue the government with more money which can be invested in growing the economy) then you widen the scope for manoeuvre. There are still limits and costs of these measures, but just because the Tories rejected them doesn't mean the incoming Labour government should.
given the state of the UK finances, I think he's limited scope for maneuver.
That depends on whether you consider it necessary to stick with the particular economic policy position that the Tories adopted in 2010, or whether you consider alternative economic theories are an option. If you reject the "household budget" model that the Tories sold on the basis of thinking people would understand it rather than it bearing any relation to how a national economy works then that widens scope for manoeuvre. If you reject the Tories fiscal targets, then you widen the scope for manoeuvre. If you assess tenders for government contracts on more than just the cheapest, but include returns to the UK economy (eg: give contracts to businesses that will employ people in the UK) then you widen scope for manoeuvre. If you utilise the full range of monetary powers available to a sovereign national government (eg: government can (almost) literally print money, simply instruct the Bank of England to issue the government with more money which can be invested in growing the economy) then you widen the scope for manoeuvre. There are still limits and costs of these measures, but just because the Tories rejected them doesn't mean the incoming Labour government should.
This is where speculators (domestic & foreign) can make money out of the UK. If Labour adopt a deranged (see Gilts strike etc. etc. etc.) economic policy (for the record I don't think they will, but lets see...) its 'hay making time' betting on the inevitable downfall.
Goes back to you-know-who and his pensions raid, spare economic capital funnelled to BTL rather than productive investment. A curse on both their houses for not changing it. IMO, Alistair Darling (Lab) and Ken Clarke (Con) were decent Chancellors, the rest ... not so good.
given the state of the UK finances, I think he's limited scope for maneuver.
That depends on whether you consider it necessary to stick with the particular economic policy position that the Tories adopted in 2010, or whether you consider alternative economic theories are an option. If you reject the "household budget" model that the Tories sold on the basis of thinking people would understand it rather than it bearing any relation to how a national economy works then that widens scope for manoeuvre. If you reject the Tories fiscal targets, then you widen the scope for manoeuvre. If you assess tenders for government contracts on more than just the cheapest, but include returns to the UK economy (eg: give contracts to businesses that will employ people in the UK) then you widen scope for manoeuvre. If you utilise the full range of monetary powers available to a sovereign national government (eg: government can (almost) literally print money, simply instruct the Bank of England to issue the government with more money which can be invested in growing the economy) then you widen the scope for manoeuvre. There are still limits and costs of these measures, but just because the Tories rejected them doesn't mean the incoming Labour government should.
This is where speculators (domestic & foreign) can make money out of the UK. If Labour adopt a deranged (see Gilts strike etc. etc. etc.) economic policy (for the record I don't think they will, but lets see...) its 'hay making time' betting on the inevitable downfall.
Contrary to the above there's not a single switch marked 'economic policy', there's a vast world between permanent austerity (UK policy since the GFC) and 'deranged'
Goes back to you-know-who and his pensions raid
Your promise to barely mention something is somewhat undermined by the heavy hinting (the effects of the pension 'raid' were massively exacerbated by the change in rules on taxation of surpluses some years before that).
The more obvious solution would seem to be treating the sick, I.e improving the functioning of the NHS probably partly by investing in it.
It's worth pointing out that in general, it's much cheaper to treat sick people early than later. Similarly, maintaining equipment is generally cheaper than not maintaining it, and then having to replace it when it breaks catastrophically.
But things like operating costs and maintenance aren't exciting, and don't generate photo opportunities and promotions.
The more obvious solution would seem to be treating the sick, I.e improving the functioning of the NHS probably partly by investing in it.
It's worth pointing out that in general, it's much cheaper to treat sick people early than later. Similarly, maintaining equipment is generally cheaper than not maintaining it, and then having to replace it when it breaks catastrophically.
But things like operating costs and maintenance aren't exciting, and don't generate photo opportunities and promotions.
I don’t know about that. Any government making a thing of activity supporting the NHS and doing the things you mentioned might be seen as headline news, for good or bad, depending on your point of view. The tax cuts did not go down well. Investing in the things people want them to may get headlines
PermAusterity is deranged. It's psychopathic,. it's murderous. It's killed thousands already and will continue to do so.
I agree. But the other idea of letting the printing presses roll - would end in rampant inflation, in particular you end up with food inflation that hits the poorest the most.
It also leads to far, far less social mobility.
So you need some balance. Otherwise you end up in a situation if the state gets too large (and no I'm not some Libertarian that thinks government should be two people in an office and no more) then you have a situation where the majority of people are taking more out of the system than are putting in, at higher and higher income levels, that eventually will lead to greater poverty. Having lived abroad (Asia), the most successful countries I've seen are those that - build lots of houses so freeing up spare capital, control the demand (and that means population, who can buy property in the country) force people to save for their retirement via different investment fund(s), and invest heavily in education (and that means properly investing I'm afraid it means making some subjects very cheap and nothing for other subjects or institutions that just aren't there academically) it seems to lead to higher living standards. I've also lived in a country where a 'hate preacher' was fined, caned, jailed and deported in a matter of weeks - for the very good of the country in my opinion, a lesson the UK should learn.
Whilst the Tories today don't look like the say Ken Clarke conservatism in the past, he was basically the last Conservative that balanced the books and laid the path for the boom that was inherited after he and his government left office.
Labour now look likely to inherit a far worse situation. So, they've got a job on their hands and will doubtless end up disappointing people left and right, if they do, that's probably a good sign they are navigating through it.
Yep the next government will inherit a mess. That said Lab are still going to keep a kind of austerity though they wouldn’t call it that. If anyone stands up to Starmer they risk losing the whip. To be honest anyone left of Starmer risks losing the whip. He needs some no men to keep him grounded. I am unsure if he has any.
I have said this before and will say it again. Lab will win the election (more because the Cons will lose it). They will still get a bloody nose as more traditional voters move to other parties. The Greens are picking up a lot of pissed off ex Lab members. I am considering voting elsewhere. I have done this once before when New Labour had several policies I didn’t agree with. As I said I think Starmer is lier and heavy handed with the left of the party. The type of people who started the party and who have voted for it through hard times and good.
Labour now look likely to inherit a far worse situation. So, they've got a job on their hands and will doubtless end up disappointing people left and right, if they do, that's probably a good sign they are navigating through it.
If they aren't disappointing people on the political right at least some of the time then they are doing a very poor job as the party representing the political left. As to the criticisms from the left, that very much depends on their substance. I'm reminded of the joke from social media:
centrist: [fills pants with shit]
right: You have shit your pants
left: Yeah, you just shit in your pants
centrist: [smiles pompously] If both sides are criticising me I must be doing something right
PermAusterity is deranged. It's psychopathic,. it's murderous. It's killed thousands already and will continue to do so.
I agree. But the other idea of letting the printing presses roll - would end in rampant inflation, in particular you end up with food inflation that hits the poorest the most.
It also leads to far, far less social mobility.
So you need some balance. Otherwise you end up in a situation if the state gets too large (and no I'm not some Libertarian that thinks government should be two people in an office and no more) then you have a situation where the majority of people are taking more out of the system than are putting in, at higher and higher income levels, that eventually will lead to greater poverty. Having lived abroad (Asia), the most successful countries I've seen are those that - build lots of houses so freeing up spare capital, control the demand (and that means population, who can buy property in the country) force people to save for their retirement via different investment fund(s), and invest heavily in education (and that means properly investing I'm afraid it means making some subjects very cheap and nothing for other subjects or institutions that just aren't there academically) it seems to lead to higher living standards. I've also lived in a country where a 'hate preacher' was fined, caned, jailed and deported in a matter of weeks - for the very good of the country in my opinion, a lesson the UK should learn.
That's an interesting idea, but where would we deport Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, Laurence Fox and Nigel Farage to?
It's not a binary choice between austerity and increasing the money supply. Reforming taxation away from VAT to taxing land value would provide good economic incentives e.g. to renovate uninhabitable housing, use land where planning permission has been granted and potentially increase revenue too.
It's not a binary choice between austerity and increasing the money supply. Reforming taxation away from VAT to taxing land value would provide good economic incentives e.g. to renovate uninhabitable housing, use land where planning permission has been granted and potentially increase revenue too.
I'm a big fan of land value taxes. They do suppress house prices, which makes them politically challenging for anyone who wants the middle-class vote. (Not that it's actually in the interest of many middle-class voters to have rising house prices, but many people think it is...)
PermAusterity is deranged. It's psychopathic,. it's murderous. It's killed thousands already and will continue to do so.
I agree. But the other idea of letting the printing presses roll - would end in rampant inflation, in particular you end up with food inflation that hits the poorest the most.
It also leads to far, far less social mobility.
So you need some balance. Otherwise you end up in a situation if the state gets too large (and no I'm not some Libertarian that thinks government should be two people in an office and no more) then you have a situation where the majority of people are taking more out of the system than are putting in, at higher and higher income levels, that eventually will lead to greater poverty. Having lived abroad (Asia), the most successful countries I've seen are those that - build lots of houses so freeing up spare capital, control the demand (and that means population, who can buy property in the country) force people to save for their retirement via different investment fund(s), and invest heavily in education (and that means properly investing I'm afraid it means making some subjects very cheap and nothing for other subjects or institutions that just aren't there academically) it seems to lead to higher living standards. I've also lived in a country where a 'hate preacher' was fined, caned, jailed and deported in a matter of weeks - for the very good of the country in my opinion, a lesson the UK should learn.
That's an interesting idea, but where would we deport Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, Laurence Fox and Nigel Farage to?
<snip>
It's not a binary choice between austerity and increasing the money supply. Reforming taxation away from VAT to taxing land value would provide good economic incentives e.g. to renovate uninhabitable housing, use land where planning permission has been granted and potentially increase revenue too.
I'm a big fan of land value taxes. They do suppress house prices, which makes them politically challenging for anyone who wants the middle-class vote. (Not that it's actually in the interest of many middle-class voters to have rising house prices, but many people think it is...)
I have to say I agree. I think we'd end up with in a much happier place where spare capital goes into productive investment. Also if we (as some countries do) avoid shoveling the cost of retirement onto future generations - by enforcing that a minimum % of salary is booked into a retirement fund/account (for those earning over a threshold).
It's not a binary choice between austerity and increasing the money supply. Reforming taxation away from VAT to taxing land value would provide good economic incentives e.g. to renovate uninhabitable housing, use land where planning permission has been granted and potentially increase revenue too.
I'm a big fan of land value taxes. They do suppress house prices, which makes them politically challenging for anyone who wants the middle-class vote. (Not that it's actually in the interest of many middle-class voters to have rising house prices, but many people think it is...)
I have to say I agree. I think we'd end up with in a much happier place where spare capital goes into productive investment. Also if we (as some countries do) avoid shoveling the cost of retirement onto future generations - by enforcing that a minimum % of salary is booked into a retirement fund/account (for those earning over a threshold).
Given that we're already paying for the current generation of retirees it seems kind of harsh that those working have to fund themselves as well. Wouldn't it be easier to have a national career-average salary pension scheme funded through general taxation, capped at twice median earnings? No need to play stock market bingo or BTL, if you work all your life (or do certain permitted equivalents as is currently the case with NI) you get 2/3 of your average salary.
One thing to note, with regard to your proposal here, is that if I have a pension fund of some sort, then it clearly looks like my property, and suggestions that the government should confiscate my property to pay for something else they want looks aggressively communist.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
One thing to note, with regard to your proposal here, is that if I have a pension fund of some sort, then it clearly looks like my property, and suggestions that the government should confiscate my property to pay for something else they want looks aggressively communist.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
So how much do you trust the government?
That's a fair charge, and as someone whose previous pension scheme operated on this basis I am not dismissive of the concern, but I would note that the scheme could be so structured as to require primary legislation to change such things, and even then would be subject to judicial review (as the WASPI women have proved). I think that, on balance, I'd take the risk of "I am altering the bargain" over being subject to the vagaries of stock, property and annuity markets.
Wouldn't it be easier to have a national career-average salary pension scheme funded through general taxation, capped at twice median earnings? No need to play stock market bingo or BTL, if you work all your life (or do certain permitted equivalents as is currently the case with NI) you get 2/3 of your average salary.
I agree I think that is reasonably fair (side effect of moving companies away from bonuses to salaries as people would demand that), I think its then up to people to do what they want with spare capital. Through taxation, the government can encourage investing - we'd see more companies started, more companies going to the stock market and ensuring that if you have sufficient housing stock and block housing as an asset class - including foreign ownership of residential property - you'd not have young people loaded with debt their entire lives. One of the worst policies in recent time is 'help to buy' it should have been called 'help to a lifetime of debt', incredibly bad for the wider economy and peoples lives (imo).
One thing to note, with regard to your proposal here, is that if I have a pension fund of some sort, then it clearly looks like my property, and suggestions that the government should confiscate my property to pay for something else they want looks aggressively communist.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
So how much do you trust the government?
In respect of this government and pensions..totally. I have never been so well off.
One thing to note, with regard to your proposal here, is that if I have a pension fund of some sort, then it clearly looks like my property, and suggestions that the government should confiscate my property to pay for something else they want looks aggressively communist.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
So how much do you trust the government?
In respect of this government and pensions..totally. I have never been so well off.
One thing to note, with regard to your proposal here, is that if I have a pension fund of some sort, then it clearly looks like my property, and suggestions that the government should confiscate my property to pay for something else they want looks aggressively communist.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
So how much do you trust the government?
In respect of this government and pensions..totally. I have never been so well off.
One thing to note, with regard to your proposal here, is that if I have a pension fund of some sort, then it clearly looks like my property, and suggestions that the government should confiscate my property to pay for something else they want looks aggressively communist.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
So how much do you trust the government?
In respect of this government and pensions..totally. I have never been so well off.
One thing to note, with regard to your proposal here, is that if I have a pension fund of some sort, then it clearly looks like my property, and suggestions that the government should confiscate my property to pay for something else they want looks aggressively communist.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
So how much do you trust the government?
In respect of this government and pensions..totally. I have never been so well off.
Comments
Ms Raynor. I believe her when she says that she has had legal advice that she did nothing wrong after she sold her former council house. However, her legal advisors probably gave their advice based on what she told them. If she told them that she was selling her actual home, they probably took it as read. The legal advice becomes irrelevant if she did not give them the full facts. I assume that a Police enquiry could quickly establish the truth, whatever it is.
I think you get a three year grace period between the time you move out and the sale date before CGT comes in to play, if it was your primary residence.
What exactly did you find impressive about him endorsing crimes against humanity in Gaza?
* "obscene quantities" being more than zero.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/15/labour-in-a-bind-over-much-needed-childcare-reform
Both this and Streeting's crack about 'middle class lefties' is an interesting way of telling one of your core voting groups to f*ck off.
Two points; living in a democracy implies allowing people to continue to make an argument. Second, even Labour's core support isn't enthusiastic about this program, and having two parties beholden to the press and handing out contracts to their corporate sponsors isn't a healthy situation.
TINA can fuck off.
What is TINA, please?
Ah - I see! Thank you.
Not very inspiring is fine by me. Politicians should be boring because in my head that means they are getting on with the job of governing rather than finding extreme ways to win votes.
Indeed.
Yes. A safe pair of hands is what this country needs, I think, after the disasters of the last several Prime Ministers...
That's fine if the country is in a decent state and just needs managing. Not so much if *gestures wildly at the state of the public realm*.
Not sending refugees to Rwanda (as long as it remains Labour policy not to) and not buying PPE off the back of a Tory Minister's friend's lorry will save some money. But more money will be saved by spending money on the NHS, and especially on social care, on Green infrastructure, reviving Sure Start, and so on.
The more obvious solution would seem to be treating the sick, I.e improving the functioning of the NHS probably partly by investing in it. If you get more sick to work, you are probabaly going to end up with a new secondary problem - that your workers are less productive, because they are working whilst sick and potentially taking more sick days because having got into employment they struggle because they are sick.
We probably have more sick people as a percentage of the working age population, because a) the pandemic has left a significant minority of people with long term symptoms and/or worsening of conditions they already had and b) they are sitting on waiting lists for treatment so nothing much has been done to improve their health.
Giving them less money to live off, is unlikely to improve their health, forcing them to work when they are not really well enough to do so is likely to worsen their health and cause increased financial costs and human suffering down the line.
I do not agree with the content of either question and this makes it difficult for me to give an answer.
Agreed. Time for the tories to disappear into the sewer full of shite in which they belong.
A recent poll (yes, yes, I know...) has them left with only 90 seats after the next General Election. Serve them bloody well right.
Still, as some of the gammon have been known to point out, it's thanks to the tories that we have the huge number of food banks currently operating...Labour never gave us that many...
And currently many people are already suffering from secondary problems by the time they get into the NHS, As care systems have been eroded away, early interventions are less likely to take place, and the NHS ends up acting as a social service of last resort.
There's a host of problems due to successive governments implementing austerity by cutting services and infrastructure spending, which then results in ballooning costs and lower growth much later.
An example; the Cancer Research hospital planned for Cambridge is currently in doubt due to low levels of water supply in the area. Cambridge will get cited by government as a 'tech hub' even as new housing, offices and data centres - in other words 'economic growth' - are precluded due to lack of infrastructure. Issues of this sort are replicated across the UK.
It's eminently fixable; but involves a government willing to look beyond rigid adherence to fiscal rules, fund services properly and building infrastructure, including multi-modal transport.
Whilst I'd not normally defend Labour (some have been good I suppose) Starmer, has to play the cards he's been dealt (Bit like Alistair Darling as Chancellor previously). So, given the state of the UK finances, I think he's limited scope for maneuver. As to why the UK is in this position, it goes way back, beyond Brexit (whatever you think of that); have a look at when the UK changed policy on:
- pensions (tax raids)
- encouraging spare capital into BTL, fuelling house price inflation
- changing how inflation is calculated (see point above).
I remember this happened when I left Uni for a job in the City, almost 30 years ago. At the time thinking that raiding pensions was a brain dead decision and my opinion hasn't changed.
Whoever started it (And I'm not going to mention who) both parties have failed (they had the chance to change, but didn't) and it has lead to decades of relative decline. I think its also led to a number of unwanted outcomes as a result. Though, I think the things will have to get worse for people to accept the changes necessary to reverse the decline.
This is where speculators (domestic & foreign) can make money out of the UK. If Labour adopt a deranged (see Gilts strike etc. etc. etc.) economic policy (for the record I don't think they will, but lets see...) its 'hay making time' betting on the inevitable downfall.
Goes back to you-know-who and his pensions raid, spare economic capital funnelled to BTL rather than productive investment. A curse on both their houses for not changing it. IMO, Alistair Darling (Lab) and Ken Clarke (Con) were decent Chancellors, the rest ... not so good.
Contrary to the above there's not a single switch marked 'economic policy', there's a vast world between permanent austerity (UK policy since the GFC) and 'deranged'
Your promise to barely mention something is somewhat undermined by the heavy hinting (the effects of the pension 'raid' were massively exacerbated by the change in rules on taxation of surpluses some years before that).
Buy To Let.
It's worth pointing out that in general, it's much cheaper to treat sick people early than later. Similarly, maintaining equipment is generally cheaper than not maintaining it, and then having to replace it when it breaks catastrophically.
But things like operating costs and maintenance aren't exciting, and don't generate photo opportunities and promotions.
I don’t know about that. Any government making a thing of activity supporting the NHS and doing the things you mentioned might be seen as headline news, for good or bad, depending on your point of view. The tax cuts did not go down well. Investing in the things people want them to may get headlines
I agree. But the other idea of letting the printing presses roll - would end in rampant inflation, in particular you end up with food inflation that hits the poorest the most.
It also leads to far, far less social mobility.
So you need some balance. Otherwise you end up in a situation if the state gets too large (and no I'm not some Libertarian that thinks government should be two people in an office and no more) then you have a situation where the majority of people are taking more out of the system than are putting in, at higher and higher income levels, that eventually will lead to greater poverty. Having lived abroad (Asia), the most successful countries I've seen are those that - build lots of houses so freeing up spare capital, control the demand (and that means population, who can buy property in the country) force people to save for their retirement via different investment fund(s), and invest heavily in education (and that means properly investing I'm afraid it means making some subjects very cheap and nothing for other subjects or institutions that just aren't there academically) it seems to lead to higher living standards. I've also lived in a country where a 'hate preacher' was fined, caned, jailed and deported in a matter of weeks - for the very good of the country in my opinion, a lesson the UK should learn.
Whilst the Tories today don't look like the say Ken Clarke conservatism in the past, he was basically the last Conservative that balanced the books and laid the path for the boom that was inherited after he and his government left office.
Labour now look likely to inherit a far worse situation. So, they've got a job on their hands and will doubtless end up disappointing people left and right, if they do, that's probably a good sign they are navigating through it.
I have said this before and will say it again. Lab will win the election (more because the Cons will lose it). They will still get a bloody nose as more traditional voters move to other parties. The Greens are picking up a lot of pissed off ex Lab members. I am considering voting elsewhere. I have done this once before when New Labour had several policies I didn’t agree with. As I said I think Starmer is lier and heavy handed with the left of the party. The type of people who started the party and who have voted for it through hard times and good.
If they aren't disappointing people on the political right at least some of the time then they are doing a very poor job as the party representing the political left. As to the criticisms from the left, that very much depends on their substance. I'm reminded of the joke from social media:
centrist: [fills pants with shit]
right: You have shit your pants
left: Yeah, you just shit in your pants
centrist: [smiles pompously] If both sides are criticising me I must be doing something right
That's an interesting idea, but where would we deport Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, Laurence Fox and Nigel Farage to?
It's not a binary choice between austerity and increasing the money supply. Reforming taxation away from VAT to taxing land value would provide good economic incentives e.g. to renovate uninhabitable housing, use land where planning permission has been granted and potentially increase revenue too.
I'm a big fan of land value taxes. They do suppress house prices, which makes them politically challenging for anyone who wants the middle-class vote. (Not that it's actually in the interest of many middle-class voters to have rising house prices, but many people think it is...)
Doublethink, Admin
Rwanda?
I have to say I agree. I think we'd end up with in a much happier place where spare capital goes into productive investment. Also if we (as some countries do) avoid shoveling the cost of retirement onto future generations - by enforcing that a minimum % of salary is booked into a retirement fund/account (for those earning over a threshold).
Given that we're already paying for the current generation of retirees it seems kind of harsh that those working have to fund themselves as well. Wouldn't it be easier to have a national career-average salary pension scheme funded through general taxation, capped at twice median earnings? No need to play stock market bingo or BTL, if you work all your life (or do certain permitted equivalents as is currently the case with NI) you get 2/3 of your average salary.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
So how much do you trust the government?
That's a fair charge, and as someone whose previous pension scheme operated on this basis I am not dismissive of the concern, but I would note that the scheme could be so structured as to require primary legislation to change such things, and even then would be subject to judicial review (as the WASPI women have proved). I think that, on balance, I'd take the risk of "I am altering the bargain" over being subject to the vagaries of stock, property and annuity markets.
I agree I think that is reasonably fair (side effect of moving companies away from bonuses to salaries as people would demand that), I think its then up to people to do what they want with spare capital. Through taxation, the government can encourage investing - we'd see more companies started, more companies going to the stock market and ensuring that if you have sufficient housing stock and block housing as an asset class - including foreign ownership of residential property - you'd not have young people loaded with debt their entire lives. One of the worst policies in recent time is 'help to buy' it should have been called 'help to a lifetime of debt', incredibly bad for the wider economy and peoples lives (imo).
How lovely for you. Others are not so fortunate:
Nearly 1 million pensioners living in deprivation, according to official figures
Though this fits in very well with the Conservative Party's unofficial motto of FUJIAR*
*Fuck you, Jack, I'm alright.
Indeed it does, and shame on those who say and think that way.