There seems to have been a fair amount of tactical anti-hard right voting, given the very low results for Greens, LibDems, and Tories alike.
Time for the progressives on the left and in the centre to get together? Hope, not hate...
Depends on Labour ditching the hate campaigns and attitudes which they've embraced under Starmer.
I think it's fair to give Burnham a chance, but Labour embracing the underlying premises of hate politics plays a big role in normalising and driving it. It plays its part in the rise of the far right vote by effectively giving the media a blank cheque to fill bulletins with it because 'both sides' do it - so if they platform a Labour racist/ welfare starver and a Tory/Reform racist/ welfare starver then by that their 'impartiality' boxes are ticked. I can only speak for my own radio listening but it seems much rarer to hear the underlying premises challenged.
And this is a problem. It's a hard and unethical request to ask people to vote for those removing their own rights and trying to starve and immiserate people like them. Labour centrists love to blame people for it and accuse them of playing 'purity politics' because they dont want to vote for the same destructive scapegoating slop but with a red rosette.
We really need PR voting for UK Westminster elections so people can escape the need to coalesce around candidates not much better on some issues than those they claim to be vehemently opposing.
We really need PR voting for UK Westminster elections so people can escape the need to coalesce around candidates not much better on some issues than those they claim to be vehemently opposing.
Allegedly Burnham is supportive of PR. Whether he can persuade the PLP to vote for something that will sack at least half their number is another matter entirely. Expect some rhetorical gymnastics from people suddenly eager to trumpet the benefits of FPTP.
We really need PR voting for UK Westminster elections so people can escape the need to coalesce around candidates not much better on some issues than those they claim to be vehemently opposing.
Allegedly Burnham is supportive of PR.
Only if it is in a manifesto and endorsed at a subsequent general election (which means the earliest any alternate voting proposal would come about would probably be post 2029).
We really need PR voting for UK Westminster elections so people can escape the need to coalesce around candidates not much better on some issues than those they claim to be vehemently opposing.
IMO, even better would be some form of multi-member constituencies elected by STV. PR will still mean supporters of parties who will poll below [Party X that they hate] will still vote tactically for the least worst of the parties likely to poll above them to reduce the number of MPs X get. It's not as bad as tactical voting in FPTP, but still tactical voting that will forever keep smaller parties down. A multi-member STV really does allow people to vote 1 for their favourite candidate while using preferences 2, 3 etc for other candidates they don't mind, and not putting X on their list at all. It also allows smaller parties and independents to really focus their campaign on small local areas and have that pay off with a shot at getting a candidate elected which is very much harder to do in PR.
But, I suspect that voting reform should be a new thread rather than clutter up this one (unless that becomes an issue for Labour in the next few weeks).
There will be an announcement from number 10 today. Speculation abounds. Will Starmer quit? Will he leave this week or will he do so after the summer recess? Will there be a contest or a coronation? Is it best to wait out the recess or get the new leader in quickly so they can start afresh in the new session? Drama, drama, drama.
There will be an announcement from number 10 today. Speculation abounds. Will Starmer quit? Will he leave this week or will he do so after the summer recess? Will there be a contest or a coronation? Is it best to wait out the recess or get the new leader in quickly so they can start afresh in the new session? Drama, drama, drama.
I wonder how much of this is whipped up by the press.
The 24h news cycle has a lot to answer for. It puts a lot of stress on our politicians, an expectation of responding quickly, with all that time filled with pundits and "experts" commentating. Before 24h news, all we'd have would be the regular breakfast, lunchtime, early evening and late news and all those pundits wouldn't have time to comment on TV (they might still be writing newspaper columns ... but newspapers are always several hours behind the news rather than spending time broadcasting scenes of people doing sound checks on podiums)
The 24h news cycle has a lot to answer for. It puts a lot of stress on our politicians, an expectation of responding quickly, with all that time filled with pundits and "experts" commentating. Before 24h news, all we'd have would be the regular breakfast, lunchtime, early evening and late news and all those pundits wouldn't have time to comment on TV (they might still be writing newspaper columns ... but newspapers are always several hours behind the news rather than spending time broadcasting scenes of people doing sound checks on podiums)
I suspect that newspaper columnists have largely swapped time in the pub for time on TV.
The 24h news cycle has a lot to answer for. It puts a lot of stress on our politicians, an expectation of responding quickly, with all that time filled with pundits and "experts" commentating. Before 24h news, all we'd have would be the regular breakfast, lunchtime, early evening and late news and all those pundits wouldn't have time to comment on TV (they might still be writing newspaper columns ... but newspapers are always several hours behind the news rather than spending time broadcasting scenes of people doing sound checks on podiums)
I suspect that newspaper columnists have largely swapped time in the pub for time on TV.
And TV political journalists hardly ever delve into actual policies preferring to speculate on Westminster gossip and so whipping up this fever about who is staying or going.
Yet another Britain in decline article in the papers the other day.
1. It says welfare spending now exceeds total revenue in income tax.
2. And "Britain has a national debt roughly equivalent to its gross national product. It pays nearly twice as much on interest as on its defence budget."
3. Apparently 20% of the country live in state housing.
I don't envy the new guy's job. Britain needs an economic miracle.
1. we have an aging population (the lion's share of welfare is pensions) and successive governments have cut income tax and raised National Insurance and indirect taxes like VAT. It's a meaningless soundbite.
2. The debt to GDP ratio is bad but not unusually so by the standards of developed economies. Comparison with weapons spending is, again, pretty meaningless.
3. I'm pretty sure this is untrue. Probably what is meant is 20% of people are in the socially rented sector which, I agree, is bad. It should be much higher. If it was it would massively reduce the amount spent on housing benefit.
Yet another Britain in decline article in the papers the other day.
It says welfare spending now exceeds total revenue in income tax.
And "Britain has a national debt roughly equivalent to its gross national product. It pays nearly twice as much on interest as on its defence budget."
Apparently 20% of the country live in state housing.
I don't envy the new guy's job. Britain needs an economic miracle.
I could post a vast screed, but I’ll content myself post this for your information. Note particularly the pie chart showing sources of government revenue in the United Kingdom. Government revenue from IFS
In particular, income tax is about 25% of government revenue.
Yet another Britain in decline article in the papers the other day.
It says welfare spending now exceeds total revenue in income tax.
And "Britain has a national debt roughly equivalent to its gross national product. It pays nearly twice as much on interest as on its defence budget."
Apparently 20% of the country live in state housing.
I don't envy the new guy's job. Britain needs an economic miracle.
Re your first point: while welfare spending is above revenue from income tax it is not the first time this has happened and the current forecast is for it to come back below. See this link https://fullfact.org/economy/income-tax-versus-welfare-spending/. Income tax is just one source of revenue for the government so comparing welfare spending with it is pointless.
As per the response above for your second point the national debt to GBP ratio isn't unusual although we would all prefer there to be no debt.
For your third point it is so vague that a meaningful response is not possible.
The first miracle that would help the next Prime Minister is for the press to properly research their material before publishing and then for social media accounts to not post their prejudices and claim that the facts support them when the full facts don't.
@WhimsicalChristian, I saw so many 'Britain in decline' articles during my month-long visit to Australia and so much 'We're glad we moved to Australia because Britain's turning to shit,' bollocks from ex-pats that I was sorely tempted to tell them all to STFU.
Fortunately, I didn't hear that from everyone I met.
On 24 hour news and such ... the BBC is showing live coverage of Andy Burnham arriving at Euston as if it's Napoleon returning from Elba or Washington crossing the Delaware.
I don't think we can blame the media entirely - although they've got a lot to answer for - but there's a kind of symbiotic thing going on with all the branding and sound-bites and so on. Note Burnham's branding. Vote Andy. Not vote Labour. The pop-art style graphics.
My worry is that the rapid turnover in PMs will further undermine people's confidence in the system and drive more people to the mirage promises of the far right.
As per the response above for your second point the national debt to GBP ratio isn't unusual although we would all prefer there to be no debt.
"We" really wouldn't, because the flip side of government debt is private savings, and if there were no gilts you'd start to hear the pension industry complaining about the lack of a risk free savings vehicle with which to back annuities.
Apparently 20% of the country live in state housing.
"Living in state housing" is neither intrinsically good or bad.
People being adequately housed is a good thing. There being enough liquidity in housing that people can straightforwardly move to a different part of the country for work is a good thing.
How you achieve that, in terms of private ownership vs private rental property vs state-owned rental property is less relevant.
I grew up on a council estate, back when it was still actually owned by the council. The house I lived in was a solidly built three-bedroomed semi with a large garden. We could decorate it however we liked and we didn't have to pay for building maintenance (all taken care of by the council). You would not be able to rent a tent nowadays for what my parents paid for it. There's nothing wrong with state-owned housing if it's well-made and properly managed.
The housing problem in the UK is considerably worse than it could be because of a shortage of affordable rental property. More council houses could redress the balance by forcing private landlords to reduce rents, or at least to make their property fit for human habitation. Of course, the building lobby will fight any attempts to build large numbers of houses, because they benefit from keeping the supply down.
Of course, the building lobby will fight any attempts to build large numbers of houses, because they benefit from keeping the supply down.
And yet government after government have relied on those developers to build the houses we need, when their profit margin relies on them not building the houses we need. It's part of the stupidity of putting public services (and, ultimately housing is a public service as much as health care or transport) in the hands of the private sector.
Oh don’t get me on housing. It is a very basic human need and the “shortage” is manipulated by a cabal of landlords, builders and a planning system that is too rarely administered democratically.
There are for example, and I make no apologies for repeating myself, about a million empty homes in total. Of these over 300,000 have been empty for over six months and over 250,000 second homes are out of residential use. On the basis that each home can accommodate four people, that is sufficient for more than two million people. Get these homes back into use. Employ thousands of the unemployed to repair and redecorate them, which will take them off benefits and teach them a skill. Here’s the information
I dislike the implication that unemployed people are only unemployed because they have no skills. That is not remotely true. Also, most people on benefits are working already.
I agree that homes shouldn't lie empty, but also we still just need far more council housing - and real council housing rather than being fobbed off with housing associations.
I'd like to see councils being given the power to commission houses from small local building firms rather than the big developers. The houses might even be built by the same people, because the big developers all outsource their work to smaller firms and self-employed workers anyway. It's cheaper for them.
I'd like to see councils being given the power to commission houses from small local building firms rather than the big developers. The houses might even be built by the same people, because the big developers all outsource their work to smaller firms and self-employed workers anyway. It's cheaper for them.
I suspect councils have that power. What they don't have is the money, or the time and expertise to devise and execute such a plan. Here, it's the community development trust that is making the running, but the council is helping by idenitfying surplus land and underutilised buildings. I've just moved out of a former school that was converted into a house but had a lot of wasted space with very high ceilings and an empty roofspace, and is now set to be converted into flats (it's not uncommon for single people to move here for work and end up renting a 3+ bedroom property because it's all that's available).
Councils also have powers to bring unoccupied homes into use if they have been unoccupied for six months or more. The measures vary according to the extent the landlord cooperates, but they can, in extremis compulsorily purchase properties.
Trouble is, and I hate to say this, but the current Labour Government has made it even harder for residents and their locally elected representatives to challenge unwelcome developments - and I'm not talking about Nimby-ism. I'd welcome any move to do the sort of things @sionisais and @Arethosemyfeet envision and describe.
I don't see much evidence of Labour facilitating that any more than the Conservatives did - but yes, Labour did inherit an awful mess from the previous government.
As the heir in waiting Burnham's going to have a massive in-tray and all manner of loose ends to tie up even before he initiates anything new and shiny.
I'd like to see councils being given the power to commission houses from small local building firms rather than the big developers. The houses might even be built by the same people, because the big developers all outsource their work to smaller firms and self-employed workers anyway. It's cheaper for them.
We have a scheme here where there are social housing houses built at the end of streets of private housing. It means that people in the social housing don't have addresses which can be identified as social housing. The houses are different - my Beloved Goddaughter grew up in a cul-de-sac which has about 20 4 bed detached houses with garages, then eight 3 bed semi-detached, with no garages, and because they are semi-detached they have smaller gardens. But if someone wasn't aware the semi-detached houses are social housing it would just look like a mix of housing styles. I think it works very well.
That said, the latest development in my village is of mega-expensive 5 bed houses, and there is no social housing included in that development.
Trouble is, and I hate to say this, but the current Labour Government has made it even harder for residents and their locally elected representatives to challenge unwelcome developments - and I'm not talking about Nimby-ism. I'd welcome any move to do the sort of things @sionisais and @Arethosemyfeet envision and describe.
I don't see much evidence of Labour facilitating that any more than the Conservatives did - but yes, Labour did inherit an awful mess from the previous government.
As the heir in waiting Burnham's going to have a massive in-tray and all manner of loose ends to tie up even before he initiates anything new and shiny.
I don't envy him that task.
Some councils are bringing homes back into use, albeit to a limited extent and that limit is money. They aren’t going to get more from central government in the Rate Support Grant (paid out of Treasury funds) so they would have to raise funds through higher council tax. While it would be cheaper in the long term, through using less temporary accommodation, I doubt the average resident would think beyond the next election.
And the original problem was Right to Buy coupled with heavy restrictions how much of the proceeds from sales that councils were allowed to keep, and what they were able to do with the remainder.
Trouble is, and I hate to say this, but the current Labour Government has made it even harder for residents and their locally elected representatives to challenge unwelcome developments - and I'm not talking about Nimby-ism. I'd welcome any move to do the sort of things @sionisais and @Arethosemyfeet envision and describe.
I don't see much evidence of Labour facilitating that any more than the Conservatives did - but yes, Labour did inherit an awful mess from the previous government.
As the heir in waiting Burnham's going to have a massive in-tray and all manner of loose ends to tie up even before he initiates anything new and shiny.
I don't envy him that task.
Some councils are bringing homes back into use, albeit to a limited extent and that limit is money. They aren’t going to get more from central government in the Rate Support Grant (paid out of Treasury funds) so they would have to raise funds through higher council tax. While it would be cheaper in the long term, through using less temporary accommodation, I doubt the average resident would think beyond the next election.
The other dirty secret is that council tax is a relatively small part of council funding. You have to raise it a lot to make an appreciable difference and just now inflation swallows most of even a 10% rise.
@Arethosemyfeet : yes, money is the problem. All the suggestions I've seen so far are for centrally funded and organised schemes, working with the Big Developers who got us into this mess in the first place. We might get the same number of screwups if the government just gave the money to local authorities and told them to organise it, but at least they'd be locally organised screwups.
@North East Quine the Joseph Rowntree Trust says the best developments (as in, most likely to result in a strong community) are a mix of social and private housing. Sadly, they are not the most profitable.
The VAT cut on theme parks, museums and kids meals is welcome, but now that we are not in the EU, could the government turn away from consumption taxes as they put a greater burden on those on lower incomes. Yes, I’m advocating higher direct taxation. I’m old enough to remember VAT at 8, 10 and 12.5%, but at that time income tax started at 33%!
Yes @Arethosemyfeet. People don't understand how Council Tax and town council precepts work.
The likes of Reform exploit that.
Ok, that's an observation for the Reform threat thread rather than one on the Labour Government, but it is pertinent I think as it illustrates how misconceptions can play into attitudes towards whichever Party has the purse strings.
The VAT cut on theme parks, museums and kids meals is welcome, but now that we are not in the EU, could the government turn away from consumption taxes as they put a greater burden on those on lower incomes. Yes, I’m advocating higher direct taxation. I’m old enough to remember VAT at 8, 10 and 12.5%, but at that time income tax started at 33%!
That was in the mid-70s I think. But what was the tax threshold ie standard basic Personal Allowance? (currently £12,570) and maybe there were other factors like married man's allowance?
Things were very different. The married tax allowance was £1300 and the basic rate in 1978/79 was 33% but there was a reduced rate of 25% on the first £750 of taxable income. Higher rates from 40% started at £8,000 and the top rate of 83% from £24,000.
Essentially VAT, which is payable on all but essentials (and even some of those) has doubled - so much for taking back control with Brexit in this case - while income tax rates have decreased considerably.
<snip>
Essentially VAT, which is payable on all but essentials (and even some of those) has doubled - so much for taking back control with Brexit in this case - while income tax rates have decreased considerably.
A situation which tends to favour the rich who can much more easily afford the 20% hit on the cost of a coat than the poor who have the same need for a coat but less ability to pay for it.
<snip>
Essentially VAT, which is payable on all but essentials (and even some of those) has doubled - so much for taking back control with Brexit in this case - while income tax rates have decreased considerably.
A situation which tends to favour the rich who can much more easily afford the 20% hit on the cost of a coat than the poor who have the same need for a coat but less ability to pay for it.
Plus poorer people are likely to have to spend a greater proportion of their income quickly and take the tax hit.
<snip>
Essentially VAT, which is payable on all but essentials (and even some of those) has doubled - so much for taking back control with Brexit in this case - while income tax rates have decreased considerably.
A situation which tends to favour the rich who can much more easily afford the 20% hit on the cost of a coat than the poor who have the same need for a coat but less ability to pay for it.
Plus poorer people are likely to have to spend a greater proportion of their income quickly and take the tax hit.
And they will have to buy cheap goods that won’t last more than a year, while their better off cousins buy the top notch versions that will outlast them.
Yes VAT is well known to be a regressive tax (takes larger proportion of poor people's money than rich people's money). I think there is a strong case for shifting back towards less VAT and more income tax. Would tend to boost private spending too I think which might be quite a good thing for the economy.
<snip>
Essentially VAT, which is payable on all but essentials (and even some of those) has doubled - so much for taking back control with Brexit in this case - while income tax rates have decreased considerably.
A situation which tends to favour the rich who can much more easily afford the 20% hit on the cost of a coat than the poor who have the same need for a coat but less ability to pay for it.
Plus poorer people are likely to have to spend a greater proportion of their income quickly and take the tax hit.
And they will have to buy cheap goods that won’t last more than a year, while their better off cousins buy the top notch versions that will outlast them.
Things were very different. The married tax allowance was £1300 and the basic rate in 1978/79 was 33% but there was a reduced rate of 25% on the first £750 of taxable income. Higher rates from 40% started at £8,000 and the top rate of 83% from £24,000.
Essentially VAT, which is payable on all but essentials (and even some of those) has doubled - so much for taking back control with Brexit in this case - while income tax rates have decreased considerably.
VAT was essentially doubled by Thatcher/Howe in their first budget back in 1979 when it went from 8% to 15%. They also cut higher income tax rates much more quickly than they cut the basic rate.
Could the Labour government please stop dragging its heels and expedite the appointment of its new leader in Parliament and the new Prime Minister.
Thank you, and we now return to your scheduled programme.
Could the Labour government please stop dragging its heels and expedite the appointment of its new leader in Parliament and the new Prime Minister.
Thank you, and we now return to your scheduled programme.
The new person is supposed to in in July so they have the recess to sort things out.
Comments
Depends on Labour ditching the hate campaigns and attitudes which they've embraced under Starmer.
I think it's fair to give Burnham a chance, but Labour embracing the underlying premises of hate politics plays a big role in normalising and driving it. It plays its part in the rise of the far right vote by effectively giving the media a blank cheque to fill bulletins with it because 'both sides' do it - so if they platform a Labour racist/ welfare starver and a Tory/Reform racist/ welfare starver then by that their 'impartiality' boxes are ticked. I can only speak for my own radio listening but it seems much rarer to hear the underlying premises challenged.
And this is a problem. It's a hard and unethical request to ask people to vote for those removing their own rights and trying to starve and immiserate people like them. Labour centrists love to blame people for it and accuse them of playing 'purity politics' because they dont want to vote for the same destructive scapegoating slop but with a red rosette.
We really need PR voting for UK Westminster elections so people can escape the need to coalesce around candidates not much better on some issues than those they claim to be vehemently opposing.
Allegedly Burnham is supportive of PR. Whether he can persuade the PLP to vote for something that will sack at least half their number is another matter entirely. Expect some rhetorical gymnastics from people suddenly eager to trumpet the benefits of FPTP.
Time will tell, but at least there is a chance of betterment. The thought of Farage as PM is truly frightening...
Only if it is in a manifesto and endorsed at a subsequent general election (which means the earliest any alternate voting proposal would come about would probably be post 2029).
But, I suspect that voting reform should be a new thread rather than clutter up this one (unless that becomes an issue for Labour in the next few weeks).
I wonder how much of this is whipped up by the press.
Especially interested in hearing his reflections on 'restoring pride in the flag' given its now strung up everywhere as a far right emblem.
I suspect that newspaper columnists have largely swapped time in the pub for time on TV.
And TV political journalists hardly ever delve into actual policies preferring to speculate on Westminster gossip and so whipping up this fever about who is staying or going.
It says welfare spending now exceeds total revenue in income tax.
And "Britain has a national debt roughly equivalent to its gross national product. It pays nearly twice as much on interest as on its defence budget."
Apparently 20% of the country live in state housing.
I don't envy the new guy's job. Britain needs an economic miracle.
1. we have an aging population (the lion's share of welfare is pensions) and successive governments have cut income tax and raised National Insurance and indirect taxes like VAT. It's a meaningless soundbite.
2. The debt to GDP ratio is bad but not unusually so by the standards of developed economies. Comparison with weapons spending is, again, pretty meaningless.
3. I'm pretty sure this is untrue. Probably what is meant is 20% of people are in the socially rented sector which, I agree, is bad. It should be much higher. If it was it would massively reduce the amount spent on housing benefit.
I could post a vast screed, but I’ll content myself post this for your information. Note particularly the pie chart showing sources of government revenue in the United Kingdom.
Government revenue from IFS
In particular, income tax is about 25% of government revenue.
Re your first point: while welfare spending is above revenue from income tax it is not the first time this has happened and the current forecast is for it to come back below. See this link https://fullfact.org/economy/income-tax-versus-welfare-spending/. Income tax is just one source of revenue for the government so comparing welfare spending with it is pointless.
As per the response above for your second point the national debt to GBP ratio isn't unusual although we would all prefer there to be no debt.
For your third point it is so vague that a meaningful response is not possible.
The first miracle that would help the next Prime Minister is for the press to properly research their material before publishing and then for social media accounts to not post their prejudices and claim that the facts support them when the full facts don't.
Fortunately, I didn't hear that from everyone I met.
I don't think we can blame the media entirely - although they've got a lot to answer for - but there's a kind of symbiotic thing going on with all the branding and sound-bites and so on. Note Burnham's branding. Vote Andy. Not vote Labour. The pop-art style graphics.
My worry is that the rapid turnover in PMs will further undermine people's confidence in the system and drive more people to the mirage promises of the far right.
"We" really wouldn't, because the flip side of government debt is private savings, and if there were no gilts you'd start to hear the pension industry complaining about the lack of a risk free savings vehicle with which to back annuities.
"Living in state housing" is neither intrinsically good or bad.
People being adequately housed is a good thing. There being enough liquidity in housing that people can straightforwardly move to a different part of the country for work is a good thing.
How you achieve that, in terms of private ownership vs private rental property vs state-owned rental property is less relevant.
The housing problem in the UK is considerably worse than it could be because of a shortage of affordable rental property. More council houses could redress the balance by forcing private landlords to reduce rents, or at least to make their property fit for human habitation. Of course, the building lobby will fight any attempts to build large numbers of houses, because they benefit from keeping the supply down.
There are for example, and I make no apologies for repeating myself, about a million empty homes in total. Of these over 300,000 have been empty for over six months and over 250,000 second homes are out of residential use. On the basis that each home can accommodate four people, that is sufficient for more than two million people. Get these homes back into use. Employ thousands of the unemployed to repair and redecorate them, which will take them off benefits and teach them a skill.
Here’s the information
I agree that homes shouldn't lie empty, but also we still just need far more council housing - and real council housing rather than being fobbed off with housing associations.
Well, of course. There's more profit available on a "luxury" home, and most buyers of "luxury" homes don't want an "affordable" one next door.
I suspect councils have that power. What they don't have is the money, or the time and expertise to devise and execute such a plan. Here, it's the community development trust that is making the running, but the council is helping by idenitfying surplus land and underutilised buildings. I've just moved out of a former school that was converted into a house but had a lot of wasted space with very high ceilings and an empty roofspace, and is now set to be converted into flats (it's not uncommon for single people to move here for work and end up renting a 3+ bedroom property because it's all that's available).
I don't see much evidence of Labour facilitating that any more than the Conservatives did - but yes, Labour did inherit an awful mess from the previous government.
As the heir in waiting Burnham's going to have a massive in-tray and all manner of loose ends to tie up even before he initiates anything new and shiny.
I don't envy him that task.
We have a scheme here where there are social housing houses built at the end of streets of private housing. It means that people in the social housing don't have addresses which can be identified as social housing. The houses are different - my Beloved Goddaughter grew up in a cul-de-sac which has about 20 4 bed detached houses with garages, then eight 3 bed semi-detached, with no garages, and because they are semi-detached they have smaller gardens. But if someone wasn't aware the semi-detached houses are social housing it would just look like a mix of housing styles. I think it works very well.
That said, the latest development in my village is of mega-expensive 5 bed houses, and there is no social housing included in that development.
Some councils are bringing homes back into use, albeit to a limited extent and that limit is money. They aren’t going to get more from central government in the Rate Support Grant (paid out of Treasury funds) so they would have to raise funds through higher council tax. While it would be cheaper in the long term, through using less temporary accommodation, I doubt the average resident would think beyond the next election.
The other dirty secret is that council tax is a relatively small part of council funding. You have to raise it a lot to make an appreciable difference and just now inflation swallows most of even a 10% rise.
@North East Quine the Joseph Rowntree Trust says the best developments (as in, most likely to result in a strong community) are a mix of social and private housing. Sadly, they are not the most profitable.
The likes of Reform exploit that.
Ok, that's an observation for the Reform threat thread rather than one on the Labour Government, but it is pertinent I think as it illustrates how misconceptions can play into attitudes towards whichever Party has the purse strings.
That was in the mid-70s I think. But what was the tax threshold ie standard basic Personal Allowance? (currently £12,570) and maybe there were other factors like married man's allowance?
Essentially VAT, which is payable on all but essentials (and even some of those) has doubled - so much for taking back control with Brexit in this case - while income tax rates have decreased considerably.
Plus poorer people are likely to have to spend a greater proportion of their income quickly and take the tax hit.
And they will have to buy cheap goods that won’t last more than a year, while their better off cousins buy the top notch versions that will outlast them.
Ah yes, the Vimes' Boots Theory...
VAT was essentially doubled by Thatcher/Howe in their first budget back in 1979 when it went from 8% to 15%. They also cut higher income tax rates much more quickly than they cut the basic rate.
Here’s more information than you can possibly need about Income inequality in the United Kingdom.
Thank you, and we now return to your scheduled programme.