UK Politics

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Neil said:

its not the schools who'll pay the VAT itll be the parents of the kids.

But it's the schools who will have to make cuts to account for the ten's of thousands of pupils who will be re-locating to state schools and the government will have to raise the money to pay for the extra teachers and infrastructure needed - this in addition to the money raised by the imposition of VAT on fees. 
They really haven't thought this through.

Edited May 31 by Ommadawn

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

The sad thing is that during New Labour, Labour still had their roots firmly grounded in working class politics and the trade union movement. All of that cohort, whilst taking Labour in a different direction, would have been raised in an indelibly marked by the real traditions of the Labour movement.

The same cannot be said of this cohort. This is a party pursuing turbo blairism, made up to a much greater extent of people who grew up during the New Labour era after Labour had distanced itself from the Labour movement.

 

So if the acceptance of Blairism was for many, the act of swallowing a bitter pill and doing what you have to to get into power and maintain power, whilst believing in earnest in the fundamentals of socialism, I’d say nowadays, the party is made up to a far greater extent of people who actually didnt get that second part, and didnt perceive marketisation as a necessary evil. Thats the difference between then and now.

 

And in terms of outcome, it will mean all of the worst parts of Blairism with less concern for helping the worst off.

kind of contradicts what we've been saying about McSweeney and Labour Together and all that...but ok...turbo blairism.

[steviewevie]

Abbott thinking oh f**k do I really need to do this?

[steviewevie]

Now Starmer will get attacked from the right for looking weak and flip-floppy, same old lefty antisemitic labour... forever and ever..amen.

[steviewevie]

maybe now everyone will stop banging on about Diane f**king Abbott.

(but they probably won't)

[steviewevie]

also possibly shows that Angela Rayner does have quite a bit of power within Labour, more than past deputy leaders.

[Nobody Interesting]

25 minutes ago, lazyred said:

Labour haven't said no tax rises just ruled out specific ways of doing it. Blair did the same and won 3 elections. The Tories have raised the overall tax level but its not the main reason they are losing.

 

Labour have been quite specific about tax rises and said they will not increase them apart from those ones already announced so if they then increase others they lied.

https://www.ft.com/content/7749757c-a00f-4e34-b15c-f5bb33e5ee85

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Labour have been quite specific about tax rises and said they will not increase them apart from those ones already announced so if they then increase others they lied.

https://www.ft.com/content/7749757c-a00f-4e34-b15c-f5bb33e5ee85

paywall

[Nobody Interesting]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

maybe now everyone will stop banging on about Diane f**king Abbott.

(but they probably won't)

It is still down to the NEC next week though isn't it?

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

It is still down to the NEC next week though isn't it?

No, think this is it...Starner says she's free to stand. 

[Nobody Interesting]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

paywall

COPIED AND PASTED

Rachel Reeves has said a Labour government would not raise taxes beyond a handful of measures she has already set out, limiting the party’s room for manoeuvre if it wins the UK general election on July 4. The shadow chancellor on Tuesday also ruled out the idea of a swift Budget, hinting that the first major fiscal event under a Labour government would not occur until September at the earliest. The main opposition party, which is guarding a poll lead of about 20 points, is keen to project its economic credentials and win over British business. Following her first big speech of the election campaign at a Rolls-Royce factory in Derby, Reeves was asked whether Labour would need to put up any taxes to ease pressures on Britain’s public services. “There are no additional tax rises needed beyond the ones that I’ve said,” she added.  Her comment marked a hardening of Labour’s position on tax rises as the party grapples with questions over how it would address spending priorities from social care to struggling councils and overflowing prisons.  On Sunday she ruled out rises to income tax or national insurance, the two main taxes levied on people’s earnings.  Sir Keir Starmer, Labour leader, said on Monday that all of his party’s policies were fully costed. “We have gone through all of our plans and none of them require us to raise taxes,” he said. But Reeves has gone further with her promise of “no additional tax rises”. She said Labour’s only increases in tax would be the ones the party has already set out. Such measures include extending the windfall tax on energy companies’ profits, imposing VAT on private school fees and ensuring private equity bonuses are “taxed appropriately”.  The Conservative government has pencilled in years of fiscal restraint after the election, which would mean real-terms cuts to non-protected government departments including transport, local government and justice.  Last week the Institute for Fiscal Studies said the next government would have to choose between cutting spending, raising taxes or borrowing more to address a hole in Britain’s public finances.   “The parties might well be reluctant to tell us which of these they would opt for upon taking office. That doesn’t mean that we should refrain from asking them,” the think-tank said. Reeves also signalled that a Labour government would not deliver a Budget until mid-September at the earliest. She said an emergency “fiscal event” before the summer would not allow the Office for Budget Responsibility, the fiscal watchdog, to prepare accompanying forecasts.  “The OBR requires 10 weeks’ notice to provide an independent forecast ahead of a Budget and I’ve been really clear that I would not deliver a fiscal event without an OBR forecast,” she said. Recommended UK politics opinion polls UK general election poll tracker Labour also won the backing of 120 business executives in a letter to The Times this week, an apparent endorsement of the party’s promise to restore “stability” to the UK economy if it wins the election. In their letter, the current and former business chiefs endorsed Labour and criticised the Conservatives’ handling of the economy, which they said had been “beset by instability, stagnation and a lack of long-term focus”.  Signatories included Andy Palmer, former chief executive of carmaker Aston Martin; John Holland-Kaye, former chief of Heathrow airport; Andrew Higginson, chair of retailer JD Sports; and Charles Harman, a former vice-chair at JPMorgan Cazenove.  Reeves said in her speech that Labour had changed for good and would run Britain as a “pro-business, pro-worker” party if it won the election.

[Nobody Interesting]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

No, think this is it...Starner says she's free to stand. 

 

Nope, NEC

""

Asked if Abbott will be allowed to run on behalf of Labour, Starmer replies: "She is free to go forward as a Labour candidate, the whip is back with her, it's been restored."

But he reminds reporters that it is "formally a matter for the NEC" but he has not expressed a view until now and reiterates Abbott is free to run as a Labour candidate.""

[steviewevie]

Ok well I bet you £1000000000000 that this is the decision, she can stand if she wants. The NEC are majorly Starmer people.

[Neil]

46 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

The sad thing is that during New Labour, Labour still had their roots firmly grounded in working class politics and the trade union movement. All of that cohort, whilst taking Labour in a different direction, would have been raised in an indelibly marked by the real traditions of the Labour movement.

The same cannot be said of this cohort. This is a party pursuing turbo blairism, made up to a much greater extent of people who grew up during the New Labour era after Labour had distanced itself from the Labour movement.

 

So if the acceptance of Blairism was for many, the act of swallowing a bitter pill and doing what you have to to get into power and maintain power, whilst believing in earnest in the fundamentals of socialism, I’d say nowadays, the party is made up to a far greater extent of people who actually didnt get that second part, and didnt perceive marketisation as a necessary evil. Thats the difference between then and now.

 

And in terms of outcome, it will mean all of the worst parts of Blairism with less concern for helping the worst off.

what blair knew not to do was waste political capital on 'nice to have' policies. he realised re-nationalising the railways was a thing to avoid, cos his govt is then responsible for every late train and every fare-rise.

 

blairism was very successful at helping the worst off.

[steviewevie]

 

[Neil]

48 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

But it's the schools who will have to make cuts to account for the ten's of thousands of pupils who will be re-locating to state schools and the government will have to raise the money to pay for the extra teachers and infrastructure needed - this in addition to the money raised by the imposition of VAT on fees. 
They really haven't thought this through.

its a policy which has lots of impact back onto state schools but extra teachers and infastructure probably won't be that impact,  cos its unlikely they'll be enough ex-private school kids at any one school to have that big an impact. its gonna be ones and twos scattered all round the country, and mostly absorbed into spare capacity.

[lazyred]

36 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

The sad thing is that during New Labour, Labour still had their roots firmly grounded in working class politics and the trade union movement. All of that cohort, whilst taking Labour in a different direction, would have been raised in an indelibly marked by the real traditions of the Labour movement.

The same cannot be said of this cohort. This is a party pursuing turbo blairism, made up to a much greater extent of people who grew up during the New Labour era after Labour had distanced itself from the Labour movement.

 

So if the acceptance of Blairism was for many, the act of swallowing a bitter pill and doing what you have to to get into power and maintain power, whilst believing in earnest in the fundamentals of socialism, I’d say nowadays, the party is made up to a far greater extent of people who actually didnt get that second part, and didnt perceive marketisation as a necessary evil. Thats the difference between then and now.

 

And in terms of outcome, it will mean all of the worst parts of Blairism with less concern for helping the worst off.

This is just nonsense. The unions are still embedded in the party at all levels. The main people around Starmer are basically the same as around Ed Miliband. The Labour revival has killed the Blairite plans for a new party. Purging Corbyn and Momentum is not turbo blairism. The arguments about socialism in the Labour party (in practice meaning a mixed economy nationalising the natural monopolies) have been going on for decades.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Now Starmer will get attacked from the right for looking weak and flip-floppy, same old lefty antisemitic labour... forever and ever..amen.

 

Already in the Sun

 

SIR Keir Starmer has today CAVED to Diane Abbott and let her stand for Labour in the election - marking a massive u-turn.

The wannabe PM backed down to the veteran left-winger following a a backlash at his bungled attempt to block her candidacy.

He today confirmed she was "free" to run in Hackney North for the party - just hours after saying no decision was made.

It culminates a hellish 48 hours in which splits emerged within Labour over whether to welcome back Ms Abbott, who had been under investigation for an anti-semitism scandal.

He appeared to have been bounced into the decision by his deputy Angela Rayner and Scots leader Anas Sarwar who said Ms Abbott should be allowed to stand.

 

etc etc

 

Edited May 31 by Ommadawn

[lazyred]

28 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Nope, NEC

""

Asked if Abbott will be allowed to run on behalf of Labour, Starmer replies: "She is free to go forward as a Labour candidate, the whip is back with her, it's been restored."

But he reminds reporters that it is "formally a matter for the NEC" but he has not expressed a view until now and reiterates Abbott is free to run as a Labour candidate.""

That's the formal process but the BBC are reporting Labour sources saying she will be selected -

 

In the last few minutes, we've heard Labour leader Keir Starmer say Diane Abbott is "free to go forward" as a Labour candidate.

A senior Labour source has clarified that this means Abbott will be Labour's candidate in the constituency of Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

They also confirm the National Executive Committee (NEC), Labour's governing body, will not block her.

The committee will meet next week to endorse all Labour's candidates before nominations legally close on 7 June.

 

[Neil]

8 minutes ago, lazyred said:

This is just nonsense. The unions are still embedded in the party at all levels. The main people around Starmer are basically the same as around Ed Miliband. The Labour revival has killed the Blairite plans for a new party. Purging Corbyn and Momentum is not turbo blairism. The arguments about socialism in the Labour party (in practice meaning a mixed economy nationalising the natural monopolies) have been going on for decades.

if you spend resources on nationalising  those resources aren't available to improve peoples lives.

[lazyred]

49 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Labour have been quite specific about tax rises and said they will not increase them apart from those ones already announced so if they then increase others they lied.

https://www.ft.com/content/7749757c-a00f-4e34-b15c-f5bb33e5ee85

What if they restrict tax relief on pension contributions or apply capital gains tax on your main house or replace council tax or start indexing  fuel duty again or extend NI to pensioner income or put charges on some free services. None of those would make Reeves a liar.

[fraybentos1]

1 hour ago, Ommadawn said:

 it's the schools who will have to make cuts to account for the ten's of thousands of pupils who will be re-locating to state schools 

What's the actual evidence for this? I highly doubt this transpires.

 

Genuinely perplexes me that people send their kids to private school, I went to one of the best state schools in Scotland (lucky, I know) and if you can afford to live in the catchment area then a decent amount will also be able to afford school fees but many choose not to cause the state school is good.

 

And you might say , 'well not all state schools are good and some are dumps' but people who could go to private school don't tend to live in areas with poor state schools from my experience. It may be different in England where you have grammar schools etc I dunno

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, lazyred said:

What if they restrict tax relief on pension contributions or apply capital gains tax on your main house or replace council tax or start indexing  fuel duty again or extend NI to pensioner income or put charges on some free services. None of those would make Reeves a liar.

Just continuing to freeze income tax thresholds will be like a tax increase 

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

What's the actual evidence for this? I highly doubt this transpires.

 

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20240528/281487871475247

Plenty of other sources if you look.

Edited May 31 by Ommadawn