The Labour Government

[Vic]

Of course you can find exceptions if you wish. You forgot BBC book sales.

But the point stands. The private sector generates (pedant mode: ON, the vast majority of) the weath, which pays for the public sector.

The exceptions mean your claim was wrong. "No-one working in the public sector generates wealth." (And you're criticising the Labour manifesto for not being precise - or being precise, I'm not sure).

But I cited examples, not rare exceptions.

Were people in nationalised power stations generating electricity not generating wealth? Is transport to get people to work not generating wealth? Is keeping people healthy or educating children not generating wealth?

 

[Brewster's millions]

Without wanting to butt in, but, the sentence does start with a statement and a specific reference to "working people". It is inconceivable that the rest of the sentence, interspersed with commas, referred to anything other than working people. It's semantics, but now and again Chippy, you are wrong!

Do you not think it’s a bit silly to scrutinise the semantics around which particular tax rises apply to ‘working people’, without discussing the government’s actual definition of working people?

Do you honestly believe this term to be well defined, and do you expect this definition to remain constant through the course of this parliament?

Unless you do expect it to be unchanged, then arguing around which tax rises apply to working people would appear irrelevant. More groups will be removed from the definition over time, and they’ll be subjected to further tax increases.

Heidi Alexander started this process at the weekend by saying that tax rises won’t apply to working people on ‘modest incomes’. I think you’d have to be a bit slow on the uptake not to see what the game is here, and a sleight of hand on the matter would be entirely in keeping with this government’s disingenuous handling of tax matters.

I suspect that by the time gormless Reeves finally runs out of road and causes a full blown fiscal crisis, the only groups still being defined as working people will be those on benefits who don’t work at all.

 

[Hertzblue]

Do you not think it’s a bit silly to scrutinise the semantics around which particular tax rises apply to ‘working people’, without discussing the government’s actual definition of working people?

Do you honestly believe this term to be well defined, and do you expect this definition to remain constant through the course of this parliament?

Unless you do expect it to be unchanged, then arguing around which tax rises apply to working people would appear irrelevant. More groups will be removed from the definition over time, and they’ll be subjected to further tax increases.

Heidi Alexander started this process at the weekend by saying that tax rises won’t apply to working people on ‘modest incomes’. I think you’d have to be a bit slow on the uptake not to see what the game is here, and a sleight of hand on the matter would be entirely in keeping with this government’s disingenuous handling of tax matters.

I suspect that by the time gormless Reeves finally runs out of road and causes a full blown fiscal crisis, the only groups still being defined as working people will be those on benefits who don’t work at all.

Ah , you missed it, Vic had a go at that one last night ….
I have a feeling he might row back on that one though :)

 

[hilts]

forget the Times article I am interested in YOUR view

Haha you literally said just before this why can't tte poster answer a valid question.

Go and post another 20 tweets on the reform thread ya daft donk:-)

 

[hilts]

Out of interest, how do people think the £25billion in fuel duty revenue that the government currently gets from ICE cars every year is going to be replaced when more people move to EVs. I appreciate that this won't just be this governments issue , but the next and likely the one after and so on. But this one will probably end up setting the agenda. Currently they are taxing ev vehicles less to incentivise people to buy them. But that will surely have to change drastically in some form in the future.

Is this going to be further general taxation, road charging ? Or a much higher levy road tax duty on ev vehicles. Bearing in mind that there will also be £7billion gap on road tax currently paid by ICE cars that will also need to be replaced.

I believe costs to drive an EV are going to sky rocket in the very near future, but Milleband and the Government are deliberately avoiding telling people this

You can say that about any incentive really, the future tax burden will be the future tax burden. If we end up still paying exactly the same the difference is a country full of polluting cars vs one that isn't. That's a win on its own. Long-term ev's should be cheaper to maintain and purchase. Eventually we may even stop owning them if driverless tech works correctly.

 

[hilts]

It’s not about debating. It’s about keeping people outraged. Faragism in action.

Don’t rise to them and they lose their superpower.

This is the last time I'm popping in honest

 

[hilts]

All this from somebody who was absolutely outraged by an obviously photoshopped image of an ambulance being obstructed by farmers protesting in Whitehall.

And now he’s telling people not to rise to it. Great self awareness.

In fairness he's been sat on his hands for hours telling himself 'don't post don't post' but the urge was getting stronger and stronger and like any needy addict it was too much

My name is Tache and I haven't posted on the Pointless Labour thread for 8hrs and 41 mins

:-)

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

All this from somebody who was absolutely outraged by an obviously photoshopped image of an ambulance being obstructed by farmers protesting in Whitehall.

And now he’s telling people not to rise to it. Great self awareness.

As I say. It’s not about debating. It’s attacking the poster 24/7.

There is no objectivity. It’s about “owning the other side” and trying to see which mud sticks.

Certain posters can’t help but post the same stuff whenever I post. Sadly for them, the reaction to their responses is dying as there’s no banter with them anymore, which is what they crave, not solutions to any problems. A la Farage.

 

[hilts]

Certain posters can’t help but post the same stuff.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

My case in point. Only here to attack other posters.

Don’t rise to it and marginalise the bullies. Once their rhetoric ceases to be effective, they become worthless.

The more people realise this, the quicker it happens.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Without wanting to butt in, but, the sentence does start with a statement and a specific reference to "working people". It is inconceivable that the rest of the sentence, interspersed with commas, referred to anything other than working people. It's semantics, but now and again Chippy, you are wrong!

Of course sometimes I am wrong, but since you posted, I decided I would ask ChatGPT 4o - which is legally capable, BTW. I post below VERBATIM, my question and its response. (None of the text after my question is mine):

MY QUESTION:
On page 19 of the Labour Party manifesto 2024, it makes comment about commitments with regards to National Insurace. One view is that it is clear that the commitment is not to raise National Insurance at all, both Employees and Employers. Another view is that it is clear that they only meant Employee. Please read the manifesto, and give me your opinion, as if you were a judge in a court of law, having to arbitrate on this.

CHATGPT:
Certainly. Here's an objective legal-style analysis of the 2024 Labour manifesto statement regarding National Insurance and whether an increase in Employer’s National Insurance would be consistent with it.

---

Key Wording from the Manifesto (Page 19)​

“We will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.”

There is no qualifier distinguishing between types of National Insurance (e.g., employee vs. employer).

---

Legal Interpretation: Hypothetical Analysis​

1. Literal (Textual) Interpretation​

Under standard principles of legal drafting and statutory interpretation:

• The term “National Insurance” is used without qualification.
• In law and public policy, “National Insurance” includes both employee and employer contributions.
• In the absence of an explicit limitation (e.g. “employee’s National Insurance”), the ordinary meaning would be interpreted to encompass the whole structure of National Insurance contributions.

A court assessing this statement would likely conclude that the use of the unqualified term "National Insurance" includes both employee and employer elements.

---

2. Purposive Interpretation​

Looking at the intent and purpose behind the statement:

• The commitment is part of a broader pledge not to increase taxes on “working people”.
• The wording appears designed to offer reassurance about overall tax burdens relating to work.
• If the intention were to exclude employer contributions from the commitment, it would be reasonable to expect that this would have been explicitly stated.

Given the context, a purposive reading would likely reinforce that the term was meant to cover all NI contributions affecting work and employment.

---

3. Legitimate Expectation and Public Interpretation​

In public law, the concept of legitimate expectation often arises where the government makes clear, unambiguous representations.

• The manifesto was a central campaign document, heavily vetted and widely disseminated.
• It is likely to have generated a public expectation that no part of National Insurance would be increased, including the employer element.
• Where ambiguity exists, interpretive rules such as contra proferentem (against the drafter) would tend to favour the more inclusive reading.

---

4. Subsequent Ministerial Interpretations​

Subsequent clarifications from ministers have suggested the commitment was only intended to cover employee contributions. However:

• These post-hoc interpretations do not change the original meaning of the text.
• Courts do not typically give weight to ex post facto reinterpretation where the original language was unqualified and likely to lead to a broader public understanding.

---

Summary Table​

Aspect	Analysis
Plain Text	“National Insurance” is unqualified – interpreted to include all forms.
Context	Part of a promise not to raise taxes on working people.
Omission of Qualifier	Absence of “employee’s” implies intention to include all contributions.
Post-manifesto Clarifications	Do not override plain or purposive meaning.
Legal Interpretation (Hypothetical)	Likely to conclude increase in Employer NI breaches the stated commitment.

---

‍ Hypothetical Judicial View​

If this were assessed like a contractual or statutory commitment, a court would likely conclude:

“The statement not to increase National Insurance, when unqualified, would reasonably be read as covering both employee and employer contributions. The wording creates a legitimate expectation in the electorate. Increasing Employer’s National Insurance contradicts the plain wording and inferred intent of the manifesto.”

---

This analysis assumes a purely hypothetical legal lens, as manifesto pledges are not legally binding. Nonetheless, under standard principles of legal drafting and interpretation, the increase in Employer’s National Insurance would likely be viewed as inconsistent with the unqualified commitment not to increase National Insurance.
Ask ChatGPT

 

[Chippy_boy]

The exceptions mean your claim was wrong. "No-one working in the public sector generates wealth." (And you're criticising the Labour manifesto for not being precise - or being precise, I'm not sure).

But I cited examples, not rare exceptions.

Were people in nationalised power stations generating electricity not generating wealth? Is transport to get people to work not generating wealth? Is keeping people healthy or educating children not generating wealth?

Hmmmm. Again, I thought I'd ask ChatGPT and it seems I am wrong. My apologies. Here again is the complete analysis:

I'm having a debate with a colleague about wealth generation. I said, "no-one working in the public sector generates wealth. Sorry, I know that offends some but that's the reality. They play an important part of course - a vital part. They keep the system working and support those who are earning the wealth. To use a Wimbledon analogy, they are Sinner's support team that travel the globe with him. He canot win without them - they are essential - but he is the guy who wins the trophies and earns the money. They may feel that the team earns the money and I can see that perspective, but Sinner is the guy to whom the cheque is made payable, not the physio." The counter argument is that the public sector does generate wealth, e.g. Were people in nationalised power stations generating electricity not generating wealth? Is transport to get people to work not generating wealth? Is keeping people healthy or educating children not generating wealth? Who is right?

ChatGPT said:​

This is a classic and nuanced economic debate — one that depends heavily on how you define "generating wealth."

---

Your Position:​

You define "generating wealth" narrowly, as the creation of tradable goods or services that produce income or GDP directly, typically in the private sector. In this view:

• A teacher enables wealth generation by educating future workers, but doesn’t create wealth themselves.
• A public sector nurse maintains the health of the workforce, but again, doesn’t directly produce something that can be sold or taxed.
• Sinner's team supports him, but he is the one who earns the prize money. That’s a helpful analogy for understanding your view.

---

Their Position:​

Your colleague adopts a broader view, rooted in modern public economics, where wealth is seen not just as income or GDP but also human capital, infrastructure, and productivity gains. In this sense:

• A teacher does generate wealth by increasing the future earnings of pupils (human capital formation).
• A public hospital preserves the productive potential of citizens, keeping the economy functioning.
• A nationalised energy worker produces electricity, which is a directly tradable, wealth-generating good — regardless of ownership structure.

---

So, Who Is Right?​

Both arguments have merit, but under standard economic definitions, your colleague's view is better aligned with modern macroeconomic thinking.

Key Points:​

View	Strengths	Weaknesses
Your view (wealth = private sector output)	- Clear link between effort and income - Emphasises market forces	- Ignores public goods and externalities - Overlooks the role of foundational services
Their view (wealth = broader economic value creation)	- Matches OECD and World Bank definitions - Accounts for long-term and indirect effects	- Harder to quantify - Risks overstating diffuse contributions

---

Bottom Line:​

Public sector workers can and do generate wealth, often indirectly or over time, especially in fields like:

• Education (building human capital)
• Healthcare (preserving productivity)
• Infrastructure (enabling private sector efficiency)

But the mechanism by which they generate wealth is different: it’s often not through selling products, but through enabling conditions for productivity and growth.

---

Analogy Refinement:​

Your Sinner analogy is good — but to refine it:

The physio, trainer, and coach don’t win trophies, but they increase the probability that Sinner will. That increase in expected prize money is wealth creation — just more indirect.

So while the public sector may not capture the wealth in the form of profits, it can still be seen as generating it.

---

Let me know if you want this framed in plainer or punchier language for use in the debate.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

You can say that about any incentive really, the future tax burden will be the future tax burden. If we end up still paying exactly the same the difference is a country full of polluting cars vs one that isn't. That's a win on its own. Long-term ev's should be cheaper to maintain and purchase. Eventually we may even stop owning them if driverless tech works correctly.

My point is we may end up paying the same or we may not, the tax burden has to go somewhere. Currently electric cars are cheaper to charge if you do it at home, but about the same if you charge them at a commercial place. So if the government levys the £30billion it gets from ICE cars on EV cars the cost of running them will surely go up significantly?

 

[metalblue]

Of course sometimes I am wrong, but since you posted, I decided I would ask ChatGPT 4o - which is legally capable, BTW. I post below VERBATIM, my question and its response. (None of the text after my question is mine):

MY QUESTION:
On page 19 of the Labour Party manifesto 2024, it makes comment about commitments with regards to National Insurace. One view is that it is clear that the commitment is not to raise National Insurance at all, both Employees and Employers. Another view is that it is clear that they only meant Employee. Please read the manifesto, and give me your opinion, as if you were a judge in a court of law, having to arbitrate on this.

CHATGPT:
Certainly. Here's an objective legal-style analysis of the 2024 Labour manifesto statement regarding National Insurance and whether an increase in Employer’s National Insurance would be consistent with it.

---

Key Wording from the Manifesto (Page 19)​

There is no qualifier distinguishing between types of National Insurance (e.g., employee vs. employer).

---

Legal Interpretation: Hypothetical Analysis​

1. Literal (Textual) Interpretation​

Under standard principles of legal drafting and statutory interpretation:

• The term “National Insurance” is used without qualification.
• In law and public policy, “National Insurance” includes both employee and employer contributions.
• In the absence of an explicit limitation (e.g. “employee’s National Insurance”), the ordinary meaning would be interpreted to encompass the whole structure of National Insurance contributions.

A court assessing this statement would likely conclude that the use of the unqualified term "National Insurance" includes both employee and employer elements.

---

2. Purposive Interpretation​

Looking at the intent and purpose behind the statement:

• The commitment is part of a broader pledge not to increase taxes on “working people”.
• The wording appears designed to offer reassurance about overall tax burdens relating to work.
• If the intention were to exclude employer contributions from the commitment, it would be reasonable to expect that this would have been explicitly stated.

Given the context, a purposive reading would likely reinforce that the term was meant to cover all NI contributions affecting work and employment.

---

3. Legitimate Expectation and Public Interpretation​

In public law, the concept of legitimate expectation often arises where the government makes clear, unambiguous representations.

• The manifesto was a central campaign document, heavily vetted and widely disseminated.
• It is likely to have generated a public expectation that no part of National Insurance would be increased, including the employer element.
• Where ambiguity exists, interpretive rules such as contra proferentem (against the drafter) would tend to favour the more inclusive reading.

---

4. Subsequent Ministerial Interpretations​

Subsequent clarifications from ministers have suggested the commitment was only intended to cover employee contributions. However:

• These post-hoc interpretations do not change the original meaning of the text.
• Courts do not typically give weight to ex post facto reinterpretation where the original language was unqualified and likely to lead to a broader public understanding.

---

Summary Table​

Aspect	Analysis
Plain Text	“National Insurance” is unqualified – interpreted to include all forms.
Context	Part of a promise not to raise taxes on working people.
Omission of Qualifier	Absence of “employee’s” implies intention to include all contributions.
Post-manifesto Clarifications	Do not override plain or purposive meaning.
Legal Interpretation (Hypothetical)	Likely to conclude increase in Employer NI breaches the stated commitment.

---

‍ Hypothetical Judicial View​

If this were assessed like a contractual or statutory commitment, a court would likely conclude:

---

This analysis assumes a purely hypothetical legal lens, as manifesto pledges are not legally binding. Nonetheless, under standard principles of legal drafting and interpretation, the increase in Employer’s National Insurance would likely be viewed as inconsistent with the unqualified commitment not to increase National Insurance.
Ask ChatGPT

Brilliant. I asked ChatGPT the same question but said assume I’m @BlueHammer85

Reply: Starmer is fucking ace and anyone who says different is being sucked in by a right wing media conspiracy.

 

[Vic]

Do you not think it’s a bit silly to scrutinise the semantics around which particular tax rises apply to ‘working people’, without discussing the government’s actual definition of working people?

Do you honestly believe this term to be well defined, and do you expect this definition to remain constant through the course of this parliament?

Unless you do expect it to be unchanged, then arguing around which tax rises apply to working people would appear irrelevant. More groups will be removed from the definition over time, and they’ll be subjected to further tax increases.

Heidi Alexander started this process at the weekend by saying that tax rises won’t apply to working people on ‘modest incomes’. I think you’d have to be a bit slow on the uptake not to see what the game is here, and a sleight of hand on the matter would be entirely in keeping with this government’s disingenuous handling of tax matters.

I suspect that by the time gormless Reeves finally runs out of road and causes a full blown fiscal crisis, the only groups still being defined as working people will be those on benefits who don’t work at all.

If you recall, the issue was what actual promises has Labour broken.

If you don't know what the manifesto meant by "working people", you can't say a promise was broken.

And someone else objects that we can't compare anything with broken Tory promises because that's in the past!

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Is it right that they are relaxing the mortgage borrowing rules imposed after the last great crash when we spent billions bailing out the greedy banks that did not responsibly lend?

What could possibly go wrong…..

 

[Chippy_boy]

If you recall, the issue was what actual promises has Labour broken?

The promise not to raise NI. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct answer.

I think we've exhausted this discussion haven't we. Governments break promises, get over it. The Tories did, and will in future, so will Reform. Labour have. I don't know why you're so desperate to defend them.

 

[Vic]

Of course sometimes I am wrong, but since you posted, I decided I would ask ChatGPT 4o - which is legally capable, BTW. I post below VERBATIM, my question and its response. (None of the text after my question is mine):

MY QUESTION:
On page 19 of the Labour Party manifesto 2024, it makes comment about commitments with regards to National Insurace. One view is that it is clear that the commitment is not to raise National Insurance at all, both Employees and Employers. Another view is that it is clear that they only meant Employee. Please read the manifesto, and give me your opinion, as if you were a judge in a court of law, having to arbitrate on this.

CHATGPT:
Certainly. Here's an objective legal-style analysis of the 2024 Labour manifesto statement regarding National Insurance and whether an increase in Employer’s National Insurance would be consistent with it.

---

Key Wording from the Manifesto (Page 19)​

There is no qualifier distinguishing between types of National Insurance (e.g., employee vs. employer).

---

Legal Interpretation: Hypothetical Analysis​

1. Literal (Textual) Interpretation​

Under standard principles of legal drafting and statutory interpretation:

• The term “National Insurance” is used without qualification.
• In law and public policy, “National Insurance” includes both employee and employer contributions.
• In the absence of an explicit limitation (e.g. “employee’s National Insurance”), the ordinary meaning would be interpreted to encompass the whole structure of National Insurance contributions.

A court assessing this statement would likely conclude that the use of the unqualified term "National Insurance" includes both employee and employer elements.

---

2. Purposive Interpretation​

Looking at the intent and purpose behind the statement:

• The commitment is part of a broader pledge not to increase taxes on “working people”.
• The wording appears designed to offer reassurance about overall tax burdens relating to work.
• If the intention were to exclude employer contributions from the commitment, it would be reasonable to expect that this would have been explicitly stated.

Given the context, a purposive reading would likely reinforce that the term was meant to cover all NI contributions affecting work and employment.

---

3. Legitimate Expectation and Public Interpretation​

In public law, the concept of legitimate expectation often arises where the government makes clear, unambiguous representations.

• The manifesto was a central campaign document, heavily vetted and widely disseminated.
• It is likely to have generated a public expectation that no part of National Insurance would be increased, including the employer element.
• Where ambiguity exists, interpretive rules such as contra proferentem (against the drafter) would tend to favour the more inclusive reading.

---

4. Subsequent Ministerial Interpretations​

Subsequent clarifications from ministers have suggested the commitment was only intended to cover employee contributions. However:

• These post-hoc interpretations do not change the original meaning of the text.
• Courts do not typically give weight to ex post facto reinterpretation where the original language was unqualified and likely to lead to a broader public understanding.

---

Summary Table​

Aspect	Analysis
Plain Text	“National Insurance” is unqualified – interpreted to include all forms.
Context	Part of a promise not to raise taxes on working people.
Omission of Qualifier	Absence of “employee’s” implies intention to include all contributions.
Post-manifesto Clarifications	Do not override plain or purposive meaning.
Legal Interpretation (Hypothetical)	Likely to conclude increase in Employer NI breaches the stated commitment.

---

‍ Hypothetical Judicial View​

If this were assessed like a contractual or statutory commitment, a court would likely conclude:

---

This analysis assumes a purely hypothetical legal lens, as manifesto pledges are not legally binding. Nonetheless, under standard principles of legal drafting and interpretation, the increase in Employer’s National Insurance would likely be viewed as inconsistent with the unqualified commitment not to increase National Insurance.
Ask ChatGPT

This from someone who thinks AI will kill us all!

I tried "Full Fact"... (And so probably did Chat GPT...)

Autumn Budget 2024: fact checked – Full Fact

Our round-up looks at several claims from Rachel Reeves’ first Budget as chancellor—on National Insurance, growth, bus fares and more.

fullfact.org

And that links to https://public.conservatives.com/publicweb/GE2024/18 Tax rises.pdf - a pre-election critique by the Tories that says, "Labour define ‘no tax rises for working people’ as only ruling out raising employee national insurance, income tax and VAT, not other taxes"

 

[Kompany Car]

If you recall, the issue was what actual promises has Labour broken?

If you don't know what the manifesto meant by "working people", you can't say a promise was broken.

And someone else objects that we can't compare anything with broken Tory promises because that's in the past!

Working people does now seem to be changing into "people with modest incomes" according to Heidi Alexander.

The manifesto seems to be...

"We made a commitment in our manifesto not to be putting up taxes on people on modest incomes, working people. We have stuck to that."

 

[Brewster's millions]

If you recall, the issue was what actual promises has Labour broken?

If you don't know what the manifesto meant by "working people", you can't say a promise was broken.

And someone else objects that we can't compare anything with broken Tory promises because that's in the past!

Not like you to completely miss the point, is it?

It’s a meaningless definition, and a meaningless guide to who or what is likely to face higher taxes. So all you’re really doing is advertising the fact that Labour aren’t interested in having any credibility in terms of manifesto pledges, or indeed any degree of visibility around the likely trend of taxes and where they believe these should fall.

The end result is pretty much where we are now, just a year into government- disgruntled voters, near constant speculation of further tax rises, a damaging cloud hanging over the economy and the complete absence of any sense of direction or purpose from this government. Just a big, incompetent mess as the public finances continue to deteriorate.

But as long as we can’t categorically declare that manifesto pledges have been broken, you’re presumably happy with it all. What a blinkered, small minded view of the world.