The Labour Government

[Churchlawtonblue]

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!

You appear to be grasping a bit at straws here Vic?

 

[stonerblue]

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:

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.

Careful Chippee, that AI's a killer..

 

[Chippy_boy]

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"

OH FFS.

 

[Vic]

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:

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.

Well, thanks for that, but I'd have included that public sector workers can actually generate wealth by making things. Steel when it was nationalised... Council-owned farms... Maybe not British Leyland as it's arguable whether subsidised motor manufacturing creates wealth whether in the private or public sector (see the cost of keeping Nissan in Sunderland...)

And if I'd mentioned them originally, so would have ChatGPT.

 

[metalblue]

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."

Yup it was only a matter of time before working people were working class or lower wages. One might ask how the fuck have this government managed to spunk away the £40bn they raised taxes last October? The infamous £22bn black hole existed with the WFA and welfare bill as was (not arguing how much was inherited and how much down to government decisions). Now because they’ve had to u-turn on those they need more? No mention of the other £18bn spent on fuck knows what.

Guessing what the chancellor is going to do in October seems to be the game we play between July and October. It’s neither healthy for the economy nor does it show they have a clear plan on it either.

 

[metalblue]

This from someone who thinks AI will kill us all!

Haha, he got you bang to rights there @Chippy_boy ;)

 

[hampshireblue]

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.

Well apart from on this forum, there doesn't seem to be a major debate over who is in the category. But thinking about it, being a non-worker, they could increase my tax and VAT. ;-)

 

[hampshireblue]

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

Thanks for spending the time to come up with a legal answer. I suspect the vast majority of people read it as it was intended. Well done for proving us all wrong. Not long till ChatGP kills us all off though.lol

 

[Chippy_boy]

Haha, he got you bang to rights there @Chippy_boy ;)

Well, I would have been had I said it.

I said it might, which is true. Anyone who thinks this is impossible - or even remotely unlikely - simply doesn't know enough about it. I imagine Geoffrey Hinton, "Godfather of AI" knows more than anyone on here:

“I often estimate a 10% to 20% probability that AI could lead to our extinction. That’s just a gut feeling, based on the notion that we are still developing these systems and we are quite innovative.”

“If you want to know what life's like when you're not the apex intelligence, ask a chicken.”

Not long till ChatGP kills us all off though.lol

I remember people similarly laughing when I said when the very first COVID cases started in Italy that this was going to kill maybe 200,000 people in the UK.

I don't *expect* AI to kill everyone, but I do recognise that it might, and quite soon - like less than 20 or 30 years from now. You should pray to God this is wrong, but there's a very real possibility it may not be.

Your skepticism is understandable, given the total negligence of our media to highlight the danger of this.

 

[metalblue]

Well, I would have been had I said it.

I said it might, which is true. Anyone who thinks this is impossible - or even remotely unlikely - simply doesn't know enough about it. I imagine Geoffrey Hinton, "Godfather of AI" knows more than anyone on here:

“I often estimate a 10% to 20% probability that AI could lead to our extinction. That’s just a gut feeling, based on the notion that we are still developing these systems and we are quite innovative.”

“If you want to know what life's like when you're not the apex intelligence, ask a chicken.”

I’ve asked ChatGPT mate, we can rest easy ;)

Oh I didn’t mention you by name either so you won’t flag up on their dissenters list either ;)

 

[Chippy_boy]

I’ve asked ChatGPT mate, we can rest easy ;)

Oh I didn’t mention you by name either so you won’t flag up on their dissenters list either ;)

View attachment 162966

View attachment 162967

Not really for this thread is it, but a problem is it will lie if/when it suits it to do so. And we can't really build safety measures at the moment, because we don't actually know how these AI models work. We just feed them a load of data and they learn, but how exactly and what's actually going on deep inside the multiple layers of the neural net, we don't know.

Today, they are not more intelligent than humans but according to the vast majority of AI scientists that day is coming and it's probably close. Maybe next year, maybe 2027. Maybe this year. It's close. And once it is more intelligent than us, things will change RAPIDLY. OpenAI (and others) will suddenly have like 1,000 AI super-human research scientists and engineers, developing ChatGPT 6 and then 10,000 God-level AI instances developing ChatGPT7 and 8 and 9 like 1,000 times faster than we can now. In a matter of a year or two, they won't be a bit more intelligent than us, they will be VASTLY more intelligent.

Anyone who doesn't recognise the risks when this happens, really hasn't thought it through.

 

[hilts]

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?

Or they will get it from elsewhere or a bit of both. My point still stands it's an incentive. Think of it like a sale, the govt have just announced further reductions in buying them, things will return back to normal.

DFS excepted.

 

[metalblue]

Not really for this thread is it, but a problem is it will lie if/when it suits it to do so. And we can't really build safety measures at the moment, because we don't actually know how these AI models work. We just feed them a load of data and they learn, but how exactly and what's actually going on deep inside the multiple layers of the neural net, we don't know.

Today, they are not more intelligent than humans but according to the vast majority of AI scientists that day is coming and it's probably close. Maybe next year, maybe 2027. Maybe this year. It's close. And once it is more intelligent than us, things will change RAPIDLY. OpenAI (and others) will suddenly have like 1,000 AI super-human research scientists and engineers, developing ChatGPT 6 and then 10,000 God-level AI instances developing ChatGPT7 and 8 and 9 like 1,000 times faster than we can now. In a matter of a year or two, they won't be a bit more intelligent than us, they will be VASTLY more intelligent.

Anyone who doesn't recognise the risks when this happens, really hasn't thought it through.

I’m not being serious mate, just having a bit of a laugh. Also I have now fitted you up for daring to question their motives however ChatGPT thinks you are me and I am you now so I suspect you’re safe but it has my IP address. I’m also taking that last line like it’s offering to meet up with me for a straightener.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Or they will get it from elsewhere or a bit of both. My point still stands it's an incentive. Think of it like a sale, the govt have just announced further reductions in buying them, things will return back to normal.

DFS excepted.

Oh I understand the incentive bit, im just a bit surprised that people haven't questioned where the ICE fuel and road duty tax is going to end up? Because it has to end up somewhere. And this is just glossed over when everyone is trumpeting how good EVs are.

 

[metalblue]

Oh I understand the incentive bit, im just a bit surprised that people haven't questioned where the ICE fuel and road duty tax is going to end up? Because it has to end up somewhere. And this is just glossed over when everyone is trumpeting how good EVs are.

Of course it will. They’ll be a reason EVs aren’t as good as they thought so they’ll increase tax (similar to when they raised tax on unleaded petrol) - I suspect it will be a tax hike due to the harm the particles off EV tyres generate to air quality. By then you’ll be able to buy hydrogen cars and the infrastructure will be there - they’ll have very low tax so we buy them to keep the capitalist system alive and kicking and then they’ll be something wrong with them and round and around we go.

 

[Chippy_boy]

BTW, Interesting interview with the brand new head of the IFS. She raises some really good points about how some taxes are really damaging and others less so, and opportunities for collecting more tax, and helping the economy at the same time.



I've always maintained that stamp duty is a terrible tax. It's a massive disincentive to move house, which is really bad. Lack of mobility of the labour force is bad for economic growth. And it hinders people from downsizing to free up housing stock. And also, when people move, they spend a shed load at B&Q and on carpets and furniture and TVs and god knows what. It's a big boost to the local economy, and with it, VAT and income tax receipts.

And all of that buggered by prohibitive stamp duty fees.

Do people realise that someone with a £1m house who wants just to move to another £1m house, has to give the government £43,000 just for the privilege of moving. Madness. £430... Or zero, would be more appropriate.

 

[Vic]

So the only broken manifesto promise anyone has come up with is the no NI increase pledge, which was either intended to include employers' NI - or wasn't if you believe the Tory's pre-election comment on what it meant.

Interesting that no-one has cited the more obvious U-turn. "“Labour is committed to restoring development spending at the level of 0.7 per cent of gross national income as soon as fiscal circumstances allow."

​

 

[hilts]

Oh I understand the incentive bit, im just a bit surprised that people haven't questioned where the ICE fuel and road duty tax is going to end up? Because it has to end up somewhere. And this is just glossed over when everyone is trumpeting how good EVs are.

The simple answer is there is no answer, anyway AI is killing us all a week on Tuesday anyhow.

If it doesn't then we will probably get it from other taxes. We spend a lot of resources trying to get people to live longer and no one questions the cost of that. I've asked about the end game for the perpetual growth of people(number not height) never had an answer. The world doesn't do long-term and awkward questions get ignored.

 

[metalblue]

So the only broken manifesto promise anyone has come up with is the no NI increase pledge, which was either intended to include employers' NI - or wasn't if you believe the Tory's pre-election comment on what it meant.

Interesting that no-one has cited the more obvious U-turn. "“Labour is committed to restoring development spending at the level of 0.7 per cent of gross national income as soon as fiscal circumstances allow."

​

The issue, though, is that people heard Starmer in the past say “two child cap is cruel”, “I couldn’t look that terrified pensioner in the eye when she thought the tories were going to stop WFA, no one should choose between heating and eating”, “WASPI women deserve compensation” etc etc. They take it at face value, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the manifesto or not to them.

Then it doesn’t happen, some excuses come out (however valid), and people say well it wasn’t in the manifesto blah blah blah. It seems especially acute with Starmer because he spent so long digging out the Tories over sleaze only to be on the take himself as soon as he’s elected.

Folk lose trust in politicians as a consequence, see them all as liars, and it’s small wonder people turn to a politician like Farage. They’ll see he isn’t afraid to speak the “truth” or more aptly doesn’t conform to the establishment language - he speaks bluntly about immigration, it doesn’t matter if voters agree with his stance on immigration or not - they think if he’s got the balls to say those things and he’s not like the rest of them, they’ll conclude he’s must be telling the truth.

So, and I mean this respectfully, whilst you try and forensically examine if technically Labour have gone back on promises or not the public perception doesn’t agree with you so his trust rating is sitting at a woeful 20%.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

So the only broken manifesto promise anyone has come up with is the no NI increase pledge, which was either intended to include employers' NI - or wasn't if you believe the Tory's pre-election comment on what it meant.

Interesting that no-one has cited the more obvious U-turn. "“Labour is committed to restoring development spending at the level of 0.7 per cent of gross national income as soon as fiscal circumstances allow."

​

Oh come on please Vic, it's clearly not only what's go on, it's what they didn't say but have done that also annoys some people, such as trying to slash the welfare bill, changing the inheritance tax goal posts, slashing winter fuel allowances, the deception over the tax rises.

Do you actually believe that everyone thinks like you and that we are all 100% happy with new Governments performance?

Clearly that isn't the case is it, so then ask yourself why others are unhappy? Polls indicate that the vast majority of voters including a large percentage who voted Labour are not happy with several things the government have done. And that includes many Labour MPs.

Its not all as rosey as you are trying to make out.