The Labour Government

Brewster's millions said:
Really? A policy implemented by the Conservative Party? Did the policy start after the 2010 election?

You might want to check your facts on that one. I know you’re meticulous on your facts and sources, so I’ll await your response with considerable interest.
Click to expand...
Yes it was, which is why I was careful saying Tory implemented. Although it was in Alistair Darling's budget in 2009 to raise money after the GFC, they then lost the election in 2010. The coalition, which the Tories controlled could easily have prevented it's implementation and its' effects on "aspiration", but chose to not do so.

If nothing else I'm sure you'll agree (after all it's a New Year so anything is possible) that the Tories could and should have made changes to this over 14 years, as Labour should be proposing to?

But Vic is correct in that it now seems that £99999 makes someone entitled to minimum wage subsidised benefits whilst £100k makes them fall into the highest marginal rate of tax it is possible to have in the UK.
 
Last edited:
Eric Hitchmough said:
Where do you feel they have excelled, mate?

Genuine question btw, not sarcasm.
Click to expand...
They've lowered net migration, they've lowered energy bills, they've abolished non-dom and no fault evictions, and reintroduced mandatory home building targets.

This covers a lot of ground in terms of the key policies that drives both the left and right wing in this country. Their problem, as always with Labour, is that they're terrible at communicating these undisputable facts to others.

According to Full Fact, Labour made 86 promises in their manifesto and have not kept 3 of them. 18 have been achieved, 17 are almost achieved and 21 are in progress and only 5 are off track.

They're doing what they said they'd do. Unfortunately, social media astroturfing and right wing populist screeching is working against them.
 
One of Labour's major problems is that they fell into a bad situation from the Tories. The Tories knew they were going to fail and like every other Government that knew that they were going to lose, they announced massive and unsustainable plans and promises that the next Government couldn't feasibly deliver. The plan always being that they can then get into their ribs about it when in Opposition.

But the biggest one is BY FAR the social media astroturfing from "British patriots" accounts who all suspiciously seem to be based in South America, the US, India or Kazakhstan. People's social media intelligence and their ability to stop and wonder if they're being propagandised is at an all time low. Perhaps even worse than the 1930s Germany in how easy it is to get people onside. The fact that an absolute fucking idiot, an unashamed racist and fascist such as Rupert Lowe, is someone who I see some sensible people RT onto my timeline is a very dark concern.
 
hampshireblue said:
Yes it was, which is why I was careful saying Tory implemented. Although it was in Alistair Darling's budget in 2009 to raise money after the GFC, they then lost the election in 2010. The coalition, which the Tories controlled could easily have prevented it's implementation and its' effects on "aspiration", but chose to not do so.

If nothing else I'm sure you'll agree that the Tories could and should have made changes to this over 14 years, as Labour should have or at least be proposing to?

But Vic is correct in that it now seems that £99999 makes someone entitled to minimum wage subsidised benefits whilst £100k makes them fall into the highest marginal rate of tax it is possible to have in the UK.
Click to expand...
Not true, I'm afraid.

The reduction in personal allowances from 100k onwards was implemented in April 2010.

If I recall correctly, April came before May that year.
 
Brewster's millions said:
Not true, I'm afraid.

The reduction in personal allowances from 100k onwards was implemented in April 2010.

If I recall correctly, April came before May that year.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected by a month (in this case B really did KB for a change).

It doesn't change the fact that if it was such a problem for aspiration, the Tories could still have reversed the decision and had 14 years in which to do so. They didn't and so have been far more culpable of exposing your comment of "A classic example of how Labour governments hate aspiration and target the aspirational" to be complete nonsense.
 
hampshireblue said:
I stand corrected by a month (in this case B really did KB for a change).

It doesn't change the fact that if it was such a problem for aspiration, the Tories could still have reversed the decision and had 14 years in which to do so. They didn't and so have been far more culpable of exposing your comment of "A classic example of how Labour governments hate aspiration and target the aspirational" to be complete nonsense.
Click to expand...
Don't let him off that easily. It's two separate things. The reducing personal allowance over £100k didn't create a "tax trap", it just increased the marginal rate of tax. The Coalition introduced the "benefit cap" for those paying higher rate tax which is what the Telegraph article was about.

I think.
 
Vic said:
Don't let him off that easily. It's two separate things. The reducing personal allowance over £100k didn't create a "tax trap", it just increased the marginal rate of tax. The Coalition introduced the "benefit cap" for those paying higher rate tax which is what the Telegraph article was about.

I think.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I posted it more about the fact that the loss of the personal allowance and associated 60% tax rate had been around for years with little comment from the likes of the Telegraph when the Tories had ample opportunity to get rid or modify it which they didn't take. That on it's own make BKB's comment about Labour complete nonsense.
 
hampshireblue said:
I stand corrected by a month (in this case B really did KB for a change).

It doesn't change the fact that if it was such a problem for aspiration, the Tories could still have reversed the decision and had 14 years in which to do so. They didn't and so have been far more culpable of exposing your comment of "A classic example of how Labour governments hate aspiration and target the aspirational" to be complete nonsense.
Click to expand...

It was a coalition government
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Conservative PM, Conservative Chancellor, one of the key issues the Liberals got elected on abandoned by Ashdown as soon as he got his feet under the table and an entire Conservative philosophy delivered suggest that the Party that won the 2010 election was, in actuality, the Government.
Click to expand...

Anything the libdems didn’t like, couldn’t be pushed through - that’s why you have coalitions.

IIRC Nick Clegg was the one who pushed for the tax free threshold to be raised as an example of him getting some of his agenda through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top