The Labour Government

[hampshireblue]

Why is abolishing indefinite leave to remain disgraceful? The US, for example, runs a green card scheme that you can get twice then you have to become a citizen or leave, means you get about 25 years in US to decide if you like the place. if the government came up with something like that I doubt people would think it disgraceful, obviously the caveat being you need to make it not apply to people already granted that right to remain.

And therein lies the problem. There has been no mention of it not being retrospective so people already here and settled with families could well be up for removal.

 

[metalblue]

Maybe it's because I don't believe Reform would substitute it with something like you've suggested as I don't trust them to do something that could be considered fair and balanced.

That said, I suppose it is possible that if they did get in they'd water down a lot of their rhetoric and proposed policies when they realise that they're both unpopular and unworkable.

Gotcha mate, yes what reform would look to implement is the great unknown…. On anything!!!

It’s mad, folk will vote for him hoping he is lying and that he’ll implement watered down stuff… what a time to be alive

 

[hilts]

Gotcha mate, yes what reform would look to implement is the great unknown…. On anything!!!

It’s mad, folk will vote for him hoping he is lying and that he’ll implement watered down stuff… what a time to be alive

In fairness plenty said Starmer was being a bit untruthful and would be more left when he got in.

Sooner or later it dawns on people to be very sceptical at the minimum with what politicians say.

It is indeed a mad time to be alive

 

[.db.]

He’s like the political journalist version of Brent Di Cesare.

 

[Kompany Car]

The numbers are about £10bn, it’ll raise about £20bn and the NI drop will costs about £10bn. Someone on £75k will be £500 worse off, so they are either not defined by this government as “working people” or their promise is broken.

Unfortunately its difficult, someone will always be worse off. At least if you are earning a decent salary you can salary sacrifice into your pension and get the 40% kick back and maybe thats the quid pro quo that they dont change the rules around pensions or the tax free 25%.

 

[metalblue]

Unfortunately its difficult, someone will always be worse off. At least if you are earning a decent salary you can salary sacrifice into your pension and get the 40% kick back and maybe thats the quid pro quo that they dont change the rules around pensions or the tax free 25%.

It is still a tax increase on working people though mate, they’ll try and play mind gymnastics and redefine working people and the usual suspects on here will fall for it and make out it’s not a break of an election promise.

 

[hampshireblue]

It is still a tax increase on working people though mate, they’ll try and play mind gymnastics and redefine working people and the usual suspects on here will fall for it and make out it’s not a break of an election promise.

It was a stupid promise to make, but I guess without it the RW press would have just had a field day. However, taxes have to come from somewhere, and if it's not from "working people", it's got to come from business and non-working people in some form or other. A CEO earning £10m is a working person but I suspect most of the public would consider him paying a bit more not an issue. The key thing is where the line is drawn regarding salary and it being fair game for a tax increase in some form or other.

 

[Vic]

Adult social care costs are killing councils.

It will either mean cuts in other services or big increases in Council Tax.

The Council Tax system is as broken as other things - Council Tax in Westminster is half what it is in the North West, because (a) they don't have as many older people needing care and (b) they take in so many millions in business rates. And (without going into too much technicality) the more deprived areas tend to have suffered most from the formula behind Council Tax. And councils that froze council tax now have even more to make up.

 

[Kompany Car]

Adult social care costs are killing councils.

It will either mean cuts in other services or big increases in Council Tax.

The Council Tax system is as broken as other things - Council Tax in Westminster is half what it is in the North West, because (a) they don't have as many older people needing care and (b) they take in so many millions in business rates. And (without going into too much technicality) the more deprived areas tend to have suffered most from the formula behind Council Tax. And councils that froze council tax now have even more to make up.

All the more need to do away with council tax being raised on a regional basis and instead for it to be pooled, ring fenced and centrally distributed based upon need.

Surely that is the definition of "levelling up" taking it from more affluent areas and giving money to more deprived ones.

 

[Brewster's millions]

All the more need to do away with council tax being raised on a regional basis and instead for it to be pooled, ring fenced and centrally distributed based upon need.

Surely that is the definition of "levelling up" taking it from more affluent areas and giving money to more deprived ones.

If that were to occur, then it would cease to be council tax and instead just become general taxation, would it not?

Council Tax either needs to stay close to its current form, or effectively abolish it and fund many council services through central government expenditure and taxation.

And once you move away from the current set up, you have to develop new pricing systems - which still have to be related to house prices in some way, but not entirely - as well as mechanisms to maintain incentives for councils to be efficient.

It’s an exceptionally difficult problem to address, which is doubtless why the current system has existed for so long.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

It was a stupid promise to make, but I guess without it the RW press would have just had a field day. However, taxes have to come from somewhere, and if it's not from "working people", it's got to come from business and non-working people in some form or other. A CEO earning £10m is a working person but I suspect most of the public would consider him paying a bit more not an issue. The key thing is where the line is drawn regarding salary and it being fair game for a tax increase in some form or other.

It was obvious they would walk the election so why labour boxes itself in fiscally in the way it did is a bit of a mystery

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Adult social care costs are killing councils.

It will either mean cuts in other services or big increases in Council Tax.

The Council Tax system is as broken as other things - Council Tax in Westminster is half what it is in the North West, because (a) they don't have as many older people needing care and (b) they take in so many millions in business rates. And (without going into too much technicality) the more deprived areas tend to have suffered most from the formula behind Council Tax. And councils that froze council tax now have even more to make up.

For me social care should be nationally funded and organised. It’s the Wild West out there. Unfortunately though whenever and idea to tackle it is floated it becomes so politically toxic that it is “dementia taxed” to oblivion. Stuff like this needs de politicisation through a royal commission that an or all elected governments are bound to implement the findings of.

 

[hampshireblue]

It was obvious they would walk the election so why labour boxes itself in fiscally in the way it did is a bit of a mystery

I agree. I've just watched a video by the economist Richard Murphy called Funding the Future. Amazing stat he comes up with is that tax relief for the richest 2 categories in the UK equates to the same amount as the top level of PIP or Universal Credit.

 

[Vic]

All the more need to do away with council tax being raised on a regional basis and instead for it to be pooled, ring fenced and centrally distributed based upon need.

Surely that is the definition of "levelling up" taking it from more affluent areas and giving money to more deprived ones.

Some of it is simple. If your council needs £100m from council tax and most of the housing is low-value, with fewer houses in the higher bands, the CT for a Band D house (and all bands) has to be higher than it would be in an area with more large houses.

 

[Vic]

If that were to occur, then it would cease to be council tax and instead just become general taxation, would it not?

Council Tax either needs to stay close to its current form, or effectively abolish it and fund many council services through central government expenditure and taxation.

And once you move away from the current set up, you have to develop new pricing systems - which still have to be related to house prices in some way, but not entirely - as well as mechanisms to maintain incentives for councils to be efficient.

It’s an exceptionally difficult problem to address, which is doubtless why the current system has existed for so long.

The current system has existed for 30 years because the rich wouldn't want a fairer system, and because it had the same problem as the rates. The Tories wanted to avoid updating rateable values, came up with the Poll Tax, then came up with Council Tax with its own built-in mechanism to make it difficult to update it to reflect current house prices.

 

[Brewster's millions]

The current system has existed for 30 years because the rich wouldn't want a fairer system, and because it had the same problem as the rates. The Tories wanted to avoid updating rateable values, came up with the Poll Tax, then came up with Council Tax with its own built-in mechanism to make it difficult to update it to reflect current house prices.

And Labour have been in power for half of that period, and done absolutely nothing about it, with the current lot actually incapable of doing anything because their policies have a shelf life of about three months.

Swings and roundabouts Victor.

 

[Kompany Car]

Some of it is simple. If your council needs £100m from council tax and most of the housing is low-value, with fewer houses in the higher bands, the CT for a Band D house (and all bands) has to be higher than it would be in an area with more large houses.

But that fails to result in a national levelling up. If you have the perks of living in London for instance with its first class transport system, clock work bus services and on the whole higher performing schools, even in what some would call deprived areas. Then why shouldn’t you pay more even in the lower bands, after all your property is also worth more per sqm and the demand for that land is higher.

The revenue could then be used to support deprived areas in the north that have suffered for 40 plus years. There should be more to property taxes than just your local authority. I don’t know maybe it should be composed of 2 elements, one part which goes to the LA and the other that goes to central government and is redistributed based upon need.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

If that were to occur, then it would cease to be council tax and instead just become general taxation, would it not?

Council Tax either needs to stay close to its current form, or effectively abolish it and fund many council services through central government expenditure and taxation.

And once you move away from the current set up, you have to develop new pricing systems - which still have to be related to house prices in some way, but not entirely - as well as mechanisms to maintain incentives for councils to be efficient.

It’s an exceptionally difficult problem to address, which is doubtless why the current system has existed for so long.

Just a tory being a tory

 

[metalblue]

It was a stupid promise to make, but I guess without it the RW press would have just had a field day. However, taxes have to come from somewhere, and if it's not from "working people", it's got to come from business and non-working people in some form or other. A CEO earning £10m is a working person but I suspect most of the public would consider him paying a bit more not an issue. The key thing is where the line is drawn regarding salary and it being fair game for a tax increase in some form or other.

Stupid or not it was a promise they made mate.

 

[Earlyriser]

Some weeks ago when the Angela Rayner witch hunt was on I commented that certain aspects of her behaviour did not make for good optics when perhaps she could have been taking a slightly lower profile. I see today she has been getting her bodyguards to move boxes from her partner's property into her new Hove property. Given her profile is she so politically thick that she does not think that this would be picked up on, would look really bad and just add fuel to the fire that she is now too entitled