The Labour Government

mosssideblue said:
Are you suggesting that if Labour had said in their manifesto that they will be rising income tax to put right the mess the Tories had created, they would still have won the election?
Click to expand...
They would have romped the election. The tories were (and largely are) a completely busted flush. I suspect they knowingly knew it was a manifesto pledge they couldn’t keep but decided to lie anyway. I agree with your wider later points about let’s see how they do at the end of their term but politics is in the dirt and deceiving the electorate isn’t the answer

I’d personally put manifesto commitments on a legal footing. We’d get such a more honest and effective political system if we did
 
hampshireblue said:
After 100s of pages about tax rises or not, I've yet to have an answer ( and I've asked it a few times in different ways) on which groups if any, should pay a bit more, and if the answer is none, which groups should suffer as a result of the inevitable cuts to public services and benefits.

For the record, I'm happy to pay a couple of p extra on income tax ( well, not happy but you know what I mean), VAT on private medical insurance, prescriptions till I reach state retirement age(presently free at 60-why?).
Click to expand...
Many many people would pay more for better services which is why deceiving the electorate about tax rises damages confidence in politics
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
Many many people would pay more for better services which is why deceiving the electorate about tax rises damages confidence in politics
Click to expand...
I hope so and agree, But can you imagine the Mail, Telegraph and Sun if they had said they would raise taxes if required. The Lib Dems have been saying 1p on tax for years and every time they're seen as unelectable because of it.
 
hampshireblue said:
I hope so and agree, But can you imagine the Mail, Telegraph and Sun if they had said they would raise taxes if required. The Lib Dems have been saying 1p on tax for years and every time they're seen as unelectable because of it.
Click to expand...

Well combine the idea with making manifesto commitments legally binding and see how far lying gets you (them)
 
hampshireblue said:
After 100s of pages about tax rises or not, I've yet to have an answer ( and I've asked it a few times in different ways) on which groups if any, should pay a bit more, and if the answer is none, which groups should suffer as a result of the inevitable cuts to public services and benefits.

For the record, I'm happy to pay a couple of p extra on income tax ( well, not happy but you know what I mean), VAT on private medical insurance, prescriptions till I reach state retirement age(presently free at 60-why?).
Click to expand...
I agree with prescriptions it should only be free from state pension age. Likewise why do you get a free bus/tube pass from 60 in London ?

Let’s have a rethink re the Barnett formula, why should devolved nations get so much more per capita ?

I would be up for full alignment with the Scottish tax system with more thresholds and paying more, but on the proviso that there are no changes to tax around pension contributions or lump sum withdrawals.

1762877131308.jpeg

I do believe the mooted 2% increase in income tax whilst removing 2% from NI is the correct move. It’s cost neutral on those working, but places a slightly higher burden on those drawing down on pensions.

Reduce the maximum you can hold in a cash ISA to £100k, but not reduce the 20k limit per year, any interest on amounts above that threshold being taxed at your marginal rate. I would however go for the idea the Tories had re a Brit ISA but with a limit of 5k per annum.

Remove the triple lock and change it to only a double lock. Or change the third component from average earnings growth to median earnings growth, slightly different but reduces the impact of distortions in the wage market.
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
They would have romped the election. The tories were (and largely are) a completely busted flush. I suspect they knowingly knew it was a manifesto pledge they couldn’t keep but decided to lie anyway. I agree with your wider later points about let’s see how they do at the end of their term but politics is in the dirt and deceiving the electorate isn’t the answer

I’d personally put manifesto commitments on a legal footing. We’d get such a more honest and effective political system if we did
Click to expand...
Force majeure means you could never have manifestos a legally binding contract.

Also, who would be sued and by whom?
 
mosssideblue said:
Force majeure means you could never have manifestos a legally binding contract.

Also, who would be sued and by whom?
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about suing anyone. If you break a manifesto promise your term of government ends and there is a new GE. You would see careful and honest manifestos.
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
I’m not talking about suing anyone. If you break a manifesto promise your term of government ends and there is a new GE. You would see careful and honest manifestos.
Click to expand...
Pandemic, financial crash, interest rates going up because arbitrary credit ratings agencies reduce your ratings, a madman taking over the White House imposing tariffs and thus reducing profits and, of course, the electorate voting for something like Brexit, resulting in a reduction in GDP, whilst putting up the cost of living for everyone, or war(s).
Would any of those count if manifesto promises were subsequently broken or is it a zero sum game and it's off with their heads?
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Pandemic, financial crash, interest rates going up because arbitrary credit ratings agencies reduce your ratings, a madman taking over the White House imposing tariffs and thus reducing profits and, of course, the electorate voting for something like Brexit, resulting in a reduction in GDP, whilst putting up the cost of living for everyone, or war(s).
Would any of those count if manifesto promises were subsequently broken or is it a zero sum game and it's off with their heads?
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
mosssideblue said:
Exactly
Click to expand...

The exactly of today was never allowed to be an excuse under the last lot.

It’s amazing how eyes have suddenly been opened to the realities of government when it comes to needing things to hide behind.

The Tories ran out of excuses and road and in record time, this Labour government is doing the same.
 
blueinsa said:
The exactly of today was never allowed to be an excuse under the last lot.

It’s amazing how eyes have suddenly been opened to the realities of government when it comes to needing things to hide behind.

The Tories ran out of excuses and road and in record time, this Labour government is doing the same.
Click to expand...
Furlough??
 
mosssideblue said:
Furlough??
Click to expand...

Many in here complained it didn’t go far enough at the time despite the eye watering costs to us as a nation so you can only imagine the black hole had they done at the time.

I’m watching the news now and we are being briefed that tax is going to rise and at the same time told that WASPI women might be getting £Billions, the 2 child cap will probably be lifted costing £Billions and frankly it smacks of desperation from a cabinet who will do anything to keep the PLP on board over the coming months.

Nothing makes sense right now.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Pandemic, financial crash, interest rates going up because arbitrary credit ratings agencies reduce your ratings, a madman taking over the White House imposing tariffs and thus reducing profits and, of course, the electorate voting for something like Brexit, resulting in a reduction in GDP, whilst putting up the cost of living for everyone, or war(s).
Would any of those count if manifesto promises were subsequently broken or is it a zero sum game and it's off with their heads?
Click to expand...
You are thinking in line with current thinking. The point is that no credible trustworthy government would ever say we won’t put up taxes to win votes (when you I and they know that’s a promise which is unkeepable), and if they do, they are held to account.
 
blueinsa said:
Many in here complained it didn’t go far enough at the time despite the eye watering costs to us as a nation so you can only imagine the black hole had they done at the time.

I’m watching the news now and we are being briefed that tax is going to rise and at the same time told that WASPI women might be getting £Billions, the 2 child cap will probably be lifted costing £Billions and frankly it smacks of desperation from a cabinet who will do anything to keep the PLP on board over the coming months.

Nothing makes sense right now.
Click to expand...
My point is simply, you cannot get Governments to be legally accountable for Manifesto content as one poster was advocating.
 
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