UK Politics General Discussion

[Matt N]

Couple of points Reform have a lot of headwinds coming not least the more councils and longer they run the more exposure to their incompetence will be.

Second and more importantly Labour will have more polices in place by next election are economy is growing might be slow but is still more positive. The sure start centres, wage should be more above inflation, if we transfer fully off fossil fuels energy bills will go down, employments rights bill would have been passed, NHS will be better off. And a lot more after. Labour are doing a lot of good things more good than outweighing the bad. Also there will be a noticable difference in living standards. There biggest problem is communication if they constantly pushed media into talking what they want to talk about and stop with migration talk then they would be doing better

I’m honestly not sure many people pay that much attention to local politics when thinking of how to vote at a national level. At a local level, many people will vote based on person rather than party; I know many, many people where I live vote the way they do in the local elections because of their feelings on the candidate as a person rather than the party. My grandparents, for example, all told me that they weren’t voting Green in the most recent local elections because the incumbent district councillor is a Green and they hate him and the way he’s running things in the village with a passion!

With that said, the aforementioned Green Party district council in my area have put much of my family off ever voting Green at a national level, so maybe it has more effect than I think it does…

I also feel that regardless of what he does next, Starmer’s first year has been very damaging for the Labour Party’s reputation. I don’t hate Starmer as much as many people do, and I don’t disagree with some of the things tabled by the government, but the amount of back-pedalling and flip-flopping done in his first year has made him look spineless and lacking in any kind of conviction. Don’t get me wrong, too much conviction is also a bad thing, but with Starmer, it is hard to know what he personally or the Labour Party as a collective actually stands for. He was elected Labour Party leader on an unapologetically left-wing platform, which he swiftly reneged on every single line of upon taking the leadership, and in the election, he made financial and other promises to the electorate that were then binned under the pretence of the “£22bn black hole” and “things being so much worse than we thought”. He then made numerous decisions in government that were later reversed or pared back.

I get that things are hard now in the country, and that no amount of vision will make that better in the short run, but Starmer and Reeves aren’t exactly presenting much of a light at the end of the tunnel; beyond the dark and gloomy rhetoric, they seem to lack a positive vision that they’re working towards. It’s hard to know what the Starmer ministry’s ultimate end goal is; it currently feels like they’re merely trying to stave off Reform rather than having any kind of vision.

 

[BarryZola]

I’m honestly not sure many people pay that much attention to local politics when thinking of how to vote at a national level. At a local level, many people will vote based on person rather than party; I know many, many people where I live vote the way they do in the local elections because of their feelings on the candidate as a person rather than the party. My grandparents, for example, all told me that they weren’t voting Green in the most recent local elections because the incumbent district councillor is a Green and they hate him and the way he’s running things in the village with a passion!

With that said, the aforementioned Green Party district council in my area have put much of my family off ever voting Green at a national level, so maybe it has more effect than I think it does…

I also feel that regardless of what he does next, Starmer’s first year has been very damaging for the Labour Party’s reputation. I don’t hate Starmer as much as many people do, and I don’t disagree with some of the things tabled by the government, but the amount of back-pedalling and flip-flopping done in his first year has made him look spineless and lacking in any kind of conviction. Don’t get me wrong, too much conviction is also a bad thing, but with Starmer, it is hard to know what he personally or the Labour Party as a collective actually stands for. He was elected Labour Party leader on an unapologetically left-wing platform, which he swiftly reneged on every single line of upon taking the leadership, and in the election, he made financial and other promises to the electorate that were then binned under the pretence of the “£22bn black hole” and “things being so much worse than we thought”. He then made numerous decisions in government that were later reversed or pared back.

I get that things are hard now in the country, and that no amount of vision will make that better in the short run, but Starmer and Reeves aren’t exactly presenting much of a light at the end of the tunnel; beyond the dark and gloomy rhetoric, they seem to lack a positive vision that they’re working towards. It’s hard to know what the Starmer ministry’s ultimate end goal is; it currently feels like they’re merely trying to stave off Reform rather than having any kind of vision.

Nicely articulated

 

[rob666]

I gave up on Labour when Blair started acting like an old Tory.
Not seen much since to change my mind, at all.

 

[Hid]

I’m honestly not sure many people pay that much attention to local politics when thinking of how to vote at a national level. At a local level, many people will vote based on person rather than party; I know many, many people where I live vote the way they do in the local elections because of their feelings on the candidate as a person rather than the party. My grandparents, for example, all told me that they weren’t voting Green in the most recent local elections because the incumbent district councillor is a Green and they hate him and the way he’s running things in the village with a passion!

With that said, the aforementioned Green Party district council in my area have put much of my family off ever voting Green at a national level, so maybe it has more effect than I think it does…

I also feel that regardless of what he does next, Starmer’s first year has been very damaging for the Labour Party’s reputation. I don’t hate Starmer as much as many people do, and I don’t disagree with some of the things tabled by the government, but the amount of back-pedalling and flip-flopping done in his first year has made him look spineless and lacking in any kind of conviction. Don’t get me wrong, too much conviction is also a bad thing, but with Starmer, it is hard to know what he personally or the Labour Party as a collective actually stands for. He was elected Labour Party leader on an unapologetically left-wing platform, which he swiftly reneged on every single line of upon taking the leadership, and in the election, he made financial and other promises to the electorate that were then binned under the pretence of the “£22bn black hole” and “things being so much worse than we thought”. He then made numerous decisions in government that were later reversed or pared back.

I get that things are hard now in the country, and that no amount of vision will make that better in the short run, but Starmer and Reeves aren’t exactly presenting much of a light at the end of the tunnel; beyond the dark and gloomy rhetoric, they seem to lack a positive vision that they’re working towards. It’s hard to know what the Starmer ministry’s ultimate end goal is; it currently feels like they’re merely trying to stave off Reform rather than having any kind of vision.

Labour do have a vision shifting the system back to the people when the system Swing way too in favour of businesses. Also say Reeves is the most qualified chancellor we have had for a long time.

They do have to start bringing a positive message, the election is not for another 4 years and thatchers government turned their unpopularity around after the first year.

Communication is Labour's biggest weakness as no one really understands the stuff they are doing that the media don't tell them.

Yes they do need to stop Reform but like I said earlier they have headwinds to that may decrease their vote in combination with Labour's main policies in full swing.

Not gonna dictate how someone votes but if people vote for Reform they have no right to complain about the consequences of their actions.

 

[Benzin]

Be interesting how many traditionally Labour voters move to the Greens under Polanski.

I mean Labour are doing an excellent job of pushing left wingers away from them. Especially Wes Streeting's recent discussion with Mumsnet on Trans people.

 

[DiogoJ42]

I gave up on Labour when Blair started acting like an old Tory.
Not seen much since to change my mind, at all.

Hey now, that's unfair to Tories.

 

[Hid]

The Tories and Labour aren't the same there may be overlap when taking the centre bit their core values remain completely different.

And as much as Blair was at fault for Iraq, at home Blair did a lot for the UK brought in minium wage, NHS was at its best performance and the economy boomed under them in early 2000's, and they handled the economic crash quite well

 

[rob666]

He failed to bring us back to a reasonable mixed economy after a massive lurch to the right.
The economy boomed despite them, and that economic boom was not felt by the poorer half of the population, it was only felt by those that were doing quite well thank you.
I was around at the time, waiting for the tax rises that could have made things happen.
Still waiting.

 

[Hid]

He failed to bring us back to a reasonable mixed economy after a massive lurch to the right.
The economy boomed despite them, and that economic boom was not felt by the poorer half of the population, it was only felt by those that were doing quite well thank you.
I was around at the time, waiting for the tax rises that could have made things happen.
Still waiting.

Blair was centre right because Labour only win power when they take the centre.

Blair and Brown were both more Centre with Blair more towards the right and Brown to the right.

 

[rob666]

I give up on another topic for a while...

 

[Matt N]

For me, I don’t think Labour necessarily even need to be staunchly left-wing or liberal. I’d just crave some sense that there is a long-term plan and vision in mind beyond the doom and gloom rhetoric and a need to “stave off Reform”.

If you look back, some of our most respected politicians historically have had a strong vision, regardless of whether you agree with that vision or not. Tony Blair had a strong long-term vision. Margaret Thatcher had a strong long-term vision. There was a sense that the party were consistently working towards an end goal, whether you agreed with that goal or not.

I do agree that Labour’s best bet is to stay relatively centrist rather than go overly left-wing. If they go too left-wing and parrot the stances of the likes of the Green Party, I think they do risk repelling the bulk of the country, who are more politically moderate. Going hugely left-wing and liberal will repel as many people as it attracts. I simply crave some sense of vision from the government, and some sense that there is a light at the end of the “doom and gloom” tunnel to aspire towards.

 

[Matt N]

Apologies for the double post, but it appears as though Starmer himself has become embroiled in a tax avoidance row, with accusations being levelled against him that a field he bought for his parents in 1996 was put into a trust to avoid inheritance tax when they died: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...r-inheritance-tax-field-surrey-b2835203.html#

I’m not quite sure what to think here. I’m not saying tax avoidance is particularly ethical, but to my knowledge, this is legal, and I’m not sure I agree with the media dredging up something Starmer allegedly did in 1996 to criticise him with in 2025.

 

[East Coast Mariner]

Apologies for the double post, but it appears as though Starmer himself has become embroiled in a tax evasion row, with accusations being levelled against him that a field he bought for his parents in 1996 was put into a trust to avoid inheritance tax when they died: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...r-inheritance-tax-field-surrey-b2835203.html#

I’m not quite sure what to think here. I’m not saying tax evasion is particularly ethical, but to my knowledge, this is legal, and I’m not sure I agree with the media dredging up something Starmer allegedly did in 1996 to criticise him with in 2025.

It just shows how wrong inheritance tax is, in my opinion. Once you've paid for something, it's already been taxed once, so shouldn't be again. You should be able to pass anything you've bought onto anyone you want. I think the story is valid, as politicians will tell us inheritance tax is necessary, yet try to avoid it themselves.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Apologies for the double post, but it appears as though Starmer himself has become embroiled in a tax evasion row, with accusations being levelled against him that a field he bought for his parents in 1996 was put into a trust to avoid inheritance tax when they died: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...r-inheritance-tax-field-surrey-b2835203.html#

I’m not quite sure what to think here. I’m not saying tax evasion is particularly ethical, but to my knowledge, this is legal, and I’m not sure I agree with the media dredging up something Starmer allegedly did in 1996 to criticise him with in 2025.

Point of order, he is accused of committing tax avoidance not tax evasion.

Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is legal, but has ethical and moral considerations.

 

[Matt N]

Point of order, he is accused of committing tax avoidance not tax evasion.

Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is legal, but has ethical and moral considerations.

Apologies; I didn’t know there was a difference. I shall edit my post accordingly!

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Apologies; I didn’t know there was a difference. I shall edit my post accordingly!

Tax avoidance is where you do all you can to legally minimise your tax liability.

Tax evasion is where you deliberately misrepresent or conceal your income to pay less, or no, tax.

 

[rob666]

My beloved Volvo, and the gearbox within it.
Tax avoidance.
Beyond economic repair technically, but those repair bills can be put against my self emloyed tax bill as essential work costs, so I can earn more without paying income tax.
My accountant can also spread the bills out over a few years too apparently.
What accountants are for.

 

[Smiley]

What accountants are for.

Tax "avoidance" is paying the lowest amount of tax required to meet the legal requirements. Show me someone who pays more and I'll show you a fool.

Sir Keir appears to have avoided tax by benefit of being wealthy and having an accountant on hand. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but the optics for a PM are as always quite poor. Tomorrow's chip paper, me thinks.

 

[BarryZola]

This isn't a new story or anything that's currently in the news, but the Covid inquiry was mentioned on the radio earlier and there have been a few things going on lately where I've just looked at it and thought 'what an absolute waste of public money'. I'm not surprised that some people who pay high amounts of tax get peeved when you look at how it's frittered away with little thought other than sometimes apparently how they can line the pockets of associates or something. Things that definitely don't have much benefit to the general public and could be spent on 1000 other needy causes first.

So, it was mentioned that Sweden had its Covid inquiry quite a while back and it was completed by 2022. I tried to search for an actual financial cost of conducting their inquiry but didn't quickly find a figure, but it was suggested that it was 'relatively inexpensive'. Then, I have a look at our inquiry and it's still on-going and apparently 280 civil servants have been working on it full-time and the cost is estimated to be up to £161 million so far! This is a totally un-necessary use of money and staff. Yes, we needed to learn the lessons of how we handled the pandemic, but it nowhere near needs 280 full-time staff for all this time and a cost of £161 million up to this point. So, what has been neglected if these 280 staff have been taken off other work? What community programmes and other stuff have been cut so that we can ***** all this cash on something that a team of 10 relatively intelligent people could have completed in around 6 months if we're totally honest?

Covid inquiry has cost taxpayer more than £161m, suggest Government figures

Some 280 civil servants are working full-time in responding to the official probe, according to the information shared by a senior minister.

uk.news.yahoo.com

I think the anger started yesterday when it was revealed that a road junction local to my house was going to be having road works for the next 9 months to add a couple of cycle lanes and an extra feeder lane because the original planners were obviously absolutely brain dead. I mean, I understand that roads need updating and repairing at times, but this junction had a major new layout and renovation in the last 10-15 years which caused misery for drivers for over a year at that point. Why didn't they just plan it properly back then if they were being paid so much as they were experts in their field. So now commuters are going to go through hell for the next 9 months due to the original incompetence and it's going to cost tax-payers a load of dosh again. Then, there's obviously the obscene amounts spent on HS2 and the countless billions that were mis-spent during covid.

The inquiry will just tell us what we already know and there will be no accountability for awful decision making, or worse, so it's all just a waste of time and money. We'll need an inquiry into the inquiry. We're just so inefficient and the tax payer in this country just gets totally taken for a ride time and time again.

 

[Benzin]

The only real lesson that can be learnt from such an inquiry is "don't put idiots in charge of the country".

Unfortunately not the easiest one to solve given the current state of things.