UK politics general discussion

[Craig]

I actually think you are right and it’s too soon, it was the MP’s that ousted him though not the party members, in polls he was more popular than both truss and Sunak with Tory members.
The silly thing is Truss made such a hash of the job it’s actually made Boris popular again.

Oh absolutely he was still the member’s choice. But, one thing that seems to escape those members is that the MPs are the ones who have to work with him and get the agenda from the manifesto through parliament. Not to say that the MPs are in the wrong mind, it’s Johnson’s fault for continuously watering down the standards that were in place in parliament.

As much as members have a say in who becomes leader, they really seem to lack any understanding of the leadership qualities required and that ultimately they need to choose someone whose electable by the whole public, not just by the membership. The alarm bells were ringing about Truss long before she was elected when she was actively avoiding scrutiny, along with the lack of MP support. Yet those concerns were ignored and she still sailed through.

 

[James]

-

I find it ludicrous that Boris may be running in line. That is the last thing this country needs right now. We need a general election, a new party in power and the conservatives can go and sort themselves out.

 

[shakey]

As much as members have a say in who becomes leader, they really seem to lack any understanding of the leadership qualities required and that ultimately they need to choose someone whose electable by the whole public, not just by the membership. The alarm bells were ringing about Truss long before she was elected when she was actively avoiding scrutiny, along with the lack of MP support. Yet those concerns were ignored and she still sailed through.

The trouble with tory party members electing a new leader is that the members tend to be more right wing than the average tory voter. Which is why we ended up with Truss instead of Sunak.

But its the same with Labour . Party members will be more left wing than the average Labour voter, which is why we ended up with Corbyn.

I think the whole electoral process of changing a sitting prime minister needs to be looked at. The last few months have shown what a complete farce it is. I know we live in a party system but different leaders have different policies so it just seems bizarre to me that you don't get an election when the prime minister resigns. Perhaps a forced election within 12 months of changing the PM would be a good idea.

 

[Rob]

This is why I find it quite remarkable that they are even considering getting Johnson back at this stage:



Imagine the turmoil if he wins and is then either suspended or forced to resign. I have no doubt that he has harboured the desire to return as leader at some point in the future, but surely you let the dust settle and allow time to heal your previous balls ups (if that is even possible in this case).

 

[BigT]

With a party system if the party elects a new leader that leader can then (although not automatically) become the PM, but they should in theory should still follow the manifesto the party was elected on.
The problem becomes when a new leader comes in and throws that manifesto in the bin and goes down a path nobody voted for.
As I have said before and rightly picked up on a couple times you vote for your local MP / party not a certain individual to become PM, I actually don’t care if any party keep changing leaders but if it’s the party in government then they should still stick to the manifesto they were voted in on.
There should actually be a law that dictates if a party breaks or is too slow to uphold the manifesto then an GE is automatically called.

 

[Dave]

I don’t mind a party moving away from a manifesto pledge if it’s in response to world events, but yes if a new leader is appointed then they should either commit to the manifesto in good faith or call an election.

I do think in this case however there should be an election, the ruling party is chaotic, leadership is lacking and the party splitting down the middle and they have no in good faith aimed to work on the manifesto promised to the country. It’s a right mess.

 

[WillPS]

There should actually be a law that dictates if a party breaks or is too slow to uphold the manifesto then an GE is automatically called.

It's not workable though. It'd just result in manifestos being even vaguer than they already are.

What should happen is governments give a list of their commitments which the prime minister must report on progress wise point-by-point. If plans have had to change, that's fine, but they should be honest about that. Stuff like the Tory promise of "immigration in the tens of thousands" needs to be scrutinised more often than whenever they have a new manifesto.

Kind of like the Ed stone but less like a gimmick seen outside branches of Asda in the 90s.

 

[rob666]

The Tories have told big fat lies about their plans for immigration since the sixties...it is nothing new.
Labour will win the election then really suffer...massive inequalities and crumbling NHS to fix, with no money in the pot to fix it, sadly.
The incompetent moron Johnson, with the morals of an alley cat, what has he been up to since quitting in shame?
Oh Boris, still an MP, but three holidays since he quit...Slovenia, Greece and then the Caribbean...(British breaks not reported)...wonder what his busy, hardworking constituents think of that...national political mess of his creation, yet he clears off to the beach for a third time in as many months, when parliament is in session, in chaos.
I doubt he will actually stand, he knows the majority in his party hate him, and consider him both an electoral liability and ladies front bottom...(shame we are in having a coffee, not in the Tavern).
Crisis, what crisis?

 

[Alsty]

Johnson hasn't been seen for months but as soon as there's a whiff of a possible come back he's on the next flight home.

It would be hilarious if he became the PM, got suspended by the Privileges Committee and then lost his seat in a by-election.

Notwithstanding all the other scandals, the fact there's this whole investigation hanging over his head would be a strong warning to Conservative MPs not to even entertain the thought of him coming back.

 

[Matt N]

Labour will win the election then really suffer...massive inequalities and crumbling NHS to fix, with no money in the pot to fix it, sadly.

Surely there are ways that Labour could raise money without resorting to austerity, though?

For instance, I’ve heard it suggested that raising capital gains tax to be in line with income tax would generate £30bn per year for the economy (which would virtually close the remainder of the fiscal black hole).

They’re also very vocal about things such as scrapping non-dom tax status and scrapping tax breaks on private schools.

 

[Benzin]

Labour (or any incoming party) still have a lot of work in the in-tray.

Plus then spending the entire time having the opposition complain that they're not doing enough to repair the mess that the opposition have made but obviously we don't mention that.

No matter what they do someone will complain. Even if it's an idea like Corbyn's public owned Internet or the more recent green energy things. People jump on it because of some thinly veiled contempt for the masses who have suffered austerity for years.

Politics in the UK is an absolute mess of Eton style "debate" in the loosest sense of the term.

 

[AT86]

Politics in the UK is an absolute mess of Eton style "debate" in the loosest sense of the term.

An Eton Mess, if you will.

 

[rob666]

Surely there are ways that Labour could raise money without resorting to austerity, though?

For instance, I’ve heard it suggested that raising capital gains tax to be in line with income tax would generate £30bn per year for the economy (which would virtually close the remainder of the fiscal black hole).

They’re also very vocal about things such as scrapping non-dom tax status and scrapping tax breaks on private schools.

You underestimate the costs of covid, brexit, and the recent economic farce...all paid for on extended credit...at increasing rates of interest, with a recession on the horizon.

 

[Matt N]

You underestimate the costs of covid, brexit, and the recent economic farce...all paid for on extended credit...at increasing rates of interest, with a recession on the horizon.

I was working off of the recent calculations of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that there was a £60-70bn deficit in the public finances caused by the errors in implementation of the mini-budget measures. It was said that Jeremy Hunt’s reversal of the mini-budget measures reduced this by around £30-40bn, therefore if Labour raised capital gains tax to be in line with income tax (which would bring in £30bn per year), as well as abolishing non-dom status, stopping tax breaks for private schools, and implementing a windfall tax to fund the energy price guarantee, as well as other tax-related measures, then the public finances would be in credit, thus surely giving the government more money to spend, no?

 

[rob666]

And the massive covid costs?

 

[Matt N]

And the massive covid costs?

I assumed they’d been accounted for through other tax measures implemented by the previous government (such as the health and social care levy and the rise in corporation tax), therefore they have been fully accounted for now that the mini-budget has been reversed.

When economists talked about the “black hole” in the public finances, I assumed that they were talking about our entire public deficit including the mini-budget measures. Given that the “black hole” in question was caused by the mini-budget, I assumed that previous tax measures announced were intending to gradually take care of the COVID debt.

I’m aware that the country has national debt (currently running at roughly 75% of GDP, correct me if I’m wrong), but I was under the impression that it was all being managed appropriately other than that caused by the recent mini-budget and ensuing fallout. Hence the talk of a fiscal “black hole” that never existed prior to the mini-budget.

 

[BigT]

I was working off of the recent calculations of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that there was a £60-70bn deficit in the public finances caused by the errors in implementation of the mini-budget measures. It was said that Jeremy Hunt’s reversal of the mini-budget measures reduced this by around £30-40bn, therefore if Labour raised capital gains tax to be in line with income tax (which would bring in £30bn per year), as well as abolishing non-dom status, stopping tax breaks for private schools, and implementing a windfall tax to fund the energy price guarantee, as well as other tax-related measures, then the public finances would be in credit, thus surely giving the government more money to spend, no?

I’d love to know what these tax breaks are for private schools? So the fee is not subject to VAT? Is that it?
Remember that I’m actually saving the government money by not asking it to educate my child I don’t think it’s really value added is it?
The schools also claim charitable status, but remember most of them are run not for profit or at a loss! Again hardly unreasonable.
Of course we could just close them all down (a labour policy) but then where are the 600,000 pupils going to go and how much is that going to cost the government?
Answer, a lot more than these tax breaks that the left keep going on about.

 

[Matt N]

I’d love to know what these tax breaks are for private schools? So the fee is not subject to VAT? Is that it?
Remember that I’m actually saving the government money by not asking it to educate my child I don’t think it’s really value added is it?
The schools also claim charitable status, but remember most of them are run not for profit or at a loss! Again hardly unreasonable.
Of course we could just close them all down (a labour policy) but then where are the 600,000 pupils going to go and how much is that going to cost the government?
Answer, a lot more than these tax breaks that the left keep going on about.

Yes, that is what I was on about.

For clarity, I’m not advocating for the closure of private schools; I fully appreciate why some people might want to send their children to private schools, and I think they should be allowed that choice.

However, I don’t think it would be overly unreasonable for private schools to pay VAT or corporation tax in a similar vein to other private companies (which they effectively are); it wouldn’t have much effect on the consumer or the business’ profits, but it could generate a lot of money for the state that could be used for investment into public services and similar, or clearing the national debt.

I’m not saying that it should be the main means of generating income for the state, and I agree that abolishing them would not be a good idea for numerous reasons, but it could certainly be a helpful prop-up for the public finances.
EDIT: Having done research, abolishing tax breaks for private schools would generate £1.7bn for the public purse, which the Labour Party says would subsidise free school meals for every primary school child.

 

[Dave]

I’d love to know what these tax breaks are for private schools? So the fee is not subject to VAT? Is that it?
Remember that I’m actually saving the government money by not asking it to educate my child I don’t think it’s really value added is it?
The schools also claim charitable status, but remember most of them are run not for profit or at a loss! Again hardly unreasonable.
Of course we could just close them all down (a labour policy) but then where are the 600,000 pupils going to go and how much is that going to cost the government?
Answer, a lot more than these tax breaks that the left keep going on about.

Give state schools charitable status, VAT relief (not just in the fees) and I am happy for public schools to exist.

It’s like hospitals, private hospitals don’t pay VAT, NHS does, the fact they exist isn’t an issue it’s the unfairness that is.

 

[Alsty]

Boris Johnson has pulled out of the leadership race. This despite him getting over the required 100 nominations, according to Boris Johnson himself. He's decided it's not the right thing to do, apparently (even though he suddenly flew back from his holiday seemingly for the purpose of entering this leadership race... )


From: https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1584275907090714624


"Tonight I can confirm that I have cleared the very high hurdle of 102 nominations, including a proposer and a seconder, and I could put my nomination in tomorrow".

The BBC has not been able to verify this figure as only 57 MPs had publicly told us they had backed him.

The former PM adds: "There is a very good chance that I would be successful in the election with Conservative Party members - and that I could indeed be back in Downing Street on Friday.

"But in the course of the last days I have sadly come to the conclusion that this would simply not be the right thing to do. You can't govern effectively unless you have a united party in parliament."