UK Politics General Discussion

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Independent Schools Council is already drawing up a legal challenge to the whole principle of VAT on school fees under the European Human Rights Act so no it won’t be easy or happen straight away.

There is no such thing as the "European Human Rights Act", there is however the British "Human Rights Act"; although it does make reference to the "European Convention on Human Rights". Under which article are you proposing a challenge could be made? British courts tend to defer to Parliament when it comes to ruling on tax, ie they steer clear away. Traditionally the European Court of Human Rights does also not rule on tax affairs, or take tax cases when related to fiscal matters.

It would be illegal in the EU so it won’t be a hard case to fight for an ex public school lawyer.

Whilst it might be considered illegal in the EU, who generally don't allow the taxation of educational service, the UK is no longer part of the EU. Incidentally, the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU. So I'm struggling to see the relevance of mentioning it (the EU, that is)? Unless we're only allowed the much lauded and alleged Brexit Benefits when it empowers the 1%, or is to the advantage of those who voted to leave?

 

[Matt.GC]

Except when you made that choice there was no VAT so that’s not really a valid argument.
I don’t have a problem adding it for new applicants then they know the financial commitment they are getting themselves into but it’s unfair to add it to existing pupils.
It certainly will not be easy to add in the first year either as I pointed out, most schools are not even VAT registered and HMRC is under staffed.

Isn't the capitalist system all about risk and rewards? Why would anyone fortunate enough to have the means to make such an investment not consider that a democratically elected government, ran by a party that has openly had this policy on their agenda for years, would enact it's policies before making such a financial commitment? If you decided to make a luxury purchase commitment that you can no longer afford, doesn't the capitalist system say that's tough luck? Maybe they should just "work harder", cancel Netflix, and stop buying Avocados? Can you not feed yourself for as low as 30p these days?

Unlike the vast majority of people 20 years my junior, I am fortunate enough to be a homeowner. There's stress tests in mortgage applications these days, just in case crazed and ideologically driven maniacs like Liz Truss or Nigel Farage come along and drive the economy off a cliff and interest rates sky rocket. If I overstretch myself and go for that extra nice house with the west facing garden and then loose my job, me and the kids would be kicked out on the street wouldn't we?

I whacked a few quid into a company I thought would turnaround a few years ago and it went bust. Kissed goodbye to the money.

That's fair game and what the system is designed to do isn't it?

It's absolutely a valid argument if you are lucky enough to be able to make a luxury purchase that you can now no longer afford and therefore have to cut back. It's what most normal people have been doing for years with food and electricity. Thank goodness, unlike food and electricity, the state provides education free at the point of use. A provision that is planned to be enhanced by this price increase.

Fortunate enough like me to enjoy luxuries? Great. But pay your taxes.

It's too bad that not enough them are VAT registered. They better get their skates on like every other organisation that has to pay it. If HMRC don't have the workforce to collect taxes, then maybe more taxes should be paid to fund them so that they can do so?

Any more tax avoidance loopholes you want to try and flog? Didn't Paul Daniels, Frank Bruno, and HSBC threaten to bugger off over tax? Only Phil Collins, and eventually Jim Davidson left in the end (the latter prick stayed around for 7 bloody years!). Ah well, bye bye Phil and Jimmy Boy. Good riddance.

 

[WillPS]

I love the notion that a not for profit private school is by its nature a lean entity which couldn't possibly pull any levers other than put up fees by the full amount of the taxation added, but state schools in 2010 were wasteful entities which deserved to be forcibly ridded of their fat.

Tiny violins everyone.

 

[BigT]

Isn't the capitalist system all about risk and rewards? Why would anyone fortunate enough to have the means to make such an investment not consider that a democratically elected government, ran by a party that has openly had this policy on their agenda for years, would enact it's policies before making such a financial commitment? If you decided to make a luxury purchase commitment that you can no longer afford, doesn't the capitalist system say that's tough luck? Maybe they should just "work harder", cancel Netflix, and stop buying Avocados? Can you not feed yourself for as low as 30p these days?

Unlike the vast majority of people 20 years my junior, I am fortunate enough to be a homeowner. There's stress tests in mortgage applications these days, just in case crazed and ideologically driven maniacs like Liz Truss or Nigel Farage come along and drive the economy off a cliff and interest rates sky rocket. If I overstretch myself and go for that extra nice house with the west facing garden and then loose my job, me and the kids would be kicked out on the street wouldn't we?

I whacked a few quid into a company I thought would turnaround a few years ago and it went bust. Kissed goodbye to the money.

That's fair game and what the system is designed to do isn't it?

It's absolutely a valid argument if you are lucky enough to be able to make a luxury purchase that you can now no longer afford and therefore have to cut back. It's what most normal people have been doing for years with food and electricity. Thank goodness, unlike food and electricity, the state provides education free at the point of use. A provision that is planned to be enhanced by this price increase.

Fortunate enough like me to enjoy luxuries? Great. But pay your taxes.

It's too bad that not enough them are VAT registered. They better get their skates on like every other organisation that has to pay it. If HMRC don't have the workforce to collect taxes, then maybe more taxes should be paid to fund them so that they can do so?

Any more tax avoidance loopholes you want to try and flog? Didn't Paul Daniels, Frank Bruno, and HSBC threaten to bugger off over tax? Only Phil Collins, and eventually Jim Davidson left in the end (the latter prick stayed around for 7 bloody years!). Ah well, bye bye Phil and Jimmy Boy. Good riddance.

Yes a capital system is based on risk v reward but fortunately that doesn’t apply to tax.
The government cannot alter tax rates and then pre date them otherwise they could be coming after you for 10% increase in income tax from 1980.
Any judge (and this will end up in court) has to take a reasonable view and according to my lawyer that means a judge is likely to see any payments made before the election and clearly stipulated as fees for specific years as not liable to any tax changes. (It’s not impossible but would set a precedent that is not going to look favourable on any incoming administration, even Russia and Iran don’t predate tax changes)
I can only go on his advice so I have now paid in full now for remaining years to effectively manage my tax affairs.

Now moving on very interesting to hear of Mr Starmer’s six priorities for government.

First off stabilise the economy, errm I don’t know if anyone has noticed but the economy seems to be stabilising itself right now, inflation at 2% and growth slowing growing. We don’t need any intervention here.

Second cut NHS waiting lists by enabling 40,000 more appointments per week, sounds impressive right? But with more than 50,000 GP’s alone that less than one extra appointment per GP per week, that’s not even going to touch the surface.

Third launch a new boarder force to smash criminal smuggling gangs, again sounds good but how exactly? Firstly they aren’t operating in the UK so there is no jurisdiction, it will solely rely on the French police and they also have there hands tied by their own laws.
Exactly how is Sir Kier going to impose our new border force on France and its laws?

Fourth up is Great British Energy which even I agree should be a good idea, however as always the problems start in the details.
It will be a solely green energy supplier to industry not a direct supplier to the great british public, it will invest (tiny amounts) in new energy supply which largely hasn’t been invented yet so it will be decades before anything of any use if ever comes out of this costly (although not costly enough) white elephant.
In reality it should be something along the lines of Octopus Energy selling to the public and then investing in offshore wind farms / gas / nuclear / developing wave technology for the supply arm but it won’t be.

Five, crack down on antisocial behaviour by introducing more neighbourhood policing.
No figures here so it’s hard to rip apart but I think we all know what they are talking about here more PCSO’s not real Police.
The problem here is not actually numbers of police but the courts and how they handle these toe-rags, interesting they talk of tough punishments but nothing in any details.
We all know crime pays, especially for barristers which yep you guessed it what is Sir Kier’s profession?

And lastly number Six the good old recruit 6500 new teachers (quite where they are going to come from? Maybe they planted some teacher trees) paid for by removing the tax breaks on private schools (there is no tax breaks by the way)
So again with around 25000 state schools in the UK that’s roughly a quarter of a teacher per school, I really hope that going to improve young Tyrone’s education but unfortunately it isn’t, it won’t make a dot of difference.

We deserve better from our politicians but we won’t ever get it, career politicians only interested in themselves, no real plan to improve this country for the better just interested in lining their own pockets and saying anything to achieve power.
We have never had a worse bunch of politicians, I can’t call them leaders as not one of them could actually lead something of any meaning.

 

[Tom]

The problem is democracy, and the fact you have to maintain appeal ahead of judgement every 4 or 5 years.

Remove democracy and we'd be talking (or probably told about!) about the tax rises we obviously need.

 

[BigT]

The problem is democracy, and the fact you have to maintain appeal ahead of judgement every 4 or 5 years.

Remove democracy and we'd be talking (or probably told about!) about the tax rises we obviously need.

I don’t disagree, the problem with tax is that everyone thinks everyone else should be paying more.
I’ve long argued for a new tax system, remove NI, its tax by a different name and add it to the standard tax bands.
A flat system would be fairer, 25% corporation tax, 30% on all earnings, 15% VAT on everything, increase minimum wage so those on the lowest don’t loose out, everyone pays regardless, dividends, bonuses, businesses everyone no exceptions.
It really is that easy, why we make it so complicated is beyond me.

 

[Tom]

Because changing to that wouldn't be popular, or a vote winner - hence my argument.

In other news, another MRP poll now showing Lib Dems in second place - and would become the official opposition: https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

 

[Dobba]

Starmer's decided the big issue is not sending Bangladeshi's back where they came from.

Naturally, his excuse is exactly the same as when he said Israel had the right to starve Gaza. Namely your eyes and ears are lying to you and he never said what you saw and heard him say.

Don't worry though, we're getting the racist lot out.

 

[Benzin]

He also sat on the fence regarding David Tennant's comments about Kemi Badenoch.

It makes it really difficult to actually want to put the X in the Labour box. But like most Labour things it's 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

 

[Slugjc]

With a week to go now. It's all looking rather tasty.

My guess is labour get in. By a land slide? Not too sure. I think the lib dems and reform will sneek some good seats in.

It would appear reforms bubble is bursting. BUT, like in 2016. I think the right wing media will ramp up stories of the boats. The weather is perfect for sea crossings. Record numbers will be able to get over in the coming week. These stories will be ramped by the press, especially right leanin.

 

[WillPS]

BUT, like in 2016. I think the right wing media will ramp up stories of the boats.

Illegal migration was mostly occuring on lorries back in 2016, the relative hell of small boats crossings hadn't begun yet.

 

[GaryH]

I thought Starmer was awful last night in the debate. Can you imagine him in a debate with world leaders? He came across very weak last night.

 

[Rob]

I thought Starmer was awful last night in the debate. Can you imagine him in a debate with world leaders? He came across very weak last night.

Ah yes, because that format is exactly how world leaders interact with each other all of the time!

Starmer is clearly trying to tread carefully and not make any big slip ups considering the lead in the polls. Sunak feels like he's got nothing to lose so is taking an approach that will grab newspaper headlines and try to inject fear in to voters.

It was nice to see a question on local authorities in the debate last night, something that has not been spoken about much at all during this election despite local authority finances fast becoming a national crisis. Neither answers were overly satisfactory for someone who works in a local authority, but I am not surprised as there just is not the money at present to give them much needed greater funding. At least Starmer attempted to provide an answer (what difference it would make is another matter) rather than Sunak just claiming it was all the fault of local Labour councils and ignoring the fact the Conservative councils and and will face the same issues.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Can you imagine him in a debate with world leaders?

No, because to my knowledge there's never been a debate with world leaders. World leaders don't debate each other, and certainly not in a televised context or live show format.

 

[Mick]

Ah yes, because that format is exactly how world leaders interact with each other all of the time!

Starmer is clearly trying to tread carefully and not make any big slip ups considering the lead in the polls. Sunak feels like he's got nothing to lose so is taking an approach that will grab newspaper headlines and try to inject fear in to voters.

It was nice to see a question on local authorities in the debate last night, something that has not been spoken about much at all during this election despite local authority finances fast becoming a national crisis. Neither answers were overly satisfactory for someone who works in a local authority, but I am not surprised as there just is not the money at present to give them much needed greater funding. At least Starmer attempted to provide an answer (what difference it would make is another matter) rather than Sunak just claiming it was all the fault of local Labour councils and ignoring the fact the Conservative councils and and will face the same issues.

Starmer basically said that he’ll give council’s a longer term financial settlement, which will aid planning but as Mishal Husain (who I thought was a poor moderator) said, that doesn’t mean more money. He then started rambling on about no fault evictions, when the main thing councils across the country need is social care reform, and some national plans (and funding) of how to deal with the exponentially increasing children with social care requirements.

I also work in a council, a Conservative run one that’s just about surviving year to year, sure the councillors have made some bad decisions but it all comes down to lack of funding certainty, meaning that to deliver a balanced budget councillors and officers are having to think more radically and risky than ever, it’s simply not sustainable.

Sunak’s political point scoring was pathetic, inaccurate and completely expected.

 

[Benzin]

From: https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/1806257656107061459


Sums up the current direction of the parties here.

Tories are also pushing a full on lie that Labour will make the entire country ULEZ. But who bothers with facts nowadays?

The method of "debates" seen in parliament and TV aren't really anything that can be really defined as such. Just ends up being a group of children point scoring and spouting nonsense.

 

[Deleted member 17985]

I thought Starmer was awful last night in the debate. Can you imagine him in a debate with world leaders? He came across very weak last night.

I don't think either came across well in the grand scheme of things, though Starmer definitely picked up the pace halfway through. In terms of Rishi v Keir entertainment value, Rishi won if you're into that sort of thing. Keir is more "Prime Ministerial" and while Labours plans have some questionable elements and holes, I beleive they do actually have workable plans ready to go. Rishi is selling any old tosh hoping it'll stick knowing full well they're screwed. The moderator was also woeful, constantly letting Rishi the Demented Prefect shout over Starmer and then saying “Hang on, you know what it is like to fall in behind a leader of your party,” referencing God Emporer/Global Terror Corbyn - so much for BBC bias not being a thing. They really pumped up the state broadcaster Malarkey last night.

Some noteworthy moments:

“Will you sit down with the Ayatollahs? Are you going to try to do a deal with the Taliban? It’s completely nonsensical – you are taking people for fools,” he added. - my god the applause he got for this absolute nonsense.

As the programme ended, Tory leader Mr Sunak also returned to the disputed claim that Labour’s policies will cost families an extra £2,000 in tax. Sir Keir hit back: “That is a lie. He’s been told not to repeat that lie and he has just done it.” - I miss when British politics had some conscience and moral structure. It was never perfect but it was never quite this blatant and I hate how normalised it has become.

Both party leaders committed to protecting women’s rights to single-sex spaces, regardless of whether someone has a gender recognition certificate. But Sir Keir received applause as he added he recognised there are “a small number of people who are born into a gender that they don’t identify with”, adding: “I will treat them, as I treat all human beings, with dignity and respect.” - this isn't going to be enough to please the hard left factions within Labour or the more extreme gender-critical voices, but it's enough for your average voter who actually doesn't care about this stuff at all. Single-issue voters will always do their thing either way. Maintaining trans rights but with a foot in everyday, lived reality rather than a puddle of activism and extremism is the sensible approach.

He said Sunak had made a “fair job of being chancellor”, but is a “pretty mediocre prime minister”. He then said he believes Starmer’s “strings” are being pulled by senior members of the Labour Party. - more conspiratorial nonsense designed to appeal to a specific and dumb, paranoid subsection of British society, because that is who the Tories are now.

I've rolled my eyes too many times to continue. I wish this process of booting the Tories out was more exciting. I'm voting tactically here in NI, for a party I don't totally vibe with, simply to help get rid of the DUP. I think I've reached apathy towards the politics of these lands. Can it be over now?

 

[Matt.GC]

With Gamblegate raging on, I did start to wonder whether the final rebalancing would even occur. But I think last night we finally saw that.

Both leaders assumed the roles the latest polls have assigned to them. Starmer, with his vanilla manifesto offering, looking more like a defending Prime Minister trying to manage expectations. He wasn't given much room to repeat how bad everything is at the moment as the main reason to vote for him, leaving him open to attack for scrutiny of his actual policies from both left and right. This should play into the hands of the smaller parties to the left of Labour.

Most of the country made up their minds about not voting Conservative 2 years ago. The only voters who are still listening, are those that really want to stick to their tribe but just can't stomach it. Not sure where that Sunak has been all campaign so far, but he came out fighting. He rightly gave up on trying to overstretch himself fighting the battles on both sides of him, and instead made an unapologetic appeal to the centre right, like he should have done from the beginning. This base like being frightened of Labour. He can't defend the Tory record in government and there's little point in trying to do that now, but he mostly managed to steer away from that and tried instead to scare the horses of typical Daily Mail readers around fears of higher taxes, foreigners, Boomers loosing out, and pretending that the trans community is full of pervy men in dresses preying on women. The people offended by those stances have already been lost years ago anyway, this was a successful plea to shore up the base I felt.

Another thing typical heartland Tories like is bashing Russians. I think Reform have alienated many on the right with Farages recent comments. They're aimed at sounding more protectionist akin to Trumps stance of 'this isn't our war'. Farage left himself enough wiggle room in the Nick Robinson interview to wiggle out of this, but instead he foolishly doubled down by making comments about Ukraine striking a peace deal. He's now starting to sound like Galloway on the hard left and has completely misread the room on this. I think Reform have now peaked, a gift to the Tories with their new "no surrender" messaging.

All it takes is a slight swing from Reform and Labour, and there's suddenly an extra 100 or so seats in it for the Tories. We're now looking at a 1997 style defeat rather than the predicted wipeout I feel. Starmer needs to lay low for a week now as he has the most to loose with arrows flying in from both sides. Sunak has nothing left to loose, he can't out Reform Reform, and the true centre ground is lost, so he needs to solely focus on ramping up the fear of Labour among the core base to bring them back to the flock.

 

[Matt N]

We’re only a week away, and it would appear that the polls are not budging…

Throughout this campaign, I’ve been highly sceptical about the idea of a Labour landslide anything like that being predicted by the opinion polls. I’ve always thought that if Labour won, it’s more likely to be a 2010-style hung parliament or a 2015-style modest majority than a 1997-style landslide, simply because unlike Blair, I don’t think Starmer and the Labour Party are popular enough in isolation to command that sort of emphatic victory.

I still am sceptical, to some degree. I think the talk of a complete Tory wipeout and the Lib Dems or Reform becoming the opposition is very premature, and is unlikely to happen in reality. I do have an odd feeling that Starmer may not do quite as well as everyone is currently expecting, simply because I don’t think he musters up the enthusiasm that a figure like Blair or even Johnson did. I feel that the chances of Labour not winning, forbidding some sort of huge scandal within the next week, are pretty low, but I think a hung parliament is still a possibility, and there is a chance, albeit an increasingly remote one, that Sunak could stage some sort of epic comeback and unexpectedly win.

However, the nigh-on completely static opinion polls and seemingly ever-declining Tory vote share in said polls do give me some degree of hope and excitement that I may finally be on the winning side of a general election… I think part of me is just so used to the Tories always winning that a Labour victory almost seems too good to be true!

On a side note, I must admit that I’m quite astounded by the degree to which a simple change in location within the UK has changed the sort of parties that are targeting me online. Back home in the Forest of Dean, I only get online targeting from the Tories and Labour. But I’ve been on holiday at Center Parcs Longleat Forest, near Warminster, since Monday… and the picture here could not be more different! The local constituency is South West Wiltshire… and I’m getting absolutely hammered by Lib Dem adverts. The Lib Dems are the main campaigning force here by some margin… they’re popping up everywhere on my online journeys here at Center Parcs, while the Tories and Labour haven’t popped up once! On the way down here, driving down through the likes of Melksham, Westbury and Chippenham, there was also an absolute sea of yellow/orange Lib Dem campaign adverts on doorsteps here in Wiltshire, whereas I haven’t seen one Lib Dem advert back in Gloucestershire.

 

[Matt.GC]

That part of the world is Lib Dem heavy. They sense blood and I think they'll do well. My mum lives in that part of the world. Anything outside of the Bristol boundary (will likely be 4 labour constituencies with a green in the middle for the city itself), particularly the old Avon area are looking like the Lib Dem heartlands of old are returning. This seems to be reaching outside of the Greater urban area itself and is swallowing up parts of Somerset, Wiltshire, and Gloucestershire. Reece-Mogg looks set to loose, and Liam Fox has a fight in his hands.

It's these kinds of things that make a hung parliament very unlikely now, and it's pollsters misunderstanding the nature of highly targeted Lib Dem seats that lead to poor predictions for the 2015 outcome. To get to a hung parliament, there has to be a large number of seats for an opposition party. Lib Dem seats in the old heartlands hold Tory seats back. So regardless of a lack of enthusiasm for Labour, that's the nature of our system and what will help them towards a majority. Similar to how damaging SNP victories were for Labours chances in the 2010's.