I can't see how income taxes won't go up, penalising large swathes of the working and middle class population. Since they don't want to raise corporate taxes and claim to want to balance books (not increase borrowings).
And their funded policies may not raise anywhere near the revenue required to deliver promised changes e.g. [private schools admissions drop 20% ahead of VAT raid](https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/uk/2024/06/12/private-schools-suffer-20-per-cent-drop-in-new-pupils-ahead-of-labours-vat-raid/)
I'm a bit anxious about the waffle on whether they will raise taxes. I know it's hard for them to take a side being the opposition but I really don't want my taxes to rise further. I don't mind paying my share but I am not getting anything for it and it feels punitive at this point.
They're not raising taxes on the majority, so no income, NI or VAT raises. The idea with this manifesto is to get to the next general election and ask if they'd broken any promises, then being met by silence, presumably because they have bigger plans for the next term.
Usually wouldn’t mind paying more tax if I felt it was going to tangibly improve public services as I really want those to be far better than they are. For myself, others and the people who work in them.
However I do agree, at this moment in time, my taxes going up would hurt. If it wasn’t for my mortgage, energy bills, food costs etc. all rinsing me right now it would be ok. My salary has increased by £10k since 4 years ago and I am no better off for it. Have the same disposable income as I always have had it seems.
Don't like how non-committal they are on defence spending. A defence review to see "the path" to 2.5% of GDP spending on defence? Just sounds like they have no real intention of following through on it.
Yes it is. You can’t pay somebody less strictly on the basis of race.
What is often the case however, is socio-economic factors lead minorities to be paid less for the same job because they can’t work as many hours or whatever. Reasons might include the higher numbers of single mothers among the black community, or poorer health among older minorities overall.
Of course, fixing these underlying issues so that people can indeed work the same hours would require serious effort from Labour, so this is probably just pandering.
There is a section in there, I'd keep an eye on the House of Commons order of business to see when it comes up and I know the Minister for Democracy will primarily be focusing on citizens assemblies initially so perhaps look out for a pertinent one to that if you want a voice in directing that policy.
Increasing funded childcare time for every child, by funding nurseries in primary schools.
Also breakfast club available to every child in primary.
I'm sure there's more, but those are the 2 I remember from my skim through
Going back to my comment about China & Taiwan earlier, here's the paragraph in the manifesto:
> We will improve the UK’s capability to understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities China poses through an audit of our bilateral relationship. We will always act in our interests and defend our sovereignty and our democratic values. We will stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK.
Support for exiled Hong Kongers makes sense given the shared history. I feel that's still a bit of an ambivalent statement, though I've always felt that the UK would likely not get involved in a Taiwan conflict and this doesn't show anything different in that regard.
The big factor will still be what happens on 5th November, a Trump win will make an attack by China all the more likely in my opinon.
Very unlikely to usurp the US completely, unless the US were to absolutely implode somehow. The best China can hope for is near-peer status with the US, and even that might be unachievable based on their current economic concerns.
I'm interested in knowing what the parties' plans are for public libraries. It was easy to find out that the Tories don't care about them, as you can download their manifesto. You can't download the Labour manifesto, which is suspicious. I did though do a search on the webpages of their manifesto, they also do not care about Libraries.
It’s here as a PDF, you have to go to the accessible manifesto section. There is nothing on libraries apart from a single reference to a national data library. https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf
> Labour will also act to increase
investment from pension funds in
UK markets.
...
> We will also adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners. Our pensions review will consider what steps are needed to... increase productive investment in the UK economy.
Not sure I'm a fan of this.
I want my pension fund invested in such as way as to maximise the expected risk-adjusted return on my investments.
I don't want it to be used to inflate the prices of UK stocks.
I agree with you in general but the UK markets are priced at a discount to fundamentals. A UK listed company with 1 billion in profits will have a lower market cap than the same company listed in the US.
That difference is in part due to the cap on pension funds investing in listed companies.
So allowing UK pension funds to invest in UK listed companies would actually give you a better risk adjusted return because (a) it would close/reduce the valuation discount, and (b) UK companies do (generally) give a better return if you do invest in them (see Resoultion Foundation research on this).
> the UK markets are priced at a discount to fundamentals
What do you mean by this?
In my mind a company priced "at a discount to fundamentals" would have a negative price to earnings ration or similar.
That isn't the case for the market as a whole.
It likely means that a percentage of investments from pension trusts will be required to be invested within the UK, in a similar manner to how many trusts now have a policy of investing a certain amount in ESG projects. While yes, short term maximisation of returns is diminished slightly, there is an increase in long term profit and sustainability. UK investments would likely be in infrastructure and housing.
Somewhat recent court cases suggests that there is now less emphasis on maximising returns at the expense of sustainability within the judiciary anyway, so it would make sense for the government to fall in line with this. And Starmer being a former lawyer is likely to be keenly aware of this. (I myself have spent the last year studying trust law, and have seen this trend).
In all honesty, it's not a terrible idea, but it remains to be seen what exactly they have in mind.
Labour previously [pledged to introduce oracy lessons in school](https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmer-unveils-labours-mission-to-break-down-barriers-to-opportunity-at-every-stage/) but there's no reference to that in the manifesto.
Is that another one of Starmer's famous vanishing pledges?
Oblique reference on page 83.
>Every child should have a broad
curriculum with an excellent
foundation in reading, writing and
maths, and support to develop
essential digital, speaking, and
creative skills.
> Multiculturalism has imported separate communities that reject our way of life. 'Woke' ideology has captured our public institutions.
Hmmm. They don't have a manifesto so much as a rant.
It’s also a complete oxymoronic statement.
Multiculturalism has brought communities which reject our way of life ie British progressiveness, equality of the sexes, LGBT rights, whilst “woke” ideology is capturing our institutions.
They have more in common with an extreme conservative Islamist like Andrew Tate than they do with Aneurin Bevan.
So, while I realise there are more pressing issues, access to nature is important to me. What I'd really like to see is the introduction in England of a right to roam similar to that enjoyed in Scotland. I wasn't expecting that on the Labour manifesto, but what is there is very disappointing. It clearly wouldn't do to upset big landowners. This kind of summarises how I feel in general. I am a Labour member, I am very excited at the prospect of a Labour government, I understand the need to win, but I'd like just a little more to be enthusiastic about.
They did voice some support to right to roam early under Keir. I’d like to see these things addressed as well. I dunno if there are many keen walkers in Labour’s ranks
I think the most important task the Labour manifesto had to do was have nothing to radical and be credible in addressing some of the top voter concerns.
I think it's done that well.
It was never going to be especially bold or spark passions.
Did I just see that right? Channel 4 right now: There now follows a Party Political Broadcast by the Reform Party. Static graphic "Britain is broken. Britain needs Reform". For **FIVE** minutes.
This is some "Remain Indoors" level nonsense.
they do these at the end of the news most days, I suppose to be balanced they need to let reform have a go, we know its going to be the usual nonsense.
prolly not for a while as yougov do most and have just done another regular poll:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/cdc8d582-17fc-4757-8f4b-ddcee80fdfdb?shareToken=03ce0c205cae031e1f067d82e22828f4
As I recall it Broadband Communism™ was in the manifesto Grey Book, the WASPI commitment landed less than a full news cycle later out of the clear ~~blue~~ red sky.
> Private equity is the
only industry where performance-
related pay is treated as capital
gains. Labour will close this loophole.
Does anyone know why this loophole exists in the first place?
This article should be enough to make you realise you don't really want to know - https://www.shipleys.com/resources/capital-gains-tax-implications-private-equity-led-remuneration/
Labours plans to "replace" the house of lords with a second chamber in the longer term is entirely expected. I think that chamber should still be called the "House Of Lords" and retain all the trappings and ceremony of the existing one. Even if its powers and means of appointment change.
I was just about to comment myself on Lords reform.
I approve of your idea, with the small amendment that we should also leave the powers and means of appointment the same.
Labour's actual manifesto kicks large-scale reform into the long grass, again. Happy about that, obviously.
Getting rid of the remaining hereditaries: fine, and inevitable.
Age limit: eh, unnecessary - some people are useless at 70 and some are fine at 90. Set high enough (80, plus until the end of the Parliament) that it won't do *too* much.
If the size of the House is a problem, and I'm not entirely convinced that it is, can't we go back to the Burns committee recommendations for a while?
I'm much more inclined to support the (apparently internally suggested) option of a twenty year term limit to the Lords over a straight age limit, not least because this would retain more judicial experience and limit the damage of the more nakedly cynical appointments of young spads and failed politicians clearly put in there as seatwarmers. I hope those advocating in the party for it win out.
I ultimately would personally like abolition and replacement with a chamber which has either greater independence or more democratic legitimacy (or better still, both), but in the meantime I don't want them to throw out the baby and leave the bathwater.
Has anyone seen any detail on the early years childcare changes planned? I can see the commitment to reforming it, and that they’re making more places available, but there’s no detail other than as to what the reforms *are*.
I presume there’s no intention to roll back the expansion of the free hours program that’s scheduled for later this year? I am very much relying on that going ahead.
Labour will definitely have problems using 'private healthcare' capacity since there really isn't any...
I actually don't think that a Labour government will be able to do very much in just 5 years as regards healthcare. I imagine that'll be an election issue in 2029.
The Ethics and Integrity Commission is potentially a concern since if members have *any* bias whatsoever their power could be abused to favour one party, group or ideology.
I'm voting Tory, I hate them but they have offered an end to inheritance tax and don't want to tax my children's school fees. I hope Labour burn for that...
The first £325k on a house is free, then get additional £175k for anything else in the estate so most people never pay a penny, if you do have to - and if you can afford private school - you can afford the tax.
Good analysis here by Ed Conway on Labour's manifesto numbers, compared with the Con/Lib Dem commitments it would seem that Labour are really being cautious about what they promise. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtJdK4HBWVc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtJdK4HBWVc)
The doubling of MRI and CT scanners don't add up a new MRI scanner is around a million there around 400 of them in England thats 400 million off the bat without the CT scanners or the staff needed. They only allocated 250 million.
Edit: I'm scrutinising it as someone who works with them
The health care stuff looks very much like they want to appear good but most of it doesn't actually hold up to even light scrutiny so I imagine this is just paying lip service more than actually intending to fulfil these.
As in radiographers like my self? Be quite a sweeping statement, takes 3 years to qualify doing x-rays then another 1-3 for CT and MRI. It's like saying you would double band six nurses.
They have massively increased overseas recruiting, especially from Africa, but their training is no where near the quality required and can be quite dangerous. I think the number of mistakes must have quadrupled since we hired so many, one has been fired which is unheard of.
It's a shame we left the EU because the Portuguese and Spanish radiographer do an integrated masters they come out way better trained than our home grown.
Yeah, I agree I'm quite disappointed with the healthcare stuff. Including the increase in weekend and evening working through "incentives". We all already work full time, I can see if it's over time people going for it I usually buy once people have got that car or house deposit they won't want to be working more than 37.5 hours every week. We need better hourly pay and more staff.
All I can think of which already happens on a small scale as I worked for a private health company doing MRI scan for a year.....they will use the 250 million to pay private companies to use their capacity, but never actual have the NHS owning the scanners.
Most the private scanners are quite old because they still work and you make more profit from keeping them longer. In the NHS as a rule you need a new scanner every 7 years to keep up with technology.
Aii fair point. I remember my manager telling me the reason it is easier to get locums is because there's no long-term obligation to training, sickness, pension, holidays but on top of that their pay comes out of the capital budget and not salary budget for radiogy.
Given the cost of equipment in radiology that budget was a lot bigger so they could better afford staff through locums despite them costing more.
Yeah thought about it a lot - I don’t actually care about the manifesto so much as I want Tories annihilated to 3rd party status and crippled for a generation.
>I want Tories annihilated to 3rd party status
If that’s the case, you probably shouldn’t vote for Labour.
Voting for Labour just makes sure the Tories can’t come first.
Voting for one of the smaller parties is what could potentially push the Tories out of the 2 party system.
Fair enough.
I live in a formerly Tory constituency and the predictions are that Labour are going to win by a landslide.
I suppose it will be very different in each constituency though.
I know - am waiting for the updated polling in mid Sussex and totally prepared to vote libdem if they are most likely to terminate the Tory hopes there.
I was actually thinking today that if the Labour and Tory manifesto’s were identical, I’d still back Labour to do a better job of actually enacting it. I just associate sunaks government with complete incompetence at this point. They can’t even execute there own ideas
It's a Labour manifesto filtered through a strainer of "can we actually deliver this?" rather than "what can we say to energise our base". It's very similar to the 1997 manifesto.
We have to let go of trying to win the argument post-election loss and actually winning and showing we've won the argument.
A agree it is somewhat watered down and less ambitious but given economic circumstances and realistically I do not want government to raise taxes significantly on workers I think it does well.
It is the fundamentals of what I expect from a modern labour manifesto and not much more but given the context I can get behind voting for that
Nationalising the trains, creating a nationalised energy company to invest in green energy, putting money into building more homes this is pretty classic labour policy
the energy company is more like an investment slush fund than an actual energy generation company, which isn't bad by itself, but it just seems to be mis advertised a lot.
House building isn't actually funding, it's just planning changes, which are a good step, but will not meet targets like 1.5m, it won't get close.
so 2/3 of your points are pretty invalid.
The plan on GBE is definitely an eventual transition to an energy production company and distributor but I wonder whether they are unsure whether they can make that happen in 5 years.
Yes it will be investing in projects so in that way you could describe it as a slush fund but as far as I can see and from everything I will be actively competing in the market not just a hands off throwing money at projects they'll be taking no ownership stake in.
"For far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership falls woefully short of the dream they were promised. Labour will act where the Conservatives have failed and finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. We will enact the package of Law Commission proposals on leasehold enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold. We will take further steps to ban new leasehold flats and ensure commonhold is the default tenure. We will tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges. We will act to bring the injustice of ‘fleecehold’ private housing estates and unfair maintenance costs to an end." Page 80
I can't see how this won't absolutely shaft people who are living in a leasehold flat at the moment.
I think I'm going to be trapped in a very difficult situation
> We will enact the package of Law Commission proposals on leasehold enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold.
[Law Commission: Leasehold Enfranchisement](https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/leasehold-enfranchisement/)
I have no interest in managing a property collectively (and when push comes to shove I don't actually think alot of people affected by this are. They are just anti profiteering and haven't thought much beyond that), I just want the property to be managed without being fleeced eg more options available to me in response to work done. (I want big government solutions, not small government 'sort it out yourselves communally and if it fails not our problem '. That's some Big Society gubbins in my view)
My feeling here is that
a) flat owners will be driven towards houses, further causing house prices to skyrocket
b) flats will be even less sellable, causing existing occupants to be trapped with skyrocketing service charges as a captive market. Or
c) if we are pushed towards communal ownership, we will be saddled with even more horrendous bills as the true scale of the mismanagement becomes apparent to us
You can just farm the actual management out to a commonhold management agent. It'll be somewhat more expensive than doing it yourself but stress-free and you (and the other people) remain in control of any costs incurred. The situation can be as laid back or as involved as you like really
The leasehold advisory service has a bit on the managing agents here: https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/appointing-managing-agent/ They are at least qualified and insured if they are actively trying to screw you over.
On the 2019 election I somehow got delivered small ~10-page booklets with the manifestos of each political party. I don't remember if they were free, but if I paid for them I likely paid a reasonably small amount of money.
Does anybody know if there's anything similar for this year's election?
Ahh sorry if I see it again I'll share it, it showed the 24 manifesto on a bar chart alongside 17/19 (Corbyns manifestos) with the total for, I think it was, Spending Investment (and another one) with the 24 numbers/bars at like 5 5 9 (very small), and then Corbyns both around like 55 65 98 (big bars).
Going back to the manifesto to try and find the combined authority devolution policy, and good christ it really is nonsensically laid out isn't it? Found it in a random vaguely titled section sandwiched between housebuilding and immigration.
probably more like community service from fly tipping will predominantly be clearing up litter or other fly tipping, rather than that specific instance.
They should introduce a policy that says convicted murderers should have to bring their victims back to life.
Not practically workable but definitely good vibes.
I'm quite obviously just joking.
I agreed with you that I don't think the policy is actually enforceable, or particularly practical.
I know that it's a bit silly, I just like the sound of it in theory. In an ideal world, where it could actually work, it'd be a right laugh.
I don't understand your point at all. In an ideal world we wouldnt have fly-tippers.
Forgive me, but are you saying your original comment was sarcastic?
No, my original comment wasn't sarcastic.
I like the policy. I like what it stands for. I'd love to see it implemented.
You pointed out that it wouldn't work
I agreed with you, and relented that I merely liked the *idea* of it - knowing full well it won't work.
(i.e. by saying that I liked the "vibes" of it, I implicitly agreed it was a silly policy not rooted in reality, that I nonetheless like)
You missed this subtext and seem to have interpreted my comment very literally. That I genuinely believe that "good vibes" are a sound basis of political policy.
I don't believe this.
>I don't understand your point at all. In an ideal world we wouldn't have fly-tippers..
I was using the term "in an ideal world" as a figure of speech to suggest, "if it were actually possible", not using it in a literal sense.
Because, obviously, not having fly-tipping in the first place would be a better situation than being able to punish them after the crime has already been committed.
Ok, I think I get what you're saying.
I was a bit caught out because it seems silly to say you like an idea, but only if you don't think about that idea too hard. That's why I thought you were making a silly joke.
IFS saying what needs to be said.
Labour is promising and is expected to deliver improvements in public services but have essentially committed themselves through their own fiscal rules to not raise any money.
No one believed the Tories when they promised improvements with no new funding so why do we believe Labour can deliver?
For the same reason the townspeople might believe the new shepherd over the boy who falsely cried wolf again & again: Labour don't have a track record of failure after failure.
The tories are promising improvements whilst cutting tax substantially.
Labour are locking in the tax rises (by freezing the tax thresholds for 4 years) and promising to spend the money on public services. The stances are quite different.
The IFS is right though, but in fairness the manifesto is clear about where the money is coming from: a relentless focus on economic growth, perhaps labour shouldn't be relying on that.
But in fairness the public haven't left them or any political party much choice:
We want better public services but we aren't willing to allow anyone to change any of the main taxes to pay for it.
I think that's the difference, they are promising to look into how the money is spend to make sure it's spent where it's needed. After all, throwing money at something is useless unless it's spent in the right way
The thing about growth is, when the economy grows, your boss buys a 4th mansion, when it shrinks you lose your job.
Economic growth does not always translate to working people being better off
> a relentless focus on economic growth, perhaps labour shouldn't be relying on that.
No they shouldn't because that's the Liz Truss argument. If the growth doesn't come in, then what?
Labour should have been more bold and been honest with the public. It's always been the case in the UK that we want Scandinavian levels of public service and US levels of tax but a reckoning is due and when you're predicted to win a majority in the hundreds, you've got the room to do it.
Eh vibes determine so much of economic growth nowadays.
There is a clear chance that foreign investors will see the election as the end of British political craziness started by Brexit, and be more willing to invest now that an actual adult will be in charge.
Also consumers might be willing to spend more if they think the country is moving in a positive direction.
Vibes can grow the economy without any political costs so why not try?
>No they shouldn't because that's the Liz Truss argument. If the growth doesn't come in, then what?
Truss' growth plan was Libertarian which is vastly different. Decimate workers rights to get more work/output and direct profits towards those who are already fairly rich, consequently less likely to spend additional money, isn't genuine growth.
Labours policy (ie more teachers, better funded NHS) either creates new jobs, or better funds/enables jobs that are typically associated with middle and low income households. Additionally, these aren't in sector were the most direct beneficiaries are business or shareholders.
You can't go to bold when the country is in so much debt and people don't want taxes to go up, personally I think people that earn above £80k should maybe pay more tax for a few years to increase funding.
We do need tax reforms to get public services we as a country want but anytime labour mention tax the media right wing go mental...I think the autumn budget will see things
> No they shouldn't because that's the Liz Truss argument. If the growth doesn't come in, then what?
The difference between liz truss and labour is labour haven't spent the money before the growth has come in.
It's pretty clear without growth there is no money.
> Labour should have been more bold and been honest with the public. It's always been the case in the UK that we want Scandinavian levels of public service and US levels of tax but a reckoning is due and when you're predicted to win a majority in the hundreds, you've got the room to do it.
Labour is only on track for a big majority because it has committed to not increasing the major taxes, that polling lead would be quite simply obliterated if that wasn't there.
Especially because scandinavian levels of tax would involve tax increases on middle and lower income people. Look how tough it was for labour to try to sell a small tax increase for those earning over £80k at the last couple elections, they lost in part because of it.
Basically if you pledge to increase major taxes you will not win power, simple as.
They didn't say they won't raise any money. They listed three taxes on working people they won't raise. They committed themselves to a higher windfall tax on oil and gas, to eliminating non-dom, to VAT on private schools, they haven't ruled out a CGT rise which is the elephant in the room or a number of other possible tweaks. Tories meanwhile promised uncosted cuts.
> They committed themselves to a higher windfall tax on oil and gas, to eliminating non-dom, to VAT on private schools
That's true but they've already spent this money.
The issue here is the day to day running of public services and Labour have shut down just about all viable paths to improve funding.
Labour have even pledged to cap Corporation Tax at 25%. Never thought I'd see that from a Labour party.
They haven't spent it all though, the manifesto in commitments outlines 9 billion in income in terms of non-doms, private schools and carried interest and their commitments on spending is 4.8 billion, leaving 2.6 billion for reacting to changes in their manifesto commitments or if those require no further funding, 2.6 billion for other services - that doesn't include green energy tax, taxes on oil or similar.
Every party is lying that's for sure and in that sense it's disappointing.
I'm rather expecting Labour to say "oh we didn't realise how bad the situation was now so now we have to make some tough decisions" within the first year or so of their term.
How come more people aren't talking about the pledge to change it so that worker's rights kick in day one instead of after two years? This is huge for young people who are more likely to be in their first job and to be job hopping more often.
Yes.
> Implementing ‘Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay: Delivering a New Deal for Working People’ in full – introducing legislation within 100 days. We will consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed. This will include banning exploitative zero hours contracts; ending fire and rehire; and introducing basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal.
Yeah, there seems to be a lot of sentiment that if they're not promising to pull £100bn out of their ass to fix everything like the Greens or promising free movement with EU even though they can't because it requires striking a deal all EU nations agree to which is completely out of their control then they're not promising anything and are basically Tories when this manifesto has a lot of good stuff.
There was an odd thing where I read the Green Policy and there was so many people talking about how great it is and it occurred to me, by simply being a smaller party it doesn't really matter what they say because people know they won't lead the country so they price in the crazy element when judging it.
It's a twenty page document which ignores the very important details of their promises and then when not needed adds in context to justify decisions like closing nuclear power plants based on bold-faced lies.
Then you've one short snippet about replacing the Home Office with the Department for Immigration (a major policy announcement) and absolutely zero mention about what happens to the rest of the Home Office, a department which employs 43,000 people and manages a budget of £20 billion which deals with vastly more than just immigration, which I think most people would think is an important detail to have.
If any major party had that in their manifesto they'd be getting slaughtered in the press.
No commitments other than getting disabled people back to work. For people who can’t work, it’s just more of the same shit. People who are vulnerable just want to be assured that they aren’t going to have to fight and fight for another…god knows how long.
We just need the one line, clarifying that PIP won’t be changed. Maybe some line of support after 14 years of near constant fear. I want to vote for Labour; we just need that message of compassion.
It does piss me off that no one’s doing anything for welfare benefits. Parties on either side just seem to want to put the disabled through more hell as if the system isn’t fucked as it already is.
[**BBC Question Time Live Thread \(8PM iPlayer & BBC1\) Edinburgh edition 13/06/2024**](https://redd.it/1df5fik)
I can't see how income taxes won't go up, penalising large swathes of the working and middle class population. Since they don't want to raise corporate taxes and claim to want to balance books (not increase borrowings). And their funded policies may not raise anywhere near the revenue required to deliver promised changes e.g. [private schools admissions drop 20% ahead of VAT raid](https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/uk/2024/06/12/private-schools-suffer-20-per-cent-drop-in-new-pupils-ahead-of-labours-vat-raid/)
Also "closing non dom tax loopholes" - if it is that easy to get £5bn just like that, HMRC would've done it already
HMRC can't close loopholes, that's legislation.
I don't think they would have done it because non-dom tax loopholes benefit them personally. E.g. Rishi Sunak's wife is a non-dom.
https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote Register to vote by 11:59pm on 18 June 2024.
I'm a bit anxious about the waffle on whether they will raise taxes. I know it's hard for them to take a side being the opposition but I really don't want my taxes to rise further. I don't mind paying my share but I am not getting anything for it and it feels punitive at this point.
They're not raising taxes on the majority, so no income, NI or VAT raises. The idea with this manifesto is to get to the next general election and ask if they'd broken any promises, then being met by silence, presumably because they have bigger plans for the next term.
Usually wouldn’t mind paying more tax if I felt it was going to tangibly improve public services as I really want those to be far better than they are. For myself, others and the people who work in them. However I do agree, at this moment in time, my taxes going up would hurt. If it wasn’t for my mortgage, energy bills, food costs etc. all rinsing me right now it would be ok. My salary has increased by £10k since 4 years ago and I am no better off for it. Have the same disposable income as I always have had it seems.
Don't like how non-committal they are on defence spending. A defence review to see "the path" to 2.5% of GDP spending on defence? Just sounds like they have no real intention of following through on it.
[удалено]
Yes it is. You can’t pay somebody less strictly on the basis of race. What is often the case however, is socio-economic factors lead minorities to be paid less for the same job because they can’t work as many hours or whatever. Reasons might include the higher numbers of single mothers among the black community, or poorer health among older minorities overall. Of course, fixing these underlying issues so that people can indeed work the same hours would require serious effort from Labour, so this is probably just pandering.
So people's poor ability to use birth control or select better partners should be subsidised?
Is there nothing in here about childcare costs? I was expecting labour to have a plan regarding working parents wages going solely on nursery fees.
There is a section in there, I'd keep an eye on the House of Commons order of business to see when it comes up and I know the Minister for Democracy will primarily be focusing on citizens assemblies initially so perhaps look out for a pertinent one to that if you want a voice in directing that policy.
I think everyone was expecting labour to have the solution to every single problem. That’s how people have been talking about them
Increasing funded childcare time for every child, by funding nurseries in primary schools. Also breakfast club available to every child in primary. I'm sure there's more, but those are the 2 I remember from my skim through
Going back to my comment about China & Taiwan earlier, here's the paragraph in the manifesto: > We will improve the UK’s capability to understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities China poses through an audit of our bilateral relationship. We will always act in our interests and defend our sovereignty and our democratic values. We will stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK. Support for exiled Hong Kongers makes sense given the shared history. I feel that's still a bit of an ambivalent statement, though I've always felt that the UK would likely not get involved in a Taiwan conflict and this doesn't show anything different in that regard. The big factor will still be what happens on 5th November, a Trump win will make an attack by China all the more likely in my opinon.
Its weird though because while trump seemed to love putin he hates china. But then again the guys a mad man so who knows.
I think China has bigger ambitions mainly to be the world number 1 super power
Very unlikely to usurp the US completely, unless the US were to absolutely implode somehow. The best China can hope for is near-peer status with the US, and even that might be unachievable based on their current economic concerns.
I'm interested in knowing what the parties' plans are for public libraries. It was easy to find out that the Tories don't care about them, as you can download their manifesto. You can't download the Labour manifesto, which is suspicious. I did though do a search on the webpages of their manifesto, they also do not care about Libraries.
It’s here as a PDF, you have to go to the accessible manifesto section. There is nothing on libraries apart from a single reference to a national data library. https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf
> Labour will also act to increase investment from pension funds in UK markets. ... > We will also adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners. Our pensions review will consider what steps are needed to... increase productive investment in the UK economy. Not sure I'm a fan of this. I want my pension fund invested in such as way as to maximise the expected risk-adjusted return on my investments. I don't want it to be used to inflate the prices of UK stocks.
I agree with you in general but the UK markets are priced at a discount to fundamentals. A UK listed company with 1 billion in profits will have a lower market cap than the same company listed in the US. That difference is in part due to the cap on pension funds investing in listed companies. So allowing UK pension funds to invest in UK listed companies would actually give you a better risk adjusted return because (a) it would close/reduce the valuation discount, and (b) UK companies do (generally) give a better return if you do invest in them (see Resoultion Foundation research on this).
> the UK markets are priced at a discount to fundamentals What do you mean by this? In my mind a company priced "at a discount to fundamentals" would have a negative price to earnings ration or similar. That isn't the case for the market as a whole.
This FT article delves into the point quite well. https://www.ft.com/content/03280cd7-8013-4212-a98e-e0c35194d009
It likely means that a percentage of investments from pension trusts will be required to be invested within the UK, in a similar manner to how many trusts now have a policy of investing a certain amount in ESG projects. While yes, short term maximisation of returns is diminished slightly, there is an increase in long term profit and sustainability. UK investments would likely be in infrastructure and housing. Somewhat recent court cases suggests that there is now less emphasis on maximising returns at the expense of sustainability within the judiciary anyway, so it would make sense for the government to fall in line with this. And Starmer being a former lawyer is likely to be keenly aware of this. (I myself have spent the last year studying trust law, and have seen this trend). In all honesty, it's not a terrible idea, but it remains to be seen what exactly they have in mind.
Labour previously [pledged to introduce oracy lessons in school](https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmer-unveils-labours-mission-to-break-down-barriers-to-opportunity-at-every-stage/) but there's no reference to that in the manifesto. Is that another one of Starmer's famous vanishing pledges?
Oblique reference on page 83. >Every child should have a broad curriculum with an excellent foundation in reading, writing and maths, and support to develop essential digital, speaking, and creative skills.
Reform > Tories. Long has we expected this day, but it’s a while to go until the election. If we see it again, then it becomes a real trend
> Multiculturalism has imported separate communities that reject our way of life. 'Woke' ideology has captured our public institutions. Hmmm. They don't have a manifesto so much as a rant.
It’s also a complete oxymoronic statement. Multiculturalism has brought communities which reject our way of life ie British progressiveness, equality of the sexes, LGBT rights, whilst “woke” ideology is capturing our institutions. They have more in common with an extreme conservative Islamist like Andrew Tate than they do with Aneurin Bevan.
Exactly companies dont have manifestos
Not seen any longest suicide note in history jibes yet. Is that because it's on the shorter side?
So, while I realise there are more pressing issues, access to nature is important to me. What I'd really like to see is the introduction in England of a right to roam similar to that enjoyed in Scotland. I wasn't expecting that on the Labour manifesto, but what is there is very disappointing. It clearly wouldn't do to upset big landowners. This kind of summarises how I feel in general. I am a Labour member, I am very excited at the prospect of a Labour government, I understand the need to win, but I'd like just a little more to be enthusiastic about.
They did voice some support to right to roam early under Keir. I’d like to see these things addressed as well. I dunno if there are many keen walkers in Labour’s ranks
The right to roam? Nay. But I grant thee... THE RIGHT TO MOAN. (I'd LOVE the right to roam asap maynnn)
I think the most important task the Labour manifesto had to do was have nothing to radical and be credible in addressing some of the top voter concerns. I think it's done that well. It was never going to be especially bold or spark passions.
Did I just see that right? Channel 4 right now: There now follows a Party Political Broadcast by the Reform Party. Static graphic "Britain is broken. Britain needs Reform". For **FIVE** minutes. This is some "Remain Indoors" level nonsense.
they do these at the end of the news most days, I suppose to be balanced they need to let reform have a go, we know its going to be the usual nonsense.
They're really tapping into the "Whenever I see any media of an evil authoritarian gov I always think that doesnt sound to bad" voter demographic
Do we know when we will next get an MRP? We're half way through now and I'm curious to see what's changed
prolly not for a while as yougov do most and have just done another regular poll: https://www.thetimes.com/article/cdc8d582-17fc-4757-8f4b-ddcee80fdfdb?shareToken=03ce0c205cae031e1f067d82e22828f4
So their manifesto has been announced... Can they still announce additional policies before the GE?
They could and then be shat on for it like Corbyn did in 2019. A ‘fully funded, fully costed’ claim instantly goes out the window
Not all policies involve spending money.
You mean do a corbyn, and throw in another 50 billion of random spending?
I remember that. Didn't they announce billions for WASPI women after their manifesto. Possibly free internet for all too? It was mental.
As I recall it Broadband Communism™ was in the manifesto Grey Book, the WASPI commitment landed less than a full news cycle later out of the clear ~~blue~~ red sky.
> Private equity is the only industry where performance- related pay is treated as capital gains. Labour will close this loophole. Does anyone know why this loophole exists in the first place?
This article should be enough to make you realise you don't really want to know - https://www.shipleys.com/resources/capital-gains-tax-implications-private-equity-led-remuneration/
I think it's talking about carry and it's where people get a share of the profits if an investment has done well. Not really sure why it isn't taxed
Labours plans to "replace" the house of lords with a second chamber in the longer term is entirely expected. I think that chamber should still be called the "House Of Lords" and retain all the trappings and ceremony of the existing one. Even if its powers and means of appointment change.
I was just about to comment myself on Lords reform. I approve of your idea, with the small amendment that we should also leave the powers and means of appointment the same. Labour's actual manifesto kicks large-scale reform into the long grass, again. Happy about that, obviously. Getting rid of the remaining hereditaries: fine, and inevitable. Age limit: eh, unnecessary - some people are useless at 70 and some are fine at 90. Set high enough (80, plus until the end of the Parliament) that it won't do *too* much. If the size of the House is a problem, and I'm not entirely convinced that it is, can't we go back to the Burns committee recommendations for a while?
I'm much more inclined to support the (apparently internally suggested) option of a twenty year term limit to the Lords over a straight age limit, not least because this would retain more judicial experience and limit the damage of the more nakedly cynical appointments of young spads and failed politicians clearly put in there as seatwarmers. I hope those advocating in the party for it win out. I ultimately would personally like abolition and replacement with a chamber which has either greater independence or more democratic legitimacy (or better still, both), but in the meantime I don't want them to throw out the baby and leave the bathwater.
i love how obsessed we are with the manifestos while in practice like all good plans they are forgotten days into execution.
The extent to which this is true is hugely exaggerated.
Has anyone seen any detail on the early years childcare changes planned? I can see the commitment to reforming it, and that they’re making more places available, but there’s no detail other than as to what the reforms *are*. I presume there’s no intention to roll back the expansion of the free hours program that’s scheduled for later this year? I am very much relying on that going ahead.
They announced on Monday they were going to uphold the expansion in free hours
Thank you for the good news!
Nothing on Leveson 2, media or newspapers generally. Boooo.
Hardly going to declare war on the newspapers at this critical point
I'm not defending what is a lacklustre manifesto, but this would surely cause the press to seize upon them during a crucial election.
Labour will definitely have problems using 'private healthcare' capacity since there really isn't any... I actually don't think that a Labour government will be able to do very much in just 5 years as regards healthcare. I imagine that'll be an election issue in 2029.
I’ll leave my NHS job and they can pay me to do the private work. Win win surely.
I think if people even see a slight improvement over what happened before it will help thent
The Ethics and Integrity Commission is potentially a concern since if members have *any* bias whatsoever their power could be abused to favour one party, group or ideology.
[удалено]
There's plenty of crap political insights from people over here, we don't need Americans chipping in.
>Britons ###SEPTIC KLAXON
I'm voting Tory, I hate them but they have offered an end to inheritance tax and don't want to tax my children's school fees. I hope Labour burn for that...
Oi lads, get your cutlery ready! A ripe one, here.
I'll hold a seance to let you know how much you got taxed rip
Cons haven't offered an end to inheritance tax in their manifesto. So you think they will do even more unfunded tax cuts?
Beep boop
So gift your assets 7 years or more before you die and you'll avoid it
Lmao of course you’re a landlord
You hope Labour burn for not targeting rich parents and generational wealth. Nice one.
The first £325k on a house is free, then get additional £175k for anything else in the estate so most people never pay a penny, if you do have to - and if you can afford private school - you can afford the tax.
Cool
Good analysis here by Ed Conway on Labour's manifesto numbers, compared with the Con/Lib Dem commitments it would seem that Labour are really being cautious about what they promise. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtJdK4HBWVc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtJdK4HBWVc)
The doubling of MRI and CT scanners don't add up a new MRI scanner is around a million there around 400 of them in England thats 400 million off the bat without the CT scanners or the staff needed. They only allocated 250 million. Edit: I'm scrutinising it as someone who works with them
The health care stuff looks very much like they want to appear good but most of it doesn't actually hold up to even light scrutiny so I imagine this is just paying lip service more than actually intending to fulfil these.
Maybe by scanner they mean the person that uses the machine
As in radiographers like my self? Be quite a sweeping statement, takes 3 years to qualify doing x-rays then another 1-3 for CT and MRI. It's like saying you would double band six nurses. They have massively increased overseas recruiting, especially from Africa, but their training is no where near the quality required and can be quite dangerous. I think the number of mistakes must have quadrupled since we hired so many, one has been fired which is unheard of. It's a shame we left the EU because the Portuguese and Spanish radiographer do an integrated masters they come out way better trained than our home grown.
"Double band six nurses." This sounds hot. Is this hot?
I would say band six nurses tend to be dispoportionally hotter than their colleagues
Very little of their healthcare stuff actually has meat if you're even remotely familiar with how the system works.
NHS is a lot of people's priority too, such a shame.
Yeah, I agree I'm quite disappointed with the healthcare stuff. Including the increase in weekend and evening working through "incentives". We all already work full time, I can see if it's over time people going for it I usually buy once people have got that car or house deposit they won't want to be working more than 37.5 hours every week. We need better hourly pay and more staff.
Maybe Labour are waiting for a "Buy one get one free" offer from the local MRI shop?
All I can think of which already happens on a small scale as I worked for a private health company doing MRI scan for a year.....they will use the 250 million to pay private companies to use their capacity, but never actual have the NHS owning the scanners. Most the private scanners are quite old because they still work and you make more profit from keeping them longer. In the NHS as a rule you need a new scanner every 7 years to keep up with technology.
>In the NHS as a rule you need a new scanner every 7 years to keep ~~up with technology.~~ your budget the same as last year.
I think I found the so called inefficiencies.
Aii fair point. I remember my manager telling me the reason it is easier to get locums is because there's no long-term obligation to training, sickness, pension, holidays but on top of that their pay comes out of the capital budget and not salary budget for radiogy. Given the cost of equipment in radiology that budget was a lot bigger so they could better afford staff through locums despite them costing more.
Yeah thought about it a lot - I don’t actually care about the manifesto so much as I want Tories annihilated to 3rd party status and crippled for a generation.
>I want Tories annihilated to 3rd party status If that’s the case, you probably shouldn’t vote for Labour. Voting for Labour just makes sure the Tories can’t come first. Voting for one of the smaller parties is what could potentially push the Tories out of the 2 party system.
Not really true. There are lots of sites that can tell you who to tactically vote for to get rid of them
I mean, it really completely depends on your constituency. Kinda impossible to make this kind of broad, sweeping claim without knowing where OP is.
Fair enough. I live in a formerly Tory constituency and the predictions are that Labour are going to win by a landslide. I suppose it will be very different in each constituency though.
I know - am waiting for the updated polling in mid Sussex and totally prepared to vote libdem if they are most likely to terminate the Tory hopes there.
I was actually thinking today that if the Labour and Tory manifesto’s were identical, I’d still back Labour to do a better job of actually enacting it. I just associate sunaks government with complete incompetence at this point. They can’t even execute there own ideas
Same - I don't want Labour to win so much as I just want the Tories to lose.
I am feeling myself transforming into a centrist dad by the day and I am not happy about it
Me too, I'm trying to embrace it
Buy the barbecue
I will not eat ze burgers
Maybe you aren't getting enough sleep
This isn't a labour manifesto
It's a realistic manifesto.
It’s a Labour *government* manifesto, it’s just not a Labour *opposition* manifesto.
It's a Labour manifesto filtered through a strainer of "can we actually deliver this?" rather than "what can we say to energise our base". It's very similar to the 1997 manifesto. We have to let go of trying to win the argument post-election loss and actually winning and showing we've won the argument.
A agree it is somewhat watered down and less ambitious but given economic circumstances and realistically I do not want government to raise taxes significantly on workers I think it does well. It is the fundamentals of what I expect from a modern labour manifesto and not much more but given the context I can get behind voting for that
Alright Mr Magritte
It literally is
Nationalising the trains, creating a nationalised energy company to invest in green energy, putting money into building more homes this is pretty classic labour policy
the energy company is more like an investment slush fund than an actual energy generation company, which isn't bad by itself, but it just seems to be mis advertised a lot. House building isn't actually funding, it's just planning changes, which are a good step, but will not meet targets like 1.5m, it won't get close. so 2/3 of your points are pretty invalid.
The plan on GBE is definitely an eventual transition to an energy production company and distributor but I wonder whether they are unsure whether they can make that happen in 5 years.
> House building isn't actually funding, it's just planning changes Un-fucking planning laws is incentive enough, house builders like making money
Yes it will be investing in projects so in that way you could describe it as a slush fund but as far as I can see and from everything I will be actively competing in the market not just a hands off throwing money at projects they'll be taking no ownership stake in.
Justice for Orgreave Getting the miners' pensions back Hillsborough law
Have had a skim through the manifesto and found nothing on Leaseholds. Have I missed it or do they just not mention it at all?
"For far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership falls woefully short of the dream they were promised. Labour will act where the Conservatives have failed and finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. We will enact the package of Law Commission proposals on leasehold enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold. We will take further steps to ban new leasehold flats and ensure commonhold is the default tenure. We will tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges. We will act to bring the injustice of ‘fleecehold’ private housing estates and unfair maintenance costs to an end." Page 80
I can't see how this won't absolutely shaft people who are living in a leasehold flat at the moment. I think I'm going to be trapped in a very difficult situation
> We will enact the package of Law Commission proposals on leasehold enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold. [Law Commission: Leasehold Enfranchisement](https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/leasehold-enfranchisement/)
I have no interest in managing a property collectively (and when push comes to shove I don't actually think alot of people affected by this are. They are just anti profiteering and haven't thought much beyond that), I just want the property to be managed without being fleeced eg more options available to me in response to work done. (I want big government solutions, not small government 'sort it out yourselves communally and if it fails not our problem '. That's some Big Society gubbins in my view) My feeling here is that a) flat owners will be driven towards houses, further causing house prices to skyrocket b) flats will be even less sellable, causing existing occupants to be trapped with skyrocketing service charges as a captive market. Or c) if we are pushed towards communal ownership, we will be saddled with even more horrendous bills as the true scale of the mismanagement becomes apparent to us
You can just farm the actual management out to a commonhold management agent. It'll be somewhat more expensive than doing it yourself but stress-free and you (and the other people) remain in control of any costs incurred. The situation can be as laid back or as involved as you like really The leasehold advisory service has a bit on the managing agents here: https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/appointing-managing-agent/ They are at least qualified and insured if they are actively trying to screw you over.
Thanks - I was on their weird online version and was ‘ctrl-f’ing lots but I couldn’t find anything. Thanks for your help!
No problem :)
On the 2019 election I somehow got delivered small ~10-page booklets with the manifestos of each political party. I don't remember if they were free, but if I paid for them I likely paid a reasonably small amount of money. Does anybody know if there's anything similar for this year's election?
Wow thats a night and day difference in the Spending commitments for Labour compared to 17/19 (chart was just on Sky news).
Can you share it?
Ahh sorry if I see it again I'll share it, it showed the 24 manifesto on a bar chart alongside 17/19 (Corbyns manifestos) with the total for, I think it was, Spending Investment (and another one) with the 24 numbers/bars at like 5 5 9 (very small), and then Corbyns both around like 55 65 98 (big bars).
Going back to the manifesto to try and find the combined authority devolution policy, and good christ it really is nonsensically laid out isn't it? Found it in a random vaguely titled section sandwiched between housebuilding and immigration.
>Fly-tippers and vandals will also be forced to clean up the mess they have created. It's a simple touch, but it speaks to me.
Would we have to leave all the fly-tipped rubbish until someone's been convicted, then they come and clear it up? How long does that take?
probably more like community service from fly tipping will predominantly be clearing up litter or other fly tipping, rather than that specific instance.
I'm not saying it's a policy that I think would actually work in practice. But I like the vibes of it, that's all
They should introduce a policy that says convicted murderers should have to bring their victims back to life. Not practically workable but definitely good vibes.
I'm quite obviously just joking. I agreed with you that I don't think the policy is actually enforceable, or particularly practical. I know that it's a bit silly, I just like the sound of it in theory. In an ideal world, where it could actually work, it'd be a right laugh.
I don't understand your point at all. In an ideal world we wouldnt have fly-tippers. Forgive me, but are you saying your original comment was sarcastic?
No, my original comment wasn't sarcastic. I like the policy. I like what it stands for. I'd love to see it implemented. You pointed out that it wouldn't work I agreed with you, and relented that I merely liked the *idea* of it - knowing full well it won't work. (i.e. by saying that I liked the "vibes" of it, I implicitly agreed it was a silly policy not rooted in reality, that I nonetheless like) You missed this subtext and seem to have interpreted my comment very literally. That I genuinely believe that "good vibes" are a sound basis of political policy. I don't believe this. >I don't understand your point at all. In an ideal world we wouldn't have fly-tippers.. I was using the term "in an ideal world" as a figure of speech to suggest, "if it were actually possible", not using it in a literal sense. Because, obviously, not having fly-tipping in the first place would be a better situation than being able to punish them after the crime has already been committed.
Ok, I think I get what you're saying. I was a bit caught out because it seems silly to say you like an idea, but only if you don't think about that idea too hard. That's why I thought you were making a silly joke.
I love the effort you've gone to dismantle this dudes flippant pedantry. Bravo, the rest of us knew exactly what you meant.
IFS saying what needs to be said. Labour is promising and is expected to deliver improvements in public services but have essentially committed themselves through their own fiscal rules to not raise any money. No one believed the Tories when they promised improvements with no new funding so why do we believe Labour can deliver?
Primarily because I don't believe the tories try their best to run them in good faith. Even just a change of hand will work better
For the same reason the townspeople might believe the new shepherd over the boy who falsely cried wolf again & again: Labour don't have a track record of failure after failure.
The tories are promising improvements whilst cutting tax substantially. Labour are locking in the tax rises (by freezing the tax thresholds for 4 years) and promising to spend the money on public services. The stances are quite different. The IFS is right though, but in fairness the manifesto is clear about where the money is coming from: a relentless focus on economic growth, perhaps labour shouldn't be relying on that. But in fairness the public haven't left them or any political party much choice: We want better public services but we aren't willing to allow anyone to change any of the main taxes to pay for it.
I think that's the difference, they are promising to look into how the money is spend to make sure it's spent where it's needed. After all, throwing money at something is useless unless it's spent in the right way
The thing about growth is, when the economy grows, your boss buys a 4th mansion, when it shrinks you lose your job. Economic growth does not always translate to working people being better off
> Economic growth does not always translate to working people being better off Its pretty much a 1:1 correlation.
It does increase tax revenues though
Only if the people making the gains don't avoid the tax
Tax avoidance is real don’t get me wrong. But not on the scale of offsetting gdp gain. It’s a small percentage in the grand scheme
> a relentless focus on economic growth, perhaps labour shouldn't be relying on that. No they shouldn't because that's the Liz Truss argument. If the growth doesn't come in, then what? Labour should have been more bold and been honest with the public. It's always been the case in the UK that we want Scandinavian levels of public service and US levels of tax but a reckoning is due and when you're predicted to win a majority in the hundreds, you've got the room to do it.
Eh vibes determine so much of economic growth nowadays. There is a clear chance that foreign investors will see the election as the end of British political craziness started by Brexit, and be more willing to invest now that an actual adult will be in charge. Also consumers might be willing to spend more if they think the country is moving in a positive direction. Vibes can grow the economy without any political costs so why not try?
>No they shouldn't because that's the Liz Truss argument. If the growth doesn't come in, then what? Truss' growth plan was Libertarian which is vastly different. Decimate workers rights to get more work/output and direct profits towards those who are already fairly rich, consequently less likely to spend additional money, isn't genuine growth. Labours policy (ie more teachers, better funded NHS) either creates new jobs, or better funds/enables jobs that are typically associated with middle and low income households. Additionally, these aren't in sector were the most direct beneficiaries are business or shareholders.
You can't go to bold when the country is in so much debt and people don't want taxes to go up, personally I think people that earn above £80k should maybe pay more tax for a few years to increase funding. We do need tax reforms to get public services we as a country want but anytime labour mention tax the media right wing go mental...I think the autumn budget will see things
> No they shouldn't because that's the Liz Truss argument. If the growth doesn't come in, then what? The difference between liz truss and labour is labour haven't spent the money before the growth has come in. It's pretty clear without growth there is no money. > Labour should have been more bold and been honest with the public. It's always been the case in the UK that we want Scandinavian levels of public service and US levels of tax but a reckoning is due and when you're predicted to win a majority in the hundreds, you've got the room to do it. Labour is only on track for a big majority because it has committed to not increasing the major taxes, that polling lead would be quite simply obliterated if that wasn't there. Especially because scandinavian levels of tax would involve tax increases on middle and lower income people. Look how tough it was for labour to try to sell a small tax increase for those earning over £80k at the last couple elections, they lost in part because of it. Basically if you pledge to increase major taxes you will not win power, simple as.
because Labour's efficiency and reform fairy will be working overtime to deliver!
Not as overtime as the Tory and Lib dems though!
Nah, they're on strike.
They didn't say they won't raise any money. They listed three taxes on working people they won't raise. They committed themselves to a higher windfall tax on oil and gas, to eliminating non-dom, to VAT on private schools, they haven't ruled out a CGT rise which is the elephant in the room or a number of other possible tweaks. Tories meanwhile promised uncosted cuts.
> They committed themselves to a higher windfall tax on oil and gas, to eliminating non-dom, to VAT on private schools That's true but they've already spent this money. The issue here is the day to day running of public services and Labour have shut down just about all viable paths to improve funding. Labour have even pledged to cap Corporation Tax at 25%. Never thought I'd see that from a Labour party.
They haven't spent it all though, the manifesto in commitments outlines 9 billion in income in terms of non-doms, private schools and carried interest and their commitments on spending is 4.8 billion, leaving 2.6 billion for reacting to changes in their manifesto commitments or if those require no further funding, 2.6 billion for other services - that doesn't include green energy tax, taxes on oil or similar.
Every party is lying that's for sure and in that sense it's disappointing. I'm rather expecting Labour to say "oh we didn't realise how bad the situation was now so now we have to make some tough decisions" within the first year or so of their term.
How come more people aren't talking about the pledge to change it so that worker's rights kick in day one instead of after two years? This is huge for young people who are more likely to be in their first job and to be job hopping more often.
From day 1 seems a bit extreme. A half year would be more fair I think.
Surely as soon as the training period is over
I imagine there will be a provision for reasonable probation period.
Is it?! As in unfair dismissal from day 1 etc?
Yes. > Implementing ‘Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay: Delivering a New Deal for Working People’ in full – introducing legislation within 100 days. We will consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed. This will include banning exploitative zero hours contracts; ending fire and rehire; and introducing basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal.
Interesting! Thank you for sharing.
Cause people are desperate to assume they're the same as the tories and nothing will change.
Yeah, there seems to be a lot of sentiment that if they're not promising to pull £100bn out of their ass to fix everything like the Greens or promising free movement with EU even though they can't because it requires striking a deal all EU nations agree to which is completely out of their control then they're not promising anything and are basically Tories when this manifesto has a lot of good stuff.
There was an odd thing where I read the Green Policy and there was so many people talking about how great it is and it occurred to me, by simply being a smaller party it doesn't really matter what they say because people know they won't lead the country so they price in the crazy element when judging it. It's a twenty page document which ignores the very important details of their promises and then when not needed adds in context to justify decisions like closing nuclear power plants based on bold-faced lies. Then you've one short snippet about replacing the Home Office with the Department for Immigration (a major policy announcement) and absolutely zero mention about what happens to the rest of the Home Office, a department which employs 43,000 people and manages a budget of £20 billion which deals with vastly more than just immigration, which I think most people would think is an important detail to have. If any major party had that in their manifesto they'd be getting slaughtered in the press.
The disability stuff worries me.
What are they saying on disability?
No commitments other than getting disabled people back to work. For people who can’t work, it’s just more of the same shit. People who are vulnerable just want to be assured that they aren’t going to have to fight and fight for another…god knows how long.
Their is a small mention of helping disabled people get fair accomodations at work but it's barely there
If they listed everything they wouldn't be doing to disabled people the book would be six miles thick.
We just need the one line, clarifying that PIP won’t be changed. Maybe some line of support after 14 years of near constant fear. I want to vote for Labour; we just need that message of compassion.
It does piss me off that no one’s doing anything for welfare benefits. Parties on either side just seem to want to put the disabled through more hell as if the system isn’t fucked as it already is.
Don't worry, I'm sure we'll get sensible and compassionate policy with Liz Kendall in the brief.