The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

I see the Lib Dems did well in Bolton in the council elections, not. Independents almost hold double the number of seats they got.

Who holds the most seats?

[Worthy4England]

Overall it looks "sorta interesting." - Whilst clearly not a good night for the Tories, and some pretty decent wins for Labour, in terms of seats and councils - Labour only gaining 50% of the overall seats won by Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Other. A lot going to Lib Dem and Green which in part I suspect is down to Labour's stupid, unintelligent and dumb approach to putting random bricks and mortar everywhere, like it might solve the housing problem....

[TANGODANCER]

Labour's stupid, unintelligent and dumb approach to putting random bricks and mortar everywhere, like it might solve the housing problem....

Aye, well it solves the problem of what to do with council contracts to the "More for Me" developers. soon, we might have enough to get the Trinity Street clock repaired

[BWFC_Insane]

Overall it looks "sorta interesting." - Whilst clearly not a good night for the Tories, and some pretty decent wins for Labour, in terms of seats and councils - Labour only gaining 50% of the overall seats won by Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Other. A lot going to Lib Dem and Green which in part I suspect is down to Labour's stupid, unintelligent and dumb approach to putting random bricks and mortar everywhere, like it might solve the housing problem....

Lot of tactical voting. Disastrous for Tories. Superb for everyone else!

[Worthy4England]

Overall it looks "sorta interesting." - Whilst clearly not a good night for the Tories, and some pretty decent wins for Labour, in terms of seats and councils - Labour only gaining 50% of the overall seats won by Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Other. A lot going to Lib Dem and Green which in part I suspect is down to Labour's stupid, unintelligent and dumb approach to putting random bricks and mortar everywhere, like it might solve the housing problem....

Lot of tactical voting. Disastrous for Tories. Superb for everyone else!

Agree mate.

Council elections hold the wonderment of protest vote. We got a "fcuk off with your 1100, £320k houses candidate, independent" vote in a Labour stronghold. He can't do much against a dick head majority, but I think most are bored of no change, but there's a lot of "system's broke but you might marginally shaft us less than the other lot."

Just some fcker change the fcking system. So it works for people, not corporates. Which is sorta great, until you factor in to win the vote, Starmer has to be better than the status quo. "We have no money." Yeah that coz you're giving to huge corporations. fecked. Up hill, down Dale.

/rant off

[BWFC_Insane]

Overall it looks "sorta interesting." - Whilst clearly not a good night for the Tories, and some pretty decent wins for Labour, in terms of seats and councils - Labour only gaining 50% of the overall seats won by Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Other. A lot going to Lib Dem and Green which in part I suspect is down to Labour's stupid, unintelligent and dumb approach to putting random bricks and mortar everywhere, like it might solve the housing problem....

Lot of tactical voting. Disastrous for Tories. Superb for everyone else!

Agree mate.

Council elections hold the wonderment of protest vote. We got a "fcuk off with your 1100, £320k houses candidate, independent" vote in a Labour stronghold. He can't do much against a dick head majority, but I think most are bored of no change, but there's a lot of "system's broke but you might marginally shaft us less than the other lot."

Just some fcker change the fcking system. So it works for people, not corporates. Which is sorta great, until you factor in to win the vote, Starmer has to be better than the status quo. "We have no money." Yeah that coz you're giving to huge corporations. fecked. Up hill, down Dale.

/rant off

Starmer has probably from the ashes of Labour built a possible Labour winning voter coalition looking at the results today. Winning in Brexit areas and winning in places way down their target list in a GE.

But he’s done it in the Biden way, say nothing much and just make the other lot seem so unattractive you are the default.

I sort of get it. It’s a miracle from where they were. But it’s dangerous - Tory dislike is strong right now - in a year it could be different.

[Hoboh]

I see the Lib Dems did well in Bolton in the council elections, not. Independents almost hold double the number of seats they got.

Who holds the most seats?

Not interested in labour mate, they are still well down in Bolton from where they used to be, so hardly that popular.

[Worthy4England]

Overall it looks "sorta interesting." - Whilst clearly not a good night for the Tories, and some pretty decent wins for Labour, in terms of seats and councils - Labour only gaining 50% of the overall seats won by Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Other. A lot going to Lib Dem and Green which in part I suspect is down to Labour's stupid, unintelligent and dumb approach to putting random bricks and mortar everywhere, like it might solve the housing problem....

Lot of tactical voting. Disastrous for Tories. Superb for everyone else!

Agree mate.

Council elections hold the wonderment of protest vote. We got a "fcuk off with your 1100, £320k houses candidate, independent" vote in a Labour stronghold. He can't do much against a dick head majority, but I think most are bored of no change, but there's a lot of "system's broke but you might marginally shaft us less than the other lot."

Just some fcker change the fcking system. So it works for people, not corporates. Which is sorta great, until you factor in to win the vote, Starmer has to be better than the status quo. "We have no money." Yeah that coz you're giving to huge corporations. fecked. Up hill, down Dale.

/rant off

Starmer has probably from the ashes of Labour built a possible Labour winning voter coalition looking at the results today. Winning in Brexit areas and winning in places way down their target list in a GE.

But he’s done it in the Biden way, say nothing much and just make the other lot seem so unattractive you are the default.

I sort of get it. It’s a miracle from where they were. But it’s dangerous - Tory dislike is strong right now - in a year it could be different.

Would that be the ashes of Corbyn/Rebecca Long Bailey etc?

I'm probably a fair bit nearer Hobes than "I could be slightly less worse than that lot." There's sn open goal. It would struggle to get much worse than this. When you hear "there's no money" and BP and Shell declare 72 billion in profit, it shouldn't take Inspector Morse to work out where the Stash has gone. Labour's approach? Let's hit the easy targets for more dough.

One thing Hobes and I (probably) agree on, although I'm not quite sure Hobes as got there yet , is the thing that's fcuked is not governments, it's the version of capitalism/trickle down (ha ha) economics we're tied to. The gap between haves and nots is ever widening and it's going to get worse when AI's replace zero hours contract "inconvenient" costs...

There needs to be a new deal between people and state...

[BWFC_Insane]

Overall it looks "sorta interesting." - Whilst clearly not a good night for the Tories, and some pretty decent wins for Labour, in terms of seats and councils - Labour only gaining 50% of the overall seats won by Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Other. A lot going to Lib Dem and Green which in part I suspect is down to Labour's stupid, unintelligent and dumb approach to putting random bricks and mortar everywhere, like it might solve the housing problem....

Lot of tactical voting. Disastrous for Tories. Superb for everyone else!

Agree mate.

Council elections hold the wonderment of protest vote. We got a "fcuk off with your 1100, £320k houses candidate, independent" vote in a Labour stronghold. He can't do much against a dick head majority, but I think most are bored of no change, but there's a lot of "system's broke but you might marginally shaft us less than the other lot."

Just some fcker change the fcking system. So it works for people, not corporates. Which is sorta great, until you factor in to win the vote, Starmer has to be better than the status quo. "We have no money." Yeah that coz you're giving to huge corporations. fecked. Up hill, down Dale.

/rant off

Starmer has probably from the ashes of Labour built a possible Labour winning voter coalition looking at the results today. Winning in Brexit areas and winning in places way down their target list in a GE.

But he’s done it in the Biden way, say nothing much and just make the other lot seem so unattractive you are the default.

I sort of get it. It’s a miracle from where they were. But it’s dangerous - Tory dislike is strong right now - in a year it could be different.

Would that be the ashes of Corbyn/Rebecca Long Bailey etc?

I'm probably a fair bit nearer Hobes than "I could be slightly less worse than that lot." There's sn open goal. It would struggle to get much worse than this. When you hear "there's no money" and BP and Shell declare 72 billion in profit, it shouldn't take Inspector Morse to work out where the Stash has gone. Labour's approach? Let's hit the easy targets for more dough.

One thing Hobes and I (probably) agree on, although I'm not quite sure Hobes as got there yet , is the thing that's fcuked is not governments, it's the version of capitalism/trickle down (ha ha) economics we're tied to. The gap between haves and nots is ever widening and it's going to get worse when AI's replace zero hours contract "inconvenient" costs...

There needs to be a new deal between people and state...

I don’t disagree I just haven’t seen anyone actually define what that is in a way that doesn’t have the electorate scrambling to vote for the status quo.

There may be an appetite for change but there is also a lot of ‘good god no not THAT change’.

[Worthy4England]

TBF mate, they didn't define what Brexit was. Didn't stop a lemmings parade heading for the sunlit uplands and voting to be worse off...

That said, I agree it's a huge problem and moving our economic model unilaterally wouldn't work too well...I mean AI's have probably only been making any inroads in fairly limited ways (in the scheme of things) over the last 5 years or so, mainly in tech and contact centres. But it's accelerating, so the status quo model will become more difficult to sustain too.

[BWFC_Insane]

TBF mate, they didn't define what Brexit was. Didn't stop a lemmings parade heading for the sunlit uplands and voting to be worse off...

That said, I agree it's a huge problem and moving our economic model unilaterally wouldn't work too well...I mean AI's have probably only been making any inroads in fairly limited ways (in the scheme of things) over the last 5 years or so, mainly in tech and contact centres. But it's accelerating, so the status quo model will become more difficult to sustain too.

Indeed. AI and climate change are going to massively redefine our lives. All the while we’ve got politicians pretending that won’t happen.

I’ve read a lot of stuff about new economic renewal and how it can work with real will and genuine partnership models. The issue is that these work at a micro or local level but they are screwed once you have multinational shareholders in the picture.

[TANGODANCER]

Just some fcker change the fcking system. So it works for people, not corporates. Which is sorta great, until you factor in to win the vote, Starmer has to be better than the status quo. "We have no money." Yeah that coz you're giving to huge corporations. fecked. Up hill, down Dale.

Cutting to the chase, thereby hangs the Ocham's Razor mandate, which is lovely in principal, but as far from reality as "happily ever after" tales. Answers, I have none, but the problems don't need an undergraduate to see them. Turn the T.V on right now and see the "Have's" on parade. Equality, will never happen, but common sense and moderation is an achievable goal. How to achieve it it, well, ....it will take massive change for a start, and even that is a pipe dream right now.

Tradition doesn't have to have/need gold cloaks or half-a-dozen glittering coaches or own half the land in the country. We could start there....

[BWFC_Insane]

Just some fcker change the fcking system. So it works for people, not corporates. Which is sorta great, until you factor in to win the vote, Starmer has to be better than the status quo. "We have no money." Yeah that coz you're giving to huge corporations. fecked. Up hill, down Dale.

Cutting to the chase, thereby hangs the Ocham's Razor mandate, which is lovely in principal, but as far from reality as "happily ever after" tales. Answers, I have none, but the problems don't need an undergraduate to see them. Turn the T.V on right now and see the "Have's" on parade. Equality, will never happen, but common sense and moderation is an achievable goal. How to achieve it it, well, ....it will take massive change for a start, and even that is a pipe dream right now.

Tradition doesn't have to have/need gold cloaks or half-a-dozen glittering coaches or own half the land in the country. We could start there....

It was worthy who said that not me but I do find it gross that we are watching a spectacle for one of the richest families in the country that we as taxpayers are paying for whilst people up and down the country can’t afford to feed themselves.

I suppose the problem is too many just lap this stuff up.

[Worthy4England]

Just some fcker change the fcking system. So it works for people, not corporates. Which is sorta great, until you factor in to win the vote, Starmer has to be better than the status quo. "We have no money." Yeah that coz you're giving to huge corporations. fecked. Up hill, down Dale.

Cutting to the chase, thereby hangs the Ocham's Razor mandate, which is lovely in principal, but as far from reality as "happily ever after" tales. Answers, I have none, but the problems don't need an undergraduate to see them. Turn the T.V on right now and see the "Have's" on parade. Equality, will never happen, but common sense and moderation is an achievable goal. How to achieve it it, well, ....it will take massive change for a start, and even that is a pipe dream right now.

Tradition doesn't have to have/need gold cloaks or half-a-dozen glittering coaches or own half the land in the country. We could start there....

I'm not really sure "equality" should be the goal. Not everyone is Bezos, Gates etc. But we all own the financial systems that allow their Corporations to pay relatively minor amounts of tax legitimately. They invest billions in understanding every penny we earn, own and spend, whilst hiding all their wealth in offshore and assets.

For me Labour goes after relatively easy targets with their taxation plans which just marginally move deckchairs around the Titanic. If people are genuinely looking for the wealth, it shouldn't be in places where they have the easy targets - that doesn't and won't solve the problem. I await the "number" from next year's manifesto where they proudly profess they're looking to tax more heavily people earning 70k/100k or whatever (or numbers above that). The trite shit they'll roll out about going after assets - most only have one main asset, their house and pensions.

The real wealth isn't there. There's some comparative wealth. The real wealth is with the very top 1% and corporations. And as ever they'll announce fck all in that space.

[BWFC_Insane]

Just some fcker change the fcking system. So it works for people, not corporates. Which is sorta great, until you factor in to win the vote, Starmer has to be better than the status quo. "We have no money." Yeah that coz you're giving to huge corporations. fecked. Up hill, down Dale.

Cutting to the chase, thereby hangs the Ocham's Razor mandate, which is lovely in principal, but as far from reality as "happily ever after" tales. Answers, I have none, but the problems don't need an undergraduate to see them. Turn the T.V on right now and see the "Have's" on parade. Equality, will never happen, but common sense and moderation is an achievable goal. How to achieve it it, well, ....it will take massive change for a start, and even that is a pipe dream right now.

Tradition doesn't have to have/need gold cloaks or half-a-dozen glittering coaches or own half the land in the country. We could start there....

I'm not really sure "equality" should be the goal. Not everyone is Bezos, Gates etc. But we all own the financial systems that allow their Corporations to pay relatively minor amounts of tax legitimately. They invest billions in understanding every penny we earn, own and spend, whilst hiding all their wealth in offshore and assets.

For me Labour goes after relatively easy targets with their taxation plans which just marginally move deckchairs around the Titanic. If people are genuinely looking for the wealth, it shouldn't be in places where they have the easy targets - that doesn't and won't solve the problem. I await the "number" from next year's manifesto where they proudly profess they're looking to tax more heavily people earning 70k/100k or whatever (or numbers above that). The trite shit they'll roll out about going after assets - most only have one main asset, their house and pensions.

The real wealth isn't there. There's some comparative wealth. The real wealth is with the very top 1% and corporations. And as ever they'll announce fck all in that space.

Agree with this. Though I don’t think this Labour will chase higher tax for those brackets you mention. That was more Corbynism.

And they are at least going after the energy companies bloated profits.

As you say though it’s that 1% of wealth that also contributes basically nothing to our economy. Nobody has an idea how to tackle that. And most of the ideas that exist would disproportionately hit the elderly and normal folks whose houses have just happened to have risen in value. And miss the people we actually need to capture.

[Worthy4England]

You can make specific rules for specific groups of people...we do that already. People under the tax allowance pay nowt as an example. It doesn't need catch all rules.

I'm fine with folks owning an asset (house). The thing they need to change are tax approaches around people with multiple assets/offshore trusts owning assets etc. This is where plenty of house inflation is coming from. Foreign "investment." If that impacts anyone, it's likely to be because they had it hidden anyhow, so not much sympathy on that front..we allow significant leeway for money we're pretty sure is in a laundermat, yet Freda goes £2 over her credit limit because she needed heat in the house and they start sending letters or force entry to install a prepay. Whilst the corporates chasing poor Freda declare record profits..

[BWFC_Insane]

You can make specific rules for specific groups of people...we do that already. People under the tax allowance pay nowt as an example. It doesn't need catch all rules.

I'm fine with folks owning an asset (house). The thing they need to change are tax approaches around people with multiple assets/offshore trusts owning assets etc. This is where plenty of house inflation is coming from. Foreign "investment." If that impacts anyone, it's likely to be because they had it hidden anyhow, so not much sympathy on that front..we allow significant leeway for money we're pretty sure is in a laundermat, yet Freda goes £2 over her credit limit because she needed heat in the house and they start sending letters or force entry to install a prepay. Whilst the corporates chasing poor Freda declare record profits..

But that sort of wealth you are talking about is hard to hit because you first need to define it in some way then calculate who it applies to then work out how you tax it. People in the bracket you describe often have assets tied into property and offshore investments as you say. But they also have the ability to move it as necessary.

It’s complex. If you define it by the individual then it fails due to use of trusts and businesses and whatever……

[Worthy4England]

You can make specific rules for specific groups of people...we do that already. People under the tax allowance pay nowt as an example. It doesn't need catch all rules.

I'm fine with folks owning an asset (house). The thing they need to change are tax approaches around people with multiple assets/offshore trusts owning assets etc. This is where plenty of house inflation is coming from. Foreign "investment." If that impacts anyone, it's likely to be because they had it hidden anyhow, so not much sympathy on that front..we allow significant leeway for money we're pretty sure is in a laundermat, yet Freda goes £2 over her credit limit because she needed heat in the house and they start sending letters or force entry to install a prepay. Whilst the corporates chasing poor Freda declare record profits..

But that sort of wealth you are talking about is hard to hit because you first need to define it in some way then calculate who it applies to then work out how you tax it. People in the bracket you describe often have assets tied into property and offshore investments as you say. But they also have the ability to move it as necessary.

It’s complex. If you define it by the individual then it fails due to use of trusts and businesses and whatever……

I know it is difficult. The answer can't just be "too hard" whilst they take more out of the same easy pots...

[BWFC_Insane]

You can make specific rules for specific groups of people...we do that already. People under the tax allowance pay nowt as an example. It doesn't need catch all rules.

I'm fine with folks owning an asset (house). The thing they need to change are tax approaches around people with multiple assets/offshore trusts owning assets etc. This is where plenty of house inflation is coming from. Foreign "investment." If that impacts anyone, it's likely to be because they had it hidden anyhow, so not much sympathy on that front..we allow significant leeway for money we're pretty sure is in a laundermat, yet Freda goes £2 over her credit limit because she needed heat in the house and they start sending letters or force entry to install a prepay. Whilst the corporates chasing poor Freda declare record profits..

But that sort of wealth you are talking about is hard to hit because you first need to define it in some way then calculate who it applies to then work out how you tax it. People in the bracket you describe often have assets tied into property and offshore investments as you say. But they also have the ability to move it as necessary.

It’s complex. If you define it by the individual then it fails due to use of trusts and businesses and whatever……

I know it is difficult. The answer can't just be "too hard" whilst they take more out of the same easy pots...

I think we are in agreement. What I will say generally is nothing will ever happen whilst we have the party in power who are basically in part the holders of this sort of wealth.

Like you I don’t think Labour have the answers but I sure as hell know it gets worth with the 1% and their representatives running the show directly.

[Hoboh]

I have been reading the above posts with interest and you might be surprised I agree in principle.
Thing is, in my opinion anyway, you cannot have too many different tax bands, okay take out the mega wealthy but they hit hard workers who progress up the ladder.
A base rate of 20% upto 100g then 25% onwards ensuring there are no get outs seems fair and would probably result in more tax revenue.
I do take issue with the 1% figure often bandied about, this day and age it is more like 3%+, let's face it, if you earned 100g+ you sure as hell would be looking at financial advice to minimise your tax burden.
To some it may stick in the throat a bit about tax but frankly the current levels of of allowance are poor given the rise in property values etc. Raise this and cut the dodgy avoidance that is out there if you know the right accountant. Wealth passed down moves money into the economy, granted not everyone benefits from this but again it penalises a lot of ordinary people.
I'm simply saying it isn't tax levels, just the dodgy get outs that need stopping, classic example, Mr Pickle Branson paying less than 5%!