The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

Nadine Dorries is thinking of running…Andrea Jenkyns just got a government position…

Sunak looks like Attlee now am I right?

[nicholaldo]

I can't see it being Sunak for the simple fact he's trying too hard.

And the Tory membership is full of angry gammon.

Well, partly.

But I think people generally have an instinctive dislike to the excessively keen, and Rishi Sunak's made no effort to hide his intentions.

[BWFC_Insane]

I can't see it being Sunak for the simple fact he's trying too hard.

And the Tory membership is full of angry gammon.

Well, partly.

But I think people generally have an instinctive dislike to the excessively keen, and Rishi Sunak's made no effort to hide his intentions.

Maybe so but of the candidates likely to be in it, Sunak is most popular with electorate according to the polling. Most well known but even if you take out don’t knows he is.

The issue for him is he’s not the most popular with their members.

[nicholaldo]

I can't see it being Sunak for the simple fact he's trying too hard.

And the Tory membership is full of angry gammon.

Well, partly.

But I think people generally have an instinctive dislike to the excessively keen, and Rishi Sunak's made no effort to hide his intentions.

Maybe so but of the candidates likely to be in it, Sunak is most popular with electorate according to the polling. Most well known but even if you take out don’t knows he is.

The issue for him is he’s not the most popular with their members.

I think of him as being in the David Milliband position.

[Prufrock]

You can massively overestimate "popular with the electorate". Massively skewed by the fact that genuinely ~90% of people are "don't knows" (not that they necessarily answer "don't know" but often it's a gut 20 second reaction) when it comes to everyone except Sunak. You can't just exclude those and pretend it's meaningful.

[TANGODANCER]

You can massively overestimate "popular with the electorate". Massively skewed by the fact that genuinely ~90% of people are "don't knows" (not that they necessarily answer "don't know" but often it's a gut 20 second reaction) when it comes to everyone except Sunak. You can't just exclude those and pretend it's meaningful.

Have to be since, like the Brexit vote, it's a game of chance all round. Even Fortune tellers are walking on eggshells. "Don't know" is the most honest answer to put your cross against. The rest is heads or tails.

[Worthy4England]

I can't see it being Sunak for the simple fact he's trying too hard.

And the Tory membership is full of angry gammon.

Well, partly.

But I think people generally have an instinctive dislike to the excessively keen, and Rishi Sunak's made no effort to hide his intentions.

They voted the "World king" in. Admittedly, not on a pitch of world king. As it happens 200k people will vote for the next PM and they probably want tax cuts....

[Worthy4England]

You can massively overestimate "popular with the electorate". Massively skewed by the fact that genuinely ~90% of people are "don't knows" (not that they necessarily answer "don't know" but often it's a gut 20 second reaction) when it comes to everyone except Sunak. You can't just exclude those and pretend it's meaningful.

Have to be since, like the Brexit vote, it's a game of chance all round. Even Fortune tellers are walking on eggshells. "Don't know" is the most honest answer to put your cross against. The rest is heads or tails.

They put a manifesto out, that state their broad intentions. They often don't manage them, but that's their "sales document." If you're not reading that then I'd suggest you don't put a cross against anything and instead stick a tenner on the 6 dog at Wembley.

[Worthy4England]

You can massively overestimate "popular with the electorate". Massively skewed by the fact that genuinely ~90% of people are "don't knows" (not that they necessarily answer "don't know" but often it's a gut 20 second reaction) when it comes to everyone except Sunak. You can't just exclude those and pretend it's meaningful.

I think this is close. Most folks are voting for "who's going to fcuk my life up the least." It's why talk of progressive taxation ain't a winner. Wherever you are on the scale of earnings (not wealth), I think most people tell themselves they've worked hard and therefore earned it. Labour is making fairly arbitrary taxation noises, which isn't getting anyone out of 2.3trn debt.

[LeverEnd]

Nadine Dorries is thinking of running…Andrea Jenkyns just got a government position…

Sunak looks like Attlee now am I right?

Jenkyns is the absolute worst of them. I know this because she's my mp and I've had some limited correspondence with her. She's a fecking disgrace.

[BWFC_Insane]

You can massively overestimate "popular with the electorate". Massively skewed by the fact that genuinely ~90% of people are "don't knows" (not that they necessarily answer "don't know" but often it's a gut 20 second reaction) when it comes to everyone except Sunak. You can't just exclude those and pretend it's meaningful.

I think this is close. Most folks are voting for "who's going to fcuk my life up the least." It's why talk of progressive taxation ain't a winner. Wherever you are on the scale of earnings (not wealth), I think most people tell themselves they've worked hard and therefore earned it. Labour is making fairly arbitrary taxation noises, which isn't getting anyone out of 2.3trn debt.

Respectfully I disagree with this. I think the evidence out there suggests the British electorate have drifted towards the centre on economic policy. Even the Brexit vote and red wall Brexiteers are economically centrist if you look at polling. The reason that Johnson has been able to borrow more money in a year than any government since the 60’s and indeed have a redistributive regional wealth program (even though it didn’t exist) as a major manifesto pledge would also back this up.

I also think the mood has changed substantially since 2007 and more of the electorate would back a well laid out progressive taxation policy than you think.

It’s just an opinion and I’m as cynical as anyone about the British electorate. But the issues that have agitated them are much more social policy. Brexit is a good example. It never would have happened in the 1980’s/90’s where safe and steady centre right economics prevailed.

I might be wrong but I think that talk about tackling the wealth the 5% horde would be quite popular.

Neither party will do this and of course it means that economically there will be a lot of rhetoric that is ultimately empty and we will carry on heading towards economic oblivion in a couple of decades hoping something ‘turns up’.

[Hoboh]

The only 'progressive taxation' that would actually work would be say 20% for all with NO loopholes to stop the likes of the Bransons paying less than 5%, that's what stinks!
It would probably raise more cash and be a huge incentive for folk to progress career wise and put money into the eccomy.
Well that's my take anyway I'll put on the hard hat and body armour.

[Worthy4England]

The only 'progressive taxation' that would actually work would be say 20% for all with NO loopholes to stop the likes of the Bransons paying less than 5%, that's what stinks!
It would probably raise more cash and be a huge incentive for folk to progress career wise and put money into the eccomy.
Well that's my take anyway I'll put on the hard hat and body armour.

Not quite hard hat time Hobes. I too, think they would get a lot of revenue by simplifying the tax system and absolutely no loopholes...not sure that the answer is "20%" though...

[Worthy4England]

You can massively overestimate "popular with the electorate". Massively skewed by the fact that genuinely ~90% of people are "don't knows" (not that they necessarily answer "don't know" but often it's a gut 20 second reaction) when it comes to everyone except Sunak. You can't just exclude those and pretend it's meaningful.

I think this is close. Most folks are voting for "who's going to fcuk my life up the least." It's why talk of progressive taxation ain't a winner. Wherever you are on the scale of earnings (not wealth), I think most people tell themselves they've worked hard and therefore earned it. Labour is making fairly arbitrary taxation noises, which isn't getting anyone out of 2.3trn debt.

Respectfully I disagree with this. I think the evidence out there suggests the British electorate have drifted towards the centre on economic policy. Even the Brexit vote and red wall Brexiteers are economically centrist if you look at polling. The reason that Johnson has been able to borrow more money in a year than any government since the 60’s and indeed have a redistributive regional wealth program (even though it didn’t exist) as a major manifesto pledge would also back this up.

I also think the mood has changed substantially since 2007 and more of the electorate would back a well laid out progressive taxation policy than you think.

It’s just an opinion and I’m as cynical as anyone about the British electorate. But the issues that have agitated them are much more social policy. Brexit is a good example. It never would have happened in the 1980’s/90’s where safe and steady centre right economics prevailed.

I might be wrong but I think that talk about tackling the wealth the 5% horde would be quite popular.

Neither party will do this and of course it means that economically there will be a lot of rhetoric that is ultimately empty and we will carry on heading towards economic oblivion in a couple of decades hoping something ‘turns up’.

I'm not quite clear what you're going after wealth or earnings? They're not the same.thing. The reason what's agitated them more is social policy is because last two times a party has proposed either wealth or earnings taxes, they've either not been elected or as with the Tory manifesto, it lasted about a week before being removed (can't recall whether it was May or Johnson who proposed some sort of wealth tax, think it was May)

[BWFC_Insane]

You can massively overestimate "popular with the electorate". Massively skewed by the fact that genuinely ~90% of people are "don't knows" (not that they necessarily answer "don't know" but often it's a gut 20 second reaction) when it comes to everyone except Sunak. You can't just exclude those and pretend it's meaningful.

I think this is close. Most folks are voting for "who's going to fcuk my life up the least." It's why talk of progressive taxation ain't a winner. Wherever you are on the scale of earnings (not wealth), I think most people tell themselves they've worked hard and therefore earned it. Labour is making fairly arbitrary taxation noises, which isn't getting anyone out of 2.3trn debt.

Respectfully I disagree with this. I think the evidence out there suggests the British electorate have drifted towards the centre on economic policy. Even the Brexit vote and red wall Brexiteers are economically centrist if you look at polling. The reason that Johnson has been able to borrow more money in a year than any government since the 60’s and indeed have a redistributive regional wealth program (even though it didn’t exist) as a major manifesto pledge would also back this up.

I also think the mood has changed substantially since 2007 and more of the electorate would back a well laid out progressive taxation policy than you think.

It’s just an opinion and I’m as cynical as anyone about the British electorate. But the issues that have agitated them are much more social policy. Brexit is a good example. It never would have happened in the 1980’s/90’s where safe and steady centre right economics prevailed.

I might be wrong but I think that talk about tackling the wealth the 5% horde would be quite popular.

Neither party will do this and of course it means that economically there will be a lot of rhetoric that is ultimately empty and we will carry on heading towards economic oblivion in a couple of decades hoping something ‘turns up’.

I'm not quite clear what you're going after wealth or earnings? They're not the same.thing. The reason what's agitated them more is social policy is because last two times a party has proposed either wealth or earnings taxes, they've either not been elected or as with the Tory manifesto, it lasted about a week before being removed (can't recall whether it was May or Johnson who proposed some sort of wealth tax, think it was May)

Both. I think earnings less so because many of the hoarders don’t have earnings to tax. But yes both. It’s clear the crude 40% higher rate is a) kicking in too low and b) doesn’t do the job so we need a different system that actually deals with the problems of inequality in 2022.

You aren’t going to do that by hammering the middle and I think that should change.

[TANGODANCER]

They put a manifesto out, that state their broad intentions. They often don't manage them, but that's their "sales document." If you're not reading that then I'd suggest you don't put a cross against anything and instead stick a tenner on the 6 dog at Wembley.

Suitably chastised, the member from the "don't know" party heads for the bookies humming the battle hymn of the great American depression of 1932 : "Brother can you spare a dime? "

Footnote: The guy who wrote that song said it wasn't about begging, but about anger at what his country had done to itself. Is there a parallel somewhere there, one wonders?

[Prufrock]

You can massively overestimate "popular with the electorate". Massively skewed by the fact that genuinely ~90% of people are "don't knows" (not that they necessarily answer "don't know" but often it's a gut 20 second reaction) when it comes to everyone except Sunak. You can't just exclude those and pretend it's meaningful.

I think this is close. Most folks are voting for "who's going to fcuk my life up the least." It's why talk of progressive taxation ain't a winner. Wherever you are on the scale of earnings (not wealth), I think most people tell themselves they've worked hard and therefore earned it. Labour is making fairly arbitrary taxation noises, which isn't getting anyone out of 2.3trn debt.

I should say that I think by the time of an election the vast majority of people at least know who the leaders of the main two parties are and some sort of opinion on them. But the runners and riders in the early days of mid-term Tory leadership competition...yeah not so much.

I think I'm somewhere between you and BWFCi on taxation. My view is that the mistake Labour sometimes makes is that it gets focused on the process and trying to get everyone to agree that we should share and share alike. What they need to focus on is outcomes. If you have a heart attack, an ambulance isn't coming. If you break your arm, it's 13 hours in A&E. If you want butter, it's three bastard quid (and you were shocked when it was two bastard quid only two weeks ago!)

On the one hand I think that's pretty easy at the moment because everything is fecked. On the other it's difficult because the two main reasons are Covid and Brexit.

The first isn't the government's fault, but then the financial crash wasn't Labour's fault. Which is why I think outcomes is the way to go. "This is shit, vote for the other lot" is definitely a big thing.

Of course you do need to set out what you're going to do, but you don't need to persuade everyone to become a socialist. You need to persuade them you're a better bet for improving their day to day lives. What you'll do not why you'll do it is what counts.

The second is a bear trap for Labour. They're fecked if they get into relitigating Brexit. Avoid the word all together, and focus on outcomes. Here's our plan on how to work with the EU.

On tax simplification. I mean there's definitely some scope for it. Entrepreneurs relief etc are a bit farcical. But yeah I'm far from convinced on a flat rate. My own view is that wealth taxes would be more prominent, but they seem pretty suicidal with the electorate. That's a maybe a second term gamble, and we've only ever had one Labour second term!

[Worthy4England]

Both. I think earnings less so because many of the hoarders don’t have earnings to tax. But yes both. It’s clear the crude 40% higher rate is a) kicking in too low and b) doesn’t do the job so we need a different system that actually deals with the problems of inequality in 2022.

You aren’t going to do that by hammering the middle and I think that should change.

Oh right. We're trying to protect the middle whilst sorting inequality? Gotcha. Taking a punt here. You think you're paying too much and someone else should pay a lot more...

You talk about progressive tax system. It's already in place. You pay a higher overall proportion at 50k than 40k than 30k etc. At 12k, you pay about 1.5%..at 37k, you Don't suddenly pay 40% on everything, just the bit above 37k (or whatever today's number is). If the middle is 40k then they pay less overall tax as a % of earnings, than someone on 100k.

My point on earnings is, you can probably increase marginally. There wasn't a huge outcry at 50% top rate, but you won't be able to increase it enough to meet your objectives.

The problem with wealth is cute people hide it, so it's very hard to ascertain what it actually is, let alone tax it. You want to go after property? They don't own any, it's owned by an offshore trust...

This is why I'm more with Hobo, that cutting out all the loopholes is going to get you more...

[Worthy4England]

You can massively overestimate "popular with the electorate". Massively skewed by the fact that genuinely ~90% of people are "don't knows" (not that they necessarily answer "don't know" but often it's a gut 20 second reaction) when it comes to everyone except Sunak. You can't just exclude those and pretend it's meaningful.

I think this is close. Most folks are voting for "who's going to fcuk my life up the least." It's why talk of progressive taxation ain't a winner. Wherever you are on the scale of earnings (not wealth), I think most people tell themselves they've worked hard and therefore earned it. Labour is making fairly arbitrary taxation noises, which isn't getting anyone out of 2.3trn debt.

I should say that I think by the time of an election the vast majority of people at least know who the leaders of the main two parties are and some sort of opinion on them. But the runners and riders in the early days of mid-term Tory leadership competition...yeah not so much.

I think I'm somewhere between you and BWFCi on taxation. My view is that the mistake Labour sometimes makes is that it gets focused on the process and trying to get everyone to agree that we should share and share alike. What they need to focus on is outcomes. If you have a heart attack, an ambulance isn't coming. If you break your arm, it's 13 hours in A&E. If you want butter, it's three bastard quid (and you were shocked when it was two bastard quid only two weeks ago!)

On the one hand I think that's pretty easy at the moment because everything is fecked. On the other it's difficult because the two main reasons are Covid and Brexit.

The first isn't the government's fault, but then the financial crash wasn't Labour's fault. Which is why I think outcomes is the way to go. "This is shit, vote for the other lot" is definitely a big thing.

Of course you do need to set out what you're going to do, but you don't need to persuade everyone to become a socialist. You need to persuade them you're a better bet for improving their day to day lives. What you'll do not why you'll do it is what counts.

The second is a bear trap for Labour. They're fecked if they get into relitigating Brexit. Avoid the word all together, and focus on outcomes. Here's our plan on how to work with the EU.

On tax simplification. I mean there's definitely some scope for it. Entrepreneurs relief etc are a bit farcical. But yeah I'm far from convinced on a flat rate. My own view is that wealth taxes would be more prominent, but they seem pretty suicidal with the electorate. That's a maybe a second term gamble, and we've only ever had one Labour second term!

Agree with most if this. I just think like your example of Entrepreneurs relief, there are far too many ways for people to not declare what they've actually earned and actually end up paying 10% overall tax on their earnings. Closing the loopholes will put a higher burden on the middle, but only on people who ain't paying their due anyhow...I reckon there's multiple coaches and a herd of horses driven through IR35...similar with the loopholes they created for consultants to pay 10% in the noughties, early 10's...

[BWFC_Insane]

Both. I think earnings less so because many of the hoarders don’t have earnings to tax. But yes both. It’s clear the crude 40% higher rate is a) kicking in too low and b) doesn’t do the job so we need a different system that actually deals with the problems of inequality in 2022.

You aren’t going to do that by hammering the middle and I think that should change.

Oh right. We're trying to protect the middle whilst sorting inequality? Gotcha. Taking a punt here. You think you're paying too much and someone else should pay a lot more...

You talk about progressive tax system. It's already in place. You pay a higher overall proportion at 50k than 40k than 30k etc. At 12k, you pay about 1.5%..at 37k, you Don't suddenly pay 40% on everything, just the bit above 37k (or whatever today's number is). If the middle is 40k then they pay less overall tax as a % of earnings, than someone on 100k.

My point on earnings is, you can probably increase marginally. There wasn't a huge outcry at 50% top rate, but you won't be able to increase it enough to meet your objectives.

The problem with wealth is cute people hide it, so it's very hard to ascertain what it actually is, let alone tax it. You want to go after property? They don't own any, it's owned by an offshore trust...

This is why I'm more with Hobo, that cutting out all the loopholes is going to get you more...

No good god no. I would set a higher rate including my salary of 60%. But that wouldn’t win an election.

My point is about tackling the fact that we have a top 5% hoarding wealth and not adding to productivity. And I think there are ways to eat that a bit alongside some of the wealth and earnings immediately below it that is electorally popular without being seen as attacking the ‘middle’ which I still think is electorally a no go.

What I believe in and what wins elections are separate things in my head. So I’m not trying to advocate for champagne socialism or even a thing. Just that a party saying they are going to go after the financial hoarders, mega landlords and rip off bankers wouldn’t necessarily lose in my view. As pru says you talk outcomes rather than specifics of how it happens. Public like outcomes. Not specifics. See Brexit for example.