Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
Only because democracy has worked for their generation!
This comment from btl sums my views on how well our democracy has economically benefited the young
'The article argues that is was a cohort effect (the GFC) rather than a period effect (the declining quality of the Tories) that caused the shift in the UK. I think this let's the Tories off the hook far too easily.
Different cohorts experienced the Story decline differently. Boomers got tax cuts, triple locked pensions, inflated assets, and an end to those pesky foreigners. Millenials got expensive education, zero real wage growth, unaffordable, housing, and the loss of their cosmopolitan identity. This was not the random result of an exogenous recession but an orchestrated programme of intergenerational expropriation.
There are plenty of conservative young Britons but the only conservative party is busy robbing them blind.'
Democracy beats the alternatives.
True. But democracy does rely upon the consent of the loser. If every right leaning government rubs your face in their victory and has little thought to your livelihood you begin to question the system.
I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.
Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up.
By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.
If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.
If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
And I agree. But I'm unconvinced Labour with a mahoosive majority would do much better: there would be change, but it would be very ill-considered change.
I'm happy for there to be a Labour government (and think there should be a GE soon), but I don't want any party to have a stonking 100+ majority. I just don't think such governments are very good. Then again, I'm not a fan of small majorities either.
A large Labour majority is highly unlikely. I don’t think you need to worry about that, even though it’s in Tory interests to start sowing concerns.
The real risk for us and the country is the Tories sneaking back in. There needs to a real focus to stop that.
I’m sure the Tories would love to talk about anything other than the current mess and move the focus elsewhere.
The best way to "stop the Tories sneaking back in is for Sir Keir to actually give us some positive reasons to vote for him...
That old chestnut. The last gasp. Trying to get the opposition to show their entire hand 18 months out. They said this of Cameron and Blair.
This far out, Blair had positive reasons to vote for him.
Anyway, what's wrong with showing your hand? Do you think the public might not like the policies?
The fear is that any Labour policies the public does like will immediately be pinched by that nice Mr Sunak. .
So what?
A Labour policy adopted by a Tory government is a win for Labour, not a loss, and easy to sell as such if they have political nous.
It may (if Labour is right about the policy) be a win for the country but it also shoots Labour's fox.
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
Only because democracy has worked for their generation!
This comment from btl sums my views on how well our democracy has economically benefited the young
'The article argues that is was a cohort effect (the GFC) rather than a period effect (the declining quality of the Tories) that caused the shift in the UK. I think this let's the Tories off the hook far too easily.
Different cohorts experienced the Story decline differently. Boomers got tax cuts, triple locked pensions, inflated assets, and an end to those pesky foreigners. Millenials got expensive education, zero real wage growth, unaffordable, housing, and the loss of their cosmopolitan identity. This was not the random result of an exogenous recession but an orchestrated programme of intergenerational expropriation.
There are plenty of conservative young Britons but the only conservative party is busy robbing them blind.'
Democracy beats the alternatives.
True. But democracy does rely upon the consent of the loser. If every right leaning government rubs your face in their victory and has little thought to your livelihood you begin to question the system.
Does that only apply to 'right leaning' governments?
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
There is a fair amount of very worrying polling evidence that many people (including lots of young people) feel that the system of democracy and liberal values doesn't work, let's try something else. Here's a German example:
I'm a classic older middle-class left-winger of the kind that Ms Wagenknecht attacks (voted twice for Corbyn though I'm OK with Starmer). But I wouldn't dream of questioning democracy, and I like to think that most people here of all persuasions feel the same. But on the extremes (Trump's followers being another example), sheer impatience is eroding support for the basic system. We need some competent government that actually addresses the concerns of younger people to show that the system can deliver.
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
I don't think the remaining PB Tories understand the damage they are doing with culture wars. Attacking the young, the "woke", the public sector heroes like Teachers & Nurses etc etc. You want to make conservatism look like old angry stupid cnuts and then expect the best educated best informed generation to swing across to support them?
The right have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. May work short term for people who were already a bit insular / dumb / prejudiced. But long term is absolutely sinking them.
It was the genius of "Yes it hurt, Yes it worked". Acknowledge the pain, take ownership of it and justify it.
The 2022 attitude is more "Didn't hurt us, Suck it up losers."
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
Can you cite evidence for these claims?
I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.
Which young people support a dictatorship?!? Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?
There was a recent Yougov poll showing support for authoritarian, as opposed to democratic, government was strongest among the under 30’s.
One can also cite the degree of hostility reported by Jewish students from student unions as evidence for unprogressive views among some young people.
Le Pen also did better against Macron with under 30s than over 65s in May.
Meloni did well with the young in Italy too.
The young are more likely to go hard left than the old but also more likely to go far right too
In Italy 44% of 18 to 21 year olds voted for the Nationalist far right of Brothers of Italy and Lega Nord in this year's Italian election.
Just 21% voted for the social democrat PD. 9% for Five Star and 6% for the centre right Forza Italia
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
Only because democracy has worked for their generation!
This comment from btl sums my views on how well our democracy has economically benefited the young
'The article argues that is was a cohort effect (the GFC) rather than a period effect (the declining quality of the Tories) that caused the shift in the UK. I think this let's the Tories off the hook far too easily.
Different cohorts experienced the Story decline differently. Boomers got tax cuts, triple locked pensions, inflated assets, and an end to those pesky foreigners. Millenials got expensive education, zero real wage growth, unaffordable, housing, and the loss of their cosmopolitan identity. This was not the random result of an exogenous recession but an orchestrated programme of intergenerational expropriation.
There are plenty of conservative young Britons but the only conservative party is busy robbing them blind.'
Democracy beats the alternatives.
True. But democracy does rely upon the consent of the loser. If every right leaning government rubs your face in their victory and has little thought to your livelihood you begin to question the system.
Does that only apply to 'right leaning' governments?
I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.
Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up.
By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.
If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.
If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
And I agree. But I'm unconvinced Labour with a mahoosive majority would do much better: there would be change, but it would be very ill-considered change.
I'm happy for there to be a Labour government (and think there should be a GE soon), but I don't want any party to have a stonking 100+ majority. I just don't think such governments are very good. Then again, I'm not a fan of small majorities either.
A large Labour majority is highly unlikely. I don’t think you need to worry about that, even though it’s in Tory interests to start sowing concerns.
The real risk for us and the country is the Tories sneaking back in. There needs to a real focus to stop that.
I’m sure the Tories would love to talk about anything other than the current mess and move the focus elsewhere.
The best way to "stop the Tories sneaking back in is for Sir Keir to actually give us some positive reasons to vote for him...
That old chestnut. The last gasp. Trying to get the opposition to show their entire hand 18 months out. They said this of Cameron and Blair.
This far out, Blair had positive reasons to vote for him.
Anyway, what's wrong with showing your hand? Do you think the public might not like the policies?
The fear is that any Labour policies the public does like will immediately be pinched by that nice Mr Sunak. .
So what?
A Labour policy adopted by a Tory government is a win for Labour, not a loss, and easy to sell as such if they have political nous.
It may (if Labour is right about the policy) be a win for the country but it also shoots Labour's fox.
Not if they have political nous, as I said. Or do you think they don't?
Back to the header, If the Conservatives do badly enough, Labour get a majority by default; there are only so many seats the Lib Dems, SNP et al can mop up.
I reckon the breakpoint is about 225 Conservatives. If NOM and Labour majority are equally likely, that points to that being their expected score.
If the real economy for 2023 matches the OBR's expectations, that seems optimistic.
It doesn't even need to be the real economy.
There are whole other areas where its now reaching the point where the issues can no longer be hidden
NHS Ambulances (kept separate because avoidable deaths are starting to become a news story) The impact of next year's School budgets on actual teaching Local Authority finance Social Care Railways
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
There is a fair amount of very worrying polling evidence that many people (including lots of young people) feel that the system of democracy and liberal values doesn't work, let's try something else. Here's a German example:
I'm a classic older middle-class left-winger of the kind that Ms Wagenknecht attacks (voted twice for Corbyn though I'm OK with Starmer). But I wouldn't dream of questioning democracy, and I like to think that most people here of all persuasions feel the same. But on the extremes (Trump's followers being another example), sheer impatience is eroding support for the basic system. We need some competent government that actually addresses the concerns of younger people to show that the system can deliver.
This is the problem I see and I do not see either the current government or Starmer providing any kind of a solution. Our body politic is fragmenting. We still have the remainers against the Brexiteers, we have old (with the triple lock) against the young (student debt and horrendous housing prospects), Unionists against Nationalists here in Scotland, city dwellers against town and country, capital against income, there are divisions everywhere. We no longer have a clear national consensus and I don't see us getting one soon.
I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.
Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up.
No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
So, is Anas Sarwar’s gang getting your vote next time Alan?
No, between LD and Mhairi Black. Notable that Douglas Alexander isn't contesting his old seat but wants the easier option of East Lothian.
Sensible choice. East Lothian is the best prospect for a Labour gain in Scotland, although I expect them to do rather better than just that one seat, given the six gains Labour made in Scotland under Corbyn in 2017. Surely, under Starmer, they will do better than that as they cruise to a UK-wide victory in 2024?
I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.
Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up.
By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.
If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.
If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
Yes. If they win again despite everything, it means our democracy isn't fit for purpose. Although one upside is it might usher in electoral reform.
How? The Tories would be back in. The only electoral reform they are interested in will strengthen their position under FPTP.
We could easily be in for five more years of this chaos.
I meant longer term. If FPTP keeps delivering Tory governments on a minority vote the pressure for PR will build until it happens. But NB: this is not the way I'd like to achieve electoral reform!
I've heard before of younger generations losing faith in democracy.
But is that indicative of wanting their own way and being irked at not getting it, despite low levels of voting?
If the elderly routinely got the shit end of the stick, would they be showing a similar inclination while the young would think, in that scenario, democracy is just great?
WRT to aging into Tory voters, I should be a prime candidate.
Good paying job, home ownership, live in London in a posh area.
But I’m not. The Tories offer me nothing but failure and disappointment. They call me an idiot and condescend me because I don’t care about the culture wars.
The Tories face extinction if they can’t win over people my age. And all the signs are that they are going backwards.
You may have been the most likely typical Tory voter in 1997 when the Tories still won ABs and did best in the wealthiest parts of West London like Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea and Surrey while losing over 65s to Blair.
Now however the Conservatives do best with C2s, in Lincolnshire or Essex not Surrey and West London and with over 65s
This arrogance is why you will lose. You don’t want our votes, we will vote Labour then
It is not arrogance, just changing demographics.
In 1997 the typical Conservative voter left was upper middle class, wealthy and a high earner and lived in West London or the South East.
Now the typical Conservative voter left is skilled working class, retired, a home owner and lives in Essex or Kent or the Midlands.
Albeit Sunak might make it a little more like 1997 than Boris or Truss would in terms of voter coalition but the trend is the same
One thing that could punish the Tories is that electoral turnout is much higher in ABs than C2DE. That used to work to the Tories benefit, but no more.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
You must hate George Osborne.
I hate your boy, Gordon Brown, who introduced it.
I also think Conservative chancellors have been lickspittle cowards not to change it.
Have you ever heard of a gas core reactor? No not a gas cooled reactor, but a reactor with a gas CORE! This is a concept dating back to the Manhattan Project to just let the core become gaseous (or maybe plasma) instead of solid or even liquid. https://twitter.com/GBruhaug/status/1607921318371934211
A design for those who aren't TORY enough.
Up there with the all time greats....
"Hi, we'd like to run our science mini nuclear reactor at your trade exhibition. Actually run it. "
"Er.... ok."
"It's so safe that it is self moderating. So we are going to have Edward Teller yank the main control rod out to try and cause an excursion. But it will all be fine. He will do this a several times a day...."
The days when Men were Men - and asbestos filters in cigarettes was a Good Idea.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
The UC taper rate has entered the chat.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.
Rest of South Lab 44% Con 28% LD 12% Grn 8% Ref 7%
Midlands and Wales Lab 44% Con 21% Grn 10% Ref 10% LD 9% PC 4%
North Lab 55% Con 15% Grn 10% Ref 8% LD 5%
Scotland SNP 62% Lab 18% Grn 6% LD 5% Con 4% Ref 2%
(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,169; 28 December)
While I appreciate that Stuart will be beyond delighted at those Scottish numbers, they look pretty rogue to me.
I’m not “delighted” at all. I made no comment whatsoever. I wasn’t born yesterday. So, typical PB straw man.
The last think either Nicola S or Keir S need is for the general impression to become cemented that their respective parties are guaranteed to win by landslides in their respective countries. They need to keep the troops on their toes. And get the bloody voters out.
I will not be voting SNP again until Sturgeon and her bunch of turds are gone. I would rather vote Tory.
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
I don't think the remaining PB Tories understand the damage they are doing with culture wars. Attacking the young, the "woke", the public sector heroes like Teachers & Nurses etc etc. You want to make conservatism look like old angry stupid cnuts and then expect the best educated best informed generation to swing across to support them?
The right have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. May work short term for people who were already a bit insular / dumb / prejudiced. But long term is absolutely sinking them.
It was the genius of "Yes it hurt, Yes it worked". Acknowledge the pain, take ownership of it and justify it.
The 2022 attitude is more "Didn't hurt us, Suck it up losers."
Even worse, their tendancy is to blame the people hurting for it hurting. Witness that nobcheese Lee Anderson blaming hungry nurses reliant on hospital foodbanks - apparently it's their own fault.
MPs like him, the party dogma which created him, and the media moguls weaponising his degree of immorality, incompetence and stupidity deserve to get totally obliterated at the next election.
Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":
In summary: • Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to: • Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views • Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
You are hit by the taper which is why most people play games to keep their income below £100,000 by throwing more into the pension pot.
I suspect if HMRC did a proper survey there would be a significant reduction in people earning between £100,000 and £130,000 compared to the below and above that figure.
I play some of that game but the trouble is I also need a large amount of my income right now to pay the bills.
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
Only because democracy has worked for their generation!
This comment from btl sums my views on how well our democracy has economically benefited the young
'The article argues that is was a cohort effect (the GFC) rather than a period effect (the declining quality of the Tories) that caused the shift in the UK. I think this let's the Tories off the hook far too easily.
Different cohorts experienced the Story decline differently. Boomers got tax cuts, triple locked pensions, inflated assets, and an end to those pesky foreigners. Millenials got expensive education, zero real wage growth, unaffordable, housing, and the loss of their cosmopolitan identity. This was not the random result of an exogenous recession but an orchestrated programme of intergenerational expropriation.
There are plenty of conservative young Britons but the only conservative party is busy robbing them blind.'
Democracy beats the alternatives.
Any age group can be foolish or wise and vice-versa.
We usually this argument when the age group most likely to support the argument the advocate is making encourages them to put them under the spotlight.
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
Can you cite evidence for these claims?
I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.
Which young people support a dictatorship?!? Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?
There was a recent Yougov poll showing support for authoritarian, as opposed to democratic, government was strongest among the under 30’s.
One can also cite the degree of hostility reported by Jewish students from student unions as evidence for unprogressive views among some young people.
Let’s see the poll then.
Seems like a few nut jobs are making you form an opinion about all young people.
If you want to play this game, all older voters are morons because they voted for Brexit
Calm down.
Sean isn't playing any game. He's just pointing out that wisdom isn't all one way for young people.
WRT to aging into Tory voters, I should be a prime candidate.
Good paying job, home ownership, live in London in a posh area.
But I’m not. The Tories offer me nothing but failure and disappointment. They call me an idiot and condescend me because I don’t care about the culture wars.
The Tories face extinction if they can’t win over people my age. And all the signs are that they are going backwards.
You may have been the most likely typical Tory voter in 1997 when the Tories still won ABs and did best in the wealthiest parts of West London like Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea and Surrey while losing over 65s to Blair.
Now however the Conservatives do best with C2s, in Lincolnshire or Essex not Surrey and West London and with over 65s
This arrogance is why you will lose. You don’t want our votes, we will vote Labour then
It is not arrogance, just changing demographics.
In 1997 the typical Conservative voter left was upper middle class, wealthy and a high earner and lived in West London or the South East.
Now the typical Conservative voter left is skilled working class, retired, a home owner and lives in Essex or Kent or the Midlands.
Albeit Sunak might make it a little more like 1997 than Boris or Truss would in terms of voter coalition but the trend is the same
One thing that could punish the Tories is that electoral turnout is much higher in ABs than C2DE. That used to work to the Tories benefit, but no more.
It is also much higher amongst over 65s and the Tories still lead with them whereas Blair won pensioners in 1997
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
There is a fair amount of very worrying polling evidence that many people (including lots of young people) feel that the system of democracy and liberal values doesn't work, let's try something else. Here's a German example:
I'm a classic older middle-class left-winger of the kind that Ms Wagenknecht attacks (voted twice for Corbyn though I'm OK with Starmer). But I wouldn't dream of questioning democracy, and I like to think that most people here of all persuasions feel the same. But on the extremes (Trump's followers being another example), sheer impatience is eroding support for the basic system. We need some competent government that actually addresses the concerns of younger people to show that the system can deliver.
This is the problem I see and I do not see either the current government or Starmer providing any kind of a solution. Our body politic is fragmenting. We still have the remainers against the Brexiteers, we have old (with the triple lock) against the young (student debt and horrendous housing prospects), Unionists against Nationalists here in Scotland, city dwellers against town and country, capital against income, there are divisions everywhere. We no longer have a clear national consensus and I don't see us getting one soon.
Education is free in Scotland, is it not David. Students may borrow money but not for the education.
I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.
Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up.
By far the worst outcome for country would be for the Conservatives to win again. After their catastrophic performance they need to lose and be seen to lose badly.
I wouldn't say that's the *worse* possible outcome, but it would be bad. I'd be happy with Labour with (say) a 50-seat majority. Enough to allow them to do stuff, but narrow enough that it won't get whittled away with time.
If I was Labour, I'd also be concerned that some of the new MPs might not be adequately vetted. There's little excuse for that, but it seems all parties don't do a good job with the seats they don't expect to win.
If the Tories win after the debacle of the past few years, what incentive would they have to govern well? They can do whatever they like. Fill you boots lads. Let’s give Trussmoronics another crack. Contracts for mates. No problem.
If such abject failure is rewarded, we’re in a dire position. There has to be change.
Yes. If they win again despite everything, it means our democracy isn't fit for purpose. Although one upside is it might usher in electoral reform.
If people vote the wrong way, our democracy isn't fit for purpose?
There must be a penalty for being utterly shit at what you do. This applies to 'Tories in government' as much as any other space.
Have you ever heard of a gas core reactor? No not a gas cooled reactor, but a reactor with a gas CORE! This is a concept dating back to the Manhattan Project to just let the core become gaseous (or maybe plasma) instead of solid or even liquid. https://twitter.com/GBruhaug/status/1607921318371934211
A design for those who aren't TORY enough.
Up there with the all time greats....
"Hi, we'd like to run our science mini nuclear reactor at your trade exhibition. Actually run it. "
"Er.... ok."
"It's so safe that it is self moderating. So we are going to have Edward Teller yank the main control rod out to try and cause an excursion. But it will all be fine. He will do this a several times a day...."
The days when Men were Men - and asbestos filters in cigarettes was a Good Idea.
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
There is a fair amount of very worrying polling evidence that many people (including lots of young people) feel that the system of democracy and liberal values doesn't work, let's try something else. Here's a German example:
I'm a classic older middle-class left-winger of the kind that Ms Wagenknecht attacks (voted twice for Corbyn though I'm OK with Starmer). But I wouldn't dream of questioning democracy, and I like to think that most people here of all persuasions feel the same. But on the extremes (Trump's followers being another example), sheer impatience is eroding support for the basic system. We need some competent government that actually addresses the concerns of younger people to show that the system can deliver.
I read that piece, v. Interesting it was too. George Galloway must be grinding his teeth at an example of a radical leftie cosying up to reactionary populism successfully (so far anyway).
I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.
Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up.
No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
Actually I disagree with that I think a huge labour majority would be disastrous for the country and that is not a comment on how labour would govern. Simply because I think whatever any political party tries things are going to continue to get worse during the next parliament. I don't really expect living standards to start rising again till early 2030's at least.
So we are then in the position tory sub 200, labour huge majority and voters thinking come 2029.....well things were shit....they are even shitter now. We have tried tories, labour haven't improved things in fact I am paying even more tax for less services.
I can't help thinking might decide to decamp from centrist parties altogether and try a roll of the dice like they did for brexit. Who knows what the hell we might end up with (hint it wont be the lib dems as they are largely in most voters minds the crevice between the buttocks of labour and tories).
Wouldn't at all surprise me to see green mps and refuk mps and a farage vehicle coming to the fore.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
The UC taper rate has entered the chat.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.
Whilst I agree with you on the pinch points of both varieties this still misses the point. The point is that capital is seriously undertaxed with the result that the burden on income, and earned income in particular.
Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.
Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":
In summary: • Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to: • Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views • Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever
I suspect in reality it's correlated with wealth-accumulation and asset growth, as opposed to age.
It's just that in the past (last 70-80 years or so) the two have always followed each other so it looks like age.
That's quite a bit of the answer, but if we take home ownership as a proxy for accumulating wealth, it's not a complete answer.
Older people may not approve of woke. But previous older people didn't approve of the Swinging Sixties.
But, as we saw in 2016, if you tell voters you simply disapprove of them, they're unlikely to vote for you.
My own view, often posted here, is that voters do not shift their views to the right, so much as the zeitgeist shifts left to incorporate the previously radical views of ageing voters. So those who fought for gay rights or equal pay for women or the end of capital punishment in the 60s and 70s were accommodated by the establishment. In particular, Conservatives did not seek to reverse those once-radical gains.
So it may be that Culture Wars, and talk of restricting abortions, and embracing the sometimes misogynistic American alt-right, so these gains do seem to be threatened, is counter-productive. Same with opposing freedom of movement.
That works both ways.
If younger generations support restrictions on free speech and authoritarian attitudes, then that's hardly progressive.
Personally, I'd say most generations simply go with the flow to try to fit in.
Rest of South Lab 44% Con 28% LD 12% Grn 8% Ref 7%
Midlands and Wales Lab 44% Con 21% Grn 10% Ref 10% LD 9% PC 4%
North Lab 55% Con 15% Grn 10% Ref 8% LD 5%
Scotland SNP 62% Lab 18% Grn 6% LD 5% Con 4% Ref 2%
(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,169; 28 December)
While I appreciate that Stuart will be beyond delighted at those Scottish numbers, they look pretty rogue to me.
I’m not “delighted” at all. I made no comment whatsoever. I wasn’t born yesterday. So, typical PB straw man.
The last think either Nicola S or Keir S need is for the general impression to become cemented that their respective parties are guaranteed to win by landslides in their respective countries. They need to keep the troops on their toes. And get the bloody voters out.
I will not be voting SNP again until Sturgeon and her bunch of turds are gone. I would rather vote Tory.
I hope you are given a better choice than that, Malc.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
The UC taper rate has entered the chat.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.
Whilst I agree with you on the pinch points of both varieties this still misses the point. The point is that capital is seriously undertaxed with the result that the burden on income, and earned income in particular.
Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.
Agreed. A shift from taxing income to taxing capital would be quite fair.
The fact Starmer only has a narrow lead over Sunak as preferred PM suggests a Labour majority is not certain
As a general rule that might be the case, but when the party ratings are so diverged I think parity on preferred PM rating only gets you so far. The drag factor is just too strong. Suggests Sunak might have managed had he come in earlier.
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
Can you cite evidence for these claims?
I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.
Which young people support a dictatorship?!? Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?
There was a recent Yougov poll showing support for authoritarian, as opposed to democratic, government was strongest among the under 30’s.
One can also cite the degree of hostility reported by Jewish students from student unions as evidence for unprogressive views among some young people.
Let’s see the poll then.
Seems like a few nut jobs are making you form an opinion about all young people.
If you want to play this game, all older voters are morons because they voted for Brexit
I think the Woke stuff is an irritant but only matters (politically) at the margins. Most millennials clock it, confirm to it and otherwise ignore it.
It's otherwise a battle fought out by activists.
Agreed. We often overrate the importance of polls showing that most people agree with one side or the other in a culture war. If you ask people, they'll give an opinion. But it doesn't mean they actually think about it much or let it decide how they vote. The best political strategy is to decline to give an opinion, so you don't get classed as an enemy by one group of zealots or another, and are seen as sensibly concentrating on more important matters by the uncommitted majority.
The US seems rather different in that way from us, perhaps because the lack of limits on political advertising enables culture warriors to hammer home the message every day of the week.
Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":
In summary: • Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to: • Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views • Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever
I suspect in reality it's correlated with wealth-accumulation and asset growth, as opposed to age.
It's just that in the past (last 70-80 years or so) the two have always followed each other so it looks like age.
That's quite a bit of the answer, but if we take home ownership as a proxy for accumulating wealth, it's not a complete answer.
Older people may not approve of woke. But previous older people didn't approve of the Swinging Sixties.
But, as we saw in 2016, if you tell voters you simply disapprove of them, they're unlikely to vote for you.
I think the Woke stuff is an irritant but only matters (politically) at the margins. Most millennials clock it, confirm to it and otherwise ignore it.
It's otherwise a battle fought out by activists.
One mistake here, I personally don't think that voting conservative is a proxy for right wing views. Ever since Cameron the conservatives have veered leftward and been spaffing cash left right and centre on the populace. Hardly the hall mark of a right wing party. About the only thing you could point at as right wing in the tories of the last 12 years is possibly immigration and even then remainers have been the ones wanting a more racist immigration policy
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
There is a fair amount of very worrying polling evidence that many people (including lots of young people) feel that the system of democracy and liberal values doesn't work, let's try something else. Here's a German example:
I'm a classic older middle-class left-winger of the kind that Ms Wagenknecht attacks (voted twice for Corbyn though I'm OK with Starmer). But I wouldn't dream of questioning democracy, and I like to think that most people here of all persuasions feel the same. But on the extremes (Trump's followers being another example), sheer impatience is eroding support for the basic system. We need some competent government that actually addresses the concerns of younger people to show that the system can deliver.
That's over to you, Nick.
If Labour do win next time you absolutely must deliver for them.
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
There is a fair amount of very worrying polling evidence that many people (including lots of young people) feel that the system of democracy and liberal values doesn't work, let's try something else. Here's a German example:
I'm a classic older middle-class left-winger of the kind that Ms Wagenknecht attacks (voted twice for Corbyn though I'm OK with Starmer). But I wouldn't dream of questioning democracy, and I like to think that most people here of all persuasions feel the same. But on the extremes (Trump's followers being another example), sheer impatience is eroding support for the basic system. We need some competent government that actually addresses the concerns of younger people to show that the system can deliver.
This is the problem I see and I do not see either the current government or Starmer providing any kind of a solution. Our body politic is fragmenting. We still have the remainers against the Brexiteers, we have old (with the triple lock) against the young (student debt and horrendous housing prospects), Unionists against Nationalists here in Scotland, city dwellers against town and country, capital against income, there are divisions everywhere. We no longer have a clear national consensus and I don't see us getting one soon.
Education is free in Scotland, is it not David. Students may borrow money but not for the education.
My kids who have done degrees in Scotland have a fair amount of student debt. They don't pay fees but their maintenance payments are repayable and the interest rate applied to them is the same as the fee debt in England. It makes that first mortgage much more difficult and really impacts on their standard of living.
Have you ever heard of a gas core reactor? No not a gas cooled reactor, but a reactor with a gas CORE! This is a concept dating back to the Manhattan Project to just let the core become gaseous (or maybe plasma) instead of solid or even liquid. https://twitter.com/GBruhaug/status/1607921318371934211
A design for those who aren't TORY enough.
Up there with the all time greats....
"Hi, we'd like to run our science mini nuclear reactor at your trade exhibition. Actually run it. "
"Er.... ok."
"It's so safe that it is self moderating. So we are going to have Edward Teller yank the main control rod out to try and cause an excursion. But it will all be fine. He will do this a several times a day...."
The days when Men were Men - and asbestos filters in cigarettes was a Good Idea.
A friend of my father was on the Manhattan Project. He regarded Slotin as dangerous idiot….
EDIT: Du Pont engineers had already built the prototypes for criticality experiments. Remote control, TV (yes, in 1945), in the next valley over, in a concrete bunker. Un-manned.
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
Can you cite evidence for these claims?
I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.
Which young people support a dictatorship?!? Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?
There was a recent Yougov poll showing support for authoritarian, as opposed to democratic, government was strongest among the under 30’s.
One can also cite the degree of hostility reported by Jewish students from student unions as evidence for unprogressive views among some young people.
Let’s see the poll then.
Seems like a few nut jobs are making you form an opinion about all young people.
If you want to play this game, all older voters are morons because they voted for Brexit
You're creating a false equivalence here. No-one said young people were morons for supporting authoritarianism just that polls show they do. Personally I think there may be a broader process of intellectual and cultural decline going on of which much of woke, Trumpism, anti vax, antisemitism etc are a part. This is controversial because in certain ways (race, sexuality, gender) young voters may be more enlightened than their elders. Perhaps the decline has been going on for some time but was ameliorated by higher living standards. See Nick Palmer's thoughtful contribution.
I think the Woke stuff is an irritant but only matters (politically) at the margins. Most millennials clock it, confirm to it and otherwise ignore it.
It's otherwise a battle fought out by activists.
Agreed. We often overrate the importance of polls showing that most people agree with one side or the other in a culture war. If you ask people, they'll give an opinion. But it doesn't mean they actually think about it much or let it decide how they vote. The best political strategy is to decline to give an opinion, so you don't get classed as an enemy by one group of zealots or another, and are seen as sensibly concentrating on more important matters by the uncommitted majority.
The US seems rather different in that way from us, perhaps because the lack of limits on political advertising enables culture warriors to hammer home the message every day of the week.
There’s not much to distinguish Republicans and Democrats economically, or over the USA’s place in the world.
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
Can you cite evidence for these claims?
I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.
Which young people support a dictatorship?!? Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?
There was a recent Yougov poll showing support for authoritarian, as opposed to democratic, government was strongest among the under 30’s.
One can also cite the degree of hostility reported by Jewish students from student unions as evidence for unprogressive views among some young people.
Let’s see the poll then.
Seems like a few nut jobs are making you form an opinion about all young people.
If you want to play this game, all older voters are morons because they voted for Brexit
You're creating a false equivalence here. No-one said young people were morons for supporting authoritarianism just that polls show they do. Personally I think there may be a broader process of intellectual and cultural decline going on of which much of woke, Trumpism, anti vax, antisemitism etc are a part. This is controversial because in certain ways (race, sexuality, gender) young voters may be more enlightened than their elders. Perhaps the decline has been going on for some time but was ameliorated by higher living standards. See Nick Palmer's thoughtful contribution.
Quite so. Most people hold a mix of enlightened and unenlightened views, across age cohorts.
I think the Woke stuff is an irritant but only matters (politically) at the margins. Most millennials clock it, confirm to it and otherwise ignore it.
It's otherwise a battle fought out by activists.
Agreed. We often overrate the importance of polls showing that most people agree with one side or the other in a culture war. If you ask people, they'll give an opinion. But it doesn't mean they actually think about it much or let it decide how they vote. The best political strategy is to decline to give an opinion, so you don't get classed as an enemy by one group of zealots or another, and are seen as sensibly concentrating on more important matters by the uncommitted majority.
The US seems rather different in that way from us, perhaps because the lack of limits on political advertising enables culture warriors to hammer home the message every day of the week.
There’s not much to distinguish Republicans and Democrats economically, or over the USA’s place in the world.
So, cultural issues fill the void.
There is in the sense the Democrats are more supportive of public healthcare and taxing the rich and now more anti Putin on the whole.
The cultural issues divide is there but even most Republicans now don't want to reverse gay marriage or ban abortion completely
Worth reading whole thread "it's not just housing":
In summary: • Parties on the right used to rely on people ageing into conservatism. Millennials are different, likely due to: • Coming of age during econ and home-ownership crises -> forming more left-wing views • Using culture war politics on the most educated generation ever
I suspect in reality it's correlated with wealth-accumulation and asset growth, as opposed to age.
It's just that in the past (last 70-80 years or so) the two have always followed each other so it looks like age.
That's quite a bit of the answer, but if we take home ownership as a proxy for accumulating wealth, it's not a complete answer.
Older people may not approve of woke. But previous older people didn't approve of the Swinging Sixties.
But, as we saw in 2016, if you tell voters you simply disapprove of them, they're unlikely to vote for you.
I think the Woke stuff is an irritant but only matters (politically) at the margins. Most millennials clock it, confirm to it and otherwise ignore it.
It's otherwise a battle fought out by activists.
One mistake here, I personally don't think that voting conservative is a proxy for right wing views. Ever since Cameron the conservatives have veered leftward and been spaffing cash left right and centre on the populace. Hardly the hall mark of a right wing party. About the only thing you could point at as right wing in the tories of the last 12 years is possibly immigration and even then remainers have been the ones wanting a more racist immigration policy
Generally speaking it means you prefer gradual measured reform over radical change.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
The UC taper rate has entered the chat.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.
Whilst I agree with you on the pinch points of both varieties this still misses the point. The point is that capital is seriously undertaxed with the result that the burden on income, and earned income in particular.
Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
The UC taper rate has entered the chat.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.
Whilst I agree with you on the pinch points of both varieties this still misses the point. The point is that capital is seriously undertaxed with the result that the burden on income, and earned income in particular.
Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.
Agreed. A shift from taxing income to taxing capital would be quite fair.
The UK taxes property as well as income more than the OECD average.
It is corporate taxes, goods and services taxes and payroll taxes in the UK which are below the OECD average
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
You must hate George Osborne.
I hate your boy, Gordon Brown, who introduced it.
I also think Conservative chancellors have been lickspittle cowards not to change it.
The fact that the marginal rate for tax/ni goes up and down like a yo-yo doesn't help at all I agree. If you fall in the band just above £100,000 and can't afford to put it into a pension pot I would still do it and borrow what you need. Cheaper to borrow than that lost to tax. Remember my recommendation sometime ago re using 0% Credit cards and 0% balance transfer cards. That is free borrowing for often 2 years and you can often transfer to another 0% transfer card, often free of any fee at the end of 2 years. It takes awhile to build up, but you get an immediate benefit of only paying the minimum on your credit card bills now.
I don't really need it now but still have £30k sitting on a card for the next 18 months and at the peak I had about £100k on cards.
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
Can you cite evidence for these claims?
I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.
Which young people support a dictatorship?!? Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?
Being held accountable for what though? People have been 'cancelled' for a long time, see Mel Gibson mouthing off about Jews. Cancelled for telling the truth or offering a very mainstream opinion? I hope not. We need to acknowledge that human beings can get a kick out of punishing others.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
The UC taper rate has entered the chat.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.
Whilst I agree with you on the pinch points of both varieties this still misses the point. The point is that capital is seriously undertaxed with the result that the burden on income, and earned income in particular.
Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.
Oh, I agree.
More houses are required. Not taxes on houses.
In you build enough properties to match the population, prices will go down. It’s the scarcity that turns housing into the default investment.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
You must hate George Osborne.
I hate your boy, Gordon Brown, who introduced it.
I also think Conservative chancellors have been lickspittle cowards not to change it.
The fact that the marginal rate for tax/ni goes up and down like a yo-yo doesn't help at all I agree. If you fall in the band just above £100,000 and can't afford to put it into a pension pot I would still do it and borrow what you need. Cheaper to borrow than that lost to tax. Remember my recommendation sometime ago re using 0% Credit cards and 0% balance transfer cards. That is free borrowing for often 2 years and you can often transfer to another 0% transfer card, often free of any fee at the end of 2 years. It takes awhile to build up, but you get an immediate benefit of only paying the minimum on your credit card bills now.
I don't really need it now but still have £30k sitting on a card for the next 18 months and at the peak I had about £100k on cards.
Showed my ex that one, many years ago.
She needed a small business loan. The rates were ridiculous.
She paid it off in a year.
The problem will come when the crunch happens. There are a lot of people with big debt, shuffling it from card to card. When that ends….
I wouldn't do a great deal with most people's council tax bills. However we surely need to start increasing it at the top end where bills are effectively capped. My bill is something like 1% of the property's value. That isn't the case for £10m homes. Land is the other obvious one. Surely a LVT makes sense. I simply don't understand why people who have sites with planning permission are simply allowed to sit on the land. The government needs a more aggressive approach to compulsory purchase.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
I'm afraid that you are living in a fantasy land my friend.
Keir Starmer has done pretty much everything to ensure that the constituency to which you refer will feel relatively safe under Labour.
But when you have stories of disabled elderly lying injured in their homes and unable to get an ambulance, or others stranded in corridors in A&E for 48 hours, then you are I'm afraid missing another vital element of concern for people of that age. Not many of them have private health care. And I could add the spiralling costs of food and energy etc. etc.
It is FAR worse than 1997 when the economy was booming. Now it's tanking. Everything that could go wrong, is.
It will be a bloodbath at the election on a scale you have never seen before. It will re-write the annals and reset 'precedent' until the next event comes along to rewrite precedent.
An immense shellacking is undoubtedly what this Government deserves but they're not going to get it. There's much truth in what you say, but OTOH this is an administration by, of and for older voters - one which has buttered them up with big pension increases almost every year and has a proven track record for frustrating the development of new homes and, therefore, ensuring a long-term trend of ever-rising prices. There's a very big constituency of retired homeowners and late middle-aged heirs who therefore have a vested interest in keeping them in place.
Nor do I believe that the dire state of public services is necessarily the handicap that everyone thinks it is: just as with Covid, there are a certain number of poor blighters who really suffered from or died with it, and therefore a cohort of enraged survivors and relatives who will never forgive the Conservatives for their handling of the situation - but that's not most people. Most older voters (and especially the better off ones, who are likely on average to be fitter and may be able to afford private care to queue jump for routine operations,) have not ended up spending years in agony waiting to get their dodgy joints fixed, or been stranded outside a hospital for 40 hours in the back of an ambulance. For them, it's still "the economy, stupid," and they have been insulated from all the worst effects of the post-2008 incomes disaster by a combination of the triple lock, skyrocketing house prices and older style, more generous occupational pensions.
There are a lot of people who have done very nicely, thank you out of the Conservative years, and that's before getting on to the culture wars horror show. Much of the population still thinks Brexit was the right decision. Much of the population still wants the boat people problem to go away, and not by adopting the "just let them all in" solution that it'll be all too easy to convince them that Labour would be in favour of. Yes, Keir Starmer has managed his affairs as LOTO quite competently, and substantial gains seem to be nailed on - but as for an epochal victory, I just don't buy it. The minted old gits will weigh their options come election time, and stick with the devil they know. Watch.
I had my nephews over for Xmas, both in their 20s, and they clearly perceive all this from the other side. The younger one was telling me that everyone he knows is thoroughly disengaged from politics, blaming 'the system' as much as the Tories, and have basically concluded that politics and politicians are somewhere between corrupt and a waste of time.
Therefore there's a big disaffacted constituency whose instinct is not to bother - engaging some of these is the explanation why Corbyn managed to come in off the radar in 2017. It is hard to see Starmer doing the same.
Top Tip for Tories - wake up and smell reality. Your denial of the state of fuck is a big part of why growing numbers want to hurt you. Major won in 1992 - remember the slogan? YES IT HURT, YES IT WORKED. At the moment the Tories are in denial that there is hurt, and it isn't working either.
That slogan was for 1997 wasn’t it? In 1992 we had the pain but precious little sign yet of anything working, economically.
I know some Labour supporters on here doubt any majority, let alone a majority of that size, but it would be really bad for the country IMO.
Time to give the Lib Dems a leg up.
No, a big Labour majority would be good for the country. It would mean the government actually being in charge for once, instead of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph establishment.
So, is Anas Sarwar’s gang getting your vote next time Alan?
No, between LD and Mhairi Black. Notable that Douglas Alexander isn't contesting his old seat but wants the easier option of East Lothian.
Sensible choice. East Lothian is the best prospect for a Labour gain in Scotland, although I expect them to do rather better than just that one seat, given the six gains Labour made in Scotland under Corbyn in 2017. Surely, under Starmer, they will do better than that as they cruise to a UK-wide victory in 2024?
Looks like Douglas Alexander fancies a job in Starmer's cabinet. If Lammy is a dud, he could well be Foreign Secretary by 2025.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
The UC taper rate has entered the chat.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.
Whilst I agree with you on the pinch points of both varieties this still misses the point. The point is that capital is seriously undertaxed with the result that the burden on income, and earned income in particular.
Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.
Oh, I agree.
More houses are required. Not taxes on houses.
In you build enough properties to match the population, prices will go down. It’s the scarcity that turns housing into the default investment.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
I'm very vague about how all this works and 'thankfully' don't earn enough to have to think about it much. But is there a reason we don't have a simpler system like 'for every £10k over £50k your tax rate goes up by 1%' (up to some limit presumably)? I realise there are other things at play like various benefits/allowances etc - but it feels like they could all be under a similar sliding scale rather than all these esoteric and random-seeming cliff-edges.
I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
I'm afraid that you are living in a fantasy land my friend.
Keir Starmer has done pretty much everything to ensure that the constituency to which you refer will feel relatively safe under Labour.
But when you have stories of disabled elderly lying injured in their homes and unable to get an ambulance, or others stranded in corridors in A&E for 48 hours, then you are I'm afraid missing another vital element of concern for people of that age. Not many of them have private health care. And I could add the spiralling costs of food and energy etc. etc.
It is FAR worse than 1997 when the economy was booming. Now it's tanking. Everything that could go wrong, is.
It will be a bloodbath at the election on a scale you have never seen before. It will re-write the annals and reset 'precedent' until the next event comes along to rewrite precedent.
An immense shellacking is undoubtedly what this Government deserves but they're not going to get it. There's much truth in what you say, but OTOH this is an administration by, of and for older voters - one which has buttered them up with big pension increases almost every year and has a proven track record for frustrating the development of new homes and, therefore, ensuring a long-term trend of ever-rising prices. There's a very big constituency of retired homeowners and late middle-aged heirs who therefore have a vested interest in keeping them in place.
Nor do I believe that the dire state of public services is necessarily the handicap that everyone thinks it is: just as with Covid, there are a certain number of poor blighters who really suffered from or died with it, and therefore a cohort of enraged survivors and relatives who will never forgive the Conservatives for their handling of the situation - but that's not most people. Most older voters (and especially the better off ones, who are likely on average to be fitter and may be able to afford private care to queue jump for routine operations,) have not ended up spending years in agony waiting to get their dodgy joints fixed, or been stranded outside a hospital for 40 hours in the back of an ambulance. For them, it's still "the economy, stupid," and they have been insulated from all the worst effects of the post-2008 incomes disaster by a combination of the triple lock, skyrocketing house prices and older style, more generous occupational pensions.
There are a lot of people who have done very nicely, thank you out of the Conservative years, and that's before getting on to the culture wars horror show. Much of the population still thinks Brexit was the right decision. Much of the population still wants the boat people problem to go away, and not by adopting the "just let them all in" solution that it'll be all too easy to convince them that Labour would be in favour of. Yes, Keir Starmer has managed his affairs as LOTO quite competently, and substantial gains seem to be nailed on - but as for an epochal victory, I just don't buy it. The minted old gits will weigh their options come election time, and stick with the devil they know. Watch.
I had my nephews over for Xmas, both in their 20s, and they clearly perceive all this from the other side. The younger one was telling me that everyone he knows is thoroughly disengaged from politics, blaming 'the system' as much as the Tories, and have basically concluded that politics and politicians are somewhere between corrupt and a waste of time.
Therefore there's a big disaffacted constituency whose instinct is not to bother - engaging some of these is the explanation why Corbyn managed to come in off the radar in 2017. It is hard to see Starmer doing the same.
Top Tip for Tories - wake up and smell reality. Your denial of the state of fuck is a big part of why growing numbers want to hurt you. Major won in 1992 - remember the slogan? YES IT HURT, YES IT WORKED. At the moment the Tories are in denial that there is hurt, and it isn't working either.
That slogan was for 1997 wasn’t it? In 1992 we had the pain but precious little sign yet of anything working, economically.
No sir, 1992. The 1997 slogan was NEW LABOUR NEW DANGER and the infamous demon eyes
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
I'm very vague about how all this works and 'thankfully' don't earn enough to have to think about it much. But is there a reason we don't have a simpler system like 'for every £10k over £50k your tax rate goes up by 1%' (up to some limit presumably)? I realise there are other things at play like various benefits/allowances etc - but it feels like they could all be under a similar sliding scale rather than all these esoteric and random-seeming cliff-edges.
I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'
It's because "people over £x don't deserve to get child benefit or a personal allowance - tax the rich!"
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
You must hate George Osborne.
I hate your boy, Gordon Brown, who introduced it.
I also think Conservative chancellors have been lickspittle cowards not to change it.
The fact that the marginal rate for tax/ni goes up and down like a yo-yo doesn't help at all I agree. If you fall in the band just above £100,000 and can't afford to put it into a pension pot I would still do it and borrow what you need. Cheaper to borrow than that lost to tax. Remember my recommendation sometime ago re using 0% Credit cards and 0% balance transfer cards. That is free borrowing for often 2 years and you can often transfer to another 0% transfer card, often free of any fee at the end of 2 years. It takes awhile to build up, but you get an immediate benefit of only paying the minimum on your credit card bills now.
I don't really need it now but still have £30k sitting on a card for the next 18 months and at the peak I had about £100k on cards.
Showed my ex that one, many years ago.
She needed a small business loan. The rates were ridiculous.
She paid it off in a year.
The problem will come when the crunch happens. There are a lot of people with big debt, shuffling it from card to card. When that ends….
Yep. You have to be able to pay it off otherwise you are into high interest rates when the free time comes to an end (and I assume that is what the credit card companies are banking on) and unfortunately there are plenty of people who think credit cards are free money so really not a good idea for them.
The stupid thing is the more I did it the more my credit worthiness improved, the more I could do it, such that I got huge limits on masses of cards, which I just filed away once the free period had ended.
"A watchdog is to investigate Twitter after a hacker claimed to have private details linked to more than 400 million accounts.
The hacker, "Ryushi", is demanding $200,000 (£166,000) to hand over the data - reported to include that of some celebrities - and delete it.
Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC) says it "will examine Twitter's compliance with data-protection law in relation to that security issue".
Twitter has not commented on the claim.
The data is said to include phone numbers and emails, including those belonging to celebrities and politicians, but the purported size of the haul is not confirmed. Only a small "sample" has so far been made public.
The Guardian reported that data of US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was included in the sample of data published by the hacker. The data of broadcaster Piers Morgan, who recently had his Twitter account hacked, is also reported to be included."
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
The UC taper rate has entered the chat.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.
Whilst I agree with you on the pinch points of both varieties this still misses the point. The point is that capital is seriously undertaxed with the result that the burden on income, and earned income in particular.
Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.
Oh, I agree.
More houses are required. Not taxes on houses.
In you build enough properties to match the population, prices will go down. It’s the scarcity that turns housing into the default investment.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
I'm very vague about how all this works and 'thankfully' don't earn enough to have to think about it much. But is there a reason we don't have a simpler system like 'for every £10k over £50k your tax rate goes up by 1%' (up to some limit presumably)? I realise there are other things at play like various benefits/allowances etc - but it feels like they could all be under a similar sliding scale rather than all these esoteric and random-seeming cliff-edges.
I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'
It's because "people over £x don't deserve to get child benefit or a personal allowance - tax the rich!"
I can understand a bit of that at play down the years - but why is it so erratic? Does the government gain something out of it being (seemingly) a mess?
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
I'm very vague about how all this works and 'thankfully' don't earn enough to have to think about it much. But is there a reason we don't have a simpler system like 'for every £10k over £50k your tax rate goes up by 1%' (up to some limit presumably)? I realise there are other things at play like various benefits/allowances etc - but it feels like they could all be under a similar sliding scale rather than all these esoteric and random-seeming cliff-edges.
I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'
Adding another “fix” on top of the first one zillion fixes is so much fun for Chancellors. Plus any attempt to simplify the tax system runs into the issue that tax law is written by tax lawyers…. Not to mention the more idiotic types who think that a simpler system would help the rich….
The great Tooze is publishing on the state of Britain, a topic he usually avoids as it is “too personal”.
We need to talk about the state of Britain, the situation is dire. But the evocation of earlier debates about decline, debates which stretch back to the 1950s and beyond, is not just beside the point. It distracts from alarming novelty of the current situation. If you don’t engage with the data, the incoherence and repetitive structure of those earlier debates about decline, can seem to justify a relativistic or downright apologetic stance. Ding-dong exchanges between Brexiteers and Remainers have not helped to clarify the situation. Whilst Brexiteers chase the vanishing dream of “global Britain”, the national economic collapse that, according to “Project Fear”, was supposed to follow Brexit, never arrived either. That is not to say that the economic impact of Brexit will not be severe. The latest predictions are nasty. See for instance the CER. But the Brexit effects have not yet been fully felt.
More importantly for our purposes, the shock of 2016 cannot by itself explain what really ought to alarm us, namely the astonishing stagnation in productivity and real incomes that now stretches back over more than a decade.
In the run up to 92 Major ran on that slogan regarding the pain of the early 1980s leading to the boom of the late 80s and early 90s. Despite what old PB heads tell you in 97 there was no perception that the economy had recovered from the self-inflicted wounds of 'je ne regret rien'. That recovery only fed through to voters courtesy of the policies of Blair and Brown. Hence, they got the credit and another two election wins.
Even if the economy recovers prior to a GE the Govt will get no credit unless that feeds through to the voters. It may shock you to know that working people distrust positive Govt statistics if they aren't seeing it in their own pockets.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
I'm very vague about how all this works and 'thankfully' don't earn enough to have to think about it much. But is there a reason we don't have a simpler system like 'for every £10k over £50k your tax rate goes up by 1%' (up to some limit presumably)? I realise there are other things at play like various benefits/allowances etc - but it feels like they could all be under a similar sliding scale rather than all these esoteric and random-seeming cliff-edges.
I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'
It's because "people over £x don't deserve to get child benefit or a personal allowance - tax the rich!"
I can understand a bit of that at play down the years - but why is it so erratic? Does the government gain something out of it being (seemingly) a mess?
Less political problems than trying to tidy up.
Roll NI into Income tax. 3 bands. The resulting outcry would probably set the Channel on fire.
Or just add an adjustment to the relief tapper on the allowance for antique horse shoe stone removers.
Honestly I’m surprised they are as high as they are. The country is in a mess, the past 12 months have been abysmal and Sunak doesn’t have what it takes.
There's a substantial body of centre-right opinion in this country and an awful lot of older voters are heavily invested in the current system (which is essentially a massive engine for the transfer of wealth from wage earners to property owners and the retired.) There's no way on God's Earth that the Tories are going to do anything like this badly when people actually have to vote for a Government. Hard to say whether this is going to end in a Hung Parliament or a small Labour majority, but I'm still leaning towards the former. I don't think it'll be as bad for the Tories as '97 - socio-economic inequality has increased and the population has aged since then, both factors which mitigate against a Labour landslide.
I'm afraid that you are living in a fantasy land my friend.
Keir Starmer has done pretty much everything to ensure that the constituency to which you refer will feel relatively safe under Labour.
But when you have stories of disabled elderly lying injured in their homes and unable to get an ambulance, or others stranded in corridors in A&E for 48 hours, then you are I'm afraid missing another vital element of concern for people of that age. Not many of them have private health care. And I could add the spiralling costs of food and energy etc. etc.
It is FAR worse than 1997 when the economy was booming. Now it's tanking. Everything that could go wrong, is.
It will be a bloodbath at the election on a scale you have never seen before. It will re-write the annals and reset 'precedent' until the next event comes along to rewrite precedent.
An immense shellacking is undoubtedly what this Government deserves but they're not going to get it. There's much truth in what you say, but OTOH this is an administration by, of and for older voters - one which has buttered them up with big pension increases almost every year and has a proven track record for frustrating the development of new homes and, therefore, ensuring a long-term trend of ever-rising prices. There's a very big constituency of retired homeowners and late middle-aged heirs who therefore have a vested interest in keeping them in place.
Nor do I believe that the dire state of public services is necessarily the handicap that everyone thinks it is: just as with Covid, there are a certain number of poor blighters who really suffered from or died with it, and therefore a cohort of enraged survivors and relatives who will never forgive the Conservatives for their handling of the situation - but that's not most people. Most older voters (and especially the better off ones, who are likely on average to be fitter and may be able to afford private care to queue jump for routine operations,) have not ended up spending years in agony waiting to get their dodgy joints fixed, or been stranded outside a hospital for 40 hours in the back of an ambulance. For them, it's still "the economy, stupid," and they have been insulated from all the worst effects of the post-2008 incomes disaster by a combination of the triple lock, skyrocketing house prices and older style, more generous occupational pensions.
There are a lot of people who have done very nicely, thank you out of the Conservative years, and that's before getting on to the culture wars horror show. Much of the population still thinks Brexit was the right decision. Much of the population still wants the boat people problem to go away, and not by adopting the "just let them all in" solution that it'll be all too easy to convince them that Labour would be in favour of. Yes, Keir Starmer has managed his affairs as LOTO quite competently, and substantial gains seem to be nailed on - but as for an epochal victory, I just don't buy it. The minted old gits will weigh their options come election time, and stick with the devil they know. Watch.
I had my nephews over for Xmas, both in their 20s, and they clearly perceive all this from the other side. The younger one was telling me that everyone he knows is thoroughly disengaged from politics, blaming 'the system' as much as the Tories, and have basically concluded that politics and politicians are somewhere between corrupt and a waste of time.
Therefore there's a big disaffacted constituency whose instinct is not to bother - engaging some of these is the explanation why Corbyn managed to come in off the radar in 2017. It is hard to see Starmer doing the same.
Top Tip for Tories - wake up and smell reality. Your denial of the state of fuck is a big part of why growing numbers want to hurt you. Major won in 1992 - remember the slogan? YES IT HURT, YES IT WORKED. At the moment the Tories are in denial that there is hurt, and it isn't working either.
That slogan was for 1997 wasn’t it? In 1992 we had the pain but precious little sign yet of anything working, economically.
No sir, 1992. The 1997 slogan was NEW LABOUR NEW DANGER and the infamous demon eyes
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
I'm very vague about how all this works and 'thankfully' don't earn enough to have to think about it much. But is there a reason we don't have a simpler system like 'for every £10k over £50k your tax rate goes up by 1%' (up to some limit presumably)? I realise there are other things at play like various benefits/allowances etc - but it feels like they could all be under a similar sliding scale rather than all these esoteric and random-seeming cliff-edges.
I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'
It's because "people over £x don't deserve to get child benefit or a personal allowance - tax the rich!"
I can understand a bit of that at play down the years - but why is it so erratic? Does the government gain something out of it being (seemingly) a mess?
Headlines every time they change something. Politicians' Syllogism.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
The UC taper rate has entered the chat.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.
Whilst I agree with you on the pinch points of both varieties this still misses the point. The point is that capital is seriously undertaxed with the result that the burden on income, and earned income in particular.
Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.
Oh, I agree.
More houses are required. Not taxes on houses.
In you build enough properties to match the population, prices will go down. It’s the scarcity that turns housing into the default investment.
Scarcity where people want to live.
Brownfield, brownfield…
Brownfield is just an excuse.
Yet average house prices in London are 4 times those of the North East and even 1.5 times those in the home counties.
London brownfield sites are where we need most new building
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
I'm very vague about how all this works and 'thankfully' don't earn enough to have to think about it much. But is there a reason we don't have a simpler system like 'for every £10k over £50k your tax rate goes up by 1%' (up to some limit presumably)? I realise there are other things at play like various benefits/allowances etc - but it feels like they could all be under a similar sliding scale rather than all these esoteric and random-seeming cliff-edges.
I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'
It's because "people over £x don't deserve to get child benefit or a personal allowance - tax the rich!"
I can understand a bit of that at play down the years - but why is it so erratic? Does the government gain something out of it being (seemingly) a mess?
Less political problems than trying to tidy up.
Roll NI into Income tax. 3 bands. The resulting outcry would probably set the Channel on fire.
Or just add an adjustment to the relief tapper on the allowance for antique horse shoe stone removers.
Or restore NI to its original purpose, only for unemployment insurance, healthcare and the state pension
The great Tooze is publishing on the state of Britain, a topic he usually avoids as it is “too personal”.
We need to talk about the state of Britain, the situation is dire. But the evocation of earlier debates about decline, debates which stretch back to the 1950s and beyond, is not just beside the point. It distracts from alarming novelty of the current situation. If you don’t engage with the data, the incoherence and repetitive structure of those earlier debates about decline, can seem to justify a relativistic or downright apologetic stance. Ding-dong exchanges between Brexiteers and Remainers have not helped to clarify the situation. Whilst Brexiteers chase the vanishing dream of “global Britain”, the national economic collapse that, according to “Project Fear”, was supposed to follow Brexit, never arrived either. That is not to say that the economic impact of Brexit will not be severe. The latest predictions are nasty. See for instance the CER. But the Brexit effects have not yet been fully felt.
More importantly for our purposes, the shock of 2016 cannot by itself explain what really ought to alarm us, namely the astonishing stagnation in productivity and real incomes that now stretches back over more than a decade.
It's almost like letting in millions of low skilled workers to "rub the rights nose in diversity" ended up undercutting real pay and conditions for half the population, and causing employers to choose cheap labour over capital investment.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
I'm very vague about how all this works and 'thankfully' don't earn enough to have to think about it much. But is there a reason we don't have a simpler system like 'for every £10k over £50k your tax rate goes up by 1%' (up to some limit presumably)? I realise there are other things at play like various benefits/allowances etc - but it feels like they could all be under a similar sliding scale rather than all these esoteric and random-seeming cliff-edges.
I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'
It's because "people over £x don't deserve to get child benefit or a personal allowance - tax the rich!"
I can understand a bit of that at play down the years - but why is it so erratic? Does the government gain something out of it being (seemingly) a mess?
Headlines every time they change something. Politicians' Syllogism.
Put it another way.
Imagine a system were NI and income tax are merged. 3 tax bands.
All the politicians and all those civil servants at the Treasury would have to play with (for income taxes) would be the three bands and the tax allowance.
Where’s the fun in that? Also very hard to hide tax rises. All you’d have, really is fiscal drag on the thresholds….
The great Tooze is publishing on the state of Britain, a topic he usually avoids as it is “too personal”.
We need to talk about the state of Britain, the situation is dire. But the evocation of earlier debates about decline, debates which stretch back to the 1950s and beyond, is not just beside the point. It distracts from alarming novelty of the current situation. If you don’t engage with the data, the incoherence and repetitive structure of those earlier debates about decline, can seem to justify a relativistic or downright apologetic stance. Ding-dong exchanges between Brexiteers and Remainers have not helped to clarify the situation. Whilst Brexiteers chase the vanishing dream of “global Britain”, the national economic collapse that, according to “Project Fear”, was supposed to follow Brexit, never arrived either. That is not to say that the economic impact of Brexit will not be severe. The latest predictions are nasty. See for instance the CER. But the Brexit effects have not yet been fully felt.
More importantly for our purposes, the shock of 2016 cannot by itself explain what really ought to alarm us, namely the astonishing stagnation in productivity and real incomes that now stretches back over more than a decade.
It's almost like letting in millions of low skilled workers to "rub the rights nose in diversity" ended up undercutting real pay and conditions for half the population, and causing employers to choose cheap labour over capital investment.
A moment that was interesting - a Labour supporting friend met my friend who was emigrating to Australia.
The Labour chap thought that the massive wage increases in parts of the Australian economy due to labour shortages was a bad thing….
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
Can you cite evidence for these claims?
I’m very free freedom of speech, I just don’t think being held accountable is being cancelled. And most younger people agree.
Which young people support a dictatorship?!? Aren’t they the most in favour of PR?
There was a recent Yougov poll showing support for authoritarian, as opposed to democratic, government was strongest among the under 30’s.
One can also cite the degree of hostility reported by Jewish students from student unions as evidence for unprogressive views among some young people.
And we come back round to the impact of the Andrew Tate's of the world.
Anyway, great quote from that FT article: “The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort.”
Almost everything 'Conservative' is antithetical to the voting young. The faces of UK 'Conservatism' are angry newspapers, Richard Littlejohn, GB news, Nigel and the grumpy retired wankers from provincial vox pops.
Fuck the Conservative party. They imported a culture war for short term electioneering.
OTOH older voters are more likely to approve of democracy and free speech than younger ones.
Which therefore is the more “progressive” age cohort.
I think that's a load of kark. They just have a different set of topics they consider taboo.
The great Tooze is publishing on the state of Britain, a topic he usually avoids as it is “too personal”.
We need to talk about the state of Britain, the situation is dire. But the evocation of earlier debates about decline, debates which stretch back to the 1950s and beyond, is not just beside the point. It distracts from alarming novelty of the current situation. If you don’t engage with the data, the incoherence and repetitive structure of those earlier debates about decline, can seem to justify a relativistic or downright apologetic stance. Ding-dong exchanges between Brexiteers and Remainers have not helped to clarify the situation. Whilst Brexiteers chase the vanishing dream of “global Britain”, the national economic collapse that, according to “Project Fear”, was supposed to follow Brexit, never arrived either. That is not to say that the economic impact of Brexit will not be severe. The latest predictions are nasty. See for instance the CER. But the Brexit effects have not yet been fully felt.
More importantly for our purposes, the shock of 2016 cannot by itself explain what really ought to alarm us, namely the astonishing stagnation in productivity and real incomes that now stretches back over more than a decade.
It's almost like letting in millions of low skilled workers to "rub the rights nose in diversity" ended up undercutting real pay and conditions for half the population, and causing employers to choose cheap labour over capital investment.
A moment that was interesting - a Labour supporting friend met my friend who was emigrating to Australia.
The Labour chap thought that the massive wage increases in parts of the Australian economy due to labour shortages was a bad thing….
The great Tooze is publishing on the state of Britain, a topic he usually avoids as it is “too personal”.
We need to talk about the state of Britain, the situation is dire. But the evocation of earlier debates about decline, debates which stretch back to the 1950s and beyond, is not just beside the point. It distracts from alarming novelty of the current situation. If you don’t engage with the data, the incoherence and repetitive structure of those earlier debates about decline, can seem to justify a relativistic or downright apologetic stance. Ding-dong exchanges between Brexiteers and Remainers have not helped to clarify the situation. Whilst Brexiteers chase the vanishing dream of “global Britain”, the national economic collapse that, according to “Project Fear”, was supposed to follow Brexit, never arrived either. That is not to say that the economic impact of Brexit will not be severe. The latest predictions are nasty. See for instance the CER. But the Brexit effects have not yet been fully felt.
More importantly for our purposes, the shock of 2016 cannot by itself explain what really ought to alarm us, namely the astonishing stagnation in productivity and real incomes that now stretches back over more than a decade.
The great Tooze is publishing on the state of Britain, a topic he usually avoids as it is “too personal”.
We need to talk about the state of Britain, the situation is dire. But the evocation of earlier debates about decline, debates which stretch back to the 1950s and beyond, is not just beside the point. It distracts from alarming novelty of the current situation. If you don’t engage with the data, the incoherence and repetitive structure of those earlier debates about decline, can seem to justify a relativistic or downright apologetic stance. Ding-dong exchanges between Brexiteers and Remainers have not helped to clarify the situation. Whilst Brexiteers chase the vanishing dream of “global Britain”, the national economic collapse that, according to “Project Fear”, was supposed to follow Brexit, never arrived either. That is not to say that the economic impact of Brexit will not be severe. The latest predictions are nasty. See for instance the CER. But the Brexit effects have not yet been fully felt.
More importantly for our purposes, the shock of 2016 cannot by itself explain what really ought to alarm us, namely the astonishing stagnation in productivity and real incomes that now stretches back over more than a decade.
It's almost like letting in millions of low skilled workers to "rub the rights nose in diversity" ended up undercutting real pay and conditions for half the population, and causing employers to choose cheap labour over capital investment.
The great Tooze is publishing on the state of Britain, a topic he usually avoids as it is “too personal”.
We need to talk about the state of Britain, the situation is dire. But the evocation of earlier debates about decline, debates which stretch back to the 1950s and beyond, is not just beside the point. It distracts from alarming novelty of the current situation. If you don’t engage with the data, the incoherence and repetitive structure of those earlier debates about decline, can seem to justify a relativistic or downright apologetic stance. Ding-dong exchanges between Brexiteers and Remainers have not helped to clarify the situation. Whilst Brexiteers chase the vanishing dream of “global Britain”, the national economic collapse that, according to “Project Fear”, was supposed to follow Brexit, never arrived either. That is not to say that the economic impact of Brexit will not be severe. The latest predictions are nasty. See for instance the CER. But the Brexit effects have not yet been fully felt.
More importantly for our purposes, the shock of 2016 cannot by itself explain what really ought to alarm us, namely the astonishing stagnation in productivity and real incomes that now stretches back over more than a decade.
It's almost like letting in millions of low skilled workers to "rub the rights nose in diversity" ended up undercutting real pay and conditions for half the population, and causing employers to choose cheap labour over capital investment.
A moment that was interesting - a Labour supporting friend met my friend who was emigrating to Australia.
The Labour chap thought that the massive wage increases in parts of the Australian economy due to labour shortages was a bad thing….
Well Australia has a Labor government now which is more pro open borders immigration than the Coalition were
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
I'm very vague about how all this works and 'thankfully' don't earn enough to have to think about it much. But is there a reason we don't have a simpler system like 'for every £10k over £50k your tax rate goes up by 1%' (up to some limit presumably)? I realise there are other things at play like various benefits/allowances etc - but it feels like they could all be under a similar sliding scale rather than all these esoteric and random-seeming cliff-edges.
I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'
It's because "people over £x don't deserve to get child benefit or a personal allowance - tax the rich!"
I can understand a bit of that at play down the years - but why is it so erratic? Does the government gain something out of it being (seemingly) a mess?
Less political problems than trying to tidy up.
Roll NI into Income tax. 3 bands. The resulting outcry would probably set the Channel on fire.
Or just add an adjustment to the relief tapper on the allowance for antique horse shoe stone removers.
The way to avoid pinch points is more bands. The US has seven income tax brackets at the federal level. They also don't undermine marriage by penalizing the division of labour in a family.
The place income tax rates most penalize work is between ~40k and ~110k, when potential high flyers are grinding in their late 20s and 30s. Once you have hit 110k or so you have done the hard work and are on a career path to upper incomes where you have enough money you don't care so much any more.
Also that ~110k level is partially determined by atrociously high housing and childcare costs, which makes it higher than it needs to be.
Policymakers wishing to raise more revenue from those with high incomes could simply raise income tax rates; raising any of the rates of income tax would be progressive. But estimates suggest that the UK’s top marginal income tax rate (which applies to the roughly top 1% of taxpayers) is already close to revenue maximising."
If anything the top rate tax is too high. We really do need to remove the pinch / taper points at the £50,000 and £100,000 levels by say increase rates to 43% from say £70,000.
It is too high.
I pay 62% above £100k, which is confiscatory.
The UC taper rate has entered the chat.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.
Whilst I agree with you on the pinch points of both varieties this still misses the point. The point is that capital is seriously undertaxed with the result that the burden on income, and earned income in particular.
Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.
Oh, I agree.
More houses are required. Not taxes on houses.
In you build enough properties to match the population, prices will go down. It’s the scarcity that turns housing into the default investment.
Scarcity where people want to live.
Brownfield, brownfield…
Brownfield is just an excuse.
Yet average house prices in London are 4 times those of the North East and even 1.5 times those in the home counties.
London brownfield sites are where we need most new building
Where are these magic brownfield sites in London?
Consider - at Canary Wharf, hundreds of millions was spent, literally digging a hole in the ground. Because it was next to the river, they had to flood it with bentonite slurry and excavate underwater to prevent the river causing a collapse.
They are building towers of flats on sites that are next to major roads, all night train lines…
The great Tooze is publishing on the state of Britain, a topic he usually avoids as it is “too personal”.
We need to talk about the state of Britain, the situation is dire. But the evocation of earlier debates about decline, debates which stretch back to the 1950s and beyond, is not just beside the point. It distracts from alarming novelty of the current situation. If you don’t engage with the data, the incoherence and repetitive structure of those earlier debates about decline, can seem to justify a relativistic or downright apologetic stance. Ding-dong exchanges between Brexiteers and Remainers have not helped to clarify the situation. Whilst Brexiteers chase the vanishing dream of “global Britain”, the national economic collapse that, according to “Project Fear”, was supposed to follow Brexit, never arrived either. That is not to say that the economic impact of Brexit will not be severe. The latest predictions are nasty. See for instance the CER. But the Brexit effects have not yet been fully felt.
More importantly for our purposes, the shock of 2016 cannot by itself explain what really ought to alarm us, namely the astonishing stagnation in productivity and real incomes that now stretches back over more than a decade.
It's almost like letting in millions of low skilled workers to "rub the rights nose in diversity" ended up undercutting real pay and conditions for half the population, and causing employers to choose cheap labour over capital investment.
A moment that was interesting - a Labour supporting friend met my friend who was emigrating to Australia.
The Labour chap thought that the massive wage increases in parts of the Australian economy due to labour shortages was a bad thing….
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4ZaqvBEeJw
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/29/sahra-wagenknecht-german-left-die-linke-breakaway-far-right-afd
I'm a classic older middle-class left-winger of the kind that Ms Wagenknecht attacks (voted twice for Corbyn though I'm OK with Starmer). But I wouldn't dream of questioning democracy, and I like to think that most people here of all persuasions feel the same. But on the extremes (Trump's followers being another example), sheer impatience is eroding support for the basic system. We need some competent government that actually addresses the concerns of younger people to show that the system can deliver.
The 2022 attitude is more "Didn't hurt us, Suck it up losers."
Just 21% voted for the social democrat PD. 9% for Five Star and 6% for the centre right Forza Italia
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1413999077172334596?t=0j8khOY0fTHF9UPWuejqJw&s=19
There are whole other areas where its now reaching the point where the issues can no longer be hidden
NHS
Ambulances (kept separate because avoidable deaths are starting to become a news story)
The impact of next year's School budgets on actual teaching
Local Authority finance
Social Care
Railways
And that is just items off the top of my head.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/30/setback-for-eu-migration-plans-as-sweden-assumes-blocs-presidency
Sweden abandoning neutrality and joining NATO.
Not quite the model of enlightened social democracy for Scotland to mimic that it was. Wonder what @StuartDickson makes of it all?
But is that indicative of wanting their own way and being irked at not getting it, despite low levels of voting?
If the elderly routinely got the shit end of the stick, would they be showing a similar inclination while the young would think, in that scenario, democracy is just great?
I also think Conservative chancellors have been lickspittle cowards not to change it.
Up there with the all time greats....
"Hi, we'd like to run our science mini nuclear reactor at your trade exhibition. Actually run it. "
"Er.... ok."
"It's so safe that it is self moderating. So we are going to have Edward Teller yank the main control rod out to try and cause an excursion. But it will all be fine. He will do this a several times a day...."
The days when Men were Men - and asbestos filters in cigarettes was a Good Idea.
If you follow my posts I've consistently argued against that high UC taper too.
MPs like him, the party dogma which created him, and the media moguls weaponising his degree of immorality, incompetence and stupidity deserve to get totally obliterated at the next election.
It's otherwise a battle fought out by activists.
I don't have the luxury of deferring all of it.
We usually this argument when the age group most likely to support the argument the advocate is making encourages them to put them under the spotlight.
LAB 340
CON 225
SNP 40
LD 20
PC 5
OTHER mainly NI 20
So LAB maj 30.
Sean isn't playing any game. He's just pointing out that wisdom isn't all one way for young people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
So we are then in the position tory sub 200, labour huge majority and voters thinking come 2029.....well things were shit....they are even shitter now. We have tried tories, labour haven't improved things in fact I am paying even more tax for less services.
I can't help thinking might decide to decamp from centrist parties altogether and try a roll of the dice like they did for brexit. Who knows what the hell we might end up with (hint it wont be the lib dems as they are largely in most voters minds the crevice between the buttocks of labour and tories).
Wouldn't at all surprise me to see green mps and refuk mps and a farage vehicle coming to the fore.
Capital gains should be taxed like income, as it so often is but simply deferred. Inflationary gains in housing need to be taxed. Pension reliefs are still too generous. All of these pile the pressure on rates and personal allowances. We need to change this. Saving capital from income is pretty much impossible in this country. That is consolidating inherited wealth and stunting opportunity.
If younger generations support restrictions on free speech and authoritarian attitudes, then that's hardly progressive.
Personally, I'd say most generations simply go with the flow to try to fit in.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/09/11/if-young-voters-actually-voted-then-be-afraid/
The US seems rather different in that way from us, perhaps because the lack of limits on political advertising enables culture warriors to hammer home the message every day of the week.
If Labour do win next time you absolutely must deliver for them.
I may be wrong....
EDIT: Du Pont engineers had already built the prototypes for criticality experiments. Remote control, TV (yes, in 1945), in the next valley over, in a concrete bunker. Un-manned.
Time for some hard truths: the Tories should have stuck with Boris Johnson
Owen Jones
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/30/hard-truths-conservatives-boris-johnson-disastrous-leader
So, cultural issues fill the void.
https://www.reddit.com/r/batman/comments/slciph/mechanical_knee_brace/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
The cultural issues divide is there but even most Republicans now don't want to reverse gay marriage or ban abortion completely
It is corporate taxes, goods and services taxes and payroll taxes in the UK which are below the OECD average
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/revenue-statistics_2522770x#:~:text=In 2021, the average OECD,while GDP rose by 10.5%.
I don't really need it now but still have £30k sitting on a card for the next 18 months and at the peak I had about £100k on cards.
In you build enough properties to match the population, prices will go down. It’s the scarcity that turns housing into the default investment.
She needed a small business loan. The rates were ridiculous.
She paid it off in a year.
The problem will come when the crunch happens. There are a lot of people with big debt, shuffling it from card to card. When that ends….
Brownfield, brownfield…
I feel like I'm missing something as to why we have 'oh, this much income you pay X%, but lose Y% on that, then if you earn another £RANDOM you pay X+Q% and lose...'
The stupid thing is the more I did it the more my credit worthiness improved, the more I could do it, such that I got huge limits on masses of cards, which I just filed away once the free period had ended.
"A watchdog is to investigate Twitter after a hacker claimed to have private details linked to more than 400 million accounts.
The hacker, "Ryushi", is demanding $200,000 (£166,000) to hand over the data - reported to include that of some celebrities - and delete it.
Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC) says it "will examine Twitter's compliance with data-protection law in relation to that security issue".
Twitter has not commented on the claim.
The data is said to include phone numbers and emails, including those belonging to celebrities and politicians, but the purported size of the haul is not confirmed. Only a small "sample" has so far been made public.
The Guardian reported that data of US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was included in the sample of data published by the hacker. The data of broadcaster Piers Morgan, who recently had his Twitter account hacked, is also reported to be included."
We need to talk about the state of Britain, the situation is dire. But the evocation of earlier debates about decline, debates which stretch back to the 1950s and beyond, is not just beside the point. It distracts from alarming novelty of the current situation. If you don’t engage with the data, the incoherence and repetitive structure of those earlier debates about decline, can seem to justify a relativistic or downright apologetic stance. Ding-dong exchanges between Brexiteers and Remainers have not helped to clarify the situation. Whilst Brexiteers chase the vanishing dream of “global Britain”, the national economic collapse that, according to “Project Fear”, was supposed to follow Brexit, never arrived either. That is not to say that the economic impact of Brexit will not be severe. The latest predictions are nasty. See for instance the CER. But the Brexit effects have not yet been fully felt.
More importantly for our purposes, the shock of 2016 cannot by itself explain what really ought to alarm us, namely the astonishing stagnation in productivity and real incomes that now stretches back over more than a decade.
Even if the economy recovers prior to a GE the Govt will get no credit unless that feeds through to the voters. It may shock you to know that working people distrust positive Govt statistics if they aren't seeing it in their own pockets.
Roll NI into Income tax. 3 bands. The resulting outcry would probably set the Channel on fire.
Or just add an adjustment to the relief tapper on the allowance for antique horse shoe stone removers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64116796
What a terrible Prime Minister he was.
London brownfield sites are where we need most new building
Imagine a system were NI and income tax are merged. 3 tax bands.
All the politicians and all those civil servants at the Treasury would have to play with (for income taxes) would be the three bands and the tax allowance.
Where’s the fun in that? Also very hard to hide tax rises. All you’d have, really is fiscal drag on the thresholds….
The Labour chap thought that the massive wage increases in parts of the Australian economy due to labour shortages was a bad thing….
They just have a different set of topics they consider taboo.
https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-184-nostalgia-for-decline?sort=new
The place income tax rates most penalize work is between ~40k and ~110k, when potential high flyers are grinding in their late 20s and 30s. Once you have hit 110k or so you have done the hard work and are on a career path to upper incomes where you have enough money you don't care so much any more.
Also that ~110k level is partially determined by atrociously high housing and childcare costs, which makes it higher than it needs to be.
Consider - at Canary Wharf, hundreds of millions was spent, literally digging a hole in the ground. Because it was next to the river, they had to flood it with bentonite slurry and excavate underwater to prevent the river causing a collapse.
They are building towers of flats on sites that are next to major roads, all night train lines…
In fact, they continue to post the same tripe despite being repeatedly schooled.