We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
If that remotely becomes a narrative, sell Labour seats. It will be worse than Theresa May's campaign woes in 2017. And it is very easy for Rishi to say he won't come for your pension pot. How about you, Labour?
There is a big problem at the heart of Labour's campaign. They are going to be delivering better services than the Tories - but by spending no more money than the Tories. Something there doesn't connect. The vox pops I heard yesterday on improving the NHS were skeptical at best. Tens of thousands of extra appointments a week provided by coming down hard on non-doms? By having more efficient tax enforcement? Give me a break. Labour hammering the internationally mobile rich is going 100% in the wrong direction. If you want the world's best health service, attract billionaires here. Have them pay property taxes, have them pay VAT on each new Ferrari. Money fleeing will be the first obvious sign of a Labour government.
Which means Labour will be either delivering no better services - or their words on not raising taxes will ring very hollow within the year. This being Labour, I kinda expect both to be true.
What does connect, though, is the notion that the tories are the epitome of bad governance. Proper leadership, change management, coordination, implementation, planning and stability are absolutely key for organizational performance and the tories have provided the absolute opposite of that. If you want to see how the tories have run the country look no further than to how disorganised and amateurish their GE campaign has been, because it is the same thing. Money is not the be all and end all of market performance... look at Elon musk's takeover of Twitter... his abysmal leadership destroyed the company. In contrast, Steve Jobs approach saved Apple.
When has Labour ever delivered great governance?
Exhibit A: every Labour government has left office with more unemployed than it inherited.
Starmer has run a large organisation with success. And when I look at how efficiently their campaign is being rolled out I am actually hopeful. And if you want to look at good governance then look at the Blair years. You may not have liked his foreign policy, but domestically labour were very strong: longest unbroken period of growth in british history. NHS performance was second to none etc. People look back on those years with nostalgia now. I am just not buying your chicken little approach to labour... 1) the party you are scared of disappeared in the 70s and 80s, 2) the far left agitators and momentum types largely became popcons, erg and reform voters after 2010. Those idealistic radical voters are largely the torie's problem. Sure there is an old guard left, like abbott and corbyn) but they are marginalized, kicked out or simply at the end of the line due to old age. Just a few years ago 30p Lee was campaigning for eu hating corbyn you know.
The Blair/Brown government were fortunate to be governing in one of the most benign periods in modern history. Around the world most governments of the period did pretty well as there wasn’t the type of economic squalls that made economic management harder for prior administrations. Obviously the 2008 subprime lending crisis and the more recent situations have exposed the less savoury implications of that long period of economic calm. I’m not sure that it is any longer possible to just let the economy run itself with minor tinkering at the margins but that seems to be the assumption underlying both main parties. I think Reeves could come seriously unstuck if she sticks to her current stance, as has been suggested her hyper cautious approach and ruling out of significant tax options are hostages to fortune. Hard to see her being able to avoid all the unpalatable choices she has said she can, and having pledged to avoid austerity and large scale tax hikes she has created a situation where political strategy and economic strategy are going to work against each other.
Or they'll just ignore some of their pre-election statements (which seems quite likely).
"We've now had a chance to examine the books, and we are horrified about what we have found..."
And the budget set for various departments by the Government have built in further cuts and austerity, and leave institutions from Universities to Councils to Hospital Trusts on the verge of financial collapse.
Yet all the talk is of tax cuts or freezes, paid for by mythical crackdowns on tax dodging.
No party is being honest about the dire state of the countries finances or proposing realistic solutions.
I was appalled by the April borrowing figure at the time and still believe it was that that triggered the July election because it made it obvious that any idea of a tax cutting budget in the Autumn was completely off the table. The Autumn budget, under Reeves, will further increase the tax burden and yet still look to reduce spending in almost all areas except possibly health.
If, by a miracle that makes the loaves and fishes feeding the masses look like child play, the Tories were to win the budget would still increase taxes and cut spending. That is what you have to do when borrowing well over £100bn a year.
Looking forward we have the challenge of trying to find funds for investment to boost growth and future tax revenues. Once again this means cuts in current expenditure. There are no other options. The real challenge is to get better value for money on the money already spent, that is by boosting public sector productivity. So, of course, no one is talking about that.
Several catches.
First is that a lot of government spending, especially welfare payments, is just a cash transfer. There's no way of making the state pension, say, more productive.
Next is that the state has tended to get lumbered with the tasks where it's harder to engineer productivity gains. Personal services of various sorts.
Finally, the transition to an improvement in long term productivity will cost on the short term. Backing out of the 99% capacity inefficiency will cost. The sort of capital investment needed costs in the short term, even if it saves money and improves things eventually.
But saying any of this out loud would cost the election. Which is why those NI cuts were so blooming irresponsible.
The biggest problem with “public sector productivity” is that anyone who says that can define it, or put any sort of number on it, is lying. They don’t make widgets and they don’t (or shouldn’t be) turning a profit.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
Wow? Our "imaginary" army is getting on with delivering a mountain of leaflets. Whether they have much impact, we will see. But you keep thinking the deal is sealed, and I'll keep working on the basis that there are a vast number of previous Tory voters out there who can be motivated to return, rather than sit on their hands.
The debates will be interesting. I've seen Rishi work a room. A little hyper-active, but people who watch might be surprised at how well he engages. He will make a good pitch to previous Tory voters is my assessment.
"...people who watch might be surprised at how well he engages"
Is this the same Rishi Sunak who was comprehensively trounced by Lettuce Liz in the leadership debates or have they brought in a new model from California when we haven't been looking?
He wasn't though. She never laid a glove on him. The match was scored by a jury of semi ambulant vegetables with life limiting attention and comprehension deficits, was the problem.
As, presumably, the debates in question were probably only watched (and therefore scored) by Conservative voters, I am happy to agree with your description of the jury.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
Oh no, not another Der Untergang parody/meme...
They were out after 2 days of the campaign. However, I hear Steiner is an excellent new candidate for Tunbridge Wells.
And the budget set for various departments by the Government have built in further cuts and austerity, and leave institutions from Universities to Councils to Hospital Trusts on the verge of financial collapse.
Yet all the talk is of tax cuts or freezes, paid for by mythical crackdowns on tax dodging.
No party is being honest about the dire state of the countries finances or proposing realistic solutions.
I was appalled by the April borrowing figure at the time and still believe it was that that triggered the July election because it made it obvious that any idea of a tax cutting budget in the Autumn was completely off the table. The Autumn budget, under Reeves, will further increase the tax burden and yet still look to reduce spending in almost all areas except possibly health.
If, by a miracle that makes the loaves and fishes feeding the masses look like child play, the Tories were to win the budget would still increase taxes and cut spending. That is what you have to do when borrowing well over £100bn a year.
Looking forward we have the challenge of trying to find funds for investment to boost growth and future tax revenues. Once again this means cuts in current expenditure. There are no other options. The real challenge is to get better value for money on the money already spent, that is by boosting public sector productivity. So, of course, no one is talking about that.
Several catches.
First is that a lot of government spending, especially welfare payments, is just a cash transfer. There's no way of making the state pension, say, more productive.
Next is that the state has tended to get lumbered with the tasks where it's harder to engineer productivity gains. Personal services of various sorts.
Finally, the transition to an improvement in long term productivity will cost on the short term. Backing out of the 99% capacity inefficiency will cost. The sort of capital investment needed costs in the short term, even if it saves money and improves things eventually.
But saying any of this out loud would cost the election. Which is why those NI cuts were so blooming irresponsible.
I was really interested in the pilots where hospitals focused on single treatments over a weekend with dramatic results in the waiting times. It suggested to me that there were other ways in which the NHS could work that might be better, although I take your point that the 99% capacity thing makes this exceptionally difficult.
Everyone can see the need for this. But politicians seem to think all we want to know is how much they are going to spend. The poverty of the public debate is depressing.
My recent experiences tell me that there are some easily achievable ways in which NHS waiting lists could be improved (though they would take time to bring into operation). For a start we should be identifying bottle necks in the system and dealing with those.
Last year my mother was in hospital with pancreatitis. Once they had established she did not have any of the nasty causes they were ready to let her go home once the symptoms had subsided but they were vert keen fir her to have an MRI scan first to eliminate any possible cancer etc.
She should have been in for 4 days but was actually in for 19 days. 6 days was just waiting for the scan. They had machines available but the people doing the scans were already working 12 or 14 hour shifts as they has such a shortage of staff. The consultant didn't want to send her home because then she would be waiting weeks or even months for the scan which could have been very nasty if there really was an issue. Of course the answer should be to train up more staff and the consultant said this would make a massive difference to how quickly they could get beds freed up. They actually have spare machines within the Trust bought by public donation but no staff to run them.
We should have enough staff to run available machines 24/7 (accepting of course the need for maintainance etc) just as we do in industry.
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
That seems the likely conclusion. Also tax the rich olds more.
I'm thinking of transferring my meagre pension pot to a SIPP. Heaven knows what I'll do with it there, but the current fund managers vary between losing money slowly and losing money quickly: £9,000 in the last year; £900 in the last seven days. I might also take the 25 per cent tax free and put it in the Chancellor's finest British bonds, or whatever they are called.
6 funds for starters, depending on age and how long you have you might want to add some bonds or wealth preservers. ii is pretty low cost as well as a platform. Your capital is always at risk but history of trackers over time is always up, just when you sell that matters.
Fidelity Index World P Acc GB00BJS8SJ34 HSBC Global Strategy Balanced C Acc GB00B76WP695 HSBC S&P 500 UCITS ETF HSPX iShares Core MSCI World ETF USD Acc SWDA JPMorgan Global Growth & Income JGGI L&G Global 100 Index I Acc GB00B0CNH056 @DecrepitJohnL
Have a look at Sharia Funds -They don't invest in banks - NEST Sharia fund (Which is in the HSBC Sharia FUnd) are up 27.8% (over 1year) +121.7% (over last 5 years) - but past performance may not continue!!
I have that one as well , good one but more volatile and bit higher on risk scale.
Comments
First Starmer. The results were - 'Better', 'Good', Decent', 'Don't Know' and Change'.
Which just shows what a lovely generous bunch the folk on Mumsnet are
Now Sunak. The results were - 'Shit', 'Lie', 'Crap', 'Useless' and 'Idiots'.
Perhaps not always so lovely and generous then.
Who decided on a Presidantial-style campaign at CCHQ? Presumably the same folk who thought the currygate debacle had cut through.
Last year my mother was in hospital with pancreatitis. Once they had established she did not have any of the nasty causes they were ready to let her go home once the symptoms had subsided but they were vert keen fir her to have an MRI scan first to eliminate any possible cancer etc.
She should have been in for 4 days but was actually in for 19 days. 6 days was just waiting for the scan. They had machines available but the people doing the scans were already working 12 or 14 hour shifts as they has such a shortage of staff. The consultant didn't want to send her home because then she would be waiting weeks or even months for the scan which could have been very nasty if there really was an issue. Of course the answer should be to train up more staff and the consultant said this would make a massive difference to how quickly they could get beds freed up. They actually have spare machines within the Trust bought by public donation but no staff to run them.
We should have enough staff to run available machines 24/7 (accepting of course the need for maintainance etc) just as we do in industry.