Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The King of the North succeeding Starmer? More like The King of Wishful Thinking – politicalbetting.

124

Comments

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,620
    HYUFD said:

    I actually agree with TSE on this. If Starmer is Labour's IDS then Reeves, as the Shadow Chancellor, would be Labour's Michael Howard and his natural successor if he is replaced midterm.

    Burnham from the Observer article has clearly ruled out returning to Parliament and running for the leadership until after the next general election if Labour lose it, as the Yougov data shows though he is clearly the most popular current prospect and would seek to be the Blair or Cameron like figure who would then take Labour back to power at the 2029 general election.

    Boris of course also ran for Parliament in 2015 3 years into his final term as Mayor and would have been a contender to succeed Cameron had Cameron lost that election

    Howard was a former cabinet minister, a greybeard who did not hold too much of an ego or ambition at point in his career. It should not be Reeves but as I said upthread, someone like Benn.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231

    MrEd said:

    The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.

    So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.

    Actually I would disagree with you Francis, I think Labour's problems are terminal and they have been exacerbated by having four unsuitable leaders in a row. If you look back, this really does feel like the death of the Liberals in the 1920s. Hell, there is even the similarity of a major shock event (WW1 / Covid) accelerating the process.
    Labour's situation can only be terminal if there's a replacement. Otherwise they remain the only viable opposition. The Liberals were replaced because of the rise of the Labour Party.

    Who's replacing Labour? Unlikely to be the Greens ultimately because they're even more woke than the Labour Party.
    The Lib Dems....no laughing at the back....No, I think the death of the Labour Party, as has previously written about the Tories, is premature. On top of general perception of policy positions that align with 30% of the electorate, the long tradition of the party and name recognition, money...there are no other left of centre parties who have the cash that Labour can raise from both the unions and private individuals.
    In the long-run, a woke but pro-business party could be successful, both electorally and in terms of donations. A bit like the US Democrats. The party could align with Gen Z entrepreneurism and individualism. No chance of that in the short-term though.
    Only part of the US Democrats are pro business, the Sanders and AOC wing is certainly not
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.

    So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.

    Actually I would disagree with you Francis, I think Labour's problems are terminal and they have been exacerbated by having four unsuitable leaders in a row. If you look back, this really does feel like the death of the Liberals in the 1920s. Hell, there is even the similarity of a major shock event (WW1 / Covid) accelerating the process.
    Labour's situation can only be terminal if there's a replacement. Otherwise they remain the only viable opposition. The Liberals were replaced because of the rise of the Labour Party.

    Who's replacing Labour? Unlikely to be the Greens ultimately because they're even more woke than the Labour Party.
    The Lib Dems....no laughing at the back....No, I think the death of the Labour Party, as has previously written about the Tories, is premature. On top of general perception of policy positions that align with 30% of the electorate, the long tradition of the party and name recognition, money...there are no other left of centre parties who have the cash that Labour can raise from both the unions and private individuals.
    In the long-run, a woke but pro-business party could be successful, both electorally and in terms of donations. A bit like the US Democrats. The party could align with Gen Z entrepreneurism and individualism. No chance of that in the short-term though.
    Only part of the US Democrats are pro business, the Sanders and AOC wing is certainly not
    Not sure what relevance that has, but ok.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,876

    HYUFD said:

    I actually agree with TSE on this. If Starmer is Labour's IDS then Reeves, as the Shadow Chancellor, would be Labour's Michael Howard and his natural successor if he is replaced midterm.

    Burnham from the Observer article has clearly ruled out returning to Parliament and running for the leadership until after the next general election if Labour lose it, as the Yougov data shows though he is clearly the most popular current prospect and would seek to be the Blair or Cameron like figure who would then take Labour back to power at the 2029 general election.

    Boris of course also ran for Parliament in 2015 3 years into his final term as Mayor and would have been a contender to succeed Cameron had Cameron lost that election

    Yes but the Mayor of London can be an MP and mayor, whereas the Mayor of Greater Manchester cannot be an MP and mayor.
    Probably worth being clear as to why that is the case.

    You can be a Mayor and an MP provided the Mayor isn't the Police Commissioner as well.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    edited May 16

    No tactical voting, eh?

    The survey also shows just under one in three prospective No voters – those saying they would vote no in a second independence referendum – and one in five of all voters voted tactically in May’s elections to stop another party – most likely the SNP – from winning.

    The poll is confirmation of the scale of tactical voting on show during the election, which led to the SNP narrowly losing out on key marginal seats as historic vote shares swung behind the best-placed unionist challenger to a dominant SNP.


    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scots-split-on-snp-mandate-for-referendum-with-independence-top-priority-for-just-one-in-11-3238015

    So according to that new poll, 43% of Scots think there should either never be an indyref2 or no indyref2 until at least after 2026, that is more than the 40% of Scots who think an indyref2 should take place before the next UK general election in 2024
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,897
    On the subject of wage pressures, this article on the current inflation in construction costs caught my eye. It is Auf Weidersehen Pet again, but this time to the SE.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/15/building-crisis-looms-as-dwindling-supplies-bring-sites-grinding-to-a-halt?__twitter_impression=true
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,700
    Taz said:

    MrEd said:

    The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.

    So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.

    Actually I would disagree with you Francis, I think Labour's problems are terminal and they have been exacerbated by having four unsuitable leaders in a row. If you look back, this really does feel like the death of the Liberals in the 1920s. Hell, there is even the similarity of a major shock event (WW1 / Covid) accelerating the process.
    Labour's situation can only be terminal if there's a replacement. Otherwise they remain the only viable opposition. The Liberals were replaced because of the rise of the Labour Party.

    Who's replacing Labour? Unlikely to be the Greens ultimately because they're even more woke than the Labour Party.
    The Lib Dems....no laughing at the back....No, I think the death of the Labour Party, as has previously written about the Tories, is premature.
    This is is why labour supporters trying to get a so called progressive alliance is shrewd on labours behalf. It’s more about cementing labour as one of the two main parties, neutering the green advance and making the Lib Dem party somewhat supine.
    Except that a precondition would be electoral reform. Now, of course, Labour might do the dirty for a second time; but it was a clear mistake on their part the first time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
    The Greens lead some national polls in Germany, but they're still polling less than the UK Labour Party.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,140
    Foxy said:

    On the subject of wage pressures, this article on the current inflation in construction costs caught my eye. It is Auf Weidersehen Pet again, but this time to the SE.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/15/building-crisis-looms-as-dwindling-supplies-bring-sites-grinding-to-a-halt?__twitter_impression=true

    Builders jobbing the SE sounds like the 60s.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    I actually agree with TSE on this. If Starmer is Labour's IDS then Reeves, as the Shadow Chancellor, would be Labour's Michael Howard and his natural successor if he is replaced midterm.

    Burnham from the Observer article has clearly ruled out returning to Parliament and running for the leadership until after the next general election if Labour lose it, as the Yougov data shows though he is clearly the most popular current prospect and would seek to be the Blair or Cameron like figure who would then take Labour back to power at the 2029 general election.

    Boris of course also ran for Parliament in 2015 3 years into his final term as Mayor and would have been a contender to succeed Cameron had Cameron lost that election

    Howard was a former cabinet minister, a greybeard who did not hold too much of an ego or ambition at point in his career. It should not be Reeves but as I said upthread, someone like Benn.
    That would need Benn to get a senior role in Starmer's Shadow Cabinet as Howard had in IDS' Shadow Cabinet
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.

    Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Completely and utterly agree. It is bewildering to the point of incomprehension that Labour, the party of the Unions, wage and job protectionism, went about destroying poorly paid workers economic security with a kind of determined glee.

    But we see it here all the time - people in, and those merely interested in, politics simply cannot just admit they were wrong; Labour cannot be seen to accept the argument of the likes of Farage on FOM, it seems they would rather be out of office, and have their traditional supporters vote Conservative. So they pretend FOM was all about the dream of a teenage kid who arrived in Barcelona with a backpack and 25 Euros, becoming a chef in a michelin starred restaurant , when really it was about the ordinary lives of settled communities in the poor parts of England.
    This is a dishonest argument I feel. Remainers, on the whole, are not wilfully ignoring the effect of FOM on wages. They simply believed that despite that, workers were better off in the EU due to its positive impact on the economy. Whether that is true or not is a matter for debate.

    However, the argument is pointless anyway because we're out of the EU and free movement no longer applies. So that's that. We don't need to have this debate anymore.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,133
    edited May 16

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.

    Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Completely and utterly agree. It is bewildering to the point of incomprehension that Labour, the party of the Unions, wage and job protectionism, went about destroying poorly paid workers economic security with a kind of determined glee.

    But we see it here all the time - people in, and those merely interested in, politics simply cannot just admit they were wrong; Labour cannot be seen to accept the argument of the likes of Farage on FOM, it seems they would rather be out of office, and have their traditional supporters vote Conservative. So they pretend FOM was all about the dream of a teenage kid who arrived in Barcelona with a backpack and 25 Euros, becoming a chef in a michelin starred restaurant , when really it was about the ordinary lives of settled communities in the poor parts of England.
    This is a dishonest argument I feel. Remainers, on the whole, are not wilfully ignoring the effect of FOM on wages. They simply believed that despite that, workers were better off in the EU due to its positive impact on the economy. Whether that is true or not is a matter for debate.

    However, the argument is pointless anyway because we're out of the EU and free movement no longer applies. So that's that. We don't need to have this debate anymore.
    Yes we do, because we are talking about why Labour are in the shit - and their refusal to come to terms with their old voters reasons for voting Leave a big reason why
  • isamisam Posts: 38,133
    The left wing argument for Brexit from Blue Labour's Maurice Glasman

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa5vsa1FLKY
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,620
    HYUFD said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    I actually agree with TSE on this. If Starmer is Labour's IDS then Reeves, as the Shadow Chancellor, would be Labour's Michael Howard and his natural successor if he is replaced midterm.

    Burnham from the Observer article has clearly ruled out returning to Parliament and running for the leadership until after the next general election if Labour lose it, as the Yougov data shows though he is clearly the most popular current prospect and would seek to be the Blair or Cameron like figure who would then take Labour back to power at the 2029 general election.

    Boris of course also ran for Parliament in 2015 3 years into his final term as Mayor and would have been a contender to succeed Cameron had Cameron lost that election

    Howard was a former cabinet minister, a greybeard who did not hold too much of an ego or ambition at point in his career. It should not be Reeves but as I said upthread, someone like Benn.
    That would need Benn to get a senior role in Starmer's Shadow Cabinet as Howard had in IDS' Shadow Cabinet
    Because otherwise he’d struggle to organise a coronation you mean?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    isam said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.

    Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Completely and utterly agree. It is bewildering to the point of incomprehension that Labour, the party of the Unions, wage and job protectionism, went about destroying poorly paid workers economic security with a kind of determined glee.

    But we see it here all the time - people in, and those merely interested in, politics simply cannot just admit they were wrong; Labour cannot be seen to accept the argument of the likes of Farage on FOM, it seems they would rather be out of office, and have their traditional supporters vote Conservative. So they pretend FOM was all about the dream of a teenage kid who arrived in Barcelona with a backpack and 25 Euros, becoming a chef in a michelin starred restaurant , when really it was about the ordinary lives of settled communities in the poor parts of England.
    This is a dishonest argument I feel. Remainers, on the whole, are not wilfully ignoring the effect of FOM on wages. They simply believed that despite that, workers were better off in the EU due to its positive impact on the economy. Whether that is true or not is a matter for debate.

    However, the argument is pointless anyway because we're out of the EU and free movement no longer applies. So that's that. We don't need to have this debate anymore.
    Yes we do, because we are talking about why Labour are in the shit - and that is a big reason why
    Well, one of the main reasons why Labour is in the shit is because most of the country believe Brexit is going to be great for the UK, and Labour is seen as being anti-Brexit. You're right.

    Now it may turn out that Brexit is not going to be great for the UK. We still don't know what the long-term effects are going to be.

    Labour's perceived anti-Brexit position may turn out to be an electoral positive. Who knows?
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 1,470
    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
    Sturgeons tactic will be to conveniently bide her time..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231

    HYUFD said:

    I actually agree with TSE on this. If Starmer is Labour's IDS then Reeves, as the Shadow Chancellor, would be Labour's Michael Howard and his natural successor if he is replaced midterm.

    Burnham from the Observer article has clearly ruled out returning to Parliament and running for the leadership until after the next general election if Labour lose it, as the Yougov data shows though he is clearly the most popular current prospect and would seek to be the Blair or Cameron like figure who would then take Labour back to power at the 2029 general election.

    Boris of course also ran for Parliament in 2015 3 years into his final term as Mayor and would have been a contender to succeed Cameron had Cameron lost that election

    Yes but the Mayor of London can be an MP and mayor, whereas the Mayor of Greater Manchester cannot be an MP and mayor.
    Hence Burnham has ruled out standing for Parliament again until the next general election, at which point his term as Mayor would be almost over anyway and he could hand over to his Deputy
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,507

    MrEd said:

    The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.

    So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.

    Actually I would disagree with you Francis, I think Labour's problems are terminal and they have been exacerbated by having four unsuitable leaders in a row. If you look back, this really does feel like the death of the Liberals in the 1920s. Hell, there is even the similarity of a major shock event (WW1 / Covid) accelerating the process.
    Labour's situation can only be terminal if there's a replacement. Otherwise they remain the only viable opposition. The Liberals were replaced because of the rise of the Labour Party.

    Who's replacing Labour? Unlikely to be the Greens ultimately because they're even more woke than the Labour Party.
    I think a fissure. Labour's WWC vote continues to peel off to the Tories. In the urban areas, the Greens are the natural successors to the urban, university educated, professional Labour vote. Sheffield and Bristol are harbingers in that regards.

    One thing that will probably help Labour is the stickiness of the Muslim vote in certain urban areas. Bristol and Sheffield actually have quite low percentages in that regards, certainly compared with Manchester and Birmingham (Liverpool is also very low but has specific factors why it will probably stay Labour longer; same for Newcastle).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    edited May 16

    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
    The Greens lead some national polls in Germany, but they're still polling less than the UK Labour Party.
    The SPD though are in power as the junior party in the German government, the UK Labour Party is currently the only main liberal left or centre left party out of power in any G7 nation outside Japan when you also consider the Democrats are back in power in the US too and Trudeau's Liberals are in power in Canada as well
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509
    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.

    So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.

    Actually I would disagree with you Francis, I think Labour's problems are terminal and they have been exacerbated by having four unsuitable leaders in a row. If you look back, this really does feel like the death of the Liberals in the 1920s. Hell, there is even the similarity of a major shock event (WW1 / Covid) accelerating the process.
    Labour's situation can only be terminal if there's a replacement. Otherwise they remain the only viable opposition. The Liberals were replaced because of the rise of the Labour Party.

    Who's replacing Labour? Unlikely to be the Greens ultimately because they're even more woke than the Labour Party.
    I think a fissure. Labour's WWC vote continues to peel off to the Tories. In the urban areas, the Greens are the natural successors to the urban, university educated, professional Labour vote. Sheffield and Bristol are harbingers in that regards.

    One thing that will probably help Labour is the stickiness of the Muslim vote in certain urban areas. Bristol and Sheffield actually have quite low percentages in that regards, certainly compared with Manchester and Birmingham (Liverpool is also very low but has specific factors why it will probably stay Labour longer; same for Newcastle).
    I don't disagree, but that nature of FPTP will mean that Greens and Labour will have to combine out of necessity. The Conservatives will be able to win in strong "Labour areas" like London and Newcastle if the Lab/Green vote fissures. Only places like Liverpool will be safe in that eventuality.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 96,704

    I have sympathy with Starmer. Covid is like a war. It is difficult to criticise the government at the moment.

    We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars. It is very possible to criticise the government during a war as well as a pandemic.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    edited May 16

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    I don't think removing the ability to give money to your children without it being potentially subject to tax would play well anywhere, if that's what you mean.

    I want to remove this as you're right, very few people would be subject to IHT under your suggestion.

    However, your suggestion means that the limit goes from 1m (with the RNRB) to 2m, right, for a couple? Do you know if that actually would be a net gain or loss to the exchequer? As almost everyone would be exempt.

    Further, it would be a massive administrative burden. You give £20,000 to your son or daughter when they're 25 and then 40 years later you die, that £20,000 will have to be accounted for when calculating inheritance tax?
  • isamisam Posts: 38,133
    edited May 16

    I have sympathy with Starmer. Covid is like a war. It is difficult to criticise the government at the moment.

    We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars. It is very possible to criticise the government during a war as well as a pandemic.
    ... and Labour were ahead in the Opinion Polls from at least 1943 according to wiki


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1945_UK_Opinion_Polls.png
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    edited May 16

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    Maybe but Sunak is instead proposing to increase inheritance tax for all estates worth over £325,000 as well to introduce a new 45% rate on assets over £1 million.

    That would prove as unpopular as May's dementia tax in London and the commuter belt South given the average house price in the South East is now £451,178, in London is now £672,918 and in the East is now £372,179

    https://inews.co.uk/news/sunak-minded-to-hike-inheritance-tax-to-help-pay-uks-covid-bill-1002571

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-South-East.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-East-of-England.html
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,620
    By the way in the US tonight “60 Minutes” has a whole feature about the UAP (ufo) phenomenon and the DoD’s new found acceptance of it. Usually pulls in about 8 million viewers and of quite a different type to YouTube talking heads like Joe Rogan. The softening up of the public continues...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,700
    On topic again, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Voter coalitions are not immutable. It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions.

    Yet that’s no guarantee that Labour’s lost voters will then collapse back into its arms. Simply waiting for the latest iteration of the Conservative party to implode might reward Labour, but you’d be a fool to bet on it after the evidence of the last decade.

    [Alternatively] the circumstances in which a progressive alliance might make a tangible difference are the circumstances in which Labour is looking like a winner anyway. Which obviously isn’t the case today.

    There is no plausible path back to power for Labour that does not involve succeeding in the electoral system as it is by gaining support from diverse groups of voters from around the compass.

    Most people in most places want similar things: decent life chances for themselves and their children, reliable public services, a nice place to call home, a sense that opportunities and rewards are distributed fairly and that the communities, country and planet in which they live have a promising future. It should not be impossible for the Labour party to locate a winning electoral coalition. First, though, it needs to start acting as if it is interested in finding one.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    I don't think removing the ability to give money to your children without it being potentially subject to tax would play well anywhere, if that's what you mean.

    Also, your suggestion means that the limit goes from 1m (with the RNRB) to 2m, right, for a couple?

    Do you know if that actually would be a net gain or loss to the exchequer?
    You can lend it to them rather than gift it- it then gets accounted for in your estate. First call on your limit. Take it off the million entitlement (as long as you have paid a million in tax over your lifetime - otherwise up to whatever your cumulative tax sum is). But otherwise, a million tax free - given you have already been taxed on that money - is enough.

    Yes, it means two million - if both spouses have each paid a million in tax. Still fair.

    No tax is going to be popular. The question is - who will it be most unpopular with? If someone has paid only a quarter of a million in tax through their working life, how have they built up a big capital pot that mean they are complaining they can't pass on a million tax free?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,648
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    Maybe but Sunak is instead proposing to increase inheritance tax for all estates worth over £325,000 as well to introduce a new 45% rate on assets over £1 million.

    That would prove as unpopular as May's dementia tax in London and the commuter belt South given the average house price in the South East is now £451,178, in London is now £672,918 and in the East is now £372,179

    https://inews.co.uk/news/sunak-minded-to-hike-inheritance-tax-to-help-pay-uks-covid-bill-1002571

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-South-East.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-East-of-England.html
    Eh? It's not as if Mr Sunak is proposing to take all of the unearned capital gain. Only a portion of it. House prices go up by more than inflation, you are sitting pretty.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 43,725
    alex_ said:

    One thing that annoys me about the current blitz to try and somehow convince the Govt to delay the May 17th reopening (which has switched astonishingly rapidly from the theoretical discussions about June12) is the effective presentation that doing so would come with zero downside, from all the hospitality businesses etc that would probably go bust overnight due to all the additional costs they will have incurred preparing specifically for tomorrow.

    And most of them are calling for such a delay whilst hedging their bets, saying we might come to regret it ... or we might not. It’s as if they’re all rushing to get their voices heard now, just to give them the excuse in a month to say “I told you so”.


    Kit Yates
    @Kit_Yates_Maths
    ·
    4h
    No one is suggesting we “live like this for ever”, but we have vaccines to prevent this disease. More time to vaccinate people will undoubtedly save lives.
    Opening up more in the face of a more transmissible variant risks undermining much of our efforts up to now.

    A typical view from the indie SAGE.

    No appreciation of the economic ruin or the mental health crisis that keeping closed down will deliver. Nor seemingly any appreciation that people have mainly had enough and are meeting anyway in their own homes which are probably not as covid safe (whatever that actually means) than a well run cafe or bar.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509
    IanB2 said:

    On topic again, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Voter coalitions are not immutable. It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions.

    Yet that’s no guarantee that Labour’s lost voters will then collapse back into its arms. Simply waiting for the latest iteration of the Conservative party to implode might reward Labour, but you’d be a fool to bet on it after the evidence of the last decade.

    [Alternatively] the circumstances in which a progressive alliance might make a tangible difference are the circumstances in which Labour is looking like a winner anyway. Which obviously isn’t the case today.

    There is no plausible path back to power for Labour that does not involve succeeding in the electoral system as it is by gaining support from diverse groups of voters from around the compass.

    Most people in most places want similar things: decent life chances for themselves and their children, reliable public services, a nice place to call home, a sense that opportunities and rewards are distributed fairly and that the communities, country and planet in which they live have a promising future. It should not be impossible for the Labour party to locate a winning electoral coalition. First, though, it needs to start acting as if it is interested in finding one.

    "It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions."

    The wish is father to the thought.

    It has already secured an 80 (now 82) seat majority whilst peeling off its Europhile wing. That disintegration happened before the last election.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    I don't think removing the ability to give money to your children without it being potentially subject to tax would play well anywhere, if that's what you mean.

    Also, your suggestion means that the limit goes from 1m (with the RNRB) to 2m, right, for a couple?

    Do you know if that actually would be a net gain or loss to the exchequer?
    You can lend it to them rather than gift it- it then gets accounted for in your estate. First call on your limit. Take it off the million entitlement (as long as you have paid a million in tax over your lifetime - otherwise up to whatever your cumulative tax sum is). But otherwise, a million tax free - given you have already been taxed on that money - is enough.

    Yes, it means two million - if both spouses have each paid a million in tax. Still fair.

    No tax is going to be popular. The question is - who will it be most unpopular with? If someone has paid only a quarter of a million in tax through their working life, how have they built up a big capital pot that mean they are complaining they can't pass on a million tax free?
    I've since edited my post.

    Are you talking about getting rid of PETs? That would mean a massive administrative burden. Upon death the estate might have to account for gifts made 30-40 years in the past. At the moment, they only need to account for gifts made 7 years in the past.

    Also — although your system is reasonable, it might not necessarily be a net gain to the exchequer so does not meet Sunak's needs in any case.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,245
    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    An English(wo)man's home, is (her)his castle, so don't **** with inheritance tax, seems to be political wisdom best not ignored.

    I have sympathy with Starmer. Covid is like a war. It is difficult to criticise the government at the moment.

    However, the India travel fiasco is an open goal. Instead of putting the ball in the back of the net, Starmer is minded to backpass the ball the entire length of the field to his own keeper.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,648

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    I don't think removing the ability to give money to your children without it being potentially subject to tax would play well anywhere, if that's what you mean.

    I want to remove this as you're right, very few people would be subject to IHT under your suggestion.

    However, your suggestion means that the limit goes from 1m (with the RNRB) to 2m, right, for a couple? Do you know if that actually would be a net gain or loss to the exchequer? As almost everyone would be exempt.

    Further, it would be a massive administrative burden. You give £20,000 to your son or daughter when they're 25 and then 40 years later you die, that £20,000 will have to be accounted for when calculating inheritance tax?
    Surely better simply to make a CGT tax payment on transfer of capital. at the time in question. And tax inheritance without any allowance, exactly as a lifetime stransfer. That's the other way round, and also much more fair on those with little capital.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    I don't think removing the ability to give money to your children without it being potentially subject to tax would play well anywhere, if that's what you mean.

    I want to remove this as you're right, very few people would be subject to IHT under your suggestion.

    However, your suggestion means that the limit goes from 1m (with the RNRB) to 2m, right, for a couple? Do you know if that actually would be a net gain or loss to the exchequer? As almost everyone would be exempt.

    Further, it would be a massive administrative burden. You give £20,000 to your son or daughter when they're 25 and then 40 years later you die, that £20,000 will have to be accounted for when calculating inheritance tax?
    Surely better simply to make a CGT tax payment on transfer of capital. at the time in question. And tax inheritance without any allowance, exactly as a lifetime stransfer. That's the other way round, and also much more fair on those with little capital.
    So every time a parent gives their kid £30 to spend on a day out at the fair, they have to account to the exchequer for inheritance tax?

    Where do you draw the line?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    edited May 16
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    Maybe but Sunak is instead proposing to increase inheritance tax for all estates worth over £325,000 as well to introduce a new 45% rate on assets over £1 million.

    That would prove as unpopular as May's dementia tax in London and the commuter belt South given the average house price in the South East is now £451,178, in London is now £672,918 and in the East is now £372,179

    https://inews.co.uk/news/sunak-minded-to-hike-inheritance-tax-to-help-pay-uks-covid-bill-1002571

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-South-East.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-East-of-England.html
    Eh? It's not as if Mr Sunak is proposing to take all of the unearned capital gain. Only a portion of it. House prices go up by more than inflation, you are sitting pretty.
    No, I know the Tory core vote round here and any increase in the taxes voters here in the South have to pay in inheritance tax on their estate would be deeply unpopular, it would be as damaging as the dementia tax which cost May her majority in 2017 after which as a Tory canvasser I had doors slammed in my face.

    Let us also remember how popular Osborne's inheritance tax cut was, the reverse applies to an inheritance tax rise
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 43,725
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    Maybe but Sunak is instead proposing to increase inheritance tax for all estates worth over £325,000 as well to introduce a new 45% rate on assets over £1 million.

    That would prove as unpopular as May's dementia tax in London and the commuter belt South given the average house price in the South East is now £451,178, in London is now £672,918 and in the East is now £372,179

    https://inews.co.uk/news/sunak-minded-to-hike-inheritance-tax-to-help-pay-uks-covid-bill-1002571

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-South-East.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-East-of-England.html
    Sounds like more planning for a 2023 GE. Get that out of the way and then Johnson can agree some tax rises.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,620

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    Maybe but Sunak is instead proposing to increase inheritance tax for all estates worth over £325,000 as well to introduce a new 45% rate on assets over £1 million.

    That would prove as unpopular as May's dementia tax in London and the commuter belt South given the average house price in the South East is now £451,178, in London is now £672,918 and in the East is now £372,179

    https://inews.co.uk/news/sunak-minded-to-hike-inheritance-tax-to-help-pay-uks-covid-bill-1002571

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-South-East.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-East-of-England.html
    Sounds like more planning for a 2023 GE. Get that out of the way and then Johnson can agree some tax rises.
    He can get away with the early election if he’s asking for a mandate for something new. Higher taxes might be the honest answer but would it be an electorally successful one?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    I don't think removing the ability to give money to your children without it being potentially subject to tax would play well anywhere, if that's what you mean.

    I want to remove this as you're right, very few people would be subject to IHT under your suggestion.

    However, your suggestion means that the limit goes from 1m (with the RNRB) to 2m, right, for a couple? Do you know if that actually would be a net gain or loss to the exchequer? As almost everyone would be exempt.

    Further, it would be a massive administrative burden. You give £20,000 to your son or daughter when they're 25 and then 40 years later you die, that £20,000 will have to be accounted for when calculating inheritance tax?
    HMRC will already know the cumulative tax paid in your lifetime.

    If you do give £20,000, that will need to be notified to HMRC (you could have an annual tax-free gift of say £5,000 that requires no reporting). The incentive to report it is that otherwise, it will be treated as income of the recipient - and subject to income tax. Which you wouldn't do when there is a tax-free route.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    Maybe but Sunak is instead proposing to increase inheritance tax for all estates worth over £325,000 as well to introduce a new 45% rate on assets over £1 million.

    That would prove as unpopular as May's dementia tax in London and the commuter belt South given the average house price in the South East is now £451,178, in London is now £672,918 and in the East is now £372,179

    https://inews.co.uk/news/sunak-minded-to-hike-inheritance-tax-to-help-pay-uks-covid-bill-1002571

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-South-East.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-East-of-England.html
    Sounds like more planning for a 2023 GE. Get that out of the way and then Johnson can agree some tax rises.
    It has already leaked, the opposition parties would be all over it, it would probably cost the Tories their majority let alone increasing it. Only an idiot calls a general election and even considers raising inheritance tax as a policy during the campaign, as May discovered in 2017
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,340

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Yvette Cooper says that the lifting of holiday travel restrictions tomorrow should be cancelled

    She said we shouldn't be lifting restrictions at at time when there are so many new variants

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1393846968644997120

    A policy for Starmer. He's too weak to say it though. He should be calling for a full ban on incoming travel with everyone going into managed quarantine and hammering Boris on letting the Indian variant get into the country.
    It was interesting on Marr this morning that a member of Sage, when asked about the time delay re India, said it may have delayed it a little but it would not have stopped it

    I assume that a good number of those returning from India were UK residents, and it is simply not possible to stop them returning home
    Maybe not, but it should be possible to ensure that UK residents returning from India quarantine and do not mix with anybody for 10/14 days or whatever it is. This doesn't seem to be happening.
    The idea of home quarantine was highly dubious at the best of times.

    But reached another level of risk when applied to communities with high density, multi-generational homes.

    Not to mention that people willing to travel during a global pandemic were already the people most likely to risk getting infected and to risk infecting others subsequently.
    Yep, travel again. Last week was also a major Islamic festival (Eid al Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan), where large informal gatherings and greetings are common.

    As others have said, it’s time for hotel quarantine for all incoming travellers, with very few exceptions.

    I’d quite like to see my parents at some point this year, which isn’t going to happen while there’s still a pandemic on.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    I don't think removing the ability to give money to your children without it being potentially subject to tax would play well anywhere, if that's what you mean.

    I want to remove this as you're right, very few people would be subject to IHT under your suggestion.

    However, your suggestion means that the limit goes from 1m (with the RNRB) to 2m, right, for a couple? Do you know if that actually would be a net gain or loss to the exchequer? As almost everyone would be exempt.

    Further, it would be a massive administrative burden. You give £20,000 to your son or daughter when they're 25 and then 40 years later you die, that £20,000 will have to be accounted for when calculating inheritance tax?
    HMRC will already know the cumulative tax paid in your lifetime.

    If you do give £20,000, that will need to be notified to HMRC (you could have an annual tax-free gift of say £5,000 that requires no reporting). The incentive to report it is that otherwise, it will be treated as income of the recipient - and subject to income tax. Which you wouldn't do when there is a tax-free route.
    That's still a huge administrative burden to expect people who otherwise have no dealings with HMRC as everything is done by PAYE, to self-report gifts over a certain limit. It doesn't feel very British. It may not seem to be a burden if you self-report income already, but if you don't, it certainly is.

    You would have to keep a running total of all your gifts, to everyone, in case it goes over the £5,000 limit.

    The current system works well in that HMRC is not involved until you die.

    I must say I don't like it.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,697
    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
    PSOE were troiunced in Madrid the other week and the last 4 national polls have put them behind the Conservative PP for the first time in ages.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    edited May 16
    felix said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
    PSOE were troiunced in Madrid the other week and the last 4 national polls have put them behind the Conservative PP for the first time in ages.
    PSOE are still the largest party in Spain in terms of seats in Parliament and in power, the latest Spanish poll has the PSOE on 26.9% and PP on 26.9%, less than a 1% difference with the main gains for the PP coming from squeezing the vote of its Citizens allies down to just 2.8%
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Spanish_general_election

    The point remains only in the UK, Australia and Japan is the main liberal centre left party out of power in any western G20 nation
  • pingping Posts: 1,306
    On upping inheritance tax

    Go for it Sunak. Take the heat. It’s the right thing to do.

    Personally, I’d go all the way and just tax inheritance as income.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,620
    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Yvette Cooper says that the lifting of holiday travel restrictions tomorrow should be cancelled

    She said we shouldn't be lifting restrictions at at time when there are so many new variants

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1393846968644997120

    A policy for Starmer. He's too weak to say it though. He should be calling for a full ban on incoming travel with everyone going into managed quarantine and hammering Boris on letting the Indian variant get into the country.
    It was interesting on Marr this morning that a member of Sage, when asked about the time delay re India, said it may have delayed it a little but it would not have stopped it

    I assume that a good number of those returning from India were UK residents, and it is simply not possible to stop them returning home
    Maybe not, but it should be possible to ensure that UK residents returning from India quarantine and do not mix with anybody for 10/14 days or whatever it is. This doesn't seem to be happening.
    The idea of home quarantine was highly dubious at the best of times.

    But reached another level of risk when applied to communities with high density, multi-generational homes.

    Not to mention that people willing to travel during a global pandemic were already the people most likely to risk getting infected and to risk infecting others subsequently.
    Yep, travel again. Last week was also a major Islamic festival (Eid al Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan), where large informal gatherings and greetings are common.

    As others have said, it’s time for hotel quarantine for all incoming travellers, with very few exceptions.

    I’d quite like to see my parents at some point this year, which isn’t going to happen while there’s still a pandemic on.
    I’m old enough to remember when Farage was called a nazi for advocating HIV tests for immigrants as an entry condition. Funny how things change.
  • UncleBulgariaUncleBulgaria Posts: 20
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
    The Greens lead some national polls in Germany, but they're still polling less than the UK Labour Party.
    The SPD though are in power as the junior party in the German government, the UK Labour Party is currently the only main liberal left or centre left party out of power in any G7 nation outside Japan when you also consider the Democrats are back in power in the US too and Trudeau's Liberals are in power in Canada as well
    Bit of a stretch though to describe the centre left as being "in power in Italy" in your previous post, when the 2 biggest parties in the government (M5S and Lega) are not centre left.

    Also not sure if En Marche counts as "liberal left".

    Probably fair to say Labour is polling better than many other centre-left parties in Europe, but this is surely because of the 2ish party system in the UK.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    edited May 16
    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Yvette Cooper says that the lifting of holiday travel restrictions tomorrow should be cancelled

    She said we shouldn't be lifting restrictions at at time when there are so many new variants

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1393846968644997120

    A policy for Starmer. He's too weak to say it though. He should be calling for a full ban on incoming travel with everyone going into managed quarantine and hammering Boris on letting the Indian variant get into the country.
    It was interesting on Marr this morning that a member of Sage, when asked about the time delay re India, said it may have delayed it a little but it would not have stopped it

    I assume that a good number of those returning from India were UK residents, and it is simply not possible to stop them returning home
    Maybe not, but it should be possible to ensure that UK residents returning from India quarantine and do not mix with anybody for 10/14 days or whatever it is. This doesn't seem to be happening.
    The idea of home quarantine was highly dubious at the best of times.

    But reached another level of risk when applied to communities with high density, multi-generational homes.

    Not to mention that people willing to travel during a global pandemic were already the people most likely to risk getting infected and to risk infecting others subsequently.
    Yep, travel again. Last week was also a major Islamic festival (Eid al Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan), where large informal gatherings and greetings are common.

    As others have said, it’s time for hotel quarantine for all incoming travellers, with very few exceptions.

    I’d quite like to see my parents at some point this year, which isn’t going to happen while there’s still a pandemic on.
    Its like screaming at the moon...what works...strict border controls and quarantine...what won't most governments (not just the UK) implement, strict border controls and quarantine.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,340

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Yep. The "Polish plumber" meant very different things to the UK's affluent middle class and working class British plumbers.
    And the plumber was a skilled tradesman. Imagine the lot of the unskilled or semi-skilled worker, under a system of almost unlimited unskilled immigration.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509

    alex_ said:

    One thing that annoys me about the current blitz to try and somehow convince the Govt to delay the May 17th reopening (which has switched astonishingly rapidly from the theoretical discussions about June12) is the effective presentation that doing so would come with zero downside, from all the hospitality businesses etc that would probably go bust overnight due to all the additional costs they will have incurred preparing specifically for tomorrow.

    And most of them are calling for such a delay whilst hedging their bets, saying we might come to regret it ... or we might not. It’s as if they’re all rushing to get their voices heard now, just to give them the excuse in a month to say “I told you so”.


    Kit Yates
    @Kit_Yates_Maths
    ·
    4h
    No one is suggesting we “live like this for ever”, but we have vaccines to prevent this disease. More time to vaccinate people will undoubtedly save lives.
    Opening up more in the face of a more transmissible variant risks undermining much of our efforts up to now.

    A typical view from the indie SAGE.

    No appreciation of the economic ruin or the mental health crisis that keeping closed down will deliver. Nor seemingly any appreciation that people have mainly had enough and are meeting anyway in their own homes which are probably not as covid safe (whatever that actually means) than a well run cafe or bar.
    I cannot fathom the SAGE maths behind the next wave from an Indian variant that be twice as bad as the last one. Nearly 70% of the population have had one jab, getting on for two in five have had two. That wasn't the case in previous waves with Kent variant for example.

    But it is nearer 95%+ of those at risk of hospitalisation. Only 5% remain to be jabbed. So to get to double the numbers when there was no vaccine, it has to be massively more potent than the Covid we have faced before - in that 5% cohort.

    There are only two ways to read this:

    a) they believe the vaccines don't work

    b) they are talking complete and utter bollocks.


    Which is it, SAGE? Because frankly, I don't see any scientific basis for the scare of an NHS-smashing next wave.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    edited May 16
    What do we want, tolerance and understanding....oh...but not you...we discriminate against you, based on your job...

    Organisers of New York City’s Pride events say they will ban police and other law enforcement personnel from marching in their annual parade until at least 2025 and will also seek to keep on-duty officers a block away from the celebration of LGBTQ+ people and history.

    In a statement released on Saturday, NYC Pride urged members of law enforcement to “acknowledge their harm and to correct course moving forward”.

    Police will provide first response and security “only when absolutely necessary as mandated by city officials,” the group said, adding it hoped to keep police officers at least one city block away from event perimeter areas where possible.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/16/new-york-city-pride-organisers-to-ban-police-from-marching-until-2025
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    edited May 16
    ping said:

    On upping inheritance tax

    Go for it Sunak. Take the heat. It’s the right thing to do.

    Personally, I’d go all the way and just tax inheritance as income.

    So a relatively poor person inherits their mum's house, their only asset, worth say £400k in the SE, and has to find £160k odd in income tax? They'd have to be earning over £30k a year to mortgage that.

    Even accounting for the nil-rate band, they'd still have to find £30k.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,569
    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
    Macron has been tacking increasingly right recently. Not sure he can be regarded as liberal left. Not even sure liberal applies.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,983
    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
    Macron has been tacking increasingly right recently. Not sure he can be regarded as liberal left. Not even sure liberal applies.
    Arrogant opportunist is the best short description I've heard of Macron. (That doesn't involve lots of expletives anyway).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    edited May 16

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
    The Greens lead some national polls in Germany, but they're still polling less than the UK Labour Party.
    The SPD though are in power as the junior party in the German government, the UK Labour Party is currently the only main liberal left or centre left party out of power in any G7 nation outside Japan when you also consider the Democrats are back in power in the US too and Trudeau's Liberals are in power in Canada as well
    Bit of a stretch though to describe the centre left as being "in power in Italy" in your previous post, when the 2 biggest parties in the government (M5S and Lega) are not centre left.

    Also not sure if En Marche counts as "liberal left".

    Probably fair to say Labour is polling better than many other centre-left parties in Europe, but this is surely because of the 2ish party system in the UK.
    M5S are populist, the main Italian centre left party, the Democratic Party are in power with M5S, Lega Nord have now joined the government but it excludes Salvini's rightwing allies Brothers of Italy who are the largest opposition party.

    En Marche is the main Italian liberal centre left party in France against Le Pen's Party and Les Republicains (Macron was of course Hollande's finance minister in his Socialist government).

    Labour may be polling a bit better than some but then the centre right in Europe is also polling far worse than the Tories across the board
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,620

    alex_ said:

    One thing that annoys me about the current blitz to try and somehow convince the Govt to delay the May 17th reopening (which has switched astonishingly rapidly from the theoretical discussions about June12) is the effective presentation that doing so would come with zero downside, from all the hospitality businesses etc that would probably go bust overnight due to all the additional costs they will have incurred preparing specifically for tomorrow.

    And most of them are calling for such a delay whilst hedging their bets, saying we might come to regret it ... or we might not. It’s as if they’re all rushing to get their voices heard now, just to give them the excuse in a month to say “I told you so”.


    Kit Yates
    @Kit_Yates_Maths
    ·
    4h
    No one is suggesting we “live like this for ever”, but we have vaccines to prevent this disease. More time to vaccinate people will undoubtedly save lives.
    Opening up more in the face of a more transmissible variant risks undermining much of our efforts up to now.

    A typical view from the indie SAGE.

    No appreciation of the economic ruin or the mental health crisis that keeping closed down will deliver. Nor seemingly any appreciation that people have mainly had enough and are meeting anyway in their own homes which are probably not as covid safe (whatever that actually means) than a well run cafe or bar.
    I cannot fathom the SAGE maths behind the next wave from an Indian variant that be twice as bad as the last one. Nearly 70% of the population have had one jab, getting on for two in five have had two. That wasn't the case in previous waves with Kent variant for example.

    But it is nearer 95%+ of those at risk of hospitalisation. Only 5% remain to be jabbed. So to get to double the numbers when there was no vaccine, it has to be massively more potent than the Covid we have faced before - in that 5% cohort.

    There are only two ways to read this:

    a) they believe the vaccines don't work

    b) they are talking complete and utter bollocks.


    Which is it, SAGE? Because frankly, I don't see any scientific basis for the scare of an NHS-smashing next wave.
    If only this question would be asked as bluntly to our power masters on live tv by the journos.

    Or maybe perish the thought, by the leader of her majesty’s official opposition? Nah I’m being silly with that.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,491
    edited May 16
    ping said:

    On upping inheritance tax

    Go for it Sunak. Take the heat. It’s the right thing to do.

    Personally, I’d go all the way and just tax inheritance as income.

    Inheritance tax is iniquitous .....you have been taxed on everything you have earned and then the bastards want you tax you when you are dead.. Fortunately the bastards of which ever Govt it might be won't get a penny of mine.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,507
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Yep. The "Polish plumber" meant very different things to the UK's affluent middle class and working class British plumbers.
    And the plumber was a skilled tradesman. Imagine the lot of the unskilled or semi-skilled worker, under a system of almost unlimited unskilled immigration.
    Polish plumbers were apparently echoing the same complaints of their English counterparts when the even cheaper Romanian plumbers entered.

    Until a Labour leader can stand up to the professional, educated wing of the party and point out the fact that immigration is not an unalloyed good for those whose wages and services it puts under pressure, it will find it hard to regain those WWC votes. Quite frankly, how anyone thinks that Andy Burnham is going to deliver a more acceptable line on this given his track record is a mystery.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,231
    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Yep. The "Polish plumber" meant very different things to the UK's affluent middle class and working class British plumbers.
    And the plumber was a skilled tradesman. Imagine the lot of the unskilled or semi-skilled worker, under a system of almost unlimited unskilled immigration.
    Polish plumbers were apparently echoing the same complaints of their English counterparts when the even cheaper Romanian plumbers entered.

    Until a Labour leader can stand up to the professional, educated wing of the party and point out the fact that immigration is not an unalloyed good for those whose wages and services it puts under pressure, it will find it hard to regain those WWC votes. Quite frankly, how anyone thinks that Andy Burnham is going to deliver a more acceptable line on this given his track record is a mystery.
    Just stick to the government's points system with maybe some closer regulatory alignment to the single market without full EEA membership
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,700

    IanB2 said:

    On topic again, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Voter coalitions are not immutable. It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions.

    Yet that’s no guarantee that Labour’s lost voters will then collapse back into its arms. Simply waiting for the latest iteration of the Conservative party to implode might reward Labour, but you’d be a fool to bet on it after the evidence of the last decade.

    [Alternatively] the circumstances in which a progressive alliance might make a tangible difference are the circumstances in which Labour is looking like a winner anyway. Which obviously isn’t the case today.

    There is no plausible path back to power for Labour that does not involve succeeding in the electoral system as it is by gaining support from diverse groups of voters from around the compass.

    Most people in most places want similar things: decent life chances for themselves and their children, reliable public services, a nice place to call home, a sense that opportunities and rewards are distributed fairly and that the communities, country and planet in which they live have a promising future. It should not be impossible for the Labour party to locate a winning electoral coalition. First, though, it needs to start acting as if it is interested in finding one.

    "It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions."

    The wish is father to the thought.

    It has already secured an 80 (now 82) seat majority whilst peeling off its Europhile wing. That disintegration happened before the last election.
    The point being made is that there are potential tensions between the Tories’ old and new supporters, which is fair. A similar coalition fell apart during the later Thatcher and Major years.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,983
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    Maybe but Sunak is instead proposing to increase inheritance tax for all estates worth over £325,000 as well to introduce a new 45% rate on assets over £1 million.

    That would prove as unpopular as May's dementia tax in London and the commuter belt South given the average house price in the South East is now £451,178, in London is now £672,918 and in the East is now £372,179

    https://inews.co.uk/news/sunak-minded-to-hike-inheritance-tax-to-help-pay-uks-covid-bill-1002571

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-South-East.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-East-of-England.html
    Eh? It's not as if Mr Sunak is proposing to take all of the unearned capital gain. Only a portion of it. House prices go up by more than inflation, you are sitting pretty.
    No, I know the Tory core vote round here and any increase in the taxes voters here in the South have to pay in inheritance tax on their estate would be deeply unpopular, it would be as damaging as the dementia tax which cost May her majority in 2017 after which as a Tory canvasser I had doors slammed in my face.

    Let us also remember how popular Osborne's inheritance tax cut was, the reverse applies to an inheritance tax rise
    I agree. Politically very damaging.

    And a massive tax on the south, where the Conservatives are already losing votes.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,700

    ping said:

    On upping inheritance tax

    Go for it Sunak. Take the heat. It’s the right thing to do.

    Personally, I’d go all the way and just tax inheritance as income.

    Inheritance tax is iniquitous .....you have been taxed on everything you have earned and then the bastards want you tax you when you are dead.. Fortunately the bastards of which ever Govt it might be won't get a penny of mine.
    No, that’s a silly argument, since money circulates and is taxed at multiple points. IHT, in the round, conveys significant social mobility benefits, and the alternative is of course paying more tax when you are alive.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,983

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Yvette Cooper says that the lifting of holiday travel restrictions tomorrow should be cancelled

    She said we shouldn't be lifting restrictions at at time when there are so many new variants

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1393846968644997120

    A policy for Starmer. He's too weak to say it though. He should be calling for a full ban on incoming travel with everyone going into managed quarantine and hammering Boris on letting the Indian variant get into the country.
    It was interesting on Marr this morning that a member of Sage, when asked about the time delay re India, said it may have delayed it a little but it would not have stopped it

    I assume that a good number of those returning from India were UK residents, and it is simply not possible to stop them returning home
    Maybe not, but it should be possible to ensure that UK residents returning from India quarantine and do not mix with anybody for 10/14 days or whatever it is. This doesn't seem to be happening.
    The idea of home quarantine was highly dubious at the best of times.

    But reached another level of risk when applied to communities with high density, multi-generational homes.

    Not to mention that people willing to travel during a global pandemic were already the people most likely to risk getting infected and to risk infecting others subsequently.
    Yep, travel again. Last week was also a major Islamic festival (Eid al Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan), where large informal gatherings and greetings are common.

    As others have said, it’s time for hotel quarantine for all incoming travellers, with very few exceptions.

    I’d quite like to see my parents at some point this year, which isn’t going to happen while there’s still a pandemic on.
    Its like screaming at the moon...what works...strict border controls and quarantine...what won't most governments (not just the UK) implement, strict border controls and quarantine.
    I'm not sure it does work. We have some fairly strict controls right now and the virus still gets in. Even Australia and New Zealand report occasional outbreaks, despite policies that would be impractical here.

    Vaccination works. Let's rely on that.
  • pingping Posts: 1,306
    edited May 16

    ping said:

    On upping inheritance tax

    Go for it Sunak. Take the heat. It’s the right thing to do.

    Personally, I’d go all the way and just tax inheritance as income.

    So a relatively poor person inherits their mum's house, their only asset, worth say £400k in the SE, and has to find £160k odd in income tax? They'd have to be earning over £30k a year to mortgage that.

    Even accounting for the nil-rate band, they'd still have to find £30k.
    The reason the house is worth 400k is, in part, due to the inheritance tax exemption.

    Remove that, and house prices would fall making the poor person less poor, in housing affordability terms. It’s a progressive policy, helping the asset poor work their way out of poverty.

    Btw, I wouldn’t be averse to reducing income tax at the same time.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,265
    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Yep. The "Polish plumber" meant very different things to the UK's affluent middle class and working class British plumbers.
    And the plumber was a skilled tradesman. Imagine the lot of the unskilled or semi-skilled worker, under a system of almost unlimited unskilled immigration.
    Polish plumbers were apparently echoing the same complaints of their English counterparts when the even cheaper Romanian plumbers entered.

    Until a Labour leader can stand up to the professional, educated wing of the party and point out the fact that immigration is not an unalloyed good for those whose wages and services it puts under pressure, it will find it hard to regain those WWC votes. Quite frankly, how anyone thinks that Andy Burnham is going to deliver a more acceptable line on this given his track record is a mystery.
    Over 1000 years of British history, the periods when the lot of those at the bottom of the heap has got better has been when demographic and other forces have constrained the supply of labour, thereby pushing up wages. It has been utterly bizarre to see enthusiasts for immigration trying to simply wish this relationship away.
    There are arguments for immigration, but they don't relate to the economic interests of those selling their labour and skills.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,877
    edited May 16
    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.

    Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Immigration is a net wash for average wages because Lump of Labour is in fact a fallacy.

    Studies show that immigrants increase GDP in proportion. As immigrants tend to go for jobs they are overqualified for, native workers get more opportunities for permanent or supervisory roles than they would otherwise have.

    Presumably as FoM kicks in the reverse will happen. GDP will contract in relative terms but there will be a temporary drag where there is unmet demand before job vacancies also fall to match the relatively lower GDP.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    A while back (well before Covid) I floated the idea that each individual should be able to pass on £1 million of post Income Tax capital free of IHT. Then make the rest subject to a higher rate than now. When implementing it, I'd probably end the lifetime gifts exemption too.

    It's easy to understand, with the bonus of being inherently fair. Should play well enough with the Red Wall.
    Maybe but Sunak is instead proposing to increase inheritance tax for all estates worth over £325,000 as well to introduce a new 45% rate on assets over £1 million.

    That would prove as unpopular as May's dementia tax in London and the commuter belt South given the average house price in the South East is now £451,178, in London is now £672,918 and in the East is now £372,179

    https://inews.co.uk/news/sunak-minded-to-hike-inheritance-tax-to-help-pay-uks-covid-bill-1002571

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-South-East.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-East-of-England.html
    Eh? It's not as if Mr Sunak is proposing to take all of the unearned capital gain. Only a portion of it. House prices go up by more than inflation, you are sitting pretty.
    No, I know the Tory core vote round here and any increase in the taxes voters here in the South have to pay in inheritance tax on their estate would be deeply unpopular, it would be as damaging as the dementia tax which cost May her majority in 2017 after which as a Tory canvasser I had doors slammed in my face.

    Let us also remember how popular Osborne's inheritance tax cut was, the reverse applies to an inheritance tax rise
    I agree. Politically very damaging.

    And a massive tax on the south, where the Conservatives are already losing votes.
    On the other side of the argument; gotta pay for all that levelling up somehow!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    edited May 16
    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Yvette Cooper says that the lifting of holiday travel restrictions tomorrow should be cancelled

    She said we shouldn't be lifting restrictions at at time when there are so many new variants

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1393846968644997120

    A policy for Starmer. He's too weak to say it though. He should be calling for a full ban on incoming travel with everyone going into managed quarantine and hammering Boris on letting the Indian variant get into the country.
    It was interesting on Marr this morning that a member of Sage, when asked about the time delay re India, said it may have delayed it a little but it would not have stopped it

    I assume that a good number of those returning from India were UK residents, and it is simply not possible to stop them returning home
    Maybe not, but it should be possible to ensure that UK residents returning from India quarantine and do not mix with anybody for 10/14 days or whatever it is. This doesn't seem to be happening.
    The idea of home quarantine was highly dubious at the best of times.

    But reached another level of risk when applied to communities with high density, multi-generational homes.

    Not to mention that people willing to travel during a global pandemic were already the people most likely to risk getting infected and to risk infecting others subsequently.
    Yep, travel again. Last week was also a major Islamic festival (Eid al Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan), where large informal gatherings and greetings are common.

    As others have said, it’s time for hotel quarantine for all incoming travellers, with very few exceptions.

    I’d quite like to see my parents at some point this year, which isn’t going to happen while there’s still a pandemic on.
    Its like screaming at the moon...what works...strict border controls and quarantine...what won't most governments (not just the UK) implement, strict border controls and quarantine.
    I'm not sure it does work. We have some fairly strict controls right now and the virus still gets in. Even Australia and New Zealand report occasional outbreaks, despite policies that would be impractical here.

    Vaccination works. Let's rely on that.
    The numbers in Australia / New Zealand are absolutely tiny and they never have a sustained outbreak.

    And we don't have strict controls, on paper they are quite strict, but we have all these people just ignoring the rules and the guidance at every turn. There is basically no enforcement and no punishment.

    Compare leaving Australia, you need to basically get a visa from the government to do so, with absolutely clear break down of why you need to. They are incredibly strict on what is a justifiable reason. And also there is no guarantee they will let you back in, its tough shit if you leave and are stuck.

    Here, people just come up with all sorts of crap and go, and they are just brazen about it when they moan to the BBC about queues at the airport etc
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,530
    Jesus, there's been a massive nuclear fusion experiment in the sky, and a ginormous ball of energy is relentlessly hitting Regent's Park with dangerous "solar rays"
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,340
    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Yvette Cooper says that the lifting of holiday travel restrictions tomorrow should be cancelled

    She said we shouldn't be lifting restrictions at at time when there are so many new variants

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1393846968644997120

    A policy for Starmer. He's too weak to say it though. He should be calling for a full ban on incoming travel with everyone going into managed quarantine and hammering Boris on letting the Indian variant get into the country.
    It was interesting on Marr this morning that a member of Sage, when asked about the time delay re India, said it may have delayed it a little but it would not have stopped it

    I assume that a good number of those returning from India were UK residents, and it is simply not possible to stop them returning home
    Maybe not, but it should be possible to ensure that UK residents returning from India quarantine and do not mix with anybody for 10/14 days or whatever it is. This doesn't seem to be happening.
    The idea of home quarantine was highly dubious at the best of times.

    But reached another level of risk when applied to communities with high density, multi-generational homes.

    Not to mention that people willing to travel during a global pandemic were already the people most likely to risk getting infected and to risk infecting others subsequently.
    Yep, travel again. Last week was also a major Islamic festival (Eid al Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan), where large informal gatherings and greetings are common.

    As others have said, it’s time for hotel quarantine for all incoming travellers, with very few exceptions.

    I’d quite like to see my parents at some point this year, which isn’t going to happen while there’s still a pandemic on.
    I’m old enough to remember when Farage was called a nazi for advocating HIV tests for immigrants as an entry condition. Funny how things change.
    Ha, I didn’t know Farage had said that. Some parts of the world (waves from the UAE) do indeed require an HIV a test as a requirement for residence.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509

    HYUFD said:

    I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too

    An English(wo)man's home, is (her)his castle, so don't **** with inheritance tax, seems to be political wisdom best not ignored.

    I have sympathy with Starmer. Covid is like a war. It is difficult to criticise the government at the moment.

    However, the India travel fiasco is an open goal. Instead of putting the ball in the back of the net, Starmer is minded to backpass the ball the entire length of the field to his own keeper.
    There is a morbid fear - shared by all parties - of seeming racist in applying travel bans with the sub-Continent. "Better to allow in the variant than, you know, have shit flung at us for being anti-BAME....."

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,700
    Leon said:

    Jesus, there's been a massive nuclear fusion experiment in the sky, and a ginormous ball of energy is relentlessly hitting Regent's Park with dangerous "solar rays"

    We sent you a little gift from the island. Just for a few minutes ;)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509
    Leon said:

    Jesus, there's been a massive nuclear fusion experiment in the sky, and a ginormous ball of energy is relentlessly hitting Regent's Park with dangerous "solar rays"

    We still have massive lead shielding covering us down here in Devon. Hah!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    I see that Edwin Poots has said that he won't become First Minister of Northern Ireland. Seems odd to me.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,697
    HYUFD said:

    felix said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
    PSOE were troiunced in Madrid the other week and the last 4 national polls have put them behind the Conservative PP for the first time in ages.
    PSOE are still the largest party in Spain in terms of seats in Parliament and in power, the latest Spanish poll has the PSOE on 26.9% and PP on 26.9%, less than a 1% difference with the main gains for the PP coming from squeezing the vote of its Citizens allies down to just 2.8%
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Spanish_general_election

    The point remains only in the UK, Australia and Japan is the main liberal centre left party out of power in any western G20 nation
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Spanish_general_election

    The last 4 polls here have PSOE second.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,147
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.

    Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Immigration is a net wash for average wages because Lump of Labour is in fact a fallacy.

    Studies show that immigrants increase GDP in proportion. As immigrants tend to go for jobs they are overqualified for, native workers get more opportunities for permanent or supervisory roles than they would otherwise have.

    Presumably as FoM kicks in the reverse will happen. GDP will contract in relative terms but there will be a temporary drag where there is unmet demand before job vacancies also fall to match the relatively lower GDP.
    Bullshit, the post. Literally every single word of this is unadulterated bullshit.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,622
    edited May 16
    Cookie said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Yep. The "Polish plumber" meant very different things to the UK's affluent middle class and working class British plumbers.
    And the plumber was a skilled tradesman. Imagine the lot of the unskilled or semi-skilled worker, under a system of almost unlimited unskilled immigration.
    Polish plumbers were apparently echoing the same complaints of their English counterparts when the even cheaper Romanian plumbers entered.

    Until a Labour leader can stand up to the professional, educated wing of the party and point out the fact that immigration is not an unalloyed good for those whose wages and services it puts under pressure, it will find it hard to regain those WWC votes. Quite frankly, how anyone thinks that Andy Burnham is going to deliver a more acceptable line on this given his track record is a mystery.
    Over 1000 years of British history, the periods when the lot of those at the bottom of the heap has got better has been when demographic and other forces have constrained the supply of labour, thereby pushing up wages. It has been utterly bizarre to see enthusiasts for immigration trying to simply wish this relationship away.
    There are arguments for immigration, but they don't relate to the economic interests of those selling their labour and skills.
    I would have thought that organised labour, in the guise of trades unions, played a pretty significant role in improving the lot of those at the bottom of the heap, and pushing up wages in many sectors of the economy, during much of the 20th Century.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,845

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
    The Greens lead some national polls in Germany, but they're still polling less than the UK Labour Party.
    The SPD though are in power as the junior party in the German government, the UK Labour Party is currently the only main liberal left or centre left party out of power in any G7 nation outside Japan when you also consider the Democrats are back in power in the US too and Trudeau's Liberals are in power in Canada as well
    Bit of a stretch though to describe the centre left as being "in power in Italy" in your previous post, when the 2 biggest parties in the government (M5S and Lega) are not centre left.

    Also not sure if En Marche counts as "liberal left".

    Probably fair to say Labour is polling better than many other centre-left parties in Europe, but this is surely because of the 2ish party system in the UK.
    Would be dubious about the LPC too. Similar to the government we had from 2010-15 rather than centre-left.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic again, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Voter coalitions are not immutable. It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions.

    Yet that’s no guarantee that Labour’s lost voters will then collapse back into its arms. Simply waiting for the latest iteration of the Conservative party to implode might reward Labour, but you’d be a fool to bet on it after the evidence of the last decade.

    [Alternatively] the circumstances in which a progressive alliance might make a tangible difference are the circumstances in which Labour is looking like a winner anyway. Which obviously isn’t the case today.

    There is no plausible path back to power for Labour that does not involve succeeding in the electoral system as it is by gaining support from diverse groups of voters from around the compass.

    Most people in most places want similar things: decent life chances for themselves and their children, reliable public services, a nice place to call home, a sense that opportunities and rewards are distributed fairly and that the communities, country and planet in which they live have a promising future. It should not be impossible for the Labour party to locate a winning electoral coalition. First, though, it needs to start acting as if it is interested in finding one.

    "It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions."

    The wish is father to the thought.

    It has already secured an 80 (now 82) seat majority whilst peeling off its Europhile wing. That disintegration happened before the last election.
    The point being made is that there are potential tensions between the Tories’ old and new supporters, which is fair. A similar coalition fell apart during the later Thatcher and Major years.
    And I'm saying that the most obvious fault-line in the Conservatives for decades has already fractured - the Europhiles v the Sceptics. From the inside of the party, I can't see anything remotely close to that San Andreas fault. And we have already had our 8.3 Richter Scale event, prior to 2019. There was some swaying, but the edifice proved surprisingly robust.

    So what rupture in our ranks is on the horizon?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,700
    MaxPB said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.

    Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Immigration is a net wash for average wages because Lump of Labour is in fact a fallacy.

    Studies show that immigrants increase GDP in proportion. As immigrants tend to go for jobs they are overqualified for, native workers get more opportunities for permanent or supervisory roles than they would otherwise have.

    Presumably as FoM kicks in the reverse will happen. GDP will contract in relative terms but there will be a temporary drag where there is unmet demand before job vacancies also fall to match the relatively lower GDP.
    Bullshit, the post. Literally every single word of this is unadulterated bullshit.
    I’m sure glad I’m not on one of those other sites, the ones that don’t have PB’s reputation for informed analysis and commentary.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,845
    Sandpit said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Yvette Cooper says that the lifting of holiday travel restrictions tomorrow should be cancelled

    She said we shouldn't be lifting restrictions at at time when there are so many new variants

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1393846968644997120

    A policy for Starmer. He's too weak to say it though. He should be calling for a full ban on incoming travel with everyone going into managed quarantine and hammering Boris on letting the Indian variant get into the country.
    It was interesting on Marr this morning that a member of Sage, when asked about the time delay re India, said it may have delayed it a little but it would not have stopped it

    I assume that a good number of those returning from India were UK residents, and it is simply not possible to stop them returning home
    Maybe not, but it should be possible to ensure that UK residents returning from India quarantine and do not mix with anybody for 10/14 days or whatever it is. This doesn't seem to be happening.
    The idea of home quarantine was highly dubious at the best of times.

    But reached another level of risk when applied to communities with high density, multi-generational homes.

    Not to mention that people willing to travel during a global pandemic were already the people most likely to risk getting infected and to risk infecting others subsequently.
    Yep, travel again. Last week was also a major Islamic festival (Eid al Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan), where large informal gatherings and greetings are common.

    As others have said, it’s time for hotel quarantine for all incoming travellers, with very few exceptions.

    I’d quite like to see my parents at some point this year, which isn’t going to happen while there’s still a pandemic on.
    I’m old enough to remember when Farage was called a nazi for advocating HIV tests for immigrants as an entry condition. Funny how things change.
    Ha, I didn’t know Farage had said that. Some parts of the world (waves from the UAE) do indeed require an HIV a test as a requirement for residence.
    Yep. Had an annual test for HIV, hepatitis and a couple of other things to renew my Taiwanese residency.
    Strangely, including colour blindness.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    edited May 16

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic again, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Voter coalitions are not immutable. It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions.

    Yet that’s no guarantee that Labour’s lost voters will then collapse back into its arms. Simply waiting for the latest iteration of the Conservative party to implode might reward Labour, but you’d be a fool to bet on it after the evidence of the last decade.

    [Alternatively] the circumstances in which a progressive alliance might make a tangible difference are the circumstances in which Labour is looking like a winner anyway. Which obviously isn’t the case today.

    There is no plausible path back to power for Labour that does not involve succeeding in the electoral system as it is by gaining support from diverse groups of voters from around the compass.

    Most people in most places want similar things: decent life chances for themselves and their children, reliable public services, a nice place to call home, a sense that opportunities and rewards are distributed fairly and that the communities, country and planet in which they live have a promising future. It should not be impossible for the Labour party to locate a winning electoral coalition. First, though, it needs to start acting as if it is interested in finding one.

    "It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions."

    The wish is father to the thought.

    It has already secured an 80 (now 82) seat majority whilst peeling off its Europhile wing. That disintegration happened before the last election.
    The point being made is that there are potential tensions between the Tories’ old and new supporters, which is fair. A similar coalition fell apart during the later Thatcher and Major years.
    And I'm saying that the most obvious fault-line in the Conservatives for decades has already fractured - the Europhiles v the Sceptics. From the inside of the party, I can't see anything remotely close to that San Andreas fault. And we have already had our 8.3 Richter Scale event, prior to 2019. There was some swaying, but the edifice proved surprisingly robust.

    So what rupture in our ranks is on the horizon?
    Tax rises to pay for COVID, "rocket fuel", and "levelling up" that are primarily levied on the South, for the benefit of the North and the Midlands.

    Alternatively, lack of "rocket fuel" or "levelling up" due to lack of money.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,111
    An interesting thread and debate which for me misses the broader question. It isn't really that relevant as to who leads the Labour Party if the party has no idea who it is, what it believes in and to whom it is speaking.

    There is quite simply no squaring the circle between the "end Capitalism, vegetable rights and peace" Corbyn nutters and former Labour voters in seats like Hartlepool or Harlow. Unless Labour parts ways with these lunatics or at the very least buries them so deep that they are effectively silent and invisible it won't matter who they choose as leader.

    Starmer needed to remove the cancer that was eating the body of the Labour Party. He fluffed it the first time when he removed only the whip from only Corbyn. he fluffed it the second time after his angry interview post Hartlepool where he said he would do what was required to transform the party and succeeded in promoting Angela Rayner instead of sacking her.

    Labour - its its current form - is not an alternative party of government in waiting. Parachuting Burnham into a safe seat and making him leader of this Labour Party won't change that. A different party is needed whether that is a wholly reconstituted Labour or a new party spun out of the ashes. Until they are interested in even considering what the voters of Harlow or Hartlepool want they are irrelevant to the real needs...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,607
    edited May 16
    Weekend effects - and some major revision in the Netherlands:

    https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/


  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,622

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic again, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Voter coalitions are not immutable. It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions.

    Yet that’s no guarantee that Labour’s lost voters will then collapse back into its arms. Simply waiting for the latest iteration of the Conservative party to implode might reward Labour, but you’d be a fool to bet on it after the evidence of the last decade.

    [Alternatively] the circumstances in which a progressive alliance might make a tangible difference are the circumstances in which Labour is looking like a winner anyway. Which obviously isn’t the case today.

    There is no plausible path back to power for Labour that does not involve succeeding in the electoral system as it is by gaining support from diverse groups of voters from around the compass.

    Most people in most places want similar things: decent life chances for themselves and their children, reliable public services, a nice place to call home, a sense that opportunities and rewards are distributed fairly and that the communities, country and planet in which they live have a promising future. It should not be impossible for the Labour party to locate a winning electoral coalition. First, though, it needs to start acting as if it is interested in finding one.

    "It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions."

    The wish is father to the thought.

    It has already secured an 80 (now 82) seat majority whilst peeling off its Europhile wing. That disintegration happened before the last election.
    The point being made is that there are potential tensions between the Tories’ old and new supporters, which is fair. A similar coalition fell apart during the later Thatcher and Major years.
    And I'm saying that the most obvious fault-line in the Conservatives for decades has already fractured - the Europhiles v the Sceptics. From the inside of the party, I can't see anything remotely close to that San Andreas fault. And we have already had our 8.3 Richter Scale event, prior to 2019. There was some swaying, but the edifice proved surprisingly robust.

    So what rupture in our ranks is on the horizon?
    Financing levelling up, possibly? Raising taxes on those better off, particularly in the south, to fund all the necessary projects to improve the lot of red wall voters in the north and the midlands. The magic money forest can't continue forever.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic again, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Voter coalitions are not immutable. It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions.

    Yet that’s no guarantee that Labour’s lost voters will then collapse back into its arms. Simply waiting for the latest iteration of the Conservative party to implode might reward Labour, but you’d be a fool to bet on it after the evidence of the last decade.

    [Alternatively] the circumstances in which a progressive alliance might make a tangible difference are the circumstances in which Labour is looking like a winner anyway. Which obviously isn’t the case today.

    There is no plausible path back to power for Labour that does not involve succeeding in the electoral system as it is by gaining support from diverse groups of voters from around the compass.

    Most people in most places want similar things: decent life chances for themselves and their children, reliable public services, a nice place to call home, a sense that opportunities and rewards are distributed fairly and that the communities, country and planet in which they live have a promising future. It should not be impossible for the Labour party to locate a winning electoral coalition. First, though, it needs to start acting as if it is interested in finding one.

    "It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions."

    The wish is father to the thought.

    It has already secured an 80 (now 82) seat majority whilst peeling off its Europhile wing. That disintegration happened before the last election.
    The point being made is that there are potential tensions between the Tories’ old and new supporters, which is fair. A similar coalition fell apart during the later Thatcher and Major years.
    And I'm saying that the most obvious fault-line in the Conservatives for decades has already fractured - the Europhiles v the Sceptics. From the inside of the party, I can't see anything remotely close to that San Andreas fault. And we have already had our 8.3 Richter Scale event, prior to 2019. There was some swaying, but the edifice proved surprisingly robust.

    So what rupture in our ranks is on the horizon?
    Financing levelling up, possibly? Raising taxes on those better off, particularly in the south, to fund all the necessary projects to improve the lot of red wall voters in the north and the midlands. The magic money forest can't continue forever.
    This is the thing. Now that Labour have been chucked out of both Westminster and local councils, it will be easy for Labour to say "look, things haven't improved", if they haven't.

    It won't be an immediate thing, but it will be impossible for the Conservative Party to continue to promise all things to all men in the long run.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643

    Weekend effects - and some major revision in the Netherlands:

    https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/


    -405k....is that because they were given quasi effective vaccines?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,622

    Weekend effects - and some major revision in the Netherlands:

    https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/


    Bloody hell, over 400,000 people in the Netherlands have had their microchip extracted.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    alex_ said:

    One thing that annoys me about the current blitz to try and somehow convince the Govt to delay the May 17th reopening (which has switched astonishingly rapidly from the theoretical discussions about June12) is the effective presentation that doing so would come with zero downside, from all the hospitality businesses etc that would probably go bust overnight due to all the additional costs they will have incurred preparing specifically for tomorrow.

    And most of them are calling for such a delay whilst hedging their bets, saying we might come to regret it ... or we might not. It’s as if they’re all rushing to get their voices heard now, just to give them the excuse in a month to say “I told you so”.


    Kit Yates
    @Kit_Yates_Maths
    ·
    4h
    No one is suggesting we “live like this for ever”, but we have vaccines to prevent this disease. More time to vaccinate people will undoubtedly save lives.
    Opening up more in the face of a more transmissible variant risks undermining much of our efforts up to now.

    A typical view from the indie SAGE.

    No appreciation of the economic ruin or the mental health crisis that keeping closed down will deliver. Nor seemingly any appreciation that people have mainly had enough and are meeting anyway in their own homes which are probably not as covid safe (whatever that actually means) than a well run cafe or bar.
    I cannot fathom the SAGE maths behind the next wave from an Indian variant that be twice as bad as the last one. Nearly 70% of the population have had one jab, getting on for two in five have had two. That wasn't the case in previous waves with Kent variant for example.

    But it is nearer 95%+ of those at risk of hospitalisation. Only 5% remain to be jabbed. So to get to double the numbers when there was no vaccine, it has to be massively more potent than the Covid we have faced before - in that 5% cohort.

    There are only two ways to read this:

    a) they believe the vaccines don't work

    b) they are talking complete and utter bollocks.


    Which is it, SAGE? Because frankly, I don't see any scientific basis for the scare of an NHS-smashing next wave.
    I'm beginning to suspect that at least some of these models have their assumptions tweaked until they produce the outcomes that the modellers want to see.

    The object of the model isn't to attempt an accurate prediction, it's to justify the endless restrictions that the modellers have already decided are necessary.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547
    MrEd said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.

    Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Immigration is a net wash for average wages because Lump of Labour is in fact a fallacy.

    Studies show that immigrants increase GDP in proportion. As immigrants tend to go for jobs they are overqualified for, native workers get more opportunities for permanent or supervisory roles than they would otherwise have.

    Presumably as FoM kicks in the reverse will happen. GDP will contract in relative terms but there will be a temporary drag where there is unmet demand before job vacancies also fall to match the relatively lower GDP.
    With no disrespect to FF43, if you want one post that neatly encapsulates why Remain lost, this would be one of the top contenders. Looking at things from a theoretical standpoint, and not thinking about the real life effects on people at the bottom of the scale, completely misses the point.

    Theories don't vote, people do.
    I don't agree.

    Remain lost because more people believed the theory that Brexit would be better for Britain.

    That isn't necessarily true.

    But alas, we are where we are.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic again, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Voter coalitions are not immutable. It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions.

    Yet that’s no guarantee that Labour’s lost voters will then collapse back into its arms. Simply waiting for the latest iteration of the Conservative party to implode might reward Labour, but you’d be a fool to bet on it after the evidence of the last decade.

    [Alternatively] the circumstances in which a progressive alliance might make a tangible difference are the circumstances in which Labour is looking like a winner anyway. Which obviously isn’t the case today.

    There is no plausible path back to power for Labour that does not involve succeeding in the electoral system as it is by gaining support from diverse groups of voters from around the compass.

    Most people in most places want similar things: decent life chances for themselves and their children, reliable public services, a nice place to call home, a sense that opportunities and rewards are distributed fairly and that the communities, country and planet in which they live have a promising future. It should not be impossible for the Labour party to locate a winning electoral coalition. First, though, it needs to start acting as if it is interested in finding one.

    "It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions."

    The wish is father to the thought.

    It has already secured an 80 (now 82) seat majority whilst peeling off its Europhile wing. That disintegration happened before the last election.
    The point being made is that there are potential tensions between the Tories’ old and new supporters, which is fair. A similar coalition fell apart during the later Thatcher and Major years.
    And I'm saying that the most obvious fault-line in the Conservatives for decades has already fractured - the Europhiles v the Sceptics. From the inside of the party, I can't see anything remotely close to that San Andreas fault. And we have already had our 8.3 Richter Scale event, prior to 2019. There was some swaying, but the edifice proved surprisingly robust.

    So what rupture in our ranks is on the horizon?
    Tax rises to pay for COVID, "rocket fuel", and "levelling up" that are primarily levied on the South, for the benefit of the North and the Midlands.

    Alternatively, lack of "rocket fuel" or "levelling up" due to lack of money.
    I actually think there will be a degree of pragmatism. The Govt. stood behind the workers with furlough payments, to an unprecedented extent. "Levelling up" will have a start, but it will be understood that Covid has meant the advance can't be as rapid as had been hoped at the time of the 2019 general election.

    I think the fault lines in other parties are greater. How are they going to pay for their pet projects AND repay the costs of Covid?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,607

    Weekend effects - and some major revision in the Netherlands:

    https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/


    Bloody hell, over 400,000 people in the Netherlands have had their microchip extracted.
    They discovered they were using iPhones - so no need!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,209
    Afternoon all :)

    Staff inside my local Spoons cleaning and organising while at my local cafe the tables are out and ready for the morning rush for that 6am breakfast,

    I do think terms like "Freedom" Day and "Liberation Day" are a little overblown. 76 years ago, those terms did mean something for the people of Europe and elsewhere - I struggle to equate the two experiences though I recognise for many it's a big step on a road back to something.

    Is that something the life we had or the life we are going to have? I sense among some an almost febrile desire to wish away the last 14 months, to airbrush them from the collective memory and part of the "excess" of the next few weeks is the desire (or need) to spend, eat or otherwise enjoy away the memory of the recent past.

    It's understandable but there's no denying the world has changed and for all the attempts to reset life to January 2020, the genie won't get put back in the bottle that easily.

    There are some positives we can draw from what has happened - perhaps a greater awareness of public and personal health and hygiene. Some may protest at the routine nightly genocide of germs and bacteria in Tube carriages but I won't be one of them.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,547

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic again, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    Voter coalitions are not immutable. It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions.

    Yet that’s no guarantee that Labour’s lost voters will then collapse back into its arms. Simply waiting for the latest iteration of the Conservative party to implode might reward Labour, but you’d be a fool to bet on it after the evidence of the last decade.

    [Alternatively] the circumstances in which a progressive alliance might make a tangible difference are the circumstances in which Labour is looking like a winner anyway. Which obviously isn’t the case today.

    There is no plausible path back to power for Labour that does not involve succeeding in the electoral system as it is by gaining support from diverse groups of voters from around the compass.

    Most people in most places want similar things: decent life chances for themselves and their children, reliable public services, a nice place to call home, a sense that opportunities and rewards are distributed fairly and that the communities, country and planet in which they live have a promising future. It should not be impossible for the Labour party to locate a winning electoral coalition. First, though, it needs to start acting as if it is interested in finding one.

    "It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions."

    The wish is father to the thought.

    It has already secured an 80 (now 82) seat majority whilst peeling off its Europhile wing. That disintegration happened before the last election.
    The point being made is that there are potential tensions between the Tories’ old and new supporters, which is fair. A similar coalition fell apart during the later Thatcher and Major years.
    And I'm saying that the most obvious fault-line in the Conservatives for decades has already fractured - the Europhiles v the Sceptics. From the inside of the party, I can't see anything remotely close to that San Andreas fault. And we have already had our 8.3 Richter Scale event, prior to 2019. There was some swaying, but the edifice proved surprisingly robust.

    So what rupture in our ranks is on the horizon?
    Tax rises to pay for COVID, "rocket fuel", and "levelling up" that are primarily levied on the South, for the benefit of the North and the Midlands.

    Alternatively, lack of "rocket fuel" or "levelling up" due to lack of money.
    I actually think there will be a degree of pragmatism. The Govt. stood behind the workers with furlough payments, to an unprecedented extent. "Levelling up" will have a start, but it will be understood that Covid has meant the advance can't be as rapid as had been hoped at the time of the 2019 general election.

    I think the fault lines in other parties are greater. How are they going to pay for their pet projects AND repay the costs of Covid?
    I think that's wishful thinking.

    Labour was blamed for the effects of the GFC for many years after.

    If levelling up doesn't happen to the extent people expect, "cos COVID" isn't going to wash.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,877
    MrEd said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.

    Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Immigration is a net wash for average wages because Lump of Labour is in fact a fallacy.

    Studies show that immigrants increase GDP in proportion. As immigrants tend to go for jobs they are overqualified for, native workers get more opportunities for permanent or supervisory roles than they would otherwise have.

    Presumably as FoM kicks in the reverse will happen. GDP will contract in relative terms but there will be a temporary drag where there is unmet demand before job vacancies also fall to match the relatively lower GDP.
    With no disrespect to FF43, if you want one post that neatly encapsulates why Remain lost, this would be one of the top contenders. Looking at things from a theoretical standpoint, and not thinking about the real life effects on people at the bottom of the scale, completely misses the point.

    Theories don't vote, people do.
    In general I agree. Saying "foreigners steal our jobs'" is a simple but effective message. It happens to be wrong and those saying it don't help those they claim to support.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,133
    MrEd said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57101527

    Businesses complaining about 'skills shortages'.

    Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?

    If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.

    I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.

    I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.

    This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.

    Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.

    One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
    Immigration is a net wash for average wages because Lump of Labour is in fact a fallacy.

    Studies show that immigrants increase GDP in proportion. As immigrants tend to go for jobs they are overqualified for, native workers get more opportunities for permanent or supervisory roles than they would otherwise have.

    Presumably as FoM kicks in the reverse will happen. GDP will contract in relative terms but there will be a temporary drag where there is unmet demand before job vacancies also fall to match the relatively lower GDP.
    With no disrespect to FF43, if you want one post that neatly encapsulates why Remain lost, this would be one of the top contenders. Looking at things from a theoretical standpoint, and not thinking about the real life effects on people at the bottom of the scale, completely misses the point.

    Theories don't vote, people do.
    Labour will be sending academics to the Red Wall to explain to their ex voters how they’re suffering from false consciousness
This discussion has been closed.