Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[nw1]

I think Mad Lizzie (the aerobics instructor on TVAM) would probably do a better job than any of them !

I think you're probably right!

 

[Typhoon]

It is. There's also the issue that a cut in heritance tax won't be directed towards any particular section of the economy, so could just as easily end up fueling inflation.

Any tax cuts need to be directed towards the labour intensive, competitive service industries that have capacity to soak up excess money.

VAT on domestic services or business rates on domestic services and production are the only sensible options in this respect. Obviously there'd have to be some tweaking to ensure that genuinely competitive small businesses were the beneficiaries, rather than big business cartels, such as media/telecoms providers.

You are right.

Inheritance Tax affects people at irregular intervals, I went for over half a century without being affected by it, then a couple of years ago, I was an Executor. As the oldest surviving member of my extended family, I don't care what the tax is now or will be, I am unlikely to benefit. Most surviving spouses. for instance, won't pay.

There are some items that are fully VATable - we had 'Eat Out to Help Out' but would it have been better to permanently cut VAT on prepared food in premises to say 12 or 15% (I think we can do that now), similarly to housing repairs to help maintain the existing housing stock.

Regarding the benefits to the economy, when I was Executor I set up a Building Society account for the money i received from closed accounts, repayment funds from energy companies and the like. £200 from Premium Bonds (never won a prize). etc. After the distribution of money from probate, there is still money there (it was settled during Covid). From time to time I am told that the interest rate had gone up. It has just become a rainy day fund. It is only spitting at the moment.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But they want a tax cut that specifically favours them. Cutting VAT is all very well, but they want something like a cut in tax on high earnings, unearned income or the like that is to their specific advantage. Many of them realise that some tax still has to be paid, so they want the burden to be shifted onto others. Most people want the others to pay the bulk of the tax, but the poor have less to pay it out of.

Which is really no different from what Labour, the LibDems or other parties usually try to do, by continually arguing that everything should be paid for by taxing companies and businesses and 'the rich' more.

Basically almost everyone, and pretty much every political party, wants someone else, or the other party's supposed supporters, to pay for public services. Unfortunately that doesn't work. If we want decent services etc., then we all have to pay for them.

 

[yorksrob]

You are right.

Inheritance Tax affects people at irregular intervals, I went for over half a century without being affected by it, then a couple of years ago, I was an Executor. As the oldest surviving member of my extended family, I don't care what the tax is now or will be, I am unlikely to benefit. Most surviving spouses. for instance, won't pay.

There are some items that are fully VATable - we had 'Eat Out to Help Out' but would it have been better to permanently cut VAT on prepared food in premises to say 12 or 15% (I think we can do that now), similarly to housing repairs to help maintain the existing housing stock.

Regarding the benefits to the economy, when I was Executor I set up a Building Society account for the money i received from closed accounts, repayment funds from energy companies and the like. £200 from Premium Bonds (never won a prize). etc. After the distribution of money from probate, there is still money there (it was settled during Covid). From time to time I am told that the interest rate had gone up. It has just become a rainy day fund. It is only spitting at the moment.

Thanks.

We've been stuck on 20% VAT for some time now. It's clearly too high for the sort of businesses we need to keep the economy ticking over.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

If we want decent services etc., then we all have to pay for them.

Indeed. Which is why the emphasis needs to be shifted away from regressive taxes which strangle small businesses, such as VAT.

The Tories ought to be the party of small businesses, surely ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

"Make the NHS even worse. Freeze public sector pay. Cut taxes for the well-off. Blame immigrants for all the country's problems. Abandon all pedestrian and cyclist-friendly policies. Vote Conservative!"

Eh? When has Sunak ever blamed immigrants for all the country's problems? Could you provide a link to his speech in which he's said 'Immigrants are responsible for all the UK's problems'?

Or is that just something you've made up?

 

[duncanp]

Eh? When has Sunak ever blamed immigrants for all the country's problems? Could you provide a link to his speech in which he's said 'Immigrants are responsible for all the UK's problems'?

Or is that just something you've made up?

And I am not sure that the Conservatives have abandoned all pedestrian and cyclist friendly measures either.

Also the public sector pay freeze was for only one year

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8037/

On 27 October 2021, the Autumn Budget and Spending Review 2021 announced that public sector workers would receive “fair and affordable” pay rises across the 2022/23 to 2024/25 Spending Review period. This ended the one-year public sector pay freeze, that had been put in place in the 2020/21 Spending Review

 

[yorksrob]

And I am not sure that the Conservatives have abandoned all pedestrian and cyclist friendly measures either.

Also the public sector pay freeze was for only one year

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8037/

I work in the public sector and we had more than one year without a pay rise as I recall.

 

[SuspectUsual]

And I am not sure that the Conservatives have abandoned all pedestrian and cyclist friendly measures either.

Also the public sector pay freeze was for only one year

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8037/

The most recent one, yes. There were also two years 2010-2012 followed by five years of 1% average pay awards - so seven years of real terms pay decreases

“In 2010, the Coalition Government announced a two-year public sector pay freeze. This was followed by a 1% average pay cap on public sector pay awards. This cap was lifted in 2017 and from 2018 to 2020 most parts of the public sector received pay awards above 2%”

Basically almost everyone, and pretty much every political party, wants someone else, or the other party's supposed supporters, to pay for public services. Unfortunately that doesn't work. If we want decent services etc., then we all have to pay for them.

That’s massively over simplistic to the point of being deliberately misleading. It would be correct to say it’s about resetting a balance, and that each party wants someone else, or the other party’s supposed supporters, to pay a bigger share of the cost of public services

 

[nw1]

Eh? When has Sunak ever blamed immigrants for all the country's problems? Could you provide a link to his speech in which he's said 'Immigrants are responsible for all the UK's problems'?

Or is that just something you've made up?

Once again, what I was saying wasn't supposed to be taken literally.

It was an expression of sentiment, "exaggeration for effect" if you will. A common technique used by lots of people to drive home a point.

Also that mock Conservative manifesto strapline wasn't even supposed to be the literal words of Sunak, and I never said it was. It was supposed to be a p-take of the general messaging the Conservatives appear to have been coming out with for the past several months.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

And I am not sure that the Conservatives have abandoned all pedestrian and cyclist friendly measures either.

Also the public sector pay freeze was for only one year

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8037/

There seems to be way too much here of posters taking my post rather too literally!

It was supposed to be an exaggeration for effect, an expression of utter exasperation about this Government and all it seemingly stands for.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Once again, what I was saying wasn't supposed to be taken literally.

Hmmm. If my memory serves me correctly, this isn't the first time you've written something that looks completely serious (in other words, doesn't show any obvious signs of being a joke), but which is not true, and when challenged, you've replied that it wasn't supposed to be taken literally.

So do you mind if I ask, how are we supposed to know which things you say are to be taken at face value and as statements of fact, versus which things we are expected to assume are exaggerated or false?

It was supposed to be an exaggeration for effect, an expression of utter exasperation about this Government and all it seemingly stands for.

How would you feel if it was a Labour or LibDem Government doing things that you agree with, and a Tory supporter made statements about it that were not true, and when challenged, justified those statements as 'an expression of utter exasperation'? Do you believe that feeling exasperated about a Government/a political party justifies telling lies about them?

 

[najaB]

How would you feel if it was a Labour or LibDem Government doing things that you agree with, and a Tory supporter made statements about it that were not true, and when challenged, justified those statements as 'an expression of utter exasperation'? Do you believe that feeling exasperated about a Government/a political party justifies telling lies about them?

Hyperbole for the sake of making a point isn't lying.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That’s massively over simplistic to the point of being deliberately misleading. It would be correct to say it’s about resetting a balance, and that each party wants someone else, or the other party’s supposed supporters, to pay a bigger share of the cost of public services

It certainly wasn't intended to be misleading. But fair point, it would have been more correct to say something like, Basically almost everyone, and pretty much every political party, wants someone else, or the other party's supposed supporters, to pay more/a higher proportion for public services.

 

[nw1]

Hmmm. If my memory serves me correctly, this isn't the first time you've written something that looks completely serious (in other words, doesn't show any obvious signs of being a joke), but which is not true, and when challenged, you've replied that it wasn't supposed to be taken literally.

So do you mind if I ask, how are we supposed to know which things you say are to be taken at face value and as statements of fact, versus which things we are expected to assume are exaggerated or false?

Maybe I need to include an appropriate emoticon, fair enough.

But I do think you're being over-sensitive here. It was supposed to be an exaggeration for effect, try and see it as such and don't take it so seriously. Such exaggeration for effect happens all the time in conversations, both online and in-person, between people. And they say it's the left that always takes things too seriously!

How would you feel if it was a Labour or LibDem Government doing things that you agree with, and a Tory supporter made statements about it that were not true, and when challenged, justified those statements as 'an expression of utter exasperation'? Do you believe that feeling exasperated about a Government/a political party justifies telling lies about them?

I think they would have every right to joke or exaggerate about a Labour/Lib Dem government they didn't like (I've seen comments on here suggesting Labour are obsessed with woke issues to the exclusion of anything else; I don't think that's true but it's arguably a valid point of view and shouldn't try to be shut down). And if there was a misunderstanding on my part, and I hadn't detected the joke (but the poster pointed out it was just a joke) I wouldn't want to pursue it further - I'd just accept it was a joke; I'd feel a bit silly for having not detected it and that would be the end of the matter.

Hyperbole for the sake of making a point isn't lying.

Exactly, sometimes I feel we have to tread on eggshells on here.

Jokes and exaggerations about political parties and politicians in private conversation come up all the time. I have seen far more biting attacks on parties and politicians than I've ever managed on satire shows on the TV, down the pub, or in private homes.

Monty Python in 1970 featured a John Cleese character (playing a stereotypical Tory "City type") calling the Conservatives some pretty nasty names, far worse and far more cutting than my own amateurish efforts - basically he described himself using such terms before realising what he was doing and correcting himself. And this was the era of cuddly Ted Heath, who in comparison to the modern Tories was positively communist! Would it have been appropriate for Tory supporters to have complained to the BBC in disgust? Would Monty Python appreciate being accused of "lying" because that sketch implied that the Tories were some pretty nasty things, which I'm sure were a considerable exaggeration of the truth?

 

[Yew]

The Tories ought to be the party of small businesses, surely ?

Big businesses donate more money to the party, and offer out more cushy jobs to ministers after their political career is over.

 

[bspahh]

Exactly, sometimes I feel we have to tread on eggshells on here.

(edited - my first post had the quote attributed to Yew)

In general, its best to attack ideas and not people.

If anyone feels that a post crosses the line for what is acceptable, press the Report button and let one of the moderators take a look.

 

[yorksrob]

Big businesses donate more money to the party, and offer out more cushy jobs to ministers after their political career is over.

There is that.

The reality is that big business, by virtue of its position, is often far from the ideal of thrusting dynamic capitalism. If the Tories really believe in the market, they will be prioritising support for small business

 

[Gloster]

There is that.

The reality is that big business, by virtue of its position, is often far from the ideal of thrusting dynamic capitalism. If the Tories really believe in the market, they will be prioritising support for small business

What’s in it for them? Their belief in the market is how much they can sell themselves for.

 

[yorksrob]

What’s in it for them? Their belief in the market is how much they can sell themselves for.

As they claim to be the party of King and Country, they should automatically support any policy that's good for Britain (rather than whatever laissez-faire tripe blows in on the wind).

I like to imagine that if you strip away the market rubbish, there is still a core philosophy somewhere, of the Conservatism of MacMillan and Churchill. I believe that even Mrs T would have baulked at some of the sell-offs perpetrated in the name of globalisation.

 

[DerekC]

As they claim to be the party of King and Country, they should automatically support any policy that's good for Britain (rather than whatever laissez-faire tripe blows in on the wind).

Well yes, but of course every party (and every politician) thinks that what they want is good for Britain, and that they are only people to deliver it.

I like to imagine that if you strip away the market rubbish, there is still a core philosophy somewhere, of the Conservatism of MacMillan and Churchill.

Nothing wrong with a bit of imagination! But don't confuse it with reality. Boris sacked anyone with that kind of philosophy because they saw through him.

 

[nw1]

I general, its best to attack ideas and not people.

If anyone feels that a post crosses the line for what is acceptable, press the Report button and let one of the moderators take a look.

For clarification this was myself who made the comment about "treading on eggshells" and not @Yew.

I do feel (as I explained) that in my attempt-at-humorous exaggeration of the Conservative Party's apparent attitudes in 2023 I was attacking ideas, and not people. Apologies if this was not the case. That said, if people in the public eye do things which you personally consider far short of acceptable, then maybe some kind of robust criticism of them is warranted. Not profanities, of course - but robust criticism.

 

[bspahh]

For clarification this was myself who made the comment about "treading on eggshells" and not @Yew.

Sorry about that. I've edited my post

 

[Snow1964]

So where are we now, Sunak has his 5 promises : halve inflation, grow the economy, reduce debt, cut NHS waiting list, stop the boats. Inflation has come down, roughly on target. But not much evidence of other 4 happening.

I (and quite a lot of people I know) are starting to be convinced he won't call an early election next spring or summer, will instead just run on until end of Parliament in December 2024, thus forcing a January 2025 election. Anyone else get same feeling ?

 

[jfollows]

I (and quite a lot of people I know) are starting to be convinced he won't call an early election next spring or summer, will instead just run on until end of Parliament in December 2024, thus forcing a January 2025 election. Anyone else get same feeling ?

I've thought and said that for a long time now, because it's about giving up power, so the later they can do this, the better.

 

[najaB]

I've thought and said that for a long time now, because it's about giving up power, so the later they can do this, the better.

Better for who: them or us?

 

[Gloster]

Better for who: them or us?

Well, of course it is better for us. A Conservative government is better than any other government so they will sacrifice themselves by staying in power to the very last minute due to their heroic and patriotic ideals. And if we disagree with them we are not the sort of patriotic people who deserve such a wonderful government and rightly should be ignored.

Personally, I still feel that there may be a snap May election.

 

[Snow1964]

Better for who: them or us?

If you think of it from the rank and file of ordinary MPs (not the ministers) who are likely to lose their seat, it is akin to average worker knowing they will be made redundant by 2025, but rather hoping don't lose job sooner rather than later.

So treating all MPs as them, (and some work pretty hard for their constituents) rather than thinking of some as one of us is bit unfair. If you polarise your views then never going to have government and opposition working together.

 

[edwin_m]

Well yes, but of course every party (and every politician) thinks that what they want is good for Britain, and that they are only people to deliver it.

Nothing wrong with a bit of imagination! But don't confuse it with reality. Boris sacked anyone with that kind of philosophy because they saw through him.

I'm not so sure about that. Populists may believe that having themselves in power is best for the country overall, and promote policies that are popular but ultimately bad for the country in an attempt to achieve this. Any resemblance to post-2010 Tory governments is no doubt purely coincidental . But this often elides into wanting to hang onto power at all costs regardless of the interests of the country, for personal gain or to avoid retribution for previous actions.

 

[najaB]

treating all MPs as them, (and some work pretty hard for their constituents) rather than thinking of some as one of us is bit unfair. If you polarise your views then never going to have government and opposition working together.

"Them" = the people who are making the decision of when the election will be.

"Us" = everyone else.

 

[Gloster]

Being prepared to risk losing your seat if it is in the country’s interest to call an election should be something that is understood to be part of the MP’s job. In the same way that a soldier knows that he or she may have to risk or give up life or limb for a greater good, an MP should accept that he or she may be defeated. It is not as if an MP is not well recompensed or has plenty of chances, even if they are conscientious and scrupulously honest, to set themselves up.

 

[Snow1964]

We know that to some extent the Conservatives can dodge improving rail (or in current climate, more how much can they pare it back). Eventually some MPs in marginal areas are going to need few crumbs of local good rail news for their campaigns

Maybe just a coincidence that Conservative Party conference ends Wednesday 4th October, and ORR have chosen to publish next figures on rail usage on Thursday 5th October whilst every political commentator has gone home for post conference season long weekend

Passenger rail usage | ORR Data Portal