The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[317 forever]

Cutting all anti-immigration rhetoric would be a first step. Plus the questionable stance on trans rights. Social conservatism should not be part of Labour's message. They shouldn't even try to compete in that market; let the Conservatives do the job of taking socially-conservative votes from Reform. It just puts off the centre-left and left-wing voters who might have supported them; they could I suspect lose a lot of votes to the Greens, Lib Dems and left-wing independents on that matter. People will only stick with Labour in marginal seats which they are at risk of losing; in inner-cities they may well feel empowered to vote for the Greens or independents because right-wing parties will have no chance.

If they'd have adopted a socially-liberal, economically centre-left position and just kept to that, I suspect they'd be in a better place by now.

This is indeed part of how the Greens have risen in the polls recently. By being so outspoken against Farage/Reform anti-immigration rhetoric.

 

[Cdd89]

Cutting all anti-immigration rhetoric would be a first step. Plus the questionable stance on trans rights. Social conservatism should not be part of Labour's message. They shouldn't even try to compete in that market; let the Conservatives do the job of taking socially-conservative votes from Reform. It just puts off the centre-left and left-wing voters who might have supported them; they could I suspect lose a lot of votes to the Greens, Lib Dems and left-wing independents on that matter

I think you are (almost?) spot on here. While the electorate is probably not as in favour of open borders as you imply (e.g. the Greens' approach probably wouldn't win elections nationally), neither are they overtly racist, and Reform have overplayed their hand.

There is a middle-ground where Labour could choose not to speak in favour of immigration, but also not launch regular invective that is verging on actual racism. Many people would find it hard to vote for a person who used the term "island of strangers", and his attempt to plead ignorance and blame his speechwriter when he saw how badly it had backfired was reprehensible - nobody is unaware of the implications of that phrase.

I actually think this is the "real" reason that Labour will need a new leader - while the scandals have been in the foreground, the reality is that Starmer has revealed himself to be unprincipled and will never regain trust from the left; thus he cannot win another election due to losing too many votes to Greens and Reform respectively.

 

[nw1]

I think you are (almost?) spot on here. While the electorate is probably not as in favour of open borders as you imply (e.g. the Greens' approach probably wouldn't win elections nationally), neither are they overtly racist, and Reform have overplayed their hand.

There is a middle-ground where Labour could choose not to speak in favour of immigration, but also not launch regular invective that is verging on actual racism. Many people would find it hard to vote for a person who used the term "island of strangers", and his attempt to plead ignorance and blame his speechwriter when he saw how badly it had backfired was reprehensible - nobody is unaware of the implications of that phrase.

I actually think this is the "real" reason that Labour will need a new leader - while the scandals have been in the foreground, the reality is that Starmer has revealed himself to be unprincipled and will never regain trust from the left; thus he cannot win another election due to losing too many votes to Greens and Reform respectively.

The above is the single one thing which has annoyed me the most about the Starmer government personally - more than the winter fuel issue, though I also think that was not a good thing to do at all. Keir Starmer, who attended "Remain" rallies in 2019 or so (I was there, so I saw him), launching into hard-right anti-immigration rhetoric in the misplaced assumption that competing for hard-right votes was the way forward.

I think the best thing for now is that Labour do not even mention immigration at all - positive or negative - and focus on other issues. Sadly as you say it's too risky for Labour to be too strongly pro-immigration right now, but equally, being anti-immigration ignores the fact that relatively open immigration has benefited us on multiple levels.

Labour are not supposed to be an anti-immigration party - better to let the Conservatives be the party of "soft" anti-immigrationism, though I'm not convinced it's good even for them. The Tories will only gain all those socially-liberal Surrey and Oxfordshire seats back if they, too, moderate their stance. On the other hand the Tories might prefer to compete in the socially-conservative red wall in the hope that, with the Trump effect, people will increasingly see Reform as extreme - so perhaps that's their thinking.

So focusing on other issues for the remainder of the parliament - fixing the NHS, adopting policies which improve personal financial and job security for all - would be the smart approach. I suspect that deep down, most care about those issues rather than stopping immigration. Unregulated replacement of jobs by AI (as opposed to using AI to be more productiive without jobs being lost) is a significantly bigger risk than "immigrants taking our jobs", IMO, and the government would be wise to see the former, not the latter, as the most serious issue.

 

[Bevan Price]

We live in a relatively small island. Combined with the effects of the changing climate, we will have insufficient food and resources to feed and house millions of additional illegal immigrants. Solving that problem humanely is something future governments will have to face.

 

[telstarbox]

On that one, which developed countries would have that capacity?

 

[zero]

On that one, which developed countries would have that capacity?

The US could probably support a moderately larger population than it currently has.

 

[brad465]

We live in a relatively small island. Combined with the effects of the changing climate, we will have insufficient food and resources to feed and house millions of additional illegal immigrants. Solving that problem humanely is something future governments will have to face.

This changing climate is set to create masses of climate refugees who will leave increasingly uninhabitable climates further south to the likes of our latitude. Ironically the sort of politicians who moan about immigration are the same ones who deny climate change, even though the latter will make the former worse (if I was to be deeply cynical, they do this deliberately as it gives them a longer-lasting grift).

 

[HSTEd]

We live in a relatively small island. Combined with the effects of the changing climate, we will have insufficient food and resources to feed and house millions of additional illegal immigrants. Solving that problem humanely is something future governments will have to face.

In an emergency situation, available agricultural land and mineral resources are capable of supporting a population much larger than our current one.

I just hope you like potatoes, potatoes and more potatoes.

With a side of potatoes.

(Potato yields per hectare have increased by a factor of ~5 since 1940!)

 

[nw1]

The US could probably support a moderately larger population than it currently has.

Yet ironically that country is probably the most immigration-hostile country in the West. Even though most of its population are descended from immigrants, Donald Trump included.

 

[martin butler]

My Advice to Labour would be, concentrate on what matters to most people's daily lives, Health, job security, and prices, more low, or affordable housing, Jobs that don't mean working 18 hours to be able to afford to live better use of what we have,

More provision for the homeless, shelters that don't just open over christmas, but all year with medically trained staff, and help availible for those who seek it, converted warehouses and offices, with basic, accomodation, to get people off streets,

better housing options, more 1 and 2 bed homes, and the option of shared living, for younger professionals, extend part rent, part buy, and have it as an option, from day one, you sign up with the council, or housing association, and they guarantee the mortgage subject to your being able to afford it, and you have to stay for the duration, of the agreement , but have the option to either down size, or upgrade to a larger home, dependent on your needs, subject to homes being available

 

[SargeNpton]

My Advice to Labour would be, concentrate on what matters to most people's daily lives, Health, job security, and prices, more low, or affordable housing, Jobs that don't mean working 18 hours to be able to afford to live better use of what we have,

More provision for the homeless, shelters that don't just open over christmas, but all year with medically trained staff, and help availible for those who seek it, converted warehouses and offices, with basic, accomodation, to get people off streets,

better housing options, more 1 and 2 bed homes, and the option of shared living, for younger professionals, extend part rent, part buy, and have it as an option, from day one, you sign up with the council, or housing association, and they guarantee the mortgage subject to your being able to afford it, and you have to stay for the duration, of the agreement , but have the option to either down size, or upgrade to a larger home, dependent on your needs, subject to homes being available

Where is the money coming from to fund all that?

 

[Topological]

Where is the money coming from to fund all that?

All those super-rich people who will not move their money to reduce tax liability. There are loads of them just waiting to be taxed.

I agree with @martin butler though because those are the sorts of policies Labour should be pushing hard for. That is where there is a clear divide between Labour and Conservative. That the country would then choose Conservative is simply suggestive that we as a country probably need to reflect on our objectives.

I am very much of a lower tax, minimal welfare for healthy adults, responsible for choices type approach. Therefore, I would hope that Labour would never be able to fund even half of the proposals @martin butler makes. I just want the country to have a choice and will accept it if the country voted for a Labour Party proposing such.

 

[martin butler]

Where is the money coming from to fund all that?

In a lot of cases, prevention is better than cure, better life/ work balance, taking people out of poverty means less state intervention, a proper living wage, means less need for in work benefits,

More affordable housing, means more people able to get started on the housing ladder, shared ownership means people can choose between renting, and eventually owning their house,

Homelessness, having a joined-up approach helps in other ways, it means that people who might fall through the cracks won't, it means giving back dignity to people whilst there is still a chance
Yes it will cost money, a small increase in the rate of tax will be needed, but that will be offset by savings elsewhere, and a much healthier, happier population,

 

[Topological]

In a lot of cases, prevention is better than cure, better life/ work balance, Taking people out of poverty means less state intervention, a propper living wage, means less need for in work benefits,

A lovely theory. It would be great to have a Labour party who believed in that.

Demonstrably false, but at least we could have a proper political debate instead of the current equivalent of who left the out-of-date leftover chicken out of the fridge that is the political "discourse" between the main parties.

 

[brad465]

A lovely theory. It would be great to have a Labour party who believed in that.

Demonstrably false, but at least we could have a proper political debate instead of the current equivalent of who left the out-of-date leftover chicken out of the fridge that is the political "discourse" between the main parties.

There is a large presumption among the population, especially when peddled by prominent politicians, that not spending money means all that money is saved. Green spending is a classic case, we assume not spending on green policy means all that money is saved, forgetting fossil fuel energy costs money too, and more severe climate impacts means more cost in damage, disruption and adaptation.

Welfare spending though is a key case too, it is mainly subsidising corporate/super-rich entities (I do wish more progressives would realise and express this rather than just blindly defend welfare spending): WFA, warm homes discount, etc., is subsidising energy company profits, various in work benefits subsidise poverty wages, and unemployment benefits subsidise a lack of investment in training and healthcare spending.

What I would suggest is scrapping all welfare except for a means-tested state pension, unemployment benefit for up to a year (extended if recipient is in education/training) and disability benefit where appropriate, and use that money to nationalise utilities, offer tax cuts to businesses who pay workers properly and spend on healthcare and training, among other forms of investment spending to reduce the need for welfare spending in the first place.

 

[Topological]

The green point is absolutely correct. However, it assumes that we all put sufficient emphasis on future outcomes versus present costs. Whilesoever the majority favour jam today the jam will be the focus of policy. Interestingly, green is an area where business moves ahead of government.

The other aspect of welfare spending is what recipients of welfare spend on. Where that money goes straight into the pockets of tax minimising companies then there is a clear issue. We cannot absolve responsibility from any actor in the misuse of the welfare budget.

A version of national insurance where the rate was inversely proportional to salary is an interesting idea. I assume you would actually go u-shaped with a minimum level at a sensible level and then an increase beyond that.

Yours is more the Conservative solution than the tax and spend solution though. I don't know if there is room for Starmer to position the Labour party as actively removing unemployment benefit in such a way.

 

[martin butler]

There is a large presumption among the population, especially when peddled by prominent politicians, that not spending money means all that money is saved. Green spending is a classic case, we assume not spending on green policy means all that money is saved, forgetting fossil fuel energy costs money too, and more severe climate impacts means more cost in damage, disruption and adaptation.

Welfare spending though is a key case too, it is mainly subsidising corporate/super-rich entities (I do wish more progressives would realise and express this rather than just blindly defend welfare spending): WFA, warm homes discount, etc., is subsidising energy company profits, various in work benefits subsidise poverty wages, and unemployment benefits subsidise a lack of investment in training and healthcare spending.

What I would suggest is scrapping all welfare except for a means-tested state pension, unemployment benefit for up to a year (extended if recipient is in education/training) and disability benefit where appropriate, and use that money to nationalise utilities, offer tax cuts to businesses who pay workers properly and spend on healthcare and training, among other forms of investment spending to reduce the need for welfare spending in the first place.

Something does need to be done about unemployment benefit, and the time people can be on it for, ideally when you sign on for it, the very first step should be an aptitude test to work out your level of education, practical skills etc,

from that a programme designed to help the applicant get back into work, and given additional skills where needed, it might mean some taking courses, etc, but it means people getting the help they need to help them find work, but also there should be mandated steps to weed out the ones not trying, or abusing the system,

 

[oldman]

Welfare spending though is a key case too, it is mainly subsidising corporate/super-rich entities; WFA, warm homes discount, etc., is subsidising energy company profits, various in work benefits subsidise poverty wages, and unemployment benefits subsidise a lack of investment in training and healthcare spending.

This is so simplistic. People spend their benefits buying stuff - only a small part of that will be corporate profit. Those who need support with energy costs will either buy more energy, with some corporate profit, or will have more left over after paying their energy bills to be able to buy stuff, with some corporate profit. There is no evidence that low-end employers are paying less because of in-work benefits, particularly as minimum wage means some employers are forced to pay more than they would in a totally free labour market.

Economists can argue about the complex effects of benefits on the economy but it can't be reduced to 'X subsidises Y' generalisations.

 

[Snow1964]

Welfare spending though is a key case too, it is mainly subsidising corporate/super-rich entities (I do wish more progressives would realise and express this rather than just blindly defend welfare spending): WFA, warm homes discount, etc., is subsidising energy company profits,

Yes there are some businesses that have done very well, due to high income from spending Government money

various in work benefits subsidise poverty wages, and unemployment benefits subsidise a lack of investment in training and healthcare spending.

Very true, some businesses invest in their staff and provide good salaries and benefits, but far to many don't and their staff would be in poverty if they weren't getting handouts that come from taxing others

What I would suggest is scrapping all welfare except for a means-tested state pension,

Why keep this one, if chose not to save when you worked, why should others that are working subsidise a person who has chosen to retire rather than continue working

unemployment benefit for up to a year (extended if recipient is in education/training) and disability benefit where appropriate, and use that money to nationalise utilities, offer tax cuts to businesses who pay workers properly and spend on healthcare and training, among other forms of investment spending to reduce the need for welfare spending in the first place.

There are far too many subsidies, it's a basic economic rule, that providing subsidies is a disincentive to work harder, longer, or have ambition to progress.

 

[GusB]

from that a programme designed to help the applicant get back into work, and given additional skills where needed, it might mean some taking courses, etc, but it means people getting the help they need to help them find work, but also there should be mandated steps to weed out the ones not trying, or abusing the system,

This is a subject that probably deserves a separate discussion, but the problem is that the additional help only kicks in when someone has been unemployed for several months, by which time motivation can be significantly reduced. You also have the issue that unemployment benefits are so low that the worry about trying to survive and keep a roof over your head can take over so that it becomes a distraction from the goal of a actually trying to find work.

There are mandated steps to "weed out the ones not trying or abusing the system" and there is an ever-present risk of being sanctioned if someone fails to adhere to their commitments.

The system we currently have is not one designed to help people back to work; it's designed to punish people for being unemployed and causes far more problems than it solves. It was made worse by the 2010 Tory government, but this all actually began under the previous Labour government.

I do wish that people would get rid of the idea that it's possible to sign on the dole and do nothing because simply is not true. Even when people can't work due to illness or disability there are still significant hoops to jump through.

 

[Richard Scott]

All those super-rich people who will not move their money to reduce tax liability. There are loads of them just waiting to be taxed.

How many are there, what rate of tax do they need to pay to make a difference. How do you stop them leaving the country to go somewhere else where they pay less tax?
All ideology but doesn't work in practice.

 

[Topological]

How many are there, what rate of tax do they need to pay to make a difference. How do you stop them leaving the country to go somewhere else where they pay less tax?
All ideology but doesn't work in practice.

Exactly

Yet that is the answer that is always given by those who advocate a higher tax system.

The one thing we can do is make it harder to do business in the UK without paying tax. I doubt Starbucks et al. would pull out and even if they did it would not be to the real detriment of the UK. In essence a turnover tax model rather than a profit model. I never did the numbers, but I am sure there is a way that would not unduly penalise small firms.

 

[CMS1]

Exactly

Yet that is the answer that is always given by those who advocate a higher tax system.

The one thing we can do is make it harder to do business in the UK without paying tax. I doubt Starbucks et al. would pull out and even if they did it would not be to the real detriment of the UK. In essence a turnover tax model rather than a profit model. I never did the numbers, but I am sure there is a way that would not unduly penalise small firms.

This is a terrible idea and goes against fundamentals of tax. The principle of taxing a profit is that there's a gain, and the goverment takes a slice of that gain. A turnover tax means if a business owner lost money, you then get penalised further with a tax!

 

[Topological]

This is a terrible idea and goes against fundamentals of tax. The principle of taxing a profit is that there's a gain, and the goverment takes a slice of that gain. A turnover tax means if a business owner lost money, you then get penalised further with a tax!

That same tax principle works on the assumption that firms will not move their profits to minimise tax. Sadly, the actions of a few (and it is a few) corporations mean that a rethink is needed.

Another approach is to calculate profit based on only on the direct costs of the business and not include any cost that is paid to another arm of the same company (e.g. franchise fees), but that would also be worked around.

I also assume such a tax would have thresholds that would preclude lower turnover businesses and/or be sector specific. I cannot imagine Tesco being too happy with a turnover tax (for example).

Essentially we need a tax system that helps small independent coffee shops, but makes it harder for the big chains to extract the rent from the market and not pay tax on that rent.

 

[martin butler]

That same tax principle works on the assumption that firms will not move their profits to minimise tax. Sadly, the actions of a few (and it is a few) corporations mean that a rethink is needed.

Another approach is to calculate profit based on only on the direct costs of the business and not include any cost that is paid to another arm of the same company (e.g. franchise fees), but that would also be worked around.

I also assume such a tax would have thresholds that would preclude lower turnover businesses and/or be sector specific. I cannot imagine Tesco being too happy with a turnover tax (for example).

Essentially we need a tax system that helps small independent coffee shops, but makes it harder for the big chains to extract the rent from the market and not pay tax on that rent.

Perhaps the answer is to close the loopholes, that these companies could exploit, if you earned X from your UK business, then you should be expected to pay tax on it,

I wonder as tax is, if you have cleaver accountants, optional, might the answer be to put a little on a tax that everyone pays, and has no way out of paying, VAT, leaving personal taxation as it is, and raising VAT

 

[Bletchleyite]

Taxing turnover rather than profits would be a solution. You can relocate your profits by way of spurious fees paid to other parts of the company. You can't easily camouflage money spent by customers via the banking system.

VAT I suppose is indeed one way to do that, though it's paid by the customer more than the business. There is VAT evasion - cash in hand - but it's increasingly hard and obvious. Avoidance isn't particularly easy other than just by being a small business, though it is possible to do it by creating a load of very small subsidiaries. (That, rather than any charity exemption, is why most Scout groups aren't VAT registered - they're just too small).

 

[PGAT]

How many are there, what rate of tax do they need to pay to make a difference. How do you stop them leaving the country to go somewhere else where they pay less tax?
All ideology but doesn't work in practice.

A Land Value Tax cannot be avoided in the same way. I know it’s not strictly a billionaire tax, but it protects a valuable finite resource that extremely wealthy people love to hoard.

 

[brad465]

How many are there, what rate of tax do they need to pay to make a difference. How do you stop them leaving the country to go somewhere else where they pay less tax?
All ideology but doesn't work in practice.

Exactly

Yet that is the answer that is always given by those who advocate a higher tax system.

The one thing we can do is make it harder to do business in the UK without paying tax. I doubt Starbucks et al. would pull out and even if they did it would not be to the real detriment of the UK. In essence a turnover tax model rather than a profit model. I never did the numbers, but I am sure there is a way that would not unduly penalise small firms.

Land value tax is something that I believe needs pursuing, potentially also replacing council tax in the process (which is still based on house prices from nearly 40 years ago). Land cannot be moved offshore, and even if wealthy owners sell up and leave the country, the land becomes available for someone else. If it struggles to sell, then prices drop, which means less money sucked into assets and more available to spend in other sectors. The rate can also be different depending on use: productive land such as farmland and critical industry (like power generation) could be set low rates, along with first homes, while unproductive and/or land in a large portfolio under one entity/individual can be set higher rates.

 

[styles]

Perhaps the answer is to close the loopholes, that these companies could exploit, if you earned X from your UK business, then you should be expected to pay tax on it,

I wonder as tax is, if you have cleaver accountants, optional, might the answer be to put a little on a tax that everyone pays, and has no way out of paying, VAT, leaving personal taxation as it is, and raising VAT

It requires global cooperation, which is in the works but very slow moving. Trying to convince Luxembourg that their economy should be ripped up is no easy job.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've created a new thread to discuss the "how do we tax Starbucks" spinoff:

Ways of stopping large business (e.g. the coffee chains) avoiding tax / ways of taxing more fairly?

This is a terrible idea and goes against fundamentals of tax. The principle of taxing a profit is that there's a gain, and the goverment takes a slice of that gain. A turnover tax means if a business owner lost money, you then get penalised further with a tax! mods note - quoted posts are...

www.railforums.co.uk