That hasn't really been the case in recent times. One of the key components of recent successful manifestos have been promises not to raise the major taxes.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Labour Party under Andy Burnham
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,840
Two of his three immediate predecessors pretty much have a monopoly on the contest to be worst PM ever.
Policy-wise, not a great deal in the grand scheme of things. There are some policies that I would count against him such as continuing the previous Conservative policy of the Online Safety Act, and also his endorsement of Adolescence being shown in schools (I understand if misogyny and violence against women concerns people, but you can't base your policies around a Netflix drama). In some ways though I actually think he isn't going far enough.
The bit that Starmer really gets wrong is his public image. While Farage and Johnson carefully curated images as men of the people despite elite backgrounds, Starmer god love him seems more like a middle-manager that's brought in to make efficiencies; a proper Will McKenzie right down to his interest in law. He's a great civil servant, just not a great politician, especially not when people grow tired of our same two-party system.
Snow1964
Established Member
I think people only accept extra tax for specific things that they might benefit from.
Not for general ongoing things that are done to mediocre level, or seen as supporting a layabout scrounger class. When get reports that 620,000 are getting more benefits than median wages, feel Labour Government isn't getting a grip on benefits or trying to make work pay.
Ask most people if they think they are overtaxed and an average of £5000 per worker is spent on benefits, and if they cut benefits means they could pay less tax, and I suspect most workers would opt for the tax cut.
I feel as well, that his key characteristic was that he was an ex-laywer, and unlikely to have a scandal - unfortunately then he appointed Mandelson.
This isn't so much the mainstream media but the bulk of Facebook, X, TikTok, Threads and other platforms that are full of 'the UK has fallen' style posts that paint a totally inaccurate impression of the country (and in particular London, due to the ethnicity of the Mayor). People in local community forums keep going on and on about the higher taxes they pay, when I'd question how much more tax they actually pay.
These are the same people who have been convinced we need to leave the ECHR to deport foreigners, that the NHS is costing us too much (so we need to consider alternative forms of funding, such as insurance), we need to drill for more oil and gas to get energy prices down, and people on benefits are sucking us all dry - while ignoring the fact that pensions are essentially a benefit too. Obviously they wouldn't want pensions cut!
Labour has done SFA to counter all these claims and falsehoods online, presumably thinking that to mention them would draw more attention to them and maybe they'll go away. They won't. They're heavily funded and will not stop until Labour is destroyed and a right-wing Government back in power to cut taxes and regulations.
If anyone wonders why GB News can lose tens of millions every year, it's because it is there to lead the narrative. It isn't a news channel.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
ok, but that's hardly a scandal compared to some of them from previous governments!
agreed!
We hold politicians to different standards based on how they present themselves. Sir Keir presented himself as dull, dependable and honest. Taking weird-looking gifts and appointing a deeply compromised US Ambassador are not epic scandals but they broke the brand promise.
People like Trump, Johnson and Farage get more wriggle room from the electorate because they never promised or implied high levels of probity...
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I think we, or at least the media, hold politicians to different standards depending on the colour of the rosette they wear...........
Can't argue with that. And it happens on all sides.
I've got a friend who is interested in politics but only reads the Guardian and he knew nothing at all of the Tulip Siddiq saga
At around the same time I stopped reading the Telegraph as its bias against the new government had become childish
But people got very angry when we tried to restrict a modest payment to pensioners and also get very angry when people suggest the triple lock is unaffordable. After all if you want to make a dent in the amount of money spent on benefits that's where you need to start really...
I'm sure there is still dodgy claimants within the working age benefits system. Of course there is. But that's going to be a small number of claimants in the grand scheme not amounting to very much at all. If you really want to make savings in the welfare benefits bill all the easy stuff is gone. The Tories claimed it in the 2010s.
But the last time Labour tried to do even a small thing about it (link Winter Fuel payment to Pension Credit entitlement, which is actually a sensible way of doing it) they got excoriated and it seems like one of the things that to this day is still brought up on doorsteps and one of the roots of Kier Starmer's unpopularity.
They got excoriated by a small, but very vocal, portion of the electorate (wealthy pensioners). If they had stuck to the policy then it may well have delivered some respect from other portions of the electorate. Instead they U-turned and raised taxes. Nobody thanked them for that - not the wealthy pensioners nor the taxpayers. Same again with two-child benefit. U-turn and raise taxes. I don't think there is any way back for Labour now regardless of who is leader.
ChrisC
Established Member
I very much agree with you on this. I’ve also been thinking what has he done wrong that has caused him to be disliked by so many people? I find it extremely concerning how much hate is being built up in the country towards Keir Starmer and Sadiq Khan on Social Media, especially on ‘X’. It’s spread now beyond those who started the lies and nasty rumours on social media to the point where so many ordinary people, especially people who would have formally been traditional Labour voters, including many so called football fans, are joining the crowd with this hate for Keir Starmer and the Mayor of London.
I‘ve never been a big fan of Labour and have until recently always been a Conservative voter. I’ve always been very much a centre right ’one nation’ pro Europe voter and so since Brexit and the 2019 General Election when Boris was elected I have voted LibDem instead. Even as a Conservative voter I don’t feel that Keir Starmer has been that bad and certainly better than Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. He is a bit dull and uninteresting and probably not the right person to be Prime Minister. However, I do admire his stance over the war with Iran and the way he has stood up to Trump. If he is forced to resign I hope that whoever replaces him will also keep our distance from the Iran war.
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,744
I think the electorate can cope with someone who is dull (see: Major) and someone who makes mistakes (see: Johnson), but I think what really got under peoples' skin about Starmer was his (and his cabinet's) piousness in opposition and how it hasn't translated at all into how he's running the country. So many of the things he repeatedly pulled up the Tory leaders over, sometimes to minute detail, are things that he himself has done and he just doesn't seem to recognise it. Hypocrisy is what really riles people I feel.
Snow1964
Established Member
4 ministers have now resigned
Jess Phillips (safeguarding)
Alex Davies-Jones (home office)
Miatta Fahnbulleh (devolution)
Zubir Ahmed (health)
Jess Phillips (safeguarding)
Alex Davies-Jones (home office)
Miatta Fahnbulleh (devolution)
Zubir Ahmed (health)
A fifth of Labour MPs have now publicly urgd Starmer to reevaluate his position. That doesn't include those who have made such statements privately.
A quarter have supposedly signed a backing statement.
Seems the PLP is quite split on this, but really not a good look for Starmer either way.
A quarter have supposedly signed a backing statement.
Seems the PLP is quite split on this, but really not a good look for Starmer either way.
Uncle Buck
Member
An awful problem in this country in the last decade or so has been the unwillingness to take tough decisions. Sometimes there are some people who lose out as the result of a government decision and they will be vocal and you may even lose council elections or parliamentary by-elections or slip to third in the polls; it doesn’t matter, you should just crack on if you think it is the right policy, as you think it will bear fruit in the long run. Yet every leader since Cameron has just wilted at the first sign of pressure. Not coincidentally he was the last PM to be re-elected. Consequently no decisions are actually taken, which is worse than bad decisions being taken. There is just anarchy and drift. It is like every bad manager any of us have ever had.
The main way this manifests itself is that the government won’t say no to vocal interest groups’ demands for money, with winter fuel being the prime example. So the country is skint and has a general feel of decay.
I would have had a lot more respect for Starmer if he had stuck to his guns on this one, but no, it is apparently impossible to cut public spending. He should have said “the country can’t afford it, they don’t need the money, we are thinking about the future of the country”, but no, they chickened out. Most recipients probably didn’t vote for Labour anyway! See also the welfare reform rebellion.
It’s a cliche but compare Thatcher, still a hero to many decades after her death, to the PMs of the last ten years- derided and forgettable. But she is only a hero to some because she was a villain to others! Trying to be friends with everyone just makes you a villain to everyone.
This is a further factor. Throughout the Tory government Starmer and his crew were like the Kirk elder, demanding ministers resign over trivialities. While Partygate was a scandal aspects of it were overblown deliberately. I personally also object to the idea that ministerial behaviour must be subjected to quangocrats for review. In a democracy politicians should be above bureaucrats.
Then Labour get in and they are accepting gifts from dodgy businesses, they are appointing one of the shadiest men in the country,- pals with the most infamous villain in the world!!- to high office, they are getting caught out dodging tax…it shows a real arrogance and stinking attitude. Talk about being hoist by your own petard!
I would also add one other factor which I have observed in politics. Sometimes a leader emerges whose schtick is “I don’t play games, I am a rather dull person who just gets on with the job”. Examples are Brown, May, Sunak, Starmer. Leaving aside the fact that many (eg Jess Phillips today) say Starmer does not actually possess the administrative competence to “just get on with the job”, the public like a charismatic leader and charismatic leaders achieve more of their goals.
"Selling" things to those you lead is the leader's job (or at least a big part of it). Especially for a PM who has to lead the Common and the electorate. That's one reason Brown, who was a pretty decent Chancellor, was such a poor PM
Where the government has said no - Waspi women being an example - those people also criticise the government as neglecting their interests. I'm not sure how Starmer made the mistake of promising to support their cause when in opposition.
Uncle Buck
Member
Because he is an opportunist with few principles? Because getting an endorsement from a vocal interest group for pledging to throw money at them is easier than telling them no, despite being a scandalous waste of public money? A worse cause than the Waspi women does not exist!
Pork barrel politics. The WASPI women's defence is that they were really thick and didn't ever read the news or correspondence they were sent. A dreadful cause, nuts to them.
And of course they have also given themselves the wrong name… they are actually in favour of inequality not against it as their name suggests.
Uncle Buck
Member
Maybe it stands for Women Avoiding State Pension Information
The thing which could have been better to do around NI and pensioners, would be to change in rules about NI; it could have been a useful fudge, to reduce NI by 1.5% but increase all income tax rates by (say) 2% and (critically) increased the tax free threshold.
If you aimed for a higher end increase to the tax free threshold of £1,800 then at those rates those in work would only pay more tax at around £69,000 and for those on a pension it would be around £32,000.
Whilst of you aimed for lower end tax free threshold increase of £1,200 then it's £45,000 for those in work and £26,000 for those of pension age.
They are probably both a bit too far off the ideal, but an increase somewhere in that range could have been seen as fair.
It wouldn't have had the cliff edge impact the winter fuel allowance, there could have been some adjustments to pension credits (or even an extra £100 a year to the basic state pension, which would only get clawed back after earning £5,000 above the new tax threshold and therefore raises the above break even points by £5,000 for those on a pension).
It's also worth noting that the tripple lock would mean that actual point there was less cash in their account than the previous year would be around £16,000 above these points due to the triple lock.
As such, it would be very hard to sell this as hurting the poor pensioners (especially if there was that extra £100 on the basic state pension).
It would also be hard to sell as harming business (a lot of this of late is also linked to minimum wage increases as well as the extra NI payments, but as they were announced together talking about how bad that budget - implying tax changes only - is for them, when a significant factor is actually around pay increases for those on minimum wage). Although, with the potential for lots of people having a bit more money (and only these on higher incomes being impacted) the balance might have been better for many businesses.
If you aimed for a higher end increase to the tax free threshold of £1,800 then at those rates those in work would only pay more tax at around £69,000 and for those on a pension it would be around £32,000.
Whilst of you aimed for lower end tax free threshold increase of £1,200 then it's £45,000 for those in work and £26,000 for those of pension age.
They are probably both a bit too far off the ideal, but an increase somewhere in that range could have been seen as fair.
It wouldn't have had the cliff edge impact the winter fuel allowance, there could have been some adjustments to pension credits (or even an extra £100 a year to the basic state pension, which would only get clawed back after earning £5,000 above the new tax threshold and therefore raises the above break even points by £5,000 for those on a pension).
It's also worth noting that the tripple lock would mean that actual point there was less cash in their account than the previous year would be around £16,000 above these points due to the triple lock.
As such, it would be very hard to sell this as hurting the poor pensioners (especially if there was that extra £100 on the basic state pension).
It would also be hard to sell as harming business (a lot of this of late is also linked to minimum wage increases as well as the extra NI payments, but as they were announced together talking about how bad that budget - implying tax changes only - is for them, when a significant factor is actually around pay increases for those on minimum wage). Although, with the potential for lots of people having a bit more money (and only these on higher incomes being impacted) the balance might have been better for many businesses.
Last edited:
100%, they ignore the fact that for decades, the inequality of women receiving state pension at 60 years of age and men at 65, then women drew state pension until their 80s and men until their 70s, greater life expectancy of women over men, if the Waspis win, then think of all the men who may seek redress for 5 years of unpaid pension.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
It's the age old conflict. People like charisma and charm, they like a salesman. But as we all know, the best used car salesmen are the ones who you should never ever buy a used car from.
Bingo.
Starmer's fundamental issue is that his own voter base hates him as much as the other side's voter base does. We saw that in Bristol recently: the right held a demonstration but the left's counter-demonstration was simply titled 'We hate Starmer more than you do.'
Thatcher was actively despised in huge parts of the country but she didn't care. They weren't going to vote for her anyway, so why waste time trying to be nice to them?
Indeed, plus it was bizarre to announce it when they did basically during the silly season with nothing else around it so of course then everyone hyper focussed on it. Super dumb politics. It should have been a measure within the budget a couple of months later when it would have been less totemic.
Meh I'm ambivalent about that. From what I've read there's very little evidence it's actually done anything other than ensure far more children grow up in poverty (with all the attendant long term costs that brings in terms of poorer health, higher likelihood to get involved in criminality, lower earnings, etc etc) than would do otherwise.
I get that it's a totemic "We won't allow feckless mothers to live on benefits by pushing out a new child every few years" type policy but I've seen very little sign that that is actually a common issue (I work with benefit claimants and in the decade or so I've been doing this there's only been one person I've come across where the birthdates were suspiciously aligned with when they'd have to start seeking work again as their child got older).
Hundreds of thousands of kids growing up in poverty however is a common problem and does have significant repercussions which affect all of society.
I think there's ways back, I just don't think there's anyone within Labour who is up to the task. Streeting is going to be more of the same just perhaps with more personality. Burnham would be a bit different but he has to actually win a seat first and I'm not convinced completely by him as a Prime Ministerial candidate.
Hard to have less but a lack of any strength in depth seems to be common to every political party currently.