The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[JamieL]

That’s the right wing solution for balancing the books. The left wing solution is to raise revenue for high service levels.

The trouble with the left approach is the extra taxation squeezes and kills the economy meaning less overall revenue. In the UK we have hitherto been lucky that our traditional mainstream 'right' party - the Conservatives - have never become too de-latched from sustaining the welfare state. But they have now be usurped by Reform who will effectively kill key aspects of the social framework we have come to see as normalised. The further left we go, the faster things will deteriorate and the quicker and longer we'll end up with Reform. And all because (for example) some wealthy pensioners who don't need WFA want money from working people many of whom will have less disposable income. You talk about turkeys - I would suggest chickens are more relevant here because they will be coming home to roost for all of us!

 

[Yew]

The trouble with the left approach is the extra taxation squeezes and kills the economy meaning less overall revenue.

I'm not sure that "increase taxes" is the left wing economic approach. Typically, it has been public investment and public ownership, only in the last few years have we seen a move towards this more simplistic approach.

Similarly, not all taxation is equal, some types can certainly damage the economy, but others can have relatively little impact, and generate funds for investment in our country that will boost the economy.

 

[Harpo]

And all because (for example) some wealthy pensioners who don't need WFA want money from working people many of whom will have less disposable income.

You’ll need more scapegoats than that to find the big savings.

Sad, though, that we’ve arrived at the point that the older generations who very willingly accepted the greater good of sharing their own wealth to support their elders are now vilified at the point where they go from nett contributor to nett beneficiary.

 

[SargeNpton]

It is the overall tax burden that is excessive and I am open to a wide variety of means of reducing it in cuts. Personally, I would happily see a restoration of the two-child cap, means testing of Winter Fuel Allowance, a 5 year freeze on most benefit payments, ending the triple lock, increasing State Pension age to 70 and a general reduction in what we expect the State to deliver. I also think that adding a few key charges into the mix on some public services - such as a fee for seeing your GP - would help moderate demand and thus cost.

There's an instant vote-loser for whichever party proposes it. The recent grumblings about WASPI women having their state-pension age raised to 65, and the subsequent raise for all to 66/67/68, have been bad enough. Take that further to age 70 (I guess you have never done a manual job) and it would be picked up to beat over the head - metaphorically - whichever politician suggested it.

 

[JamieL]

There's an instant vote-loser for whichever party proposes it. The recent grumblings about WASPI women having their state-pension age raised to 65, and the subsequent raise for all to 66/67/68, have been bad enough. Take that further to age 70 (I guess you have never done a manual job) and it would be picked up to beat over the head - metaphorically - whichever politician suggested it.

Indeed - that is one of the points Blair was making. We are in a blind alley where the policy is unsustainable and there is no way out for either Labour (any leader) or Conservatives. The policy is so untouchable, it can't even be discussed by them despite it increasingly causing generational unfairness and a huge burden on the taxpayer. The result? As the cost drags down the economy and fuels discontent from those that have to pay for it, we will get Reform who will keep the triple lock but offset it with the requirement for health insurance which will probably be much more than the state pension. Lose-lose for everyone.

I stress I am not 'picking' on pensioners here - the same can be said for many benefits/welfare/social payments.

 

[GusB]

It is the overall tax burden that is excessive and I am open to a wide variety of means of reducing it in cuts. Personally, I would happily see a restoration of the two-child cap, means testing of Winter Fuel Allowance, a 5 year freeze on most benefit payments, ending the triple lock, increasing State Pension age to 70 and a general reduction in what we expect the State to deliver. I also think that adding a few key charges into the mix on some public services - such as a fee for seeing your GP - would help moderate demand and thus cost.

More austerity, then. We've had it since 2010 and the situation isn't really getting any better as a result, is it? Nowhere in that list of proposals have you mentioned asking the very wealthiest in society to contribute a bit more.

There was a modest increase in benefits this year but that is largely negated by the cost of energy, food, rents etc. going up significantly. I'm not sure how much further you can cut the benefits bill without making those who are less well off even poorer. Bear in mind that many people on benefits are actually working; would you support a significant increase in the minimum wage to compensate?

I certainly don't agree with charging people for GP visits. If you do that, you'll end up in the situation where people put off going to the doctor and ignore mild symptoms when it could be the early signs of a much more serious condition that will ultimately cost more to fix in the long run. Getting access to a GP is already bad enough without adding a charge on top.

 

[AlterEgo]

I certainly don't agree with charging people for GP visits. If you do that, you'll end up in the situation where people put off going to the doctor and ignore mild symptoms when it could be the early signs of a much more serious condition that will ultimately cost more to fix in the long run. Getting access to a GP is already bad enough without adding a charge on top.

Nearly every country in the world charges for GP visits, even many with universal health care. So many places in the world have better health outcomes than us. The reason getting access to a GP is difficult is becuase a lot of people are, to be blunt, clogging up the system.

 

[edwin_m]

Nearly every country in the world charges for GP visits, even many with universal health care. So many places in the world have better health outcomes than us. The reason getting access to a GP is difficult is becuase a lot of people are, to be blunt, clogging up the system.

I'd say it's more likely that people are clogging up the system in A&E because they can't get a GP appointment.

I agree that Blair is generally right, but he’s only saying what I and many people have been saying since 2024, and it just sounds like he’s trying to record his wise and clever thoughts for posterity. I don’t think it helps one little bit. If I thought this, then many in the Labour party think the same, and it doesn’t require a grandstanding warmongering bighead to change anything.

I think Blair's totally wrong on energy. Recent years and recent months have shown the risks of being reliant on fossil fuels - and even if we had enough reserves to make a difference with domestic consumption, it would still be subject to global price shocks unless we somehow nationalised the producers and forced them to sell only to the UK.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Stalled the economy with its excessive taxation

According to who? The last figures showed higher growth than expected and better numbers than some other similar western countries.

The further left we go, the faster things will deteriorate and the quicker and longer we'll end up with Reform.

Where are we going further left with the current government exactly?

 

[Meole]

According to who? The last figures showed higher growth than expected and better numbers than some other similar western countries.

Where are we going further left with the current government exactly?

Highest taxation rates in British history.

 

[AlterEgo]

Highest taxation rates in British history.

WWII might have something to say about that.

 

[Richard Scott]

WWII might have something to say about that.

That's now pendency, that's likely to be expected in times of war, surely?

 

[AlterEgo]

That's now pendency, that's likely to be expected in times of war, surely?

It isn't pedantry to point out that the poster is incorrect and making a meaningless point. (And the tax burden was high after the war for quite some time)

If I was being uncharitable I'd point out they mean the tax burden and not the tax rate, because no, we don't have the highest tax rates in history. We had marginal rates of 98% in the 1970s but they only applied to a small number of people.

It isn't reasonable to suggest that UK tax burdens are an example of governments swinging left because postwar governments of all stripes - other than Thatcher's - have contributed to the issue.

 

[eyebrook1961]

That's now pendency, that's likely to be expected in times of war, surely?

Having spent my 1980's wondering if at any moment I would see a blinding light and mushroom cloud (irrational probably, but to me it was a genuine fear), I really wonder whether, with the people we currently have in power in the US, Russia and China, whether such a thing might not be that far off happening . . . .

 

[Tetchytyke]

Quite a few to be honest but that isn't the point

It rather is the point.

“I’m alright Jack!”

 

[Yew]

I think Blair's totally wrong on energy. Recent years and recent months have shown the risks of being reliant on fossil fuels - and even if we had enough reserves to make a difference with domestic consumption, it would still be subject to global price shocks unless we somehow nationalised the producers and forced them to sell only to the UK.

I'm not necessarily against it, indeed, the reason that BP is called BP is because it used to be the nationalisaed operator, British Petroleum which we owned a majority shareholding in until 1981. Originally it was bought in the run-up to World War 1, to secure oil supplies for the Royal Navy.

More sums would probably need to be done, but the idea of having a national oil producer to stabilise costs, inflation and interest rates has the smell of something that could overall have a positive cost to impact analysis.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not necessarily against it, indeed, the reason that BP is called BP is because it used to be the nationalisaed operator, British Petroleum which we owned a majority shareholding in until 1981. Originally it was bought in the run-up to World War 1, to secure oil supplies for the Royal Navy.

More sums would probably need to be done, but the idea of having a national oil producer to stabilise costs, inflation and interest rates has the smell of something that could overall have a positive cost to impact analysis.

What's left in the North Sea won't go anywhere near supplying the UK's needs so a nationalised operator would have to buy on the open market, which means if the price rose it would either have to pass it on or need a big subsidy. Subsidising fuel is a bad idea on economic and environmental grounds - why not just give people the money directly instead? However, I do wonder about the scope for some sort of automated fuel duty adjustment mechanism to cushion the impact somewhat and reflect the fact that if prices rise the government gets more in VAT. Quid pro quo for this could be an small automatic annual increase built into the system to discourage use in the longer term.

 

[Yew]

What's left in the North Sea won't go anywhere near supplying the UK's needs so a nationalised operator would have to buy on the open market,

Why would it need to buy, rather than drill? The company that became BP at time of Nationalisation was the "Anglo-Persian Oil Company", and primarily drilled in modern day Iran. A nationalised operation is not forced to only operate in the country it is owned by - just look at all the trains over here with Deutsche Bahn written on them.

Similarly, you're right that North Sea reserves won't last indefinitely, but hopefully we won't be consuming large volumes of oil indefinitely - we're currently moving to other sources of power.

 

[JamieL]

It rather is the point.

“I’m alright Jack!”

In terms of no appetite to reduce welfare/benefit payments, I suppose you are correct. The outcry from well-off pensioners over WFA removal for example but then the Boomer generation has also been associated with such self-centred ideology; the 1970s being dubbed the "Me Decade", the sweeping up of social housing in the Thatcher sell-off and the great cash in from the privatisation of state companies in the 80s. But sooner or later something is going to have to change. The only choice is whether action is taken now, or we wait for Reform to sweep in.

 

[Harpo]

the 1970s being dubbed the "Me Decade", the sweeping up of social housing in the Thatcher sell-off and the great cash in from the privatisation of state companies in the 80s.

Agree entirely. The right wing of my generation went on a cash and votes grab based on a small state ideology and the free money culture was born.

But sooner or later something is going to have to change.

Services or less state revenues?

The only choice is whether action is taken now, or we wait for Reform to sweep in.

A regime even further to the right on small state ideologies appealing to those who won’t have given much thought on just how their taxation will get reduced.

 

[edwin_m]

Why would it need to buy, rather than drill? The company that became BP at time of Nationalisation was the "Anglo-Persian Oil Company", and primarily drilled in modern day Iran. A nationalised operation is not forced to only operate in the country it is owned by - just look at all the trains over here with Deutsche Bahn written on them.

Similarly, you're right that North Sea reserves won't last indefinitely, but hopefully we won't be consuming large volumes of oil indefinitely - we're currently moving to other sources of power.

Rather helped by the fact we had military domination of the countries the oil came from at the time. Now the rulers of the countries in question could just nationalise/expropriate the oil operations in their own countries and sell the oil on the world market.

Subsidising oil isn't a good way to ensure we use less of it.

 

[Yew]

Rather helped by the fact we had military domination of the countries the oil came from at the time.

Which oil producing countries were we dominating in 1981 then?

Now the rulers of the countries in question could just nationalise/expropriate the oil operations in their own countries and sell the oil on the world market.

Other states could well do that for our current collection of private operators, yet last time I checked, Total, Shell, BP and Esso still exist.

Subsidising oil isn't a good way to ensure we use less of it.

We're discussing how to insulate our economy from inflationary pressures of oil price rises on the international market in the short. Whilst moving away from oil in the long term is likely a sensible thing to do, it does not solve these issues in the short term.

As a final note, at no point have I suggested that we subsidise oil. I'm pointing out that a Nationalised oil company is something that we had for the majority of the last century, and it not as crazy and "out there" are it might initially seem - indeed, Equinor in Norway is state owned.

 

[edwin_m]

Which oil producing countries were we dominating in 1981 then?

Other states could well do that for our current collection of private operators, yet last time I checked, Total, Shell, BP and Esso still exist.

We're discussing how to insulate our economy from inflationary pressures of oil price rises on the international market in the short. Whilst moving away from oil in the long term is likely a sensible thing to do, it does not solve these issues in the short term.

As a final note, at no point have I suggested that we subsidise oil. I'm pointing out that a Nationalised oil company is something that we had for the majority of the last century, and it not as crazy and "out there" are it might initially seem - indeed, Equinor in Norway is state owned.

Where does 1981 come into it? By then Persia (Iran) was an Islamic Republic, having overthrown the regime imposed by Britain and America in the 1940s, and I'm pretty sure BP was no longer involved.

Agreed, nationalisation and expropriation threats apply regardless of company involved, and is one reason the oil majors have been unwilling to invest in Venezuela. But a company charging a lower price might also want to pay the host state less, making it less likely they would get agreement to operate and more likely that agreement would be breached

Setting up a non-commercial oil company and production facilities is likely to be a subsidy and more likely to if forced to sell at below market price, to say nothing of allegations of unfair competition. Far better just to windfall tax the companies that made unexpected super profits due to a war they (hopefully!) didn't create and can't control.

As we've found with fuel taxes, short-term measures that benefit a vociferous lobby group like those who support fossil fuels and motoring can be difficult to roll back...

 

[quantinghome]

Similarly, you're right that North Sea reserves won't last indefinitely, but hopefully we won't be consuming large volumes of oil indefinitely - we're currently moving to other sources of power.

That's putting it mildly. UK reserves already extracted come to 48 billion barrels. The argument over what's left is between 3 billion (forecast by NSTA) and 7 billion (the most optimistic case put forward by the industry). The only sensible reasons for continuing are to make the impact on the workforce more gradual as the industry winds down, and to partially offset the increasing geopolitical risks. You're right that we're moving to other energy sources but that's not going to reduce oil and gas consumption quickly enough to eliminate our dependency on imports.

 

[brad465]

Is Tony Blair seeking to join Reform with the latest comments undermining the Labour Government and potentially helping us get a far right party like Reform into power?

Cosy up to Trump? Scrap net zero?

What next, reopen the coal mines?

Next year is 24 years since Blair signed his Faustian pact, so one presumes Mephistopheles will drag him away to the underworld as the Prince of Darkness (Mandelson?) will own his soul.

 

[Merle Haggard]

In terms of no appetite to reduce welfare/benefit payments, I suppose you are correct. The outcry from well-off pensioners over WFA removal for example but then the Boomer generation has also been associated with such self-centred ideology; the 1970s being dubbed the "Me Decade", the sweeping up of social housing in the Thatcher sell-off and the great cash in from the privatisation of state companies in the 80s. But sooner or later something is going to have to change. The only choice is whether action is taken now, or we wait for Reform to sweep in.

As a 'Boomer'* I'm always interested to hear how well off I was in the old days. Quite often, it's a big surprise!
I worked for BR so did not favour privatisation but, supposing I wanted to take part in that self-centred ideology I suppose I could in theory have splashed out the maximum cash - about £300 from memory - in a privatisation share sale to make a quick profit after a year.
I had not long bought my 'forever property' (yes, still there) when the mortgage interest rate was only 8 1/2 percent. In those self centred days the same policies had increased interest rates to around 16 percent. In my cases as an MS2, my monthly mortgage repayment was just over £600 and my 4 weekly income just under £900. Many were in the same situation; fortunately, B.R. provided office sandwich dispensing machines and these cheap sources of a meal sustained mainly of us in the same situation. Perhaps my budgeting (paying for rates, utility bills, food, clothing etc) was inept, because - funnily enough - I didn't have any cash left over to invest in these giveaways.
Of course, my take home salary was reduced by 7 1/2 percent, my contribution to the BR Pension Fund, enabling me to be described as a 'well off pensioner'; clearly don't really need the State Pension should be means tested.

*Boomer seems often to be used as an ageist pejorative term, from the fact that the birth rate in 1946 - 49 was much higher than in the previous years, 1940 - 45. Is that really a surprise too anyone?

 

[AlterEgo]

*Boomer seems often to be used as an ageist pejorative term, from the fact that the birth rate in 1946 - 49 was much higher than in the previous years, 1940 - 45. Is that really a surprise too anyone?

Boomer simply means a person born in the baby boom, it is not necessarily a pejorative in the same way millennial isn't.

 

[thenorthern]

I was talking to someone today about Starmer and two things that stuck out were.

Great British Energy - this was apparently going to bring down energy bills for everyone but so far it's been a bit of a flop. Millions have been spent the Government has little to show for it.

Great British Railways - Renationalising the railways was a key pledge for Starmer. Apparently, the trains were going to get better, everyone would be happy and nationalisation would solve everything. This is a railway forum and so far 2 years in have the railways really got better or even changed that much?

 

[devon_belle]

I was talking to someone today about Starmer and two things that stuck out were.

Great British Energy - this was apparently going to bring down energy bills for everyone but so far it's been a bit of a flop. Millions have been spent the Government has little to show for it.

Great British Railways - Renationalising the railways was a key pledge for Starmer. Apparently, the trains were going to get better, everyone would be happy and nationalisation would solve everything. This is a railway forum and so far 2 years in have the railways really got better or even changed that much?

I can't speak for GBE, but GBR hasn't even really started yet other than some paint on DfT operated trains. If we want GBR to be worth it – which definitely is not guaranteed – we need to give them a chance to do it properly instead of rushing it.

It has only been 2 years after all. The Labour government has done a lot of good so far (overshadowed by several unpopular or bad things), and I for one applaud them for going after long term projects like GBR. A step away from short-termism is welcomed.

 

[The Ham]

In my cases as an MS2, my monthly mortgage repayment was just over £600 and my 4 weekly income just under £900.

The thing is that whilst mortgage interest rates are a lot smaller now, that doesn't always mean that they are more affordable.

In 1982 when mortgage rates were 10% the average pay was £6,600 and the average home was £24,000. To make the maths easier we'll assume £0 tax but also £0 deposit.

That would mean that the interest payment for the year would average at £200 a month from £550 pay.

Land Registry suggests that average house prices are £270,000 (others say £300,000, but we'll go with the lower value) whilst average pay is £39,000. Assuming the same £0 tax and deposit, at 5.5% interest is £1,240 from £3,250 of pay

That's not easy to compare so if we factor to £200 from £1,240 for the interest payments that's pay of £525 so around £25 (5%) less pay (1982 prices) to cover the interest payments and yet the rate of interest is noticeable lower now than then (10% then vs 5.5%).

Only that's not the only difference, AI suggests that in 1982 for a house in the West Midlands for the average house price it would be a 3 bed semi-detached house whilst now the average would likely get you a 2 bed terraced house.

Also a 10% deposit of a home would be £2,400 (36.36% of average pay) in 1982 vs £27,000 (71.05% of average pay) for 10% now but still £13,500 (35.52% of average pay) making it harder to save up the 10% deposit and just as hard to save for a 5% deposit (but then higher monthly payments) in the first place.

As such, whilst interest rates were high and lower deposits are an option now, due to other factors it's still likely harder now than it was and it's likely that the size of home is also likely to be smaller.