The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[DarloRich]

Indeed. I am repeatedly amazed that anyone would want to be an MP at all

Veey few sane and competent people want to be an MP full stop. It's much lower pay than they could get in the private sector, a ridiculous amount of "gotcha" type scrutiny that can ruin a career after decades because of saying the wrong thing as a teenager, a weirdly itinerant lifestyle, little job security, hob nobbing with ghastly think tank types and people who go "ya" in the evenings, half the public hate you...

why? it is good money for most normal people and comes with plenty of free publicity followed by some cushy non executive director roles!

There isn't any actual work involved as long as you keep getting yourself in your local paper opening a fete or looking sadly at potholes once in a while. You get your generous expenses paid, cheap booze, subsidised canteens, free travel and host of other goodies. All you have to do is sit in a long room and make cow noises and wave papers around every now and again.

There are no intelligence tests, no qualifications, no need to prove competency ( in all definitions) and no personality or individuality required. You have only got to persuade about 30% of the people in your area to vote for you and you have a job that you basically cant be sacked from for at least 5 years.

I would sell my principles down the river for all that! Not that anyone would elect me. I am to honest. I would call most of the electors morons, laugh openly at their stupidity and be rude to people on question time! That and offer Farage out in the car park.

Finally, most people hate me anyway so standing as an MP might improve things

 

[Purple Train]

...nope still says Labour Party and Kier Starmer up there. Not sure why we're suddenly talking about Trump and his desire for a Nobel Peace Prize

Aside - I'm not entirely sure why so many people seem to associate the PM with a certain civil engineering group...

Not that anyone would elect me. I am to honest. I would call most of the electors morons, laugh openly at their stupidity and be rude to people on question time! That and offer Farage out in the car park.

Isn't this basically what quite a lot of us on the forum have been saying (for some time) that Labour is lacking?

---

And to move on to more mundane matters...

Whip restored to Labour MPs who rebelled over welfare reforms

Chris Hinchliff says his focus remains on contributing to "Labour's historic mission".

www.bbc.co.uk

Four MPs who were suspended from the Labour Party after rebelling against welfare reforms have had their whips restored.
Chris Hinchliff, for North East Hertfordshire, was suspended alongside Neil Duncan-Jordan, MP for Poole, Brian Leishman, MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, and Rachael Maskell, MP for York Central, after they voted against the government's Welfare Reform Bill in July.
The BBC understands they had the whip restored after discussions with chief whip Jonathan Reynolds on Friday.
Hinchliff said: "As ever, my focus remains on serving the communities of North East Hertfordshire and contributing to Labour's historic mission to create a society that puts people and nature before profit."
Prior to their suspensions, all four MPs had rebelled against the government on several occasions.

Hopefully a sign that Starmer's going to understand the value of keeping his party a broad tent, but I doubt it. I'm not entirely sure why he seems to think that letting the anti-Reform vote splinter is a winning strategy, but I guess he must really want to keep hold of Morgan McSweeney... As I think I've said before, it's all well and good keeping party discipline etc., but, in a two-party oriented system, it is only ever the united side that wins.

Obviously on a personal level it might just convince me that I'm not too left-wing for Starmer's Labour...

Actually, I still probably am. Comforting, isn't it, when I'm probably the most right-wing person I know (excluding Reformers)...

Please let the man be for turning.

 

[Egg Centric]

why? it is good money for most normal people and comes with plenty of free publicity followed by some cushy non executive director roles!

There isn't any actual work involved as long as you keep getting yourself in your local paper opening a fete or looking sadly at potholes once in a while. You get your generous expenses paid, cheap booze, subsidised canteens, free travel and host of other goodies. All you have to do is sit in a long room and make cow noises and wave papers around every now and again.

There are no intelligence tests, no qualifications, no need to prove competency ( in all definitions) and no personality or individuality required. You have only got to persuade about 30% of the people in your area to vote for you and you have a job that you basically cant be sacked from for at least 5 years.

I would sell my principles down the river for all that! Not that anyone would elect me. I am to honest. I would call most of the electors morons, laugh openly at their stupidity and be rude to people on question time! That and offer Farage out in the car park.

Finally, most people hate me anyway so standing as an MP might improve things

I'm sure you're selling yourself short for comedic purposes, but someone who actually was like that - well that's not who we want to be MPs, is it? We want exceptionally capable, dedicated, relatable and principled. At best most MPs are 1 or 2 of the 4. Some of them none. Because people who will tick more of those boxes either won't be an MP or wouldn't be selected by any of the parties!

(I'd be a terrible MP too fwiw, but I've got the sense to not even consider it. If I ever get rich I quite like the idea of being the power behind the throne that gets a few of my favoured policies - all of which are awesome - put in place though)

 

[styles]

Indeed. I am repeatedly amazed that anyone would want to be an MP at all. Even just being a public figure. There is so much expectation these days to always say and do whatever the current right thing is viewed as being, and the slightest slip-up could end it all forever.

Years ago I contemplated becoming a councillor. I had some genuine ideas for change in the area and already had been working in advocacy so the casework would be interesting and hopefully fruitful.

Then I recalled all the times the local rag had scrutinised off hand remarks made by the existing councillors over quite trivial matters, the general level of competence in some of the peers, and how bored is get of Labour and the Tories slagging each other off. It was a predominantly Labour area, but if you knocked on any doors to ask about the parking situation, you'd get people complaining about Blair or Syria rather than a discussion about something the councillor could actually change.

It reminded me of going to a National Union of Students conference and an inordinate amount of time being dedicated to topics like Palestine.

Something tells me I'd just hate it. Also I'd end up swearing about something, probably the local council spending its time talking about Palestine these days.

It's a shame that even under Starmer there appears to be little desire to change Parliament. The Lords is overflowing, PMQs is still just theatrics, and claims of bullying and a toxic atmosphere outside the chamber are rife. In fact the only politician for a while I've suspected would actually try and change things there would've been Corbyn, whether his views were popular or not. But he needed to play the game a bit to get elected PM before he could make those changes, and never did.

 

[martin butler]

For one thing, Labour has to stop shooting themselves in the foot, mistakes like the WFP, now corrected was manna to the right-wing press, Labour have a majority but seem scared to use it, scared to have policies that can level the playing ground,

The Tory party, seem to have disappeared, and Reform, is just the National front, in a new form, social media is awash with bot farms spewing out misinformation, tackle that head on, bring in fully the leverson report, clamp down on fake news sites, clamp down on right wing billionaire media bosses, using their platforms to boost Farage, go after the corporate tax evaders, tighten up on evasion scams, where no tax is paid,

Do something about the housing shortage, enable councils to use more empty properties and build on brown field sites, convert warehousing, possibly into community type housing, with shared facilities, at low cost, to get people off the streets, and safe, one area that could be looked into is for government to fund house building, and act as guarantor, so enable people to buy their first homes, with payment being taken directly, over a longer time span that normal mortgages possibly at a lower rate, so new families can afford their first home,

Invest in schools, training, further education, so that have the educated workforce we are going to need

Immigration, set up secure facilities in France, to process applicants who want to settle here, and want to work, accept the reality that some will be economic migrants, and offer time limited work permits, for those qualify, with employment offers premade, and agreed, for example we need Agricultural workers etc, then the firms can offer those with the skills, the chance to come here to work, same as with other sectors,

 

[Cowley]

For one thing, Labour has to stop shooting themselves in the foot, mistakes like the WFP, now corrected was manna to the right-wing press, Labour have a majority but seem scared to use it, scared to have policies that can level the playing ground,

The Tory party, seem to have disappeared, and Reform, is just the National front, in a new form, social media is awash with bot farms spewing out misinformation, tackle that head on, bring in fully the leverson report, clamp down on fake news sites, clamp down on right wing billionaire media bosses, using their platforms to boost Farage, go after the corporate tax evaders, tighten up on evasion scams, where no tax is paid,

Do something about the housing shortage, enable councils to use more empty properties and build on brown field sites, convert warehousing, possibly into community type housing, with shared facilities, at low cost, to get people off the streets, and safe, one area that could be looked into is for government to fund house building, and act as guarantor, so enable people to buy their first homes, with payment being taken directly, over a longer time span that normal mortgages possibly at a lower rate, so new families can afford their first home,

Invest in schools, training, further education, so that have the educated workforce we are going to need

Immigration, set up secure facilities in France, to process applicants who want to settle here, and want to work, accept the reality that some will be economic migrants, and offer time limited work permits, for those qualify, with employment offers premade, and agreed, for example we need Agricultural workers etc, then the firms can offer those with the skills, the chance to come here to work, same as with other sectors,

Ok, you’ve got the job. When can you start?

 

[SuspectUsual]

A Pret sandwich is exempt from VAT if you take it away but isn’t if you eat in, so do you think we are subsidising the off-premises consumption of cheese and pickle baguettes?

The food eaten on premises/ taken-away comparison is silly. Though it is a prime example of the weirdness of the VAT system (the pasty tax a memorable right-wing newspaper talking point from not too long ago).

There is VAT on eat in food because the "value" being added is somewhere to sit and eat, not anything different about the food itself

 

[Egg Centric]

In fact the only politician for a while I've suspected would actually try and change things there would've been Corbyn, whether his views were popular or not. But he needed to play the game a bit to get elected PM before he could make those changes, and never did.

He may have tried but given he can't even start a political party without it splintering before choosing a name I can't see that he'd have achieved it.

 

[styles]

The Times reporting this morning that Reeves may cap salary sacrifice pension contributions to £2k, meaning anything above that will be subject to employer and employee NI contributions. Not particularly a fan of that, especially as the employer NICs will likely lead to employers simply offering less generous pensions.

 

[brad465]

Years ago I contemplated becoming a councillor. I had some genuine ideas for change in the area and already had been working in advocacy so the casework would be interesting and hopefully fruitful.

Then I recalled all the times the local rag had scrutinised off hand remarks made by the existing councillors over quite trivial matters, the general level of competence in some of the peers, and how bored is get of Labour and the Tories slagging each other off. It was a predominantly Labour area, but if you knocked on any doors to ask about the parking situation, you'd get people complaining about Blair or Syria rather than a discussion about something the councillor could actually change.

It reminded me of going to a National Union of Students conference and an inordinate amount of time being dedicated to topics like Palestine.

Something tells me I'd just hate it. Also I'd end up swearing about something, probably the local council spending its time talking about Palestine these days.

I think councillors need to be paid an actual salary. At the moment only the retired and/or folk with nothing better to do get elected, as they get nothing more than certain expenses/allowances. This leads to a disproportionate weighing towards certain demographics/walks of life. You'd also encourage more competent and talented folk to try and stand for election and be able to commit proper time to the profession. What the salary would be I'm not sure, but it would definitely be lower than an MP's salary, and I'd also maybe have a rule that it cannot increase anymore than the median salary % increase of all council staff.

 

[Egg Centric]

The Times reporting this morning that Reeves may cap salary sacrifice pension contributions to £2k, meaning anything above that will be subject to employer and employee NI contributions. Not particularly a fan of that, especially as the employer NICs will likely lead to employers simply offering less generous pensions.

Stealing from future pensioners to pay for boomer pensioners. Contemptible.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Stealing from future pensioners to pay for boomer pensioners. Contemptible.

And (if true) a clear example of both short term thinking and floundering desperation on the part of the government.

 

[JamieL]

Stealing from future pensioners to pay for boomer pensioners. Contemptible.

Exactly this. Absolutely disgusting. Depressing to think we probably have to endure this Government for another 3.5 years.

 

[styles]

And (if true) a clear example of both short term thinking and floundering desperation on the part of the government.

The current government is absolutely short-term thinking. We're still having the same conversations as we did under Tory governments about balancing the books and alleged blackholes in the budget. In desparate attempts to be perceived as fixing this problem immediately, while avoiding awkward questions about their manifesto pledge to not raise taxes, they're seemingly looking for back doors.

I wouldn't mind but, if you wanted to reduce pension tax relief costs, there were much easier ways to do this.

The current annual tax-free contribution limit is £60k. To contribute that legally somebody would have to, as minimum, be earning over £80k, to avoid their pay falling below the legal minimum wage, and contributing over 75% of their pay into their pension. In reality it's very high earners who benefit from having an annual contributions limit this high. It was £40k for years and in all honesty even that was generous. That's £3,333 per month going into a pension free of income tax. They could've just reduced this annual limit from £60k to £40k or potentially even lower, and it would only really affect very high earners (or those with large assets who only tax the minimum wage for the tax benefits).

The additional rate of income tax was 50% for a few years. Now it's 45%. I'm not convinced we'd lose a great deal of tax from people earning £150k leaving the country just because they'd lose an additional £104pm in net pay. And I don't believe that we lost a significant amount as a result of having the extra 5p in the £1 for the three years we had it. I'm not proposing going back to pre-Thatcher times with 75% top rates, or war times with 90% rates, but I don't think 45%->50% is unjust.

Instead they're going after people who salary sacrifice >£2k/year into their pension? It just seems off from a Labour government. For context, someone earning £25k and sacrificing 8% would hit that.

 

[Gloster]

I am afraid that to my mind the problem is much simpler: Starmer is frightened stiff of the Daily Mail. He is doing everything he can to avoid upsetting it, which seems a totally futile endeavour as it is never going to be anything but a right-wing cheerleader.

 

[Egg Centric]

The current government is absolutely short-term thinking. We're still having the same conversations as we did under Tory governments about balancing the books and alleged blackholes in the budget. In desparate attempts to be perceived as fixing this problem immediately, while avoiding awkward questions about their manifesto pledge to not raise taxes, they're seemingly looking for back doors.

I wouldn't mind but, if you wanted to reduce pension tax relief costs, there were much easier ways to do this.

The current annual tax-free contribution limit is £60k. To contribute that legally somebody would have to, as minimum, be earning over £80k, to avoid their pay falling below the legal minimum wage, and contributing over 75% of their pay into their pension. In reality it's very high earners who benefit from having an annual contributions limit this high. It was £40k for years and in all honesty even that was generous. That's £3,333 per month going into a pension free of income tax. They could've just reduced this annual limit from £60k to £40k or potentially even lower, and it would only really affect very high earners (or those with large assets who only tax the minimum wage for the tax benefits).

The additional rate of income tax was 50% for a few years. Now it's 45%. I'm not convinced we'd lose a great deal of tax from people earning £150k leaving the country just because they'd lose an additional £104pm in net pay. And I don't believe that we lost a significant amount as a result of having the extra 5p in the £1 for the three years we had it. I'm not proposing going back to pre-Thatcher times with 75% top rates, or war times with 90% rates, but I don't think 45%->50% is unjust.

Instead they're going after people who salary sacrifice >£2k/year into their pension? It just seems off from a Labour government. For context, someone earning £25k and sacrificing 8% would hit that.

It's the disincentivisaiton of saving* that really does it for me (if true). Like the triple lock it perpetuates the myth that people are "paying in" to a state pension that is going to help them out and they ought to be relying on that. There needs to be a backstop for everyone but if we can we do need people to be providing for themselves in old age. We need to abolish the triple lock now. We are heading towards generational warfare atm, it's really not pretty.

*Otoh the idea of restricting cash ISAs in favour of equities probably is a good idea in principle, even though the wider stock market, especially the US which is like 70% of global equities or something crazy probably is in a bubble atm and it'll end up making them look as illiterate as Brown selling gold at 1/10th of the price it is now - rather unfairly tbh as I don't think it's fair to expect to the government to be market timing.

 

[styles]

It's the disincentivisaiton of saving* that really does it for me (if true). Like the triple lock it perpetuates the myth that people are "paying in" to a state pension that is going to help them out and they ought to be relying on that. There needs to be a backstop for everyone but if we can we do need people to be providing for themselves in old age. We need to abolish the triple lock now. We are heading towards generational warfare atm, it's really not pretty.

Oh totally agreed. The triple lock needs to go. I'm all for state pensions going up in line with inflation, but the idea that even in times of recession we would increase the state pension by 2.5% is frankly ludicrous. It requires some pretty strong political will to change this though; the whole triple lock issue is just toxic at this point.

*Otoh the idea of restricting cash ISAs in favour of equities probably is a good idea in principle, even though the wider stock market, especially the US which is like 70% of global equities or something crazy probably is in a bubble atm and it'll end up making them look as illiterate as Brown selling gold at 1/10th of the price it is now - rather unfairly tbh as I don't think it's fair to expect to the government to be market timing.

In a financial sense, it probably makes sense for people using the high ISA allowance to be investing in assets which are higher risk and likely higher growth; the reality is that the UK requires a culture shift when it comes to investing, and without that there is a risk that people will just not save as much into ISAs and instead opt for high interest savings accounts, especially given the gap between the average mount of savings a UK citizen has and the amount of interest or growth earned before the PSA is exceeded and the gains are subject to tax. My partner is really uncomfortable with non-cash (well, and non-mortgage) investments, and I'm pretty confident she would end up on the MSE website finding the best non-ISA cash savings account if she were in a position to exceed the cash ISA allowance. There will be many like this. The question is - would such a cap be a sufficient 'stick' to shift people towards more volatile but potentially higher risk investments? I'm not so sure.

 

[H F Stephens]

Oh totally agreed. The triple lock needs to go. I'm all for state pensions going up in line with inflation, but the idea that even in times of recession we would increase the state pension by 2.5% is frankly ludicrous. It requires some pretty strong political will to change this though; the whole triple lock issue is just toxic at this point.

In a financial sense, it probably makes sense for people using the high ISA allowance to be investing in assets which are higher risk and likely higher growth; the reality is that the UK requires a culture shift when it comes to investing, and without that there is a risk that people will just not save as much into ISAs and instead opt for high interest savings accounts, especially given the gap between the average mount of savings a UK citizen has and the amount of interest or growth earned before the PSA is exceeded and the gains are subject to tax. My partner is really uncomfortable with non-cash (well, and non-mortgage) investments, and I'm pretty confident she would end up on the MSE website finding the best non-ISA cash savings account if she were in a position to exceed the cash ISA allowance. There will be many like this. The question is - would such a cap be a sufficient 'stick' to shift people towards more volatile but potentially higher risk investments? I'm not so sure.

Per the Building Societies’ Association:

There are around 14 million people in the UK who have less than £100 of savings to fall back on in an emergency.

https://uksavingsweek.co.uk/about/

That’s about 20% of the adult population.

Consumer debt is around £2 trillion.

For a very significant proportion of the population, despite their own best efforts to deny it, the overall situation is that savings levels are arguably far too low.

Tinkering with one of the few policies that have achieved empirical success in moderating this might seem to be, to coin a phrase, ’brave’, therefore.

 

[styles]

Per the Building Societies’ Association:



https://uksavingsweek.co.uk/about/

That’s about 20% of the adult population.

Consumer debt is around £2 trillion.

For a very significant proportion of the population, despite their own best efforts to deny it, the overall situation is that savings levels are arguably far too low.

Tinkering with one of the few policies that have achieved empirical success in moderating this might seem to be, to coin a phrase, ’brave’, therefore.

Yes this was what I was alluding to really.

I would also highlight that my criticism of the salary sacrifice pension changes are based on a similar principle. The median DC pension pot at age 55 in 2022 was £107,300. That is frankly not very much, and when the 54 year old data is compared with the 55-64 year old data, appears to suggest people immediately before retirement get advised to whack a load into the pension to get a better tax-free lump-sum, but by that point they've missed out on decades of investment growth. So this idea that we should limit salary sacrifice pensions to £2,000 before hitting both the employer and the employee with additional tax, I think is stupid. In this case it's not even purely a hit on the middle class - this will affect some people earning the national minimum wage working 40 hours per week, who will be earning £25,400. Employees earning such an annual income who get an 8% total contribution will be hit by this, which is just absurd. Labour for the working class?

 

[oldman]

When I worked in a university there was no salary sacrifice for pension contributions so I paid NI on what I paid in. Now it seems to be default in the sector to use salary sacrifice and it seems a good loophole to close. Given a £2000 exemption the effect on low earners would be small. If Google AI is to be believed higher earners are more likely to participate in ss schemes - 'around half of employees using salary sacrifice arrangements were basic rate taxpayers', so I suppose the other half were higher-rate taxpayers, disproportionately high.

As for ISAs it is absurd that wealthy people can salt away £20K year after year after year into a tax shelter. I would put a lifetime limit on the amount you can put in. There is nothing to stop people saving more if they are lucky enough to be able to. ISAs are irrelevant for the many who have no savings, and for many others the £1000 annual exemption would keep their savings interest out of tax.

 

[JonathanH]

The current annual tax-free contribution limit is £60k. To contribute that legally somebody would have to, as minimum, be earning over £80k, to avoid their pay falling below the legal minimum wage, and contributing over 75% of their pay into their pension. In reality it's very high earners who benefit from having an annual contributions limit this high. It was £40k for years and in all honesty even that was generous. That's £3,333 per month going into a pension free of income tax. They could've just reduced this annual limit from £60k to £40k or potentially even lower, and it would only really affect very high earners (or those with large assets who only tax the minimum wage for the tax benefits).

The problem the government has, short and sweet, with pension contributions is (consultant) doctors, and in particular those eligible for NHS pensions. If we didn't have to worry about the tax affairs of doctors, and the implications their retirement has on the NHS, all sorts of changes could be made to higher rate tax and the relief arrangements. For high earners with long service in a DB scheme, it isn't about contributions but the year on year increase in their benefit.

The removal of the lifetime allowance, and earlier changes to the annual allowance taper were primarily driven by the effect they had on doctors. If it weren't for doctors it would be reasonable to bring the annual allowance taper down to a much lower level of pay, and remove the subsidy for pension contributions currently given to higher rate taxpayers.

You do wonder how a more progressive government than the current one would handle this issue when looking to apply more progressive principles to tax.

 

[jon0844]

I am afraid that to my mind the problem is much simpler: Starmer is frightened stiff of the Daily Mail. He is doing everything he can to avoid upsetting it, which seems a totally futile endeavour as it is never going to be anything but a right-wing cheerleader.

When is he going to learn that they won't like him. Ever.

He could close every asylum hotel and deport every asylum seeker and the right would pretend to be outraged by his callousness.

 

[styles]

The problem the government has, short and sweet, with pension contributions is (consultant) doctors, and in particular those eligible for NHS pensions. If we didn't have to worry about the tax affairs of doctors, and the implications their retirement has on the NHS, all sorts of changes could be made to higher rate tax and the relief arrangements. For high earners with long service in a DB scheme, it isn't about contributions but the year on year increase in their benefit.

The removal of the lifetime allowance, and earlier changes to the annual allowance taper were primarily driven by the effect they had on doctors. If it weren't for doctors it would be reasonable to bring the annual allowance taper down to a much lower level of pay, and remove the subsidy for pension contributions currently given to higher rate taxpayers.

You do wonder how a more progressive government than the current one would handle this issue when looking to apply more progressive principles to tax.

There was a simpler solution to this - make exemptions specifically for doctors, like we already have exemptions to pension rules for athletes for example.

 

[JonathanH]

There was a simpler solution to this - make exemptions specifically for doctors, like we already have exemptions to pension rules for athletes for example.

Yes, that is indeed the answer. You wonder whether the government would have the inclination to do this.

 

[JamesT]

There was a simpler solution to this - make exemptions specifically for doctors, like we already have exemptions to pension rules for athletes for example.

Or indeed, there’s a specific law creating a pension for Keir Starmer which amongst other things has an exemption from the then lifetime allowance cap.

I believe the different pension rules for athletes were only in relation to retirement age, and are no longer different since Gordon Brown ‘simplified’ pension rules in 2006.

I doubt making exceptions based on profession would really be simple, how are you defining a doctor, is this intended to capture only NHS workers, or does the millionaire private plastic surgeon also get a pass? I could also see the optics getting pretty bad as it’s explicitly saying some jobs are more worthy than others.

 

[Egg Centric]

Per the Building Societies’ Association:



https://uksavingsweek.co.uk/about/

That’s about 20% of the adult population.

Consumer debt is around £2 trillion.

For a very significant proportion of the population, despite their own best efforts to deny it, the overall situation is that savings levels are arguably far too low.

Tinkering with one of the few policies that have achieved empirical success in moderating this might seem to be, to coin a phrase, ’brave’, therefore.

Someone with less than £100 in savings is hardly going to be affected by lessening the cash ISA limit are they?

I think the main problem actually is that it's not practical to impose a different limit to stocks and shares ISAs, unless you limit them to strictly equities (bad idea imo). I sterling cost average my stocks and shares ISA* and the rest of the cash in it over the year is automatically managed by Trading 212 in various cash equivalent funds such that it's like having a (restting yearly) cash ISA anyway. So you'd just shaft the unsophisticated, although maybe that would still have the useful effect of getting them to do some research? Idk. Hard to recommend investing in shares right now to someone without any, anyway!


*I'm fully aware that this is not optimal, but it has psychological benefits

 

[styles]

I suspect the people aware that they can invest in cash assets in a S&S ISA won't really come into it as those people will likely be invested in something a bit better than cash, unless it's very short term anyway.

I suspect if it happens, sites will mainly recommend finding a high interest savings account instead. Teaching investments is a bit advanced for the likes of Martin Lewis' normal style.

 

[oldman]

When is he going to learn that they won't like him. Ever.

He could close every asylum hotel and deport every asylum seeker and the right would pretend to be outraged by his callousness

The reason why liberal-minded centre-left Labour politicians are wary of the right-wing media - it used to be Tony Blair and the Sun - is that they know that they reflect, in a viciously distorted way, widely held views.

Do you suppose the typical Daily Mail reader is thinking - I like the sports coverage and the fashion tips, and I enjoy the bitching about Megan, but they are totally wrong about migration and 'benefits cheats'?

 

[martin butler]

I would argue that those, " Viciously distorted widely held views" are because of the Daily Mail,
As regards Keir, I wonder if he were to be deposed and replaced by a more left-wing firebrand, who was not scared of the right-wing media, and tackled it head on, including measures to curb it, would labour do better?

 

[jon0844]

I think the right would fight harder still, but at the end of the day we need Labour to do what needs to be done and not worry about being attacked all the time.

The bot farms that ensure thousands of people spread stuff at the same time (often using the same words and images) to target individuals isn't going to stop. It's highly coordinated, so you can't spend your time worrying about it.

Obviously the PM could try and speak more to the press. Be clever like Tony Blair was and ensure you always have something to say and can manage the talking points of the day a little better.

Right now we have loads of rumours of terrible things about to be announced in the budget because of the unprecedented 'warning' given. I get they don't want to shock the city, but it's allowing the right to spread even more fear now.