UK General Election 2024

[edwin_m]

Just subjected to an unskippable Tory YouTube ad portraying Starmer as a plastic toy that comes in a range of colours (=flipflopping). Did nothing more than how Starmer had the much better gag of portraying Sunak as "inaction man".

 

[SuspectUsual]

I noticed that Sunak has reached into the Trump playbook and is referring to Starmer as “sleepy Kier”

 

[Yew]

I noticed that Sunak has reached into the Trump playbook and is referring to Starmer as “sleepy Kier”

I thought he was "woke", not sleepy?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Just subjected to an unskippable Tory YouTube ad portraying Starmer as a plastic toy that comes in a range of colours (=flipflopping). Did nothing more than how Starmer had the much better gag of portraying Sunak as "inaction man".

No such thing as an unskippable ad anymore
If you're using chrome on a PC this should help (other operating systems and browsers have their own versions):

uBlock Origin - Chrome Web Store

Finally, an efficient blocker. Easy on CPU and memory.

chromewebstore.google.com

 

[PGAT]

I thought he was "woke", not sleepy?

 

[AlterEgo]

I thought he was "woke", not sleepy?

There's a non zero chance a Tory MP will call him "Queer Starmer" before election day.

 

[Gloster]

Well the policy has achieved it's purpose, what else has anyone been talking about lately?

If their intention is divert attention away from Labour on to themselves, they have succeeded. However, if they are going to keep this up over the next five weeks they are going to have to suggest policies that are increasingly wacky and likely to put voters off. This might not be wisest strategy, unless they really do want to lose the election.

 

[birchesgreen]

If their intention is divert attention away from Labour on to themselves, they have succeeded. However, if they are going to keep this up over the next five weeks they are going to have to suggest policies that are increasingly wacky and likely to put voters off. This might not be wisest strategy, unless they really do want to lose the election.

Well thats probably the plan.

This week it'll probably be capital punishment.

Next week workhouses.

The week after, ties for taxi drivers.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Well thats probably the plan.

This week it'll probably be capital punishment.

Next week workhouses.

The week after, ties for taxi drivers.

Don’t forget AA and RAC men saluting passing cars, black and white television and rickets

 

[Citybreak1]

Can we have a uni government or care taker government? Given we know Labour will come in is there no way they would fast track it e.g PM do resign?

 

[The Ham]

The justification for "doing things differently" (e.g. leaving the EU) is that the UK is different to other European countries (in particular EU members). About 170 countries are not EU members. This makes EU countries, not the rest, unusual. They are more than unusual in name only. Among many other things, normal countries do not allow their legislature to be trumped by a supranational organisation.


Just on a point of pedantry, 1:216 are the chances of rolling six on a single die three times in a row. The chances of rolling a pair of dice to show six on each three times in a row is 1:46,656.

Thanks, although I was saying that the pair of dice totaled 6 each time for three times (which could be 1+5, 2+4, 3+3, 4+2 or 5+1), which i may or may not fit the maths right on, however either way, odds I'd like.

I think parents should be held responsible for the actions of their offspring until they reach a certain age.

Age 40 would be a good starting point

I'm over 40, so I'm all good for my kids behaving badly!!!

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Thanks, although I was saying that the pair of dice totaled 6 each time for three times (which could be 1+5, 2+4, 3+3, 4+2 or 5+1), which i may or may not fit the maths right on, however either way, odds I'd like.

I think you were thinking of 7, which of the 36 possible sums from rolling 2 die, is 6 of them which is a 1:6, therefore 3 times in a row is 1:216
6 only appears 5 of 36 times, odds of 1:7.2, therefore 3 times in a row is 1:373.248

 

[Gloster]

I wonder how long it is going to be before some minor soap ‘star’ or TV celebrity puts out a press release saying that if Starmer gets in s/he will leave the country. This will be accompanied in some of the papers by heart-rending stories of how fans of Dean/Dina Twonk will be distraught if Starmer forces him to leave his ‘beloved by millions’ role in Emmanation End.

 

[brad465]

I don't know how representative of the business world this is, but 121 businesses publicly backing Labour is a strong endorsement:

General election: 121 business chiefs sign letter backing Labour

More than 120 bosses endorse Labour's economic plans ahead of the election saying it is “time for a change”.

www.bbc.co.uk

Dozens of business leaders have signed a letter endorsing the Labour Party’s economic plans ahead of the 4 July general election saying it is “time for a change”.

In a letter published in Tuesday's Times newspaper, 121 founders, CEOs, and former leaders at a range of financial services, retail and manufacturing firms say Labour has changed and “wants to work with business” on long term growth.

It comes as shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves is due to deliver her first major speech of the election campaign to business supporters, including some former Conservative backers in the East Midlands later.

She is expected to say she will lead the most “pro-growth Treasury in our country’s history”.

Labour is borrowing from the Conservatives’ playbook in getting business leaders to endorse their economic plans.

Ahead of the 2015 election, 100 corporate leaders endorsed the Conservatives.

One of those, Malcolm Walker - the founder of supermarket chain Iceland - will now endorse Labour instead.

Other former Tory business letter signatories have told BBC News they will keep their counsel amid disappointment over the Liz Truss's mini-budget, the Brexit deal and a general expectation of a change of government.

Among those who have signed the letter in the Times is the TV chef and restaurateur Tom Kerridge, some CEOs of smaller companies, former Heathrow Airport chief executive John Holland-Kaye, JD Sports chairman Andrew Higginson and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.

The CEOs of the UK’s very largest FTSE 100-size companies tend to avoid taking sides in elections, and have not today.

It is also unclear how representative this group of Labour backers are of business in general and their sectors in particular.

 

[Yew]

Don’t forget AA and RAC men saluting passing cars, black and white television and rickets

Affordable public services ran by the state for the benefit of the public? No tuition fees, as the costs of universities are paid through the increased tax-takes of their graduates? A sensible housing market with reasonable numbers of council houses? A suitably funded military so that the Falklands wouldn't have been invaded in the first place.

Ah, apologies, I had the wrong kind of Nostalgia for a second. Umm, maybe he could bring back corporal punishment, or worse, Pacers.

 

[brad465]

Introducing, the "Quadruple Lock":

General election: Tories announce 'Triple Lock Plus' pension allowance

The Conservatives pledge to raise the tax-free pension allowance by at least 2.5% a year if they win the election.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Conservatives have promised to raise the tax-free pension allowance via a "Triple Lock Plus" if they win the general election.
Under the plans, the personal allowance for pensioners will increase at least 2.5% or in line with the highest of earnings or inflation.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the scheme "shows we are on the side of pensioners," who the Tories say will save £275 by 2030.
Labour called the policy a "desperate move from a chaotic Tory party".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53082530
At the moment, the state pension already rises in line with whichever is the highest - average earnings, wages or by 2.5%.
This meant in April the state pension rose by 8.5%.
Both the Conservatives and Labour are committed to keeping the policy, designed to ensure pensions keep up with rising prices and wages.
But currently income tax thresholds have been frozen since 2021. Income tax is also paid on money received via pensions.
By 2027, the state pension is expected to be higher than the tax-free personal allowance according to independent fiscal watchdog Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
That would mean many millions more pensioners paying income tax, according to the Tories.
Charities have been reporting heightened concern among pensioners who fear being dragged into paying income tax.
Both Age UK and Independent Age saying they have seen an increase in calls to their helplines in recent weeks from pensioners confused about the issue.
Under the new scheme, the state pension will always be below the tax-free threshold.
The Conservatives claim the plans will cost £2.4bn a year by 2029-30, funded by the previously announced strategy to raise £6bn annually through improving tax collection and cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion.
Mr Sunak said: "I passionately believe that those who have worked hard all their lives should have peace of mind and security in retirement.
"Thanks to the Conservatives' Triple Lock, pensions have risen by £900 this year and now we will cut their taxes by around £100 next year.
"This bold action demonstrates we are on the side of pensioners. The alternative is Labour dragging everyone in receipt of the full state pension into income tax for the first time in history."
Labour shadow cabinet minister Jonathan Ashworth said Mr Sunak "is planning to reward Britain's pensioners for their loyalty by stabbing them in the back, just like he did to Boris Johnson and just like he has done to his own MPs".
"Not only have they promised to spend tens of billions of pounds since this campaign began, they also have a completely unfunded £46bn policy to scrap National Insurance that threatens the very basis of the state pension," he said.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has previously described ending National Insurance as a "long-term ambition" but acknowledged that it would not happen before 2030.
Lib Dem Treasury spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "The Conservative Party has hammered pensioners with years of unfair tax hikes and broken their word on the triple lock.
"People won't be fooled by yet another empty promise from Rishi Sunak after this record of failure."

 

[HSTEd]

Introducing, the "Quadruple Lock":

General election: Tories announce 'Triple Lock Plus' pension allowance

The Conservatives pledge to raise the tax-free pension allowance by at least 2.5% a year if they win the election.

www.bbc.co.uk

Even more free money for pensioners.

And two entirely parallel income tax regimes to add to the madness of national insurance existing.

All will serve the Golden Generation!

 

[jon0844]

wonder if there will be exemptions for 18 year olds that have managed to secure trainee train drivers roles .

Weekend voluntary train driving for work experience? Simulator at 9am, bit of rules at 10. Route learning from 11am until lunch, and off you go at midday.

For Sunday, it's on the road in a lorry.

 

[GusB]

Don’t forget AA and RAC men saluting passing cars, black and white television and rickets

What about the women who work for the AA and RAC? Oh wait, they'll be back in the kitchen soon...

 

[Ostrich]

The basic tax-free personal allowance should be raised, period. Not just for pensioners. And I'm saying that as a pensioner!

Has any party commited to increasing it yet?

 

[jon0844]

What about the women who work for the AA and RAC? Oh wait, they'll be back in the kitchen soon...

I'm surprised we haven't had anyone suggesting that women should go back to traditional roles yet (see the 'tradwife' movements in the USA).

The irony is that I am sure there really are people who would very much like to not have to work, and stay home to bring up a family (whether they're male or female) but could never afford to. Long gone are the days that a family could survive on one income, and why single parents struggle as much as they do through no fault of their own.

 

[AlterEgo]

Introducing, the "Quadruple Lock":

General election: Tories announce 'Triple Lock Plus' pension allowance

The Conservatives pledge to raise the tax-free pension allowance by at least 2.5% a year if they win the election.

www.bbc.co.uk

Hahahaha they are so done.

Can’t wait until they’re gone.

 

[Cowley]

Hahahaha they are so done.

Can’t wait until they’re gone.

Ah come on! He’s keeping us ‘safe’.

 

[Irascible]

National Service & raising pensions, this is sitcom politics . They seem to be more worried about losing safe seats to the libdems, I think they've just given up facing off against Labour...

 

[The Ham]

Introducing, the "Quadruple Lock":

General election: Tories announce 'Triple Lock Plus' pension allowance

The Conservatives pledge to raise the tax-free pension allowance by at least 2.5% a year if they win the election.

www.bbc.co.uk

Or (as I've said before) for the same money restart the Sure Start Centres (in full), which had the added bonus of getting more parents back into work and raising the children's grades by 0.8 of grade at GSCE (which, efficient it doesn't appear a lot, for some could mean the difference between getting a 5 (old grade C) and a 4 (old grade D) which would make a big difference to their life chances).

The other thing it did was measurably reduce crime. Saving on the cost, as well making the streets safer.

As to could they increase the allowance for everyone, well it would cost more to get the same level of benefit or the level of benefit would reduce (potentially around the £75 mark rather £275).

Alternatively, if when you reached state pension age you deferred the start of claiming your pension by 30 weeks (so a little more than 6 months), you could be £690 a year better off in the amount of state pension you have, which would likely mean more money per year for quite a while than this would give you.

Bearing in mind your NI payments drop to £0 in the April after you reach state pension age, which boosts your take home pay, which would mean that (at least for those with birthdays in the last quarterof the tax year), they could probably not be too badly impacted by not having that first six months of state pension.

Now whilst for the first 10 years of retirement you'd have less money overall, from the loss of not being paid your pension, after that you'd have a higher amount of money overall from having been paid a higher amount.

I'm just saying that for those for whom an extra £23 a month would make that much difference, they could probably actually do with an extra £57.50 a month even more.

Whilst there would be some who aren't earning, so need the extra money straight away, there are probably other ways you could provide that through targeted benefits for a lower cost. They are also likely to have found it far more beneficial to have had an extra £4.60 per month for their working age (the value of all people having an extra £75 per year).

There are a LOT of people who are retired where they don't need that money, so if you wanted to you could reduce the 40% tax threshold by £2,000 for those over retirement age so that you recover the extra £275 a year for those with high income through extra taxes (they have extra taxes for high earning parents to recover child benefit payments, so it's not without precedent) which would reduce the overall cost of the scheme and at least would feel a little fairer.

Alternatively, if you were providing an increased personal allowance to all, you could reduce the 40% threshold by £535 so that you had the same recovery mechanism (those currently higher rate tax would be £0 a year better off, whilst everyone below the new threshold would be £75 a year better off and those falling writing that £535 range still being a bit better off, although decreasing as you get further up the range). That would reduce the overall cost of the scheme.

 

[zero]

Alternatively, if when you reached state pension age you deferred the start of claiming your pension by 30 weeks (so a little more than 6 months), you could be £690 a year better off in the amount of state pension you have, which would likely mean more money per year for quite a while than this would give you.

Now whilst for the first 10 years of retirement you'd have less money overall, from the loss of not being paid your pension, after that you'd have a higher amount of money overall from having been paid a higher amount.

This only applies to people who reached state pension age before 6 April 2016.

I can't be bothered to work out the possible effects of inflation, but if the state pension did not increase annually, for anyone younger it would take 17-18 years to recoup the amount foregone, using current amounts.

 

[The Ham]

This only applies to people who reached state pension age before 6 April 2016.

I can't be bothered to work out the possible effects of inflation, but if the state pension did not increase annually, for anyone younger it would take 17-18 years to recoup the amount foregone, using current amounts.

Sorry, just looked up the current rules and to defer now gains 1% every 9 weeks rather than 5 weeks, this means that you'd have to defer by around 54 weeks to get the benefit of £690 a year (+6% in the state pension)

Which as you say is 17.31 years before you start being paid more than you've lost without allowing for inflation.

However inflation and pension rises will alter that.

In 15 years time the state pension (going up 2.5% per year) would be £16,658.91, that means that the extra 6% would no longer be £690 per year but rather £999 per year. However, unless you've got a savings rate high enough (which is unlikely as you'll be removing at least £690 a year from it) if you saved the pension payments, then inflation is going to erode the value of the savings, so the payback time reduces (although that starts getting all sorts of complicated, although if the interest rates are lower than inflation then generally it's going to reduce the payback period).

 

[sor]

As a millennial who has all the usual struggles of our generation - I kind of get the point of the "triple lock plus" (the tories need to pick a name and stick to it) in that it hardly makes sense to hand out taxpayer money only to immediately claw some of it back, especially if it leads to the farce of pensioners having to do a self assessment. However it probably should only apply to those who actually live off the state pension and don't have other sources of income - everyone else should pay the same tax (and NI!) as the rest of us.

I would also like to see means testing so we aren't giving billions away to people who quite literally do not need it. We means test every other benefit including pension credit.

 

[birchesgreen]

Its not good optics though is it, slave labour for teenagers, tax cuts for pensioners.

 

[jfollows]

The basic tax-free personal allowance should be raised, period. Not just for pensioners. And I'm saying that as a pensioner!

Has any party commited to increasing it yet?

I agree.

The current system is a bit bonkers, and the Conservative proposal makes it more so.

The state pension is paid gross, and whilst it is less than the income tax personal allowance it's simple if it's your only source of income. But if you have other income which puts your income above the personal allowance you have to get the tax code on your other income source adjusted to take off the right amount of tax.

This may mean the need for a self-assessment. It's trivial to do, and I've been doing one for years now, but that's the point - anyone who hasn't needed to for their entire life will find it annoying at least and difficult at worst.

The Conservatives historically raised the personal allowance above the state pension, to most people's benefit. But now they're fixated on reducing National Insurance when they should be increasing the allowance thresholds. I don't think many people properly understand National Insurance and don't see a benefit in its reduction in the way that taking them out of income tax altogether would be seen.

The higher rate allowance threshold should also be increased. But it won't be.

The politics are that it's rightly stupid to pay the state pension and at the same time take away some of it in income tax. So it suits the government of the day to pretend otherwise by paying it gross and forcing pensioners to pay tax if their income is high enough in other ways. But this wouldn't fly if everyone had to pay tax, especially those whose only income was the state pension. However the better solution would be to raise everyone's allowance in line with inflation and stop mucking around with National Insurance.

And, of course, as a pensioner (although not yet old enough for the state pension) myself I don't pay National Insurance, so I'd benefit more from a cut in income tax, but honestly that's in the noise for me and it's the silly complexity caused by politicians fiddling with the system that's more annoying.