UK General Election 2024

[Cross City]

Tory attacks themed on 'Labour will take £XK/month off you' tend to be so effective

The Tories have handed us the highest tax burden in 70 years.

 

[renegademaster]

‘Taxes are what we pay for civilised society.‘ (*) Taxes are what allows you to live a decent need life, free of fear and want. If you don’t pay, you don’t get the return and the only winners are the bullies. It is to be noted that, in my opinion, the countries that most fairly manage their education systems have the least complaints about tax rates, although they are often on the higher side.

* - Said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Junior, a member of the US Supreme Court in 1927. These are probably the correct words, although it has been paraphrased and misquoted many times.

How much attention do you actually pay to the domestic politics of other countries? France had a very large and disruptive protest movement over a small rise in fuel duty not long ago

 

[Gloster]

How much attention do you actually pay to the domestic politics of other countries? France had a very large and disruptive protest movement over a small rise in fuel duty not long ago

France is always having very large and disruptive protest movements about just about everything. It is the basis of French politics. A la Bastille!

 

[The Ham]

Ultimately people (all over the World) tend to be very sensitive to how much they take home at the end of the month, which is why Tory attacks themed on 'Labour will take £XK/month off you' tend to be so effective (even if they are often based on very dodgy figures).

Only that £2,094 value is over 4 years and only applies to working households (about 18.3 million) and not even per person.

However even then that's at most £44 a month, for some people they look at that and think, if it means we have better public services then it's a price worth paying.

However, that assumes that businesses aren't paying some of that tax and nor are anyone who's paying taxes but on a pension income, both of which would bring that figure down.

Yes the number may have stuck, but if it's shown to be bad maths it's just at likely to stick as another lie from a party with a history of not always being as truthful as they could be. Especially if it's used to beat Sunak with in the next debate.

 

[RT4038]

More accurately, the perception of the above. In almost all instances those in opposition to the government of the day try to portray the situation as worse than it actually is.

Well yes, but perception is the truth in the eye of the beholder.....

 

[renegademaster]

Surely this is why debates should wait until the manifesto is actually out. Sunak can get away with dodgy arguments like this because their isn't a Labour tax plan formally out yet. He's assuming the worst case of it all the extra revenue getting dumped on the lowest bracket but labour can't properly refute it because they aren't saying what exactly the rates will be

 

[RT4038]

Surely this is why debates should wait until the manifesto is actually out. Sunak can get away with dodgy arguments like this because their isn't a Labour tax plan formally out yet

Any political party faced with a known (if not the date) general election without their manifesto 'oven ready' is on a bit of the back foot!

 

[AlterEgo]

Paying more tax for improved public services is good, actually.

 

[Sorcerer]

So I did catch up on the debate last night, and it's clear that Starmer was woefully unprepared for the kind of format of 45 second answers and was more focused on bringing up the Tories record for the past 14 years than his own policy at times. I think he needs to look back on this and reflect so he can better prepare himself next time and not be so willing to let Sunak regurgitate the tax argument that every Conservative leader seems to talk about every single time we have an election. It's harder to sell your points to floating voters if you can't explain it to them like they were five years old.

 

[AlterEgo]

These TV debates are so idiotic. We do not run a presidential system.

I'd rather they sat down (yes, sitting down!) with no moderator, just a Dick Cavett type prompter, and just talk to each other talk show style and argue the toss about a specific topic. This would be much more revealing.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

These TV debates are so idiotic. We do not run a presidential system.

Indeed, although the mass media would perhaps like to make out that we do, for whatever reason(s) best suits their narrative. (TV audience, website clicks, readership).

 

[birchesgreen]

The 45 second time limit was stupid.

 

[Thirteen]

The TV debates always get news junkies excited but I always think there needs to fewer of them.

 

[RT4038]

Paying more tax for improved public services is good, actually.

If they are the public services that you want !

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Paying more tax for improved public services is good, actually.

...but are we actually getting improved public services?! It seems that we are perpetually paying more for less.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Currently on social media there is a lot of speculation that it was a reform staffer and it was,set up by reform/farage himself.

Just looked into this "theory", and it appears to be false. The young lady incorrectly identified as the milkshake thrower does look superficially similar to the lady who actually threw the milkshake, but a few minutes comparing facial structures reveals they cannot possibly be the same person. The noses are clearly different, as are the cheekbones and lips.
That doesn't rule out the possibility that it was staged, but the apparent culprit identified by the amateur sleuths on X is not the same person as the one seen throwing the milkshake.

 

[RT4038]

...but are we actually getting improved public services?! It seems that we are perpetually paying more for less.

Well, the public service of giving a large percentage of the population up to 12 months paid leave from production, plus business continuity grants and payments, keeping public transport running without much revenue, plus testing kits, vaccinations, PPE etc etc and then the interest increases on paying the borrowing costs for all of that ........ The fact that some believed it was all unnecessary, and it was 3-4 years ago and now almost forgotten, doesn't mean the costs weren't incurred and will have to be paid for for quite some time yet.

 

[birchesgreen]

Yes its a pity those who received this benefit don't get hit a little more than those who had to work throughout on reduced hours (and thus pay) without any help. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Ediswan]

The 45 second time limit was stupid.

My recollection is that the 45 second limit was for the initial response. After both had spoken, there was time for a more extensive back and forth.

 

[Magdalia]

...but are we actually getting improved public services?! It seems that we are perpetually paying more for less.

That's a consequence of negligible economic growth since the 2008 financial crisis.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's a consequence of negligible economic growth since the 2008 financial crisis.

Is it? By itself, negligible economic growth should simply mean that everything stands still and (on average) no-one becomes any better off. No reason why that should lead to either a perception or a reality of continually paying more for less when it comes to public services.

 

[takno]

...but are we actually getting improved public services?! It seems that we are perpetually paying more for less.

There has been no economic growth, and massive growth in the number of pensioners and very sick people (who are very often pensioners) who need expensive help to live day to day. This is of course compounded by the triple lock. Very few people support cutting this provision of these things.

Add to this the massive amount that the government spends servicing debt, and the huge effective cuts in petrol tax over the last 15 years, and it's easy to see how most taxes can remain the same while most public services are still being starved to death.

In practice of course most taxes haven't actually gone up in years - cuts to NI are largely offset by freezes on Tax Allowances, and while VAT did go up that was over 10 years ago. For most people it's rent/mortgages and utility bills that have gone through the roof and made everything feel unaffordable.

 

[birchesgreen]

My recollection is that the 45 second limit was for the initial response. After both had spoken, there was time for a more extensive back and forth.

Not sure about that, the moderator did mention it later on. The problem is if Sunak i mean the other person continually interrupts and talks over you then 45 seconds isn't a great amount of time...

 

[SuspectUsual]

Is it? By itself, negligible economic growth should simply mean that everything stands still and (on average) no-one becomes any better off. No reason why that should lead to either a perception or a reality of continually paying more for less when it comes to public services.

Price inflation outstripping wage inflation does that, surely?

 

[Magdalia]

Is it? By itself, negligible economic growth should simply mean that everything stands still and (on average) no-one becomes any better off. No reason why that should lead to either a perception or a reality of continually paying more for less when it comes to public services.

Yes, because negligible economic growth doesn't mean that everything stands still.

It means that the tax revenue stands still, unless tax rates go up, which is people paying more.

But it doesn't mean that the demand for public services stands still. That continues to go up because people are living longer and spending more years in retirement. That continues to go up because the population is getting sicker. That continues because the world is becoming a more dangerous place. I could go on.... These grow even when the economy does not grow. The lack of growth in tax income means that insufficient funds are available to pay to maintain the same level for those public services, so people receive less.

 

[DarloRich]

Views on the leaders debate:

Sunak - rude, snippy, soundbite ( constant repetition of the same untrue statement), laughed at by crowd twice. Desperate. Liar.

Starmer - obvious lawyer not suited to tight format, methodical ( perhaps slow ) setting out of case: this, this, this, then this, respectful of rules and setting ( perhaps too much) calmer, much more statesman like, mature. Dad a toolmaker.

Moderation: Weak. ineffectual. Allowed Sunak to lie and rant without serious challenge.

Format: Stupid. Childish. in 45 seconds please solve the middle east conflict..........


The whole point of the debate for Sunak was to

1. get his Labour tax lie out in the wild. The Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph Lord Haw Haw's loyally broadcast that to the hard of thinking this morning.
2. Hammer frightened pensioners with the evilutude of Labour on tax, pensions and forigns
3. Try to appeal to Reformmons and head off "man of the people" Farage

The whole point for Starmer was:

1. Time for change
2. 14 years
3. crashed the economy
4. Untrustworthy Sunak and Tories - hold me accountable for X,Y & Z

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Price inflation outstripping wage inflation does that, surely?

No, it wouldn't.

1. Price inflation outstripping wage inflation isn't the same thing as 'negligible economic growth' (though it is connected to the extent that the lower growth is, the less likely we are to feel better off).
2. We're talking about the perception of paying more to get less public services. Price inflation outstripping wage inflation would cause people to feel worse off in their personal incomes, not necessarily the services they get from the Government.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jun 2024 ==

Yes, because negligible economic growth doesn't mean that everything stands still.

It means that the tax revenue stands still, unless tax rates go up, which is people paying more.

But it doesn't mean that the demand for public services stands still. That continues to go up because people are living longer and spending more years in retirement. That continues to go up because the population is getting sicker. That continues because the world is becoming a more dangerous place. I could go on.... These grow even when the economy does not grow. The lack of growth in tax income means that insufficient funds are available to pay to maintain the same level for those public services, so people receive less.

Right. So what you're actually claiming is that it's not just negligible economic growth by itself causing the perception of paying more to get less public services. It's actually the fact that an aging population requires/demands more public services combined with the negligible economic growth meaning there's no extra resources to pay for them. That is a lot more plausible.

That would help to explain the ballooning bills for things like pensions and health care, but it doesn't explain the way it feels like we're paying more to get less in other public services, and in capital investment projects (think as an example: How much HS2 is costing, or as another example, the lack of visible police presence/crime prevention despite spending huge amounts on it). I would argue that the most likely cause there is our increasing tendency to demand perfection in everything the Government does rather than - as would have been the case 50 years ago - accepting 'good enough'. Things like the higher environmental and safety standards and increasing levels of regulation are examples of things that - while they are arguably good things in themselves - do add invisible costs to so much of what the Government (or for that matter, private enterprise) does, and probably go a long way to explaining why public services and projects seem so much more expensive today for what we get.

 

[nw1]

If they are the public services that you want !

Arguably it's not about what you want though, it's about what society needs.

You might not need certain health, education, transport or welfare services, but others might.

I have no children, and never will, but I do not resent my taxes being used to fund school education, for example.

 

[Peterthegreat]

It's not about what you want though, it's about what society needs.

Exactly.

 

[deltic]

Views on the leaders debate:

Sunak - rude, snippy, soundbite ( constant repetition of the same untrue statement), laughed at by crowd twice. Desperate. Liar.

Starmer - obvious lawyer not suited to tight format, methodical ( perhaps slow ) setting out of case: this, this, this, then this, respectful of rules and setting ( perhaps too much) calmer, much more statesman like, mature. Dad a toolmaker.

Moderation: Weak. ineffectual. Allowed Sunak to lie and rant without serious challenge.

Format: Stupid. Childish. in 45 seconds please solve the middle east conflict..........


The whole point of the debate for Sunak was to

1. get his Labour tax lie out in the wild. The Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph Lord Haw Haw's loyally broadcast that to the hard of thinking this morning.
2. Hammer frightened pensioners with the evilutude of Labour on tax, pensions and forigns
3. Try to appeal to Reformmons and head off "man of the people" Farage

The whole point for Starmer was:

1. Time for change
2. 14 years
3. crashed the economy
4. Untrustworthy Sunak and Tories - hold me accountable for X,Y & Z

Wouldn't disagree with this analysis. Sunak followed Johnson's approach from 2019 - he's got a plan, you might not like it but he's got a plan - Starmer was unable to articulate his plan when he was asked on most subjects. Sunak got his £2000 tax rise claim in which Starmer was far too slow in rebutting. Both came across as pretty poor, Starmer was most relaxed when asked the stupid question about the England football team at the end and here again missed a chance to mention Scotland's. Given the need to win lots of Scottish seats it was a poor error to make. I wont be voting for either of their parties.