| The Labour Party 16:37 - May 14 with 30689 views | Logman |
Sorry, I know politics is taboo on here but I just can't believe how intent the Labour party are to push the self-destruct button. The party is tumbling in the polls and elections but the muppets just seem to want to drive a further wedge through it and split. They really need to see the bigger picture and pull together. It wouldn't be so bad if those in opposition were more central but unfortunately I fear this is just opening the door for NF to wheedle his way in. All very depressing. |  | | |  |
| The Labour Party on 15:52 - May 15 with 2428 views | swisscottage |
| The Labour Party on 15:39 - May 15 by colinallcars |
I agree it would be outrageous to means test the state pension and doubt any gov would.
As for “pissing their cash up the wall” on fags and drink, I wonder how much I've paid in duties on such things. |
whilst the Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes cover the extra burden on the NHS, they fall far short of the total cost when accounting for: social care, benefit payments, and lost tax revenue from people being too ill to work | | | |
| The Labour Party on 16:11 - May 15 with 2353 views | derbyhoop |
| The Labour Party on 15:00 - May 15 by francisbowles |
The triple lock gives an increase on the higher of three measures, inflation, average earnings or 2.5%.
As it's generally agreed, pensioners should get a yearly increase to keep up with the cost of living, and if the triple lock was abolished, which measure would be used?
Whichever measure was used, would it save much or would it just be 'fiddling around the edges'? |
Oi , hold on. As a pensioner I quite like the triple lock. IF, you were to drop any of the 3, the one that would cause most hardship is, surely, inflation. This year's increase was just under 5%, so it was the one used. |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| The Labour Party on 16:15 - May 15 with 2329 views | Hunterhoop |
| The Labour Party on 15:23 - May 15 by francisbowles |
Thanks Hunter. My follow up question is would the small % increase in money saved, which wouldn't be anything in years when inflation was high, be attractive enough for any prospective government to say they were going to abolish the triple lock?😁 |
I haven’t seen the numbers so someone could probably dispel this, but the last couple of years earnings have been used, I think. And when it was introduced 2.5% would likely have been used more often then inflation (when inflation was very low in the 2010s). So inflation hasn’t been the driver. And that was deliberate as per Swiss’ post.
Is the change material to the Treasury? Yes.
Is it now fair? Yes
Is it worth it politically? Therein lies our problem and, as E17’s post points out, the disingenuous nature of politics. If everyone was open and adult about it, yes, it should still be changed and we (the electorate) should support the change. It shouldn’t have ramifications as it is objectively the right thing to do, even if I and others will receive less money when we become pensioners. This is the bit E17 is referring to about politicians being transparent and honest with us within the broader constraints we’re operating in. |  | | |
| The Labour Party on 16:20 - May 15 with 2298 views | Hunterhoop |
| The Labour Party on 16:11 - May 15 by derbyhoop |
Oi , hold on. As a pensioner I quite like the triple lock. IF, you were to drop any of the 3, the one that would cause most hardship is, surely, inflation. This year's increase was just under 5%, so it was the one used. |
Nope. Average earnings increase was used at 4.8%. Inflation was lower. https://www.poundsense.co.uk/b
Inflation is obviously the fairest measure of the 3. One is arbitrary and at any given point generous or harsh relative to the tax payers. And average earnings, imo, is a reflection on the work force’s value to employers (plus govt policy). Why should pensioners benefit from that if their costs are going up at a lower rate? It’s illogical long term. [Post edited 15 May 16:21]
| | | |
| The Labour Party on 16:24 - May 15 with 2283 views | numptydumpty |
Politics and governing simply doesnt work in anyways now, and in a similar way to football, people and parties,managers and players are changed way too quickly.
All policies need time to bed in, for their theories to turn into realities.Flip flop politics, means every prime minister will always react to the trending issue of the day and then next month it changes. Philosophies and governance need two terms minimum to bed in ,for the long standing ideals to create positive change. Similar to what's the point in sacking Julien Stephan after a years experience to get in some other unknown quantity to have mininimum time to impress and zero time to create change.
Similar scenarios occur in the corporate world now, all too frequently.. People constantly undergoing restructures so they have to reapply elsewhere for other roles and on it goes.
Gone are the days from my parents era where you had the same job, most of your life and progressed sometimes just because you had been there a long time and people are pushed way harder now than before. Now we have where AI selects candidates according to its own biasses.
The politics or the people today are so irrelevant and it is all very sad. But incredibly inevitable. !!
Swipe doom scrolling culture and a need to identify as whatever you please.Such utter dross and none of it is good... [Post edited 15 May 16:34]
|  |
| |
| The Labour Party on 16:43 - May 15 with 2249 views | baz_qpr |
| The Labour Party on 22:31 - May 14 by E17hoop |
The thread keeps circling around personalities and factions, but there's an actual structural problem nobody's naming clearly.
Look at what LazyFan proposes: renationalise energy, take on big business, and fund the green economy through North Sea oil profits split 50/50. It's coherent, but it requires one thing to work: that markets will accept a major redistribution of wealth and state ownership without immediate capital discipline.
That's the unstated assumption in the left-wing argument, and I don't think it holds. Not because "the rich secretly control everything", but because capital is mobile.
A government announcing large-scale nationalisation, wealth redistribution, or aggressive business taxation faces immediate pressure: bond yields spike, currency weakens, and investment capital relocates. That's not a conspiracy but finance working as it actually works.
The evidence is there: Corbyn's polling collapsed the moment markets priced in his policies. Every developed economy attempting large-scale redistribution in the past 30 years has either accepted working within market constraints (Denmark, Germany) or faced economic instability. There's no recent example of successfully breaking the constraint without severe cost.
If the constraint is real, then the choice isn't between "principled left-wing policies" and "sell-out centrism". It's between:
Option A: Be honest about the constraint. Say what you can actually do within it. Build trust through measured delivery. It's slower and less exciting, but it's sustainable.
Option B: Promise to break the constraint. Face immediate market pressure. Either break your promises (the Corbyn problem) or destabilise the economy trying to keep them.
Starmer chose A implicitly, but he didn't communicate it - or communicate it well enough. He tried to look left while acting centrist, and that's why he's lost both audiences.
The "unity" argument is also a distraction because you can't unite around a false promise. If the left demands policies that the fiscal position won't support, and the centre says "that will destabilise us," you can't compromise. One of them is wrong about the constraint.
Either (a) the constraint is real, in which case the left's approach won't work, or (b) it isn't, in which case we should be implementing the left's policies now.
That's not factionalism. but a genuine disagreement about what's possible.
Starmer failed not by choosing A over B but by not being honest that he was choosing. He should have said, "Here's the fiscal reality. Here's what we can do. Here's why it matters." Instead, he looked like he was choosing between two poor options rather than explaining why one was necessary.
HAYESBOY's right that childcare, rents reform, and minimum wage increases matter. But they matter more if you explain why they're what's possible, not if you present them as a consolation prize for the transformation you promised but couldn't deliver.
Re VAT on private schools and NI increases, LazyFan's analysis of their distributional effects has merit. But the alternative (higher income tax, wealth tax, wealth redistribution via capital controls) faces the same market constraint. These aren't "Tory policies"; they're the least bad options given what markets will tolerate.
Labour need a leader who can do three things:
Be explicit about fiscal constraints rather than pretend they don't exist.
Show what can be done within those constraints and why it matters.
Actually deliver it, so trust rebuilds.
That's not "centrism" as a label. It's just honesty about the world we're actually operating in.
The left will argue those constraints are politically illegitimate and that we should reject them, even at economic cost. That reflects a lot of the Green's position, but it requires saying that clearly, not pretending the constraint doesn't exist while promising to break it.
Of the candidates being discussed, what matters isn't their previous positions but whether they can do three things immediately:
First: Make a clear public case about fiscal constraints. Not in technical jargon but in language that working people understand. 'Here's what the bond markets will do if we promise X. Here's why that matters. Here's what we can do instead.'
Second: Reconnect the policies they can deliver to people's actual lives. Childcare, rents, wages, and NHS waiting lists aren't consolation prizes. They're material improvements. But only if you explain them as the result of honest choices, not failures of ambition.
Third: Show willingness to make hard trade-offs publicly and not hide them. When the left says 'renationalise energy', the answer should be 'We've looked at the fiscal cost and the market risk and recognise they're real.' Here's what we're doing instead and why it matters more.' That's leadership. The current approach, trying to look left while acting centre, just looks dishonest.
Any candidate who can do that gets a chance. Any candidate who tries the Starmer approach again deserves to lose. |
Agree with a lot of that, how I dont agree all capital is mobile much of it is not and assets of the rich need to be considered because what is being taken out at the top. To do anything the first thing we need to be doing is taking in more than we spend so we are not in hock to the bond markets.
Wealth creation needs to be encouraged, but excessive wealth creation needs to be curtailed and there are options for wealth tax. We have companies now richer than most countiries and that is really unhealthy. Would also like to see some attempt to tax digital advertising i.e Facebook, Google, YouTube at point of charge. |  | | |
| The Labour Party on 18:05 - May 15 with 2112 views | E17hoop |
| The Labour Party on 16:43 - May 15 by baz_qpr |
Agree with a lot of that, how I dont agree all capital is mobile much of it is not and assets of the rich need to be considered because what is being taken out at the top. To do anything the first thing we need to be doing is taking in more than we spend so we are not in hock to the bond markets.
Wealth creation needs to be encouraged, but excessive wealth creation needs to be curtailed and there are options for wealth tax. We have companies now richer than most countiries and that is really unhealthy. Would also like to see some attempt to tax digital advertising i.e Facebook, Google, YouTube at point of charge. |
You're right that not all capital is mobile but enough is to matter. Post-Brexit is a great test case. No factories relocated immediately, but financial capital fled instantly. Equity flows declined, short-term debt dried up, the pound depreciated 15%.
That's the constraint, not conspiracy, but mechanical: investors price risk and move capital before policy hits. So, you can either tax wealth or implement capital controls, but the moment you announce it, capital flows respond.
That doesn't make it impossible but it requires either accepting short-term disruption, or moving gradually while maintaining credibility. The former is unpopular...as is the latter to people wanting change.
A successor would need to either restore credibility (hard) or accept markets will punish rapid radical change initially. [Post edited 15 May 18:13]
|  |
| |
| The Labour Party on 18:17 - May 15 with 2082 views | NorthantsHoop |
| The Labour Party on 18:05 - May 15 by E17hoop |
You're right that not all capital is mobile but enough is to matter. Post-Brexit is a great test case. No factories relocated immediately, but financial capital fled instantly. Equity flows declined, short-term debt dried up, the pound depreciated 15%.
That's the constraint, not conspiracy, but mechanical: investors price risk and move capital before policy hits. So, you can either tax wealth or implement capital controls, but the moment you announce it, capital flows respond.
That doesn't make it impossible but it requires either accepting short-term disruption, or moving gradually while maintaining credibility. The former is unpopular...as is the latter to people wanting change.
A successor would need to either restore credibility (hard) or accept markets will punish rapid radical change initially. [Post edited 15 May 18:13]
|
Two things put a bomb under how we are governed, the first the financial crash in 2008 and the Brexit vote in 2016. Brexit has paralysed how our government deals with the economy and this is why we have had 10 years now of changing the person at the top. The Civil Service who actually run the country have struggled to get a grip on what our leaders want,because they are trying to side step and really tell their ever changing ministers that they cannot make the rag tag Brexit work. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Labour Party on 18:53 - May 15 with 2003 views | E17hoop |
| The Labour Party on 18:17 - May 15 by NorthantsHoop |
Two things put a bomb under how we are governed, the first the financial crash in 2008 and the Brexit vote in 2016. Brexit has paralysed how our government deals with the economy and this is why we have had 10 years now of changing the person at the top. The Civil Service who actually run the country have struggled to get a grip on what our leaders want,because they are trying to side step and really tell their ever changing ministers that they cannot make the rag tag Brexit work. |
Add in the costs of the pandemic and furlough, and any new government will struggle. 2008, Brexit, and then Covid left the state with less room for manoeuvre, more debt, and a more fragile economy. That doesn’t excuse poor choices, but it does mean the current mess isn’t just about personalities at the top. | |
| |
| The Labour Party on 23:18 - May 15 with 1825 views | baz_qpr |
There is another reality that's coming up the path quicker then you think which is the impact of AI and the latest robots on the labour market the whole tax and benefit system will need to be re thought at the momemt its hitting many of those jobs that have been outsourced to India and the far east but its coming for the middle classes accountants, lawyers, marketing etc its making resources more expensive and labour expendable. Problem is these are not issues that can be easily dealt with by nation states. The reality is we are going to need to be in a block to have any leverage. There is huge opportunity but huge danger too for complete self destruction. Going back into Europe is going to be inevitable | | | |
| The Labour Party on 05:37 - May 16 with 1685 views | QPROslo |
| The Labour Party on 15:17 - May 15 by Hunterhoop |
Oslo, what don’t you like about that post? I’m intrigued. |
The bit about reducing pension in particular. State pensions are way too low, as DMM I think it was who pointed out that they rank only 13th in Europe! The triple lock needs to be maintained at the very least. Pensions are one of the very last places to be cutting cost. | | | |
| The Labour Party on 06:10 - May 16 with 1659 views | BlackCrowe |
It's the squandering of money that's so flipping weird. Free school meals for every child - can the vast majority of the country really not find the time or money to spend c.40p a day for a bowl or cereal, slice of toast/fruit. Why the fck should the state and our taxes pay for this.
It's the same for prescriptions - because i've had a thyroid prescription for for the past 15 years or so, all my other prescriptions for completely different ailments as they happen are free. I can afford to pay for the occasional prescription yet i don't have to...not a Labour policy but still it's nuts.
And the contentious subject of VAT of private school fees is now costing more than it's raising as anyone with half a financial brain cell predicted.
And giving overseas aid to nuclear countries like India and Pakistan is just crazy.
eurgghhh. |  |
| |
| The Labour Party on 07:41 - May 16 with 1554 views | Hunterhoop |
| The Labour Party on 05:37 - May 16 by QPROslo |
The bit about reducing pension in particular. State pensions are way too low, as DMM I think it was who pointed out that they rank only 13th in Europe! The triple lock needs to be maintained at the very least. Pensions are one of the very last places to be cutting cost. |
Removing the triple lock is not “cutting” pensions. It’s limiting the increase in pensions. There’s a material difference. Pensions have gone up above the rate of inflation most years since the triple lock was announced. It’s been course corrected now. There’s been a catching up. Now it needs to simply be in line with inflation. Why should it be higher??
More pressingly, regardless of where the pension amount sits in a league table, the state simply cannot afford it given the demographic challenges faced. All countries with an ageing population have a problem. You can’t just stick your head in the sand on it. Fewer workers, more people taking a pension creates a problematic equation. Add this to the wider welfare bill and you have a massive problem. This is what is driving the higher taxation in the UK which is hitting working people and small businesses hard and stifling any growth, preventing living standards rise. | | | |
| The Labour Party on 09:01 - May 16 with 1473 views | dmm |
| The Labour Party on 07:41 - May 16 by Hunterhoop |
Removing the triple lock is not “cutting” pensions. It’s limiting the increase in pensions. There’s a material difference. Pensions have gone up above the rate of inflation most years since the triple lock was announced. It’s been course corrected now. There’s been a catching up. Now it needs to simply be in line with inflation. Why should it be higher??
More pressingly, regardless of where the pension amount sits in a league table, the state simply cannot afford it given the demographic challenges faced. All countries with an ageing population have a problem. You can’t just stick your head in the sand on it. Fewer workers, more people taking a pension creates a problematic equation. Add this to the wider welfare bill and you have a massive problem. This is what is driving the higher taxation in the UK which is hitting working people and small businesses hard and stifling any growth, preventing living standards rise. |
Do you not think that in the 5th largest economy in the world, the UK should be looking after its elderly as well as other European nations such as Malta, Belgium or Poland? If not, how can you defend having almost 2 million people of pension age living in relative poverty (below 60% of median income)?
If this country taxed the multi-millionaires and billionaires fairly, they wouldn't be an affordability issue. |  | | |
| The Labour Party on 10:04 - May 16 with 1390 views | Hunterhoop |
| The Labour Party on 09:01 - May 16 by dmm |
Do you not think that in the 5th largest economy in the world, the UK should be looking after its elderly as well as other European nations such as Malta, Belgium or Poland? If not, how can you defend having almost 2 million people of pension age living in relative poverty (below 60% of median income)?
If this country taxed the multi-millionaires and billionaires fairly, they wouldn't be an affordability issue. |
Would love to be able to give out bigger pensions, and have some welfare payments be bigger.
Everything the state gives back out has to be tied in some way to what the state takes in. This is the point about the constraints E17 made so well.
I don’t think the triple lock is affordable. And against other things that need to be paid for, or faced with the other approach of raising taxation, I don’t think the right call is to retain the triple lock. | | | |
| The Labour Party on 10:12 - May 16 with 1384 views | Clive_Anderson |
| The Labour Party on 09:01 - May 16 by dmm |
Do you not think that in the 5th largest economy in the world, the UK should be looking after its elderly as well as other European nations such as Malta, Belgium or Poland? If not, how can you defend having almost 2 million people of pension age living in relative poverty (below 60% of median income)?
If this country taxed the multi-millionaires and billionaires fairly, they wouldn't be an affordability issue. |
60% of UK median wage is £23,400, that doesn't sound too bad for someone who isn't working. Pretty similar to the minimum wage and no NI to pay or work related expenses as well as probably having paid of the mortgage and no young children to pay for. If they are a couple that's £46,800 a year which is pretty decent. I'd hardly call anything under that being in poverty per person.
How much do you think non-working pensioners should get? More than someone working 40 hours a week minimum wage at a warehouse? I genuinely don't get what is expected here and how much is deemed to be enough when the country clearly can't afford it. | | | |
| The Labour Party on 11:10 - May 16 with 1325 views | derbyhoop |
60% of 46,800 is 28,080.
Both me and my wife are pensioners and our combined state pension is only around £20k. So, not sure what point you are trying to make.
Fortunately, we have private pensions, so aren't on the poverty line. | |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| The Labour Party on 11:33 - May 16 with 1267 views | JamesB1979 |
They should halve the lowest income tax threshold. Would make a real difference to working people. | | | |
| The Labour Party on 11:40 - May 16 with 1241 views | Clive_Anderson |
| The Labour Party on 11:10 - May 16 by derbyhoop |
60% of 46,800 is 28,080.
Both me and my wife are pensioners and our combined state pension is only around £20k. So, not sure what point you are trying to make.
Fortunately, we have private pensions, so aren't on the poverty line. |
My point was that anyone earning under 60% median wage is not necessarily in poverty. Many households of working age earn less than that per person.
A single earner family of four would need the person work to earn over £100k to get the same take home per person to avoid "poverty" by that measure. | | | |
| The Labour Party on 11:42 - May 16 with 1232 views | JamesB1979 |
| The Labour Party on 11:40 - May 16 by Clive_Anderson |
My point was that anyone earning under 60% median wage is not necessarily in poverty. Many households of working age earn less than that per person.
A single earner family of four would need the person work to earn over £100k to get the same take home per person to avoid "poverty" by that measure. |
But why compare pensioners to working people. Pensioners have worked all their lives and deserve to be comfortable in their retirement. Lower marginal rate of tax and increase higher rate to pay for it. Leave the pensioners alone! | | | |
| The Labour Party on 11:55 - May 16 with 1200 views | JamesB1979 |
| The Labour Party on 15:15 - May 15 by Hunterhoop |
I don’t think it would be fiddling around the edges. The actual GBP involved is significant so any small % change delivers material impact for the treasury.
Inflation is probably the fairest. Why should pensions go up above that, which is happening now given average earnings is leading it?
And separately, why should current tax payers fund it, when the current pensioner population for not pay for such a mechanism for the elderly when they were net tax contributors. Not to mention where asset wealth is predominantly tied up across the age demographics in the UK.
I’ve not heard anyone make a solid defence of triple lock pensions for some time now. |
It’s a matter of principal for me. I want my taxes to support those that have now retired after working all their life and those that cannot physically work, disabled etc ie the most vulnerable in society. I also want those on the lower income tax band to get more take home pay than they do to help get them out of poverty. There are plenty of other areas to pay for this . Higher rate of tax, other parts of welfare state, efficiencies in public services. | | | |
| The Labour Party on 11:56 - May 16 with 1203 views | Clive_Anderson |
| The Labour Party on 11:42 - May 16 by JamesB1979 |
But why compare pensioners to working people. Pensioners have worked all their lives and deserve to be comfortable in their retirement. Lower marginal rate of tax and increase higher rate to pay for it. Leave the pensioners alone! |
Non-working pensioners deserve a certain amount of money financed through taxes, but someone working a hard physical job overnights in a warehouse with a young family doesn't?
Not a fan of Labour at all to put it mildly, but you can see what the problem is here. | | | |
| The Labour Party on 11:57 - May 16 with 1187 views | JamesB1979 |
| The Labour Party on 11:56 - May 16 by Clive_Anderson |
Non-working pensioners deserve a certain amount of money financed through taxes, but someone working a hard physical job overnights in a warehouse with a young family doesn't?
Not a fan of Labour at all to put it mildly, but you can see what the problem is here. |
I said you halve the lower rate of income tax. That should help the working family you talk about. | | | |
| The Labour Party on 12:03 - May 16 with 1178 views | Clive_Anderson |
| The Labour Party on 11:57 - May 16 by JamesB1979 |
I said you halve the lower rate of income tax. That should help the working family you talk about. |
Someone on minimum wage pays around 10% income tax currently, halving that is not going to make a huge difference to them. And it certainly won't help pay more tax to continue to pay pensions and benefits the country clearly can't afford.
Income tax doesn't even cover welfare these days. | | | |
| The Labour Party on 12:04 - May 16 with 1173 views | Logman |
| The Labour Party on 07:55 - May 15 by numptydumpty |
Its the media that get rid of PM's.
Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer.
They run the narrative - Farage will get the same treatment.
This is the ISSUE now - not any particular leader or party.... |
But why don't the Labour dissenters see that they are falling into the media's trap if they oust Starmer and replace him with someone who hasn't been democratically elected. That's what I can't understand. I can't understand how they are letting this happen when the very same thing happened with the Tories who are now being overtaken by Reform. Or is it just that Burnham, Streeting, Rayner etc can't resist flexing their muscles ? FWIW I'm not Labour but I think Starmer has done OK given what's going on in the world, politically and financially. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.