this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
62 points (98.4% liked)

UK Politics

3079 readers
176 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
tom@feddit.uk
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
flamingos@feddit.uk
62
Labour rules out wealth tax if party wins next election (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 1 year ago by Finnbot@lemmy.world to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] IcyToes@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

"She told the Sunday Telegraph extra money for public services would have to come from economic growth."

So no money for public service improvements. They are saying they will do no different to the Tories. So they are happy with the state of almost collapse in the NHS and people waiting on trollies in corridors in winter.

Celebrating this and that they are getting backed by big business. If you are paid and your decisions are based on that, isn't that corruption. Celebrating being corrupt? How is this attractive to anyone, left or right?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How to demotivate your voters while attracting no one with your complete lack of a plan.

[–] Finnbot@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s so demoralising as well. There was someone handing out (Scottish) labour flyers on the high street and looked at me like I was an idiot when I laughed and said they’re just red tories.

It’s a race to see who can fuck us over the most for the benefit of the “elite”.

[–] Damizel@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Similar to why I told my fiancée I wasn’t fond of voting at the moment. Either I vote for the guy lying to me, the guy lying to me, the guy lying to me, or the woman lying to me.

[–] IcyToes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Yup. I don't think anyone deserves to win. Hung parliament could be the best hope for the next election.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago

“She told the Sunday Telegraph extra money for public services would have to come from economic growth.”

So no money for public service improvements.

That's the bit that made me wince - it's a classic Tory wheeze: we won't raise taxes, we'll just reap the rewards of some notional future growth (with no indication on how this is going to happen). Then the growth didn't occur, so there's no money for anything.

You have to speculate to accumulate so, for example, you pump money into a Green New Deal (perhaps by helping the poorest make their homes more energy efficient) and it employs more people in the sector and the price of green home improvements drops, because of economies of.scale, so more people get them done, which employs more people, etc, etc.

I think they also said they'd tax non-doms more - good luck getting a penny out of a group notorious for exploiting tax avoidance schemes and keeping their money overseas.

[–] galmuth@feddit.uk 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is so fucking disappointing. Labour are already running high in the polls but are busy running around giving me reasons to not vote for them.

I can't imagine anyone would be compelled to vote for them based on this either, except the super-rich. Announcing this shit is so utterly pointless.

I voted for the Lib Dems during the New Labour years and it looks like I'm heading back that way.

[–] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No idea how lib dem is somehow a better option here. Have they said they will impose a wealth tax?

[–] galmuth@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Obviously we don't know the Lib Dem manifesto for the next election yet but they've been touting wealth taxes for years.

[–] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they have a chance of beating the Tories in your area, I guess go for it. But for me that's the goal, get rid of them and rebuild.

[–] SomeoneElseMod@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

Same here. There’s a website that allows you to easily check who you should vote for to out the Tories. My constituency has been labour for 16+ years so I could safely vote for Lib Dems if I wanted to. It was called something like “stop the tories”.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Labour reaffirm their commitment to Thatcherism-Blairism.

[–] IcyToes@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I disagree. Under Blair, we increased spending on health as a percentage of the overall budget. Something Kier isn't offering. I cannot stand Blair as a person, but I cannot help but feel he offered more to people than Kier has. When you're getting outflanked to the left by a war criminal, it's pretty bleak.

[–] AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I don't think that (increasing public spending on health as a % of the budget) was a commitment in labour's 1997 manifesto though, was it? They committed to increasing spending on education, but in health the plan was to cut admin overheads and use that money on frontline care.

From a strategic perspective, I think Labour need to get in and settle nervy swing voters first, then do some more ambitious stuff in their second term.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has ruled out any version of a wealth tax on the richest in society should Labour win the next general election.

The interview comes as Labour steps up efforts to demonstrate it can be trusted with the economy - and further distance itself from the policies of former leader Jeremy Corbyn - ahead of an election that is expected next year.

Ms Reeves also told the Sunday Telegraph her preparations for government include "spending an awful lot of time with businesses".

But the left has said Labour should instead raise taxes, rather than lower its sights - and left-wing campaign group Momentum described the latest move as "shameful".

Labour's strategists are content to provoke the ire of the left, partly as a way to emphasise how far the party has changed since the Corbyn era.

The Conservatives, though, have accused Labour of taking people for fools, arguing that even the party's existing policies would push taxes up.

The original article contains 454 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Syldon@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This will because Labour has so many other open goals to increase treasury funds from. You can only win one fight at a time.

Labour will push for closer alignment with the EU. This will have an immediate impact on inflation, once applied. Although I doubt we will see this untill 2-3 years in. Labour have said they would stop the tax breaks going to fossil fuel companies. There will be a levy on the profits they are gouging also. They have also stated vat removal from private schools and removal of the non-domicile status (which is mentioned in the reference article). They will also be chasing the fraudulent cash that has been stolen from the country under the Tories. This will be alongside reforming the Lords, and more devolution. A removal of some of the more egregious laws the Tories have imposed such as protesting rights.

People need to get a perspective on just how much damage the Tories have done. It is not going to be fixed over night. This means there will be a priority list.

I can say this while also saying that I am not even sure I will vote Labour at the next GE. My biggest priority for my vote is PR voting. By all means check my history comments. I am stuck in a very pro Labour constituency. I still have not decided yet for either vote tactically to make sure we keep the same grifter Labour MP we currently have, or show my wishes by voting LD who wish to remove FPTP. I am fairly confident any vote for LD in my area will be a wasted vote.