5 years hard labour ?

[Haliotis]

I have always voted Conservative, although I don’t trust any Party.   I vote because I believe it right to do so if you wish to have your say on the government’s conduct, and I always vote for the party that I think (hope?) will do the least harm to the country.

Whilst not a Labour supporter, I do not want them to fail - that would be bad for the UK - if they stick to their manifesto, which looks fair and reasonable, and bring in no nasty surprises, then I hope we become pleasantly surprised.   Certainly, at the end this latest Conservative government, with all its back-stabbing and in-fighting, was leaving the country to founder like a ship on a rough sea with engine failure.

Let us give Labour a chance - if they get it wrong I am sure the recriminations will flow thick and fast, and Starmer is well aware of that.  Fingers crossed, eh?

[Big_D]

I didn't vote for Labour purely on the basis of the sheer, and overwhelming, amount of pamphlets that were shoved through my letterbox, and the number of times they knocked on my door asking me to vote for them. I would get on average, 5 leaflets a day, and when their supporters were canvassing an area they would knock on my door on average three times a day. Their supporters had no respect for my property and felt it was their God given right to wander aimlessly through my garden while discussing their next target.  Enough is enough.

If we take conservative figures (excuse the pun) of a leaflet costing a penny, I must have received at least 70 leaflets over a two week period. While this equates to 70pence wasted through my door, the figures increase when we look at the entire country. 

According to Google, 66.9 million people lived in the UK in 2022. Assuming that 70p was wasted on 10 million homes, this equates to an amount of £700,000, or enough money to fund 28 nurses at a salary of £25000 per year. To me this is an absolute waste.

Not to mention the waste of my time when I need to answer the door unnecessarily.

If Labour can't respect my property, and couldn't care less about the amount of paper they waste in the form of leaflets, how can they respect the resources of the country.

Sorry Labour, but your strategy to get me to vote by bombarding me with leaflets and supporters failed. You've lost me as a voter.

[Primus1]

2 hours ago, Big_D said:

I didn't vote for Labour purely on the basis of the sheer, and overwhelming, amount of pamphlets that were shoved through my letterbox, and the number of times they knocked on my door asking me to vote for them. I would get on average, 5 leaflets a day, and when their supporters were canvassing an area they would knock on my door on average three times a day. Their supporters had no respect for my property and felt it was their God given right to wander aimlessly through my garden while discussing their next target.  Enough is enough.

If we take conservative figures (excuse the pun) of a leaflet costing a penny, I must have received at least 70 leaflets over a two week period. While this equates to 70pence wasted through my door, the figures increase when we look at the entire country. 

According to Google, 66.9 million people lived in the UK in 2022. Assuming that 70p was wasted on 10 million homes, this equates to an amount of £700,000, or enough money to fund 28 nurses at a salary of £25000 per year. To me this is an absolute waste.

Not to mention the waste of my time when I need to answer the door unnecessarily.

If Labour can't respect my property, and couldn't care less about the amount of paper they waste in the form of leaflets, how can they respect the resources of the country.

Sorry Labour, but your strategy to get me to vote by bombarding me with leaflets and supporters failed. You've lost me as a voter

Pales into insignificance compared to what the tories wasted during their tenure, Rwanda to name just one...

[Haliotis]

The political climate in recent times has been skewed by unusual situations - the Covid pandemic, along with the excessive public spending which that incurred, and the war between Ukraine and Russia, which rocketed our energy costs.

In the past, Conservatives left office with the public finances in a healthy state, which enabled a new Labour government to go on a spending spree.  This time it is different - the public finances are in serious debt and there is no money to spare for any wasteful spending.

Labour have been trying for years to get back into power.  Is there a possibility that the Conservatives have quietly allowed the country to stall, leaving the electorate to decide on a change of government (and being certain that Labour would get in), so that Labour now have the problems which they [the Conservatives] did not wish to face, and just sit back and wait for what they hope will be an inevitable crash?

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Primus1 said:

Pales into insignificance compared to what the tories wasted during their tenure, Rwanda to name just one...

It's true that the UK has already spent £320 million on the Rwanda policy, and there's no doubt that billions more have been spent on various projects under the Conservatives. Critics say this money could have been better used. But let's not forget, Labour also faced heavy criticism for their financial management the last time they were in office. However, they claim to be a changed party now, so perhaps it's time to give them a chance to show they can deliver real change.

The Rwanda policy had its share of problems and faced strong opposition. It wasn't fully implemented, so we don’t really know if it could have worked as a deterrent to illegal migration.Dealing with both legal and illegal migration is a complex issue. Despite spending nearly a billion pounds to France to help curb Channel crossings, we haven't seen the results we hoped for.Europe as a whole is struggling with a steady flow of migrants, which has led to social and economic challenges. In the UK, there’s a lot of concern about the large numbers of illegal economic migrants and the young men coming here whose intentions are unclear.

It's not racist to want secure borders or to be worried about the strain on our security and resources. These are valid concerns for many people. Keir Starmer's idea of working with Macron to crack down on smuggling gangs sounds promising, but we have to remember that France isn’t keen on keeping migrants either. This is especially clear with Marine Le Pen's rising popularity in France, given her strong stance on immigration.

[Bernard Foy]

Interesting reading, I wonder why people don't bother to vote. It's the only method we have of trying to keep politicians grounded. I always vote even though I have the same respect for politicians as a dog has for lamp posts. 

[Bper]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Foy said:

Interesting reading, I wonder why people don't bother to vote. It's the only method we have of trying to keep politicians grounded. I always vote even though I have the same respect for politicians as a dog has for lamp posts. 

Well, at least dogs have the luxury of aiming at lamp posts. All we seem to get is a never-ending stream of political ineptitude.

[Primus1]

Whilst the Covid pandemic and Ukraine have impacted on the uk, the main problem, not talked about was brexit,  conservative policy has always been to cut funding to the public sector then advocate private investment, we’ve seen it in our NHS, and many other sectors not lest immigration, if proper investment continued immigration might not be as bad, but instead, they look after their own as we saw with the VIP ppe lanes for their mates, who made millions from the public purse whilst companies who specialised in making ppe were ignored..

[Bper]

There have not been comments regarding the policies put forward by Reform, particularly the proposal to raise the tax threshold to £20,000.Raising the personal allowance to £20,000 would mean that pensioners and other individuals could earn up to this amount without paying any income tax. This could significantly benefit those on fixed incomes or with moderate savings, allowing them to keep more of their income without tax deductions.For pensioners, this is particularly beneficial as it provides a larger buffer before their pension income becomes taxable. Given that many pensioners rely on their state and private pensions as their primary source of income, this change could alleviate some financial pressures.

[Primus1]

I have said this, if , for example the last government wanted to erase poverty, then raising the tax threshold to as least 20k, would go some way to doing this, but how to pay for it?, simply by imposing a windfall tax on the power and fuel companies, however, I could never vote for a fascist party like reform, farage will be growing a little moustache next..

[AndyN01]

The 20K tax threshold did interest me.

A very rough calculation (and yes, I know it's not quite right - hence "rough") of Minimum wage of £10 p/h + 40 hours/week + 50weeks/year equals £20K/year.

The logic of setting a "minimum" wage that is then taxable seems perverse.

In any event, time will now tell what actually happens with those election promises.

[Haliotis]

Reform were only able to put a 20K threshold on income tax  because they knew full well that they would not have to live up to it.  The loss of revenue to the Treasury would be enormous, and some hefty taxes in other areas would be necessary.  Depending where these other taxes came from, those at the bottom end of the salary scale, even with a 20k tax threshold, could easily be worse off than the current threshold.    Look what happened when Liz Truss came up with a much less wild proposal.

[Bper]

2 hours ago, Primus1 said:

I have said this, if , for example the last government wanted to erase poverty, then raising the tax threshold to as least 20k, would go some way to doing this, but how to pay for it?, simply by imposing a windfall tax on the power and fuel companies, however, I could never vote for a fascist party like reform, farage will be growing a little moustache next..

You raised some good points. Increasing the tax threshold to £20,000 could really help people by allowing them to keep more of their earnings. Funding this through a windfall tax on power and fuel companies makes sense, especially since these companies have been making massive profits. But we should be aware that this might lead to higher prices for consumers or less investment in the energy sector.

As for the Reform Party, they have policies that appeal to people who feel let down by the main parties. They advocate for less government interference and focus a lot on individual freedoms, especially on issues like immigration and national sovereignty. However their approach can be quite divisive, and they have faced criticism for their strong rhetoric. Calling them fascists is a strong accusation and shows a deep disagreement with their views and how they present themselves.

Considering just over 4 million people voted for them are they to be considered fascists as well ,this obviously has shown the disconnect that voters have with the mainstream parties,and It's important to consider both sides and weigh up the potential benefits and drawbacks of their ideas.

[Haliotis]

Funding a 20K tax threshold with a windfall tax would be a serious mistake.  Windfall taxes cannot be charged year on year, and having to significantly cut back the threshold in the future would badly impact a government for a long time ahead.

We all have differing ideas about how we would like a government to use our money, and what benefits we would like to obtain.   A government has to take all this into consideration in deciding expenditure and allowances, and balance their choices against the fickle nature of the electorate - always with an eye on securing favourable votes in the next election.

[AndyN01]

36 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

...... always with an eye on securing favourable votes in the next election.

And there's the No1 driving factor, right there 😀.

If it was me, and it never shall be, I'd be going for some pretty "tough/nasty - insert your own phrase here" decisions right now. Working on the idea that the electorate have short memories and by the time 2027/28 comes along they will be opportunity for some cake and even some cream just before it's time to go to the polls again.

IMHO the big long term planning and  infrastructure projects required for the benefit of the Country as a whole need much longer than a 5 year cycle to be effective. Looks at what's happened with HS2 regardless of whether you agree it's needed or not.

As I've said before, time will tell.

[Bper]

4 hours ago, AndyN01 said:

The 20K tax threshold did interest me.

A very rough calculation (and yes, I know it's not quite right - hence "rough") of Minimum wage of £10 p/h + 40 hours/week + 50weeks/year equals £20K/year.

The logic of setting a "minimum" wage that is then taxable seems perverse.

In any event, time will now tell what actually happens with those election promises.

Someone earning around £20,000 a year. Raising the tax threshold to this level could mean they keep more of their cash. This would give them a bit more breathing room in their budget, potentially allowing them to rely less on government assistance.

Of course, there's always a balancing act with taxes. To make up for any lost revenue, the government might need to adjust other tax rates, adjust allowances, or ensure higher earners contribute a bit more. But the overall goal is to make things simpler for everyone. Ideally, this reform could encourage people to participate more in the economy, knowing they'll see a bigger return on their efforts. It's about finding that ideal spot between collecting taxes and letting people keep more of their money.

This is just one perspective on raising the tax threshold. I'm sure there's others that need to be explored.

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

Funding a 20K tax threshold with a windfall tax would be a serious mistake.  Windfall taxes cannot be charged year on year, and having to significantly cut back the threshold in the future would badly impact a government for a long time ahead.

We all have differing ideas about how we would like a government to use our money, and what benefits we would like to obtain.   A government has to take all this into consideration in deciding expenditure and allowances, and balance their choices against the fickle nature of the electorate - always with an eye on securing favourable votes in the next election.

Relying on a windfall tax to fund a £20,000 tax threshold can be risky. Windfall taxes are usually one time levies on exceptional profits, so they aren't a stable source of income year after year. If the government relies on this, it might have to reduce the threshold in the future, which could cause financial instability and a loss of public trust.Governments have to manage various public demands and financial responsibilities. They need to find a balance between meeting people’s expectations and being financially sensible, always keeping an eye on the next election. This means they should make smart, long term financial choices rather than looking for quick fixes.While we all have different ideas about how the government should use our money, it's crucial for them to focus on stable and sustainable financial strategies instead of depending on unpredictable sources like windfall taxes.

[Primus1]

Perhaps the windfall tax could be a temporary measure with the government penalising those that wish to raise their prices to cover the costs ( as we’ve seen in France regarding insurance companies) and if the government chased those people’s who benefited from the ppe scandal they would have a few million more, tax the non doms and the very rich for a few billion more..

[Haliotis]

The difficulty in chasing the big profiteers is that many of the chasers would be government ministers and MPs with investments in the companies concerned so, in effect, they would be attacking their own incomes.

[Parts-King]

There is lots to go at, ridiculous price paid for drugs by the NHS, Managers earning vast amounts of money, NHS now looking for "Diversity managers" at 80K in every trust, why can't that be handled by existing HR?  Outsourcing to private companies making millions, the list goes on, the whole thing needs a rehaul top to bottom, not just the NHS, the whole of Government departments need looking at. I am a huge supporter of the NHS and believe in the system, but my word if the NHS was a retail company it would be transformed for the better 

[Bper]

39 minutes ago, Parts-King said:

There is lots to go at, ridiculous price paid for drugs by the NHS, Managers earning vast amounts of money, NHS now looking for "Diversity managers" at 80K in every trust, why can't that be handled by existing HR?  Outsourcing to private companies making millions, the list goes on, the whole thing needs a rehaul top to bottom, not just the NHS, the whole of Government departments need looking at. I am a huge supporter of the NHS and believe in the system, but my word if the NHS was a retail company it would be transformed for the better 

Governments often hesitate to change things in healthcare systems like the NHS for a bunch of reasons. Healthcare is a big deal as it affects everyone's lives and it's complicated. Political leaders worry about upsetting healthcare professionals, unions, and voters if reforms don't go down well. Healthcare systems themselves are complex with lots of rules, and different people involved, so making changes can be extremely difficult. 

The NHS is something people in the UK really care about it's for many a source of national pride. Governments don't want to mess that up or make things worse for patients, even if they're trying to make things work better in the long run. Money matters too,healthcare costs a packet, and governments have to balance that with other priorities.But despite all the challenges, governments try to update healthcare systems from time to time to keep up with new needs, improve how things run, and make sure healthcare can keep going in the future. 

It's all about planning carefully, working with everyone involved, using good evidence to make decisions, and explaining things well to get support from the public.So while changing the NHS or any healthcare system is a big deal, it's something that needs to happen to keep things working well for everyone in the long run.

[Bper]

56 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

The difficulty in chasing the big profiteers is that many of the chasers would be government ministers and MPs with investments in the companies concerned so, in effect, they would be attacking their own incomes.

So why not make it a condition that MP's have no outside financial interests while they are in Parliament. 

[Haliotis]

2 hours ago, Bper said:

So why not make it a condition that MP's have no outside financial interests while they are in Parliament. 

Sounds logical, but there are problems with that.  A prospective candidate may have investments in any legal company.  He/she is not going to close their investments whilst waiting to be elected - they may not win the seat.  And they  will not relinquish those interests whilst they are an MP - it could be that they need their investment if they lost their seat at the next election.  Also, if an active MP was not allowed outside interests, what is to prevent their wife/husband holding the investments?  A family member of an MP has just the same rights to have business interests as does that family member of a person in any other career.

A compromise might be possible in having an MP (or minister) required to abstain from decisions concerning any company or organisation where the MP or minister has financial interest.

[Cyker]

IMHO the biggest problem is promising to lower taxes all the time - That would have been fine if they hadn't sold off all our public infrastructure, which could have been used to generate more revenue, but instead they lower taxes to win votes but have to implement loads of stealth taxes to make up the shortfall.

I'd vote for a party that wasn't afraid to raise taxes, but justified why and by how much, with the assurance they wouldn't just waste it on stupid crap but bring levels of public service back up to the levels they should be.

Sadly, if any party did such a thing it would be political suicide (I'd probably be the only person voting for them  )

Part of the problem is we're trapped between two opposing views, and want the best of both which is sadly an impossibility.

The Conservative way is the way of low taxes - In essence, you keep everything you earn, but you get nothing without paying for it. The goal of the conservatives is for everything to be privatised including things that don't make sense to be privatised, and they should all compete as businesses for your money and you pick who and what services you pay for.

Labour is (Supposed to be) the opposite - Everybody contributes, but everybody reaps the benefits; You can still pay for stuff you want but basic and essential needs will have some minimum provision so people don't have to worry about having to choose between e.g. sending your kid to school or eating, or worrying about how much your broken leg and ambulance trip will cost.

Of course in reality both are diluted significantly from their core tenets, and we're in this weird untenable situation where everyone promises low taxes and improvements to services just to win votes, and people blinker themselves to how impossible these promises are.

[Bper]

27 minutes ago, Cyker said:

IMHO the biggest problem is promising to lower taxes all the time - That would have been fine if they hadn't sold off all our public infrastructure, which could have been used to generate more revenue, but instead they lower taxes to win votes but have to implement loads of stealth taxes to make up the shortfall.

I'd vote for a party that wasn't afraid to raise taxes, but justified why and by how much, with the assurance they wouldn't just waste it on stupid crap but bring levels of public service back up to the levels they should be.

Sadly, if any party did such a thing it would be political suicide (I'd probably be the only person voting for them  )

Part of the problem is we're trapped between two opposing views, and want the best of both which is sadly an impossibility.

The Conservative way is the way of low taxes - In essence, you keep everything you earn, but you get nothing without paying for it. The goal of the conservatives is for everything to be privatised including things that don't make sense to be privatised, and they should all compete as businesses for your money and you pick who and what services you pay for.

Labour is (Supposed to be) the opposite - Everybody contributes, but everybody reaps the benefits; You can still pay for stuff you want but basic and essential needs will have some minimum provision so people don't have to worry about having to choose between e.g. sending your kid to school or eating, or worrying about how much your broken leg and ambulance trip will cost.

Of course in reality both are diluted significantly from their core tenets, and we're in this weird untenable situation where everyone promises low taxes and improvements to services just to win votes, and people blinker themselves to how impossible these promises are.

The constant promise to lower taxes while selling off public infrastructure has left a gap that stealth taxes try to fill, often frustratingly. I'd also support a party that openly raised taxes, provided they clearly justified it and ensured the funds improved essential services.It's tough because advocating for higher taxes often feels like political suicide, even though a balanced approach might serve us better. Conservatives tend to favor low taxes and privatisation which can leave lower income individuals struggling, while Labour aims for collective benefits, but often gets criticised for inefficiency.Finding a middle ground where taxes are reasonable and public services are well funded and managed transparently could work. But getting there is the tricky part.