Cycling UK Forum

pwa wrote: ↑27 Sep 2024, 10:51am

mattheus wrote: ↑27 Sep 2024, 9:18am

pwa wrote: ↑26 Sep 2024, 4:52pm
No, not really. Transparency is better than the opposite, but not taking gifts would be better. And the news that our government ministers are accepting personal gifts of clothing and holiday accommodation from well-heeled benefactors has me feeling that come the budget, I'll be paying particular attention to whether those on very high incomes are being asked to shoulder the burden of the fiscal shortfall more than the rest of us, or whether all those nice things have done the trick.... It is a tacky practice that undermines trust.

<my bold>

Well, that's a fair personal view to take.
(I presume you went through the same analysis with the governments of the previous 14 years?)

Like many people, probably most people in the UK, I think one of the jobs of the national government is to do a degree of wealth redistribution. So I am always in favour of that. I think we need to ramp that up a bit now....

Not related to gifts but these days I do despair when our politicians seem to have caught rampant growthism. Maybe one day they'll learn we live on a finite planet and can't go on expanding forever.

But in terms of raising funds, they really need to look at the banking sector windfall profits from QE interest. QE loans (where the BoE pay the banks interest) were originally made on the basis of a low base rate. When interest rates rose dramatically so did the rates we (the tax payers) are paying the banks (massively). Banks never expected such a massive windfall. So 1. tax the windfall profits and 2. don't pay the higher interest rates on many of the amounts (EU don't pay the higher rates to their banks on QE stuff). Legal and would raise maybe £25bn. We are paying the banks vast amounts of interest pensioners now going to freeze so we can pay the banks their windfalls.

Ian

The manifesto is falling apart, who'd have guessed that if you tax non-doms more then they'll leave the UK and won't pay any UK taxes?

Common sense surely, but extra hospital and dental appointments and school breakfast clubs now need funding from elsewhere

Treasury officials acknowledge that scrapping two concessions made by the previous government might not raise the £1bn they thought it would, or indeed any money at all.
The £1bn is earmarked in the Labour manifesto for extra hospital and dental appointments and school breakfast clubs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04pe3653k7o

tim-b wrote: ↑27 Sep 2024, 11:18am The manifesto is falling apart, who'd have guessed that if you tax non-doms more then they'll leave the UK and won't pay any UK taxes?

Common sense surely, but extra hospital and dental appointments and school breakfast clubs now need funding from elsewhere

Treasury officials acknowledge that scrapping two concessions made by the previous government might not raise the £1bn they thought it would, or indeed any money at all.
The £1bn is earmarked in the Labour manifesto for extra hospital and dental appointments and school breakfast clubs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04pe3653k7o

Probably not an issue as much of the money Labour said they'd raise from closing non-Dom tax loopholes was to go to the NHS and they've now said no more money for NHS without reform and they haven't even start to plan what reforms are sought.

Edit: That said, the more significant worry is that nothing has changed since Labour came up with that proposal - they can't blame the Conservatives for their own failure to understand the failings of their own policy promise. What else in their manifesto has been not properly thought through?

Ian

pwa wrote: ↑27 Sep 2024, 10:51am

mattheus wrote: ↑27 Sep 2024, 9:18am

pwa wrote: ↑26 Sep 2024, 4:52pm
No, not really. Transparency is better than the opposite, but not taking gifts would be better. And the news that our government ministers are accepting personal gifts of clothing and holiday accommodation from well-heeled benefactors has me feeling that come the budget, I'll be paying particular attention to whether those on very high incomes are being asked to shoulder the burden of the fiscal shortfall more than the rest of us, or whether all those nice things have done the trick.... It is a tacky practice that undermines trust.

<my bold>

Well, that's a fair personal view to take.
(I presume you went through the same analysis with the governments of the previous 14 years?)

Like many people, probably most people in the UK, I think one of the jobs of the national government is to do a degree of wealth redistribution. So I am always in favour of that. I think we need to ramp that up a bit now. But the recent revelations that, for instance, the Starmers get posh clothes bought for them by a wealthy benefactor makes me wonder if that softens any resolve Keir might have had to get the wealthy digging deeper into their pockets. With Tory PMs I have always assumed they won't harm the interests of the wealthy.

You seem determined to twist everything round to bashing Starmer's government.

I'd love to hear who you will be voting for that
- Never accept any gifts (not a single MP or official). And
- reliably redistribute wealth.
- <please insert your other criteria here>

mattheus wrote: ↑27 Sep 2024, 1:02pm

pwa wrote: ↑27 Sep 2024, 10:51am

mattheus wrote: ↑27 Sep 2024, 9:18am
<my bold>

Well, that's a fair personal view to take.
(I presume you went through the same analysis with the governments of the previous 14 years?)

Like many people, probably most people in the UK, I think one of the jobs of the national government is to do a degree of wealth redistribution. So I am always in favour of that. I think we need to ramp that up a bit now. But the recent revelations that, for instance, the Starmers get posh clothes bought for them by a wealthy benefactor makes me wonder if that softens any resolve Keir might have had to get the wealthy digging deeper into their pockets. With Tory PMs I have always assumed they won't harm the interests of the wealthy.

You seem determined to twist everything round to bashing Starmer's government.

I'd love to hear who you will be voting for that
- Never accept any gifts (not a single MP or official). And
- reliably redistribute wealth.
- <please insert your other criteria here>

I voted for Labour and wish them well, but I'd prefer them to look a bit less in it for the freebies. I expect better from Labour than from the Tories.

^ tim-b: "The manifesto is falling apart, who'd have guessed that if you tax non-doms more then they'll leave the UK and won't pay any UK taxes?"

Bet they still have assets here - just seize them.

djnotts wrote: ↑27 Sep 2024, 2:22pm ^ tim-b: "The manifesto is falling apart, who'd have guessed that if you tax non-doms more then they'll leave the UK and won't pay any UK taxes?"

Bet they still have assets here - just seize them.

Tax homes rather than income, with some allowance for old people living out their final years in the family home? So a nice big property in Mayfair gets a whopping big tax bill regardless of whether it is paid by a trust or an individual, regardless of the nationality or main home of whoever is living in it..... It is easy to hide money, but impossible to hide homes and other buildings.

pwa wrote: ↑27 Sep 2024, 3:43pm

djnotts wrote: ↑27 Sep 2024, 2:22pm ^ tim-b: "The manifesto is falling apart, who'd have guessed that if you tax non-doms more then they'll leave the UK and won't pay any UK taxes?"

Bet they still have assets here - just seize them.

Tax homes rather than income, with some allowance for old people living out their final years in the family home? So a nice big property in Mayfair gets a whopping big tax bill regardless of whether it is paid by a trust or an individual, regardless of the nationality or main home of whoever is living in it..... It is easy to hide money, but impossible to hide homes and other buildings.

Isn't that in effect the long overdue reassessment of Council Tax?

One aspect to houses I do think needs radical reform is 2nd homes. Exclude homes that are occupied for long term lets but otherwise ... sky's the limit.

Ian

Declareing personal clothes given as gifts as for "private office" - to my mind not "transparency" more like "deception"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/27/peer-gave-keir-starmer-more-clothes-worth-16000-declared-as-money-for-private-office wrote:Keir Starmer was given a further £16,000 worth of clothes by the Labour peer Waheed Alli, which was declared as money for his private office, the Guardian can reveal.

The donations, comprising £10,000 in October 2023 and £6,000 in February 2024, bring the total amount in gifted clothes to £32,000.

These latest gifts were not previously known about as they were described as being “for the private office of the leader of the opposition”.

(My bold)

Ian

"Clean shirt, new shoes
And I don't know where I am goin' to
Silk suit, black tie (black tie)
I don't need a reason why
(LOBBYISTS) come runnin' just as fast as they can
'Cause every (VOTER) crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man
Gold watch, diamond ring
I ain't missin' not a single thing
Cufflinks, stick pin...."

Acknowledgement and apologies to ZZTop.

After much soul searching I gritted my teeth and voted for Starmer, in the hope that just maybe there was a glimmer of "Labour" left. I was to my shame wrong. He IS just another Tory.

Rosie D has expressed my views pretty well.

""Speaking to the BBC, Duffield said Labour was "in my heart and in my soul".

"It is so profoundly disappointing to me as a Labour voter and an activist... to see this is what we have become," she added.

She said after days of revelations about donations and the leadership’s refusal to apologise, that the leadership seemed “more about greed and power than making a difference… I just can’t take any more".

Duffield, who has clashed previously with the party leadership over women’s rights, resigned on Saturday.

She said: "We all had our faith in Keir Starmer and a Labour government, and I feel that voters and activists and MPs are being completely laughed at and completely taken for granted.""

(BBC News.)

Duffield's problems with the party for which she stood didn't start with anything that has been revealed since the election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_Duffield

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote: ↑29 Sep 2024, 10:07am Duffield's problems with the party for which she stood didn't start with anything that has been revealed since the election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_Duffield

Indeed. The cynic in me suspects that she was happy to be elected under the Labour banner, with all the party support and goodwill from the electorate that that entailed, whilst knowing full well that in all likelihood there would be major ideological differences which would make it impossible for her to stay within the party under Starmer's leadership.

toontra wrote: ↑29 Sep 2024, 10:29am

Jdsk wrote: ↑29 Sep 2024, 10:07am Duffield's problems with the party for which she stood didn't start with anything that has been revealed since the election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_Duffield

Indeed. The cynic in me suspects that she was happy to be elected under the Labour banner, with all the party support and goodwill from the electorate that that entailed, whilst knowing full well that in all likelihood there would be major ideological differences which would make it impossible for her to stay within the party under Starmer's leadership.

Or recent policies and behaviour has been the multiple straws that "broke the camel's back". After all, so far the most significant cut announced has severely impacted many of those in desperate need (Winter fuel Allowance from those who now face a dangerously cold winter) - hardly the "those with the broadest shoulders". Then Starmer taking bungs some of which are potential conflict of interests and he just doubles down on his right to accept the vast sums involved.

There is a lot that was nothing like the manifesto and pledges.

Ian

Liz Truss unapologetic and (IMO) in utter denial and absolutely certifiable.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... f4a95e6b46

Most worrying thing though, is reported applause for her support of Trump from members listening. Could be a sign of yet more extremism to come.