How Long Can Labour Stay In Government?

Surely this depends on who the opposition are. If its the Tories, then yes, to an extent.

I say another nine years at least.

I wonder why this is.

the tories, on the other hand, despite themselves and a few duncan smith/david davis altercations, seem to know they can't say anything nasty to their new 'one of those'. they're learning to stage manage, though in a way entirely more disingenuous than labour.
their problem is, i find it enormously difficult they might believe anything they realise it's necassary to say. but being of a business background, largely anyway, they're approaching it as problem --> solution without much care for principle (for instance on the health service - heading to europe to study systems dependent on very european tax stsyems they seem so desperate to prevent us from). blair, for all his faults, and whatever he believes, seems to genuinely beliieve it. but new labour are lawyers, so they're meant to look like they believe it.

So it's the day-and-age that counts?

(Memo to Alistair - try the 1000 years stuff next time or not?)

Supplementary / alternative question to everyone: how long do you WANT Labour to stay in government?

There's a difference between genuine disgust/apathy and sheer blind ignorance.

(Yes, I know you adress this in yer other thread, but hey)

cant find the other 'when will brown call an election' thread, so, what do we all think

a) a snap election oct/nov?

risky, but cameron is still weak, and people won't actually be feeling the economic fallout yet, does look like panic though and shows an awareness of the shit thats coming

b) spring

when brown first came in, i figured he would go for spring, but the subprime trigger came a bit earlier than expected, and the affects will be filtering through properly by then, in terms of houses/jobs etc

c) as late as possible

surely not enough time left in this term for economy to be back on even keel?

you worry far to much about extra-uk factors that are not as exposing to the UK as you seem to think.

The real crash is still 2-3 years away because it hasn't been allowed to happen right now. It will be worse, but in the future.

so when do you think he will call?

what if there is no crash?

he still has to call an election!

His popularity will maintain as long as hee keeps up the impression that he's actually getting on with the job, not being a 'celeb'.

Plus, the tories are still 'eating' cameron like he's Tony Blair.

ok, all your options presume it though. what do you think the long term effects of the sup-prime meltdown will be for the uk jobs / housing market?

xp to fc

He has plenty of time and I doubt he'll go early. A recession is surely coming, but it's impossible to predict when. Even if Brown has to call an election during a downturn, he won't necessarily lost it.

my options do presume it. the other factors would appear to be Iraq, and personal popularity. Do we think Iraq is still a major player with the electorate, or have we become desensitized? personal popularity, he seems to be doing ok, he can only lose to cameron on this, cameron can not win from him. i think cameron started *reasonably* well, but i dont think he has enough to take brown on this, unless brown messes up

as for economy, i think subprime is merely a trigger, whatever you spend it on, a credit bubble is a credit bubble, its not supported by increasing wages. i guess it depends if you think the uks economy is strong, or whether its built on too much quicksand and debt

Even if Brown has to call an election during a downturn, he won't necessarily lost it

this is also correct, elections have been won in recessions before. the poisoned chalice election of 92 springs to mind

Do we think Iraq is still a major player with the electorate, or have we become desensitized?

it seems irrelevant in terms of leadership contest unless Cameron's attitude to Iraq is significantly different than Brown's - may well be potentially but many disillusioned by Blair may feel things can't get any worse but at the same time have no faith in either candidate really being capable of sorting it out any time soon.

Have we got a thread on the weird way the Daily Mail is tackling politics these days? Pro-Brown, anti-Cameron, but still anti-Labour pro-Tory?

xp
Altho you can argue Tories sneak in because too many unhappy with Iraq/Afghan./Israel situations switch vote to someone other than the big two. Don't know how likely this is tho.

people seem weirdly able to blame iraq on the americans -- and no-one sees afghanistan as a problem, so far as i can see. no-one gives much of a fuck about israel/palestine.

filey camp is right about 1992. the early '90s recession was no joke, and that was, apparently, the biggest vote (numerically? i forget, but by some measure) the tories ever won.

Labour core now has proper enemy in Team Cameron, common enemy and all that. Iraq can be blamed on the other guy.

the problem of iraq is present-tense. even blair sort of said he'd screwed the pooch back in 2002-03 by um apparently not considering what might happen once he and bush had kicked the door in. that's all in the past.

the problem for the electorate can't just be telling them they were wrong back then -- they had that chance in 2005, and in a way they (we?) don't seem that fussed by the death toll. is it only because the anti-war movement is run by islamo-trots?

considering how large the antiwar movement was, its amazing to see how withered it is now. perhaps a) due to ineffectuality, and disillusionment, b) due to not having an actual prowar sector to argue against, its like something no one wants to talk about it any more, what is there to say - weirdly started to feel like its occupying the role northern ireland used to

i suppose what i meant was: the presence of the brits in iraq, which is now limited to an airbase, i think, because it's too fucked to do anything else, is almost immaterial to the civil war. obviously us invading kicked off the war, but it's almost as if we ('we'?) repress this. is that because there is nothing we can do that will improve things there? is that too much reality to accept?

with afghanistan, news reporting is quite limited. because the UK body-count is more or less acceptable, there's really not much scrutiny of the mission's objectives. i'm writing this thinking back to what happened over suez, which was kind of small next to this.

the early and reasonably broad consensus re:afghanistan seems to have stayed fairly strong with almost no scrutiny whatsoever (perhaps this has been helped by the extreme uneasyness over iraq), despite the fact that afghanistan is probably as far from 'completion' as iraq.

if the british public are all-iraqed out, they certainly don't want to hear about afghanistan, under the carpet is where it is, and under the carpet is where it will stay

When do you think the election will be, one guy that quit?

filey camp is right about 1992. the early '90s recession was no joke, and that was, apparently, the biggest vote (numerically? i forget, but by some measure) the tories ever won

I remember Michael Heseltine in that election campaign saying (when asked about the huge recession) something to the effect of "Yes - we know we've fucked it up, and we're sorry about that, but trust me - we're the people who can get you out of this recession, Labour will just make it worse." This seemed to be good enough for 13 million people. Then, of course, six months or so later we came crashing out of the ERM and the backlash began.

no later than spring next year -- which in itself would be notable. that's only three years since the last, and labour have a working majority.

the tories were calling for a snap election as recently as quite recently -- maybe because they were saying brown 'wasn't elected'.

the workings of the media and the public are a bit of a mystery to me. brown's bounce seems to be based on his 'firm handling' of the london/glasgow attacks and the floods.

maybe all the talk of a snap election has more to do with tactical opportunity, with the wheels coming off the cameron project.

the question there is who the fuck can the tories replace him with, if they really do get rid of him? in a few years: hague, seriously.

its quite extraordinary that the tories still cant get themselves a decent manager, they remind me a bit of newcastle!

actually maybe thats not entirely fair, but you get what i mean,

Yeah, I can imagine that. (xpost*2)

I think the Tory resurgance, when it comes, if it comes, will come out of what is / was being discussed here: The Great Moving Right Show II: The Kirsty and Phil Years

Whether or not Afghanistan is under the carpet depends entirely on how many Brits are coming home in body bags, surely?

There was a good piece in the Graun a few weeks ago about how Brown shouldn't let poll figures seduce him into calling an early election, citing Wilson in 1970. The people calling for an early election know full well that it is Labour, not Tony Blair himself, that was elected. They aren't calling for an election because they want Brown to have his own democratic mandate, they're calling for an election because they think he might lose it!

It also made a valid point that voters generally smell a rat if an early election is called, probably that something is about to go wrong with the economy. No one is blaming the government for current market turmoil just yet, and if there is a downturn then Brown and Darling's best tactic may to present it as a global phenomenon, with them best-placed to steer the country through tough times. This could well work as long as voters continue to view Cameron as flimsy and lightweight.

My prediction is Brown will wait a couple of years and the troops will definitely be out of Iraq before any election is called.

Sam Alladyce for Britain!

If the Tories could somehow square the selfishness with the apathy of this generation they'd be onto an electoral winner. The Boris For Mayor phenomenon seems like a ghastly portent of what could happen. If they could make Hague or someone more like Jeremy Clarkson anything is possible. A Tory comfortable in jeans is all they need.

If I was Brown I would hang on till 2009 or even 2010, but make it seem like he's going to call a snap election at any minute just to panic the Tories into coming out with some policies before they're ready.

Whether or not Afghanistan is under the carpet depends entirely on how many Brits are coming home in body bags, surely?

how many people do we actually have in afghanistan? (serious question, i dont know!)

There was a good piece in the Graun a few weeks ago about how Brown shouldn't let poll figures seduce him into calling an early election, citing Wilson in 1970. The people calling for an early election know full well that it is Labour, not Tony Blair himself, that was elected. They aren't calling for an election because they want Brown to have his own democratic mandate, they're calling for an election because they think he might lose it!

It also made a valid point that voters generally smell a rat if an early election is called, probably that something is about to go wrong with the economy. No one is blaming the government for current market turmoil just yet, and if there is a downturn then Brown and Darling's best tactic may to present it as a global phenomenon, with them best-placed to steer the country through tough times. This could well work as long as voters continue to view Cameron as flimsy and lightweight.

both these are correct. but this could equally mean an early election... the thinking behind an oct/nov election is that the turmoil is obv global, but the real actual effects wont have hit man y people by then. in such a scenario, the experience of 'steady hands brown lol' will surely easily outgun the out-of-depth cameron

Whether or not Afghanistan is under the carpet depends entirely on how many Brits are coming home in body bags, surely?

and if a big fuss is made about them! but yes, it seems to be only dead brits that make afghanistan news. and the body count is not small, considering it's not exactly a "war".

but the people running things there are talking about a decades-long commitment. the mission seems to be the 'destruction of the taliban', or even denting the heroin trade. they're delusional.

how many people do we actually have in afghanistan? (serious question, i dont know!)

i think it's about 4,000. so a bodycount of two a week (i'm guessing again) and lots of injured (more than six a week, to use a very old ratio).

so a bodycount of two a week (i'm guessing again) and lots of injured (more than six a week, to use a very old ratio)

is quite big.

weird, that ilx being ilx none of what most of the polls say are the general publics big concerns have been touched on. to look at the headlines street crime is a far, far greater concern than iraq. imagration can still raise them hackles but it don't win the tories elections before, so who knows? the nhs being sold off? surely that's gonna blow up at some point?

these threads always remind me how out of sync i (and others on here) must be with this majority of people who seem to have more power and influence than we do. because 300+ 'cult' worshippers in Iraq dead in one weekend affects me more than one British soldier being killed. how many of 'us' are there anyway?

Yes violent crime is by far the greatest concern of most voters other than the economy (and even then) but 'Hug A Hoodie' Cameron has kind of blown that one already.

for all the headlines it generates, im yet to be convinced immigration is really a player at the elections, though im not sure why

is street crime a card the tories can play convincingly, the hug-a-hoodie cameron thing seems quite damaging to his chances there

the nhs? tories cant really fight well there either

if these things determine the election then that means the economy will be in reasonable shape at that stage, and labour will be confident of victory

any mention of crime, and all labour need to do is press up some hug-a-hoodie billboards

Council tax. The Tories could fucking break Labour on the issue of council tax but for some reason they haven't.

i don't know anything about these cult worshippers steve can you tell me what it's about? i must have missed the news. (too busy being scared about being stabbed in london)

cameron is like totally pro-NHS.. he spelt it out and everything didn't he?

Cause they control a shit-load of councils? xpost

xpost
Also, far too complicated an issue I think. People don't like it but how would you convince the electorate that you could replace it with something that would be better?

Also, sub-prime may filter through, but the UK economy was pretty strong during the last financial markets meltdown plus global recession. It's easy to forget that the FTSE fell from roughly where it is today to 3500-odd.

the nhs? tories cant really fight well there either

they are trying! just yesterday cameron said he wanted to save the district general hospitals. um, and quite right too, but what is the tory answer here?

i don't think you can look at the funding crisis (and the mrsa problem) in the nhs without considering what total disasters the internal market and (related) PFI have been. the tories introduced both of these, i think, though it's labour that has really run with pfi.

i have no idea how cameron proposes to solve this. but i also don't think the public is well-served by the media here -- i don't think they know why the nhs is in such a mess.

xpost

the council tax thing is really tricky. tories run lots of councils -- but most of the rises were in effect centrally mandated. if the tories got in they too would want to keep the council tax rises a "local issue". they aren't bold enough yet to become out-and-out tax-cutters.

i have no idea how cameron proposes to solve this.

And neither does he.

The thing is that yesterday Camerons so-called 'personal campaign' to save hospitals was coming undone by lunchtime. He hadn't done his homework, it looked slapdash and scaremongering. The government came up with some pretty good responses (I'm not talking about whether these responses were accurate or practical just that they sounded good) and then hilariously, the tories, instead of tackling the responses of the government, said "it's disappointing that the government wants to make this into a party issue".

I'm sure the day pleased some tories who wanted to see Cameron back in the fray of things but frankly I doubt whether the electorate took a blind bit of notice.

then hilariously, the tories, instead of tackling the responses of the government, said "it's disappointing that the government wants to make this into a party issue".

Ha ha, yes, totally irredemably hilariously feeble

And this was Andrew Lansley who has been in front line politics since the mid 80s (he was one of Tebbits bootboys) so you can't really call it inexperience.

If I was Brown I would hang on till 2009 or even 2010, but make it seem like he's going to call a snap election at any minute just to panic the Tories into coming out with some policies before they're ready.

This looks like his current strategy, continually forcing the Tories to show their hand just so's it looks like they've got a fucking clue what to campaign on. Labour get's to rip the piss out of Redwood's "Free Bingo! No Horse Passports! oh, and sack your employees at will and fuck a social charter in the ass" draft policy proposal before the ink's even wet then they can hold fire for another couple of months and wait for some other right wing nutcase to come up with something even worse.

get's?

omg Dumb Britain

i have no idea how cameron proposes to solve this. but i also don't think the public is well-served by the media here -- i don't think they know why the nhs is in such a mess.

the media, or the right wing media at least, can not seriously begin to confront many of the issues confronting the NHS in terms of pfi, ppp madness cos it would undermine the very worldview they are based upon. "fatcats" is just about the only way they can ever attack economic stuff in a populist way and that is very much focused on individuals rather than some huge system.

Afghanistan is not debated because bothe the tories and the lib dems are in favour of the misison (or at least they have been up to now)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2152965,00.html

funnily enough toynbee weighs in on much of this today.

even she makes it about british deaths in iraq. the notion that once we've pulled out, our hands are clean, is wrong.

i wonder if in 2002-03 people just assumed it would be like the first gulf war done right. or that (hollow laugh) it would be like afghanistan in 2001 and it'd be a cakewalk.

i've sort of realized recently how hard i've tried to push everything that happened in the last five years out of my head.

is it even in the collective head of the electorate?

Cameron identifying departments that don't even exist as being at risk of closure. Smart move Dave.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6956719.stm

Another hospital, Altrincham General, named by the Tories as being under threat of losing its maternity and accident and emergency facilities does not have those departments.

i wonder if in 2002-03 people just assumed it would be like the first gulf war done right.

for supporters it was basically 'even if he hasn't got nukes and isn't involved with terrorists, he's an evil dictator who, get this, KILLED HIS OWN PEOPLE and so it's high time we kicked him out eh what'

i don't know. i think yes -- though with most of the anger directed at the US. people used to say about watergate that far from making people more engaged or concerned, it made them more cynical, and i think that's happened here a bit.

i suppose i am a bit mean about the academic left -- at the moment they seem concerned with the lack of a utopia in modern politics. there isn't even the very, very limited idealism* of the new labour project that you had in the mid-'90s.

and i guess that's what the other thread is about -- how far this cynicism** carries over into/is fostered by cultural ephemera.

*realize this sounds ridiculous to people who were adults at the time, i suppose it *was* a mostly "please just end this tory government", but still...

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

xposts to acrobat

was there ever a 'what if Tony Blair never existed' thread?

wtf@toynbee

Two and a half years, hanging grimly on until the last possible minute.

Nah, hung parliament at the next election, unless there's a major terrorist attack on London in 2008, in which case Labour will win by 100 seats.

I don't know, there seems to be bad news coming every other day now. And it's not even the 'OMG you've waged an illegal war / haven't sorted out violent crime / big poverty gap / my kid can't buy a house' and more 'lol incompetant bunglers', which is probably more damaging.

Maybe Labour's majority is big enough to buffer any swing to the Tories though, just.

http://paullinford.blogspot.com/2007/11/could-we-have-another-deputy-leadership.html
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/27/whod-get-it-if-harman-resigned/

Good stuff here about the ramifications of Harman getting gas-faced.

Happened to go for a drink in a parliamentary pub last night with a mate who works for an MP. General consensus in the Labout camp seemed to be one of doom and gloom and that there's worse to be revealed. Whether that's mere pessimism or an informed fear I wasn't sure.

I think they're pretty much screwed though unless, as Dom said, there's another terrorist attack on London.

lol remember we almost had an election this autumn

Hung parliament probly keeps them in power. Maybe now is the time to seriously think about introducing Proportional Representation cos my theory is that it would at least ensure we never have another Tory gov.

Or maybe add 200 new constituencies to Scotland

I knew it was only a matter of time until the phrase "At least Tony Blair.." was the new mem de jour.

Or maybe I emigrate.

Cameron and Clinton, H have a kind of crushing inevitablity, huh?

Brown is a sitting duck.

If election is to be in 2 and a half years Labour may well decide to ditch Brown sometime before then - depending on suitability of alternatives

Will regret not calling immediate election

Should have thrown it like Major tried to in 92

Major didn't call a snap election, he waited until the last minute. Twice.

In two and a half years, things will either get better or worse.

Whereas the Conservatives will pretty much be in limbo, and can only go down from here I reckons.

http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/image-files/head-in-sand.jpg/

Ok facetious about Major (and was making 2 seperate points, re snap election, and throwing it - later on). Of course no politician wants to throw/lose an election and consign their career to the history books. Elements of party machinery may or may not be more pragmatic however (and the tories have paid a heavy price for their 1992 victory)

can we just skip 2008?

i'm against the 00s

can we just skip 2008?

-- blueski, Wednesday, 28 November 2007 12:00 (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

stevem: 12 years of hurt, never stopped him dreaming

B+

I usually try to eschew this kind of observation but my God when Brown smiles it's like watching a robot beg for food. It is HORRIBLE.

The whole mountain of shit started with Northern Rock, didn't it? As bad as it's been for Darling, I'm actually amazed that Brown hasn't come in for more of the blame since he was the architect of the system that caused the crisis. It gets mentioned but not nearly as much as I would have thought.

The latest drip-drip of accusations and revelations is the kind of thing that stays hushed up when your leader's doing well but which becomes inevitable when he's not.

Nah, it started with George Osborne's speech at the Tory party conference. Before that everyone was like "Northern Rock, another crisis well handled by Rock Solid Brown, well done him".

I was never convinced by that line, though. I think the initial "Brown handled it well" reaction was some weird delusional afterglow of his six-week honeymoon. It seemed inevitable that it would lead to more. Northern Rock was a direct hit on Brown's only real claim to fame, his supposedly solid stewardship of the economy.

None of that is to say you're not right, though. I just think everything that's come after would be manageable had he not been pierced with an arrow in precisely the spot he was supposed to be strongest.

I think the initial "Brown handled it well" reaction was some weird delusional afterglow of his six-week honeymoon.

yep. also, the full extent of it wasn't known, and evedrybody has a vested interest in looking on the bright side. confidence breeds confidence and all that. i know of one major city bank that went crazy for NR shares soon after the story broke.

Firstly the sidestepping of the Northern Rock problem and attempts to let Alasdair Darling take all the flack

But also his inability to really restore any kind of confidence after the debacle. Cameron has had him on the ropes ever since...but you can only have someone on the ropes if they know they are at fault. If Brown wasn't so culpable he would have swatted away Cameron over that like a fly, but he KNEW he'd messed up..and he's no Blair, he can't gloss over it, duck it or hide it

I mean...could you imagine playing this guy at poker?

Tories 8/11 to win next election

It's bizarre seeing the Blair effect from the Conservatives. Simply, bacuse they've got someone who can deliver speech and handle Question and Answers slickly, the Conservatives are now thought of as a viable party - despite policy chaos, in-fighting etc.

Labour should probably try to trump this by geting an actor in to replace Brown.

The weird thing about Labour now is they've got no heavyweights in the wings (besides maybe Jack Straw).

Jack Straw is kind of odd in that he kind of knows his own limitations, ie accept you can't lead your way out of a paper bag, suck up to whoever is on the up at the right time and keep your head down and get on with the job when things are going wrong. Kind of explains his longevity despite having been Foreign Secretary at the worst possible time.

That's kind of been Alastair Darling's strategy up to now as well.

He was colossally unpopular in Scotland, doing pretty much exactly fuck-all as "Scottish Secretary" or whatever. Mainly because he was also Minister for Transport at the time. It would be difficult for anyone to have enough time for, oh, every issue shared between England and Scotland while one is busy fucking up the national transport system.

Oh I don't know, the current Scottish Secretary is running a war on the fly.

My money's on the Fly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7118274.stm

"I mean I know I actually did break the law, but rather than admitting any element of ignorance of the rules or that I was deceived in any way or that I just didn't bother checking I'll just say that I didn't break the law and you'll all believe me. Right?"

"PS Please don't mention my husband, as he seems to have no idea who is paying what and where into the Party he's allegedly TREASURER for."

Well done Vince Cable for avoiding the Punch and Judy politics practiced by the two major parties, that has so disfigured British political discourse, with your Stalin/ Mr. Bean remarks at PMQT yesterday

Brown has blown it. His only real selling point was being a good manager, so all the recent cock-ups have fatally diminished him. He's demonstrated no vision - I mean if you think of Blair's first term he did at least have a few bold moves (minimum wage, parliaments for Scotland & Wales, removing hereditary peers from Lords, independent Bank of England, etc.). Brown doesn't seem to have anything like that up his sleeve. Now he's finally PM, he doesn't seem to know what to do with it. And the UK will be in recession or hovering close to it by the next election. He should have had the guts to call an election earlier this year and he would have won it. On the other hand, he should have had the guts to challenge Blair over Iraq and he would have been PM years ago.

minimum wage, parliaments for Scotland & Wales, removing hereditary peers from Lords, independent Bank of England

The last was Brown's idea. As for the others, what makes you think they had anything to do with Tony Blair?

For instance, I imagine if Blair had thought he could get away with not having a minimum wage he would have

Blair's Big Idea = Stick Head Up George Bush's Arse and Invade Iraq

Doesn't matter whether they were Blair's ideas or not, they were associated with him & his govt. I'm not an apologist for Blair, just saying he did some things to demonstrate (however duplicitously) a break from the past.

And Gordon Brown had nothing to do with "Blair's government"?

Blair was lukewarm at best about Scottish/Welsh parliaments.

given the effect of devolution on labour's electoral prospects in the future, blair was savvy there.

Yes, putting the Labour Party before the people of Scotland and Wales, as per usual

i'm just sayin

Well, my larger point was that Blair did at least have some reforming measures that put distance between the failed Major govt and his own govt. It's obviously much tougher for Brown to show he's his own man with his own ideas, because he was such an integral part of the Blair govt. Even so, he doesn't seem to have any bold measures to implement. With no particular vision, he has to fall back on being a good manager. But the recent cock-ups seem to have pulled that rug from under him as well.

Well, my larger point was that Blair did at least have some reforming measures sops thrown to the Left in opposition so's they'd stay quiet and let him completely fucking destroy the Labour party

Okay.

(xp) Calling Brown an "integral part of the Blair govt" makes him sound just like any other important minister in any other government - the point is it wasn't "Blair's government" and Brown wasn't like any other Chancellor, it was virtually a co-premiership, AND most New Labour's ideas (good and bad) seem to me to have been Brown's

.. AND most of the policy decisions!

I take your points. I think it's more of a perception thing though than a question of what Blair & Brown actually did. Basically, a new guy has to be perceived to be somehow different and better, or why bother changing? Failing that, he should at least be a good manager. Brown is struggling with all that.

Abolishing the 10p tax band is going to be the "poll tax" issue that breaks the government once and for all, isn't it?

Don't think so

LOL @ Tory concern for low-earners

Not even in a 'look at this slimy Prime Minister he did this as an ambulance pass to himself when he was Chancellor' way? Obviously a lot of people will benefit from the tax cut but I can see this being stirred up for a long while to come.

lolololol i think i lose out under this.

Go and smash something in Trafalgar Square*, maybe people will join in.

*Not a Nandos.

maybe i will 'run up on' the national gallery steps at the same time.

I love how all the figures thrown around show people losing £232 a year from this.

Because in my case I am losing the best part of £100 a month. I get paid weekly so was lucky enough to see my wages change from £207 a week to £183. Now, my wife's earnings are below the £18,000 threshold, so she's going to lose a similar amount a month to me. So that'll be £200 a month or thereabouts we'll be losing. Child benefits and working tax credits haven't risen by much, certainly not to the extent of £200 a month. So we're losing out big time. Thanks Gordon. Great vote winner.

hmm, low wage earners with no kids are the loosers, this sounds a lot like lower echelons the creative industries, this is Gordon brown's message to you all to go and get a proper job and work yourself out of poverty. Less Namby Pamby, more heavy lifting seems to be the message. (of course this ATTACK on the hard work scions of the baby boom, slaving for their foccacia prawn sandwiches has the unintended consequence of adding increased burdens to the hard working poor outside the media dens but they can as Mr Tebbit once said mount their bicylces and perambulate to the labour exchange).

I applaud this attack on wasters and shilly shalliers.

Seems an assumptions is being made here that key voters in Middle England give a flying fuck about other people, esp. people who earn less than them

... like their kids?

Tom D OTM, this shitstorm will quietly disappear once people start getting their payslips.

LOL @ Tory concern for low-earners

-- Tom D., Monday, April 21, 2008 10:44 AM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

well yeah but also LOL @ total abasement of labour party -- i actually don't think the tories would even pull this kind of shit. don't worry, i'm not going to vote for them, but the fuck am i going to vote labour either.

i actually don't think the tories would even pull this kind of shit

Bollocks

This is the stuff of opportunist Liberal party ever and oh goody we have three.

really though? raising taxes from the very people they want votes from? if they've proposed it, i'm all ears.

Ed, generally raising taxes has not been a Liberal move.

Who do you (not you, specifically, the general you) vote for if you don't like this policy? I don't think the Tories would rush to reimplement a 10p tax rate. Lib Dems would have different tax rates depending on where you are the country, presumably.

They are raising taxes on people who, typically, vote less than other sections of society.

Or at least where they vote they tend to vote in the safest of labour seats.

'Conservative leader David Cameron has vowed to "stop the government in its tracks" and make them think again over the abolition of the 10p income tax.'

But what's this...

'The Tory leader stopped short of pledging to reinstate the 10p band if his party wins the next election, as he did not know how much money "there would be in the kitty".'

Labour should fight back with a campaign saying that this will disproportionately affect immigrants, (which it will do).

I think this is the sort of move that has Tories thumping tables and despairing in a "we'd *never* be able to get away with that!" way.

governments rarely reverse stuff their predecessors did, even if they've complained about it; cf new labour and the tories' changes to union laws in the 80s. (and maybe the tories and abolition of grammar schools in the 60s and 70s?)

in the end, it's more money for the government, and politicians of all sides like money.

That's because New Labour agreed with the Tories' changes to union laws, Cameron is pretending to disagree here

governments rarely reverse stuff their predecessors did

Its okay, Brown brought in the 10p band in the first place didn't he? If the Tories are lucky he'll have reversed a load of stuff his own government did before they get elected. Thus giving them the opportunity to take the moral high ground and saving them the bother of doing it themselves.

xpost there'd be much more money in the kitty if they raised the higher rate of income tax instead, no?

of course, but no elected govt Left or Right ever does that coz then the rich people just leave the country.

haha yup!

the poor should threaten to move en masee to switzerland. FACED, employers.

there'd be lots more money in the kitty if govts didn't fight costly foreign wars too!

of course, but no elected govt Left or Right ever does that coz then the rich people just leave the country.

They did when there were Left and Right parties in the UK

... but then Bev Bevan left the country, so it was counter-productive

Although, one could argue that capital flight was much harder in the days of Super Tax etc. Not that I disagree, the tax system ought to be more aggressively redistributive.

yeah, you couldn't take all your money with you i think, though i guess the rolling stones maybe disproved this? perhaps you just needed a decent tax lawyer.

couldn't you just get round this by offshoring yr money prior to making clear that you were about to move away?

The problem we have nowadays WRT punitive taxation is that our economy is based on having the loosest slots in town (our financial services industry).

Doesn't the City generate more tax revenue than, like, most of the rest of Britain put together? Although it's probably going to generate a lot less this year.

Very probably, but the marginal tax rate of the people who work there is much lower than your or mine. But basing your economy on being in a convenient time zone and having looser regulation than anywhere else doesn't seem that great to me.

Also its hardly "punitive" is it? Just ensuring the people who benefit most from the infrastructure that supports their wealth make the largest contribution to its upkeep. Sounds fair to me.

Also its hardly "punitive" is it? Just ensuring the people who benefit most from the infrastructure that supports their wealth make the largest contribution to its upkeep. Sounds fair to me.

-- Thomas, Monday, April 21, 2008 12:15 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

their counterargument is what matt said, unfortunately.

so yuppies FTW then? fuck a London.

http://www.hbo.com/thewire/img/castcrew/character_season03/theport/franksobotka.jpg

You know what the trouble is, Brucey? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket.

We still do build stuff, just services rather than tangible objects. And the people on the factory (or callcentre) floor are still being shafted by policies favouring economic growth over equality and fairness. trickle-down effect is bollox innit.

We still do build stuff, just services rather than tangible objects.

yeah, like 'financial services', ie selling each other houses.

I love how trickle down is bollocks until such point as the money stops trickling down as much and then everyone is up in arms. The problem is it doesn't trickle down as much as we would like, or as much as they claim it does.

Also the difference is that communities and towns do not, generally, build up around call centres.

, though i guess the rolling stones maybe disproved this?

When you consider that George 'taxman' Harrison bought a house the size of a small town in England despite having to pay all that tax you've got to think there were ways around it.

i think 'trickle down' effectively means everyone works as a kind of servant class to the ballers in the city, selling them expensive shit (cf loads of articles in the right-wing press about the knock-on effect of the crunch) and not complaining that they don't pay their share of taxes because what they *do* pay is quite a lot. kind of sucks.

I love how trickle down is bollocks until such point as the money stops trickling down as much and then everyone is up in arms. The problem is it doesn't trickle down as much as we would like, or as much as they claim it does.

-- Matt DC, Monday, April 21, 2008 12:53 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Of course everybody is up in arms when this has been the basic promise/premise of economic policy over the last 30 years. Promise broken, we up in arms. why not? it is not the panacea claimed by the rich & powerful for their own greedy self-justification. The govt should recognise this and "force down" a little more, but so not gonna happen for all the reasons upthread :-(

Brown brought in the 10p band in the first place didn't he?

Yes, and if I recall correctly the Tories opposed it.

"Selling expensive shit" = "service economy", which is fine as long as the people who are buying your services want to buy them, less fine when the e economy goes tits-up and they're all cutting back. Which is what you said really.

I wonder if there was a left-wing, or even sensible and pragmatic opposition, that was prepared to make a stand and go "this is unsustainable, we can't allow this status quo to continue", would they get elected? What would probably happen would be painful and cathartic change (ie under Thatcher) rather than incremental (ie under Blair), and cathartic change is less difficult to implement when its the poor getting shafted rather than the rich.

(Actually what would probably happen is they wouldn't get elected unless the economy got REALLY bad)

Long-shot Tom D xpost:

It should in fairness be pointed out that top Tory drummer Bev "Bev" Bevan was one of the very few ROCK LEGENDS TM to remain in Britain during the days of

Denis Healey
FORMER CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

and his 98 per cent top rate income tax. He didn't dig it but he dug his heels hard into his Kidderminster soil and thus was able to contribute to such ELO classics as "Wild West Breakfast" and "Logical Xanadu."

I can't see this country ever electing an actual left-wing party. We seem completely wedded to the 2 party system. Talking to people who are going to vote tory next time,they don't like Cameron but just don't want to vote Brown. When I point out that they are replacing him with Blair Lite they just kind of shrug. Or say something like 'Well Blair took us into Iraq' - as if Cameron wouldn't have. I guess nothing much will change, the rich will continue to get richer, the poor will continue to be crapped on and then blamed for all of societies ills and foxes will once again be killed by dogs. It's very depressing.

xpost I wonder if there was a left-wing, or even sensible and pragmatic opposition, that was prepared to make a stand and go "this is unsustainable, we can't allow this status quo to continue", would they get elected?

i'm sure they're out there, just don't get the oxygen of publicity - not exactly murdoch's cup of tea is it? Also, we've lost the trust in our politicians... immediately post war we bought the argument of massively raised taxes for social benefit ( ie introduce NI contribs to pay for the welfare state), but now even we lefties would be skeptical that govt would be able or willing to deliver on such a promise.

http://messenger.msn.com/MMM2006-04-19_17.00/Resource/emoticons/74_74.gif

Just heard on the world at one that the chancellor is talking about 'making adjustments to allowances' to compensate for the loss of the 10p rate, but this will amount to another across the board tax cut which amounts to Bushian folly or sneaky fiscal loosening at a time of crises depending on how you look at it.

foxes will once again be killed by dogs

nice bit of bathos from Ned there.

We seem completely wedded to the 2 party system

who is this 'we'?

The UK.

xpost to Ed

Or maybe just "oh shit we did something without thinking about it... again"

posts all xxxed

aye ILX speaks for the whole country as ever!

i read ned's post asthe poor will continue to be crapped on and then blamed for all of societies ills and killed by dogs.

otm

what arrogance to suggest that this country has been in a 2 party system for quite a while.

we like 2 party

xp
Well, England anyway.

Having the Scots voted for a left wing party? Or at least more left wing than the Labour Party?

Currently the Scottish Assembly is pwned by the party formerly known as the Tartan Tories.