Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
England
Sounds like whataboutery! The subject being Reform. There is another thread on the Labour Party.
Reform
- Topic starter Stirlingsays
- Start date
Living In Hope
Member
- Location
- Petersfield
- Country
-
England
Unfashionable as it may be on this site, I agree with a lot of what Wisbech is saying here. The reality that no political party wants to confront is that we were inevitably made massively poorer by the pandemic. The simple economic reality is that when you produce less per person, you get poorer, and the lockdowns stopped a lot of economic activity for extended periods.
I understand some would argue that we shouldn't have locked the country down. It is possible the economic hit would have been less, but the government has responsibility to its citizens beyond how well-off they are. I think we would have seen appalling scenes of a health service overwhelmed if we hadn't locked down, so to my mind the decision was right. But it didn't mean that we weren't made massively poorer. It just spread the pain across the years. We seem to think now that we ought to be as well off as if the pandemic hadn't happened, but it has burned a huge hole in our collective wealth.
And in my view you need an honest government that acknowledges that the most effective way of raising revenue with probably somewhat more limited negative impact on the economy is to raise income tax (much less detrimental than employers' NI). Instead politicians try to pick a villain, and punish them (oil and gas companies, banks, successful people, landlords), with much less revenue raised than if they did what was necessary. As a population we won't vote for that however, and that is where I really agree with Wisbech.
I understand some would argue that we shouldn't have locked the country down. It is possible the economic hit would have been less, but the government has responsibility to its citizens beyond how well-off they are. I think we would have seen appalling scenes of a health service overwhelmed if we hadn't locked down, so to my mind the decision was right. But it didn't mean that we weren't made massively poorer. It just spread the pain across the years. We seem to think now that we ought to be as well off as if the pandemic hadn't happened, but it has burned a huge hole in our collective wealth.
And in my view you need an honest government that acknowledges that the most effective way of raising revenue with probably somewhat more limited negative impact on the economy is to raise income tax (much less detrimental than employers' NI). Instead politicians try to pick a villain, and punish them (oil and gas companies, banks, successful people, landlords), with much less revenue raised than if they did what was necessary. As a population we won't vote for that however, and that is where I really agree with Wisbech.
georgenorman
Member
- Country
-
England
Government spending should be cut drastically and taxation decreased.
cryrst
Member
- Location
- The garden of England
- Country
-
England
I think that was what they should have done. Raise it by 1 p 2 p 3 p whatever. It is a calculable amount and gives regular cash flow. If it worked and maybe better than imagined there was the option of rebates or reductions later on. No one doubts how poor in reality the uk is but that being the case cut some state sector jobs or spending. Check the welfare expense and deal with it. Check the waste and amend the issues causing it. 2TK is unpopular for doing nothing which is ironic as leaders are normally hated for doing something.
Might as well piss a few off including his very own MPs and at least try. Starmer is all about procrastination, umm aah ooh 😳
Living In Hope
Member
- Location
- Petersfield
- Country
-
England
I agree with this and with what Georgenorman said. We need to be really focused on state spending and waste. But to the extent that tax rises are needed (and generally economic growth will get stifled by tax rises but they are sometimes required) I do think income tax is one of the better options, but appears to be politically impossible.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
I used to think that raising income tax was necessary but have become convinced that what is really important are not the rates, but the take. If a rate rise disincentives to the point the take is lower, then it fails.
So I think it demands a very sophisticated balance between stick and carrot, alongside well managed explanations and reasoning to ensure that markets aren’t spooked. All the financial institutions need to be briefed and kept onboard. So unlike Truss.
I would raise rates on the economically inactive, but cut them, or raise thresholds, at the lower levels of those who work. I would target benefits so that more must work.
Ultimately this has to mean higher taxes for many pensioners, like me, and a longer working life for many not yet retired.
Getting people to vote for it though remains the problem.
Common Sense Club
Member
- Country
-
England
Off topic, I know but I found this both interesting and disturbing on the Sky news site:
Ahead of the vote, a spokesman for the local election commission tried to dispel intense online speculation, telling the media that the number of deaths was "not significantly higher" than in previous campaigns.
German local elections have 16 candidates die ahead of elections to be held shortly, 7 from the AFD. The 'not significantly higher' number got me thinking about whether the UK has had a similar number of passings so near to an election. I am unaware of any such numbers, if any.
Ahead of the vote, a spokesman for the local election commission tried to dispel intense online speculation, telling the media that the number of deaths was "not significantly higher" than in previous campaigns.
German local elections have 16 candidates die ahead of elections to be held shortly, 7 from the AFD. The 'not significantly higher' number got me thinking about whether the UK has had a similar number of passings so near to an election. I am unaware of any such numbers, if any.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Again, I think we must be clear and state that the choices made by the government....not a pandemic.....made us poorer. Again, it should be stated that long standing plans were in place for actions for a pandemic and after that first week where Johnson talked sense they were thrown in the bin.....right after his bottle went because his listened to wets and fear-mongers.
It's not just 'poorer', it's generationally poorer.....400 billion, doesn't get paid off.....it speeds almost certain collaspe within ten years of being spent. Even if we brought in policies that cut things down to the wire many many people would suffer and die earlier because of it.
I'm angry because I'm amongst those who shouted on here about the consequences of spending that kind of money on one or two percent of the population at risk.
If that's so when why wasn't Sweden overwhelmed? They didn't lock down.
We built Nightingale hospitals expressly for a massive increase, the idea that a first world country gets over-whelmed to the point that you can't provide treatment is a 'hollywood' scare movie take.
We had capacity and paid for that capacity.
All the projections were wrong, deliberate misinformation was given to the public, 'nudge units' were paid to scare the public into action based on lies and half truths.
I disagree, there are genuine villains here.
The consequences of this are massive, multifactored and I at least won't ignore joining the dots that brought us here.
There were people shouting about this at the time and they were demonised and ignored.....and they were right.
Since Blair no Govt has looked at wasteful spending, if the public were really told where the money goes they would be on the streets, the abject waste in quangos, agencies, " research " is mind boggling
Well to be precise his partner does. Farage has said nothing to do with him. For now that is all he needs to say.
It's now up to the media to prove that his partner has either been tax dodging by hiding income / assets or Nigel or his Reform friends has been funding her.
On the surface is does look dodgy but he says it's her home and she paid for it so unless the media can uncover any dirt ....
That came from the BBC ,they live together as partners,Farage lives there,the rules have been either bent or broken.
No the BBC has said it doesn't know where the money came from to buy the home. She is not a politician and is not bound to reveal anything if she doesn't want to.
You and the BBC are making assumptions. If there is skulduggery afoot it is up to the media to provide evidence of it. All they have done so far is to make unfounded allegations.
I'm not here to support Farage but if you are going to accuse someone of wrong doing you need a little more than speculation e.g. where did she get her money. Once they have some facts then either Farage or his lady will have questions to answer.
In Raynor's case she (not her ex husband) was the politician being accused and the allegations were specific so she had to respond. It's not quite the same thing.
georgenorman
Member
- Country
-
England
If he has, I hope he gets away with it.
They will you can't escape the Spanish Inquisition! She is a politician by the way.
However, the BBC has examined French property and company records and has been unable to find evidence that Ferrari's parents have the means to give their daughter a significant contribution towards the purchase of the home.
Still not evidence.
She may have inherited the money? She may have earned it or just got lucky with the lottery.
Why should she divulge her private finances.
They have to come at this the other way. Provide proof that Farage gave her the money.
The BBC has failed to find evidence.... no surprise, probably they will claim the money was looted from dead Gazans by the Israelis.
Funny they did no such investigation on Rayner, what a mis use of tax payer money for politically motivated witch hunt.
If there is wrong doing it will surface as everything does these days
Funny they did no such investigation on Rayner, what a mis use of tax payer money for politically motivated witch hunt.
If there is wrong doing it will surface as everything does these days
He has repeated that he did not give her money to buy the house she bought it with her own funds.
The media will now need to prove he is a liar or step back.
Interestingly even the BBC are saying that if he did give her money it was not illegal it just makes him a hypocrite.
The media will now need to prove he is a liar or step back.
Interestingly even the BBC are saying that if he did give her money it was not illegal it just makes him a hypocrite.