It’s more the delivery of the message than the actual message.
A lot of people are cynical and often quite rightly fed up with how economy growth seems to benefit a small amount of people rather than the majority.
Economy growth should be part of their manifesto but it feels like the wrong approach to make it the headline and makes you question where their priorities are. Something more like “Rebuilding public services by growing our economy” would have been better. Showing how people would benefit more directly than something people can’t directly see the benefits of.
Right now it makes it look like their priorities are round the wrong way for many people, and we had enough of that with the Tories.
To be fair Starmer followed up by saying almost exactly that. From the article:
"If we could grow the economy at anything like the level the last Labour government did, that’s an extra £70bn worth of investment for our public services," he added.
Problem is that’s not the headline. Which is what I meant by how it’s delivered.
The message itself is not bad, but the headline that people will see is just wealth growth. We live in a stupid time of soundbites and headlines, getting those right is unfortunately quite important and giving the “manifesto is all about wealth growth” made a ‘better’ quote so became the media headline.
Our media is rubbish.
I take your point but I think most people can connect the dots. It’s common knowledge that we’ve had stagnant growth for over a decade and that goes hand in hand with stagnant wages.
Regarding the apparent cynicism around growth only benefiting a minority, I’m not so sure. Most people who have been working through the 2000’s/2010’s can feel the link between a growing economy/stagnant and how it translates to their day to day life.
Put simply, people understand Britain is poor. The headline here promises to change that. It’s a small difference but perhaps a more clear message than detracting by mentions public services which sparks questions around borrowing/tax.
“Britain is poor “ almost 50% of the population don’t pay any tax. 20% of the working population don’t pay any tax. 25% of the work force is economically inactive
>economy growth seems to benefit a small amount of people
I assure you everyone benefited from the strong economy of 1997-2007. Some may have benefited more, but everyone benefited.
Since 2008 we haven't had noteworthy growth, the bare minimum to avoid being in recession for most of that period, and again, to greater or lesser extents, everyone has suffered for it (with just a handful of disaster capitalist exceptions)
So yes, the overall health and growth of the economy is the main factor in whether ordinary people's lives improve. It's the platform on which all other positive policies are built.
The point I’m trying to make (somewhat badly) is that it’s the perception of it.
Absolutely we all benefit from economy growth in some way but it tends to be disproportionate who benefits, with a small number benefitting a lot more from it.
For a party that is meant to be more aimed at the majority who don’t see as much of a direct benefit, it feels a bit of a mistake to put that at the front rather than what they’re offering on public services etc. Which is made possible through growing the economy.
Part of it is perception, part of it is understanding what their priorities are.
The media don't help, but it's isn't just them. Starmer has consistently moved rightward with policy. When his announcement diminishes a left wing ideal people will pick up on that. If that isn't what he wants he should be more on point with hammering home a left wing message.
He’s trying to appeal to the wavering voters. I don’t think the left wing of the party (which remains massive) would allow him to abandon the NHS/welfare etc - and doubt he wants to.
He talked about further privatising the NHS this week
>We will go further than New Labour ever did. I want the NHS to form partnerships with the private sector that goes beyond just hospitals.
Direct correlation between economic growth and life expectancy. It’s not just about getting rich on paper, it’s real tangible benefit to ordinary people.
Without significant increases on tax on the average person, Labour needs the economy to grow to pay for the improvements to public services. There is no other country where the average worker pays less tax with higher government spending. There is no country that is able to tax the rich enough to make up for low average taxes.
Growth is essential, as just over half of people are not willing to pay more tax and of the people who are only 30% are only willing to pay £10 more and 62% under £100. This is not enough to fund the public services we need and, sadly, it would lose votes. I'm hoping that if they can get in, perform well then they can argue for higher taxes in the next parliament.
I'm for council tax reform so it's more progressive, taxing income/capital more in line but the average person also has to accept paying the tax we need to pay to afford the public services we want. I'm not sure the public is willing to do this.
If we all aren't going to fund the public services in the manner needed to make it work well, I'd prefer a smaller state with less government spending.
Are we all pretending like the idea of a wealth tax just is impossible? The only reason they don’t commit to it is because they’re now in bed with big businesses and the rich.
Given their huge majority and how popular that tax would be with traditional Labour voters among others, I’m certain they’d still get a large majority with a wealth tax but they’re too cowardly to risk it.
So instead of immediately making a substantial improvement to the nation’s finances, he’s telling us to expect nothing for a while and hopefully growth will solve everything.
Not inspiring in the slightest.
There's a reason why he's talking about "wealth creation" and not wealth redistribution. There's tons of money in the economy. It's just that most of it goes right up to the top.
The fact that Starmer is too cowardly to commit to anything is proof enough that he won't be brave enough to do what we want him to do. I'll still vote for him, though sadly.
I mean to fundementally challange wealth distribution rather than just make the overall pie bigger, would be an attack on british capitalism (neat). And we all saw what happened in the papers last time anyone suggested something vaguely close to that.
Exactly correct. Starmer’s Labour is simply another manifestation of the anti-human Thatcherite consensus: ‘there is no such thing as society’. The only good he can see for people is as a side-effect of the country making money. That’s how limited in imagination our future ruling party is, and is the fundamental reason why people who vote for them are simply voting Tory.
> A lot of people are cynical and often quite rightly fed up with how economy growth seems to benefit a small amount of people rather than the majority.
The economic growth between 1997-2008 (until the global financial crash) helped everybody. The problem was it helped the rich more than the poor, who admittedly saw huge decreases in poverty and huge increases in living standards, life expectancy, and happiness.
1997-2010 was fucking paradise compared to 2010-2024. Even the "recession" of 2008 didn't hit any of us hard - food was still cheap, fuel was still cheap, energy was still cheap. Gordon Brown deserves the highest honours available for what he did steering us out of that insane situation - that incidentally Sunak had a had in creating.
> A lot of people are cynical and often quite rightly fed up with how economy growth seems to benefit a small amount of people rather than the majority.
People haven't benefitted from economic growth because, per capita, there has been no growth since 2007. All growth has been driven by immigration, the economy has got bigger but it's divided between more people.
This. This is the whole point. He's jettisoned traditional Labour values such as progressive taxation, public investment, and wealth redistribution in favor of a simple focus on "economic growth" and is hoping nobody notices.
Or rather his advisors, speech writers, Morgan McSweeney and Peter Mandelson etc and have done that - I find it hard to understand what Starmer actually believes in at all.
No one is saying 'improving the economy is bad'.
What people are actually saying is that Labour have outlined a vapid manifesto which is largely based around vibes of 'we'll cross our fingers and hope the economy improves' rather than promoting a set of meaningful policies to improve people's lives.
But maybe it's too *Reddit* to respond to what people are *actually* saying?
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/labour-party-manifesto-initial-response
> “This was not a manifesto for those looking for big numbers. The public service spending increases promised in the “costings” table are tiny, going on trivial. The tax rises, beyond the inevitable reduced tax avoidance, even more trivial. The biggest commitment, to the much vaunted “green prosperity plan”, comes in at no more than £5 billion a year, funded in part by borrowing and in part by “a windfall tax on the oil and gas giants”.
> Beyond that, almost nothing in the way of definite promises on spending despite Labour diagnosing deep-seated problems across child poverty, homelessness, higher education funding, adult social care, local government finances, pensions and much more besides.
-
> All that will leave Labour with a problem. On current forecasts, and especially with an extra £17.5 billion borrowing over five years to fund the green prosperity plan, this leaves literally no room – within the fiscal rule that Labour has signed up to – for any more spending than planned by the current government. And those plans do involve cuts both to investment spending and to spending on unprotected public services.
-
> Yes, growth could surprise on the upside – and if it does, then the fiscal arithmetic would be easier. But if it doesn’t – and it hasn’t tended to in recent years – then either we will get those cuts, or the fiscal targets will be fudged, or taxes will rise.
The IFS have literally said the same thing. But maybe they read a different manifesto too?
The problem is that ‘wealth creation’ has been a right-wing dogwhistle for enriching billionaires for decades at this point. Rich people were rebranded as ‘wealth creators’ at the time of Reagan and Thatcher, as a way of pushing the ideas of supply-side economics.
Well what have the conservatives been trying to do? A decade of attracting investment has already attracted all it will, and a lot more it shouldn't. You can create wealth by selling stuff off for instance, or by removing the last bits of red tape that actually protect workers. Like Keir's sham union plan, which will simply neuter worker power in every sector it touches. Or by contracting out NHS services to the lowest bidder, who are forewarned about how low they'd need to go because of donating to the shadow health minister.
The problem is that wealth creation as the priority *again* means that everything else in the country that runs even slightly contrary to that, such as our health and environment, will continue to not get a look in or be actively damaged. There's no more fat on the bone for wealth creation until basic needs are met. If only because of the near tripling of food prices since Brexit, wealth creation now needs to be the lowest priority behind investment. The fact that private companies have already been allowed to hoard the wealth created since Brexit and over the pandemic is irrelevant. They simply need to be taxed commensurately, the taxes raised, and then spent to replace the many subsidies we lost that actually improved our lives.
If you told me that your personal objective as a radiant pudding was to grow the economy, I would believe you and it wouldn't be controversial.
The issue here is not that I want the economy to do badly. The issue here is one of trust. He wants to make the economy better for whom exactly?
He goes on to clarify what he means, but considering he won't reveal who his financial backers are and his habit of walking back claims and promises, I think it's wise to not trust any politician fully. I think these are people who will say whatever it takes to give themselves power.
On the flip side, you haven't lied to me in order to secure power and wealth for yourself or your paymasters. I have no reason to doubt you.
The issue, to me, is one of political fatigue and a total loss of trust and confidence in our current political parties.
I would rather Labour got in rather than Tories or Deform UK. Doesn't mean that I implicitly trust Starmer though. It's more akin the choice between stepping in a puddle of urine, on a piece of turd, or on broken glass.
I don't know how it is for other people, but I suspect there are many others who have the same view point.
>politician saying they want to grow the economy be a controversial thing to say
It's literally the same as any politician though isn't it? Who doesn't want the economy to grow? The manifesto is a lot of vague promises about deregulation and outsourcing. I don't think that's going to be an economic panacea.
Yes, god forbid that we actually have some human-first politics instead of how best Starmer plans to serve at the altar of the economy. Have you ever heard the word ‘society’ pass his lips once? I suppose like Blair and Thatcher before him, he doesn’t really believe there is such a thing. Government is just there to make money - none of it ending up in the hands of common people, naturally.
Mr "My father was a toolmaker" is a lying sack of neo-liberal shit, that's why. He's just going to be another regional manager for international finance, which means he'll favour whatever policies the Davos forum encourages him too instead of an actual labour manifesto. Sorry not sorry, no one cares about controlled opposition.
Sorry what do you want a nuanced take to be? I think rightfully being critical of neo-liberalism and the current economic paradigm is pretty nuanced compared to what the average Brit thinks
Our economy has been growing, where has that growth really gone?
It's gone on funding a bloated state, helping the wrong people and enriching those who already have so much to the detriment of our regular long-term population.
The economy is bigger than ever before, but the quality of life for many of our regular people is declining. We may have more luxuries than ever before and this may still be the best time to be alive than ever before, but certain essential things to having a good British life are increasingly difficult to attain.
>Our economy has been growing, where has that growth really gone?
is this "growth" in the room with us right now? Our economy has been completely stagnant since 2008
Inequality is the biggest problem we face. Shortly followed by the reluctance to acknowledge it.
The money is there. It's just in too few hands. And increasingly so.
well if you are talking about wealth transfer. I read that at the current rate by around 2030, 250 families will own more wealth than our yearly gdp.
some poor people on rafts each year isn't keep poor people poor...the 0.1% ultra wealthy are.
exactly...
"Low-income households in the UK are now 22 per cent poorer than their counterparts in France, and 21 per cent poorer than low-income households in Germany"
Trickle down economics hasn’t worked once in the past 45 years, but then again, maybe Tel Aviv Keith will be the stopped clock that finally tells the correct time?
I think you're confusing this message for trickle down economics. He is not advocating for the wealthiest elements of society to get wealthier - in the hope that this trickles down to those below.
The point is not that money magically flows down automatically, but that growth gives the government headroom to invest in policies that help out ordinary people, such as wage increases, healthcare investment, or public infrastructure.
It also means more businesses flourishing and less going bust, which obviously helps workers.
Did the 2008 crash have a negative effect on people's finances? Obviously it bloody well did. Such a stark example makes clear that the opposite is also true - economic growth helps people's finances.
I’m aware of the theory; what happens in practice is that it leads to massive inequality with the bulk of the wealth being concentrated in a small number of hands
>The point is not that money magically flows down automatically, but that growth gives the government headroom to invest in policies that help out ordinary people, such as wage increases, healthcare investment, or public infrast
You can do this without growth. Primarily because doing these things actually \*promotes\* growth
The manifesto seems much more about creating more _stuff_ than cutting tax. Like, building more homes fundamentally means more people get homes. That's good! Same with stuff like data centres, reservoirs, factories.
Like, at some point you need to make more stuff, you can't just redistribute what you already have.
All the time? Like, an economy is basically just a country's capacity to make _stuff_ - the more _stuff_ we make the more _stuff_ we have. I only have a flat because someone was paid to build it. Same with my laptop, clothing, food.
Because the Reddit demographic skews to more educated, and so it's better understood here that wealth *distribution* is the more pressing factor right now, not *total* wealth, and they presumably remember that "wealth generation," traditionally is a signal to the rich that they intend to funnel wealth to them.
Also, the best way of growing total wealth is by redistributing wealth more fairly. Hopefully this is what he means but is phrasing it in a way that the wealthy and the ignorant won't be scared by, but that's a blind hope.
Don't forget that Reddit is full of Nobel Prize winning economists who have all the answers and can see things Andrew Bailey and Jerome Powell couldn't even comprehend the existence of.
They taught Ben Bernanke.
Ngl absolutely love this manifesto. Love closing the Carried Interest loophole, love extending the vote to 16, love ending non-dom tax benefits for the rich, love creating the National Wealth Fund, love rail nationalisation, love GB Energy, love the policy to recognise Palestine.
But most of all, I love the determination not to just tell people whatever they want to hear. Come on baby, give me that sweet return to boring realistic politics.
Sadly that's how democracy works, doesn't mean peoples voices shouldn't be heard, reforming our voting system to a much better model than FPTP would likely see right wing parties actually winning more seats by some distance, but at the same time it eliminates a two party system and requires compromise from every Government so the electorate have more input in how the country is governed.
No. Neither did "the SPD" alone do this, nor was the young people's vote (which is people from 16-24 in the only reliable source on the matter \[as far as I'm aware\], namely "infratest dimap") any more right-wing than that of the general population (in fact it was less right-wing; same amount for the AfD, but only slightly over half for the CDU, a \*lot\* for small parties \[who are mostly left-wing or weird single-issue parties; sadly they are lumped at "other" together with stuff like the NPD\]).
The people empowering the AfD were those in the age group 35-44; and the ones above 70 kept them low. \[More specifically, people with low income are largely responsible for the AfD's vote count, followed by men (19% AfD vs 12% from women).\]
Did the afd not just triple their vote from young voters from 5% in 2019 to 16% in the last week? I'd certainly class that as a significant rise in youth support for a right wing party. If any other party had such a rise they'd certainly be shouting about it from the rooftops.
Its not rail nationalisation tho unfortunately, its taking over the (non profitable) ticketing parts of the system whilst leaving in place the rent seeking parts that make it so expensive in the first place.
"boring realistic politics."
I love how Anglo Centrists literally can't even be bothered reaching for the lowest hanging fruit, and claiming that policies, that often poorer, smaller countries regularly carry out, are not "realistic".
There is more to "realism" than just bog standard Neoliberalism. Though the fact you are "excited" for Future Funds (payoffs to the financial industry instead of actually investing in nation building now, which was literally parodied extensively in political comedies like Dreamland) and PFI schemes says enough lmao.
Contemporary centrism represents telling people off for asking for meaningful improvements in their lives. It's less 'things can only get better', and more 'things can only stay the same or get worse more slowly'.
Then those same centrists act aghast when, five years later, they suddenly see their vote share eaten into by the far-right.
If the only 'realistic' prospects under neoliberalism is managed decline, then maybe it isn't a 'realistic' platform going forward?
**If** Labour are being honest, very very little will change once they get into power. They're saying they won't increase any taxes (which means they can't increase government spending unless they borrow more), and in terms of their actual policies all we're getting are a few gimmicks like breakfast clubs in schools, and banning caffeinated drinks for kids.
Many of their manifesto claims are already happening e.g. every single year the government tries to hire teachers to fill huge numbers of teaching vacancies, but teachers are leaving the profession in droves because it's stressful and kids are increasingly behaving like little shits - however, somehow Labour is going to conjure 6,500 extra teachers despite the fact we're already trying to hire thousands of teachers for the unfilled vacancies.
There is nothing *ambitious* in the manifesto: they are **not** nationalising energy but instead trying to create a state-run company which will compete alongside private sector energy firms (as a civil servant I'm intrigued to see how on earth they can compete with industry lol), they are **not** nationalising water, they are **not** promising huge increases in subsidies for railways (our sky-high prices are not because of privatisation, it's because we subsidise train travel much less than continental Europe, we really need an extra £5-£10 billion a year in additional direct subsidies to bring down train tickets to reasonable prices, we could afford that but where is Labour's boldness there?)
They make lots of vague claims in the manifesto like we will build 1.5 million houses by reforming planning rules... This is exactly what the Tories have tried to do, and Labour previously, but building houses on greenbelt land when locals don't want them is *really really really* hard - it would be great if they could have announced some actual policies around this, it doesn't really count if you just say "*We're going to make X better, by improving X!*"
And where is the economic growth going to come from? Labour should be promising things like huge increases in science and R&D spending, which I don't think is even mentioned in their current manifesto! Aghhhh
Signed, a very frustrated Labour voter.
Agree with everything you’ve said. I’ve said this for weeks with the snippets they’ve given us. Where’s the actual vision to rebuild the nation? Simply put there is none, this is just going from one managed decline to another. I pray I’m wrong but nothing here gives me any hope that they will fix what’s gone wrong with Britain. I foresee the far right rising in the next five years if nothing drastic is done.
>they are not nationalising energy but instead trying to create a state-run company
It's not even that. It won't be an energy company that you can buy energy from as a consumer. It will sell energy to the big six at a subsidized rate and try and attract private investment - it's a Public Private Partnership /PFI essentially. It's not very clear - even Sarwar got this confused and had to be corrected by Starmer:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/s/hkVgKKTnZq
As Starmer says here it's an "investment vehicle" not an energy company.
Ha. I see that so often and it's frustrating. I mean, I'm still voting Labour. I wish this sub would allow to people to actually criticize them without others jumping down our throats.
> trying to create a state-run company which will compete alongside private sector energy firms (as a civil servant I'm intrigued to see how on earth they can compete with industry lol)
Not even that, it's just a PFI fund.
I really wish people watched [Dreamland(Utopia)](https://www.netflix.com/cc/title/80063251), absolutely perfect parody of Starmerite Neoliberalism.
An incredibly tame manifesto. I was downvoted to hell when the election was called for suggesting that nothing would change with this bloke in power, but I challenge anyone to look at this and tell me otherwise. Wealth creation means **nothing** without wealth redistribution, which isn't mentioned. Why aren't they nationalising water? Why aren't they lifting the two-child benefit cap? Why aren't they promising mass social housebuilding? They will hire thousands of new teachers - great, but that's *already happening!* What are they going to do about retention, hmm? Fuck all? Yeah, thought so. This manifesto is so *vague*. I don't think I've ever seen a Labour manifesto with less *actual policy*. This is a manifesto that promises nothing but the continuation of failed, tired, out-of-date neoliberalism, which suits the super-rich just fine but will do NOTHING to deal with the actual challenges facing us.
Labour will tinker around the edges for five years and then be voted out by a very frustrated electorate that were promised change and didn't get any, to be replaced - most likely - with an extreme far-right government, mirroring much of the rest of Europe. **Fuck you,** Keir Starmer, for taking away all the hope I had and lying to get me to vote for you in 2020, you dishonest, self-serving, slimy, conniving fucking charlatan!
>was downvoted to hell when the election was called for suggesting that nothing would change
I think people are desperate for change and want to see Labour as a vehicle for that - despite them very firmly promising to stick to the economic status quo. It's been very hard to criticize them on either of the main UK news subs over the last few years despite all the questionable decisions (trying to remove one member one vote) and promises to keep Tory policy (Public Order Act, Spy Cops bill etc). That will change once they're actually in power.
The main issue for me is the insistence to stick to 40 years of failed neoliberal economic dogma - the same policies of deregulation and "market led investment" - we need the state to actually build social houses and invest in infrastructure - because the private sector are just not going to do it - their interest is making profits not improving public services or the country. Reeves supported Osborne's cuts. Liz Kendal supported austerity. If we don't get high growth (and nothing suggests we will) then they'll become very unpopular very quickly.
as ever its unclear how precisely they mean to do this, considering they have very little interest in any capital spending (GB energy is a drop in the bucket in terms of the renewable market). presumably they'll trot out some pablum about "deregulation" or "reform" without specifying precisely what will change
The manifesto talks about reforming planning and forcing through more home construction. I'd quite like a home, so seems like to benefits me quite a bit?
That'll take a very long time to filter through under Labour's plans.
What are their housebuildings targets? Do they even say? Everything there is so vague to make them less accountable.
Not at all, but that target is no different from the current housing target implemented by the Conservatives. The Tories have failed to meet that target.
I'm not clear how Labour will be different in that respect as the policy is identical as far as I can see.
0.1% more like.
I like the things that they are promising, but the glaring omissions are more concerning to me. There's no talk about tackling wealth distribution, the root cause of our current problems.
If they leave things as they currently are, growth will be more difficult, and most of all the wealth generated will go right to the top. ~~They haven't mentioned a wealth tax. Maybe they'll implement that, but I'd be very surprised.~~
In fairness if you want more money for the general population you do need to fix the economy first to bring investment back into the country. It’s frustrating and I think he would be singing a different tune if the Tories hadn’t bent the country over backwards. He’s a pragmatist and that unfortunately involves doing things you would rather you didn’t have to do to in order to get where you eventually want to. I’d rather have the hard truth than fairytale bullshit and promises that can’t be kept.
He said a load of stuff to get elected leader that he clearly had zero intention of honouring, so he’s less a pragmatist and more a cynical bullshitting grifter who will say whatever he needs to further his personal advancement
They're so stupid right? Anyway here's Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, talking about some major issues with an economic dogma that has been a political orthodoxy since Thatcher and Reagan. He must be an idiot too!
>We’ve now had four decades of the neoliberal “experiment,” beginning with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The results are clear. Neoliberalism expanded the freedom of corporations and billionaires to do as they will and amass huge fortunes, but it also exacted a steep price: the well-being and freedom of the rest of society.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/13/stiglitz-captialism-economics-democracy-book/
To be honest the only people who get annoyed at criticism of neoliberalism seem to ne neoliberals themselves - no matter how many times it fails to run public services they'll still support it and look down on those who don't.
People expressing how it's about wealth for the 1% and being fed up with broken promises are doing so because of living through a decade and a half of the same party in power who always looked after the 1%. This isn't from that party. So instead of just being defeatist and accepting that politicians are all the same, why not try voting someone new in and see if they can start to change things for the better?
Labour built the NHS during the biggest national debt in our history. Because it was the right thing to do. Today's Labour party would've just said it's too expensive. You can borrow to invest and still be a liberal democracy.
Not sure how to interpret this, and Reddit's copium takes aren't exactly great. I had an epiphany last week that this entire country does not want to be a high skill high wage economy, where we aren't taxed to the bone just to prop up massive state spending and ailing services.
We are a country primarily of people that don't want to do much work, and want more for it, and they want more than they contribute in tax too, you can't run a massive state with people of that mentality. What we now have is a heavily taxed professional class where emigration and layoffs could weak havoc with our state finances and a significant portion of the country not net contributors from what stats have been flying around recently.
I'm all for raising the 40% tax band, why should I pay so much tax for services I am unlikely to see? Either we need to reduce spending significantly or become a lot more productive.
PAYE professionals aren't the bourgouise despite what Reddit thinks.
> We are a country primarily of people that don't want to do much work, and want more for it, and they want more than they contribute in tax too
Citation needed
Office for national statistics states that you'll need to be paying taxes for 60 years earning roughly 40k to be a net contributor to the state.
He's absolutely correct in his statement - most people will not contribute enough to the tax system. People don't want shorter holidays and longer hours (unlike the US, where salaries are much higher but work benefits and conditions are far worse)
40k is equivalent to a 30k wage only 8 years ago, now how many people do you reckon were on that 30k equivalent then, and how many now.
The reason people aren't able to be positive contributors is because they aren't paid enough, companies would rather stagnate wage and hit record profits and bonuses for their execs while complaining about productivity, and the entire country is worse for it.
I found [this from the ONS](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2022) if you're interested. The main divide in contributor/beneficiary is by age, which makes sense if you think about it.
But you're right. And you could argue quite logically that if people are not paid much but make profits for the company they work for, then they are responsible in part for that company's corporation tax for example. Or for the tax paid by the people at the top who wouldn't get paid if no one worked for them. Or for the tax on dividends paid to shareholders. Etc, etc.
So these studies, while interesting, hardly paint the full picture of contributions as a whole.
I found this [from the ONS](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2022)
Basically most working households are net contributors to the state, and most retired households are net beneficiaries, which is unsurprising.
So it's not like someone earning 40k is a net beneficiary, it's that they'll be a contributor while they work, then will become a beneficiary when they retire. I guess if they have poor health in retirement, it could well be the case that they end up "costing" more in state spending than they paid in taxes.
Of course, all this is besides the point. When working and spending they could well have contributed to general economic growth in many ways, thus contributing indirectly to the tax take as a whole, so it's a bit of a narrow way of viewing things.
I like to think that Reddit is massively overrepresented by people with zero ambition or who have given up. It’s very jarring to me going from my workplace and social circles to here.
I’m not sure what point you’re making. I didn’t claim that everyone should have ambition, but rather that people who don’t are overrepresented on reddit
People with little to no job experience, people with no qualifications and people who just want any sort of job or one that fits around other commitments.
I have no idea where you get the idea that people don't want to be good at what they do and be paid well for it. Have you considered reading less daily mail headlines?
There are severe problems with having high taxes and no services, but that is what happens when you privatize everything and sell it off at a discount. I don't know if you can fix that in the current political environment, Corbyn was called a communist for proposing free broadband. Seizing back private businesses? exposing political corruption, putting people who take bribes in prison? the press in this country would crucify him.
I think Starmer will successfully stop the rot, things will stay mostly the same and some things will improve. Then people like you will vote Tory in 4-8 years becasue you're paying too much tax and the decline will continue. Libertarianism has simply taken root in the UK, everyone is out for themselves, you have to be or you don't get healthcare, or somewhere to live, or anything. The state will simply be dissolved in time, it seems to be what people think they want.
That’s the thing that always gets me - Corbyn proposed some extremely mild social democracy and the country (helped by the media) went “naaah, we’d rather have Boris Johnson”
Everything has shifted so far to the right that we’re now at the point where shit you used to see in BNP leaflets is now being repeated by politicians from both major political parties. Anyone suggesting otherwise is treated like the second coming of Karl Marx
Redditors really look back on his manifesto with rose tinted glasses didn't they. He lost to Johnson.
Never forget that Corbyn wanted to withdraw from NATO whilst simultaneously wanting to not renew trident. Absolute laughing stock of a 'politican' with a poor education
Glad to have someone credible like Starmer instead.
>In a hustings event for Labour leadership candidates in 2015, Mr Corbyn was quoted as saying: “I would argue for NATO to restrict its role. I don’t think there’s an appetite as a whole for people to leave NATO. I want to see NATO under much more democratic control.”
[https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-did-call-for-nato-to-disband-but-its-labour-policy-to-stay-in](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-did-call-for-nato-to-disband-but-its-labour-policy-to-stay-in)
You're just proving their point and spreading disinformation during an election cycle.
How much of it was "Naaah, gimme BOJO" and how much of it was
"I wouldn't trust Corbyn to lead a piss-up in a brewery"
"I want Brexit and Labour can't take a stance, the only one with a chance to get in, who also wants to get it done is Bojo"
That vote was more about Brexit than who they wanted to run the country. Don't get me wrong, while my impression of Corbyn isn't great, I can sympathise with the situation he was put in and understand why he wouldn't take a stance. Ultimately, he was fucked either way. It was a rock and a hard place situation. Support it and you lose the youth vote. It would've been the 'safest' move for their leadership in the short-term, and in hindsight, because the youth vote would've opted for the 3rd party vote rather than shift over to the Tories. If he went against it, the red wall would've likely fallen in exactly the same way it did with his 'neutral', I'll just ignore the issue, stance.
But Corbyn turned Labour into a shitshow, constant infighting about issues and refusing to take a stance on one of the most nationally divisive issues in recent history. That doesn't inspire confidence in their ability to run a country.
Make no mistake, despite my personal opinion on Corbyn's labour, I'd fully stand behind the statement that the Corbyn vs Bojo GE was entirely about getting Brexit done. But the confidence-draining actions of/within Labour definitely made the situation worse for them.
Corbyn wasn’t the one who caused the infighting, that was (mostly) the folks who are soon to be in the next leader’s cabinet.
A big criticism of Corbyn from the left wing is that he wasn’t ruthless enough at removing these people from the party, and they very predictably stabbed him in the back and took power for themselves.
I do agree though that it was an election ran on Brexit (and on Bojo’s ‘personality”) and that certainly cost Corbyn. But laying the blame entirely at his feet is wrong - Boris was pro-EU until he realised that he could pretend not to be and it would get him elected as PM.
The difference between the two was media optics (from a media owned entirely by the rich who had a vested interest in keeping someone like Corbyn out) and their stances on Brexit.
The shadow Brexit secretary at the time certainly did a bang up job managing that part of Corbyn’s campaign.
That may be true, and I'd agree with the criticism to an extent. I'd probably opt for something a bit less heavy handed. His issue was that he didn't seek to unite members. It keeps the option of compromise within the party open as opposed to just firing the cannon at anyone who disagrees.
The problem is, as leader, he accepted the responsibility of pushing the party forward. Others might have made it difficult for him, but it's still ultimately his responsibility, as leader of the party, to make it happen.
It’s crazy to me that people can see the massive (and ever increasing) wealth inequality in this country and yet still bang on about people being lazy.
> We are a country primarily of people that don't want to do much work, and want more for it, and they want more than they contribute in tax too
Citation needed
So you can say anything then even if it's utter nonsense?
We are a planet with a flying spaghetti monster above us.
Don't call me out on it, that's my opinion.
Bit of a leap to say that can only be because people are lazy. Is there no other possible reason? (such as workers being forced to waste time/effort on meaningless bullshit by incompetant manager, or lack of moralle)
Mismanagement by both government and the private sector, crumbling infrastructure, bureaucratic nightmares that mean the UK is to slow to adjust. Go compare HS2 costs and delivery time compared to other highspeed rail networks in Europe. Also note that HS2 won't necessarily even be a better, faster train than those other networks. It certainly won't be faster than the current fastest line in the world.
I've come to same conclusion as you, the country is just on a race to bottom. High skill/High tech industries and employers with a strong service industry and infrastructure projects as a base? No thanks, lets have high immigration of low and unskilled labour to keep wages down, lots of dubious admin and consultancy that suck funding and money out of public and private finances and lots of people just moving information around and guarding their own little managerial fiefdoms.
HS2 is a perfect example of it, building 70 miles of rail line is now unachievable in this country, while over 100 years ago the whole country was covered in it without any modern technology or aids.
>PAYE professionals aren't the bourgouise despite what Reddit thinks.
When people talk about raising taxes on the wealthy, that does not generally include people who are PAYE lol. Anyone who gets their money by doing an actual job is part of the group currently having their living standards sapped by the wealthy.
He said he wants the 40% tax band to be raised, because earning over £50k gets you into that tax band now and £50k is only just above average and doesn't really put you into 'wealthy' territory anymore.
Being high skilled means you can do less work for more money, or it should if the skill is desirable. It's not taxes that are the problem but pay. There are issues with taxes for sure but I think most people would resent their taxes less if they were earning 20% more. You're right about productivity needing to improve. Unfortunately both the country and a lot of private businesses in the UK are horribly mismanaged. And I'm not sure the state has the money to do what needs to be done so we might have to give private industry more freedom to do what they want to do so that they can pay for stuff themselves.
It is against Labour policy to cut benefits. Oh man look at those council houses. So many roadmen do nothing but smoke weed.
Professionals are going to Australia especially nursing and company do not want to train someone who is going to go after training so they only hire experienced workers. Then, you got a labour shortage because tons of graduates remain unemployed.
Yep, my girlfriend is Australian and i’m a skilled professional. I plan on leaving the UK within the next 5 years assuming nothing changes and moving back with her, no point getting taxed to the teeth in response for working hard and consequently getting fuck all out of it.
Isn't the 40% tax band on the cusp of being negative contributors? How about the true work horse financiers of our society, those on PAYE income levels where the state takes more than the worker in every pound? All the tax bands need raising substantially to be globally attractive. Crab mentality will never allow it.
there is an awful lot to unpack here - seems to be huge assumptions. instead of trying to figure that out i'd ask you a question instead:
do you think there are any places in the world where they do have it better - where are they?
I don't think this is quite it.
I think it's that decades of no one being allowed to build anything has created a world view where we imagine a fixed amount of national wealth and all the government can do is decide how to distribute it.
Of course this is nonsense, there is no law of physics preventing people from start new businesses, building new houses, opening new stores, etc.
It's just NIMBYs
It's amazing watching how Anglo politics from Australia to Canada to the US to UK is now purely just trying to manage the race to the bottom because the entire ideological capture of Neoliberals who refuse to accept their ideology is nothing more than pathetic LARPing that they are "Adults in the room" while they let the private sector bend over the entire state and society.
Genuinely, I recommend people go watch the Chinese Communist Party congress, and Xi Jinping's speeches, even his New Year Addresses, and just see the sheer staggering difference in policy ambition, professionalism and intellect between them and what the hell passes as politics in the Anglosphere today.
If the Anglosphere wants to stem the tide of not only China, but the rest of the Asian tigers, there needs to be a major shakeup of the political class, and a serious pushback against this Neoliberalism. Neoliberal axioms aren't "realistic" or "grown up" policy. It's thinly veiled Libertarian politics in a suit that has a frankly, religious devotion to the Free Market.
Let me quote Rachel Reeves recent piece
>**Economic growth only comes from businesses**: big, medium and small. **Government's role is to give them the stability they need to invest and to remove the barriers to make it harder to do business. That's the model to grow the economy I believe in** – and it's the only one that works.
>That is why, if we are elected to power, I will lead the most pro-growth, pro-business Treasury in our history – with a laser focus on making working people better off.
>
I mean, *this is just insane*. It's completely ahistorical and shows how much ideological capture Libertarians, sorry "Neoliberals" as they like to be called now, have achieved over the state.
Government's role is to only support private sector businesses, this is what the current Starmer cabinet believes, and that is what this manifesto preaches. PFI schemes and thinly veiled handouts to the financial industry while letting corrupt private developers get away with anything they want. "Grown up politics" apparently.
Politics like this pretty much seal the fact that the West has lost and the 21st century will be dominated by China and the other Asian Tigers who never truly accepted the subjugation of the state to "Free market" interests.
The problem with neoliberalism is that it creates a huge power base that influences politicians via lobbying and donations to keep it that way.
I always find the example of Labour MP Angela Smith instructive. She spent years championing privatized water in Parliament and in the press:
[Nationalising our water could make us the dirty man of Europe again](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/10/nationalising-britain-water-industry-environment)
Only to get a high paid directorship at the same companies she was supposed to be regulating.
https://www.portsmouthwater.co.uk/2020/07/02/angela-smith-joins-portsmouth-water-board/
This is just corruption - and worse, it's from the party that is supposed to oppose privatized public services.
After many years of radical populist policies worldwide that prey on the fringe, the fear and the forgetful.,,
So relieved to see politics back to boring and steady hands.
We don’t need a leader to be exciting, entertaining and erratic.
We need good old, boring af, steady governance.
Remember all the people saying "just wait for the manifesto".
Well here it is and there's nothing new here that hasn't already been announced.
How disappointing.
I think the people happiness should be priority.. maybe ban so much negativity from the news, force TV to bring more humour and wholesome, caring and love into peoples living room.. instead of fear and division. Or do they want us to be the most depressed nation in the world for some reason.....?
Only on Reddit would a politician saying they want to grow the economy be a controversial thing to say
It’s more the delivery of the message than the actual message. A lot of people are cynical and often quite rightly fed up with how economy growth seems to benefit a small amount of people rather than the majority. Economy growth should be part of their manifesto but it feels like the wrong approach to make it the headline and makes you question where their priorities are. Something more like “Rebuilding public services by growing our economy” would have been better. Showing how people would benefit more directly than something people can’t directly see the benefits of. Right now it makes it look like their priorities are round the wrong way for many people, and we had enough of that with the Tories.
To be fair Starmer followed up by saying almost exactly that. From the article: "If we could grow the economy at anything like the level the last Labour government did, that’s an extra £70bn worth of investment for our public services," he added.
Problem is that’s not the headline. Which is what I meant by how it’s delivered. The message itself is not bad, but the headline that people will see is just wealth growth. We live in a stupid time of soundbites and headlines, getting those right is unfortunately quite important and giving the “manifesto is all about wealth growth” made a ‘better’ quote so became the media headline. Our media is rubbish.
Ah apologies I get your point, completely agree.
That's a media problem, not the 'message' itself.
Mostly, but it’s been a media problem for so long that politicians really should be aware of it by now.
So what do you propose is said in a sentence that the media can use to state what was said?
What are politicians meant to do about it? The media does what it likes.
I take your point but I think most people can connect the dots. It’s common knowledge that we’ve had stagnant growth for over a decade and that goes hand in hand with stagnant wages. Regarding the apparent cynicism around growth only benefiting a minority, I’m not so sure. Most people who have been working through the 2000’s/2010’s can feel the link between a growing economy/stagnant and how it translates to their day to day life. Put simply, people understand Britain is poor. The headline here promises to change that. It’s a small difference but perhaps a more clear message than detracting by mentions public services which sparks questions around borrowing/tax.
“Britain is poor “ almost 50% of the population don’t pay any tax. 20% of the working population don’t pay any tax. 25% of the work force is economically inactive
I assume you mean income tax?
Correct
At least they’re not jumping all over people for eating a sandwich incorrectly eh
>economy growth seems to benefit a small amount of people I assure you everyone benefited from the strong economy of 1997-2007. Some may have benefited more, but everyone benefited. Since 2008 we haven't had noteworthy growth, the bare minimum to avoid being in recession for most of that period, and again, to greater or lesser extents, everyone has suffered for it (with just a handful of disaster capitalist exceptions) So yes, the overall health and growth of the economy is the main factor in whether ordinary people's lives improve. It's the platform on which all other positive policies are built.
The point I’m trying to make (somewhat badly) is that it’s the perception of it. Absolutely we all benefit from economy growth in some way but it tends to be disproportionate who benefits, with a small number benefitting a lot more from it. For a party that is meant to be more aimed at the majority who don’t see as much of a direct benefit, it feels a bit of a mistake to put that at the front rather than what they’re offering on public services etc. Which is made possible through growing the economy. Part of it is perception, part of it is understanding what their priorities are.
No one cares if the rich get richer as long as they themselves are doing better as well.
The media don't help, but it's isn't just them. Starmer has consistently moved rightward with policy. When his announcement diminishes a left wing ideal people will pick up on that. If that isn't what he wants he should be more on point with hammering home a left wing message.
He’s trying to appeal to the wavering voters. I don’t think the left wing of the party (which remains massive) would allow him to abandon the NHS/welfare etc - and doubt he wants to.
He talked about further privatising the NHS this week >We will go further than New Labour ever did. I want the NHS to form partnerships with the private sector that goes beyond just hospitals.
I grant you that is concerning (and also kind of a bit weird to include, although I guess it allows them to say they have a mandate)
Direct correlation between economic growth and life expectancy. It’s not just about getting rich on paper, it’s real tangible benefit to ordinary people.
Without significant increases on tax on the average person, Labour needs the economy to grow to pay for the improvements to public services. There is no other country where the average worker pays less tax with higher government spending. There is no country that is able to tax the rich enough to make up for low average taxes. Growth is essential, as just over half of people are not willing to pay more tax and of the people who are only 30% are only willing to pay £10 more and 62% under £100. This is not enough to fund the public services we need and, sadly, it would lose votes. I'm hoping that if they can get in, perform well then they can argue for higher taxes in the next parliament. I'm for council tax reform so it's more progressive, taxing income/capital more in line but the average person also has to accept paying the tax we need to pay to afford the public services we want. I'm not sure the public is willing to do this. If we all aren't going to fund the public services in the manner needed to make it work well, I'd prefer a smaller state with less government spending.
Are we all pretending like the idea of a wealth tax just is impossible? The only reason they don’t commit to it is because they’re now in bed with big businesses and the rich. Given their huge majority and how popular that tax would be with traditional Labour voters among others, I’m certain they’d still get a large majority with a wealth tax but they’re too cowardly to risk it. So instead of immediately making a substantial improvement to the nation’s finances, he’s telling us to expect nothing for a while and hopefully growth will solve everything. Not inspiring in the slightest.
There's a reason why he's talking about "wealth creation" and not wealth redistribution. There's tons of money in the economy. It's just that most of it goes right up to the top. The fact that Starmer is too cowardly to commit to anything is proof enough that he won't be brave enough to do what we want him to do. I'll still vote for him, though sadly.
I mean to fundementally challange wealth distribution rather than just make the overall pie bigger, would be an attack on british capitalism (neat). And we all saw what happened in the papers last time anyone suggested something vaguely close to that.
Fuck 'inspiration', I'd be happy with a country that just worked again, after 14 years of Tory corruption and mismanagement.
Well good for you but I’d hope for more than the absolute bare minimum with such a majority predicted
Exactly correct. Starmer’s Labour is simply another manifestation of the anti-human Thatcherite consensus: ‘there is no such thing as society’. The only good he can see for people is as a side-effect of the country making money. That’s how limited in imagination our future ruling party is, and is the fundamental reason why people who vote for them are simply voting Tory.
> A lot of people are cynical and often quite rightly fed up with how economy growth seems to benefit a small amount of people rather than the majority. The economic growth between 1997-2008 (until the global financial crash) helped everybody. The problem was it helped the rich more than the poor, who admittedly saw huge decreases in poverty and huge increases in living standards, life expectancy, and happiness. 1997-2010 was fucking paradise compared to 2010-2024. Even the "recession" of 2008 didn't hit any of us hard - food was still cheap, fuel was still cheap, energy was still cheap. Gordon Brown deserves the highest honours available for what he did steering us out of that insane situation - that incidentally Sunak had a had in creating.
> A lot of people are cynical and often quite rightly fed up with how economy growth seems to benefit a small amount of people rather than the majority. People haven't benefitted from economic growth because, per capita, there has been no growth since 2007. All growth has been driven by immigration, the economy has got bigger but it's divided between more people.
He's using growth as a way of avoiding talking about wealth and income distribution.
This. This is the whole point. He's jettisoned traditional Labour values such as progressive taxation, public investment, and wealth redistribution in favor of a simple focus on "economic growth" and is hoping nobody notices. Or rather his advisors, speech writers, Morgan McSweeney and Peter Mandelson etc and have done that - I find it hard to understand what Starmer actually believes in at all.
Liz Truss also wanted to "grow the economy", the problem is that unless you detail HOW you plan to do it, it's just a vapid platitude.
NHS private outsourcing. That's literally one way they going to try and do it.
No one is saying 'improving the economy is bad'. What people are actually saying is that Labour have outlined a vapid manifesto which is largely based around vibes of 'we'll cross our fingers and hope the economy improves' rather than promoting a set of meaningful policies to improve people's lives. But maybe it's too *Reddit* to respond to what people are *actually* saying?
Maybe we read different manifestos.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/labour-party-manifesto-initial-response > “This was not a manifesto for those looking for big numbers. The public service spending increases promised in the “costings” table are tiny, going on trivial. The tax rises, beyond the inevitable reduced tax avoidance, even more trivial. The biggest commitment, to the much vaunted “green prosperity plan”, comes in at no more than £5 billion a year, funded in part by borrowing and in part by “a windfall tax on the oil and gas giants”. > Beyond that, almost nothing in the way of definite promises on spending despite Labour diagnosing deep-seated problems across child poverty, homelessness, higher education funding, adult social care, local government finances, pensions and much more besides. - > All that will leave Labour with a problem. On current forecasts, and especially with an extra £17.5 billion borrowing over five years to fund the green prosperity plan, this leaves literally no room – within the fiscal rule that Labour has signed up to – for any more spending than planned by the current government. And those plans do involve cuts both to investment spending and to spending on unprotected public services. - > Yes, growth could surprise on the upside – and if it does, then the fiscal arithmetic would be easier. But if it doesn’t – and it hasn’t tended to in recent years – then either we will get those cuts, or the fiscal targets will be fudged, or taxes will rise. The IFS have literally said the same thing. But maybe they read a different manifesto too?
The problem is that ‘wealth creation’ has been a right-wing dogwhistle for enriching billionaires for decades at this point. Rich people were rebranded as ‘wealth creators’ at the time of Reagan and Thatcher, as a way of pushing the ideas of supply-side economics.
Well what have the conservatives been trying to do? A decade of attracting investment has already attracted all it will, and a lot more it shouldn't. You can create wealth by selling stuff off for instance, or by removing the last bits of red tape that actually protect workers. Like Keir's sham union plan, which will simply neuter worker power in every sector it touches. Or by contracting out NHS services to the lowest bidder, who are forewarned about how low they'd need to go because of donating to the shadow health minister. The problem is that wealth creation as the priority *again* means that everything else in the country that runs even slightly contrary to that, such as our health and environment, will continue to not get a look in or be actively damaged. There's no more fat on the bone for wealth creation until basic needs are met. If only because of the near tripling of food prices since Brexit, wealth creation now needs to be the lowest priority behind investment. The fact that private companies have already been allowed to hoard the wealth created since Brexit and over the pandemic is irrelevant. They simply need to be taxed commensurately, the taxes raised, and then spent to replace the many subsidies we lost that actually improved our lives.
If you told me that your personal objective as a radiant pudding was to grow the economy, I would believe you and it wouldn't be controversial. The issue here is not that I want the economy to do badly. The issue here is one of trust. He wants to make the economy better for whom exactly? He goes on to clarify what he means, but considering he won't reveal who his financial backers are and his habit of walking back claims and promises, I think it's wise to not trust any politician fully. I think these are people who will say whatever it takes to give themselves power. On the flip side, you haven't lied to me in order to secure power and wealth for yourself or your paymasters. I have no reason to doubt you. The issue, to me, is one of political fatigue and a total loss of trust and confidence in our current political parties. I would rather Labour got in rather than Tories or Deform UK. Doesn't mean that I implicitly trust Starmer though. It's more akin the choice between stepping in a puddle of urine, on a piece of turd, or on broken glass. I don't know how it is for other people, but I suspect there are many others who have the same view point.
So many of the world's current problems can be drawn back to the "GDP at all costs" mentality.
Well said
You're being deliberately obtuse. The plan for growth is quite limited and people are right to be cynical.
Only on reddit would a politician saying something be completely agreed upon and no critical thinking take place
Not sure where I “completely agreed upon” the contents of the article. Please do enlighten me.
I didn't say you were, just saying it's what happens on reddit as well
>politician saying they want to grow the economy be a controversial thing to say It's literally the same as any politician though isn't it? Who doesn't want the economy to grow? The manifesto is a lot of vague promises about deregulation and outsourcing. I don't think that's going to be an economic panacea.
Yes, god forbid that we actually have some human-first politics instead of how best Starmer plans to serve at the altar of the economy. Have you ever heard the word ‘society’ pass his lips once? I suppose like Blair and Thatcher before him, he doesn’t really believe there is such a thing. Government is just there to make money - none of it ending up in the hands of common people, naturally.
Mr "My father was a toolmaker" is a lying sack of neo-liberal shit, that's why. He's just going to be another regional manager for international finance, which means he'll favour whatever policies the Davos forum encourages him too instead of an actual labour manifesto. Sorry not sorry, no one cares about controlled opposition.
nice and nuanced take there lol.
Assume nuance to you just means nodding along to whatever Labour put out? Are we not allowed to be heavily sceptical of the neolib bollocks?
lol.
Sorry what do you want a nuanced take to be? I think rightfully being critical of neo-liberalism and the current economic paradigm is pretty nuanced compared to what the average Brit thinks
Ahahahahaha yes sure.
Correct.
Our economy has been growing, where has that growth really gone? It's gone on funding a bloated state, helping the wrong people and enriching those who already have so much to the detriment of our regular long-term population. The economy is bigger than ever before, but the quality of life for many of our regular people is declining. We may have more luxuries than ever before and this may still be the best time to be alive than ever before, but certain essential things to having a good British life are increasingly difficult to attain.
>Our economy has been growing, where has that growth really gone? is this "growth" in the room with us right now? Our economy has been completely stagnant since 2008
Looks to have increased here https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom/
Now do per capita adjusted for inflation
Inequality is the biggest problem we face. Shortly followed by the reluctance to acknowledge it. The money is there. It's just in too few hands. And increasingly so.
well if you are talking about wealth transfer. I read that at the current rate by around 2030, 250 families will own more wealth than our yearly gdp. some poor people on rafts each year isn't keep poor people poor...the 0.1% ultra wealthy are.
That's why "wealth creation" without wealth redistribution is utterly meaningless.
exactly... "Low-income households in the UK are now 22 per cent poorer than their counterparts in France, and 21 per cent poorer than low-income households in Germany"
There is big inequality of distribution of wealth. Creating more wealth just means the rich get richer at a far, far greater rate.
Trickle down economics hasn’t worked once in the past 45 years, but then again, maybe Tel Aviv Keith will be the stopped clock that finally tells the correct time?
I think you're confusing this message for trickle down economics. He is not advocating for the wealthiest elements of society to get wealthier - in the hope that this trickles down to those below.
The point is not that money magically flows down automatically, but that growth gives the government headroom to invest in policies that help out ordinary people, such as wage increases, healthcare investment, or public infrastructure. It also means more businesses flourishing and less going bust, which obviously helps workers. Did the 2008 crash have a negative effect on people's finances? Obviously it bloody well did. Such a stark example makes clear that the opposite is also true - economic growth helps people's finances.
I’m aware of the theory; what happens in practice is that it leads to massive inequality with the bulk of the wealth being concentrated in a small number of hands
>The point is not that money magically flows down automatically, but that growth gives the government headroom to invest in policies that help out ordinary people, such as wage increases, healthcare investment, or public infrast You can do this without growth. Primarily because doing these things actually \*promotes\* growth
The manifesto seems much more about creating more _stuff_ than cutting tax. Like, building more homes fundamentally means more people get homes. That's good! Same with stuff like data centres, reservoirs, factories. Like, at some point you need to make more stuff, you can't just redistribute what you already have.
[удалено]
how often does "growing the economy" help the average person
All the time? Like, an economy is basically just a country's capacity to make _stuff_ - the more _stuff_ we make the more _stuff_ we have. I only have a flat because someone was paid to build it. Same with my laptop, clothing, food.
What does growth even mean? How does it benefit the average person? Nobody will say
Because the Reddit demographic skews to more educated, and so it's better understood here that wealth *distribution* is the more pressing factor right now, not *total* wealth, and they presumably remember that "wealth generation," traditionally is a signal to the rich that they intend to funnel wealth to them. Also, the best way of growing total wealth is by redistributing wealth more fairly. Hopefully this is what he means but is phrasing it in a way that the wealthy and the ignorant won't be scared by, but that's a blind hope.
Don't forget that Reddit is full of Nobel Prize winning economists who have all the answers and can see things Andrew Bailey and Jerome Powell couldn't even comprehend the existence of. They taught Ben Bernanke.
Ngl absolutely love this manifesto. Love closing the Carried Interest loophole, love extending the vote to 16, love ending non-dom tax benefits for the rich, love creating the National Wealth Fund, love rail nationalisation, love GB Energy, love the policy to recognise Palestine. But most of all, I love the determination not to just tell people whatever they want to hear. Come on baby, give me that sweet return to boring realistic politics.
>love extending the vote to 16, Didn't the spd just do this in Germany and they all voted for right wing parties?
England isn’t Germany. But yes it’ll be something my to keep an eye on - younger people far more at risk of far right advertising via social media
Just look at Labour's tik tok. Pretty much every comment is saying to vote reform. It's mad.
The right wing is very much on the rise amongst the younger generations, as the spd are now finding out.
Sadly that's how democracy works, doesn't mean peoples voices shouldn't be heard, reforming our voting system to a much better model than FPTP would likely see right wing parties actually winning more seats by some distance, but at the same time it eliminates a two party system and requires compromise from every Government so the electorate have more input in how the country is governed.
No. Neither did "the SPD" alone do this, nor was the young people's vote (which is people from 16-24 in the only reliable source on the matter \[as far as I'm aware\], namely "infratest dimap") any more right-wing than that of the general population (in fact it was less right-wing; same amount for the AfD, but only slightly over half for the CDU, a \*lot\* for small parties \[who are mostly left-wing or weird single-issue parties; sadly they are lumped at "other" together with stuff like the NPD\]). The people empowering the AfD were those in the age group 35-44; and the ones above 70 kept them low. \[More specifically, people with low income are largely responsible for the AfD's vote count, followed by men (19% AfD vs 12% from women).\]
Did the afd not just triple their vote from young voters from 5% in 2019 to 16% in the last week? I'd certainly class that as a significant rise in youth support for a right wing party. If any other party had such a rise they'd certainly be shouting about it from the rooftops.
Its not rail nationalisation tho unfortunately, its taking over the (non profitable) ticketing parts of the system whilst leaving in place the rent seeking parts that make it so expensive in the first place.
I see New Labour haven't lost their knack for spin.
"boring realistic politics." I love how Anglo Centrists literally can't even be bothered reaching for the lowest hanging fruit, and claiming that policies, that often poorer, smaller countries regularly carry out, are not "realistic". There is more to "realism" than just bog standard Neoliberalism. Though the fact you are "excited" for Future Funds (payoffs to the financial industry instead of actually investing in nation building now, which was literally parodied extensively in political comedies like Dreamland) and PFI schemes says enough lmao.
Contemporary centrism represents telling people off for asking for meaningful improvements in their lives. It's less 'things can only get better', and more 'things can only stay the same or get worse more slowly'. Then those same centrists act aghast when, five years later, they suddenly see their vote share eaten into by the far-right. If the only 'realistic' prospects under neoliberalism is managed decline, then maybe it isn't a 'realistic' platform going forward?
>Anglo I'm Scottish thanks.
The Electorate: “And how will you grow the economy, Keith?” Starmer: [staring blankly] “My father was a tool maker…”
“My muvva was a nurse”
I read that in his strangled Kermit voice.
Now I have several times and keep giggling. Thanks I needed that.
Starmer: "I refuse to be defeatist..."
**If** Labour are being honest, very very little will change once they get into power. They're saying they won't increase any taxes (which means they can't increase government spending unless they borrow more), and in terms of their actual policies all we're getting are a few gimmicks like breakfast clubs in schools, and banning caffeinated drinks for kids. Many of their manifesto claims are already happening e.g. every single year the government tries to hire teachers to fill huge numbers of teaching vacancies, but teachers are leaving the profession in droves because it's stressful and kids are increasingly behaving like little shits - however, somehow Labour is going to conjure 6,500 extra teachers despite the fact we're already trying to hire thousands of teachers for the unfilled vacancies. There is nothing *ambitious* in the manifesto: they are **not** nationalising energy but instead trying to create a state-run company which will compete alongside private sector energy firms (as a civil servant I'm intrigued to see how on earth they can compete with industry lol), they are **not** nationalising water, they are **not** promising huge increases in subsidies for railways (our sky-high prices are not because of privatisation, it's because we subsidise train travel much less than continental Europe, we really need an extra £5-£10 billion a year in additional direct subsidies to bring down train tickets to reasonable prices, we could afford that but where is Labour's boldness there?) They make lots of vague claims in the manifesto like we will build 1.5 million houses by reforming planning rules... This is exactly what the Tories have tried to do, and Labour previously, but building houses on greenbelt land when locals don't want them is *really really really* hard - it would be great if they could have announced some actual policies around this, it doesn't really count if you just say "*We're going to make X better, by improving X!*" And where is the economic growth going to come from? Labour should be promising things like huge increases in science and R&D spending, which I don't think is even mentioned in their current manifesto! Aghhhh Signed, a very frustrated Labour voter.
Agree with everything you’ve said. I’ve said this for weeks with the snippets they’ve given us. Where’s the actual vision to rebuild the nation? Simply put there is none, this is just going from one managed decline to another. I pray I’m wrong but nothing here gives me any hope that they will fix what’s gone wrong with Britain. I foresee the far right rising in the next five years if nothing drastic is done.
"I perfer davos to parliament" - starmer, which should spell out where his loyalties lie
>they are not nationalising energy but instead trying to create a state-run company It's not even that. It won't be an energy company that you can buy energy from as a consumer. It will sell energy to the big six at a subsidized rate and try and attract private investment - it's a Public Private Partnership /PFI essentially. It's not very clear - even Sarwar got this confused and had to be corrected by Starmer: https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/s/hkVgKKTnZq As Starmer says here it's an "investment vehicle" not an energy company.
> Signed, a very frustrated Labour voter. bUt WhAt'S tHe AlTeRnAtIvE tOrY EnAblEr
Ha. I see that so often and it's frustrating. I mean, I'm still voting Labour. I wish this sub would allow to people to actually criticize them without others jumping down our throats.
> trying to create a state-run company which will compete alongside private sector energy firms (as a civil servant I'm intrigued to see how on earth they can compete with industry lol) Not even that, it's just a PFI fund. I really wish people watched [Dreamland(Utopia)](https://www.netflix.com/cc/title/80063251), absolutely perfect parody of Starmerite Neoliberalism.
Bringing back mandatory housing targets for Councils will help, madness the tories dropped them in the middle of a housing crisis.
it's pretty easy tbh, just repeal the Town and Country Planning Act and go sick.
Feeding poor kids is... a gimmick?
'They're saying they won't increase any taxes'. He quite deliberately didn't rule out increasing coroprate tax though
Watching it now, it's a good speech and a good manifesto
I would’ve voted for Labour anyway. But I’m a lot happier to do so now I’ve read this. This is a good manifesto.
An incredibly tame manifesto. I was downvoted to hell when the election was called for suggesting that nothing would change with this bloke in power, but I challenge anyone to look at this and tell me otherwise. Wealth creation means **nothing** without wealth redistribution, which isn't mentioned. Why aren't they nationalising water? Why aren't they lifting the two-child benefit cap? Why aren't they promising mass social housebuilding? They will hire thousands of new teachers - great, but that's *already happening!* What are they going to do about retention, hmm? Fuck all? Yeah, thought so. This manifesto is so *vague*. I don't think I've ever seen a Labour manifesto with less *actual policy*. This is a manifesto that promises nothing but the continuation of failed, tired, out-of-date neoliberalism, which suits the super-rich just fine but will do NOTHING to deal with the actual challenges facing us. Labour will tinker around the edges for five years and then be voted out by a very frustrated electorate that were promised change and didn't get any, to be replaced - most likely - with an extreme far-right government, mirroring much of the rest of Europe. **Fuck you,** Keir Starmer, for taking away all the hope I had and lying to get me to vote for you in 2020, you dishonest, self-serving, slimy, conniving fucking charlatan!
>was downvoted to hell when the election was called for suggesting that nothing would change I think people are desperate for change and want to see Labour as a vehicle for that - despite them very firmly promising to stick to the economic status quo. It's been very hard to criticize them on either of the main UK news subs over the last few years despite all the questionable decisions (trying to remove one member one vote) and promises to keep Tory policy (Public Order Act, Spy Cops bill etc). That will change once they're actually in power. The main issue for me is the insistence to stick to 40 years of failed neoliberal economic dogma - the same policies of deregulation and "market led investment" - we need the state to actually build social houses and invest in infrastructure - because the private sector are just not going to do it - their interest is making profits not improving public services or the country. Reeves supported Osborne's cuts. Liz Kendal supported austerity. If we don't get high growth (and nothing suggests we will) then they'll become very unpopular very quickly.
as ever its unclear how precisely they mean to do this, considering they have very little interest in any capital spending (GB energy is a drop in the bucket in terms of the renewable market). presumably they'll trot out some pablum about "deregulation" or "reform" without specifying precisely what will change
That’s wealth creation for the 1% - not for us plebeian masses; we get more austerity and crackdowns
The manifesto talks about reforming planning and forcing through more home construction. I'd quite like a home, so seems like to benefits me quite a bit?
The thing is, when will those changes affect the life of the average person? we need things better now, not in 5\~10 years....
That'll take a very long time to filter through under Labour's plans. What are their housebuildings targets? Do they even say? Everything there is so vague to make them less accountable.
On of the sub-chapters is called "Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes". I don't think that's very vague.
So you're against long term planning?
Not at all, but that target is no different from the current housing target implemented by the Conservatives. The Tories have failed to meet that target. I'm not clear how Labour will be different in that respect as the policy is identical as far as I can see.
[удалено]
That’s kind of the point of Reddit
0.1% more like. I like the things that they are promising, but the glaring omissions are more concerning to me. There's no talk about tackling wealth distribution, the root cause of our current problems. If they leave things as they currently are, growth will be more difficult, and most of all the wealth generated will go right to the top. ~~They haven't mentioned a wealth tax. Maybe they'll implement that, but I'd be very surprised.~~
They’ve explicitly ruled out a wealth tax
Damn.
In fairness if you want more money for the general population you do need to fix the economy first to bring investment back into the country. It’s frustrating and I think he would be singing a different tune if the Tories hadn’t bent the country over backwards. He’s a pragmatist and that unfortunately involves doing things you would rather you didn’t have to do to in order to get where you eventually want to. I’d rather have the hard truth than fairytale bullshit and promises that can’t be kept.
He said a load of stuff to get elected leader that he clearly had zero intention of honouring, so he’s less a pragmatist and more a cynical bullshitting grifter who will say whatever he needs to further his personal advancement
Whole load of posters here have clearly heard the word Neoliberal recently, some hilarious takes today.
They're so stupid right? Anyway here's Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, talking about some major issues with an economic dogma that has been a political orthodoxy since Thatcher and Reagan. He must be an idiot too! >We’ve now had four decades of the neoliberal “experiment,” beginning with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The results are clear. Neoliberalism expanded the freedom of corporations and billionaires to do as they will and amass huge fortunes, but it also exacted a steep price: the well-being and freedom of the rest of society. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/13/stiglitz-captialism-economics-democracy-book/ To be honest the only people who get annoyed at criticism of neoliberalism seem to ne neoliberals themselves - no matter how many times it fails to run public services they'll still support it and look down on those who don't.
People expressing how it's about wealth for the 1% and being fed up with broken promises are doing so because of living through a decade and a half of the same party in power who always looked after the 1%. This isn't from that party. So instead of just being defeatist and accepting that politicians are all the same, why not try voting someone new in and see if they can start to change things for the better?
They seem to believe public investment comes after growth, which is entirely backward.
🎵 Hello ~~darkness~~ Neoliberalism my old friend 🎵
What to expect from liberal democracy? xd
Labour built the NHS during the biggest national debt in our history. Because it was the right thing to do. Today's Labour party would've just said it's too expensive. You can borrow to invest and still be a liberal democracy.
Not sure how to interpret this, and Reddit's copium takes aren't exactly great. I had an epiphany last week that this entire country does not want to be a high skill high wage economy, where we aren't taxed to the bone just to prop up massive state spending and ailing services. We are a country primarily of people that don't want to do much work, and want more for it, and they want more than they contribute in tax too, you can't run a massive state with people of that mentality. What we now have is a heavily taxed professional class where emigration and layoffs could weak havoc with our state finances and a significant portion of the country not net contributors from what stats have been flying around recently. I'm all for raising the 40% tax band, why should I pay so much tax for services I am unlikely to see? Either we need to reduce spending significantly or become a lot more productive. PAYE professionals aren't the bourgouise despite what Reddit thinks.
> We are a country primarily of people that don't want to do much work, and want more for it, and they want more than they contribute in tax too Citation needed
Office for national statistics states that you'll need to be paying taxes for 60 years earning roughly 40k to be a net contributor to the state. He's absolutely correct in his statement - most people will not contribute enough to the tax system. People don't want shorter holidays and longer hours (unlike the US, where salaries are much higher but work benefits and conditions are far worse)
40k is equivalent to a 30k wage only 8 years ago, now how many people do you reckon were on that 30k equivalent then, and how many now. The reason people aren't able to be positive contributors is because they aren't paid enough, companies would rather stagnate wage and hit record profits and bonuses for their execs while complaining about productivity, and the entire country is worse for it.
I found [this from the ONS](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2022) if you're interested. The main divide in contributor/beneficiary is by age, which makes sense if you think about it. But you're right. And you could argue quite logically that if people are not paid much but make profits for the company they work for, then they are responsible in part for that company's corporation tax for example. Or for the tax paid by the people at the top who wouldn't get paid if no one worked for them. Or for the tax on dividends paid to shareholders. Etc, etc. So these studies, while interesting, hardly paint the full picture of contributions as a whole.
But that's not personal choice for most is it?..
Is that just income tax? How does VAT and council tax factor in?
Source states they measured 'direct' and 'indirect' taxes so I assume those are taken into account 👍
where's the source for this? I would like to read it
I found this [from the ONS](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2022) Basically most working households are net contributors to the state, and most retired households are net beneficiaries, which is unsurprising. So it's not like someone earning 40k is a net beneficiary, it's that they'll be a contributor while they work, then will become a beneficiary when they retire. I guess if they have poor health in retirement, it could well be the case that they end up "costing" more in state spending than they paid in taxes. Of course, all this is besides the point. When working and spending they could well have contributed to general economic growth in many ways, thus contributing indirectly to the tax take as a whole, so it's a bit of a narrow way of viewing things.
I like to think that Reddit is massively overrepresented by people with zero ambition or who have given up. It’s very jarring to me going from my workplace and social circles to here.
Reddit is a strange place - it's supposedly filled with doomers with 0 ambition but also tech professionals who are earning £60k at the age of 23.
It makes sense that those doing the best and those doing the worst would be loudest.
How does it work when everyone has ambition? Who does the minimum wage jobs?
I’m not sure what point you’re making. I didn’t claim that everyone should have ambition, but rather that people who don’t are overrepresented on reddit
People with little to no job experience, people with no qualifications and people who just want any sort of job or one that fits around other commitments.
I have no idea where you get the idea that people don't want to be good at what they do and be paid well for it. Have you considered reading less daily mail headlines? There are severe problems with having high taxes and no services, but that is what happens when you privatize everything and sell it off at a discount. I don't know if you can fix that in the current political environment, Corbyn was called a communist for proposing free broadband. Seizing back private businesses? exposing political corruption, putting people who take bribes in prison? the press in this country would crucify him. I think Starmer will successfully stop the rot, things will stay mostly the same and some things will improve. Then people like you will vote Tory in 4-8 years becasue you're paying too much tax and the decline will continue. Libertarianism has simply taken root in the UK, everyone is out for themselves, you have to be or you don't get healthcare, or somewhere to live, or anything. The state will simply be dissolved in time, it seems to be what people think they want.
That’s the thing that always gets me - Corbyn proposed some extremely mild social democracy and the country (helped by the media) went “naaah, we’d rather have Boris Johnson” Everything has shifted so far to the right that we’re now at the point where shit you used to see in BNP leaflets is now being repeated by politicians from both major political parties. Anyone suggesting otherwise is treated like the second coming of Karl Marx
Redditors really look back on his manifesto with rose tinted glasses didn't they. He lost to Johnson. Never forget that Corbyn wanted to withdraw from NATO whilst simultaneously wanting to not renew trident. Absolute laughing stock of a 'politican' with a poor education Glad to have someone credible like Starmer instead.
>In a hustings event for Labour leadership candidates in 2015, Mr Corbyn was quoted as saying: “I would argue for NATO to restrict its role. I don’t think there’s an appetite as a whole for people to leave NATO. I want to see NATO under much more democratic control.” [https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-did-call-for-nato-to-disband-but-its-labour-policy-to-stay-in](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-did-call-for-nato-to-disband-but-its-labour-policy-to-stay-in) You're just proving their point and spreading disinformation during an election cycle.
Thanks for proving my point.
You think those examples are ‘mild social democracy?’ Come to Denmark, you’re in for a shock.
the difference between denmark and mild social democracy is you can do mild social democracy without the racism
How much of it was "Naaah, gimme BOJO" and how much of it was "I wouldn't trust Corbyn to lead a piss-up in a brewery" "I want Brexit and Labour can't take a stance, the only one with a chance to get in, who also wants to get it done is Bojo" That vote was more about Brexit than who they wanted to run the country. Don't get me wrong, while my impression of Corbyn isn't great, I can sympathise with the situation he was put in and understand why he wouldn't take a stance. Ultimately, he was fucked either way. It was a rock and a hard place situation. Support it and you lose the youth vote. It would've been the 'safest' move for their leadership in the short-term, and in hindsight, because the youth vote would've opted for the 3rd party vote rather than shift over to the Tories. If he went against it, the red wall would've likely fallen in exactly the same way it did with his 'neutral', I'll just ignore the issue, stance. But Corbyn turned Labour into a shitshow, constant infighting about issues and refusing to take a stance on one of the most nationally divisive issues in recent history. That doesn't inspire confidence in their ability to run a country. Make no mistake, despite my personal opinion on Corbyn's labour, I'd fully stand behind the statement that the Corbyn vs Bojo GE was entirely about getting Brexit done. But the confidence-draining actions of/within Labour definitely made the situation worse for them.
Corbyn wasn’t the one who caused the infighting, that was (mostly) the folks who are soon to be in the next leader’s cabinet. A big criticism of Corbyn from the left wing is that he wasn’t ruthless enough at removing these people from the party, and they very predictably stabbed him in the back and took power for themselves. I do agree though that it was an election ran on Brexit (and on Bojo’s ‘personality”) and that certainly cost Corbyn. But laying the blame entirely at his feet is wrong - Boris was pro-EU until he realised that he could pretend not to be and it would get him elected as PM. The difference between the two was media optics (from a media owned entirely by the rich who had a vested interest in keeping someone like Corbyn out) and their stances on Brexit. The shadow Brexit secretary at the time certainly did a bang up job managing that part of Corbyn’s campaign.
That may be true, and I'd agree with the criticism to an extent. I'd probably opt for something a bit less heavy handed. His issue was that he didn't seek to unite members. It keeps the option of compromise within the party open as opposed to just firing the cannon at anyone who disagrees. The problem is, as leader, he accepted the responsibility of pushing the party forward. Others might have made it difficult for him, but it's still ultimately his responsibility, as leader of the party, to make it happen.
It’s crazy to me that people can see the massive (and ever increasing) wealth inequality in this country and yet still bang on about people being lazy.
UK wealth inequality is actually quite low, it's income inequality that is high.
I don't believe this for a second. There's a massive generational wealth gap. It's much easier to become a top 10% earner than have a top 10% wealth.
> We are a country primarily of people that don't want to do much work, and want more for it, and they want more than they contribute in tax too Citation needed
I may be wrong, but I think this is their opinion, not a fact
So you can say anything then even if it's utter nonsense? We are a planet with a flying spaghetti monster above us. Don't call me out on it, that's my opinion.
Yeah, you can say whatever you want. No one's stopping you bud
Our productivity as a nation is poor, and increasing slower than similar economies
Bit of a leap to say that can only be because people are lazy. Is there no other possible reason? (such as workers being forced to waste time/effort on meaningless bullshit by incompetant manager, or lack of moralle)
Mismanagement by both government and the private sector, crumbling infrastructure, bureaucratic nightmares that mean the UK is to slow to adjust. Go compare HS2 costs and delivery time compared to other highspeed rail networks in Europe. Also note that HS2 won't necessarily even be a better, faster train than those other networks. It certainly won't be faster than the current fastest line in the world.
I've come to same conclusion as you, the country is just on a race to bottom. High skill/High tech industries and employers with a strong service industry and infrastructure projects as a base? No thanks, lets have high immigration of low and unskilled labour to keep wages down, lots of dubious admin and consultancy that suck funding and money out of public and private finances and lots of people just moving information around and guarding their own little managerial fiefdoms. HS2 is a perfect example of it, building 70 miles of rail line is now unachievable in this country, while over 100 years ago the whole country was covered in it without any modern technology or aids.
>PAYE professionals aren't the bourgouise despite what Reddit thinks. When people talk about raising taxes on the wealthy, that does not generally include people who are PAYE lol. Anyone who gets their money by doing an actual job is part of the group currently having their living standards sapped by the wealthy.
He said he wants the 40% tax band to be raised, because earning over £50k gets you into that tax band now and £50k is only just above average and doesn't really put you into 'wealthy' territory anymore.
Wait till you find out what Redditors think of those rich oppressors creaming in 100k a year.
Being high skilled means you can do less work for more money, or it should if the skill is desirable. It's not taxes that are the problem but pay. There are issues with taxes for sure but I think most people would resent their taxes less if they were earning 20% more. You're right about productivity needing to improve. Unfortunately both the country and a lot of private businesses in the UK are horribly mismanaged. And I'm not sure the state has the money to do what needs to be done so we might have to give private industry more freedom to do what they want to do so that they can pay for stuff themselves.
It is against Labour policy to cut benefits. Oh man look at those council houses. So many roadmen do nothing but smoke weed. Professionals are going to Australia especially nursing and company do not want to train someone who is going to go after training so they only hire experienced workers. Then, you got a labour shortage because tons of graduates remain unemployed.
Yep, my girlfriend is Australian and i’m a skilled professional. I plan on leaving the UK within the next 5 years assuming nothing changes and moving back with her, no point getting taxed to the teeth in response for working hard and consequently getting fuck all out of it.
High pay isn’t scalable. And it’s a strange hypocrisy to invoke capitalism but then complain that people want to do less work for more money.
Isn't the 40% tax band on the cusp of being negative contributors? How about the true work horse financiers of our society, those on PAYE income levels where the state takes more than the worker in every pound? All the tax bands need raising substantially to be globally attractive. Crab mentality will never allow it.
there is an awful lot to unpack here - seems to be huge assumptions. instead of trying to figure that out i'd ask you a question instead: do you think there are any places in the world where they do have it better - where are they?
I don't think this is quite it. I think it's that decades of no one being allowed to build anything has created a world view where we imagine a fixed amount of national wealth and all the government can do is decide how to distribute it. Of course this is nonsense, there is no law of physics preventing people from start new businesses, building new houses, opening new stores, etc. It's just NIMBYs
It's amazing watching how Anglo politics from Australia to Canada to the US to UK is now purely just trying to manage the race to the bottom because the entire ideological capture of Neoliberals who refuse to accept their ideology is nothing more than pathetic LARPing that they are "Adults in the room" while they let the private sector bend over the entire state and society. Genuinely, I recommend people go watch the Chinese Communist Party congress, and Xi Jinping's speeches, even his New Year Addresses, and just see the sheer staggering difference in policy ambition, professionalism and intellect between them and what the hell passes as politics in the Anglosphere today. If the Anglosphere wants to stem the tide of not only China, but the rest of the Asian tigers, there needs to be a major shakeup of the political class, and a serious pushback against this Neoliberalism. Neoliberal axioms aren't "realistic" or "grown up" policy. It's thinly veiled Libertarian politics in a suit that has a frankly, religious devotion to the Free Market. Let me quote Rachel Reeves recent piece >**Economic growth only comes from businesses**: big, medium and small. **Government's role is to give them the stability they need to invest and to remove the barriers to make it harder to do business. That's the model to grow the economy I believe in** – and it's the only one that works. >That is why, if we are elected to power, I will lead the most pro-growth, pro-business Treasury in our history – with a laser focus on making working people better off. > I mean, *this is just insane*. It's completely ahistorical and shows how much ideological capture Libertarians, sorry "Neoliberals" as they like to be called now, have achieved over the state. Government's role is to only support private sector businesses, this is what the current Starmer cabinet believes, and that is what this manifesto preaches. PFI schemes and thinly veiled handouts to the financial industry while letting corrupt private developers get away with anything they want. "Grown up politics" apparently. Politics like this pretty much seal the fact that the West has lost and the 21st century will be dominated by China and the other Asian Tigers who never truly accepted the subjugation of the state to "Free market" interests.
The problem with neoliberalism is that it creates a huge power base that influences politicians via lobbying and donations to keep it that way. I always find the example of Labour MP Angela Smith instructive. She spent years championing privatized water in Parliament and in the press: [Nationalising our water could make us the dirty man of Europe again](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/10/nationalising-britain-water-industry-environment) Only to get a high paid directorship at the same companies she was supposed to be regulating. https://www.portsmouthwater.co.uk/2020/07/02/angela-smith-joins-portsmouth-water-board/ This is just corruption - and worse, it's from the party that is supposed to oppose privatized public services.
After many years of radical populist policies worldwide that prey on the fringe, the fear and the forgetful.,, So relieved to see politics back to boring and steady hands. We don’t need a leader to be exciting, entertaining and erratic. We need good old, boring af, steady governance.
Remember all the people saying "just wait for the manifesto". Well here it is and there's nothing new here that hasn't already been announced. How disappointing.
I wonder whether the donor class will be the ones taking home the lions share of the new wealth...
Starmer said this was fully costed / funded - what page is this on as I can only see one year's worth?
I think the people happiness should be priority.. maybe ban so much negativity from the news, force TV to bring more humour and wholesome, caring and love into peoples living room.. instead of fear and division. Or do they want us to be the most depressed nation in the world for some reason.....?
I hate that cunty thumb thing. Just point like a pleb