To think even Labour know we can’t afford everything the public want?

[Coffeeandbourbons]

Off the back of another thread, Labour have dropped their pledge to make tuition fees free.

I read a lot on here (and hear a lot IRL) that this country is very wealthy and that we could afford everything the public want (excellent and efficient public services, lots of things subsidised or free such as prescriptions and childcare, a generous benefits system) if we just tax the rich enough. However our economy simply isn’t growing and we’re heavily in debt.

AIBU to think we’re actually up the shitter, can’t afford what we think we can and even Labour knows this, hence the broken pledges?

Interested to hear from economics-savvy Mumsnetters as I’m a bit rubbish with the numbers…

I am not in favour of funding university for (virtually) all, but this shows a dangerous lack of integrity. Not a good look for a man with opaque policies to start with.

So far as the economy is concerned, YANBU. The UK is in managed decline and anyone who can is leaving (in my industry anyway). I suspect it will make little difference who is in No 10 - although I am hoping for fewer contracts in favour of donors.

My feeling exactly. It’s tempting to believe that a change of government will fix everything but I fear our problems are much deeper than a few dodgy contracts and cronyism

I really dislike the term “tax the rich”, what does it even mean (I’m not rich!)? Usually it just means a tax on existing wealth and not income. What is a rich person anyway? There’s some sort of stat where the top 1% pay 30% of the total income tax or something, but as a proportion of their income they pay less than others. It does feel like we’re in for a rocky period and I don’t think anyone has the answers.

Agree

I am not in favour of funding university for (virtually) all, but this shows a dangerous lack of integrity.

Does it? Or is it just being realistic? Parties change their election manifesto promises, we shouldn't hold the Conservatives to their manifesto of 1950 (according to Wikipedia that was their first formal published manifesto), for Labour we'd have to go back to 1900.

If it’s realism, then he should have been “realistic” when he campaigned for leadership. Not done a reverse ferret once in the top job.

Tbh it will make little difference. If this is a key issue for a voter, they will still vote Labour (who might swing to the left and change policy) rather than Tory, who will do precisely nothing about tuition fees. Tactically it’s a no-brainer fir Labour. But it does not reflect well on Keir “99.9%” Starmer.

Doesn’t mean we don’t need a change of government.

I agree OP.
Many people want the Tories out, which I understand, but I actually don't think Labour will be much better on many issues.
Food prices won't drop, I can't imagine energy prices will either. We're not rejoining the EU, so there's no change there. Where is more funding for the NHS going to come from?
Everything will cost money, and I have no idea where people think it will magically come from if Labour gets in.

I literally don't think many people will see a difference with a change of government.

Labour are complete sh*te bags dropping the free tuition fees and by the way we ca easily afford pretty much everything we want.

OP go and look up Roosevelt's New Deal.

The USA didn't get out of the great depression with austerity.

Then have a read up on J M Keynes and Keynesian economics.

It was Labour who introduced tuition fees. Even back then they knew it was unaffordable to have the % of young people in university that Blair wanted as part of his expansion of higher education. Free tuition was a Corbyn cloud cuckooland policy. If that were to happen, there will need to be a drastic reduction in the number of students (which would not be a bad thing in my view, far too many should not be at university).

I agree with you OP and I cannot see life in the UK being any better under a Labour government - in fact I can see it getting worse.

On of many reasons why I will be spoiling my ballot on Thursday at the local elections and why we are leaving the UK for good this year.

How's much did Keir Stamer pay in university fees?

The money is there, the political priority is not.

Free tuition was a Corbyn cloud cuckooland policy. If that were to happen, there will need to be a drastic reduction in the number of students (which would not be a bad thing in my view, far too many should not be at university)

This.

How's much did Keir Stamer pay in university fees?

it’s also prudent to ask what % of school
leavers went to university when it was “free”. You can have free tuition and restrict entry, or you can have the expectation that almost everyone will study to degree level. Both is fantasy.

I think OP asked for opinions from economists!

the fact is that universities are having to increase their places to overseas students as the uk student fees have been frozen for so long. Personally I live in Scotland am keen for all students to pay the same fees as the rest of the uk and use the savings to properly support the poorest and give bursaries to nursing and midwifery degrees.

if you are keen on reading more about public finances, ‘Follow the Money’ by Paul Johnson, perhaps the UKs most respected and impartial economist is an excellent, accessible tour of current uk tax and spend challenges. Main messages are:

1). If anyone tries to tell you that money can be found to fund public spending that doesn’t involve cutting services elsewhere or paying more tax, they are lying.

2). people love to think that we can find money to support all of our public spending increased needs through taxes that ‘other people’ pay - ie taxes on the wealthy and corporation tax. This is also nonsense. To raise big money uk need to raise big taxes - NICs, VAT, basic rate income tax.

3). There are no easy, convenient answers, no ‘magic money trees’.

Then have a read up on J M Keynes and Keynesian economics.

It's funny how everyone was suddenly pro Keynesian when Labour lost the last election, considering its founding principle is save during boom and spend during bust, the boom years being on the back of Brown and Blair ....

With regards to Labour, this is just the real complexities coming to the fore after playing the easy role of party of opposition, a lot of Labour supporters are going to pretend it was never true labour in a decade or more like they do with Blair.

People who think that a Labour Government would start paying large salary increases to public sector workers (for example) are either stupid or kidding themselves. It can't be the land of milk and honey under any Government, because the money just isn't there. I think they are delighted to be in Opposition just now because they know that the Conservatives are currently getting the blame for economic policies that a Labour Government would also have had to implement.

I think they are realising that they are likely to win the next general election and are laying the ground for some realistic policies as opposed to cloud cookoo ones. It’s the opposite of what Corbyn did when he was losing in 2019 and flung in an uncosted bonkers £58bn bribe to the WASPI women.

I think it shows that Starmer is confident, honest and sensible.

Labour have lost it entirely. They brought in the fees and now see abolishing it as a vote winner.
What would actually win them votes is them admitting that actually things are a bit shit, things need to have a radical shake and it will take longer than four years.
I will be voting in the local elections, not for Labour-I like the candidate, and actually a lot is done for the town to make it better, sadly the population just aren’t into it and it I would rather the money went into the police and social services.

The money is there. The political will is not.

"Tax the rich" normally means "tax everyone richer than me".

That is an assertion, not a fact. Where is the money coming from to fully fund 50% of young people to go to university? Covid and Brexit have wrecked our economy. Taxing "the rich" more won't come anywhere near it. The costs will need to come from elsewhere. Why should the cleaner whose job it is to clean the flats of drunk, messy students pay more tax to support them? Bearing in mind that a significant % of students have poor engagement, attendance and attitudes (that, I'm afraid, is the consequence of Blair's aim to get so many into higher education), how can that be justified?

If Kerala could manage it idk why the UK couldn't.

Maybe the cleaner would like to go to university, if they haven't already.