We don't want the government to lurch to the left

[Bargepole45]

I am absolutely astounded that Labour think it's democratic to decide that they can lurch to the left despite being elected with a very clear promise to not tax and spend. I believe this is absolutely not what the general public want and I am really worried that the economy isn't going to survive this and we will end up with an IMF bailout that will lead to very painful spending cuts for our most vulnerable.

Please vote:
YABU :I want Labour to lurch to the left in order to increase taxation and spending
YANBU: I don't want Labour to lurch to the left and would be against further tax and spending rises

You obviously have enough spare cash to pay more tax. Others don’t.

Just the start! Of children not going hungry and cold!

Don't threaten me with a good time.

They were voted ie. People voted for Labour. Manifestos are not binding. That is how our voting system works.

Which is why the rich should be taxed more. It's not an argument for no tax increases at all

You seem rather combative. What do you want from this thread?

I'm a higher rate tax payer. I wouldn't be overjoyed to pay more tax, but I could still clothe, feed and shelter my family. It makes far more sense to tax me than to take benefits off people who are already struggling to live (which, incidentally, will only cause more costs to the economy from the resulting issues).

I wish Labour would shift to the left so we didn't spend so much time and money on imaginary right wing narratives and culture wars. But they're never actually going to go that direction under this administration.

But we know from recent history i.e. Jeremy Corbyn that the British public don't want a left wing government. They had their opportunity and they overwhelmingly voted against it. Manifestos can't reasonably be binding but it is blatantly undemocratic to come into power making some clear assurances to the general public that would place your party more in the centre of the political spectrum and to then lurch to the left. As I said upthread, what would happen if Reform got in and then lurched to the right. Would you really be ok with that and all it would entail? Would you simply repeat that manifestos aren't binding?

Just to guage on a relatively left wing forum how many would actually support this lurch to the left. Nobody on here ever really admits to wanting to vote Reform but we know they are miles ahead in the polls. If there is no real appetite even on here for a lurch to the left then one can reasonably conclude that this is totally and wholly undemocratic and doesn't represent the will of the people.

I'm merely stating the facts, not my preferences. And to say Labour going left would be responsible for whatever Reform does is insane. Reform will go as far to the right as they can whoever was in power - that's the whole point of Reform

It’s not going to happen though. If or Burnham get in and start frittering money away to the parents that can’t be bothered to work, the bond markets will go mental, debt interest will become totally unaffordable and there will be a general election before an IMF bail out, Reform will get in and those parents will get much less than they get now. Poverty will soar.

Starmer is walking a tightrope here. Do you not think that if there was an economically feasible way to eradicate poverty he’d be doing it??? There is no magic money tree.

Well, we need to tax SOMETHING more. The upcoming increase in the welfare bill needs to be paid for, as well as the ever-aging population needing more social care. However, as a working person, I am already taxed to the hilt. Where else can we raid apart from the rich?

It sets a precedent though doesn't it? How far can you move away from your original manifesto before you need to call another election. Theoretically you could implement some very extreme policies that were never on the manifesto if you have a high enough majority.

@Bargepole45 In all seriousness, how do you suggest public services (police, schools, hospitals, social workers etc) be paid for without taxes?

It was meant to be ‘fully funded, fully costed’ but obviously not.

Still it’s Labour, their Blairite project is going out with Mandelson and McSweeney, if people voted for them expecting the fully funded line and it’s not the case they can vote accordingly to show how they feel.

Not much can be done op except vote really, where possible.

Exactly. We can't spend more now without crashing the economy. An IMF bailout is a very real prospect with the amount of money we are in debt and our reliance on financial markets. Nobody can tax Amazon etc properly. Wealth taxes don't work. Tax rises on businesses cripple the economy. We have run out of options.

Why do people think the better off have no costs? Why do we think everyone should just have a basic lifestyle? What’s the point of starting a business if you get little out of it? It’s unbelievably foolish and simply jealousy.

We need to look at who is on benefits. Many don’t need to be but they get more than if they worked and get a lot of free time. I’ve seen people managing very happily while others work much harder for not much more money, or even less. That punishes working people and it’s not on.

Yes. Higher rate taxpayer. Full-time employment, and also have own consultancy business. You can't have Scandinavian-level services with American-level taxes and I want shorter NHS waiting lists, a decent transport system, young people not to face crippling levels of student debt and care for the elderly to be properly funded.

Through taxation of course. Nobody denies this. What you can't do though is increase the tax burden so much that you choke the economy and actually shrink tax receipts and standards of living for everyone. You also can't borrow your way out of this mess or commit to unfunded spending. The financial markets will punish us enormously. We are in a financial mess.

Also what is this "lurch"? Doesnt it make more sense that things were much worse than Labour expected, and they are trying to deal with the mess? Why on earth would they want to piss off the voting public?

Are you suggesting it's Corbyn and his leftist philosophy? Is that a safer way of saying you don't want to pay for immigrants to be housed in hotels and their kids to go to school?

Ok but say people vote for something and then it turns out it doesn't work, is making things worse. Does the government that was elected have to do the same thing that isn't working regardless of there being some other options that take them away from exactly what they promised to do ?

I voted Labour because I thought Keir Starmer would be a safe pair of hands. Not a cats chance in hell I’d have voted for a leftie idiot like Andy ‘in hock to the bond markets’ Burnham. What and idiot he is.

Scandinavia generally has much higher GDP Per Capita than us. Especially those countries that have the public services people consider to be the gold standard

What is your solution? They inherited a mess that needs money to fix. You dont want taxes, you dont want borrowing? Where do you want to cut spending.

Dont be shy, be explicit.

The IMF presumably when the economy crashes.

The rich have the power to avoid being taxed. The population can be shaken down for more tax, but that means they don't have money to spend to boost the economy. More borrowing devalues us as a country and an economy. This will happen regardless of who is in government, right or left. There is no traditional right or left now, just varying shades of awfulness, incompetence and mismanagement.

Lurching to the left?

They have totally fucked the economy already.

Lurching to the left is like pouring petrol on the country and setting it on fire.