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

What would you do about those that don't pay anything or very little and take an awful lot? I'm not talking about the severely disabled before people pounce. More those that could clearly do more to contribute and don't. Surely you would agree that we need to resolve this too if we talking about people paying their fair share?

Starmer tried it and failed with the abortive Welfare Reform Bill last year - his back benches rebelled.

Hence why your thread title is so apt.

Actually no, and it really shows how you think that you said this. Many left wingers think 'If im doing badly, I'll vote to help myself. If im doing ok, I'll vote to help others'. In the last election I voted for the party that I thought would help others the most because I'm doing ok. Its the compete opposite of the right wing 'im alright Jack' attitude.

Conversely, so many poorly off right wingers who rely on welfare, social housing and the NHS are voting for parties like Reform who would scrap it all! Edit to add: the mentality seems to be, I'll give up all this as long as it stops immigrants getting it too!

Yes I’ve been shocked by money matters raised on the property threads re
cash in hand
People accepting tax fraud for personal gain

I just want to add that contrary to many people's opinions on this thread, I am not against removing inequality and improving prospects for those that are struggling.

I simply don't think lurching the left will achieve this. It's like when people talk about the two child cap and inequality. We know that there is an apparent link between deprivation and poor educational outcomes, we would therefore expect educational outcomes to drop for impacted families when the cap was introduced. Except it didn't. It stayed broadly the same. Why was this? Because there is far more at play than just money. Removing the cap won't improve educational outcomes either. You need to look at other factors before simply throwing money at the problem. The left is obsessed with lifting people out of financial poverty but they don't understand that real poverty extends far beyond the financial, especially for children. The easiest thing to do is pretend this isn't the case and just give families more money so you can game the metric rather than tackle what's really going on. I say this as someone from a deprived area who grew up around these families during the New Labour era. There was a chronic lack of ambition, poor attitude to education and intergenerational cycles of benefits dependency and at times criminal activity. Most of my peers didn't break the cycle despite funding being thrown at them from all angles.

Except the data shows the opposite. Poorer people are more likely to vote for left wing parties whilst richer people are more likely to vote for right wing parties. It's also true that people get more right wing as they age and accumulate wealth. Not a universal rule, but the trend is clear and global.

Can you share the data? Its just that I actually conducted political research in a Kentish community and found the complete opposite of what you are saying. Of course, there could be regional differences, but that would still run contrary to your statement that this is globally recognised behaviour.

I voted for them, but I think if they move far to the left (why the histrionic word "lurch"?) it will just make the Tories look more inviting, especially now that the most loony members have moved to Reform.

Class Demographics

• Split Base: While Reform UK has a significant working-class following, similar to UKIP, it is not exclusively working-class. Analysis shows about 42% of supporters identify as working-class (C2DE), but a high proportion, roughly 36-60%, fall into the middle-class (ABC1) category, depending on whether the analysis is of members or voters.
• Working Class Strength: Support is strongest among those with lower levels of education (GCSE or lower) and those in routine and manual occupations.

This data shows that the support for Reform (who I think we can all agree are on the right) is highest in lower income households, and declines as that increases.

The 3 more left leaning parties all increase popularity by household income.

Class and Educational Profile
Middle-Class Majority: A large proportion of Labour members are classified as "middle class" (ABC1), with studies indicating roughly three-quarters (approx. 75-76%) of members live in households where the chief income earner has a non-manual occupation.
Education: Membership is heavily skewed toward graduates, with over 55-58% of members holding a university degree.

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/money-makes-people-right-wing-and-inegalitarian#:~:text=Rich%20people%20typically%20lean%20right,allegiance%20from%20left%20to%20right.

This research demonstrates that rich people become more right wing, but it does not demonstrate that poor people are more left wing and that this is a global trend. In fact, in the US many poor people vote for right wing parties because the hold a belief that they may one day become rich and need those protections. The American dream holds the promise that any one can make it, and they vote against their own benefit accordingly.

It doesn't just show that. It shows the economic elasticity of voters. Why would a left wing voter suddenly vote right wing after winning the lottery if their overall goal was the greater good? Why would anyone turn more right wing when they become wealthy? Surely they would be glad to contribute more to a cause they so strongly believe in and help people poorer than themselves ...

Also historically there has been a strong relationship in this country between the left and poorer voters. This is being eroded by right wing populism focussing on key issues like immigration. It does not mean that poorer voters are in favour of right wing economics. They almost certainly aren't.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's how people view Reform.

That only stands if your first argument it true, that poorer people are more left wing. But there is evidence to say that isn't the case, in the UK political landscape anyway, and also in the US.

Governments have to make harsh decisions. Labour campaigned on making the UK a fairer society. They promised (which was not necessary) to not increase VAT, National Insurance and National Insurance.

This now the country is in such a terrible place simply can't be kept. That is what happens in politics and its a risk come the next election

And if you think cutting back on tax incentives for the very wealthy, for big business would be unpopular you are completely out of touch

See upthread the impact of immigration on voting patterns.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country

Who do you think has ranked immigration as their biggest issue? Reform voters. They aren't voting for them due to their economic policy.

I don't have children. So why am I paying for nursery care and schools?
Should I pay tax to help someone live in a council home? Not everyone can be a CEO of a company on a handsome wage - we need people to do the lesser paid jobs too, just as important but not valued money wise. What about some poor soul who became ill or was born poorly? What about benefit of a mum or dad who's relationship broke down or partner died and they're suddenly unable to work, keep a roof over their heads because they've 3 children under 10? A woman fleeing in the night to get away from her abusive husband before he kills her. Should any of my tax go into potholes, if I don't drive? Street lighting if I don't go out at night?

Can you see where I am going with this yet? You don't get to chose which taxes you pay or what it's spent on.

Yeah, those bitching about benefits etc are just selfish. I've never claimed a penny in benefits, live in a home that is owned, am more left leaning so that kinda screws up your argument.

The electorate we are a few years away from a general election

Governments do not need to be dictated by market predictions

What info do you have to support your statement here

ie That most left wingers will stay left wing irrespective of a change in circumstances
and
That right wingers only ever vote for themselves rather than actually supporting industry, farming and growth etc.

I’ve already posted that studies and polls show a change to net provider status does in fact result in the majority switching to a more Conservative Government
What intel do you have that contradicts this for the majority

You'd be surprised. In the reseaech I did, we asked about welfare, the safety net, the NHS. They understood what Reform stood for economically and considered it acceptable in exchange for stopping immigration. Many also positively agreed with the economics. They think solving i.migration will create more jobs, and then they will be earning good money and won't need welfare or social housing. Just as the people I asked about Brexit, when told it might lead to worse outcomes for them personally, said they were happy to accept that in exchange for sovereignty.

The bond markets are probably the only thing keeping Starmer and Reeves in rn. Every time they wobble the cost of borrowing goes up and we’re on £100bn a year already.

At this point I think why not blow it out and install a tax and spend politician on the left or let Starmer be overruled by his party and do that himself. Let’s see how it goes as that £100bn goes up.

So yeh maybe do it and we can all see the reality of spend more instead of talking about it.

I posted above the membership for Reform and Labour. Labour members earn significantly more but have not become members of the Conservative Party or Reform. Conversely, Reform membership is over 40% working class, with high representation in manual industries.

I live in Kent so I’d love to see that