Andy Burnham - how can this be allowed?

[Boopybop]

I know that there is a long way to go over the coming weeks, with by-elections and leadership challenges. But fundamentally - how can it be right that a man who was not even a candidate in the General Election, was therefore not voted for in the General Election - become Prime Minister? Effectively, the people of Makerfield are selecting the country’s new Prime Minister (as it is pretty obvious that AB would win a leadership contest).

This feels wholly undemocratic in every way.

AIBU - Andy Burnham has every right to become PM

AINBU - it is not right that a by-election in Makerfield can determine who the next Prime Minister will be

I don’t agree with their tax promises but manifesto pledges should be kept otherwise there’s nothing to stop a party being elected promising the moon on a stick and then saying “Only joking” once they’re in power. We need more honesty in politics, not less.

I think they should have reversed Hunt’s NI bribes cuts for a start.

The problem is that promising not to touch the big three means they are going to try and raise taxes that don’t bring in that much as it is and tend to create friction

they would have been better off putting their hands up and saying ‘sorry - looking at the state of the finances this is the best way to do it’ - increased IT, sorted out the thresholds and cliff edges and made the system efficient

I know. That would have been the easy thing to do but it would have set a precedent that breaking manifesto pledges is OK. And I firmly believe it really, really isn’t.

I agree the entire tax system creates inefficiency from top to bottom.
However, they may have not won without that manifesto pledge so I don’t think there was much scope to raise those taxes. Reforms yes, raising taxes no.
Welfare cuts are inevitable. So is harsher controls on immigration. I think it was madness to do away with the 2 child benefit cap. If they had invested it directly in schools for the same children it would have been accepted. Like this it is just fodder for Reform voters who think it goes to large immigrant families primarily (whether factually true or not).

The British (well, the middle england Tory British) are obsessed with the absolute evilness of tax. Starmer achieved a landslide by promising them exactly what they wanted - continuity from the Tories (including no big three tax rises), without their corruption, ineptitude and chaos, and the delusion that our deep structural economic malaise can somehow be fixed that way.

If you want to move beyond that delusion you need to somehow wake up the voters, not blame the Labour party - who have tried enough times over the last half-century to make the case for tax as a necessary part of building a better society - for finally accepting that it can't be done.

Your beloved Labour Party promised not to raise taxes on working people though didn’t they? Although now it appears that was all just a pack of lies designed to win them the election. You’ll be crying your eyes out when Reform get in next time. (I’m one of those nasty Tory middle England voters you despise so much by the way 👋😂).

You sound just like Alf Garnett @Marmalademorning!

And you sound like Mike Rawlins @blossomtoes 🌹🌹🌹

😂

@overunderover - thanks, both DH and I paying the 60% marginal tax rate, live in London where life is very expensive and have 4DC. Never Tory in the past.
How much more would you like us to pay? DC1 already settled abroad now in a very well paying job, I think DC2 is considering it. 2 of my brothers also left, both very high flyers (unlike me).
Like most of my professional friends we managed to get the Irish descent passport. None of us have to stick around for this nonsense, nor do our children. Is that really what you want?
I would happily stick around if we could afford to. I am just not sure my DC can afford to stick around in socialist Britain. One of my friends went back to Hong Kong recently, after professing it is already more socialist here than in Hong Kong. That is not a joke. It is what she thought after living and working here and handing over a majority of her earnings.

What makes you think I love the Labour party? I didn't even vote for them, and my post should make clear that I don't buy into the delusion they're selling.

What exactly did they lie about? They haven't raised taxes on working people.

The NI is a jobs tax, it’s increasing youth unemployment in particular.

How much more would you like us to pay?

I can't answer that question without knowing more about your circumstances and where you get your money from. Personally, I don't see it as a question of taxing mid-to-high earners (if that's what you are) more. Dynamic capitalism is degenerating into resource-inefficient rentierism and unprecedented levels of wealth inequality between the majority and the 1% (or even less than 1%). That inequality in turn threatens the very fabric of democracy by giving ridiculous amounts of power to a tiny number of capital owners whose capital spans national borders so can't be constrained by national governments.

Andy Burnham's noises about Land Value Tax are a step in the right direction - potentially a big one, although the question as always will be whether they can survive conservative influences within the Labour party and the inevitable onslaught of the right wing press. If it were up to me I would fundamentally restructure our whole attitude to tax along those lines - LVT, IHT, equalising (at least) capital gains tax with income tax levels, removing loopholes for the very wealthiest etc. - and if anything actually reduce upper middle earner income tax. (Given our high tax-free threshold, the income tax rate for lower earners seems like a reasonable minimum to support the concept of everybody contributing something).

The fact that it's more tax efficient to make your living simply by owning stuff than it is by actually working is both morally obscene and economically unproductive.

I have no objection to paying taxes but I do have an objection when the tax system is inefficient and creates friction. The NI increase being an example.

the problem with a wealth tax, for example, is that it starts by targeting high wealth but often misses and ends up getting the middle, and then the thresholds are frozen, or they have to be dropped because we are in a crisis and need to revenue raise, and before you know it everyone is paying it

Labour have always been the party of tax and spend and it doesn’t look like that’s going to change. I just wish they a bit more economically literate with it

@overunderover - I don’t think any of your ideas are going to work as the wealthy and the skilled are mobile and can get tax advice.

The emerging billionaire class and their control is an entirely separate issue.

Top 1 per cent earners alone in this country with no wealth can get richer quicker in plenty of other countries that are actively competing with Britain for the very skilled. Britain already has a significant skills gap and is haemorrhaging talent.
Socialist concepts are unworkable with open borders and freedom of speech. And the bond markets will punish anything hard that creates an even higher tax burden since 1945. If anything Britain needs to attract investment and skill into emerging technologies. The fact it’s doing the opposite is a national disgrace. More doctor strikes on the way too. Unfortunately the current lot appear to have no hand on the pulse whatsoever and no business acumen.

I don’t think any of your ideas are going to work as the wealthy and the skilled are mobile and can get tax advice.

But their land is not mobile, hence one of the biggest arguments for LVT.

Top 1 per cent earners alone in this country with no wealth can get richer quicker in plenty of other countries that are actively competing with Britain for the very skilled. Britain already has a significant skills gap and is haemorrhaging talent...

If anything Britain needs to attract investment and skill into emerging technologies. The fact it’s doing the opposite is a national disgrace.

I'm not sure whether you're actually reading what I write. I agree with everything you've said here, which is exactly why I'm advocating shifting the tax burden AWAY from income tax.

If they didn’t waste such vast sums of money on everything they touch and stopped inhibiting economic growth they wouldn’t need to raise taxes so much.

Highest growth in G7, inflation down and productivity per worker has risen more in the last year than the previous 6 years combined.

Unfortunately, UK business relied on low employment costs, with wages subsidised by the tax payer, this is slowly changing, meaning less people doing the same work or even more, raising productivity is vital

Never been more important to have the right skills.

I still haven't heard the labour definition of what exactly a 'working person' is.

Andy Burnham seems to be promoting his own manifesto for when he becomes prime minister, which seems to be a foregone conclusion.
The last labour manifesto was put forward by keir starmer. That was the manifesto that people voted for.
Andy should keep the manifesto that people voted for. Or call a general election for his new manifesto. Everyone who wants to pay more tax can do so.
Liz Truss went off on a tangent from Boriss manifesto. That ended well didn't it?

So we should be doing really well and feeling the benefits.

The eye watering amounts of waste is negating all that and we are experiencing a decrease in living standards.

Unfortunately, UK business relied on low employment costs, with wages subsidised by the tax payer, this is slowly changing, meaning less people doing the same work or even more, raising productivity is vital

I’m not sure what you mean by that - unemployment is up, the benefits bill is unsustainably high - exceeding income tax take. The government have just added quite a bit to employment costs which discourages employment and will reduce growth which will increase the need for raising taxes as the increased volume (which would keep taxes lower) falls away. And as far as I can see it, there is more government subsidy of wages, not less.

Why do you think this is a productivity issue, not a failure in government control of finances?

I find it indicative of the arrogance and profligacy with others peoples money of this Labour Party that if Andy Burnham wins, the taxpayer will foot a £5million bill (for re-election of Mayor plus several hundred thousand for the by election) for something that is essentially Labour Party politics.

This is a situation purely engineered for the benefit of Andy Burnham, his career aims and the schemers on the left of the party. I can’t bear Starmer but I sincerely hope AB loses

You appear to believe that pre July 2024, we had growth, productivity was up, unemployment wasn't continuing its upward trend & we didn't have 990,000 NEETs (we did)

I looked at UK growth over the last 4 years, growth since Labour took over, is higher than in the 23 months prior to the last GE, under Sunak, UK had a recession for 6 months in the last 2 quarters of 2023.

Benefits inc Pensions, the unemployment part of the benefits bill is far smaller.

Unfortunately, unemployment will increase, AI, Automation is inevitable, that in turn will lead to increases in productivity.

Policy needs to look at re skilling and the education system

Whilst everyone is against the business NI increases, no one can suggest the alternative way to raise the money needed to pay for Hunt s NI cut, public sector pre agreed pay rises and the PO and blood compensation bills.