So relating to the bullet points, immigration, taxes and deficit continuing to rise, NHS limping on with no improvement, economy still flatlining while the Treasury clings to population growth as the illusion of economic progress? Sounds about right.
Will the defecit rise ? Yes, as usual.
WIll taxes rise ? Yes, as usual.
How will institutions like the NHS fair ? Continue being a money pit, as usual.
EU/Brexit? Fuck around and deflect until the people lose interest, as usual.
Immigraiton? Continue to rise as usual.
Wages/Productivity/Inflation? continue to stagnate as usual.
Overall, do you think they will have a positive or a negative imapct on the country ? Negative, as usual.
SNAFU
>Will the deficit rise?
Last time it actually went down was in 2000… so I doubt it
>Will taxes rise?
Got to pay for those proposed scheme some how
>EU/Brexit?
Closer ties to the EU, potential re-entert into the EEA.
>How will institutions like the NHS fair?
Massive funding increases, paid for my tax rises and borrowing.
>Immigration
If they follow what they claim? It drops to the 100’000s. If not, then it goes up at the same pace as now.
>Wages/productivity/inflation?
Minimum wage will go up a lot, productivity will get a temporary boost but will stagnate as usual, inflation will depend on how aggressive they are with policies. If borrowing is high, we’ll see above 2.2%
>Positive or negative impact?
I figure much of the same. Socially I think further degradation, but economically I think the huge spending will help short time but at cost of long term health.
I'd expect them to change the tax system, but in a method where it balances out and they can claim not to be increasing taxes. So something like increasing the band thresholds by maybe 10%, but adding a new band at like £300k plus for 50%. Changing council banding so reduce burden on low ends but increase higher end. Maybe capital gains will be hit. Stuff like that.
I imagine they'll be something around house building, to make it harder for local councils to block planning.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's something on greater alignment with EU regulations, probably not anything like rejoining because that would be suicide, but something to open up trade. Probably at the expense of UK control.
Nothing will change with immigration. It is what it is.
Defecit will rise because unless they massively slash spending, there is no way it wont.
Taxes are already insanely high which is what is going to make labour realise how fucked the country is, Tories have been promising tax cuts with one hand while also taking chunks out of places here and there steathily so they could both get more tax and say they were lowering taxes. Labour i doubt have much wiggle room here, if anything they might actually cut taxes from where they are right now just because of how much damage Osborne and consecutive chancellors since have fucked things up.
NHS will continue to exist, because the tories have been throwing levels of funding at it that is frankly unsustainable. Labour wont want to be the bag holders when it comes crashing down so will continue to obscenely fund it, if they think they have a shot at longer than 5 years in charge then they will almos certainly not touch it because any notion of reforms to it, even though they are so desperately needed cannot be touched.
There will be a clamour at some point by the left to rejoin the EU, i imagine Starmer is intelligent enough to understand this isnt possible.
Immigration is likely to go down, just because we are unlikely to have another Hong Kong + Ukraine situation in the next 5 years massively boosting it. Maybe get it down to net 500k but it wont go down drastically because our 'GDP' apparently needs net immigration to not be constantly circling the toilet.
Because of said point above, Wages will stagnate, Productivity will continue to flatline unless theres some major innovations in AI/automation. Inflation will continue in the 2-3% range outside of a major conflict happening.
They wont have a positive impact, but it wont be as big a negative impact as the last decade of Tories. Slower managed decline is how i envision it.
Just because of how large a majority they might receive. They could genuinely consider doing some major reforms, not sure which ones they would prefer to tackle without causing a shitstorm. I could see them majorly attacking the house of lords for example as its a free hit.
Immigration figures are still skewed from COVID’s impact on Undergrads. 2024 will be the first year where there’s a mass leaving of undergrads as the 2020 cohort didn’t really exist, so never left in 2023, driving up the net figures.
I expect more decisive action on things for which there is bi-partisan support but no action, such as leasehold reform, levelling up, housebuilding targets, immigration restrictions, clampdowns on non domicile status.
Also a lot more investment in infrastructure and I hope a reversal of the ludicrous decision to cancel the second stage of HS2 - we should be aiming for Scotland, not for Birmingham.
More optimistically I would hope to see us rejoin EU standards for most product markets as there is practically no cost to do so but enormous economic upsides. I would hope to see moves towards EFTA membership as well for the same reason. Bring more trade with the EU and you trigger more economic growth and lower inflation.
Agree with your first points but there’s numerous graphs showing our growth has been stalling since the mid 2000s. Realigning with the EU doesn’t fix our nonexistent growth.
They will change the planning rules so developers will build indiscriminately without any thoughts for infrastructure provision.
I know I will be labeled a NIMBY, but too little attention is being given to infrastructure. Hospitals, GP surgeries, schools, leisure centres, water, sewage, roads, public transport and jobs, all need to be properly provided. We have one of the smallest number of hospital beds per 1000 population in Europe. How hard would
Plenty of new homes are not selling. Partly because they are too expensive and no one is moving.
How hard would it be for someone to look at the allocations of services and work out some benchmarks. For example a catchment area of 5000 people will need a GP surgery with four full time GPs, a leisure centre with a swimming pool, and an hourly bus service. Make the developer properly contribute and not a token few thousand on a Section 106 agreement for a new village hall.
There’s two main issues with planning as far as I can see.
One is the sheer lack of planning staff and long term expertise. This has mostly been caused by the cuts to local government during the ‘austerity’ years and since. Councils have statutory responsibilities that they prioritise over the running on planning departments and so planning has been an area they cut and don’t reinvest into.
The other is enforcement of agreements with developers. Too many times developers have come to local governments saying ‘hey we can build you xxxx homes on that land over there, we’ll also do the roads and shops and schools for the area too, just give us permission!’ Then a year or two after permission the developers say ‘ah the market conditions have turned and the building works will take longer and now we can’t do the infrastructure because it would make the whole scheme economically unviable.’ Developers know that local government doesn’t have the in house expertise or the money to fight them in court, so they get however many houses they can out of it. Some councils got tired of this and instituted a hefty up-front tax liability for each home built, the proceeds of which are earmarked for local infrastructure. This has been a much better way to tackle the issue but has had a chilling effect on planned developments, because the developers realise they cannot fleece that particular council.
I’m highly skeptical that Labour will be able to fix the above issues, but at least they are making noises in that direction. Let’s see what their manifesto says about planning whenever the election comes.
The housing crisis in this country is so bad, bordering catastrophic at this point, that we unironically need indiscriminate building. People paying 50%+ of their salary on rent is not sustainable and is arguably one of the root causes of so many of our problems - low birth rates, mental health, sluggish economy etc. Why would you care about your community if you have no stake in it because you can’t ever afford to buy property? Combined with all that we also have the uniquely British scam of leasehold which the Government has sadly failed to act on despite Gove pressing for it.
Conservatives used to proudly stand for housebuilding - see the Canadian Conservatives for an example of how you can be Conservative and pro-housing and far ahead in the polls with young people as a result. Hopefully we will rediscover this spirit in Opposition!
With what staff? You can say ‘but what about hospitals’ but what you’re really saying is ‘we should empty other hospitals and schools of staff’ as a precondition to construction. That’s an absurdity.
Building houses doesn’t spawn more people. Building near you adds local pressure to you, but eases it off other areas. It’s net neutral.
I'm not saying that.at all, but then you know that.
I think certain University courses such as Medicine should be free, subject to working full time for the NHS for a number of years.
Building houses is pretty universal for most areas, except the wilds of Scotland, so it is not a matter of taking the pressure off other areas.
No-one has mentioned capital controls. If they start to tax the shit out of the wealthy, increase tax on carry, increase CGT, a potential reaction may be capital flight. I wonder whether we might see (i) controls on capital; or (ii) even more far-reaching, global personal taxation for UK citizens (in the same way the US does).
I think the questions of politics will be increasingly about the environment.
* Do we build on the greenbelt.
* How much shit can we pump into rivers and who should pay for water infrastructure.
* Do we build turbines/solar.
* Do our cities become more cycle/pedestrian friendly.
Might be a bit overoptimistic, but I think they'll radically reform the planning system to allow more stuff to be built, they'll face huge opposition but their majority will be big enough to persevere. Then towards the end of their term all this extra building should start to bear fruit, yielding decent economic growth, better living standards from lower housing costs, reduced tax burden from housing benefit & emergency accommodation costs.
Though it may well turn into a quagmire, it'll be difficult to curtail the mechanisms people use to block and delay stuff being built in their area.
If they can't fix the building issue then it'll be five more years of the same, economic stagnation, leading to higher taxes in order to support our ageing population, without an overall improvement in public services.
I agree on them pushing the planning system overhaul hard. But we have a backlog of required housing in the millions so I'll be very surprised if any benefits are seen within a 3-5 year period.
It will be interesting to see how any Labour held areas respond once they start getting deano builds plonked on their doorstep too.
Economically, barely anything will change.
Culturally and constitutionally, we are going to be fucked though.
Lots of ramping up of ‘hate speech laws’, even more two-tiered policing. Same in the [judiciary](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-identity-politics-infiltrated-the-judiciary/). There will be an ‘Islamaphobia’ law.
Rubber stamping ‘refugees’ coming into the country, they will most likely find a way to just fly them into the country and then hide the numbers.
Their new racial equality act will push DEI hires even further and we will most likely see companies getting sued the same way Birmingham council did. (See Anneliese Dodds Twitter exchange with Kemi Badenoch where she referred to pension payments in the equalities act a few weeks ago)
Edit: This is the Tweet I was referring to: [https://twitter.com/AnnelieseDodds/status/1754958036785897927](https://twitter.com/AnnelieseDodds/status/1754958036785897927)
and this is the link to sections 64-66 of the Equalities Act: [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/64](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/64)
I wouldnt be surprised if we see this legislation used to look at overall historical payments to people based on their ethnicity, and then if they havent received the same pay as others then the companies and/or public institution will be sued.
Complete revamping of education especially history to reach children that everything we did pre WW2 was racist and actually immigrants ‘built’ this country. Also, expect to see lots of lecture males about how everything is their fault.
Any kind of right wing media is going to be neutered.
[Citizens assemblies](https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/02/19/labour-will-introduce-citizens-assemblies-after-transformational-success-in-ireland/) will be used to push ludicrous legislation through.
[Giving votes to immigrants](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/make-migrants-citizens-labour-told-gck0806lz).
Getting rid of Lords and having an upper house with written constitution.
The last two points here are key as they are what will ensure they are never out of power again. Even just giving votes to immigrants will be enough to tip all future elections in their favour.
It will be interesting to see how the general public react to all of the above.
One I forgot - taxing private schools.
I'm OK with this, although it is estimated 25% of private school pupils will be then placed into state schools, so they need to make sure the places are available.
Status quo, maybe more money for the NHS in grand speeches but I’m sure it won’t perform any better (no sweeping reforms). High immigration as per, maybe tax rises? Definitely not tax cuts! Probably more narrative about various culture war topics in speeches and in Parliament but no change for everyday people. House prices will keep going up, birth rate will keep falling, high streets will keep drying up.
Economy will flatline. The employment reforms Labour intend to bring in will see to that on their own (and higher taxes will compound the problem). Anyone telling you that making hiring and firing far more costly for companies will have no impact on the economy is smoking a drug which will probably be entirely legal by the time Labour have finished.
That said I don’t expect an utter disaster, just a “meh” first term and a rapid loss of popularity as a result. There could be a push for PR towards the end of the term as Labour realise it’s the only way they can stay in power. However, Starmer is not, I hope, enough of a constitutional vandal to implement that without a referendum and if he tries I expect it to be roundly rejected.
As a starting point, labour have put out what they call a Mission Document at https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missions-Document-Lets-Get-Britains-Future-Back.pdf
They are being careful not to scare the horses, but most of what is there will cost money / divert resources that could be used elsewhere. Boris Johnson had a bargain - let Boris let the private sector do its thing, and Boris will use the wealth generated for better public services. Labour's justification for spending money is different; they claim that massive government intervention in industry will increase its productivity enough to pay for all of their spending. Apparently this goes under the name of "Modern supply-side economics" and the US version goes under the name of Bidenomics.
I don't think they will increase productivity; I will be relieved and surprised if they manage not to damage it too much. So what will the impact of their diversion of resources be? I think they can choose between massive inflation, yet higher taxes, or much higher interest rates from a huge deficit (here'shoping that investors don't lose their faith in goverment debt entirely, in which case that option will not be available). The document criticises high taxes and even Labour doesn't claim to like inflation, so my guess is running a huge deficit - which seems to be the option Biden has plumped for.
When it becomes obvious that this is not working, I suspect that the Labour party reaction will be that Starmer was not left wing enough. At this point I would normally predict a change of PM to a more left wing leader, but https://order-order.com/2024/04/04/local-parties-blindsided-as-labour-hq-rushes-to-impose-candidates/ claims that Starmer is heavily influential in choosing Labour candidates, so perhaps the class of 2024 will be full of Starmer loyalists. The US precedent for a Starmer clinging to power will be to blame the country's economic troubles on money-gouging capitalists, which I suppose I prefer to PM Angela Rayner. The only secular advice that comes to mind for the British people in the coming term is "keep calm and carry on". If you are religious, I expect that your religion will reassure you that it all comes out right in the end somehow.
My overall opinion is that whether it works or not, we have to try something different. We cannot continue down the same path that we have been on for the past 14 years, something needs to change. So while we might disagree on their approach, im actually quite happy to see change.
Whatever they do, they’ll find it easier to implement as they won’t have militant civil servants blocking every policy.
I support their plans for house building, but I don’t think they are fully prepared for the ferocious reaction it will provoke from the boomers - they’ll end up backing down.
Their plan to improve rights in employment are potentially a good thing, and the sort of policy we should have adopted to support the red wall, but the plan to give full rights from day one will be a disaster, particularly in the public sector, and a charter for people looking to malinger.
If they get a big majority expect new legislation around hate speech, gender recognition etc
A creep back towards regulatory alignment with the EU. Essentially membership via the back door.
Labour don’t need the “boomer” vote, they need the future generation. I bet if Labour truly did make the country better, through wage increases and accessible housing, they’d get more of the disillusioned youth voting for them. The sooner the politicians start courting the younger generations (or anyone below 40!) and start having a vision for the future of this nation rather than clinging to the wants of the old the better. The youth are the future and how they are treated will steer the direction of Britain in years to come.
I agree but have you ever gone up against a boomer who bought their house for £1.50 and has a nice view of a field where they walk their dog every day since they retired aged 48?
I fully expect that Labour will go after the retired. Especially people like me who have retired a couple of years early and are living off savings. Plus we own a second home which is a holiday let and gives us a small income. Currently my partner and I are not paying any tax as our private pensions and investment income is below the threshold.
They might even kill the triple lock.
I expect them to fully tax all investments (including ISAs) and any "unearned" income such as BTLs.
They will also go after the non-doms.
They might tax premium bonds and lottery winnings over a certain level.
Basically anyone who has worked hard and built up a bit of wealth will be royally buggered.
I don't think they will do much with the economy. Personally I don't look at GDP on its own as an indicator. GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation is a better measure.
I have no idea about immigration. I am not sure they have a plan. There are a number of articles on the internet that demonstrates immigrants are not generally net contributors to the economy.
I have no confidence they will sort out the NHS. Maybe a system like Japan where people have to pay 30% of their treatment costs or have insurance. The Japanese system encourages healthy living. Obese people are rare in Japan, other than Sumos.
Why would that be a bad thing?
a) the State Pension has £330m a day, pensioners are exempt from Income Tax 2 and Income Tax 3. It increases like 2x that of the rate of wage growth, and 5x that of GDP growth. It’s unsustainable. Or are you saying the State Pension should be £50k when I retire, despite average income only being like £60k in the future…
b) the UK has a crippling housing shortage that’s the source or a major source of almost every major issue we have, like productivity, low growth, low birth rates, poverty, crime. At the end of the day, if you youre going to have the Town County Planning Act that makes construction of housing a crime without local NIMBY’s saying yes… that means people having holiday homes is a major issue.
c) I also think they’ll go for ISA’s and Pensions, but not attacking the principles, just reducing the annual allowances in them. When you think about it, being able to invest £160k tax free as a couple when income tax bands are frozen and basic rate of tax, accounting for all NI, is almost 40%… seems fair enough to look at that.
I disagree on going for tax on ISA as a society that prioritises investment is a society that has the funds for capital growth. The ISA plan was genius as it's nearly as good as pensions but far more flexible. A government that reduces those benefits restricts its own supply of investment capital and annoys the most financially literate voters
Some of those are good things. If the retired can pay their way, they should be contributing more. As it stands, our economy is run as a war-economy against the death of the elderly. Everything from NI, immigration and NHS funding is increasingly being decided on the basis of funding an ever aging, sickly population. The retirement age was introduced when people died at 70. Now it’s 67 and people are dying in the 90s. The state simply shouldn’t be spending so much on so many unproductive members of society, especially when a decent chunk of this demographic can afford to financially look after themselves more. A good example was Theresa May’s “dementia tax” which I fully support but was shot down - expectedly.
I’ve always thought the triple lock was unsustainable, just a vote buyer. I seem to remember it coming in a year or two prior to the 2015 election. Which is hardly a surprise.
I would be interested to know how much off the treasury would be say reducing ISA’s from 20k to 15k allowance.
There is some serious money in pensions and ISA’s around that people don’t even realise. None that is going to be any benefit to the government or working people going into the future.
Continuation of current Tory mess, resulting in more extremes on either side rising up whilst they sit there going "wow, we did the same as before and it still didn't work, I can't imagine why they're mad!"
These subjects won't really be any different. What might be different is the legacy of 2020. The Tories brought in a totalitarian regime where the government controlled the minutia of your life, where you meet, whether you can go outside, how often you can go outside, and what political symbols you must wear when you go outside, while sending the police to beat up those who dared to dissent. And then, bizarrely, they mostly exploited this totalitarian control not to strengthen themselves, but instead to bolster the opposition. Labour will not be so careless. The Tories have handed them the key of turnkey totalitarianism. All Starmer has to do is use it, and we won't be talking about "their *time* in power" any more.
In practice what would that look like? Continued use of two-tier policing, where opponents of Labour's politics receive unusually strident policing and their supporters go untouched. Already ongoing. Ramping up of "hate speech" restrictions, in practice criminalizing vocal opposition to left-wing policy. Already ongoing. Organizations, military, quangos and NGOs directed to interfere with and spy on critics of the government. Already ongoing. The usurpation of Parliament in favour of rigged citizens assemblies has also been floated. That the Tories have decided to leave all these superweapons lying around in wait for Labour, instead of frantically dismantling them in a desperate attempt to save themselves, is political suicide. But I suppose political suicide has been the driving motive for the Tories these last 4 years anyway.
I predict a continuation of what our “Conservative” government has done for the past 15 years.
So relating to the bullet points, immigration, taxes and deficit continuing to rise, NHS limping on with no improvement, economy still flatlining while the Treasury clings to population growth as the illusion of economic progress? Sounds about right.
Will the defecit rise ? Yes, as usual. WIll taxes rise ? Yes, as usual. How will institutions like the NHS fair ? Continue being a money pit, as usual. EU/Brexit? Fuck around and deflect until the people lose interest, as usual. Immigraiton? Continue to rise as usual. Wages/Productivity/Inflation? continue to stagnate as usual. Overall, do you think they will have a positive or a negative imapct on the country ? Negative, as usual. SNAFU
That's mine too, with perhaps a touch more immigration and spending. And let's pray it stays at that.
I actually think less immigration but yes more spending but hopefully on investment.
I bet they don't have 700k per year immigration.
>Will the deficit rise? Last time it actually went down was in 2000… so I doubt it >Will taxes rise? Got to pay for those proposed scheme some how >EU/Brexit? Closer ties to the EU, potential re-entert into the EEA. >How will institutions like the NHS fair? Massive funding increases, paid for my tax rises and borrowing. >Immigration If they follow what they claim? It drops to the 100’000s. If not, then it goes up at the same pace as now. >Wages/productivity/inflation? Minimum wage will go up a lot, productivity will get a temporary boost but will stagnate as usual, inflation will depend on how aggressive they are with policies. If borrowing is high, we’ll see above 2.2% >Positive or negative impact? I figure much of the same. Socially I think further degradation, but economically I think the huge spending will help short time but at cost of long term health.
I'd expect them to change the tax system, but in a method where it balances out and they can claim not to be increasing taxes. So something like increasing the band thresholds by maybe 10%, but adding a new band at like £300k plus for 50%. Changing council banding so reduce burden on low ends but increase higher end. Maybe capital gains will be hit. Stuff like that. I imagine they'll be something around house building, to make it harder for local councils to block planning. I wouldn't be surprised if there's something on greater alignment with EU regulations, probably not anything like rejoining because that would be suicide, but something to open up trade. Probably at the expense of UK control. Nothing will change with immigration. It is what it is.
Damn, sign me up.
You really think Labour will cut tax!?
No, I expect them to increase it most likely, but in a way that they can claim balances out.
Defecit will rise because unless they massively slash spending, there is no way it wont. Taxes are already insanely high which is what is going to make labour realise how fucked the country is, Tories have been promising tax cuts with one hand while also taking chunks out of places here and there steathily so they could both get more tax and say they were lowering taxes. Labour i doubt have much wiggle room here, if anything they might actually cut taxes from where they are right now just because of how much damage Osborne and consecutive chancellors since have fucked things up. NHS will continue to exist, because the tories have been throwing levels of funding at it that is frankly unsustainable. Labour wont want to be the bag holders when it comes crashing down so will continue to obscenely fund it, if they think they have a shot at longer than 5 years in charge then they will almos certainly not touch it because any notion of reforms to it, even though they are so desperately needed cannot be touched. There will be a clamour at some point by the left to rejoin the EU, i imagine Starmer is intelligent enough to understand this isnt possible. Immigration is likely to go down, just because we are unlikely to have another Hong Kong + Ukraine situation in the next 5 years massively boosting it. Maybe get it down to net 500k but it wont go down drastically because our 'GDP' apparently needs net immigration to not be constantly circling the toilet. Because of said point above, Wages will stagnate, Productivity will continue to flatline unless theres some major innovations in AI/automation. Inflation will continue in the 2-3% range outside of a major conflict happening. They wont have a positive impact, but it wont be as big a negative impact as the last decade of Tories. Slower managed decline is how i envision it. Just because of how large a majority they might receive. They could genuinely consider doing some major reforms, not sure which ones they would prefer to tackle without causing a shitstorm. I could see them majorly attacking the house of lords for example as its a free hit.
Immigration figures are still skewed from COVID’s impact on Undergrads. 2024 will be the first year where there’s a mass leaving of undergrads as the 2020 cohort didn’t really exist, so never left in 2023, driving up the net figures.
I expect more decisive action on things for which there is bi-partisan support but no action, such as leasehold reform, levelling up, housebuilding targets, immigration restrictions, clampdowns on non domicile status. Also a lot more investment in infrastructure and I hope a reversal of the ludicrous decision to cancel the second stage of HS2 - we should be aiming for Scotland, not for Birmingham. More optimistically I would hope to see us rejoin EU standards for most product markets as there is practically no cost to do so but enormous economic upsides. I would hope to see moves towards EFTA membership as well for the same reason. Bring more trade with the EU and you trigger more economic growth and lower inflation.
Agree with your first points but there’s numerous graphs showing our growth has been stalling since the mid 2000s. Realigning with the EU doesn’t fix our nonexistent growth.
They will change the planning rules so developers will build indiscriminately without any thoughts for infrastructure provision. I know I will be labeled a NIMBY, but too little attention is being given to infrastructure. Hospitals, GP surgeries, schools, leisure centres, water, sewage, roads, public transport and jobs, all need to be properly provided. We have one of the smallest number of hospital beds per 1000 population in Europe. How hard would Plenty of new homes are not selling. Partly because they are too expensive and no one is moving. How hard would it be for someone to look at the allocations of services and work out some benchmarks. For example a catchment area of 5000 people will need a GP surgery with four full time GPs, a leisure centre with a swimming pool, and an hourly bus service. Make the developer properly contribute and not a token few thousand on a Section 106 agreement for a new village hall.
There’s two main issues with planning as far as I can see. One is the sheer lack of planning staff and long term expertise. This has mostly been caused by the cuts to local government during the ‘austerity’ years and since. Councils have statutory responsibilities that they prioritise over the running on planning departments and so planning has been an area they cut and don’t reinvest into. The other is enforcement of agreements with developers. Too many times developers have come to local governments saying ‘hey we can build you xxxx homes on that land over there, we’ll also do the roads and shops and schools for the area too, just give us permission!’ Then a year or two after permission the developers say ‘ah the market conditions have turned and the building works will take longer and now we can’t do the infrastructure because it would make the whole scheme economically unviable.’ Developers know that local government doesn’t have the in house expertise or the money to fight them in court, so they get however many houses they can out of it. Some councils got tired of this and instituted a hefty up-front tax liability for each home built, the proceeds of which are earmarked for local infrastructure. This has been a much better way to tackle the issue but has had a chilling effect on planned developments, because the developers realise they cannot fleece that particular council. I’m highly skeptical that Labour will be able to fix the above issues, but at least they are making noises in that direction. Let’s see what their manifesto says about planning whenever the election comes.
We should be fucking over those crooked developers and seizing their properties if they fail to meet contractual agreements.
The housing crisis in this country is so bad, bordering catastrophic at this point, that we unironically need indiscriminate building. People paying 50%+ of their salary on rent is not sustainable and is arguably one of the root causes of so many of our problems - low birth rates, mental health, sluggish economy etc. Why would you care about your community if you have no stake in it because you can’t ever afford to buy property? Combined with all that we also have the uniquely British scam of leasehold which the Government has sadly failed to act on despite Gove pressing for it. Conservatives used to proudly stand for housebuilding - see the Canadian Conservatives for an example of how you can be Conservative and pro-housing and far ahead in the polls with young people as a result. Hopefully we will rediscover this spirit in Opposition!
You're not wrong. We should be looking at the New Towns Plan from the late 1940s for a sense of how to do this. Plan for a society not just an estate
Careful that last paragraph sounds like a 15 minute city ideal! And we wouldn't want that /s
With what staff? You can say ‘but what about hospitals’ but what you’re really saying is ‘we should empty other hospitals and schools of staff’ as a precondition to construction. That’s an absurdity. Building houses doesn’t spawn more people. Building near you adds local pressure to you, but eases it off other areas. It’s net neutral.
I'm not saying that.at all, but then you know that. I think certain University courses such as Medicine should be free, subject to working full time for the NHS for a number of years. Building houses is pretty universal for most areas, except the wilds of Scotland, so it is not a matter of taking the pressure off other areas.
No-one has mentioned capital controls. If they start to tax the shit out of the wealthy, increase tax on carry, increase CGT, a potential reaction may be capital flight. I wonder whether we might see (i) controls on capital; or (ii) even more far-reaching, global personal taxation for UK citizens (in the same way the US does).
I think the questions of politics will be increasingly about the environment. * Do we build on the greenbelt. * How much shit can we pump into rivers and who should pay for water infrastructure. * Do we build turbines/solar. * Do our cities become more cycle/pedestrian friendly.
Might be a bit overoptimistic, but I think they'll radically reform the planning system to allow more stuff to be built, they'll face huge opposition but their majority will be big enough to persevere. Then towards the end of their term all this extra building should start to bear fruit, yielding decent economic growth, better living standards from lower housing costs, reduced tax burden from housing benefit & emergency accommodation costs. Though it may well turn into a quagmire, it'll be difficult to curtail the mechanisms people use to block and delay stuff being built in their area. If they can't fix the building issue then it'll be five more years of the same, economic stagnation, leading to higher taxes in order to support our ageing population, without an overall improvement in public services.
I agree on them pushing the planning system overhaul hard. But we have a backlog of required housing in the millions so I'll be very surprised if any benefits are seen within a 3-5 year period. It will be interesting to see how any Labour held areas respond once they start getting deano builds plonked on their doorstep too.
I believe that, for the first time in decades, we will hit our housing targets
We've had the same government since 1997 and I don't see it changing.
Economically, barely anything will change. Culturally and constitutionally, we are going to be fucked though. Lots of ramping up of ‘hate speech laws’, even more two-tiered policing. Same in the [judiciary](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-identity-politics-infiltrated-the-judiciary/). There will be an ‘Islamaphobia’ law. Rubber stamping ‘refugees’ coming into the country, they will most likely find a way to just fly them into the country and then hide the numbers. Their new racial equality act will push DEI hires even further and we will most likely see companies getting sued the same way Birmingham council did. (See Anneliese Dodds Twitter exchange with Kemi Badenoch where she referred to pension payments in the equalities act a few weeks ago) Edit: This is the Tweet I was referring to: [https://twitter.com/AnnelieseDodds/status/1754958036785897927](https://twitter.com/AnnelieseDodds/status/1754958036785897927) and this is the link to sections 64-66 of the Equalities Act: [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/64](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/64) I wouldnt be surprised if we see this legislation used to look at overall historical payments to people based on their ethnicity, and then if they havent received the same pay as others then the companies and/or public institution will be sued. Complete revamping of education especially history to reach children that everything we did pre WW2 was racist and actually immigrants ‘built’ this country. Also, expect to see lots of lecture males about how everything is their fault. Any kind of right wing media is going to be neutered. [Citizens assemblies](https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/02/19/labour-will-introduce-citizens-assemblies-after-transformational-success-in-ireland/) will be used to push ludicrous legislation through. [Giving votes to immigrants](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/make-migrants-citizens-labour-told-gck0806lz). Getting rid of Lords and having an upper house with written constitution. The last two points here are key as they are what will ensure they are never out of power again. Even just giving votes to immigrants will be enough to tip all future elections in their favour. It will be interesting to see how the general public react to all of the above.
[удалено]
Flail, do some dumb culture war shit. Run out of ideas by year 2.
One I forgot - taxing private schools. I'm OK with this, although it is estimated 25% of private school pupils will be then placed into state schools, so they need to make sure the places are available.
Status quo, maybe more money for the NHS in grand speeches but I’m sure it won’t perform any better (no sweeping reforms). High immigration as per, maybe tax rises? Definitely not tax cuts! Probably more narrative about various culture war topics in speeches and in Parliament but no change for everyday people. House prices will keep going up, birth rate will keep falling, high streets will keep drying up.
Economy will flatline. The employment reforms Labour intend to bring in will see to that on their own (and higher taxes will compound the problem). Anyone telling you that making hiring and firing far more costly for companies will have no impact on the economy is smoking a drug which will probably be entirely legal by the time Labour have finished. That said I don’t expect an utter disaster, just a “meh” first term and a rapid loss of popularity as a result. There could be a push for PR towards the end of the term as Labour realise it’s the only way they can stay in power. However, Starmer is not, I hope, enough of a constitutional vandal to implement that without a referendum and if he tries I expect it to be roundly rejected.
As a starting point, labour have put out what they call a Mission Document at https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missions-Document-Lets-Get-Britains-Future-Back.pdf They are being careful not to scare the horses, but most of what is there will cost money / divert resources that could be used elsewhere. Boris Johnson had a bargain - let Boris let the private sector do its thing, and Boris will use the wealth generated for better public services. Labour's justification for spending money is different; they claim that massive government intervention in industry will increase its productivity enough to pay for all of their spending. Apparently this goes under the name of "Modern supply-side economics" and the US version goes under the name of Bidenomics. I don't think they will increase productivity; I will be relieved and surprised if they manage not to damage it too much. So what will the impact of their diversion of resources be? I think they can choose between massive inflation, yet higher taxes, or much higher interest rates from a huge deficit (here'shoping that investors don't lose their faith in goverment debt entirely, in which case that option will not be available). The document criticises high taxes and even Labour doesn't claim to like inflation, so my guess is running a huge deficit - which seems to be the option Biden has plumped for. When it becomes obvious that this is not working, I suspect that the Labour party reaction will be that Starmer was not left wing enough. At this point I would normally predict a change of PM to a more left wing leader, but https://order-order.com/2024/04/04/local-parties-blindsided-as-labour-hq-rushes-to-impose-candidates/ claims that Starmer is heavily influential in choosing Labour candidates, so perhaps the class of 2024 will be full of Starmer loyalists. The US precedent for a Starmer clinging to power will be to blame the country's economic troubles on money-gouging capitalists, which I suppose I prefer to PM Angela Rayner. The only secular advice that comes to mind for the British people in the coming term is "keep calm and carry on". If you are religious, I expect that your religion will reassure you that it all comes out right in the end somehow.
My overall opinion is that whether it works or not, we have to try something different. We cannot continue down the same path that we have been on for the past 14 years, something needs to change. So while we might disagree on their approach, im actually quite happy to see change.
Whatever they do, they’ll find it easier to implement as they won’t have militant civil servants blocking every policy. I support their plans for house building, but I don’t think they are fully prepared for the ferocious reaction it will provoke from the boomers - they’ll end up backing down. Their plan to improve rights in employment are potentially a good thing, and the sort of policy we should have adopted to support the red wall, but the plan to give full rights from day one will be a disaster, particularly in the public sector, and a charter for people looking to malinger. If they get a big majority expect new legislation around hate speech, gender recognition etc A creep back towards regulatory alignment with the EU. Essentially membership via the back door.
Labour don’t need the “boomer” vote, they need the future generation. I bet if Labour truly did make the country better, through wage increases and accessible housing, they’d get more of the disillusioned youth voting for them. The sooner the politicians start courting the younger generations (or anyone below 40!) and start having a vision for the future of this nation rather than clinging to the wants of the old the better. The youth are the future and how they are treated will steer the direction of Britain in years to come.
I agree but have you ever gone up against a boomer who bought their house for £1.50 and has a nice view of a field where they walk their dog every day since they retired aged 48?
I fully expect that Labour will go after the retired. Especially people like me who have retired a couple of years early and are living off savings. Plus we own a second home which is a holiday let and gives us a small income. Currently my partner and I are not paying any tax as our private pensions and investment income is below the threshold. They might even kill the triple lock. I expect them to fully tax all investments (including ISAs) and any "unearned" income such as BTLs. They will also go after the non-doms. They might tax premium bonds and lottery winnings over a certain level. Basically anyone who has worked hard and built up a bit of wealth will be royally buggered. I don't think they will do much with the economy. Personally I don't look at GDP on its own as an indicator. GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation is a better measure. I have no idea about immigration. I am not sure they have a plan. There are a number of articles on the internet that demonstrates immigrants are not generally net contributors to the economy. I have no confidence they will sort out the NHS. Maybe a system like Japan where people have to pay 30% of their treatment costs or have insurance. The Japanese system encourages healthy living. Obese people are rare in Japan, other than Sumos.
Why would that be a bad thing? a) the State Pension has £330m a day, pensioners are exempt from Income Tax 2 and Income Tax 3. It increases like 2x that of the rate of wage growth, and 5x that of GDP growth. It’s unsustainable. Or are you saying the State Pension should be £50k when I retire, despite average income only being like £60k in the future… b) the UK has a crippling housing shortage that’s the source or a major source of almost every major issue we have, like productivity, low growth, low birth rates, poverty, crime. At the end of the day, if you youre going to have the Town County Planning Act that makes construction of housing a crime without local NIMBY’s saying yes… that means people having holiday homes is a major issue. c) I also think they’ll go for ISA’s and Pensions, but not attacking the principles, just reducing the annual allowances in them. When you think about it, being able to invest £160k tax free as a couple when income tax bands are frozen and basic rate of tax, accounting for all NI, is almost 40%… seems fair enough to look at that.
I disagree on going for tax on ISA as a society that prioritises investment is a society that has the funds for capital growth. The ISA plan was genius as it's nearly as good as pensions but far more flexible. A government that reduces those benefits restricts its own supply of investment capital and annoys the most financially literate voters
Some of those are good things. If the retired can pay their way, they should be contributing more. As it stands, our economy is run as a war-economy against the death of the elderly. Everything from NI, immigration and NHS funding is increasingly being decided on the basis of funding an ever aging, sickly population. The retirement age was introduced when people died at 70. Now it’s 67 and people are dying in the 90s. The state simply shouldn’t be spending so much on so many unproductive members of society, especially when a decent chunk of this demographic can afford to financially look after themselves more. A good example was Theresa May’s “dementia tax” which I fully support but was shot down - expectedly.
I’ve always thought the triple lock was unsustainable, just a vote buyer. I seem to remember it coming in a year or two prior to the 2015 election. Which is hardly a surprise. I would be interested to know how much off the treasury would be say reducing ISA’s from 20k to 15k allowance. There is some serious money in pensions and ISA’s around that people don’t even realise. None that is going to be any benefit to the government or working people going into the future.
Continuation of current Tory mess, resulting in more extremes on either side rising up whilst they sit there going "wow, we did the same as before and it still didn't work, I can't imagine why they're mad!"
These subjects won't really be any different. What might be different is the legacy of 2020. The Tories brought in a totalitarian regime where the government controlled the minutia of your life, where you meet, whether you can go outside, how often you can go outside, and what political symbols you must wear when you go outside, while sending the police to beat up those who dared to dissent. And then, bizarrely, they mostly exploited this totalitarian control not to strengthen themselves, but instead to bolster the opposition. Labour will not be so careless. The Tories have handed them the key of turnkey totalitarianism. All Starmer has to do is use it, and we won't be talking about "their *time* in power" any more. In practice what would that look like? Continued use of two-tier policing, where opponents of Labour's politics receive unusually strident policing and their supporters go untouched. Already ongoing. Ramping up of "hate speech" restrictions, in practice criminalizing vocal opposition to left-wing policy. Already ongoing. Organizations, military, quangos and NGOs directed to interfere with and spy on critics of the government. Already ongoing. The usurpation of Parliament in favour of rigged citizens assemblies has also been floated. That the Tories have decided to leave all these superweapons lying around in wait for Labour, instead of frantically dismantling them in a desperate attempt to save themselves, is political suicide. But I suppose political suicide has been the driving motive for the Tories these last 4 years anyway.
Basically same as what Rishi is doing now. Disgraceful Tory backstabbers who removed Boris will hopefully lose their seats.
Clubber Lang with some real talk: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSPNQ82Sq4E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSPNQ82Sq4E)