Westminster Politics 2024-2029

Select Committee Chairs have been announced:

Foreign affairs Emily Thornberry, Labour

Home affairs Karen Bradley, Conservative

Business and trade Liam Byrne, Labour

Defence Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Labour

Education Helen Hayes, Labour

Energy security and net zero Bill Esterson, Labour

Housing, communities and local government Florence Eshalomi, Labour

International development Sarah Champion, Labour

Justice Andy Slaughter, Labour

Science, innovation and technology Chi Onwurah, Labour

Scottish affairs To be announced on Thursday 12 September

Transport Ruth Cadbury, Labour

Women and equalities Sarah Owen, Labour

Work and pensions Debbie Abrahams, Labour

Other specified select committees:

Environmental audit Toby Perkins, Labour

Procedure Cat Smith, Labour

Public accounts Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Conservative

Public administration and constitutional affairs Simon Hoare, Conservative

Standards Alberto Costa, Conservative
 
I'm not seeing why people are so devastated by the winter fuel allowance cut.

Nearly 1/3 (almost 30%) of all Over-65's are by literal definition, millionaires.

57% of all Pensioners have above 500k in assets.

The reduction of the fuel allowance means that only the bottom 15% get support, which for the 65+ demographic tops out at around the 300k+ in assets mark.

That, coupled with the £400 pension increase, means that despite this, pensioners still get a better deal than most of the population after this cut.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
I'm not seeing why people are so devastated by the winter fuel allowance cut.

Nearly 1/3 (almost 30%) of all Over-65's are by literal definition, millionaires.

57% of all Pensioners have above 500k in assets.

The reduction of the fuel allowance means that only the bottom 15% get support, which for the 65+ demographic tops out at around the 300k+ in assets mark.

That, coupled with the £400 pension increase, means that despite this, pensioners still get a better deal than most of the population after this cut.
Click to expand...

The fuel payment is linked to claiming the pension credit. From my understanding nearly 1 million pensioners are eligible for this but do not claim it. These people are some of the most vulnerable in society and as it stands will lose their fuel payment. I've no particular problem removing it from rich pensioners but these aren't them and will surely suffer.
 
There’s an obvious way to increase the coffers available to the British exchequer. And we’re talking billions over time too!
 
Well I certainly don't underestimate the absolutely massive job the new government has on its hands. As we know, pretty much everything is broken and needs to be improved. And that is going to need a huge amount of money and resources. But most importantly, it is going to take time.
And nowadays, it is all about instant results. Which simply can not happen.

In reality, the recent GE was a good one to lose for the Tories. They broke it and someone else now has to fix it.
 
Frosty said:
Select Committee Chairs have been announced:

Foreign affairs Emily Thornberry, Labour

Home affairs Karen Bradley, Conservative

Business and trade Liam Byrne, Labour

Defence Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Labour

Education Helen Hayes, Labour

Energy security and net zero Bill Esterson, Labour

Housing, communities and local government Florence Eshalomi, Labour

International development Sarah Champion, Labour

Justice Andy Slaughter, Labour

Science, innovation and technology Chi Onwurah, Labour

Scottish affairs To be announced on Thursday 12 September

Transport Ruth Cadbury, Labour

Women and equalities Sarah Owen, Labour

Work and pensions Debbie Abrahams, Labour

Other specified select committees:

Environmental audit Toby Perkins, Labour

Procedure Cat Smith, Labour

Public accounts Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Conservative

Public administration and constitutional affairs Simon Hoare, Conservative

Standards Alberto Costa, Conservative
Click to expand...
Liam Byrne gets Business and Trade. The guy who was at The Treasury last Labour Govt and left the note when they lost the GE saying “sorry, there’s no money left”. Hopefully does a better job.

Person in charge of Justice is called Slaughter. Death penalty on the way back?
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Look, I’m every bit the prick that I suggest I am on this issue (among others).

I get that you’ve operated within the system and done well from it. I did too. When I moved countries, I kept my house and rented it out. I self-justified it by renting when there, and figured I was in the circle of capitalism.

With regards to having paid off a second property and where to set rent? None of these measures need to be suggestive, but if I was financially capable and it was me (let’s assume market rent is £1000/m for ease of purpose).

-Set it at a below market rate for a young couple that both worked in the public sector.
-Tell them they can have the place at £600/m if they commit to a 2 year lease, but advise it will be £800 in year 3, and £1000 in year 4.
-Advise that I’ll be keeping the rent at £600/m for anyone moving in in year 3 if they move out.
-Clearly state that I want to operate as a social landlord and that a saving of £9,600 over 2 years should be enough to stand a young couple in good stead, but I want to help 2-5 couples over 10 years. That subsidising one couple for a decade isn’t the goal.

It would take a lot of financial security to do that. I’m not saying that’s you, but I’d want to be able to play around with those numbers in order to help people.

Or, some more simple methods. Tell a couple (and it would always be a couple, they kind of self-insure against job loss etc) that if rent was paid on time January to October in full, there would be no rent payable in November and December. Or even just December. Christmas, the British financial crunch time… completely unburdened.

With all due respect, anyone claiming to be a ‘good landlord’ because they paint things and repair stuff, isn’t. There has to be act of self sacrifice in my brain. Especially in periods of huge property price inflation. The idea that my house increase in value by £12k as I charge someone £12k to live there, just feels wrong.
Click to expand...
All of this is missing the point. It is a lack of supply, and in particular a lack of affordable and social housing, that is the problem. Anything else is the equivalent of treating terminal liver cancer with a glass of water.
 
Buster15 said:
This was always going to happen. Difficult decisions are never popular.
Click to expand...
The actually difficult decision would be to tax million/billionaires properly but they're cowards just like their Tory brothers and sisters. Instead they'll make the easy decisions to keep robbing the working class.
 
Raven said:
The actually difficult decision would be to tax million/billionaires properly but they're cowards just like their Tory brothers and sisters. Instead they'll make the easy decisions to keep robbing the working class.
Click to expand...

This is not easy though, at least not something that doesn't require a huge amount of legwork.

The main problem isn't that billionaires are evading their tax on income, it's that their net worth increases are taxed based on equity and asset value increases (which, at the moment, are not taxed until materialized). The other problem is that their cash flow is mostly done through collaterized asset based loans.

Taxing this is incredibly difficult, without having huge impact on the whole financial system. Do you add "loans tax?", or "Unrealized capital gains tax?". The latter could really screw with al sorts of markets as people are forced to liquidate positions to accommodate sudden spikes in valuations.

This isn't an easy quick fix solution like you're suggesting. It needs to be done, but the mechanics of it is very complex which is why the political will hasn't been there(Not here, and not anywhere else).
 
AfonsoAlves said:
This is not easy though, at least not something that doesn't require a huge amount of legwork.

The main problem isn't that billionaires are evading their tax on income, it's that their net worth increases are taxed based on equity and asset value increases (which, at the moment, are not taxed until materialized). The other problem is that their cash flow is mostly done through collaterized asset based loans.

Taxing this is incredibly difficult, without having huge impact on the whole financial system. Do you add "loans tax?", or "Unrealized capital gains tax?". The latter could really screw with al sorts of markets as people are forced to liquidate positions to accommodate sudden spikes in valuations.

This isn't an easy quick fix solution like you're suggesting. It needs to be done, but the mechanics of it is very complex which is why the political will hasn't been there(Not here, and not anywhere else).
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...itories-top-list-of-worlds-leading-tax-havens

We do have the power to do something about this.
 
Frosty said:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...itories-top-list-of-worlds-leading-tax-havens

We do have the power to do something about this.
Click to expand...
No we do not - fiscal policy is not controlled by Westminster nor are most things.

They have their own parliament, democratic system, constitution and legal system.

The link to UK is that Charles is head of state (like many commonwealth countries). The only thing Westminster is responsible for for these kinds of territories is defense.

Edit - I mean technically the king can go there and enforce a bunch of stuff but that would trigger a constitutional crisis which would most likely lead to complete independence.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
This is not easy though, at least not something that doesn't require a huge amount of legwork.

The main problem isn't that billionaires are evading their tax on income, it's that their net worth increases are taxed based on equity and asset value increases (which, at the moment, are not taxed until materialized). The other problem is that their cash flow is mostly done through collaterized asset based loans.

Taxing this is incredibly difficult, without having huge impact on the whole financial system. Do you add "loans tax?", or "Unrealized capital gains tax?". The latter could really screw with al sorts of markets as people are forced to liquidate positions to accommodate sudden spikes in valuations.

This isn't an easy quick fix solution like you're suggesting. It needs to be done, but the mechanics of it is very complex which is why the political will hasn't been there(Not here, and not anywhere else).
Click to expand...
Just take assets in lieu of tax, it's pretty clear the have specific value and if they don't have the liquidity to pay then seize assets equal to the value. Pretty simple but it would take a rethink of the way taxes are paid in Britain because unfortunately nobody with any power wants to harm their pay masters.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
No we do not - fiscal policy is not controlled by Westminster nor are most things.

They have their own parliament, democratic system, constitution and legal system.

The link to UK is that Charles is head of state (like many commonwealth countries). The only thing Westminster is responsible for for these kinds of territories is defense.

Edit - I mean technically the king can go there and enforce a bunch of stuff but that would trigger a constitutional crisis which would most likely lead to complete independence.
Click to expand...
Quark Fishing and Bancoult would suggest otherwise.

It's a bit strange that we legally have the power to dispossess an entire people from their homeland, but not to sort out tax avoidance on UK territory, but there we go.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
No we do not - fiscal policy is not controlled by Westminster nor are most things.

They have their own parliament, democratic system, constitution and legal system.

The link to UK is that Charles is head of state (like many commonwealth countries). The only thing Westminster is responsible for for these kinds of territories is defense.

Edit - I mean technically the king can go there and enforce a bunch of stuff but that would trigger a constitutional crisis which would most likely lead to complete independence.
Click to expand...

If the UK banking sector refused to do business with them, or perhaps if they were sanctioned, then things would change. It's all a question of will.

Property taxes could be reviewed, corporation tax increased, monopolies could be broken up, there are options which we won't explore because the government knows where their bread is buttered.
 
Lord Hoffman, paragraph 49 of the House of Lords Bancoult decision in 2008:

"Her Majesty in Council is therefore entitled to legislate for a colony in the interests of the United Kingdom. No doubt she is also required to take into account the interests of the colony (in the absence of any previous case of judicial review of prerogative colonial legislation, there is of course no authority on the point) but there seems to me no doubt that in the event of a conflict of interest, she is entitled, on the advice of Her United Kingdom ministers, to prefer the interests of the United Kingdom."
 
AfonsoAlves said:
No we do not - fiscal policy is not controlled by Westminster nor are most things.

They have their own parliament, democratic system, constitution and legal system.

The link to UK is that Charles is head of state (like many commonwealth countries). The only thing Westminster is responsible for for these kinds of territories is defense.

Edit - I mean technically the king can go there and enforce a bunch of stuff but that would trigger a constitutional crisis which would most likely lead to complete independence.
Click to expand...

Hang on we already have passed law that obliges us to make these overseas territories declare their records, we just keep delaying the enforcement. There's also a big difference between BOT and crown dependencies. This is a UK matter and one of security as well as public interest.

We already know the UK government has in the past sided against efforts to limit the tax havens. Financial services has come along way in the last decade the measures are now in place for reporting if the UK government just enforced the law as passed in parliament.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
This is not easy though, at least not something that doesn't require a huge amount of legwork.

The main problem isn't that billionaires are evading their tax on income, it's that their net worth increases are taxed based on equity and asset value increases (which, at the moment, are not taxed until materialized). The other problem is that their cash flow is mostly done through collaterized asset based loans.

Taxing this is incredibly difficult, without having huge impact on the whole financial system. Do you add "loans tax?", or "Unrealized capital gains tax?". The latter could really screw with al sorts of markets as people are forced to liquidate positions to accommodate sudden spikes in valuations.

This isn't an easy quick fix solution like you're suggesting. It needs to be done, but the mechanics of it is very complex which is why the political will hasn't been there(Not here, and not anywhere else).
Click to expand...
Now there you go, spoiling a simplistic slogan with a bit of reality.
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...


As I have mentioned before, until people take responsibility for looking after their bodies and keeping themselves as healthy as they can, there is never going to be enough money for the NHS to look after them.
When I look around, there seems to be almost 2 types. Those who do look after themselves and stay healthy.
And those who simply can't be bothered, who become overweight or obese and don't take any exercise.

This may not be a popular thing to say. But nevertheless, it is true.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
This is not easy though, at least not something that doesn't require a huge amount of legwork.

The main problem isn't that billionaires are evading their tax on income, it's that their net worth increases are taxed based on equity and asset value increases (which, at the moment, are not taxed until materialized). The other problem is that their cash flow is mostly done through collaterized asset based loans.

Taxing this is incredibly difficult, without having huge impact on the whole financial system. Do you add "loans tax?", or "Unrealized capital gains tax?". The latter could really screw with al sorts of markets as people are forced to liquidate positions to accommodate sudden spikes in valuations.

This isn't an easy quick fix solution like you're suggesting. It needs to be done, but the mechanics of it is very complex which is why the political will hasn't been there(Not here, and not anywhere else).
Click to expand...
I mean are you not literally proving his point? It would be a difficult decision to tax the ultra wealthy but that isn't something UK governments even attempt to do.

Instead we get austerity and they patronise us by telling us that is actually the difficult decision. Forget the last decade, look at how much richer the wealthiest members of society have gotten since the pandemic. But we mustn't do anything about that, I'm sure it'll trickle down to the rest of us eventually
 
Buster15 said:
As I have mentioned before, until people take responsibility for looking after their bodies and keeping themselves as healthy as they can, there is never going to be enough money for the NHS to look after them.
When I look around, there seems to be almost 2 types. Those who do look after themselves and stay healthy.
And those who simply can't be bothered, who become overweight or obese and don't take any exercise.

This may not be a popular thing to say. But nevertheless, it is true.
Click to expand...
Said by someone who's enjoyed unfettered access to free healthcare for his entire, long life.
 
Mogget said:
I mean are you not literally proving his point? It would be a difficult decision to tax the ultra wealthy but that isn't something UK governments even attempt to do.

Instead we get austerity and they patronise us by telling us that is actually the difficult decision. Forget the last decade, look at how much richer the wealthiest members of society have gotten since the pandemic. But we mustn't do anything about that, I'm sure it'll trickle down to the rest of us eventually
Click to expand...

I think the main problem lies in the fear of capital flight.

People saw the French experiment backfire that everyone is now hesitant to think it's feasible.

It probably is feasible, but it would take a huge amount of work.
 
Buster15 said:
In reality, the recent GE was a good one to lose for the Tories. They broke it and someone else now has to fix it.
Click to expand...
It was ever thus!
Cannot remember a time when Labour entered government on the up (possibly Blair ...'things can only get better').
Now things can only get worse... before getting better, in about 4 to 6 years time.
Also Starmer has to deliver the news that we have not got the tools to 'fix it', however, when with his 170 majority we do have the necessary and start to make headway, the public will decide to hand it back to the Tories, on the belief that they will make us all rich*

(*I am old enough (you too!) to have heard this story before and we know the likely ending! Heartbreaking isn't it?))
 
Buster15 said:
As I have mentioned before, until people take responsibility for looking after their bodies and keeping themselves as healthy as they can, there is never going to be enough money for the NHS to look after them.
When I look around, there seems to be almost 2 types. Those who do look after themselves and stay healthy.
And those who simply can't be bothered, who become overweight or obese and don't take any exercise.

This may not be a popular thing to say. But nevertheless, it is true.
Click to expand...

Am I right in assuming that you're in favour of the proposals for increased sugar tax, new salt taxes and relabelling of UPF or similar products?
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Am I right in assuming that you're in favour of the proposals for increased sugar tax, new salt taxes and relabelling of UPF or similar products?
Click to expand...

See, this is what I don't understand.

There's clearly a blurred grey area where "does this constitute as part of normal daily life" or "this is a lifestyle choice you personally chose."

Overconsumption of Salt and Sugar is a problem, and whatever legislation comes is going to be controversial, regardless of your personal feelings as its in that grey area.

But Alcohol abuse and chain smoking are two things that are just so obviously a problem, theres been decades of warnings etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.