news & politics:discussion

[Justiceforcedave]

Corbyn may have been useless in many ways, but I always enjoyed his suggestion that the top-earning executives in a company should have their wages capped at 20 x the lowest earners in the company.

[kaosmark2]

24 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

If Labour can generate more taxes through bankers bonuses then it’ll mean there is less chance they will have to look at putting taxes up on normal working people because naturally those bonuses will be large.

There probably has been some lobbying which Labour have listened to but in the end I think they have tried to look at the bigger picture which does include the fact they won’t have unlimited amounts of time to change every Tory policy they don’t like (especially policies that people won’t have given any though too). It’s pragmatic. 

That's not actually how the overall economy works though. Even if its taxed, the wealthy getting wealthier doesn't keep the money flowing in the economy.

It's only relevant if you believe in the theory that the British financial sector needs to compete with other countries for high-rollers and big risk-taking "talent" in terms of individuals, which actually just leads to an international race to the bottom. Bonus caps work. High tax rates work. This won't trickle down to ordinary people.

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, Justiceforcedave said:

Corbyn may have been useless in many ways, but I always enjoyed his suggestion that the top-earning executives in a company should have their wages capped at 20 x the lowest earners in the company.

MPs should have their entire income (across all jobs and expenses) capped at 3x the lowest earners in the country. 4x for cabinet.

Edited January 31 by kaosmark2

[Skip997]

2 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

MPs should have their entire income (across all jobs and expenses) capped at 3x the lowest earners in the country. 4x for cabinet.

MPs shouldn't be allowed second jobs, not only do they not have time (they should be too busy sorting out the country), but it also opens them up to conflicts of interest and makes them even bigger targets for lobbying (which should also be banned).

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

MPs should have their entire income (across all jobs and expenses) capped at 3x the lowest earners in the country. 4x for cabinet.

They'll go work in the city instead.

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

MPs shouldn't be allowed second jobs, not only do they not have time (they should be too busy sorting out the country), but it also opens them up to conflicts of interest and makes them even bigger targets for lobbying (which should also be banned).

There's various professions, notably legal and medical, where a minimum number of hours are required in order to maintain their professional standing and licence. I don't think those are usually a conflict of interest, and I'm fine with them getting the going rate for doing those minimum hours.

Obviously sh*t like Gideon Osborne with his 9(?) jobs, or Marvin Rees flying around the world at Bristol's expense to fund his "consultancy" career, or the various side businesses lots of senior Tories have are a conflict of interest, and should be banned on at least 2 fronts.

I just wanted to emphasise that there's occasional exceptions that should be allowed for.

[fraybentos1]

MP's salaries should be tripled because this means more tax take for the exchequer and through the miracle of trickle down economics, poor people will benefit. Have i got this right?

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

They'll go work in the city instead.

If triple a normal salary is too low for a MP to work in parliament, that means they were looking to exploit their political standing for their own gain, and I'm fine with them f**king off.

[kaosmark2]

I'm mostly too young to remember '97, but the vibe I got as a kid and my historical understanding is that Blair managed to offer hope, positivity, and people were genuinely excited for New Labour, not just the end of the Tories?

I know there were plenty of problematic decisions taken by the Blair govt, but ultimately, the quality of life for the average person in the UK went up, the quality of public services went up, and fewer children starved. I'll always fight for Labour to hold progressive values, but I do think there's a big deal to be said for what was achieved.

However, with Starmer's I'm not getting any sense of positive feeling towards him generally. I'd liken it more to 2010, where the economy is floundering, people are grumpy with the sitting government, and those in swing seats will shift to the other major party basically by default.

I don't actually think this banker's bonus policy makes much material difference either way to the state of the economy. But it's sh*t optics to see Starmer reversing yet another pledge and selling yet more of Labour's soul for what is probably some lobbying around economic "experts/figures" publicly showing "trust" in Labour. I think it's mostly just a sad indictment of modern politics.

[cellar]

12 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

MP's salaries should be tripled because this means more tax take for the exchequer and through the miracle of trickle down economics, poor people will benefit. Have i got this right?

Correct, also reduce IRs to 0% again so poor old George can afford his mortgage please.

[cellar]

4 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I don't actually think this banker's bonus policy makes much material difference either way to the state of the economy. But it's sh*t optics to see Starmer reversing yet another pledge and selling yet more of Labour's soul for what is probably some lobbying around economic "experts/figures" publicly showing "trust" in Labour. I think it's mostly just a sad indictment of modern politics.

I'd be interested to see the figures on impact to the economy. I'd guess it doesn't make much difference, but you never know with these things. 

The optics are big though, and removing the cap in first place was regressive, not to mention encourages the wealth divide.

[fraybentos1]

I'll have to add to my list of those that can't call themselves left wing:

• landlords
• people who think banker's bonuses shouldn't be capped due to the increased tax take to the exchequer

[kaosmark2]

14 minutes ago, cellar said:

I'd be interested to see the figures on impact to the economy. I'd guess it doesn't make much difference, but you never know with these things. 

The optics are big though, and removing the cap in first place was regressive, not to mention encourages the wealth divide.

I think on the scale of the national tax revenue, it's fairly irrelevant both ways, and on the scale of "this attracts talented people who will benefit the economy" it's fairly irrelevant as well. It's not really something you can ever really attach meaningful figures for because there's no way to do an isolated control without there being thousands of other factors also impacting it.

I agree that the optics matter more, and that it's a regressive move.

 

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

That’s also part of it, financial services makes up a big portion of the U.K. economy and are currently seeing a drain of people to other countries. So this helps with that and can also generate more via tax on those bonuses without raising taxes on working people. 

 

The overall inequality levels matter as well. We are back to Mandelson being relaxed about people getting filty rich whilst partying with Osbourne on Russian oligarchs yachts.

[steviewevie]

24 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I'm mostly too young to remember '97, but the vibe I got as a kid and my historical understanding is that Blair managed to offer hope, positivity, and people were genuinely excited for New Labour, not just the end of the Tories?

I know there were plenty of problematic decisions taken by the Blair govt, but ultimately, the quality of life for the average person in the UK went up, the quality of public services went up, and fewer children starved. I'll always fight for Labour to hold progressive values, but I do think there's a big deal to be said for what was achieved.

However, with Starmer's I'm not getting any sense of positive feeling towards him generally. I'd liken it more to 2010, where the economy is floundering, people are grumpy with the sitting government, and those in swing seats will shift to the other major party basically by default.

I don't actually think this banker's bonus policy makes much material difference either way to the state of the economy. But it's sh*t optics to see Starmer reversing yet another pledge and selling yet more of Labour's soul for what is probably some lobbying around economic "experts/figures" publicly showing "trust" in Labour. I think it's mostly just a sad indictment of modern politics.

Politicians are disliked even more now than they were then...for multiple reasons I guess, and Blair is just a lot more charismatic than Starmer can ever be, and a much better politician. Plus, the general vibe is different. Back then things were just more positive, now we have come out of years of austerity, brexit shite, and we have climate change and war to worry about, back then there were problems, but didn't feel as existential as they do now. Trust in politicians, in government, in the institutions is low, everyone is fed up, and everyone is arguing on social media and efestivals.  It is hard to feel optimistic about the future. Blair inherited a growing economy, Starmer is inheriting a mess.

But, look how Blair turned out. Maybe Starmer will actually be a better PM than Blair. Maybe he'll be sh*t. We shall see. I'll judge him properly after one term in power, for now he is trying to win an election in a country that usually votes Tory. 

[steviewevie]

Oh, and I was 27 in 97...halcyon days...good time of my life that...renting, working, single, partying. And weather was great on election day and the days after, just felt so good to finally get the tories out.  I expect it will be a cold, wet autumn day when/if Labour win this time round. 🙂

[lost]

37 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

 ultimately, the quality of life for the average person in the UK went up, the quality of public services went up, and fewer children starved.

I'd say it depends. The quality of public services went up but I'm not sure about quality of life. I was at uni in 1997 (which was free) I did an unskilled job on the side for beer tokens and the people who were doing it as their full time job were earning enough to buy houses and raise families (before minimum wage and tax credits) those a bit higher up the ladder in the private sector still had final salary pensions.

I'm not saying any of that is labours fault as the change from the 1990's with things like housing and pensions has happened globally due to demographics but I think in the working class areas at least (if you were not a miner I suppose) they'd prefer the 90's.

[Skip997]

@ 15/2 I could win a good amount betting on a Tory majority when the "Great British Public" do the inevitable

[kaosmark2]

14 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Politicians are disliked even more now than they were then...for multiple reasons I guess, and Blair is just a lot more charismatic than Starmer can ever be, and a much better politician. Plus, the general vibe is different. Back then things were just more positive, now we have come out of years of austerity, brexit shite, and we have climate change and war to worry about, back then there were problems, but didn't feel as existential as they do now. Trust in politicians, in government, in the institutions is low, everyone is fed up, and everyone is arguing on social media and efestivals.  It is hard to feel optimistic about the future. Blair inherited a growing economy, Starmer is inheriting a mess.

But, look how Blair turned out. Maybe Starmer will actually be a better PM than Blair. Maybe he'll be sh*t. We shall see. I'll judge him properly after one term in power, for now he is trying to win an election in a country that usually votes Tory. 

The lack of vibe of negativity and Starmer feeding into it and denying even any nice things he promised as recently as 2 years really is hurting. It's fair to point out the differences at the state of the country at the time they're inheriting it. I do think Starmer probably won't be quite as much of a hateful Tory after the election, but I've got 0 optimism that he'll push anything progressive.

Guess we'll find out.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The lack of vibe of negativity and Starmer feeding into it and denying even any nice things he promised as recently as 2 years really is hurting. It's fair to point out the differences at the state of the country at the time they're inheriting it. I do think Starmer probably won't be quite as much of a hateful Tory after the election, but I've got 0 optimism that he'll push anything progressive.

Guess we'll find out.

yeah, I'm not optimistic really...yes be nice to have some groovy progressive stuff, but just normal stuff is going to be difficult, everything needs more money, and current govt are cutting taxes, and economy is flat.

And then there's the war with Russia to worry about....

[kaosmark2]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

And then there's the war with Russia to worry about....

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I don't think Britain gets dragged into a war properly unless India or China get involved somehow, and if either of those two do we're basically at WW3 anyway.

sh*t for the world though.

[lazyred]

24 minutes ago, lost said:

I'd say it depends. The quality of public services went up but I'm not sure about quality of life. I was at uni in 1997 (which was free) I did an unskilled job on the side for beer tokens and the people who were doing it as their full time job were earning enough to buy houses and raise families (before minimum wage and tax credits) those a bit higher up the ladder in the private sector still had final salary pensions.

I'm not saying any of that is labours fault as the change from the 1990's with things like housing and pensions has happened globally due to demographics but I think in the working class areas at least (if you were not a miner I suppose) they'd prefer the 90's.

The quality of public service did go up  and that had a massive impact on quality of life for some people. The NHS was really good by the mid 2000's. Stuff like the Sure Start child centres really made a difference. A lot of it is unseen unless you need them and so it was easy for the Tory/Lib Dems to cut them.

[steviewevie]

27 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The lack of vibe of negativity and Starmer feeding into it and denying even any nice things he promised as recently as 2 years really is hurting. It's fair to point out the differences at the state of the country at the time they're inheriting it. I do think Starmer probably won't be quite as much of a hateful Tory after the election, but I've got 0 optimism that he'll push anything progressive.

Guess we'll find out.

also...maybe there's a lot of expectation management going on so people don't get disappointed when things don't get much better after one term.

A lot of people felt massively let down by Blair, probably part of the reason why trust in politicians is so low.

[kaosmark2]

3 minutes ago, lazyred said:

The quality of public service did go up  and that had a massive impact on quality of life for some people. The NHS was really good by the mid 2000's. Stuff like the Sure Start child centres really made a difference. A lot of it is unseen unless you need them and so it was easy for the Tory/Lib Dems to cut them.

In addition, a lot of the things that were cut under austerity were indirectly supporting public services. For instance the status of care homes and the amount of funding/support they got took a huge amount of burden off the NHS. Little that was headline grabbing but just huge amounts of tackling the causes of problems instead of letting people struggle until they're completely broken.

[lost]

12 minutes ago, lazyred said:

The quality of public service did go up  and that had a massive impact on quality of life for some people. The NHS was really good by the mid 2000's. Stuff like the Sure Start child centres really made a difference. A lot of it is unseen unless you need them and so it was easy for the Tory/Lib Dems to cut them.

Yes I'm well aware I wasn't at an age that was using many public services and the difference between the old hospitals and new PFI ones was striking.

I feel like housing costs are such as massive component of quality of life. My girlfriend at the time who was a little older and went straight into work I think was working the police call centre for £6 an hour and bought a 1 bed cottage for £22k, she used to buy food at M&S because in her words she had more money than she knew what to do with. Another friend worked in a record shop and used to be out every night everywhere. That was the big difference for me if you worked, even an unskilled job there was a clear jump in quality of life, you'd have a decent amount of disposable income.

Edited January 31 by lost