Telegraph article "How Sir Keir Starmer's Labour would run a government

Golly- unexpected in The Telegraph! Some of their readers will be doubling their blood pressure medication...

It was too long for me to precis it all Chocolatelovinggran and I think people might find the next bit on from where I stopped, at least as interesting if not more so.

It doesn't seem to be behind the paywall, and you can find the whole article (fingers crossed) here: How Sir Keir Starmer's Labour would run a government

Thanks DaisyAnne. It is behind the paywall but you can sign in with your Google account and access it for free.

Glad you could read it Blossoming.

Any port in a storm! I expect those who stand to see billions wiped off their portfolios show little allegiance to the party that’s caused it.

Did you read the article J52. It was informative but very much from the Telegraph point of view. I'm not sure what "Any port in a storm" refers to. It would be easier to discuss if you explain. Sorry if I've missed the point.

It's a turkey shoot out there.

From the Telegraph's point of view, which isn't very often mine, the Labout Party under Keir Starmer looks more and more like the traditional paternalistic Conservative party, while the Conservative party looks like a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth libertarian zealots.

I merely meant that The Labour Party might look an attractive alternative to those loosing huge amounts of money at the moment.

Losing*

Ah. Thank you J52.

I am hoping someone will summarise more of the article. Sometimes I err, really dislike pay walls.

There is no doubt that the next government, probably led by Keir Starmer will have to implement some very harsh measures which at any other time would make them unpopular, but at the present time, having seen the mayhem produced by Truss and her extreme libertarian conservatives,

I think we will accept that a Labour government having to reign back on their ambitions and impose quite difficult policies, will be accepted.

I'll try and add a bit of what the Telegraph suggests they are thinking of doing, varian. I doubt there will be any surprises

Firstly, they talk about (and offer a link to a more detailed article) shifting the burden onto the better-off who earn money from investments and property that is not taxed as income. They suggest this may include landlords who do not pay National Insurance on income from rent being brought in line. Also ensuring tax on shareholdings and dividend payments is as much a payroll income. (Remember these are the Telegraphs views of what Labour will do).

There say that Labour is looking to seriously reform captital gains tax, but not at taxing assets directly.

They don't expect anything radical on property taxes but think two options are under consideration. Either a new proportionate land value tax to replace council tax or a revaluation. (Quite a bit in the article on these).

I'll stop there for now - but there is more

DaisyAnne there is a web tool called 12ft ladder that you can use to read articles behind paywalls.

Go to 12ft.lo and enter the url of the page you’re trying to read ?

I like the Telegraph which is why I subscribe to it. I like reading articles that promote different viewpoints. It’s not healthy living in an echo chamber.

I’ve been out since lunchtime and as you say DA it’s a lengthy article but I shall read it in the morning and get back to you with my take on it if I may?

I'll carry on trying to put the main points on the thread, bit by bit Urmstongran but it will be good to hear what you make of the article in its entirety. I do love the long articles but have to be selective or time just disappears

Okay, so the article highlights the hole in the finances from loss of fuel duty as the number of electric cars increase. They quote an estimate of £10 billion for this.

They believe Starmer is "unlikely to deliver" on his 2020 promise to take "rail, mail and water" into public ownership. They also comment on the changes Truss has made now meaning both parties support the same income taxes.

They ask if Labour's USP will be reform of the NHS, education and social care and look at the "fairer, greener future" of this year's conference asking if it gives them some "political magic" noting Johnson tried and failed to tap this.

The article picks up on the promise of a new state-backed energy company and wealth fund for investment in environmental projects in order to drive growth. They quote an 'insider' saying "Labour used to say we do climate change for reasons of the heart. Now it's for reasons of the head. We have to drive growth." This is seen as a way to attract Red Wall voters. "What the Red Wall and Brexit teaches us is that there is a yearning for better industries."

The author talks about changes in staff as part of an "anti-complacency" drive and reminds us of how quickly political fortunes can change.

That's it folks. I have tried to report accurately while avoiding Telegraph bias and my own.

It’s a well written article. Happily more typical of recent DT journalism since the substantial subscription price increase. It certainly informed me about current thinking in the Labour Party.

But 2 things I can’t get past with Starmer. He campaigned vigorously to get Corbyn into power and he was determined to squash Brexit even though it was the will of the majority who bothered to vote.

Their stated green policy is to bring net zero forward several years and ensure fracking can never be used. (Ed Miliband take a bow you muppet). So expect severe power cuts and massive amounts of striking as they hand power to the militant unions (again).

Can they be worse than the current shower?
Difficult, but probably.

Their stated green policy is to bring net zero forward several years and ensure fracking can never be used. (Ed Miliband take a bow you muppet).

There's only one Muppet here and it ain't Ed.

Again we agree to disagree volver.
I think the fracking company Cuadrillon should at least be allowed to test and try. If it’s financially viable they will continue, if not, they won’t.

I see that Labour is re-committing our NATO responsibilities that have been neglected by the Tory party.

Essential with Putin waving the nuclear threat.

Urmstongran

Again we agree to disagree volver.
I think the fracking company Cuadrillon should at least be allowed to test and try. If it’s financially viable they will continue, if not, they won’t.

Cuadrillon made it clear last time that fracking is not viable or safe in the U.K.

No, they didn’t.
A past CEO who left the his company years ago dismisses the idea but the present Board want exploratory tests then decide.

Cuadrilla.

Eating breakfast. I'll be back soon ?

Whitewavemark2

I see that Labour is re-committing our NATO responsibilities that have been neglected by the Tory party.

Essential with Putin waving the nuclear threat.

Not sure of that Whitewavemark2

The U.K. has been with NATO all the way over Ukraine, politically, logistically, training and supplying weaponry