What is left about Labour now?

One would think so. The original estimate for introducing MTD for VAT in 2016 was £226 million. HMRC's latest estimate of costs is £1.3 billion. The introduction of MTD for non VAT registered business has been deferred 4 times.

The underlying problem with HMRC is surely that there just aren’t enough staff to implement changes. Staffing was reduced by 22% by 2016 compared with 2010, and hundreds of local tax offices were closed. Of all government departments where the benefit of employing staff outweighs the cost of employing them, it’s HMRC, tax officers must be cost effective?

DaisyAnneReturns

Then you would think a huge simplification of the system would help, Dinahmo.

That is what HMRC are apparently trying to do. At the moment the higher levels are software people and there are few people who know about small businesses and indeed taxation.

Then you would think a huge simplification of the system would help, Dinahmo.

DaisyAnneReturns

Another NewStatesman analysis on Labour's reshuffle.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=40-aqlaV9mo

One of the big questions being talked up is what will Starmer would do about tax. As a centrist, not a member of the Labour Party (or any party), I don't see this as a problem. Although the more left-wing Labourites might want lots of new taxes, I would start with the ones we have but get rid of every tax loophole they can, possible as an emergency measure for a limited time, while putting in place a review of the tax system.

I would hope they have basically had that review already as far as they can without access to the treasury - which they will have in the run up to an election. The current tax system does not seem fit for purpose and not fit for the age we are moving into.

Please, not another review of the tax system. HMRC cannot cope with the ongoing changes, implementation of which has been deferred a few times.

Funny how all the peole concerned about anti-semitism under Corbyn seem to have melted away. Apparently some forms of anti-semitism are perfectly acceptable, which is very worrying.

Poor Grany. They don't seem to be in favour of Granyism, do they.

Labour faces legal action over alleged mistreatment of Jews

voxpoliticalonline.com/2023/09/10/labour-faces-legal-action-over-alleged-mistreatment-of-jews/

Labour spent £500,000 on just a hearing to try find out who leaked the Labour report of staffers trying to loose election their disgusting WhatApp messages, as was they will end up spending millions just before election and this could be aired in public it’s been said there is no case Not a wise move

Another NewStatesman analysis on Labour's reshuffle.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=40-aqlaV9mo

One of the big questions being talked up is what will Starmer would do about tax. As a centrist, not a member of the Labour Party (or any party), I don't see this as a problem. Although the more left-wing Labourites might want lots of new taxes, I would start with the ones we have but get rid of every tax loophole they can, possible as an emergency measure for a limited time, while putting in place a review of the tax system.

I would hope they have basically had that review already as far as they can without access to the treasury - which they will have in the run up to an election. The current tax system does not seem fit for purpose and not fit for the age we are moving into.

Thank for the heads up onvthe Guardian Whitewave. This may help.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/04/winners-losers-keir-starmer-labour-reshuffle-shadow-cabinet

Reading that article it looks as if there is some succession planning going on. That gives me great joy - someone who can plan - as long as the policies are what we need, of course.

There is more analysis here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yE5619LYxs from The New Statesman

The Guardian reports on the Starmer re-shuffle saying that it was notable for it’s smoothness, recognising Sue Grays hand in the process.

The re-introduction of McFaddon and Benn has meant a move to a more Blairite shadow cabinet, with the soft left being represented by Starmer, Raynor and Miliband.

Grany

Perhaps Starmer is establishment and will do what establishment want he did that while DPP

Oh, I don't know, Grany.

Perhaps he's a communist mole; a revolutionary fifth columnist; a sleeper agent who will be activated to destroy the establishment from within once he holds the reins of power...

Perhaps Starmer is establishment and will do what establishment want he did that while DPP

You know what, Grany? I admire George Monbiot in many ways, there are other 'anti Starmer' commentators who I admire in many ways, but I do not admire the way that they are behaving like a pair of Les Dawson ladies gossiping over a fence, taking little twigs of information from all over the place and stitching it together to make a story that speaks to their biases.

There isn't even a bl**dy manifesto for policies to be in yet.

As for Murdoch (note spelling) , 'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer'

Video from Double Down News George Monbiot.

Starmer says it’s ok Murdock you have nothing to fear from me what cowardice in the face of oligarchy

He has already tied his hands by not taxing the richest.

If policy is not in the manifesto he does not have a mandate to do it.

Starmer did seek out Murdock as early as 2008 when DPP going to parties.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcn-LYa4fLE&feature=youtu.be

varian

"They can do what they like without anyone to stop them" - with far less than half of the votes at a general election.

Is that democracy?

Democracy is neither here nor there, varian.

I'm just saying that that is how it is. Over my lifetime it has been very, very rare for government actions to be influenced by public opinion in between elections.

Ilovecheese

So what I think you are saying MaisieD, and I am willing to be set straight if I have got the wrong end of the stick, is that in order to win the next election, Labour have to pretend to support an economic theory which they know is not working for us all.

Frankly, that is exactly what I am hoping is the case. In fact I am sure it is. I am sure we all understand the reasons why they have to behave like this given the fact that Starmer is not inclined to schmooze with the likes of Murdoch etc as the Blair government found it necessary to do.

"They can do what they like without anyone to stop them" - with far less than half of the votes at a general election.

Is that democracy?

Having seen Milliband and Corbyn destroyed by the 'How are you going to pay for it? question I think they're right not to rock the boat. They can do what they like once they're in power. They have wriggle room. The electorate, on the whole, won't particularly notice. That is an observation born of my experience over the years.

And, TBH, the tories have done what they like for the past 13 years with no-one to stop them... I'm sure that Labour could manage that, too.

So what I think you are saying MaisieD, and I am willing to be set straight if I have got the wrong end of the stick, is that in order to win the next election, Labour have to pretend to support an economic theory which they know is not working for us all.

You'd certainly think so, the way some people respond to others trying to improve their circumstances!

OTOH, they're not averse to acquiring more money themselves...

I do wonder MaizieD if there is in the British an inbuilt (if subconscious) belief that the standard of living should be kept down? That actually having more is in some way immoral and the best times are when people just have to cope. It ties in with all the "we grew up in a cardboard box" etc stuff.

Ilovecheese

The economist Richard Murphy has a few ideas about raising tax revenue, which he thinks is necessary, now that Rachel Reeves seems to have changed her mind about a wealth tax.
here is a quote from him
"Removing the VAT exemption from financial services could raise £8.7 billion in tax a year taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/09/07/removing-the-vat-exemption-from-financial-services-could-raise-8-7-billion-in-tax-a-year/ Taxing wealth more is not just about the obvious changes. It is also about removing subsidies to wealth. Removing the VAT subsidy on financial services does that."

The question is, I think, whether the current Labour leadership wants any sort of redistribution from the super rich to the rest of the country. They don't act as if they do, they seem to be relying on economic growth and so called trickle down economics, which doesn't work.

I suppose all economic theories are just that, theories, but I can't understand why Labour is choosing a theory which has failed.

Well, to your first point. Murphy has never supported a straight 'wealth tax' because, he says, it would be extremely difficult to implement. I quote:

Wealth taxes would:

Take a long time to introduce
Create massive problems with asset valuations
Result in very large numbers of tax disputes with wealthy taxpayers
Be very expensive to collect.

Those are big problems, and I want results now.

The changes he proposes are those which can be done through the normal legislative channels. Chancellors raise and lower tax percentages and tax allowances all the time.

Your question of whether or not Labour actually want wealth redistribution is impossible to answer, but ruling out a 'wealth tax' doesn't rule out other means of taxing wealth.

As for choosing one economic theory over another, well,I think that overtly declaring that they are going to ditch the 'theory' that has prevailed since the 1970s would lay themselves open to a barrage of right wing propaganda for the next 15 months.

Simon Wren Lewis' latest blog post is interesting on the danger of doing this:

The clearest example of this for me was the 2015 UK general election. Voters generally agreed that pretty well everything was worse in 2015 than in 2010, with one exception: “the economy”. Media pundits agreed that the economy was the Conservative party’s strong card. Yet real wages had been falling every year from 2010 until 2014, and had only begun to grow during 2015. As a result, Labour attempted to raise the ‘cost of living’ as an issue. What could explain this combination of real wage falls with the feeling a majority of voters had that the government was managing the economy well?

Part of the answer is that a crucial group of voters, pensioners, were cushioned from real wage falls. But the main answer has to be that many voters, encouraged by the media, had decided that ‘managing the economy’ was all about reducing the budget deficit. The major aim of the government was to bring down the deficit. Most media bought into the idea that the budget deficit was the major economic problem the UK faced, and as a result Labour gave up on their attempts to balance this against more conventional macroeconomic goals.

It was nonsense of course, for reasons I and others have elaborated on at length, but in political terms it worked, leading the Conservatives to win that 2015 election, leading to Brexit and further economic failure. How was it possible that faced with substantially lower real wages than five years earlier, voters and the non-partisan media nevertheless could be convinced that the budget deficit was more important than living standards?

The blog is worth reading
mainlymacro.blogspot.com/

DaisyAnneReturns

Of course, he isn't as clever as you Glorianny; you really can't expect that! You, speaking and voicing your opinion, will always stand out from the crowd. It's such a pity he chose it as a way of making a living. He really should have come to you for advice first.

However, it is a bit odd to see what you wrote. Had you listened to even the first couple of lines of the third video, you would not, with all your mastery of debate, have written your "report" in the way you did.

So, the outcome you are aiming for, is the removal of a democratically elected leader. So that you (on your own?) may force the Labour Party to do things the way want it to.

Isn't it interesting that there are groups in Labour who feel just as entitled as the far-right Tories, to go for the possible destruction of "their" party in order, they believe, to make it do just what they want.

To me, that makes neither Party attractive or, quite possibly, worth voting for.

DAR if any democratically elected leader immediately reneges on the promises he made when he stood for election, then of course he should be removed. Even the Tories understood that.
Starmer promised- to unite the party and keep it a broad church.
to deal with anti-semitism
To support the aims and ideals of the LP.
He's done the exact opposite.

The point about the LP has always been that it is a democratic party where the members are permitted to voice their views and to have choices. That doesn't happen now. Even so if it is more likely that the party will gain power perhaps the actions taken could be acceptable. But it isn't . Starmer and his gang are making wrong choices. The Uxbridge candidate was one, Jamie Driscoll is another. As I have said before if you don't accept responsibility for a mistake and look at how it could be done better you will just go one repeating that mistake. Which means a Labour victory is far from certain.

Of course, he isn't as clever as you Glorianny; you really can't expect that! You, speaking and voicing your opinion, will always stand out from the crowd. It's such a pity he chose it as a way of making a living. He really should have come to you for advice first.

However, it is a bit odd to see what you wrote. Had you listened to even the first couple of lines of the third video, you would not, with all your mastery of debate, have written your "report" in the way you did.

So, the outcome you are aiming for, is the removal of a democratically elected leader. So that you (on your own?) may force the Labour Party to do things the way want it to.

Isn't it interesting that there are groups in Labour who feel just as entitled as the far-right Tories, to go for the possible destruction of "their" party in order, they believe, to make it do just what they want.

To me, that makes neither Party attractive or, quite possibly, worth voting for.