Labour's latest policy announcement

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/12/use-of-vip-lane-to-award-covid-ppe-contracts-unlawful-high-court-rules

What nonsense flappergirl. By the way I am not a member of the Conservative Party.

Thank you Maizie, I will read that.

Thank you Maizie- that was in January 2022. A lot more has come to light since then. I would have thought anyone with legal qualifications and interest in the subject, would have been aware of these findings.

I have legal qualifications but little interest in the subject FP. I leave that to the Tory bashers.

We do have to remember the law doesn't apply to these "Conservatives". That's why I have stopped calling the government that. It's unfair to real Conservatives. It's also unfair to Liberals to call them neo-Liberals. Liberalism should encompass everyone. This is very much a party with one set of laws and rules for all but "liberalism" only when applied to those who see themselves as the "elite".

I currently see them as neo-capitalists. They see the "capital" and its surroundings as the only place for investment, and "business" pretty much limited to gambling in the city - no actual hard work for this lot. There may be another name for them (I'm sure there are several) but this us how I see them at the moment.

No equality of investment for the rest of the country
Very little help for SMEs
No investment in our services
Trying to pass off maintenance (filling London's pothole using money meant for actual investment in the North) as investment.

... I'm sure others can add more. The only " conserving they do is of there own wealth.

I agree with you, DAR.

But I think there are Liberals and liberals.

I don't think that the Liberal party exemplify liberalism in its fullest sense. On their past record, looking at their part in the 2010 -2014 coalition government, they tend more to neo-liberalism than liberalism with their embrace of neo-liberal (neo-capitalist) economics, though, as I haven't looked too closely at their current policies they may have changed.

You might, or might not, like Ian Dunt's Substack post here, DAR:

iandunt.substack.com/p/2024-the-year-we-bury-the-culture

Ian is a liberal. He even wrote a book about how to be one! He's a bit sweary, but he's perceptive, too.

MaizieD

I agree with you, DAR.

But I think there are Liberals and liberals.

I don't think that the Liberal party exemplify liberalism in its fullest sense. On their past record, looking at their part in the 2010 -2014 coalition government, they tend more to neo-liberalism than liberalism with their embrace of neo-liberal (neo-capitalist) economics, though, as I haven't looked too closely at their current policies they may have changed.

I agree. It's really all very confusing. PR would probably help make parties identify their differences. I have always wondered why the Liberal Party didn't change its name to just Democrats when they accommodated the ex SDP members.

A centre party with just that as a name could attract a lot more left-of-centre, right-of-centre and general centre but I supposed they would have to espouse a mixed economy (hopefully) and really that's a whole other party.

Thanks for helping me chew this over Maisie. I do hope this last 15 years will bring a whole new political era but perhaps I should be careful what I wish for

Yes, more attention needs to be paid to tax evasion by the wealthy.

Grantanow

Yes, more attention needs to be paid to tax evasion by the wealthy.

I know the LP are talking about only borrowing for investment but I am hoping they will have a tidy up of tax avoidance measures too. Tax systems tend to grow without any pruning of the old and no longer relevant pieces of legislation. Now would be a very good time to do that.

It is easier to identify "benefit fraudsters" as their names are known to the relevant government department which pays out the benefit.
It is much easier to hide fraud if you are rich and have accountants and lawyers to hide anything in various companies and even offshore accounts..
Playing the numbers game , exposing the little benefit fraudsters gives better headlines, showing larger numbers rather than value to the country of recovering money from a few high level fraudsters.
Just the view of a cynic.

There already is a law for benefit fraud many people are convicted annually

It’s a pretty meaningless statement IMHO. The law already has the powers to imprison people for fraud, benefit and other types. Not long ago a criminal ring was exposed for a major benefit fraud to the tune of 770,000 or so, major stuff they should be concentrating on. Or the massive frauds (including those the government okayed) taking place during Covid. I doubt they’re intending to throw the book at shoplifters for petty crime, and I can’t see the guy down the road being imprisoned for not declaring a couple of hundred pounds he’s earned on the side! Not economically viable and no prison space anyway, or has the esteemed Sir Keir conveniently forgotten that! It’s just a soundbyte to win votes and satisfy the middle classes who moan that ‘something must be done’. I’d be more interested to hear his thoughts on other aspects of criminality such as the appalling stats in rape convictions or the deportation of immigrants to this country who break the law in the most heinous ways. But no, let’s go for the easy win, shall we? He must think we’re all fools!

You can be assured that anything that is done by accountants or lawyers these days is legal and not tax evasion. You might not like the allowances that HMRC make but they are legal. Inheritance tax is one example, gifts are another example where you can transfer money without paying tax. (If you have enough spare).

Thank you Getmanshepherdsmum for your professional and rational contributions.

Thank you monty, that’s very kind of you.

For LizzieDrip -- your "un-evidenced assumptions" jibe is EXACTLY what you're doing with speculation about that Manifesto. ALL parties have shown, going back many decades, that manifesto 'promises' (undertakings, hopes, dreams, intentions, etc etc) are just advertising and PR fluff, to be backtracked and amended as and when your vote is safely bagged.

flappergirl

Germanshepherdsmum

Do you know, or have personal knowledge of, any Conservative voter who would rather people die than let the country care for them? I know no such person, and as you well know I mix in Conservative circles. I await clarification.

I don't know any that would admit to it, no. Yet still they vote for a party founded in moral bankruptcy. A party that blocked every effort to introduce factory reforms, welfare for the poor, the formation of the NHS and the State Pension. A party that forced miners to buy food at inflated prices from company stores whilst the "captains" of industry used the blood soaked coal to amass fortunes.

A party that would rather see tons of sewage poured into our waterways and seas solely to line the pockets of share holders.

Still, I'm sure you haven't refused any of the advantages of living in a civilised society so hard won by the Liberal party and subsequently the Labour party. Your pension, the NHS, working in an environment that isn't likely to kill you? The list goes on.

No? I thought not.

well said Flappergirl!!! The Tories have treated the treasury like their own personal cashpoint and put shareholder profits before duty in the companies they've invested in. I'm thinking sewage etc

I meant to say I welcome Labours intention to punish misuse of public money, if we have an existing similar law & this one duplicates it there are probably some bits that can be clarified. No gov't ever should be allowed to spend a freely from the public purse as this one has, I wish we could edit our posts

Grantanow

Yes, more attention needs to be paid to tax evasion by the wealthy.

I think it has been tried in the past.

Seems to me, to come down to who can pay for the most expensive lawyers. And it isnt the government.

Ramblingrose22

While there are laws that already make defrauding the public purse a crime there is no harm in making a blanket law to catch all methods of fraud as some types may have been missed and new methods could become possible in the future.

All politicians play to the gallery - nothing unique to Keir Starmer. Just watch Prime Minister's Questions to see that every week!

Sorry, but I cannot agree with you on this.

It depends entirely on how any law is worded whether it is worthwhile bringing it in, or not.

Fraud as already said is a crime, and it is not, in my view, worse to defraud any government body than it is to defraud a small business or a private citizen.

A blanket law might well just slow down the process of bringing those who behave fraudulently to justice.

I have already said that we have legislation in respect of fraud, including fraud by abuse of office. The Fraud Act 2006. It would be interesting to see Starmer, as a KC and former DPP, questioned closely by another lawyer on his statement.

It would Germanshepherdsmum. Should they announce the election date and Richie agree to live debates, I'm sure he will ask or further detail may be given by Labour.

I would like to know who will sue the 'public purse' for fraud. as in the case of the post office, whom we are reminded is owed by the tax payer. These sub-post people, had all their money stolen by the post office, which went into company's profit account. These little people were persecuted, stripped of their homes, living and dignity by the Post Office, owed by the 'tax payer' in other words the government. All they can talk about is compensation. That is not paying back what money was stolen and the 25 years it took to prove it. The post office took this money under false accusations, which is fraud.

Another example of government fraud is when my husband was threatened with legal action by the HMRC after he refused to pay taxes they said he owed but did not. We had to hired an accountant to proved them wrong, it took 2 years of unnecessary stress and expense because HMRC wouldn't listen.

Don't even mention the WASPI fraud, where the government changed the law without notice, resulting in £30.00 taken from my pension.
Now they are trying to do the same with social benefits.

I agree it is time for a change but it's the government who must put their house in order before attacking the little people.
Sorry for the rant but I am just tired of hearing how terrible hard working people are, when you all you see the rich getting richer and more powerful.

You’re right freyja. The Government asks the police (public servants) to investigate the post office (public servants), calls for a public inquiry (lots of public servants) and ultimately the government pays the injured parties out of the public purse, if they gave every affected postmaster say, a million pounds each and held up their hands it would be so much kinder, cheaper, more efficient and quicker. I suppose this way it keeps lawyers in a job.