Labour in line to get the largest majority since 1832......

I'm not worried at all. Infact, I can't wait! The only thing that worries me slightly is if I wake up on Friday and Sunak hasn't gone- that would be my worst nightmare.

A hung parliament would be the next worst.

Even one Reform MP would be the next.

Although not a huge fan of Starmer one thing I am looking forward to is a bit of much needed stability. We have far too much upheaval in the past 14 years- austerity, referendum, trying to get a Brexit deal, May, then Johnson, Ukraine, Covid and Truss. Then Sunak who doesn't even seem like he likes politics.

I want to see cabinet ministers who stay in post longer than five minutes and actually get on with the job.

Starmer has a real uphill climb but I'm beginning to feel that if left alone to govern he will calm things down and provide a much steady hand.

We need stability much more thn anything esle after the past 14 turbulent years. I want politics to get boring again.

growstuff

Germanshepherdsmum

growstuff

vegansrock

Why would anyone be terrified? They are already facing the highest taxes since WW2 and much worse services than 1 years ago. I’d be more terrified of 5 more years of the current lot.

They're terrified because those with "something to lose" know very well that they'll have to pay more towards public services for the plebs.

Not necessarily growstuff. Ways and means …

So why are you terrified?

On a previous thread, you had a go at me for having "nothing", while you worked hard and deserve everything you have and want to hang on to every penny.

Where have I said I’m terrified? Your word, not mine.

What we inherited from Blair was an unstable Middle East.

Does no-one remember the lies and the warmongering? The protest marches against it to no avail?
Blair was a showman.

I hope Starmer will be steadier.

MaizieD good post

Callistemon - the invasion of Iraq was wrong on every level. I can’t let that destroy the positives Blair brown achieved

Let the people vote.

Germanshepherdsmum

growstuff

Germanshepherdsmum

growstuff

vegansrock

Why would anyone be terrified? They are already facing the highest taxes since WW2 and much worse services than 1 years ago. I’d be more terrified of 5 more years of the current lot.

They're terrified because those with "something to lose" know very well that they'll have to pay more towards public services for the plebs.

Not necessarily growstuff. Ways and means …

So why are you terrified?

On a previous thread, you had a go at me for having "nothing", while you worked hard and deserve everything you have and want to hang on to every penny.

Where have I said I’m terrified? Your word, not mine.

It was actually GG13's word, but no matter. You're not going to like it and you're right that I don't care.

You assume I haven’t taken advice and put measures in place. Reeves won’t be getting much from me. Tough for those thinking they might benefit, and I don’t care about that either.

Iam64

MaizieD good post

Callistemon - the invasion of Iraq was wrong on every level. I can’t let that destroy the positives Blair brown achieved

Maybe you didn’t need MIRAS and you don’t miss the money that Gordon Brown stole from pensions.
I hold no brief for some of the things the current government have done, but I’m worried about Starmer’s approach to taxation, his apparent disregard for the safety of females and his lack of plans for dealing with the immigration problems, housing, education and including Bibby Stockholm barge.
On the other hand I’m waiting hopefully for the promised increase in GPs.

My feeling will be an overwhelming sense of relief.

Too many reasons to list and a lot have been covered in other posts, but also relief for the foxes and badgers, the environment and ECHR

Daz57

I am scared not least as he is going to tax pensioners hard. According to his advisers.

Some fear -mongering here. I found a useful article on "Moneyweek" you might like to read.

I've just quoted the bit that is relevant to those on lower incomes, ie not paying any tax on pensions atm as income falls under the basic rate where paying tax starts.

moneyweek.com/economy/general-election/will-labour-introduce-a-retirement-tax

"The Labour party have already committed to the state pension triple lock, as have the Conservatives.

So, pensioners have some certainty that their state pension will increase each April in line with inflation, average earnings or 2.5%, whichever is highest.

What the Tories are referring to when they say “retirement tax” is the fact the state pension will soon rise above the tax-free personal allowance.

The full new state pension is currently worth £11,502 a year. The personal allowance is £12,570. There are no plans to increase the personal allowance, but thanks to the triple lock, the state pension will rise each year by at least 2.5%.

The state pension is likely to breach the personal allowance by 2027-28, meaning retirees will have to pay income tax on part of their state pension.

The Conservatives have announced “triple lock plus” to get around this problem. If the party wins the election, they say they would introduce a new personal allowance for pensioners, which would rise in line with the triple lock - therefore keeping pace with the state pension and reducing the risk of pensioners being taxed.

Labour have not committed to such a policy in advance. Last month, Starmer described the move as “desperate”, adding that it would leave a “Corbyn-style” black hole in the public finances.

Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at the wealth manager Hargreaves Lansdown, tells MoneyWeek that

*it’s unfair to say that Labour would introduce a retirement tax if they win the election”.

She adds: “The Conservatives have upped the ante with the triple lock plus but it is a controversial policy which is seen as intergenerationally unfair and Labour have refused to match it on cost grounds*

Labour could in a budget raise the threshold slightly and those on State Pensions would still not pay tax.

(there is more in the article about people on higher incomes, and labour isnt changing conservative budget rules made earlier this year.)

The Labour Party wasn’t,t formed until 1900 so quite how they could have had a majority in 1832 escapes me.

paddyann54

The Labour Party wasn’t,t formed until 1900 so quite how they could have had a majority in 1832 escapes me.

That was when the Tories were knocked for six because of the great reform act 1832, when they resisted the vote being given to the middle class and getting rid of the rotten boroughs.

Tories have never been vehicles for progressive change.

paddyann54

The Labour Party wasn’t,t formed until 1900 so quite how they could have had a majority in 1832 escapes me.

I've explained upthread that I was trying to be succinct with the op so didn't make myself clear.

But, everyone seems to get my meaning.

But are you worried because it’s not good for any party to have a huge majority, or because of the implications of the outcome of a Labour government?

I don’t get this “huge” majority thing. It certainly didn’t stop the Tories pushing through some pretty grim stuff did it with what we assume to be a smaller majority?

The real challenge with a massive unprecedented majority will be for the leadership to manage its MPs - we saw perpetual war in the Tories, but that was with relatively weak leaders - I’m sure Starmer will have the same problem, but he is known for his strength and ruthlessness so we shall have to wait and see.

"I’m worried about Starmer’s approach to taxation, his apparent disregard for the safety of females and his lack of plans for dealing with the immigration problems, housing, education and including Bibby Stockholm barge."

In response to the above:

We currently have the highest taxation the UK has seen in decades.

Trans issues have rumbled on for 14 years (yes, 14 long years!) under the current government which has done nothing, absolutely nothing about any of it except to utter inept platitudes.

Immigration has increased under this government and has been an utter shambles since Brexit, which was another stroke of genius.

Dire housing shortages, astronomical rents and building on green belt is already here. Look around.

Education has been starved of funds and we have a critical, all time record shortage of teachers.

The NHS is also basically screwed.

I have never known a government so venal, so full of liars, corruption and with so many accusations and indeed convictions of sexual assault in my entire life. I'm appalled and quite frankly embarrassed.

kittylester

paddyann54

The Labour Party wasn’t,t formed until 1900 so quite how they could have had a majority in 1832 escapes me.

I've explained upthread that I was trying to be succinct with the op so didn't make myself clear.

But, everyone seems to get my meaning.

Yes - Labour in line to get the largest majority of any party since 1832

According to the final YouGov poll projection.

The Tories froze the tax-free allowance, not Labour. How they now dare to suggest that by not undoing what they did the LP is 'raiding' tax I just don't know. It's classic spin and hypocrisy.

When labour were last in the housing was no better Schools hadhuge numbers in a class children with specific difficulties
Couldnt get help what are they going to do Hope they find out what the public really want instead of assuming they do

TakeThat7

When labour were last in the housing was no better Schools hadhuge numbers in a class children with specific difficulties
Couldnt get help what are they going to do Hope they find out what the public really want instead of assuming they do

That's not true. I was a teacher during all the Labour years and afterwards. Schools were generally much better funded during the Labour years than they were afterwards. Class numbers were brought down and there was more generous funding for SEND. There was a programme to improve school buildings too, which Michael Gove cancelled almost as soon as the Conservatives were elected.

I think Labour does know what the public really wants - not that the "public" all wants the same things. How quickly they can do something to reverse the damage is another matter.

Oh and if the train drivers stopped striking people would be
able to get places and spend money They even messed up travel for the eurovission Is Starmer going to do what he can to help buisnesses and stop their constant disruption of day to day life

TakeThat7

Oh and if the train drivers stopped striking people would be
able to get places and spend money They even messed up travel for the eurovission Is Starmer going to do what he can to help buisnesses and stop their constant disruption of day to day life

How can the Labour Party be blamed for train strikes?

If you didnt live in the best areas labour had huge class sizes and closed good schools I was a parent then

Labour created huge accademies which no way improved Education in this area small schools are better especially when there is a lot of deprivatio ft