A summary of Starmer’s first 6 months.

I think that varies by area, depending on each MP. We had a Tory MP previously too, who was invisible locally. We have a Lib Dem now, and he is a real busy bee, in the papers every week having been to events, and sending regular updates on what he’s doing. I’ve been impressed so far.

Same here, our old MP was Conservative, not universally
popular but proactive and always ready to sort out a problem. Our new MP is Labour.

Never seen sight nor sound of her, must look her up to see what she's doing.

I fear you’re right Allira. Yet many Labour MPs must surely represent rural constituencies. Our MP used to be Conservative and he understood and helped with local issues. He lost his seat at the last election due to tactical voting. We now have a LibDem who very rarely bothers to respond to an email, a real waste of space.

Barleyfields

If Reeves was hoping to raise money by charging IHT (at half the standard rate) on farmland she has failed dismally and threatened our continuing food security. Those who invest in farmland as a means of avoiding IHT will either own it through a company and pay CT and dividend tax, or through a trust which may be taxed periodically on the value of the trust property, but the value of the land will remain outside the scope of IHT as companies and trusts don’t die. If this is an attempt to close the loophole of agricultural land being exempt from IHT it’s singularly ill thought out. A wealthy person buying farmland to escape IHT won’t now retain personal ownership, if indeed they ever would. Surely the chancellor understands that? She has simply succeeded in imposing a tax on working family farmers which they won’t be able to pay.

Surely the chancellor understands that? She has simply succeeded in imposing a tax on working family farmers which they won’t be able to pay.
We have a Labour Cabinet which comprises many of the metropolitan elite; Steve Reed, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, however hardworking and worthy he might be, is not a person who would seem to be in touch with matters of the countryside and agriculture. He's certainly not on the side of farmers or food production.

If Reeves was hoping to raise money by charging IHT (at half the standard rate) on farmland she has failed dismally and threatened our continuing food security. Those who invest in farmland as a means of avoiding IHT will either own it through a company and pay CT and dividend tax, or through a trust which may be taxed periodically on the value of the trust property, but the value of the land will remain outside the scope of IHT as companies and trusts don’t die. If this is an attempt to close the loophole of agricultural land being exempt from IHT it’s singularly ill thought out. A wealthy person buying farmland to escape IHT won’t now retain personal ownership, if indeed they ever would. Surely the chancellor understands that? She has simply succeeded in imposing a tax on working family farmers which they won’t be able to pay.

Actually MaizieD I do remember that (I think it’s been in the recesses of my mind ever since, intermittently anyway) which is why I mentioned it. I understand about wanting to maintain differentials which are often hard fought for.

It’s not easy working out ‘what’s fair’.

I think that however it's done, by percentages or monetary amounts there will always be opposition from some sector or other.

Good point, well made MaizieD.

GrannyGravy13

OK I will repeat myself.

5% years of £58,000 is a lot more than 8% of £11,00.

Percentages quoted without context are meaningless.

Please look up and see for yourself that the proposed N I increase was never applied.

PoliticsNerd and Jane43

I don't think I've said anything about this GrannyGravy13 other than to tell someone I appreciated their cotibution fact-wise.

Eloethan

I am not sure I agree with Friedgreentomatoes's analysis of Labour's actions as being "socialist". I think Corbyn's proposed policies could have been described as such but the current government's actions are pretty tame. As, I imagine, with most people, I agree with some of their actions but not all. Having said that, the total chaos that the Conservatives left us with would make it very difficult to make decisions that would wholly please anybody.

Inheritance tax on farms seems fair to me. Most people whose assets are above a certain level are liable to inheritance tax. In the case of farmers, the Office for Fiscal Studies says that currently the average tax relief saved is £300,000 per estate, with some benefiting from business relief also. 7% of claims accounted for 40% of the total value of agricultural relief. There is still 100% tax relief for the first £1million, plus £325,000 and £175,000 if the farm is bequeathed to a direct descendant. If passed on by a couple, there could be up to £3million pounds of relief.

Views differ as to whether private schools should pay VAT or not on fees, but my opinion is that it is a fair measure. Everybody, even the very poorest, has to pay VAT on virtually all goods and services, so why should private education be excluded?

As for the right to buy council houses, most housing experts are of the view that this policy has been a major contributor to the housing crisis we are now experiencing. Well built council homes, which, in the 1950s/60s were available to many people on moderate wages, are now virtually impossible for people to access. While government received the heavily discounted money for the homes it sold, it lost the accruing value - both social and financial - of these well built homes. This necessitated the payment of housing benefit which now continues to line the pockets of private owners, many of whom have substantial housing portfolios. In addition, the money received from the sales was not used to build further homes, ensuring a continuing reliance on private rental providers.

I would imagine many people who are not aligned to socialist ideas might find hereditary peerages unacceptable in this day and age, particularly given the very favourable allowances that are applicable, with very little oversight re attendance and participation.

I would also imagine you don't have to have socialist views to think that the scams and exploitation of the secondary ticket market should be properly regulated.

Is confining the Winter Fuel Allowance to the poorest a socialist measure? Many people in the Labour party are unhappy about it. My own opinion is that this benefit should not be available to those who are comfortably off.

People seem to be very confused in their thinking - including people in the Labour Party. Many did not agree with Corbyn's socialist agenda but, on the other hand, they do not like many of the measures put forward by the new Labour government. They want the huge financial deficit to be sorted out, they want the justice system, the transport and roads system, the education system, the NHS, and countless other disasters left by the previous government to be put in order straight away. But they don't want any increases at all in taxes, or any measures brought in that might affect their own income.

As for trying to "create a world where everyone is equal" - good luck with that! At the moment we have families who are paying extortionate rents, nursery fees, energy and transports costs, etc, etc. Even with both parents now working, life is a continuing struggle for many. Essential services are on their knees and only those that can afford to go privately can feel unworried about their, and their children's, futures.

Well said Eloethan where I live wealthy people buy up farm land because of the inheritance tax benefits, this makes the land hugely overpriced and that excludes ordinary people from buying a farm, so I welcome this change.

One of these farmers paid her staff to go to the protest.

I'm also happy to loose my winter fuel allowance but I wish they'd stopped it for higher earners rather than keeping it only for means tested benefits.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Maybe we should deal in amounts of money, ie £20 a week instead of percentages. As salaries increase then their percentage rises will increase exponentially. No wonder we have a huge gap between the haves and the have nots.

I know it's not what you are suggesting, but I recall a universal flat rate wage increase being applied in the 1970s as part of the Labour attempt to reduce inflation* by controlling wage increases. The 'Social Contract', negotiated with the unions, IIRC.

In 1976 wage rises were restricted to between £2.65 - £4 per week. There was a big fuss about this, even though it had been agreed with the unions. It was claimed that it destroyed the differentials which distinguished the hierarchies of skilled and unskilled labour.

I think that however it's done, by percentages or monetary amounts there will always be opposition from some sector or other.

*The attempt to reduce inflation did actually work

I know, but it is how the whole payments system is set up in the UK. I think it’s much more likely that the threshold for people to receive pension credit will be raised than that there will be a change to equalise pensions for everybody.

Casdon

Allira

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Maybe we should deal in amounts of money, ie £20 a week instead of percentages. As salaries increase then their percentage rises will increase exponentially. No wonder we have a huge gap between the haves and the have nots.

The same happens with the old State Pension and the new State Pension.

It happens with everything as far as I know, apart from the annual setting of the minimum wage.

I was just pointing out thst those on the old State Pension are falling further behind each year.

Of course, it will be pointed out that they had the benefit of being able to draw their pension from the age of 60 for women, 65 for men but that ignores the fact that women in the main had to retire at 60 and missed the chance of working more years and earning a salary.

Allira

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Maybe we should deal in amounts of money, ie £20 a week instead of percentages. As salaries increase then their percentage rises will increase exponentially. No wonder we have a huge gap between the haves and the have nots.

The same happens with the old State Pension and the new State Pension.

It happens with everything as far as I know, apart from the annual setting of the minimum wage.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Maybe we should deal in amounts of money, ie £20 a week instead of percentages. As salaries increase then their percentage rises will increase exponentially. No wonder we have a huge gap between the haves and the have nots.

The same happens with the old State Pension and the new State Pension.

Maybe we should deal in amounts of money, ie £20 a week instead of percentages. As salaries increase then their percentage rises will increase exponentially. No wonder we have a huge gap between the haves and the have nots.

Casdon that is what I was trying to say, sorry my brain is fried and the duvet won 🤦‍♀️

GrannyGravy13

Casdon

Are you arguing for flat rate pay and pension rises GrannyGravy13? That would be a new approach for government.

Not at all.

My point is (I think 🤷‍♀️) that saying the train drivers got X but the pensioners got X+ does not show the monetary increase without showing the figures the percentages are off.

Apologies if I am not making myself clear, I am also battling with a king size duvet and using GN as a distraction.

I see what you’re saying. Any percentage rise will mean that those on the least will always get the least though, so it would take a different approach from government and employers to redress the imbalance.

Jane43 I didn’t vote for this government, but I can assure you I definitely do not want them to fail, if they fail the UK fails as will its citizens.

Regarding the NI increase that never happened, I quote our late Queen, recollections may differ as I remember the outcry on here and elsewhere.

GrannyGravy13

OK I will repeat myself.

5% years of £58,000 is a lot more than 8% of £11,00.

Percentages quoted without context are meaningless.

Please look up and see for yourself that the proposed N I increase was never applied.

PoliticsNerd and Jane43

The percentages quoted are very relevant, since the train drivers’ pay increase was announced it was bashed as being too much and inflation busting, my figures show that it was over three years so neither too much nor inflation busting. I also showed the state pension increases to illustrate that others got higher increases despite the government footing all of the bill, I could have quoted other pay increases but it was easier to locate state pension increases.

My other point was that when the Tories NI for employers increase was announced there was no outcry or claim that companies would go out of business, if they did do a u
turn later that is not relevant to my point.

It is very clear that some people have been determined that this democratically elected government will fail and I have never experienced anything like it before.

Casdon

Are you arguing for flat rate pay and pension rises GrannyGravy13? That would be a new approach for government.

Not at all.

My point is (I think 🤷‍♀️) that saying the train drivers got X but the pensioners got X+ does not show the monetary increase without showing the figures the percentages are off.

Apologies if I am not making myself clear, I am also battling with a king size duvet and using GN as a distraction.

Are you arguing for flat rate pay and pension rises GrannyGravy13? That would be a new approach for government.

Apologies I have no idea where the years came from 🤷‍♀️

OK I will repeat myself.

5% years of £58,000 is a lot more than 8% of £11,00.

Percentages quoted without context are meaningless.

Please look up and see for yourself that the proposed N I increase was never applied.

PoliticsNerd and Jane43

Jane43

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Even the Chagos island hiccup and the employers increase in N.I.? And the huge rise to train drivers?
Surely not.
🤔

The train drivers got a rise that covered three years:
2022/23 - 5%
2023/24 - 4.75%
2024/25 - 4.5%
The majority of train drivers are paid by the operating companies not the government.

Pensioners got rises as follows:
2022/23 - 3.1%
2023/2024 - 10.1%
2024/25 - 8.5%
Paid by the government.

What exactly is the objection to the train drivers’ rise?

The Tories started the Chagos Islands negotiations in 2022.

The Tories increased employers’ NI by 1.25% in 2022 seemingly without any problems, Labour increase Employers’ NI by 1.2% and all hell breaks loose.

Thank you for that clarification Jane43.

Jane43 there were definitely threads on GN regarding the proposed NI rise, they were very heated on both sides of the debate.

As they were when it was withdrawn: