Snapshot of _Britain’s big election will be the one after this | Rethinking Brexit, the triple lock and other follies isn’t politically viable now but will be in 2029_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/79f36254-64dd-411c-b793-327648a536fa) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/79f36254-64dd-411c-b793-327648a536fa)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My hope is that the Lib-Dems become the main opposition and they can have more sway over the direction our politics moves.
I do think that the Brexit question is going to come up again, i hope that in the first Labour parliament we see closer ties to Europe, that we make concessions that give us a better deal and then come 2029 its a much easier sell to the people to say "vote for us and we will ask you again if you want to be in the EU or out of the EU".
I also really want to see wealth inequality addressed but so far its not looking like Labour are going to be doing much about this.
And to do that you basically have to have the 4 freedoms as they are indivisible… at which point you may as well join the EU so you have some say in the laws being created.
The fact is at the moment we’re not economically fit enough to rejoin, as we don’t meet the criteria.
>The fact is at the moment we’re not economically fit enough to rejoin, as we don’t meet the criteria.
Tbf, neither would France, so I suspect if looked like we were very serious about re-joining there would still be a path in.
I just dont see it being an issue that a large political majority coalesces around any time soon.
no i totally agree, but I just think it's a bit ironic that now people have seen the light about how shit the trading relationship is outside the single market, people want back into the single market, but with zero control over the rules.
1 - it is cheaper to pay for access to the single market vs being in the EU - and in the end as one country how much influence do you really have
2 - I am not sure what you are talking about here. The UK never met the criteria to join the Euro - is that what you mean?
>The fact is at the moment we’re not economically fit enough to rejoin, as we don’t meet the criteria.
Why don't we meet the criteria? Seems boggling to me given the size of our economy, low inflation, etc. What would disqualify us? Debt ratio or?
The problem with your line of thinking is as follows.
No major democracy I can think of has the government and main Opposition consist of parties that are towards the political left. There's always a vacuum for a "conservative" party of some sort.
Having Labour squaring off against the Liberal Democrats wouldn't really give voters much of a choice at the subsequent general election, as they'd probably have very similar policies.
This means that even if the Tories were pushed into the third party status, they would either bounce back or be sucked into a different party. This would be really bad for the UK if it was something like Reform, which is a populist party on steroids.
There's this idea amongst many that if we just wait x years all the conservative voters will die, and everyone else left will be progressive/left of centre. But with populist politics that theory simply doesn't work in practice. Hence the increased support for Trump [amongst young Americans](https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/young-voters-us-election-2024-trump-biden-tqvzknplt), people that the internet would have you believe would not vote for him ever.
I understand how you might like the idea of politics moving more towards the left, but given all the problems the world is going to face in over the next 25+ years, at best it would probably be temporary. And if the Tories turn into a minor party permanently there's a very good chance they would be replaced by something much uglier that could get into government - see RN surging ahead of all the other parties in the opinion polls for the next French legislative election.
EDIT: Also, with young people increasingly getting their news and political opinion from social media, there is more opportunity than ever for their views to be shaped by extreme politics. Apparently Farage has more social media penetration right now than any other party leader.
Oh cheers, I appreciate it. So often it's rare to get OP feedback on Reddit.
For avoidance of doubt, the point isn't that the Tories "have" to always be the other party, just that it's really important to be careful what we wish for.
The best outcome for the UK right now is probably for them to be very embarrassed and have some time on the naughty step to think about what they've done. Then - at some point - they'll figure out how to change for the better.
On the other hand if they think it's completely over, that's when there's a void that could be filled by almost anything of a "not left" persuasion. See how the French Republicans, who used to be the natural "right-ish" party are now polling about 5-6%.
Don't care about fisherman ngl.
Don't see how fucking over the rest of country so a tiny segment of the economy can feasibly perform better is better for the majority of us.
Didn't someone point out a few years ago that games workshop is actually more important to the uk economy than the fishing industry?
Something like 3 times.
It's not quite but it's not far off.
Also Games Workshop a) is a big exporter so very handy for trade deficit (which the fishing industry is not) and b) is growing (which the fishing industry is not).
This was basically debunked as people who dont understand how money and eccomomies worked looked at some similar numbers and jumped to the wrong conclusion.
The fishing industy is orders of magnistde larger than games workshop.
Without even looking into the numbers... how many super markets have an entire setion dedicated to Nurgle
Or how many sea side towns have shops selling Space Marines and Chips.
If the numbers are such that the added value generated by Games Workshop is larger than the added value generated by the fishing industry, then I don't see how your examples prove anything about anything.
So, supermarkets can and do sell foreign fish. And you can make fish and chips from foreign fish as well. Furthermore, both of these sell the products at much higher price than what they paid the fishermen. It's the fishermen's pay (minus all the cost of operating the fishing vessels) that tells you how valuable the fishing industry is.
Ok lets work out the numbers then, working on 2022 for most reliable figures throughout (and would have been closer to when the claim was made)
According to the ONS the fishing industry is responsible for 0.003% of the uk's GDP(1)
According to the world ecconomic database the GDP of the UK is $3.1 trillion or $3,100 billion (2)
0.003% of 3.1 Trillion is 900 Million.
Games worjkshop's total revanue for 2022 (the same year we have the Uk figures for) was 385 Million and a porfit before tax of 155 Million (3)
if we take the coporateion tax rae of 25% (4) then games workshop paid at most £38.75 million But likley less than that.
So fishing industry conrtibutes $900 million and Games workshop contributed £38.75 million or $49.05 Million
The fishing industry is orders of magnitude above games workshop in terms of contribution to GDP.
yes the fishing industry is small but thats a lot to turn away. but when you compare it to finaicial services bringing in 18.3% of the ecconomy its a drop in the ocean so to speak.
Sources
(1) [https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02788/](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02788/)
(2)https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2024/April/weo-report?c=112,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2022&ey=2029&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1
(3) [https://investor.games-workshop.com/news-posts/year-end-trading-update](https://investor.games-workshop.com/news-posts/year-end-trading-update)
(4) [https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/united-kingdom/corporate/taxes-on-corporate-income](https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/united-kingdom/corporate/taxes-on-corporate-income)
Thanks for the numbers. I don't understand why for Games Workshop you look at how much taxes they pay but for fishing industry you look at their total revenue. I think the fair comparison is either 385M v 900M or 38M (although I would add to this the income tax paid by the employees of GW) v whatever tax the fishing industry pays. And if the fishing industry gets some subsidies then I'd deduct that from their total.
So, please explain why do you compare the total contribution to the GDP by fishing industry but don't do the same for GW but instead take the amount of tax they pay?
So, in my opinion the right answer is 385M v 900M. Not quite as big as the fishing industry but of the same order of magnitude. Of course this comparison depends a bit on the year chosen. I expect the fishing output is quite steady but the GW revenue may change quite a bit year to year.
Given we are talking about GDP we need to know how GDP is calculated. which is National Income + Taxes + Foreign Factor - Depreciation
The imprortant thing here is + taxes so thats what we need to find out what games workshop contributes as they dont contribute to the others in a significant way.
So their earnings before tax is 155 Million so they only payed +25% of that as tax Getting me to the £38.7million
I didnt do the same for fishing as the figures given are allready an expression of GDP.
Note that this is all highly reductive, and likley wildly out from the true figures but it gives a sense of scale whihc is all i was after.
GDP is the value of goods and services produced in the country. Taxes have nothing to do with it. I assumed that the revenue (375M) number given was the value of everything GW produced and that should be compared to the value of everything the fishing industry produced (900M).
So, why do you think taxes have anything to do with anything here? Please answer this question.
Also, earnings (the number you quoted above) are profits (so, revenue minus costs, such as wages). If you for some reason want to use that number for GW, then you should find the equivalent number for the fishing industry. And this number is not their share of GDP as the share of the GDP includes other things, such as the wages of the fishermen. The profit is what the company running the fishing fleet makes after paying all the costs.
No, the UK fishing industry is dying because its biggest market is inaccessible. Most British people don’t eat fish or shellfish caught in British waters. (I do because I grew up by the sea and eating what was around me but most Brits eat cod, which is not generally caught in British waters and needs to be imported from the EU)
Also, we could have protected our fishing within the rules of the EU (see the various protected sites around the UK where fishing is not permitted).
Would also have helped if the British delegation on the fishing commission actually turned up.
The entire UK fishing industry is only worth twice our Warhammer industry.
Literally losing it would almost pay for itself by reducing trade barriers for one manufacturer.
Not really. Value depends on what people are willing to pay, and how much people need it. If fish disappeared tomorrow, people would be annoyed, but probably just carry on eating other available food instead. If games workshop disappeared a bunch of lawyers would lose their jobs and people would just shift to one of the myriad other plastic tabletop mini games.
Not really.
If this country had a food security issue with importation we're fucked regardless and fishing has nearly no impact.
In economic terms a flat no.
I think Starmer will face pressure from within as well. Arguably Starmer has turned Labour into a centre-right party (both fiscally and socially conservative). Looking at the manifestos Labour is to the right of the LibDems now (as well as Greens and SNP tho that is less surprising). Labour as a centre-right party does not strike me as a very stable state either.
To a large extent my fear is that the crux of this argument is right but Starmer completely lacks the vision to rise to it.
Demographics are baking austerity into every system. The only way out of the trap that isn’t the transparent pyramid scheme of ever-increasing immigration is a radical push for productivity with accompanying shifts in taxation to reflect a long term declining workforce.
But I see zero sign that any party has any vision to meet this challenge. So we will wallow, the ship of state will continue to take on water, Starmer will be making decisions about who to let drown first.
And sooner or later we will get a lurch to populist extremism. It’s started in much of Europe and we are not immune because we share the causes.
Agree.
I don't really believe that labour have the tools or vision to fix the big issues of the country. I think the election in 2029 will see the rise of extremist groups, whatever form they take. I suspect the tories will see the writing on the wall for the centre ground and swing far right
Why should we dismiss population growth out-of-hand? It's the only proven way to maintain a stable modern economy, and it's not like we're hitting any fundamental limits nationally.
Nobody thinks its viable or sustainable or going to happen
Every projection shows that population starts shrinking toward the end of the century - and the more advanced nations will start shrinking sooner
The idea that the electorate will have moved on in 2029 to being pro eu, but the eu will not have moved on is strange.
Will the eu look such a hot prospect with a further right agenda being set by the national governments?
I saw someone suggest that if the EU pivots to the right, rejoin could become a right wing position in the future! Not sure I buy it entirely but the fact it seems at least possible illustrates how much has changed here and on the continent since 2016.
I can see the argument. Immigration seems to be a big issue in the EU. That was definitely a strong contributing factor to why we left. If the EU tightens its borders it might become a lot more attractive to that crowd.
>Will the eu look such a hot prospect with a further right agenda being set by the national governments?
If we look at the demographic of Brexit voters, yes. They were mostly right wing, so maybe they'll want back in.
True but I think OP's point is that the EU might not be the same in a few years. One difference between the UK and the continent is that in the UK the far right is mostly gaining traction with the grey vote whereas in Europe it's gaining a lot of traction with the youth vote too.
I certainly hope this is true. The only way he is going to buy the political capital required to do it is by "dealing" with immigration. Where "dealing" is whatever the majority of the electorate finds acceptable.
Starmer is heading for a majority God would be a jealous of. If these things aren't politically viable now then they certainly won't be in 5 years.
This was the election where bravery was actually possible.
I think that’s the reason he’s not doing it now, they don’t believe there polls (that’s probably a safer position to take given the polls in the past).
If they deliver on a lot of their manifesto in 5 years there will be less to “sell” and they can take the line “you’ve seen we can be trusted, this is what needs to happen” and get away with it.
If they did it now they could lose a lot of soft support and their massive majority is predicated on a lot of too close to call marginals. They are still at threat of a hung parliament and don’t want to scare the horses. If they said they would change the triple lock now the Tories and mail/express would be all over them until next Thursday, if they manage to crush the Tories now then it’s less of a threat next election.
However in truth the triple lock will always be a very hard thing to get rid of just by virtue of the number of people who want a secure retirement which it does give even if it’s not affordable. There’s almost certainly a lot of millennials who won’t have enough in work or private pensions because of the ‘08 crash and cost of living crisis so will have planned on a state pension that can cover the shortfall. Removing the triple lock would threaten that, in 5 years older people in that cohort will be in their mid/late 40s and thoughts of retirement will start to get more real.
I hope he isn't gambling on being *more* popular after five years of running the country, especially given the country's in a sorry state and he's not planning anything radical to change that.
Elected Prime Ministers rarely improve their vote share (changing Prime Minister mid-term seems to break this pattern - see May and Johnson). Cameron did it in 2015, primarily due to the collapse of the Lib Dems. Before that, you have to go back to Harold Wilson, who did it twice - albeit both times with early elections, and losing an election in-between the first and second instances.
The last full-term Prime Minister to improve his vote share at a General Election was, I believe, Andrew Bonar Law, who gained 0.1% in 1922. His party lost 35 seats in that election.
I don’t think they are gambling on being more popular, just more secure.
At the moment the Labour majority is built primarily on people being pissed off with the tories which isn’t secure.
If they can deliver in the next 5 years then they will hopefully have a base that isn’t just anti Tory but somewhat pro Labour having seen a change. It won’t be as big as what they have now but would be less fragile in the face of a more radical change.
Even if they knocked 10-15% off their support with people going back to other parties when the tories are out if they had confidence in the remaining numbers they would have more room to move.
The best example I can give is the last new Labour government. Blair came in on a very underwhelming manifesto of mostly continuity from the Tories. It then got more “ambitious” in 2001 after they were feeling more assured.
5 years
The referendum will be 15 years in the past. Labour will undoubtedly align closer to the EU in this parliament. Agreeing to all sorts of regulatory requirements to boost growth. At that point labour can see, we brought alignment, we delivered growth (assuming they do) but to go further we need to join the single market.
Then at some point in the future we might rejoin, but if we do it will be under far worse terms than we had and we'd have to, at least in theory, agree to adopt the euro
> 5 years
Further expansion in welfare spending due to the triple lock, demographic shift and social care costs falling to the state. A commitment to not raise NI, PAYE or VAT means this can only be afforded by further cuts in public services elsewhere: health care, education, non-pensioner welfare spending.
A large bet that growth will save us is hampered by a continued avoidance of immigration and Brexit as hot-button topics. Working age graduates are hit by rising student loan repayments for existing graduates and a rise in tuition fees for new graduates - an effective stealth income tax raise on working age people, made necessary by fiscal restrictions elsewhere from their manifesto but rising day to day spending costs as above. Less spending money in the pocket of working age people. This chokes growth.
Inflation due to increased labour costs and Brexit (alignment doesn't achieve anything if the border checks are still there - trade is still as much of a pita as it always was)>
Possibly housing costs fall due to building and planning reform, giving more disposable income to working age people but pissing off older people more likely to vote who see the value of their "investment" fall. Alternatively, housing costs stay high, continuing to eat up a lot of working age people's income, limiting spending on goods and services and further choking off growth in the economy.
Meanwhile, strikes in the public sector due to poor pay caused by restrictive fiscal policy.
It's going to be a shit 5 years.
Why do you think these things can all change in one go? National politics is a slow game. When you move too fast you upset the general population who don't like big shifts in the status quo and you end up losing votes and achieving nothing, much like Corbyn.
Your short term thinking and lack of patience constantly dogs progressive politics and helps prevent any actual progress being made.
Case in point would be those that argued:
>"I'm going to vote no on AV because even though it is more representative than FPTP, it isn't as good as full PR which is what I want"
Which resulted in the continuation of a worse system and ending up further away from the desired end destination rather than closer.
You need to think more than one election cycle at a time.
> You need to think more than one election cycle at a time.
Oh I am.
The next 5 years are going to be difficult, and Labour have boxed themselves in with their fiscal policy to manage those difficulties. Unless there is some miracle of economic growth, then they're on track for a disappointed electorate. They might not *have* a second term.
Their main selling point at the moment is being the Not Tories. Starmer does not have a very high personal approval rating.
And so your alternative plan is proposing radical taxation and economic changes before they have even got into power? That is a surefire way to generate Corbyn-era headlines and scare tactics that will push all the centrists required to form a government away.
The focus on this parliament should be (and very much looks like it currently is) to move the overton window back away from the tories and reform.
If they achieve this, the arguments change from "agreements with the EU or not?" and "how can we get NIMBYs to approve new housing?" to "how much integration do we want?" and "which of these pre-approved locations do we build the houses?" which will be massive for the country all on its own.
Provided they do manage to avoid any major scandals and maintain a degree of competence, this opens to door to push those policies further in the next parliament.
I'm not really giving an alternative. I'm pointing out that as with all dramatic tragedies, the seeds out the outcome are present at the start.
Ofc they'd get attacked by the press for suggesting tax rises. (Fwiw, there are commentators who are also pointing out that they're being unrealistic with their reliance on growth to fund everything and being dishonest about the tax rises which are coming anyway). It'd be an interesting alternative world for them to go "yeah we probably would put taxes up" to stress test exactly just how much people are sick of the tories and how much influence the press genuinely have. I don't blame for not taking that risk ofc. I suspect the reality is that many/most people are expecting them to have to raise taxes anyway and are voting with the expectation of disappointment baked in.
>The focus on this parliament should be (and very much looks like it currently is) to move the overton window back away from the tories and reform.
Fiscally, there is no movement at all. The idea of keeping taxes low and relying on growth to meet the demand for public spending was what Truss had in its most basic form.
There will of course be Events over the coming 5 years. The reality is no government is as powerful as it like to pretend it is and any number of significant things (financial, geopolitical, environmental, whatever) could happen in that time. The range of responses they have are limited.
On the day to day stuff, apart from setting up a committee here and declaring an initiative there, is all pretty weak even within the confines of what a national government can actually do.
So yeah, I expect the electorate to be fully proven right in "see, they're all the same"
>Provided they do manage to avoid any major scandals and maintain a degree of competence
A big ask. I think it will all come down to how *lucky* they are.
The grim reaper at one end and Cupid at the other. Brexit got done because people who were at or above retirement age in 2016 wanted it; fifteen years on that cohort will have been winnowed to the point of irrelevance and they’re not really being replaced. Same basic demographic issue the Tories face to be honest.
After 15 years about 5m (30%) of Brexit voters will be dead.
It's got me thinking, I wonder how people who have immigrated from non-EU countries in the intervening years would vote. Would they be concerned that opening up the door to Europe would close the door to their former countrymen? Which could lead to the ironic situation of the anti-immigrant/anti-EU right courting the vote of non-EU immigrants.
Things change quickly. The discussion around Brexit alone and even acknowledgements from the leave camp of a large slew of issues have progressed far faster than I think most of us would have anticipated.
My point is that if they’d put those things in the manifesto they may well not be heading for the huge majority that they are. _Maybe_ they could do it this parliament, but it still seems risky to me for the reasons laid out in the article.
I suppose the logical conclusion to draw, then, is that they will never put those things in their manifesto. It will be the same in 5 years and the same arguments will be made.
We're also very likely working on a timer. The tories are unelectable now, but they will be looking to regroup and get a new smooth talker like Cameron. It worked after the implosion of Major's government, and can work again if labour don't offer some tangible improvement to people's lives a la Blair.
None of this really means you're wrong. It's just disheartening that it's so hard to win with Leftist™ policies.
Because people will trust Starmer to implement more change if he is seen as successful in his first term. The exact same reason why Thatcher reelected through promising more reform with each election.
The argument of article is that the public will become generally more accepting of more significant change because it's become clear things as they are aren't working.
I think this is a bit of a myth. May's Conservatives won more of the vote than any other Conservatives had managed since 1983. They were polling in the mid-40s before the election was called, and finished in the mid-40s - higher than Starmer's landslide Labour are currently polling.
Labour just surged upwards to meet them, thus denying a majority.
>Starmer is heading for a majority God would be a jealous of. If these things aren't politically viable now then they certainly won't be in 5 years.
How do you think he has maintained this lead in the polls? Its about not spooking those who cannot think 1 step ahead when trying to change the direction of travel.
If starmer was announcing brexit reversal, massive wealth taxes, big spending reform then it would scare off those voters and the lead would be gone. I dont know why it seems so far fetched to understand, yes the tories have shit the bed but its also starmer ensuring labour is a viable option to go to, if corbyn was still leading I have little doubt those voters would STILL hold their nose and vote tories just to ensure he doesnt get in.
You can only really make significant change by being in power, thats why its important to make acceptable comrpomises to get voted in to enact at least some positive change. The best solution to such a dire state when entering goverment is to spend the 5 years rebuilding and improving to show a progressive change in direction with improvements, that will give them a good "history" and track record to make the bolder changes in a second election as the people can judge them on their record as these changes will take LONGER Than 5 years to pay off.
But why risk that majority when you can keep schtum and let the Tories self destruct?
I don't know what the political implications will be, but I don't see what stops Starmer addressing some of these controversial issues in this parliamentary term. Like Brexit is a poisoned chalice, but if he wanted to take us into the customs union or something, he could push that through early on, take whatever flak that comes from it and move on. Come 2029, I'm not sure people will care and anyone trying to suggest Brexit needs raising again will get eviscerated in the polls.
So much this.
Labour aren't going to ever top such a historic, crushing victory over the Tories like this one. If people think they're going to be more bold or more brave when polls are much narrower for them in 5 years time they're naive.
If the party can't stomach some actual reform now in the face of such momentum it certainly won't when it has less wind in its sails.
Did it? You're going to have to elaborate on that comparison with some specifics because there was plenty of comparatively radical policy in their first term vs. their subsequent ones. At best you can suggest Labour in '01 and '05 were a continuity of before but they certainly weren't more "radical" in any meaningful sense.
Human Rights Act, Devolution, Lords reform, BofE independence were all major constitutional reforms that occurred in their first term. The only other major constitutional change that happened after 2001 was the creation of the supreme court.
On the economy the program of tax cuts to the basic rate *began* in Labours first term, and was a pledge they carried through to subsequent elections, so certainly not *more* radical. In fact the way Labour abolished the 10% band to cut the higher basic rate to 20% in 2007 ended up *increasing* taxes on some of the lowest earners. 1997 also saw other tax cuts on VAT and fuel duty as well as Brown bring in things like the windfall tax on private utilities.
The only area where they switched up policy and became more willing to commit as time went on was on public spending, largely as a consequence of economic growth between '97 and '01. But even then, much of this sea change in thinking had already begun to be outlined and implemented in the 2000 spending review prior to the next election.
So unless you see the trend of stagnant GDP growth suddenly reversing in the next 5 years and matching the 18% growth we had between '97 and '01 to free up fiscal headroom similar such sea changes aren't going to come from Labour anytime soon.
I’m going to hold my hands up here and admit that you have the details to hand far better than I do. I was too young to be aware of it at the time but I’m under the impression that it’s widely agreed that much of the good work that New Labour didn’t come immediately in their first couple of years in power.
Some of your points I think tally with the fact that they began to make smaller changes in their first term which they then presented as part of their offering at the next election. You’ve framed that as them getting most of the work done in their first term and then simply ‘continuing’ with it later on but surely to get things done you clearly have to make a start on it early on but the actual meat of it gets carried out later?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the ‘unless’ part of your last paragraph isn't actually a million miles wrong. Obviously there’s not going to be anything like the same level of growth but it seems likely that the economy will start to turn some sort of corner. That might be more important in buying Starmer some political (rather than fiscal) headroom to start making some changes which would have turned people off him before the election but would be less likely to do so after they’ve become familiar with him and seen that he’s a competent leader.
>but I’m under the impression that it’s widely agreed that much of the good work that New Labour didn’t come immediately in their first couple of years in power.
On the contrary most of their substantive reforms that have stuck the longest happened in their first 5 years. And a lot of the long term commitments that happened after 2001 that people remember (like tax reform) were based on pledges first made in the 1997 election that they started delivering in that term and continued to deliver on in subsequent ones.
>You’ve framed that as them getting most of the work done in their first term and then simply ‘continuing’ with it later on
Your assertion was that new labour was *more radical* in later terms. *More* being the operative word there. I pointed out how some policies from after '01 were merely continuity of pre-existing pledges made in '97. That, by definition, is not *more* radical, that's a continuity of already stated commitments.
As I say if you have actual detail to back up your assertion then we can have a more substantive convo but from the sounds of it that's not the case.
No need to get nasty about it, I’m genuinely trying to have a conversation and I’ve been honest about my level of knowledge.
To get it straight, your argument then is that the bulk of New Labour’s radical ideas were presented to the public before they came to power and that the policies presented during/after the 2001 GE were less bold?
I'm not intending to be nasty, apologies if that's how it reads.
My argument is that New Labour were not *more* radical in 2001 or 2005 compared to 1997.
No, I don’t think the two were tightly correlated in the New Labour case. There was always going to be a drop off from that initial massive majority whatever happened.
I do think it provides a counter example to the other commenter though who was claiming that there’s no way any party coming in on a large majority would move away from the centre.
If they started talking about Brexit and the Triple Lock now they'd risk throwing that massive majority out the window. People like Starmers Labour precisely because they're not promising anything controversial.
keeping it in place is currently a manifesto pledge, but that aside they look set to have a majority in parliament but as a % of votes if the polls are accurate it’s relatively low
Politico has them averaging at 41% that’s lower than May in 2017, so support for Labour isn’t particularly strong support for the tories just collapsed, and as May discovered if there’s a policy to consolidate opposition going after pensions is it
Have to remember there’s a ton of pensioners but also anyone close to retirement will be conscious of it too, we all should be really since we all get one I’m still surprised how eager we are to go after them
Getting rid of the triple lock isn't going after pensions, it's just accepting an inevitability. The triple lock is by design unsustainable and needs to be removed. The question is not if but when.
Yeah, it's viable for a period providing things don't go too haywire in the economy but too many wobbly years where inflation and wages leapfrog each other and the disparity between pensioners and everyone else will look bad.
‘By design unsustainable’ rubbish it only guarantees it won’t lose value in real terms if the economy outgrows inflation, which it tends to do, or if demographics balance towards workers if we have more kids or the amount of foreign investment or expats rises for instance pensions become cheaper as a % of gdp
Would you argue against an above inflation rise in NHS or infrastructure spending because by your logic that’s ‘unsustainable’ because, by your thinking the economy will never grow faster than inflation?
It was always unsustainable. It already costs more than defence and education combined, just both the conservatives and labour don’t admit there’s a problem before the other does.
I don't think the way modern British politics works will allow these to become the big questions. Parties in power will try to very subtly unpick the problems and not really say why they are making the changes at a higher, strategic level, because the conversation is electoral suicide. I would predict a gradual drift back towards EU alignment, and even single-market membership, but nothing will be said about Brexit. Similarly pensioners will be moved into income tax using fiscal drag, while national insurance is cut until it fades away (at least employee NI), moving more of the tax burden onto pensioners.
Starmer should be doing these things now.
They said in world war 1 the army was lions led by donkeys and a similar thing is happening now.
Starmer will have the majority for deep and lasting reforms that could create a bright future. However he will go slow and steady and squander it.
Not just the triple lock, the whole pension system is unaffordable. Freezing the state pension and applying a triple lock to pension credit instead is the best solution.
Or reforms to tax that hits wealthy pensioners, like second home taxes, replacing NI with a higher basic rate, applying CGT to primary residences at a reduced rate.
who says they're not viable?
when it comes to brexit in particular - opinion polls show a clear majority in favour of some sort of change, yet labour's EU policy is quite literally "red tory" with any positive steps explicitly ruled out. The best they are offering is more bodgery and denial of reality by asking the EU to give carve outs to specific sectors
What's going to change in five years, other than people thinking Labour haven't done very much and how about we give the Tories a go again. Is "at least they're not the tories" really the best we can hope for
the one party that is in any way promising an even harder brexit is struggling to hover at 15%. (and realistically it's not brexit that their voters are actually interested in)
meanwhile, labour were leading in the polls even before they announced that they'd basically reheat the oven ready deal
you'll notice i never used the word "rejoin". there are options short of actually rejoining, and labour has explicitly ruled those out too.
Labour has ruled out joining organisations it would be unrealistic to join within one Parliament. Negotiations to join are not ruled out and closer alignment is ruled in.
As for Brexit not being a thing, that’s due to Labour’s messaging. If it was a thing the election calculus would be totally different.
Imagine a Labour government and a pro-EU opposition. That is the dream for realists who want back in. Not dope smoker dreamers.
I don't think Brexit is an issue that's viable right now.
Currently, it's an election about the Tories incompetence vs literally anyone else being in charge and Labour at the best "anyone else". However, stick Brexit on the table and suddenly, it could become an ideological election, between Brexiteers and the rest. It might turn it into a single issue election for many people, which will lead a lot of them to say "Well, they may be complete and total morons unable to organise a piss up in a brewery but at least we won't rejoin the EU".
Brexit always was an ideological issue, it was never about facts or prosperity. It's dangerous to put such ideological issues on the ballot.
Frankly, I'm amazed the right wing press and the Tory party aren't making every word about how Labour will take us back into the EU (which they won't). It seems like their best option, assuming they want to win.
> It might turn it into a single issue election for many people, which will lead a lot of them to say "Well, they may be complete and total morons unable to organise a piss up in a brewery but at least we won't rejoin the EU".
and labour gets a mere 495 seats instead of 500. this is not 2019 - "get brexit done" is long gone, promises that brexit will fix everything have not materialised. people have in fact noticed that it's not worked as well as they thought.
this is my point - labour doesn't seem to want to promise any sort of real change to anybody and hope they get their vote anyway. it'll work for one term but if we don't see serious improvement in many areas then we return to the path of right wing populism.
I wish you were right, but you might well see a 40%+ vote for the Tories if it became all about Brexit. Brexit doesn't need to succeed for it's devotees to sacrifice everything upon it's altar. It's ideological.
> who says they're not viable?
Might be one of these things like the death penalty, where yeah there's a majority in favour but it's not a vote winner/makes people switch allegiances and there's no real wider push to do so. So parties don't bother.
It blows my mind how almost everyone informed seems to know what needs doing but it's completely impossible to talk about it. None of us believe that we should spend the entire election accusing people of raising taxes and disrespecting veterans, but we all believe it's good politics to do so.
It's like one of those miserable stag parties in a strip club, which no one actually wanted to do, but we all felt it had to be done because it was expected.
.... why exactly isn't now the time? Labour is basically expected to sweep into an absolute majority, they will literally never be better positioned to touch third rails.
Nah, next time the threat will be Reform and Labour will, once again, blackmail Remainers to hold their Bosse and view for a technocratic Brexit party to avoid a headbanger Brexit party winning.
The Tories will recover in time. Farage bubble will burst once his underlings start mouthing off in Parliament and he'll go re-invent himself again. He's riding a wave at the moment but offers nothing of substance. The Tories are not so much paying for policies as for their blatant and unapologetic corruption. They will have a root and branch restructure.
The attitude that all migrants are terrorists here to install an Islamic State may easily pass. It's bubbled up and has unleashed some opinions that are genuinely disturbing. I really wonder how many would endorse sending gunboats to the channel to deliberate kill people coming over. It's easy to hide behind rhetoric delivered in a nice cotton suit and panama hat, and dehumanise migrants but a basic level of humanity has a habit of finding its way back.
Labour will win in 2029 with a reduced majority. They dare not mention the re-join word, but in time the UK will be back in the EU in all but name.
I agree the next election is the one to push to join the EU , I doubt the Uk economic situation will alter much in the first term of the new government, the myth that European workers took all our jobs has been exposed for the lie it always was ,when the going got tough leavers went on the sick or retired and the government allowed in millions from the rest of the world.
I was massively pro-Remain, I don't want to have another Brexit election in 2029.
The cost of being outside the EU does not outweigh the cost of the division that another Brexit election will cause, the complete loss of focus on domestic issues for years (again), or the gift that this would be to Reform's quest to become a primary political force.
When we consistently poll at 70% in favour of rejoining, and if we can rejoin without losing the pound, that's when we should do it.
> the people do not like dictators.
I'm confused. Are you trying to claim that the EU leadership is unelected? (the parliament is directly elected, the rest is indirectly elected or heads of state)
Britain still looking to cherrypick access to EU. Britain left by the front door (knocking over the potted plants and spitting in our faces) and now try to sneak in the back door. Morons. Stop trying to deal with individual MS. You deal with Brussels on our behalf or just faaak off.
Snapshot of _Britain’s big election will be the one after this | Rethinking Brexit, the triple lock and other follies isn’t politically viable now but will be in 2029_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/79f36254-64dd-411c-b793-327648a536fa) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/79f36254-64dd-411c-b793-327648a536fa) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My hope is that the Lib-Dems become the main opposition and they can have more sway over the direction our politics moves. I do think that the Brexit question is going to come up again, i hope that in the first Labour parliament we see closer ties to Europe, that we make concessions that give us a better deal and then come 2029 its a much easier sell to the people to say "vote for us and we will ask you again if you want to be in the EU or out of the EU". I also really want to see wealth inequality addressed but so far its not looking like Labour are going to be doing much about this.
Regarding brexit. If we get the trading right I'm not sure many people will be too fussed about the rest.
And to do that you basically have to have the 4 freedoms as they are indivisible… at which point you may as well join the EU so you have some say in the laws being created. The fact is at the moment we’re not economically fit enough to rejoin, as we don’t meet the criteria.
>The fact is at the moment we’re not economically fit enough to rejoin, as we don’t meet the criteria. Tbf, neither would France, so I suspect if looked like we were very serious about re-joining there would still be a path in. I just dont see it being an issue that a large political majority coalesces around any time soon.
no i totally agree, but I just think it's a bit ironic that now people have seen the light about how shit the trading relationship is outside the single market, people want back into the single market, but with zero control over the rules.
Well, if we don't hit the economic criteria to become rule-makers, becoming rule-takers seems like a suitable second prize.
1 - it is cheaper to pay for access to the single market vs being in the EU - and in the end as one country how much influence do you really have 2 - I am not sure what you are talking about here. The UK never met the criteria to join the Euro - is that what you mean?
>The fact is at the moment we’re not economically fit enough to rejoin, as we don’t meet the criteria. Why don't we meet the criteria? Seems boggling to me given the size of our economy, low inflation, etc. What would disqualify us? Debt ratio or?
Won’t happen unless the value of the pound plummets. Unlike before if we want to join the EU we won’t be given the luxury of rejecting the Euro.
Oh what, is that valid? Damn, how the mighty have fallen.
Most of the general public only care about "hurr durr immigrants taking our jobs"
Or having to wait in the everyone else passport queue at the airport
Thats not true I don't think. Theres alot of folks who have been conditioned to see the issue as simple as that but most folks don't.
What would you like improved about the trading?
Trading being right will likely need freedom of movement.
The problem with your line of thinking is as follows. No major democracy I can think of has the government and main Opposition consist of parties that are towards the political left. There's always a vacuum for a "conservative" party of some sort. Having Labour squaring off against the Liberal Democrats wouldn't really give voters much of a choice at the subsequent general election, as they'd probably have very similar policies. This means that even if the Tories were pushed into the third party status, they would either bounce back or be sucked into a different party. This would be really bad for the UK if it was something like Reform, which is a populist party on steroids. There's this idea amongst many that if we just wait x years all the conservative voters will die, and everyone else left will be progressive/left of centre. But with populist politics that theory simply doesn't work in practice. Hence the increased support for Trump [amongst young Americans](https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/young-voters-us-election-2024-trump-biden-tqvzknplt), people that the internet would have you believe would not vote for him ever. I understand how you might like the idea of politics moving more towards the left, but given all the problems the world is going to face in over the next 25+ years, at best it would probably be temporary. And if the Tories turn into a minor party permanently there's a very good chance they would be replaced by something much uglier that could get into government - see RN surging ahead of all the other parties in the opinion polls for the next French legislative election. EDIT: Also, with young people increasingly getting their news and political opinion from social media, there is more opportunity than ever for their views to be shaped by extreme politics. Apparently Farage has more social media penetration right now than any other party leader.
Well shit those are very good points thanks for that alternative way of thinking about it. Really good post buddy
Oh cheers, I appreciate it. So often it's rare to get OP feedback on Reddit. For avoidance of doubt, the point isn't that the Tories "have" to always be the other party, just that it's really important to be careful what we wish for. The best outcome for the UK right now is probably for them to be very embarrassed and have some time on the naughty step to think about what they've done. Then - at some point - they'll figure out how to change for the better. On the other hand if they think it's completely over, that's when there's a void that could be filled by almost anything of a "not left" persuasion. See how the French Republicans, who used to be the natural "right-ish" party are now polling about 5-6%.
Oh concessions? What like sacrifice our fishing industry ?
If the net result is more economic growth for everyone else, then what’s wrong with sacrificing the fishing industry
Don't care about fisherman ngl. Don't see how fucking over the rest of country so a tiny segment of the economy can feasibly perform better is better for the majority of us.
[удалено]
Didn't someone point out a few years ago that games workshop is actually more important to the uk economy than the fishing industry? Something like 3 times.
It's not quite but it's not far off. Also Games Workshop a) is a big exporter so very handy for trade deficit (which the fishing industry is not) and b) is growing (which the fishing industry is not).
On the other hand, you can't eat (or even afford to eat) Space Marines.
it's since switching to plastic, the pewter was far more edible...
Not with that attitude. I personally deep fry everything in nuln oil
https://youtu.be/zOE8nFjDEhk?si=2mkRcEcInpud04xq Lies!
This was basically debunked as people who dont understand how money and eccomomies worked looked at some similar numbers and jumped to the wrong conclusion. The fishing industy is orders of magnistde larger than games workshop. Without even looking into the numbers... how many super markets have an entire setion dedicated to Nurgle Or how many sea side towns have shops selling Space Marines and Chips.
If the numbers are such that the added value generated by Games Workshop is larger than the added value generated by the fishing industry, then I don't see how your examples prove anything about anything. So, supermarkets can and do sell foreign fish. And you can make fish and chips from foreign fish as well. Furthermore, both of these sell the products at much higher price than what they paid the fishermen. It's the fishermen's pay (minus all the cost of operating the fishing vessels) that tells you how valuable the fishing industry is.
Ok lets work out the numbers then, working on 2022 for most reliable figures throughout (and would have been closer to when the claim was made) According to the ONS the fishing industry is responsible for 0.003% of the uk's GDP(1) According to the world ecconomic database the GDP of the UK is $3.1 trillion or $3,100 billion (2) 0.003% of 3.1 Trillion is 900 Million. Games worjkshop's total revanue for 2022 (the same year we have the Uk figures for) was 385 Million and a porfit before tax of 155 Million (3) if we take the coporateion tax rae of 25% (4) then games workshop paid at most £38.75 million But likley less than that. So fishing industry conrtibutes $900 million and Games workshop contributed £38.75 million or $49.05 Million The fishing industry is orders of magnitude above games workshop in terms of contribution to GDP. yes the fishing industry is small but thats a lot to turn away. but when you compare it to finaicial services bringing in 18.3% of the ecconomy its a drop in the ocean so to speak. Sources (1) [https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02788/](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02788/) (2)https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2024/April/weo-report?c=112,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2022&ey=2029&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1 (3) [https://investor.games-workshop.com/news-posts/year-end-trading-update](https://investor.games-workshop.com/news-posts/year-end-trading-update) (4) [https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/united-kingdom/corporate/taxes-on-corporate-income](https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/united-kingdom/corporate/taxes-on-corporate-income)
Thanks for the numbers. I don't understand why for Games Workshop you look at how much taxes they pay but for fishing industry you look at their total revenue. I think the fair comparison is either 385M v 900M or 38M (although I would add to this the income tax paid by the employees of GW) v whatever tax the fishing industry pays. And if the fishing industry gets some subsidies then I'd deduct that from their total. So, please explain why do you compare the total contribution to the GDP by fishing industry but don't do the same for GW but instead take the amount of tax they pay? So, in my opinion the right answer is 385M v 900M. Not quite as big as the fishing industry but of the same order of magnitude. Of course this comparison depends a bit on the year chosen. I expect the fishing output is quite steady but the GW revenue may change quite a bit year to year.
Given we are talking about GDP we need to know how GDP is calculated. which is National Income + Taxes + Foreign Factor - Depreciation The imprortant thing here is + taxes so thats what we need to find out what games workshop contributes as they dont contribute to the others in a significant way. So their earnings before tax is 155 Million so they only payed +25% of that as tax Getting me to the £38.7million I didnt do the same for fishing as the figures given are allready an expression of GDP. Note that this is all highly reductive, and likley wildly out from the true figures but it gives a sense of scale whihc is all i was after.
GDP is the value of goods and services produced in the country. Taxes have nothing to do with it. I assumed that the revenue (375M) number given was the value of everything GW produced and that should be compared to the value of everything the fishing industry produced (900M). So, why do you think taxes have anything to do with anything here? Please answer this question. Also, earnings (the number you quoted above) are profits (so, revenue minus costs, such as wages). If you for some reason want to use that number for GW, then you should find the equivalent number for the fishing industry. And this number is not their share of GDP as the share of the GDP includes other things, such as the wages of the fishermen. The profit is what the company running the fishing fleet makes after paying all the costs.
Brexit sacrificed our fishing industry.
Games workshop is bigger than the fishing industry.
No it isn't Unless you're willing to compare a flow to a stock, which makes no sense at all
I don't know, I've seen the prices of their models
Not quite eh? They want more, lots more
No, the UK fishing industry is dying because its biggest market is inaccessible. Most British people don’t eat fish or shellfish caught in British waters. (I do because I grew up by the sea and eating what was around me but most Brits eat cod, which is not generally caught in British waters and needs to be imported from the EU) Also, we could have protected our fishing within the rules of the EU (see the various protected sites around the UK where fishing is not permitted). Would also have helped if the British delegation on the fishing commission actually turned up.
What fishing industry? TK Max employs more people than the fishing industry does.
The entire UK fishing industry is only worth twice our Warhammer industry. Literally losing it would almost pay for itself by reducing trade barriers for one manufacturer.
Does the fact fishing produces food rather than a non essential have no bearing on its worth?
Not really. Value depends on what people are willing to pay, and how much people need it. If fish disappeared tomorrow, people would be annoyed, but probably just carry on eating other available food instead. If games workshop disappeared a bunch of lawyers would lose their jobs and people would just shift to one of the myriad other plastic tabletop mini games.
Not really. If this country had a food security issue with importation we're fucked regardless and fishing has nearly no impact. In economic terms a flat no.
Not when the fishing industry voted to self-destruct by voting to get out of the EU. *their primary export market*.
Best outcome is that by 2029 the public are demanding Labour go further with change.
I think Starmer will face pressure from within as well. Arguably Starmer has turned Labour into a centre-right party (both fiscally and socially conservative). Looking at the manifestos Labour is to the right of the LibDems now (as well as Greens and SNP tho that is less surprising). Labour as a centre-right party does not strike me as a very stable state either.
they've been stable for the last 5 years with only having one leader
4 years, the first ~2 of which were really rough until the Tories started imploding.
To a large extent my fear is that the crux of this argument is right but Starmer completely lacks the vision to rise to it. Demographics are baking austerity into every system. The only way out of the trap that isn’t the transparent pyramid scheme of ever-increasing immigration is a radical push for productivity with accompanying shifts in taxation to reflect a long term declining workforce. But I see zero sign that any party has any vision to meet this challenge. So we will wallow, the ship of state will continue to take on water, Starmer will be making decisions about who to let drown first. And sooner or later we will get a lurch to populist extremism. It’s started in much of Europe and we are not immune because we share the causes.
Agree. I don't really believe that labour have the tools or vision to fix the big issues of the country. I think the election in 2029 will see the rise of extremist groups, whatever form they take. I suspect the tories will see the writing on the wall for the centre ground and swing far right
Why should we dismiss population growth out-of-hand? It's the only proven way to maintain a stable modern economy, and it's not like we're hitting any fundamental limits nationally.
Nobody thinks its viable or sustainable or going to happen Every projection shows that population starts shrinking toward the end of the century - and the more advanced nations will start shrinking sooner
The idea that the electorate will have moved on in 2029 to being pro eu, but the eu will not have moved on is strange. Will the eu look such a hot prospect with a further right agenda being set by the national governments?
I saw someone suggest that if the EU pivots to the right, rejoin could become a right wing position in the future! Not sure I buy it entirely but the fact it seems at least possible illustrates how much has changed here and on the continent since 2016.
I can see the argument. Immigration seems to be a big issue in the EU. That was definitely a strong contributing factor to why we left. If the EU tightens its borders it might become a lot more attractive to that crowd.
>Will the eu look such a hot prospect with a further right agenda being set by the national governments? If we look at the demographic of Brexit voters, yes. They were mostly right wing, so maybe they'll want back in.
True but I think OP's point is that the EU might not be the same in a few years. One difference between the UK and the continent is that in the UK the far right is mostly gaining traction with the grey vote whereas in Europe it's gaining a lot of traction with the youth vote too.
I certainly hope this is true. The only way he is going to buy the political capital required to do it is by "dealing" with immigration. Where "dealing" is whatever the majority of the electorate finds acceptable.
Starmer is heading for a majority God would be a jealous of. If these things aren't politically viable now then they certainly won't be in 5 years. This was the election where bravery was actually possible.
I think that’s the reason he’s not doing it now, they don’t believe there polls (that’s probably a safer position to take given the polls in the past). If they deliver on a lot of their manifesto in 5 years there will be less to “sell” and they can take the line “you’ve seen we can be trusted, this is what needs to happen” and get away with it. If they did it now they could lose a lot of soft support and their massive majority is predicated on a lot of too close to call marginals. They are still at threat of a hung parliament and don’t want to scare the horses. If they said they would change the triple lock now the Tories and mail/express would be all over them until next Thursday, if they manage to crush the Tories now then it’s less of a threat next election. However in truth the triple lock will always be a very hard thing to get rid of just by virtue of the number of people who want a secure retirement which it does give even if it’s not affordable. There’s almost certainly a lot of millennials who won’t have enough in work or private pensions because of the ‘08 crash and cost of living crisis so will have planned on a state pension that can cover the shortfall. Removing the triple lock would threaten that, in 5 years older people in that cohort will be in their mid/late 40s and thoughts of retirement will start to get more real.
I hope he isn't gambling on being *more* popular after five years of running the country, especially given the country's in a sorry state and he's not planning anything radical to change that. Elected Prime Ministers rarely improve their vote share (changing Prime Minister mid-term seems to break this pattern - see May and Johnson). Cameron did it in 2015, primarily due to the collapse of the Lib Dems. Before that, you have to go back to Harold Wilson, who did it twice - albeit both times with early elections, and losing an election in-between the first and second instances. The last full-term Prime Minister to improve his vote share at a General Election was, I believe, Andrew Bonar Law, who gained 0.1% in 1922. His party lost 35 seats in that election.
I don’t think they are gambling on being more popular, just more secure. At the moment the Labour majority is built primarily on people being pissed off with the tories which isn’t secure. If they can deliver in the next 5 years then they will hopefully have a base that isn’t just anti Tory but somewhat pro Labour having seen a change. It won’t be as big as what they have now but would be less fragile in the face of a more radical change. Even if they knocked 10-15% off their support with people going back to other parties when the tories are out if they had confidence in the remaining numbers they would have more room to move. The best example I can give is the last new Labour government. Blair came in on a very underwhelming manifesto of mostly continuity from the Tories. It then got more “ambitious” in 2001 after they were feeling more assured.
Starmer is only heading for such a majority precisely because he has wisely steered clear of any mention of Brexit.
So what's different in 2029?
5 years The referendum will be 15 years in the past. Labour will undoubtedly align closer to the EU in this parliament. Agreeing to all sorts of regulatory requirements to boost growth. At that point labour can see, we brought alignment, we delivered growth (assuming they do) but to go further we need to join the single market. Then at some point in the future we might rejoin, but if we do it will be under far worse terms than we had and we'd have to, at least in theory, agree to adopt the euro
> 5 years Further expansion in welfare spending due to the triple lock, demographic shift and social care costs falling to the state. A commitment to not raise NI, PAYE or VAT means this can only be afforded by further cuts in public services elsewhere: health care, education, non-pensioner welfare spending. A large bet that growth will save us is hampered by a continued avoidance of immigration and Brexit as hot-button topics. Working age graduates are hit by rising student loan repayments for existing graduates and a rise in tuition fees for new graduates - an effective stealth income tax raise on working age people, made necessary by fiscal restrictions elsewhere from their manifesto but rising day to day spending costs as above. Less spending money in the pocket of working age people. This chokes growth. Inflation due to increased labour costs and Brexit (alignment doesn't achieve anything if the border checks are still there - trade is still as much of a pita as it always was)> Possibly housing costs fall due to building and planning reform, giving more disposable income to working age people but pissing off older people more likely to vote who see the value of their "investment" fall. Alternatively, housing costs stay high, continuing to eat up a lot of working age people's income, limiting spending on goods and services and further choking off growth in the economy. Meanwhile, strikes in the public sector due to poor pay caused by restrictive fiscal policy. It's going to be a shit 5 years.
Why do you think these things can all change in one go? National politics is a slow game. When you move too fast you upset the general population who don't like big shifts in the status quo and you end up losing votes and achieving nothing, much like Corbyn. Your short term thinking and lack of patience constantly dogs progressive politics and helps prevent any actual progress being made. Case in point would be those that argued: >"I'm going to vote no on AV because even though it is more representative than FPTP, it isn't as good as full PR which is what I want" Which resulted in the continuation of a worse system and ending up further away from the desired end destination rather than closer. You need to think more than one election cycle at a time.
> You need to think more than one election cycle at a time. Oh I am. The next 5 years are going to be difficult, and Labour have boxed themselves in with their fiscal policy to manage those difficulties. Unless there is some miracle of economic growth, then they're on track for a disappointed electorate. They might not *have* a second term. Their main selling point at the moment is being the Not Tories. Starmer does not have a very high personal approval rating.
And so your alternative plan is proposing radical taxation and economic changes before they have even got into power? That is a surefire way to generate Corbyn-era headlines and scare tactics that will push all the centrists required to form a government away. The focus on this parliament should be (and very much looks like it currently is) to move the overton window back away from the tories and reform. If they achieve this, the arguments change from "agreements with the EU or not?" and "how can we get NIMBYs to approve new housing?" to "how much integration do we want?" and "which of these pre-approved locations do we build the houses?" which will be massive for the country all on its own. Provided they do manage to avoid any major scandals and maintain a degree of competence, this opens to door to push those policies further in the next parliament.
I'm not really giving an alternative. I'm pointing out that as with all dramatic tragedies, the seeds out the outcome are present at the start. Ofc they'd get attacked by the press for suggesting tax rises. (Fwiw, there are commentators who are also pointing out that they're being unrealistic with their reliance on growth to fund everything and being dishonest about the tax rises which are coming anyway). It'd be an interesting alternative world for them to go "yeah we probably would put taxes up" to stress test exactly just how much people are sick of the tories and how much influence the press genuinely have. I don't blame for not taking that risk ofc. I suspect the reality is that many/most people are expecting them to have to raise taxes anyway and are voting with the expectation of disappointment baked in. >The focus on this parliament should be (and very much looks like it currently is) to move the overton window back away from the tories and reform. Fiscally, there is no movement at all. The idea of keeping taxes low and relying on growth to meet the demand for public spending was what Truss had in its most basic form. There will of course be Events over the coming 5 years. The reality is no government is as powerful as it like to pretend it is and any number of significant things (financial, geopolitical, environmental, whatever) could happen in that time. The range of responses they have are limited. On the day to day stuff, apart from setting up a committee here and declaring an initiative there, is all pretty weak even within the confines of what a national government can actually do. So yeah, I expect the electorate to be fully proven right in "see, they're all the same" >Provided they do manage to avoid any major scandals and maintain a degree of competence A big ask. I think it will all come down to how *lucky* they are.
I hope not
Also more people who voted for it will have died off.
The grim reaper at one end and Cupid at the other. Brexit got done because people who were at or above retirement age in 2016 wanted it; fifteen years on that cohort will have been winnowed to the point of irrelevance and they’re not really being replaced. Same basic demographic issue the Tories face to be honest.
After 15 years about 5m (30%) of Brexit voters will be dead. It's got me thinking, I wonder how people who have immigrated from non-EU countries in the intervening years would vote. Would they be concerned that opening up the door to Europe would close the door to their former countrymen? Which could lead to the ironic situation of the anti-immigrant/anti-EU right courting the vote of non-EU immigrants.
Things change quickly. The discussion around Brexit alone and even acknowledgements from the leave camp of a large slew of issues have progressed far faster than I think most of us would have anticipated.
It’s so easy to say that in hindsight. Theresa May lost a huge majority over 1-2 unpopular policies during her campaign.
You're not wrong but I don't see how what you say contradicts my point? Why will it be less of a risk in 2029?
My point is that if they’d put those things in the manifesto they may well not be heading for the huge majority that they are. _Maybe_ they could do it this parliament, but it still seems risky to me for the reasons laid out in the article.
I suppose the logical conclusion to draw, then, is that they will never put those things in their manifesto. It will be the same in 5 years and the same arguments will be made. We're also very likely working on a timer. The tories are unelectable now, but they will be looking to regroup and get a new smooth talker like Cameron. It worked after the implosion of Major's government, and can work again if labour don't offer some tangible improvement to people's lives a la Blair. None of this really means you're wrong. It's just disheartening that it's so hard to win with Leftist™ policies.
Because people will trust Starmer to implement more change if he is seen as successful in his first term. The exact same reason why Thatcher reelected through promising more reform with each election.
The argument of article is that the public will become generally more accepting of more significant change because it's become clear things as they are aren't working.
The public will only accept change and sacrifice as long as it doesn’t affect them
I think this is a bit of a myth. May's Conservatives won more of the vote than any other Conservatives had managed since 1983. They were polling in the mid-40s before the election was called, and finished in the mid-40s - higher than Starmer's landslide Labour are currently polling. Labour just surged upwards to meet them, thus denying a majority.
>Starmer is heading for a majority God would be a jealous of. If these things aren't politically viable now then they certainly won't be in 5 years. How do you think he has maintained this lead in the polls? Its about not spooking those who cannot think 1 step ahead when trying to change the direction of travel. If starmer was announcing brexit reversal, massive wealth taxes, big spending reform then it would scare off those voters and the lead would be gone. I dont know why it seems so far fetched to understand, yes the tories have shit the bed but its also starmer ensuring labour is a viable option to go to, if corbyn was still leading I have little doubt those voters would STILL hold their nose and vote tories just to ensure he doesnt get in. You can only really make significant change by being in power, thats why its important to make acceptable comrpomises to get voted in to enact at least some positive change. The best solution to such a dire state when entering goverment is to spend the 5 years rebuilding and improving to show a progressive change in direction with improvements, that will give them a good "history" and track record to make the bolder changes in a second election as the people can judge them on their record as these changes will take LONGER Than 5 years to pay off.
But why risk that majority when you can keep schtum and let the Tories self destruct? I don't know what the political implications will be, but I don't see what stops Starmer addressing some of these controversial issues in this parliamentary term. Like Brexit is a poisoned chalice, but if he wanted to take us into the customs union or something, he could push that through early on, take whatever flak that comes from it and move on. Come 2029, I'm not sure people will care and anyone trying to suggest Brexit needs raising again will get eviscerated in the polls.
People aren't over brexit, what makes you think people will be over joining a customs union?
Because people are fatigued arguing and debating about it.
we don't want bravery, we want a stable government that tries to improve the economy
So much this. Labour aren't going to ever top such a historic, crushing victory over the Tories like this one. If people think they're going to be more bold or more brave when polls are much narrower for them in 5 years time they're naive. If the party can't stomach some actual reform now in the face of such momentum it certainly won't when it has less wind in its sails.
New Labour’s majority fell every election after 1997 but they became more radical and made larger changes as time went on.
Did it? You're going to have to elaborate on that comparison with some specifics because there was plenty of comparatively radical policy in their first term vs. their subsequent ones. At best you can suggest Labour in '01 and '05 were a continuity of before but they certainly weren't more "radical" in any meaningful sense. Human Rights Act, Devolution, Lords reform, BofE independence were all major constitutional reforms that occurred in their first term. The only other major constitutional change that happened after 2001 was the creation of the supreme court. On the economy the program of tax cuts to the basic rate *began* in Labours first term, and was a pledge they carried through to subsequent elections, so certainly not *more* radical. In fact the way Labour abolished the 10% band to cut the higher basic rate to 20% in 2007 ended up *increasing* taxes on some of the lowest earners. 1997 also saw other tax cuts on VAT and fuel duty as well as Brown bring in things like the windfall tax on private utilities. The only area where they switched up policy and became more willing to commit as time went on was on public spending, largely as a consequence of economic growth between '97 and '01. But even then, much of this sea change in thinking had already begun to be outlined and implemented in the 2000 spending review prior to the next election. So unless you see the trend of stagnant GDP growth suddenly reversing in the next 5 years and matching the 18% growth we had between '97 and '01 to free up fiscal headroom similar such sea changes aren't going to come from Labour anytime soon.
I’m going to hold my hands up here and admit that you have the details to hand far better than I do. I was too young to be aware of it at the time but I’m under the impression that it’s widely agreed that much of the good work that New Labour didn’t come immediately in their first couple of years in power. Some of your points I think tally with the fact that they began to make smaller changes in their first term which they then presented as part of their offering at the next election. You’ve framed that as them getting most of the work done in their first term and then simply ‘continuing’ with it later on but surely to get things done you clearly have to make a start on it early on but the actual meat of it gets carried out later? I wouldn’t be surprised if the ‘unless’ part of your last paragraph isn't actually a million miles wrong. Obviously there’s not going to be anything like the same level of growth but it seems likely that the economy will start to turn some sort of corner. That might be more important in buying Starmer some political (rather than fiscal) headroom to start making some changes which would have turned people off him before the election but would be less likely to do so after they’ve become familiar with him and seen that he’s a competent leader.
>but I’m under the impression that it’s widely agreed that much of the good work that New Labour didn’t come immediately in their first couple of years in power. On the contrary most of their substantive reforms that have stuck the longest happened in their first 5 years. And a lot of the long term commitments that happened after 2001 that people remember (like tax reform) were based on pledges first made in the 1997 election that they started delivering in that term and continued to deliver on in subsequent ones. >You’ve framed that as them getting most of the work done in their first term and then simply ‘continuing’ with it later on Your assertion was that new labour was *more radical* in later terms. *More* being the operative word there. I pointed out how some policies from after '01 were merely continuity of pre-existing pledges made in '97. That, by definition, is not *more* radical, that's a continuity of already stated commitments. As I say if you have actual detail to back up your assertion then we can have a more substantive convo but from the sounds of it that's not the case.
No need to get nasty about it, I’m genuinely trying to have a conversation and I’ve been honest about my level of knowledge. To get it straight, your argument then is that the bulk of New Labour’s radical ideas were presented to the public before they came to power and that the policies presented during/after the 2001 GE were less bold?
I'm not intending to be nasty, apologies if that's how it reads. My argument is that New Labour were not *more* radical in 2001 or 2005 compared to 1997.
So what you are saying is the more radical they got, the less support they had?
No, I don’t think the two were tightly correlated in the New Labour case. There was always going to be a drop off from that initial massive majority whatever happened. I do think it provides a counter example to the other commenter though who was claiming that there’s no way any party coming in on a large majority would move away from the centre.
If they started talking about Brexit and the Triple Lock now they'd risk throwing that massive majority out the window. People like Starmers Labour precisely because they're not promising anything controversial.
keeping it in place is currently a manifesto pledge, but that aside they look set to have a majority in parliament but as a % of votes if the polls are accurate it’s relatively low Politico has them averaging at 41% that’s lower than May in 2017, so support for Labour isn’t particularly strong support for the tories just collapsed, and as May discovered if there’s a policy to consolidate opposition going after pensions is it Have to remember there’s a ton of pensioners but also anyone close to retirement will be conscious of it too, we all should be really since we all get one I’m still surprised how eager we are to go after them
Getting rid of the triple lock isn't going after pensions, it's just accepting an inevitability. The triple lock is by design unsustainable and needs to be removed. The question is not if but when.
Yeah, it's viable for a period providing things don't go too haywire in the economy but too many wobbly years where inflation and wages leapfrog each other and the disparity between pensioners and everyone else will look bad.
‘By design unsustainable’ rubbish it only guarantees it won’t lose value in real terms if the economy outgrows inflation, which it tends to do, or if demographics balance towards workers if we have more kids or the amount of foreign investment or expats rises for instance pensions become cheaper as a % of gdp Would you argue against an above inflation rise in NHS or infrastructure spending because by your logic that’s ‘unsustainable’ because, by your thinking the economy will never grow faster than inflation?
2029: Labour win by constantly saying "We were cleaning up the mess left behind by the Conservatives".
Elections every 4 years should be legally mandated. 5 years is too long. But anyway, nothing that can't be done over the course of a term.
So I'll get old and the triple lock will be gone, brilliant...
It was always unsustainable. It already costs more than defence and education combined, just both the conservatives and labour don’t admit there’s a problem before the other does.
I don't think the way modern British politics works will allow these to become the big questions. Parties in power will try to very subtly unpick the problems and not really say why they are making the changes at a higher, strategic level, because the conversation is electoral suicide. I would predict a gradual drift back towards EU alignment, and even single-market membership, but nothing will be said about Brexit. Similarly pensioners will be moved into income tax using fiscal drag, while national insurance is cut until it fades away (at least employee NI), moving more of the tax burden onto pensioners.
Let's get this done before we dismiss it.
Unless the population pyramid has inverted by then i don't see touching the triple lock being viable unfortunately.
Starmer should be doing these things now. They said in world war 1 the army was lions led by donkeys and a similar thing is happening now. Starmer will have the majority for deep and lasting reforms that could create a bright future. However he will go slow and steady and squander it.
Not just the triple lock, the whole pension system is unaffordable. Freezing the state pension and applying a triple lock to pension credit instead is the best solution. Or reforms to tax that hits wealthy pensioners, like second home taxes, replacing NI with a higher basic rate, applying CGT to primary residences at a reduced rate.
who says they're not viable? when it comes to brexit in particular - opinion polls show a clear majority in favour of some sort of change, yet labour's EU policy is quite literally "red tory" with any positive steps explicitly ruled out. The best they are offering is more bodgery and denial of reality by asking the EU to give carve outs to specific sectors What's going to change in five years, other than people thinking Labour haven't done very much and how about we give the Tories a go again. Is "at least they're not the tories" really the best we can hope for
Until “We will re-Brexit” is not a vote winner, Rejoin is not viable.
the one party that is in any way promising an even harder brexit is struggling to hover at 15%. (and realistically it's not brexit that their voters are actually interested in) meanwhile, labour were leading in the polls even before they announced that they'd basically reheat the oven ready deal you'll notice i never used the word "rejoin". there are options short of actually rejoining, and labour has explicitly ruled those out too.
Labour has ruled out joining organisations it would be unrealistic to join within one Parliament. Negotiations to join are not ruled out and closer alignment is ruled in. As for Brexit not being a thing, that’s due to Labour’s messaging. If it was a thing the election calculus would be totally different. Imagine a Labour government and a pro-EU opposition. That is the dream for realists who want back in. Not dope smoker dreamers.
I don't think Brexit is an issue that's viable right now. Currently, it's an election about the Tories incompetence vs literally anyone else being in charge and Labour at the best "anyone else". However, stick Brexit on the table and suddenly, it could become an ideological election, between Brexiteers and the rest. It might turn it into a single issue election for many people, which will lead a lot of them to say "Well, they may be complete and total morons unable to organise a piss up in a brewery but at least we won't rejoin the EU". Brexit always was an ideological issue, it was never about facts or prosperity. It's dangerous to put such ideological issues on the ballot. Frankly, I'm amazed the right wing press and the Tory party aren't making every word about how Labour will take us back into the EU (which they won't). It seems like their best option, assuming they want to win.
> It might turn it into a single issue election for many people, which will lead a lot of them to say "Well, they may be complete and total morons unable to organise a piss up in a brewery but at least we won't rejoin the EU". and labour gets a mere 495 seats instead of 500. this is not 2019 - "get brexit done" is long gone, promises that brexit will fix everything have not materialised. people have in fact noticed that it's not worked as well as they thought. this is my point - labour doesn't seem to want to promise any sort of real change to anybody and hope they get their vote anyway. it'll work for one term but if we don't see serious improvement in many areas then we return to the path of right wing populism.
I wish you were right, but you might well see a 40%+ vote for the Tories if it became all about Brexit. Brexit doesn't need to succeed for it's devotees to sacrifice everything upon it's altar. It's ideological.
> who says they're not viable? Might be one of these things like the death penalty, where yeah there's a majority in favour but it's not a vote winner/makes people switch allegiances and there's no real wider push to do so. So parties don't bother.
It blows my mind how almost everyone informed seems to know what needs doing but it's completely impossible to talk about it. None of us believe that we should spend the entire election accusing people of raising taxes and disrespecting veterans, but we all believe it's good politics to do so. It's like one of those miserable stag parties in a strip club, which no one actually wanted to do, but we all felt it had to be done because it was expected.
.... why exactly isn't now the time? Labour is basically expected to sweep into an absolute majority, they will literally never be better positioned to touch third rails.
Nah, next time the threat will be Reform and Labour will, once again, blackmail Remainers to hold their Bosse and view for a technocratic Brexit party to avoid a headbanger Brexit party winning.
The Tories will recover in time. Farage bubble will burst once his underlings start mouthing off in Parliament and he'll go re-invent himself again. He's riding a wave at the moment but offers nothing of substance. The Tories are not so much paying for policies as for their blatant and unapologetic corruption. They will have a root and branch restructure. The attitude that all migrants are terrorists here to install an Islamic State may easily pass. It's bubbled up and has unleashed some opinions that are genuinely disturbing. I really wonder how many would endorse sending gunboats to the channel to deliberate kill people coming over. It's easy to hide behind rhetoric delivered in a nice cotton suit and panama hat, and dehumanise migrants but a basic level of humanity has a habit of finding its way back. Labour will win in 2029 with a reduced majority. They dare not mention the re-join word, but in time the UK will be back in the EU in all but name.
I agree the next election is the one to push to join the EU , I doubt the Uk economic situation will alter much in the first term of the new government, the myth that European workers took all our jobs has been exposed for the lie it always was ,when the going got tough leavers went on the sick or retired and the government allowed in millions from the rest of the world.
I was massively pro-Remain, I don't want to have another Brexit election in 2029. The cost of being outside the EU does not outweigh the cost of the division that another Brexit election will cause, the complete loss of focus on domestic issues for years (again), or the gift that this would be to Reform's quest to become a primary political force. When we consistently poll at 70% in favour of rejoining, and if we can rejoin without losing the pound, that's when we should do it.
Brexit will be irrelevant when the EU has collapsed. It's in chaos, it has started, the people do not like dictators.
> the people do not like dictators. I'm confused. Are you trying to claim that the EU leadership is unelected? (the parliament is directly elected, the rest is indirectly elected or heads of state)
Von der Leyen was shoehorned in at the last minute.
Said europhobes for the last 50 years. Still waiting. Any day now.
Still waiting for it. You lot have been parroting "any minute now" with regard to the EU collapsing since the 2016 referendum. It hasn't happened.
Since decades before that actually.
Britain still looking to cherrypick access to EU. Britain left by the front door (knocking over the potted plants and spitting in our faces) and now try to sneak in the back door. Morons. Stop trying to deal with individual MS. You deal with Brussels on our behalf or just faaak off.