|
Post by moby on Aug 5, 2022 6:13:50 GMT
Has anyone else noticed the Government has gone awol Yes. I mean we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer don’t we?? Colin is expecting Starmer to make a statement. Maybe Keir’s been installed at the Treasury. Apparently both the PM and Chancellor are currently on holiday.
|
|
|
Post by thylacine on Aug 5, 2022 6:36:21 GMT
Yes. I mean we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer don’t we?? Colin is expecting Starmer to make a statement. Maybe Keir’s been installed at the Treasury. Apparently both the PM and Chancellor are currently on holiday. Surely nobody can begrudge them a well earned break!
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,245
|
Post by steve on Aug 5, 2022 6:41:48 GMT
UK heads into ‘deepening economic crisis’ as recession looms – business live
And the Spaffer regime goes on holiday or merrily merrily lies along in the leadership contest.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,245
|
Post by steve on Aug 5, 2022 6:46:02 GMT
Laughably the daily mail is accusing the head of the bank of England of being " asleep at the wheel " as opposed to passed out on a sunbed presumably.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 5, 2022 7:01:12 GMT
leftieliberal - "I cannot see the moral grounds for telling people who are on minimum wage that they should be paying income tax." I think if we tighten up what we are meaning we would be in agreement. Poor earners already pay an income tax, in the form of NI, as you allude to in your post, so the morality issue is already there. The point would be that on minimum wages, you might pay a 10% rate of tax, with NI and IT combined, with this starting rate applying to all, avoiding the daft idea that wealthy pensioners pay a lot less tax than poor earners etc. This is really what I'm talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2022 7:24:43 GMT
Illegal migration into Europe was touched on yesterday.
Times has some updates this morning :-
"Ministry of Defence figures show that 3,683 migrants made the ( Chanel) crossing on 90 boats last month, the highest monthly total this year. Almost 18,000 migrants have crossed to England this year, according to government figures, often courtesy of the Border Force boats. By the end of July last year, 9,300 people had landed on the South Coast, with 28,420 by the end of last year. Frontex, the EU’s border agency, reported an 87 per cent rise in migrants attempting to cross the Channel in the first six months of this year. Border officials identified 22,440 illegal attempts and crossings by migrants, mainly from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq.
The number of “irregular entries” to the EU over the same period rose by 84 per cent to 114,720. This does not include people fleeing the war in Ukraine.
Frontex’s recently published “strategic risk analysis” for the next ten years predicts that a “higher occurrence of migration/refugee crises . . . will test the effectiveness of border controls”. It warns of neighbouring countries attempting “migration blackmail” by using “refugee flows for political purposes”, and that “terrorist groups might use migration flows to cross into Europe and recruit new members from among international migrants”.
Frontex’s “worst-case scenario” paints an even gloomier picture, with predictions of a surge in illegal entries leading to violent crime and political unrest. It is based on the assumption that China becomes a military and economic superpower, that many countries object to the West “spreading liberal democracy” and that Russia aggressively attempts to expand its “security zone”.
The war in Ukraine means that pistols, assault weapons and rocket launchers are increasingly available on the EU’s borders. As a result the majority of smuggling gangs are “heavily armed and pose a grave security threat to border patrols”, the agency predicts.
“A high number of migrants and refugees will enter the EU in the next decade,” the document predicted. “Many new criminal enterprises become established in the EU using financial resources from war-torn areas to create and infiltrate legal business structures.”
Times
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 5, 2022 7:36:12 GMT
It's completely irrelevant whether the people whose estates are liable to inheritance tax are regarded as wealthy or not. They're dead: they don't pay any tax. Their children or other relatives are inheriting house-price inflation, truly unearned wealth, to which they have made no contribution. As people tend to marry in the same social register, it is common for both partners to inherit wealth. House-price inflation is never taxed during the owners' lifetime unless they are second-home owners. Tax hould be paid at the point of transfer to the next generation. Typicallly people inherit in their late 40s/50s when their parents die in their late 70s/80s. The legatees pay off their mortagages, act as the Bank of Mum & Dad for their kids' (aged 30+) house purchases, buy a holiday home maybe, & then plan early retirement. Inherited wealth thus contributes to house-price inflation & causes premature economic inactivity. It creates inequality by excluding those whose parents don't own their houses, who are likely to be on lower incomes/pensions. It's a self-perpetuating, middle-class racket. I have to say Robbie that on occasions you nail it better than anyone else on here. I couldn't just like this post, hence this quasi eulogy. What you describe so eloquently and cryptically is the main engine of inequality in our society. An engine that our politicians seem only too willing to oil rather than recalibrate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2022 7:37:24 GMT
Sunak beat Truss hands down last night.
Burley's usual flippant approach to her job , meant that neither candidate was asked :-
" How much new government assistance will be provided per household after the next energy cost cap review-how much will it cost-how will you fund it ?. Going forward do you agree with IMF that consumers should bear the brunt of higher bills to encourage energy saving" ?
I doubt either of them would have answered. Truss certainly wouldn't because it would expose the irrelevance of her proposed NIC / CT cuts.
It won't take long into her premiership though, before she is forced kicking and screaming to answer that question.
Presumably Starmer will have his answer readily available.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2022 7:52:43 GMT
It's completely irrelevant whether the people whose estates are liable to inheritance tax are regarded as wealthy or not. They're dead: they don't pay any tax. Their children or other relatives are inheriting house-price inflation, truly unearned wealth, to which they have made no contribution. As people tend to marry in the same social register, it is common for both partners to inherit wealth. House-price inflation is never taxed during the owners' lifetime unless they are second-home owners. Tax hould be paid at the point of transfer to the next generation. Typicallly people inherit in their late 40s/50s when their parents die in their late 70s/80s. The legatees pay off their mortagages, act as the Bank of Mum & Dad for their kids' (aged 30+) house purchases, buy a holiday home maybe, & then plan early retirement. Inherited wealth thus contributes to house-price inflation & causes premature economic inactivity. It creates inequality by excluding those whose parents don't own their houses, who are likely to be on lower incomes/pensions. It's a self-perpetuating, middle-class racket. I have to say Robbie that on occasions you nail it better than anyone else on here. I couldn't just like this post, hence this quasi eulogy. What you describe so eloquently and cryptically is the main engine of inequality in our society. An engine that our politicians seem only too willing to oil rather than recalibrate. There have been interesting studies of this:- voxeu.org/article/how-inheritances-influence-wealth-inequalityifs.org.uk/publications/15407#:~:text=Inheritances%20are%20likely%20to%20be,those%20born%20in%20the%201960s. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62622/1/Karagiannaki_Impact%20of%20inheretance_2015.pdf ps-this is from "Conclusion" in that LSE study :- "The finding that inheritances are relatively more important to less wealthy households than richer ones and therefore can decrease net worth inequality is common among all studies which use survey data to examine the effect of inheritance on wealth inequality (see for example Wolff, 2002 and Wolff and Gitttleman, 2014 for evidence for the US; Horioka, 2009 for Japan; and Klevmarken, 2004 for Sweden). This finding, however, rests on the rather strong assumption that inheritances do not affect households’ saving behaviour either before or after the receipt of inheritances."
|
|
|
Post by thylacine on Aug 5, 2022 8:02:49 GMT
All rather academic but Techne UK poll for the express Truss 56% Sunak 36%.
Let the good times roll!
|
|
alurqa
Member
Freiburg im Breisgau's flag
Posts: 781
|
Post by alurqa on Aug 5, 2022 8:06:22 GMT
Illegal migration into Europe was touched on yesterday. Illegal migration into Europe was touched on yesterday. To define it as illegal means they have done something wrong. Border officials identified 22,440 illegal attempts and crossings by migrants, mainly from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. I thought we were trying to help the people in at least two of these places. What happened there? Ah yes. We went in and did all the fun stuff, like shooting and killing, because that can generate good headlines and be done relatively quickly. But then the nation-building stuff, that actually changes hearts and minds we didn't do, because that takes years and years, is headline poor, and costs far too much.
But then again that's not too unexpected, because we can't be bothered to actually do any of that nation-building stuff here.
It's so comforting to know we have all that water between us and the rest of Europe. Stuff Israel, this is God's own country.
|
|
|
Post by thylacine on Aug 5, 2022 8:10:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 5, 2022 8:18:22 GMT
robbiealive
Am addendum to my earlier note that has derived from further idle musings. These are in no way running counter to your argument about how we should tax house price inflation and inheritance, which I agree with, but may suggest why politicians are seemingly so loathe to unpick the unholy mess.
I'm thinking about the millions who benefit from the existing arrangements, many almost unwittingly so. Are there many so socially conscious and altruistic that they will decline the benefits of inherited wealth and hyper property price inflation? Have we assumed, for at least two generations now, that this is how it works, certainly for many people. You buy a house, use it as a cash cow, maybe sell it for a steep profit, inherit your parents estate in time, then pass it all on to your children. This is the modern and accepted life cycle for millions and millions of people. Hard wired into our politics too. The image of hard working families wanting to hang on to what they've earned.
Of course, as you say, most of it is unearned and the product of fortuitous accidents of birth and circumstance. Responses to this fortune are usually divided into two camps, I find. Those who recognise their enormous good fortune and tend to altruism as a way of discharging a sort of guilt about it all and then those who convince themselves that it isn't really fortune at all and instead the product of their noble citizenship and earnest endeavours. These people feel both entitled and socially superior and tend to act accordingly.
Playing moral scruples with the subject is interesting. How would we react if somebody dropped a million or so into our bank accounts? Legitimately too because they left it to us in a will. Would it change the way we viewed inherited and unearned wealth? My father was a very wealthy man for the first fifty years of his life then after one risky property deal too far, lost it all and was declared bankrupt. He ended up living in a council house dependent on his state pension. His estate covered his funeral costs but nothing else. There was no inheritance but, potentially, I could one day have inherited a fortune from him.
I sometimes wonder what course my life would have taken, how even my views might have changed, had that been the case.
|
|
|
Post by moby on Aug 5, 2022 8:23:33 GMT
It's completely irrelevant whether the people whose estates are liable to inheritance tax are regarded as wealthy or not. They're dead: they don't pay any tax. Their children or other relatives are inheriting house-price inflation, truly unearned wealth, to which they have made no contribution. As people tend to marry in the same social register, it is common for both partners to inherit wealth. House-price inflation is never taxed during the owners' lifetime unless they are second-home owners. Tax hould be paid at the point of transfer to the next generation. Typicallly people inherit in their late 40s/50s when their parents die in their late 70s/80s. The legatees pay off their mortagages, act as the Bank of Mum & Dad for their kids' (aged 30+) house purchases, buy a holiday home maybe, & then plan early retirement. Inherited wealth thus contributes to house-price inflation & causes premature economic inactivity. It creates inequality by excluding those whose parents don't own their houses, who are likely to be on lower incomes/pensions. It's a self-perpetuating, middle-class racket. I have to say Robbie that on occasions you nail it better than anyone else on here. I couldn't just like this post, hence this quasi eulogy. What you describe so eloquently and cryptically is the main engine of inequality in our society. An engine that our politicians seem only too willing to oil rather than recalibrate. Also lets face it the law in relation to property rights and the tax system in relation to inheritance is the main reason why the tories win elections and enjoy being in power for extended periods. I've met so many people who see it as a fundamental right to be able to pass on their wealth to their progeny. It would be interesting to see any polling done on the change of attitude that takes place when people move from the renting sector to getting a mortgage.
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Aug 5, 2022 8:25:45 GMT
Re the AWOL UK Government GMB broadcast this today:
I pointed out a while back that the new energy price cap is due to be announced on 25 ( or 26?) August when the Tory Party will still be indulging itself in its third leadership election in 6 years with a couple of weeks of it still to go.
Will it have anything to say about that or anybody available to say it?
|
|
|
Post by thylacine on Aug 5, 2022 8:26:35 GMT
robbiealive Am addendum to my earlier note that has derived from further idle musings. These are in no way running counter to your argument about how we should tax house price inflation and inheritance, which I agree with, but may suggest why politicians are seemingly so loathe to unpick the unholy mess. I'm thinking about the millions who benefit from the existing arrangements, many almost unwittingly so. Are there many so socially conscious and altruistic that they will decline the benefits of inherited wealth and hyper property price inflation? Have we assumed, for at least two generations now, that this is how it works, certainly for many people. You buy a house, use it as a cash cow, maybe sell it for a steep profit, inherit your parents estate in time, then pass it all on to your children. This is the modern and accepted life cycle for millions and millions of people. Hard wired into our politics too. The image of hard working families wanting to hang on to what they've earned. Of course, as you say, most of it is unearned and the product of fortuitous accidents of birth and circumstance. Responses to this fortune are usually divided into two camps, I find. Those who recognise their enormous good fortune and tend to altruism as a way of discharging a sort of guilt about it all and then those who convince themselves that it isn't really fortune at all and instead the product of their noble citizenship and earnest endeavours. These people feel both entitled and socially superior and tend to act accordingly. Playing moral scruples with the subject is interesting. How would we react if somebody dropped a million or so into our bank accounts? Legitimately too because they left it to us in a will. Would it change the way we viewed inherited and unearned wealth? My father was a very wealthy man for the first fifty years of his life then after one risky property deal too far, lost it all and was declared bankrupt. He ended up living in a council house dependent on his state pension. His estate covered his funeral costs but nothing else. There was no inheritance but, potentially, I could one day have inherited a fortune from him. I sometimes wonder what course my life would have taken, how even my views might have changed, had that been the case. I personally feel it's more visceral than that. The need to pass on wealth and care even after death to your children. That explains why even those of modest means would turn on any government that tried to limit inheritance gains. It would and is regarded as an attack on the family and if you watch EastEnders we all know how that ends!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2022 8:27:56 GMT
Of course, as you say, most of it is unearned and the product of fortuitous accidents of birth and circumstance. Do you have data to support that contention. ? Take my case-working class parents who never owned a property and had no savings. I own my house and have some savings . I have gifted to my children and grandchildren ,over the last 20 years, more than our current savings. All of this was earned and invested in my working lifetime. I would be interested to see evidence that my case is -as you believe-a minority one.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,988
|
Post by neilj on Aug 5, 2022 8:37:40 GMT
Of course, as you say, most of it is unearned and the product of fortuitous accidents of birth and circumstance. Do you have data to support that contention. ? Take my case-working class parents who never owned a property and had no savings. I own my house and have some savings . I have gifted to my children and grandchildren ,over the last 20 years, more than our current savings. All of this was earned and invested in my working lifetime. I would be interested to see evidence that my case is -as you believe-a minority one. I think he was talking about the person who inherited the estate Plus of course property price rises are not earned as such, it just happens
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 5, 2022 8:43:43 GMT
Of course, as you say, most of it is unearned and the product of fortuitous accidents of birth and circumstance. Do you have data to support that contention. ? Take my case-working class parents who never owned a property and had no savings. I own my house and have some savings . I have gifted to my children and grandchildren ,over the last 20 years, more than our current savings. All of this was earned and invested in my working lifetime. I would be interested to see evidence that my case is -as you believe-a minority one. People's particular circumstances differ in these cases, and behaviours too, but surely the generality is that if you buy a house that then doubles, triples or quadruples in value in your lifetime, that derived wealth is largely unearned, despite you maybe scrimping and saving to buy the house in the first place? You may have improved the house too but you are essentially the beneficiary of an overheated and malfunctioning market. Similarly with other investments that balloon in value. If you inherit a large estate too that must be unearned wealth in the true sense of that word, despite it being legitimately acquired and maybe hard earned by the person passing it on.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 5, 2022 8:54:52 GMT
Colin. Re the crisis we are at cross-purposes. We all agree on the causes of inflation, esp the cumulative & tremendous effect of the exogenous causes, principally Covid & the Russian invasion. We should also consider Brexit, which had the immediate effect of lowering the value of the £ by 10-15%, something which has persisted, has had inflationary effects, but is taken as a given, as part of the air we breath. Brexit may have raised incomes for certain sections of the labour force but this effect, if it exists, is completely overshadowed by the current & impending collapse of real wages and of incomes derived from pensions & benefits.
Re Starmer: it is not the opposition's role to provide a full programme of how to deal with the crisis: that's the government's role. Rather, Starmer's job is (a) to criticise the goverment's proposals: but there are no serious new proposals to criticise: there is a vacuum (b) as a Labour leader to highlight the problems faced in the crisis by the poorest & most vulnerable in society.
His real problem is labour unrest in the face of falling living standards & the proliferation of current & future strikes among transport workers, barristers!, teachers etc, etc. Strikes will be cast by the Tories & the gutter press as a Labour disease & he will not be able to stay aloof - claiming that the opposition does not get involved in industrial action - in what promises to be a 2nd Winter of Discontent.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 5, 2022 8:54:52 GMT
Logic fail here from our Liz here:
"There are too many people in this country who are ashamed of our history, who talk our country down, who say the best days are behind us."
So if you are 'ashamed of our history' how do you think 'our best days are behind us'?
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Aug 5, 2022 9:07:39 GMT
I'm not clear why political parties think that long leadership camapaigns which are widely publicised are a good idea when everybody else can see and hear the internal conversations.
Levelling up?
|
|
alurqa
Member
Freiburg im Breisgau's flag
Posts: 781
|
Post by alurqa on Aug 5, 2022 9:10:29 GMT
Take my case-working class parents who never owned a property and had no savings. I own my house and have some savings . I have gifted to my children and grandchildren ,over the last 20 years, more than our current savings. All of this was earned and invested in my working lifetime. I would be interested to see evidence that my case is -as you believe-a minority one. Genuinely, well done you. Me too! :-)
(My other half wanted to buy a new kitchen with some of it. I have since given her enough to buy that kitchen. Funnily enough it's still in her bank account. Funny how things change when you're not spending someone else's money!!)
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Aug 5, 2022 9:15:04 GMT
Just very briefly. Because of the demographic changes (in particular the babies born later), and the ownership structures among baby boomers, the asset transfer has increased quite massively in the UK, and the social strata involved also increased.
All the Big Four and some of the banks produced estimates. The total value of asset transfer in the next 30 years is expected to be a quite unbelievable number (counting in the trillion pounds range). To make it more complex, millennials expect a rate of return around 15% (while their parents expected around 9%).
It doesn't mean that massive strata are not excluded, just that the stratification works differently. A huge number of Fintech wealth management companies focus on clients with less than 20,000 quid, and the number of clients is very, very high.
Now, there is still a moral issue, of course, but the way of addressing it would be different when knowing the information.
And just because crypto currencies came up yesterday - BlackRock invested quite a bit in a crypto currency company yesterday, so, judgements need to be nuanced.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 5, 2022 9:20:59 GMT
colin - looking at housing from the perspective of wealth inequality is but one part of the problem. The bigger part, in my view, is how we raise the necessary tax for the society we want. We've just had house prices rise 20% during the pandemic, 11% in the last year. When food or fuel prices rise like this it's call a crisis, but when rents shoot up after massive house price inflation it's - what? - a good return on investment? Whether or not housing value is a source of growing inequality or not is less relevant than the fact that it's an undertaxed area that we need to tax to fund better public services, especially when we consider that unlike wages and jobs, we can tax this without slowing the economy.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 5, 2022 9:25:52 GMT
Polonious to Hamlet's mother. My liege, and madam, to expostulate What majesty should be, what duty is, What day is day, night night, and time is time, Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time; Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit, And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,I will be brief. Your noble son is mad…” It's remarkable how many household words & sayings derive from Shakespeare. Indeed, so does the phrase itself. Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember, with advantages, What feats he did that day. Then shall our names, Familiar in his mouth as household words— (Agincourt speech? Hnery V} Some people do feel guilt, as you say, about inheritance, presumably because they know it's not earned? They often assuage their guilt by giving money to their children. Thus, the inter-generational transfer of wealth begins before the inheriting parents die, &, if they survive 7 years after making the gift, no inheritance tax is paid. Virtue is married to tax avoidance! I can scarcely think of middle-class, 60+ parents I know who have not endowed their children to some degree , usually via inheritance or other lump sums. In yr case fortuity deprived you of a possible fortune. Colin has cited some studies which I'll come back to him about when I have had tome to read them
|
|
|
Post by moby on Aug 5, 2022 9:50:02 GMT
His real problem is labour unrest in the face of falling living standards & the proliferation of current & future strikes among transport workers, barristers!, teachers etc, etc. Strikes will be cast by the Tories & the gutter press as a Labour disease & he will not be able to stay aloof - claiming that the opposition does not get involved in industrial action - in what promises to be a 2nd Winter of Discontent. Of course the tories will also highlight the 'unfairness' of the fact that certain workers (eg rail) using their unionisation as industrial muscle to outcompete other workers who do not have such protections. The head of the Bank of England was doing that this morning. They love the workers all fighting amongst themselves. It takes the heat off their decisions.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,374
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 5, 2022 10:10:45 GMT
Logic fail here from our Liz here: "There are too many people in this country who are ashamed of our history, who talk our country down, who say the best days are behind us." So if you are 'ashamed of our history' how do you think 'our best days are behind us'? The only way not to be ashamed of parts of UK history is to be ignorant of it, as many are. Can anyone truly say they are proud of the slave trade, the opium wars, the Tasmanian genocide, the Irish and (multiple) Indian famines caused by British policy, the Amritsar massacre, the Boer War concentration camps, the gas bombing of Iraqi Kurds in the 1920s - the list of horrors goes on and on. I'm not saying the UK hasn't also done good in the world but whitewashing the past won't help you understand why so many ex-colonial countries are cynical about British self-image.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Aug 5, 2022 10:20:21 GMT
Logic fail here from our Liz here: "There are too many people in this country who are ashamed of our history, who talk our country down, who say the best days are behind us." So if you are 'ashamed of our history' how do you think 'our best days are behind us'? The only way not to be ashamed of parts of UK history is to be ignorant of it, as many are. Can anyone truly say they are proud of the slave trade, the opium wars, the Tasmanian genocide, the Irish and (multiple) Indian famines caused by British policy, the Amritsar massacre, the Boer War concentration camps, the gas bombing of Iraqi Kurds in the 1920s - the list of horrors goes on and on. I'm not saying the UK hasn't also done good in the world but whitewashing the past won't help you understand why so many ex-colonial countries are cynical about British self-image. There's whitewashing the past and there's realising there's no need to apologise for the actions of generations long gone 6ft under the ground. The values the nations of the UK project across the World are overwhelmingly positive, and let's deal with the here and now. There is real evil in this world, but the UK is certainly not a fountain of that when one considers places like China, Russia and North Korea. We should be proud of what we are and values we (the living people of the UK) hold. The wokeist whitewashing can get stuffed.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Aug 5, 2022 10:22:57 GMT
Colin. Re the crisis we are at cross-purposes. We all agree on the causes of inflation, esp the cumulative & tremendous effect of the exogenous causes, principally Covid & the Russian invasion. We should also consider Brexit, which had the immediate effect of lowering the value of the £ by 10-15%, something which has persisted, has had inflationary effects, but is taken as a given, as part of the air we breath. Brexit may have raised incomes for certain sections of the labour force but this effect, if it exists, is completely overshadowed by the current & impending collapse of real wages and of incomes derived from pensions & benefits. Re Starmer: it is not the opposition's role to provide a full programme of how to deal with the crisis: that's the government's role. Rather, Starmer's job is (a) to criticise the goverment's proposals: but there are no serious new proposals to criticise: there is a vacuum (b) as a Labour leader to highlight the problems faced in the crisis by the poorest & most vulnerable in society. His real problem is labour unrest in the face of falling living standards & the proliferation of current & future strikes among transport workers, barristers!, teachers etc, etc. Strikes will be cast by the Tories & the gutter press as a Labour disease & he will not be able to stay aloof - claiming that the opposition does not get involved in industrial action - in what promises to be a 2nd Winter of Discontent. I really do not expect Government attempts to blame Labour for strikes to cut much ice at all - certainly little sign of it so far. The Cost of Living Crisis has now become so severe - and obvious - that those taking strike action enjoy a great deal of public sympathy.Morover, historically it is the incumbent Government that is blamed for periods of extended industrial action - as we saw with the Heath Government 1970 - 1974. Given that union power is far more limited compared to that era, attacking Labour is not likely to prove very productive in electoral terms.
|
|