Rachel Reeves, Labour Response

None so blind as those that will not see

 

Nobody "earns" a £million a year.

 

Cloud cuckoo land if you think labour shouting will change govt direction. They think they're untouchable.

 

There's only one thing you need to know.

THIS COUNTRY IS BEING RUN BY SOMEONE FROM LEEDS.

We're done.

 

Man who doesn’t like Labour writes diatribe criticizing Labour.
Nothing to see here.

Until Farage makes his play at the next election. Those red wall voters who were conned into voting for the tories won’t come back to Labour imo

 

Is Jimmy Savile her dad?

 

There is a similarity now you mention it...

 

A lie peddled and repeated by those whose need it benefits at the time. The introduction of the minimum wage was supposed to “kill business”. It didn’t and a raise now won’t.

pay workers a fair living wage. It’s not much to ask.

 

What cut off off point would you think is suitable/acceptable to apply a higher taxation on higher earners?

What figure is actually classed as a high earner these days?

 

Rachel Reeves, a former economist at the Bank of England. Kami Kwasi ex Eton with degree in classics and history. Anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size knows who can be trusted with the UK economy.

 

In fairness he also has a Phd in Economic history and was a Financial Analyst at JP Morgan Chase to name just one financial institution he worked for. That said, Reeves has a pretty impressive educational and early employment track record.

 

State school educated and so are her children. She did win local chess competitions too,growing up. Her parents were in the Salvation army too. She has written a number of books on women MPs and the fight for suffrage,supports the rights of women MPs of all parties in parliament.

 

Labour might have to wait for a general election if the opposition end up with a new leadership contest.

 

I rarely comment on the political threads on here as everyone argues from pre-set and immovable standpoints it seems and this one seems no different.

However, I watched the whole Rachel Reeves speech and imho thought it was absolutely cracking and spot on. Plenty of detail in relation to the (essential) green economy, a living (not minimum) wage for all and fair pay for public sector workers, as well as renationalisation of railways, more nurses, more GPs and more hospital doctors.

The windfall tax was definitely mentioned by Reeves and in terms of policies isn't it the case that the only two vaguely sensible policies the Tories have put in, namely their (half-arsed) version of the windfall tax and the energy price freeze (albeit at a 33% higher level than Labour proposed) were Labour policies that the opposition forced them into by winning the arguments. All the stuff that Thrush and Kami have come up with on their own has been nuts.

 

Yep. I’ve discussed this before but its a fallacy. I’ve got an economics degree and did an assignment on what would happen if the minimum wage was increased to the real living wage and read a lot of empirical papers on the subject. You will struggle to find any that support the idea that raising the minimum wage will destroy businesses. It's simply not true.

 

Surely a logical course of action (I say "logical" so beyond the comprehension of Truss and Kwarteng and most previous Govts) to gradually wean UK businesses large, medium and small off paying minimum wage. IF all business and Public sector workers were paid a living wage the Welfare budget could be slashed since all the various benefits paid to workers (which in effect are simply a transfer of taxpayers money to businesses) could cease. In turn, those savings could in part mitigate businesses' increased wages costs by reducing things like Corporation tax and business rates.
I appreciate this could not be done in an instant but a gradual transfer of liability for a living wage for all workers from benefits to businesses could be achieved if the will was there. As someone posted earlier, most people would rather have functioning hospitals, efficient cheap transport infrastructure, good accessible education, national security and efficient police force/legal system i.e. a decent 'quality of life' than lower taxes' which come at an unacceptable cost.
I know all that is a 'pipe dream' as it would require huge efforts from Government and the 'establishment' who both prefer the status quo and so nothing will happen.

 

Most of the "welfare budget" is pensions, but the majority of the universal credit payments are to people in employment - and roughly 250,000 of them are going to be forced to find higher paying work. Which begs the question of who is going to do those jobs that they are currently doing?

In 2021, the UC budget was £80bn (pandemic rises) of which roughly £38.2bn was paid out in UC. It seems to me that it would be more cost effective to give everyone that money and recoup it through tax changes than it would be to spend more on administration costs than is actually given out to those who need it. So everyone gets UC and everyone working pays more tax.

 

All research shows that extra money for the lowest paid is more money flowing in the economy. So those businesses that employ people on minimum wage might go under if that money is not flowing around.

But tax cuts for the rich tens to end with the money going into bank accounts, some of which will be offshore and some of which will not be investing in small businesses because the economy is tanking ,so that money is taken out of the economy.

 

That is my point. The who is going to do the jobs nobody wants? argument is primarily ... because they are so badly paid . IF every worker is paid a living wage then they would have a lower staff turnovers (which in itself can be a substantial cost)

It is a scandal that in the UK benefits , particularly UC to 'top up' inadequate wages is needed. Businesses of all sizes and Public sector should be capable of paying the living wage as a minimum the former helped by lowering business taxation and business rates funded in part by reduced Govt benefits costs and the higher wages, with more people in gainful employment (so long as the minimum wage is above the tax allowance and they pay some tax at least) boosts revenue.
Child care costs is of course a major issue since the additional household income when both partners in a relationship work can often be cancelled out. The welfare state should be about supporting people who are in a situation where they cannot for whatever reason work, either for a period of time or permanently. It should not,IMO, as it is now, be needed for people who are working.

 

Reeves is one of the few (blue or red) that seems to grasp that she doesn't have the god given right to be in parliament dictating to us. I think she gets it. Which is a world away from the lunatics currently in charge. I think there's a way to go yet before her ineffectual boss can cement their poll lead into a majority. We'll probably all be living under bridges eating grass by then though.