General Election 2024....

[multitool]

Remind me the last time a socialist government was elected.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Remind me the last time a socialist government was elected.

In the context of the discussion*, that'd be most governments between 1945 and Thatcher.

* Please don't come carping about the definition of socialist.

 

[multitool]

bollocks

 

[Ian H]

bollocks

At least your arguments are concise.

 

[monkers]

At least your arguments are concise.

And plural enough to exclude Hitler and Farage.

 

[theclaud]

Has @icowden been round to whinge about VAT on private school fees yet?

🍿

 

[Beebo]

Has @icowden been round to whinge about VAT on private school fees yet?

🍿

It’s a Brexit benefit.
They can only propose this following Brexit, as VAT on schooling is illegal under EU regulations.

 

[multitool]

Has @icowden been round to whinge about VAT on private school fees yet?

🍿

You'll hate it, but Wes Streeting offered a very curt concise view on the private school whingers

 

[C R]

You'll hate it, but Wes Streeting offered a very curt concise view on the private school whingers

Did he have anything to say about private sector profiteering off the health service?

 

[multitool]

Did he have anything to say about private sector profiteering off the health service?

Whataboutwhataboutwhatabout

 

[theclaud]

You'll hate it, but Wes Streeting offered a very curt concise view on the private school whingers

If you're talking about QT, I saw it, and yes he was good on that subject. It's almost as if it were possible to back a progressive platform and face down opposition from a self-interested minority!

 

[multitool]

If you're talking about QT, I saw it, and yes he was good on that subject. It's almost as if it were possible to back a progressive platform and face down opposition from a self-interested minority!

I suppose that is one take, that you can extrapolate from this policy that any other policy you like is possible.

Another more realistic take is that it demonstrates everything you've been saying is untrue.

 

[theclaud]

Another more realistic take is that it demonstrates everything you've been saying is untrue.

🤣

The Lib Dems managed to get a charge on carrier bags. It's a "policy I like", but unlike the Lib Dems I wouldn't have accepted the dismantling of the welfare state as a trade-off.

The purpose of the policy for your beloved optics is clear - it's a (relatively soft) tangible tax-to-spend policy with a confident-sounding number attached that reinforces the shopping-basket view of economics and shores up the logic of austerity and the myth that the government can't simply choose to invest in public services. Look at how we have '"found some money" and made "difficult choices".

 

[multitool]

Alternatively, it's a first attempt at a tangible move to redress social inequalities by taxing luxury purchases. It affects only the wealthy () and attacks one of their principal means of maintaining their elevated social position.

Is it necessarily optically favorable? It opens them up to all sorts of potential attack lines.

Much of your post is just guff, isn't it. All state services are "investment".

 

[The Crofted Crest]

Bears repeating.

it's a (relatively soft) tangible tax-to-spend policy with a confident-sounding number attached that reinforces the shopping-basket view of economics and shores up the logic of austerity and the myth that the government can't simply choose to invest in public services.