Starmer's vision quest

[Stevo 666]

😲 Labour are finished

Lawyers acting on behalf of Yvette Cooper have said 'the rights of illegal migrants are more important than the people of Epping'

Labour just said the quiet bit out loud.

This utterly unacceptable statement should immediately trigger a general election.

Uh-oh, they were definitely only meant to silently think that...

Funny to think that Labour used to be quite adept at 'spin' back in the Blair era.

 

[CXRAndy]

To openly state, they are against their own people, truly shocking.

Autumn of discontent.

 

[pinkbikini]

NI on rental income for landlords? Why not? Some impact will get passed on to renters, but if it means fewer ‘landlords’ entering the first time buyer market then surely that’s a good thing?

Increased tax on profits of high-value properties when sold? Why not? Pretty fair way to boost coffers after years of Tory mismanagement.

Chances of this govt forming a coherent plan and sticking to it? Minimal. They need to either decide on policies and announce them or cut the rumours. They aren’t learning how to manage expectations. It’s really disappointing.

I also despise their ‘no tax on working people’ strapline. *Every* tax has the potential to be passed on to working people.

 

[briantrumpet]

Some unpleasant realpolitik from the FT, even if it doesn't even address whether Starmer should/could be putting a positive vision of the need for immigration to address the UK's demographic timebomb.

https://www.ft.com/content/9ddf3792-46ac-4e9b-872f-14bcb9a49ba6

Above all, you can’t lead a fightback if people are not listening to you. Polls show voters are already dismissing Starmer. If the prime minister does not want to gift Britain to Reform, Labour needs to neutralise the issue. This means looking both effective and tough. Despite some successes, so far it has failed to convince. Although open to seeking reform of the ECHR, Starmer argues it is not the core problem. He believes most problems can be solved domestically with reforms to immigration tribunals, moves to speed up asylum appeals, where waits are currently 53 weeks, and legislation to narrow the interpretation of Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the “right to a family life” and often frustrates deportations.

Labour also needs a new deterrent to asylum seekers who rightly calculate that they have a good chance of staying if they get here. But having scrapped the Tories’ Rwanda processing scheme, Labour has yet to find an offshore alternative. There will also need to be a hard-headed look at policies to promote integration among legal migrants.

But most urgently voters need to see the end of the asylum hotels. A promise to close them all by 2029 is far too late.

There is a fight Labour can take to Farage; that Mr Brexit is stirring up division with an agenda to deliver a Trumpist Britain. But voters will not listen until they see their concerns addressed. This is the hard politics of the moment. Winners do what it takes and right now a floundering Starmer is losing the second battle of Brexit.

 

[CXRAndy]

NI on rental income for landlords? Why not? Some impact will get passed on to renters, but if it means fewer ‘landlords’ entering the first time buyer market then surely that’s a good thing?

Increased tax on profits of high-value properties when sold? Why not? Pretty fair way to boost coffers after years of Tory mismanagement.

Chances of this govt forming a coherent plan and sticking to it? Minimal. They need to either decide on policies and announce them or cut the rumours. They aren’t learning how to manage expectations. It’s really disappointing.

I also despise their ‘no tax on working people’ strapline. *Every* tax has the potential to be passed on to working people.

You dont know the rental market. Landlords will pass all the NI levies onto the tenants.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Slapping NI on rental income is the start of a very slippery slope into whacking it on all investment income. It's a stupid move.
Just be honest and put a penny on income tax, increase the personal allowance to £15,000 pa to help the less well off, and maybe 2p on the additional rate.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Slapping NI on rental income is the start of a very slippery slope into whacking it on all investment income. It's a stupid move.
Just be honest and put a penny on income tax, increase the personal allowance to £15,000 pa to help the less well off, and maybe 2p on the additional rate.

I would vote for that.

 

[pinkbikini]

Slapping NI on rental income is the start of a very slippery slope into whacking it on all investment income. It's a stupid move.
Just be honest and put a penny on income tax, increase the personal allowance to £15,000 pa to help the less well off, and maybe 2p on the additional rate.

Is it? Why does it have to be a slippery slope? Specific targeted tax aiming to boost the tax take and open up market to property buyers - you know, the ones who actually want to buy a home to live in.

Not disagreeing with view on not wanting to tax investments more generally, but as a specific tax - is it really a problem? I think you’re prob a bit more financially savvy than me, so interested in your views.

Edit: penny on income tax is obv sensible, but goes against the bullsh*t Labour strapline

 

[Psamathe]

NI on rental income for landlords? Why not? Some impact will get passed on to renters, but if it means fewer ‘landlords’ entering the first time buyer market then surely that’s a good thing?

Trouble is that owning a property is an aset. That property could be sold and the cash invested to give interest which is not subject to NI (even has a higher Personal Allowance).

The country needs property available for rent (particularly as so many Councils have been gorced to sell their housing). Owning your own property is not for everybody and renting can have big advantages. So push all these landlords to sell up and switch to interest from banks and who will be providing the properties needed for tenants?

I strongly suspect that like Labour's NI change, WFS change, etc. it will have a fair degree on "negative unintended consequences".

I can see that without the growth we were promised and with such high borrowing rates (Reeves would love to get back to where Ms Truss put us) she needs to raise income but there are much better ways that won't have the unintended consequence.

 

[briantrumpet]

Chances of this govt forming a coherent plan and sticking to it? Minimal. They need to either decide on policies and announce them or cut the rumours. They aren’t learning how to manage expectations. It’s really disappointing.

They've been shît at this from Day 1. Each time they've had some contentious announcement, they've not bothered to prepare the ground, and then have played catch-up with the negative press. (Even more important to get people on board early when the right-wing press is so overwhelmingly ready to snipe to protect the wealth of their backers.)

Even within a small organisation, you have to understand what the member/public objections might be to a change in policy, and come up with credible (and hopefully genuine) reasons why the policy is correct.

 

[pinkbikini]

Trouble is that owning a property is an aset. That property could be sold and the cash invested to give interest which is not subject to NI (even has a higher Personal Allowance).

The country needs property available for rent (particularly as so many Councils have been gorced to sell their housing). Owning your own property is not for everybody and renting can have big advantages. So push all these landlords to sell up and switch to interest from banks and who will be providing the properties needed for tenants?

I strongly suspect that like Labour's NI change, WFS change, etc. it will have a fair degree on "negative unintended consequences".

I can see that without the growth we were promised and with such high borrowing rates (Reeves would love to get back to where Ms Truss put us) she needs to raise income but there are much better ways that won't have the unintended consequence.

Do you really believe that, considering the economic upside of owning rentals, *all/loads* of landlords will exit the market? There will still be plenty of rental properties won’t there? After all, everyone loves a diverse portfolio.

 

[CXRAndy]

You only need a relatively small shift in landlords leaving the market to create a lack of properties. This will drive up rental prices again. Force many to be unable to afford the rent.

Where do they go to live?

 

[Dorset Boy]

Do you really believe that, considering the economic upside of owning rentals, *all/loads* of landlords will exit the market? There will still be plenty of rental properties won’t there? After all, everyone loves a diverse portfolio.

There have already been a large number of landlords sell up due to the extra regulatory burdens imposed in the last few years. Adding NI to rental income will push up rents for tenants, whilst also making more and more landlords move out of the market. It's a stupid badly thought policy.
Rental income is investment income. That is why it is a slippery slope. And will it be on the rent or the profit?
Like the family farm tax, not thought through. All the FFT needed was to exempt those who owned and worked the land, and tax those who own the land and rent it out as an investment. Job done, not contentious. But that's far too sensible for Rachel and he dumb advisers.

 

[Psamathe]

Do you really believe that, considering the economic upside of owning rentals, *all/loads* of landlords will exit the market? There will still be plenty of rental properties won’t there? After all, everyone loves a diverse portfolio.

I do believe it. eg my brother is a landlord (he rents where he lives as that suits his housing needs better and rents out the house he owns). He has fantastic tenants who have been there for years and care well for the house yet he's constantly thinking of selling as he'd earn more from investing the capital - just he's emotionally tied to the house.

I suspected that were he to sell current tenants would want to buy, one partner works in London (same job for years) other runs her own business successfully for years (with accounts) but apparently renting suits what they want.

With interest rates and inflation rates we've got for the foreseeable future that balance is even more skewed on selling if landlord borrowed by buy properties.

nb many overlook the costs of being a responsible landlord, maintenance, building insurance, repairs (eg white goods), inspections, decorating, etc.

Those landlords that do stick if NI added will likely look to cut their costs for having the property eg reduce maintenance, delaying or not doing repairs, etc. so more would move into "disreputable" as well as rent increases to offset their increased cists.

 

[briantrumpet]

Like the family farm tax, not thought through. All the FFT needed was to exempt those who owned and worked the land, and tax those who own the land and rent it out as an investment. Job done, not contentious. But that's far too sensible for Rachel and he dumb advisers.

That's the bit I don't get about Starmer and his team - I assume that they are trying to be competent and care about how they come across (not the case with Johnson or Truss), but stuff like that would have easily defused the issue, and they would have had no difficulty in claiming the moral high ground. It's amateurish.