Kier Starmer stepping down

[HFE Signs]

With Keir Starmer stepping down today, it's a good time to reflect on the decisions and changes made during his time in office.

Every government introduces policies that some people see as progress and others see as mistakes. Whether it's taxation, business regulation, energy policy, public spending, employment law, or immigration, opinions vary widely on what has worked and what hasn't.

Looking back, which decisions do you think have had the biggest impact on businesses and the UK economy? And if a new leader takes over, which policies would you keep, change, or reverse?

Interested to hear views from business owners, employers, employees, and investors alike.

 

[Newchodge]

With Keir Starmer stepping down today, it's a good time to reflect on the decisions and changes made during his time in office.

Every government introduces policies that some people see as progress and others see as mistakes. Whether it's taxation, business regulation, energy policy, public spending, employment law, or immigration, opinions vary widely on what has worked and what hasn't.

Looking back, which decisions do you think have had the biggest impact on businesses and the UK economy? And if a new leader takes over, which policies would you keep, change, or reverse?

Interested to hear views from business owners, employers, employees, and investors alike.

Just from a business point of view, the NI increase was a disgrace. It must be reversed. Plus continuing the tax free allowance freeze for everyone, hitting the lowest paid hardest.

But the things that piss me off the most are the lies. The pledges of what he would do when elected, all off which were ditched and the promise 'to ensure that the burden falls on those with the broadest shoulders' like pensioners with a total income of less than £12,000, the disabled. while still giving the wealthiest state benefits in the form of tax free savings accounts and pension contributions.

EDIT And how could I forget the support for the genocidal maniac who is the Prime Minister of Israel, making the UK complicit in war crimes and genocide.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Every government introduces policies that some people see as progress and others see as mistakes. Whether it's taxation, business regulation, energy policy, public spending, employment law, or immigration, opinions vary widely on what has worked and what hasn't.

When I was around 10 years old I recall my father pointing out the stance taken by politicians in TV interviews as unachievable, but easy to say when your in opposition. Neil Kinnock was a table thumper who softened as he rose through the ranks. He had to, to try and capture fringe voters.

Nothing has changed over the years. Kemi Badenoch supported every motion, every idea put forward by Rishi Sunak. Our local MP for 9 years, although you wouldn't know it, a day doesn't pass without her condemning anything and everything Labour do. (or any other party for that matter).

The bottom line is that politicians these days are like reality tv influencers, scrapping amongst themselves for attention. They couldn't work together managing the obvious 'xxxx up in a brewery'. Politicians working together is what we need.

It has long been said that if the Yanks could dig up JFK and 'AI' his presence that he'd be US President in a canter. Sadly our best bet to do the same passed in 2018.


RIP Ken Dodd

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Here was not good for business
However the constant change of Prime minister is very bad for our country and although I dont agree with Sir Kier the promise of a stable administration was a positive thing for UK PLC

It appears that running this country is no longer a serious business but just a game for anyone that can get involved

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

It appears that running this country is no longer a serious business but just a game for anyone that can get involved

No, it has become a celebrity game show, based on personality.

KS does need to take some blame in his own demise, though, as they have not trumpeted their successes at every opportunity - very poor communications.

 

[Newchodge]

No, it has become a celebrity game show, based on personality.

KS does need to take some blame in his own demise, though, as they have not trumpeted their successes at every opportunity - very poor communications.

Do you mean like trumpeting they had taken x number of children out of poverty by removing the 2 child benefit cap, while failing to mention they could have done it a year earlier but withdrew the whip from those Labour MPs who tried to do that?

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

hile failing to mention they could have done it a year earlier

They could have done everything earlier......

The Conservatives could have also done it, but never.

I think their mistake was removing it totally, rather than just going to 3 children!

 

[Newchodge]

They could have done everything earlier......

The Conservatives could have also done it, but never.

I think their mistake was removing it totally, rather than just going to 3 children!

Plus not changing the overall benefit cap which is aimed at people with more children. State benefits are a safety net. Capping them arbitrarily like this is a disgrace.

Benefit cap outside Greater London​

	Per week	Per month
If you’re in a couple	£423.46	£1,835
If you’re a single parent and your children live with you	£423.46	£1,835
If you’re a single adult	£283.71	£1,229.42

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

Agreed - the Conservatives added the cap, Labour removed it!

 

[Newchodge]

Agreed - the Conservatives added the cap, Labour removed it!

The Conservatives added 2 caps. Labour eventually removed one of them.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

... and, ideally, they should remove the other, however, they would need to fine the funds to allow that change - that is the real issue - robbing Peter to Pay Paul!

If we can get the economy going, with increased 'high street' sales, that will increase the exchequer's intake and allow for this. Is rejoining the EU a solution?

 

[Newchodge]

... and, ideally, they should remove the other, however, they would need to fine the funds to allow that change - that is the real issue - robbing Peter to Pay Paul!

If we can get the economy going, with increased 'high street' sales, that will increase the exchequer's intake and allow for this. Is rejoining the EU a solution?

As one of the best economists, John Maynard Keanes, said in the 1930's 'anything the government chooses to do, it can afford to do.'
If Russia launched an attack on this country tomorrow we would find the money to pay for it. We should have the same attitude to everything that needs doing. The government investing money into the economy will get the economy going. Every penny that the poor receive is paid back into the economy.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Above are all the problems

To much focus on benefits
Not enough focus on generating the wealth of the country and its people

 

[Newchodge]

Above are all the problems

To much focus on benefits
Not enough focus on generating the wealth of the country and its people

You generate the wealth of this country by investing in the infrastructure and the people. Invest in education, repair the damaged school buildings, providing work for tradesmen and putting money into the economy and investing in the future by providing better educated people who can move easily into productive work, Look at what was achieved after WWII by the government investing in the country when the coffers were supposedly empty after the war.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

You generate the wealth of this country by investing in the infrastructure and the people. Invest in education, repair the damaged school buildings, providing work for tradesmen and putting money into the economy and investing in the future by providing better educated people who can move easily into productive work, Look at what was achieved after WWII by the government investing in the country when the coffers were supposedly empty after the war.

It won't happen with the type of people involved
HS2 is a perfect example

 

[Newchodge]

It won't happen with the type of people involved
HS2 is a perfect example

True. As is the example of the state benefits given to he wealthy - tax relief at 45% for pension contributions up to £60,000 (or possibly £40,000) per year. Tax free savings in ISAs, to which they contribute the maximum annual amount. Those are state benefits they should do away with.

 

[DontAsk]

... and, ideally, they should remove the other,

Definitely NOT.

Benefits should not be uncapped. They should be set based on working people in a similar situation. I said "based on" not "the same as".

 

[pentel]

Every penny that the poor receive is paid back into the economy.

I know of several people on benefits who save up to the £6000 limit and then put any more into pensions.

As is the example of the state benefits given to he wealthy - tax relief at 45% for pension contributions up to £60,000 (or possibly £40,000) per year

Which is mostly taxed on the way out.

Anyone with a pension in addition to the state pension effectively pays tax on the state pension, so it is not as costly as it seems.

 

[MikeJ]

Nothing has changed over the years. Kemi Badenoch supported every motion, every idea put forward by Rishi Sunak. Our local MP for 9 years, although you wouldn't know it, a day doesn't pass without her condemning anything and everything Labour do. (or any other party for that matter).

Kemi Badenoch was a minister under Rishi Sunak. As such, she was duty bound to support government policy. It's collective responsibility, the only alternative was to resign as a minister.

 

[DontAsk]

But the things that piss me off the most are the lies. The pledges of what he would do when elected, all off which were ditched

Progress against the 2024 manifesto is actually very positive.

 

[Mark T Jones]

He's anti-business, as one would expect from a Labour PM (accepting that Blair was a career PM, not a Labour one)

He's a bit indecisive and lacks personality BUT my overall view is - be careful what you wish for.

Nine of the pretenders to the throne are standing out - and the thing i most fear now is a general election (I might even have to vote Labour to keep that racist out)

 

[fisicx]

Starmer’s big promise was change. People don’t want change. They just want things to work. Like fixing potholes, being able to see the Doctor, actually fighting crime, stopping corruption and so on. What they don’t want is platitudes and indecisiveness.

And why on earth did Starmer suck up to the Orange Buffoon I will never know.

 

[Newchodge]

I know of several people on benefits who save up to the £6000 limit and then put any more into pensions.

Then they are probably acting fraudulently.

 

[Newchodge]

Which is mostly taxed on the way out.

Why should it not be?

 

[Newchodge]

Progress against the 2024 manifesto is actually very positive.

"The burden should be borne by those with the broadest shoulders". To me that was the most important bi and there is negative progress on that.

 

[Newchodge]

People don’t want change. They just want things to work. Like fixing potholes, being able to see the Doctor, actually fighting crime, stopping corruption and so on.

That would be change!

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

fixing potholes, being able to see the Doctor, actually fighting crime

It is these visible, real life things that make the real difference to the general public - things that can easily be seen, regardless of whether they add any real value.

They also have to shout about the successes!

 

[pentel]

Then they are probably acting fraudulently.

Not at all, we have discussed this extensively and they are following the letter of the law. Universal credit is based on net pay so paying into a pension by salary sacrifice reduces net pay.

 

[pentel]

Why should it not be?

so are you saying you want it taxed on the way into a pension and again when drawing the pension down?

A great way to kill pensions completely.

 

[fisicx]

That would be change!

Maybe not change, just fixing things that shouldn't be broken. You know, all the things we were promised by successive governments of all colours.

 

[Newchodge]

so are you saying you want it taxed on the way into a pension and again when drawing the pension down?

A great way to kill pensions completely.

Yes, that is what I mean. Why will that kill pensions completely? Incidentally I agree here should be some tax relief type of thing on pensions contributions. I suggest a universal amount of £5,000, regardless f the level of contribution.

 

[Newchodge]

Maybe not change, just fixing things that shouldn't be broken. You know, all the things we were promised by successive governments of all colours.

But fixing those things WOULD be a change because they are not being fixed now, are they?

 

[fisicx]

But fixing those things WOULD be a change because they are not being fixed now, are they?

Ok. I submit to your logic.

Still doesn’t alter the fact that the things that people want fixing haven’t been changed.

 

[MikeJ]

Yes, that is what I mean. Why will that kill pensions completely? Incidentally I agree here should be some tax relief type of thing on pensions contributions. I suggest a universal amount of £5,000, regardless f the level of contribution.

So I could pay in £5, and get £5000 tax relief? That sounds like a good plan.

 

[Newchodge]

So I could pay in £5, and get £5000 tax relief? That sounds like a good plan.

If you are so low paid that your auto enrolment contribution means that, then why nor. It helps prevent the government having to give those people state benefits when they reach retirement.

 

[pentel]

Yes, that is what I mean. Why will that kill pensions completely?

For example you manage to save £30,000 in post tax pay into your proposed pension. You are drawing state pension. You then withdraw £30,000 from your pension. At 20% you will pay £6000 in tax. You end up with £24,000

If you had put it in a savings account you would be able to withdraw £30,000

"What about the growth" I hear you say, "it grows tax free in the pension". Well it does, until you withdraw it, similar tax to paying the tax as you go along in savings account.

With a pension you are locked in until the government of the day changes the rules, They tend to do this on a very regular basis.

That is why it will kill pensions completely

 

[Newchodge]

For example you manage to save £30,000 in post tax pay into your proposed pension. You are drawing state pension. You then withdraw £30,000 from your pension. At 20% you will pay £6000 in tax. You end up with £24,000

If you had put it in a savings account you would be able to withdraw £30,000

"What about the growth" I hear you say, "it grows tax free in the pension". Well it does, until you withdraw it, similar tax to paying the tax as you go along in savings account.

With a pension you are locked in until the government of the day changes the rules, They tend to do this on a very regular basis.

That is why it will kill pensions completely

What is wrong with putting the 30,000 in a savings scheme (and paying tax on the interest) rather than into a pensions scheme which is, after all, just a savings scheme?

 

[pentel]

What is wrong with putting the 30,000 in a savings scheme (and paying tax on the interest) rather than into a pensions scheme which is, after all, just a savings scheme?

Nothing. It just shows that your suggestion kills pensions.

 

[MikeJ]

A surprising number of people don't seem to understand the basics of a pension.

A pension scheme is a method of delaying income until a later date. The idea is it encourages people to save for their retirement, reducing the burden on the state. In general, it means you pay less tax on the income, as most people will be in a lower tax bracket and everyone (with an upper limit) gets to take 25% of their pension tax-free.

For the vast majority of people, it's a good, fair scheme. We gain as individuals, the government doesn't lose much and we get to live better retirements. The money (should be) is used to invest in the economy, encouraging growth.

 

[Newchodge]

A surprising number of people don't seem to understand the basics of a pension.

A pension scheme is a method of delaying income until a later date. The idea is it encourages people to save for their retirement, reducing the burden on the state. In general, it means you pay less tax on the income, as most people will be in a lower tax bracket and everyone (with an upper limit) gets to take 25% of their pension tax-free.

For the vast majority of people, it's a good, fair scheme. We gain as individuals, the government doesn't lose much and we get to live better retirements. The money (should be) is used to invest in the economy, encouraging growth.

I have nothing against pension schemes. I benefit from 2 myself. However, I object to the wealthy, who can afford to make contributions as high as they wish, receiving tax relief @ 45% when many receive no tax relief whatsoever because their income is too low to allow them to use salary sacrifice schemes and too low for them to pay tax. They are the ones who really need government support to save for their retirement.