This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Silent Hunter]

The ULEZ is an issue in my area of Havering - and next door Thurrock is refusing to put up the signs.

Havering Council - a Labour/Residents coalition since 2022 - is against introducing it now, but declined to get involved in the legal challenge.

[CumbrianLefty]

Not putting up the signs is an especially pointless gesture - it hasn't stopped ULEZ happening and the councils in question aren't within its remit either.

[Blair]

Reshuffle next week apparently.

Should I try and guess or do where I think people should go…

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1697693257621442620

Man.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah, two nations divided by the same language.

[CumbrianLefty]

The number of Corbynites gleefully quoting a 90-year old GOP Senator as gospel is quite something.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Now there is actually an interesting THIGMOO story today: it has been briefed that the leadership is considering a clear-out of deadwood scandal-prone MPs for the next election, on the basis that they are an unnecessary risk. Names mentioned include Khalid Mahmood, Liam Byrne and Neil Coyle. I presume that the purpose of leaking the idea is to try to scare some of them to announce their retirements independently as that would not be so messy.

[CumbrianLefty]

This would certainly be encouraging in indicating that factionalism does not, after all, override all else.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This would certainly be encouraging in indicating that factionalism does not, after all, override all else.

The names in question - even to see them briefed - suggest that verily Lord Watson of Wyre Forest aka 'Tommo' is a spent force, though we already knew that.

[Blair]

Now there is actually an interesting THIGMOO story today: it has been briefed that the leadership is considering a clear-out of deadwood scandal-prone MPs for the next election, on the basis that they are an unnecessary risk. Names mentioned include Khalid Mahmood, Liam Byrne and Neil Coyle. I presume that the purpose of leaking the idea is to try to scare some of them to announce their retirements independently as that would not be so messy.

Yes the weird thing with the endless rows about selections is that iirc the NEC or one of its sub committees can basically say ‘no we do not endorse you’ regardless of what the local party said- this was iirc was done to Godstiff although he hadn’t passed a full selection.

[CumbrianLefty]

This would certainly be encouraging in indicating that factionalism does not, after all, override all else.

The names in question - even to see them briefed - suggest that verily Lord Watson of Wyre Forest aka 'Tommo' is a spent force, though we already knew that.

My dislike of him from the outset is one of my viewpoints that has been fully vindicated.

[MaxQue]

This would certainly be encouraging in indicating that factionalism does not, after all, override all else.

The names in question - even to see them briefed - suggest that verily Lord Watson of Wyre Forest aka 'Tommo' is a spent force, though we already knew that.

My dislike of him from the outset is one of my viewpoints that has been fully vindicated.

I assume you did not support him in the 2015 deputy leadership election, then?

In hindsight, not a great lineup. Flint and Eagle seem almost as bad as him.

[Blair]

Eagle was of course the choice of the left as they failed to get a true believer on the ballot.

I voted for Tom as I was a good member of the old right!

[Coldstream]

Why restore the whip to Coyle only to expel him later? Why not suspend Byrne at the time he was suspended from parliament? Ditto for Mahmood. I’d happily see the back of all three, but I’m not sure I buy this story just yet.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why restore the whip to Coyle only to expel him later? Why not suspend Byrne at the time he was suspended from parliament? Ditto for Mahmood. I’d happily see the back of all three, but I’m not sure I buy this story just yet.

Well, there is a difference between active disciplinary measures and telling people that they won't be allowed to run again. But it's always hard to tell quite how real this sort of thing is: that it has been briefed without significant pushback is telling, though.

[Coldstream]

Why restore the whip to Coyle only to expel him later? Why not suspend Byrne at the time he was suspended from parliament? Ditto for Mahmood. I’d happily see the back of all three, but I’m not sure I buy this story just yet.

Well, there is a difference between active disciplinary measures and telling people that they won't be allowed to run again. But it's always hard to tell quite how real this sort of thing is: that it has been briefed without significant pushback is telling, though.

My point, is it’s a bizarre decision to take now when at least two of them have been reselected - not sure if Coyle’s was delayed - and there was an opportunity to get rid of Byrne & Mahmood earlier that wasn’t taken.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My point, is it’s a bizarre decision to take now when at least two of them have been reselected - not sure if Coyle’s was delayed - and there was an opportunity to get rid of Byrne & Mahmood earlier that wasn’t taken.

Ah, but it's the Labour Party.

[Pericles]

Is he trying to make an election promise not to raise taxes at all or is he trying to dodge the question so he can pull a Biden and say he's only raising taxes on the rich?
Keir Starmer vows not to increase income tax for workers in major election promise

In an interview with the Mirror, the Labour leader pledged not to hike levies - including income tax.

Making the landmark promise, he said: “We will do nothing to increase the burden on working people, whether it comes to tax or anything else. They have paid a heavy price for the incompetence of the government after the last 13 years.”

Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves last weekend promised she would not increase the top rate of income tax. Asked if he could make the same promise for those on the basic rate, Mr Starmer said: “We're not increasing tax across the board.” Pushed on whether he would put up income tax, he said: “No.”

It looks like he is making life hard for himself in government. Can he really raise the top rate of income tax without breaking his promise-or is that frozen now until 2029? Also, I'm not fully across Britain's tax system, but wouldn't some indirect taxes-aka levies-increase automatically? Even a promise to not increase the tax burden at all on 'working people' will be difficult to keep.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He's saying that he won't put up the basic rate of income tax, essentially. Which he was never going to anyway, but this way he gets a nice big headline about how he's looking out for workers.

[JimJamUK]

It looks like he is making life hard for himself in government. Can he really raise the top rate of income tax without breaking his promise-or is that frozen now until 2029? Also, I'm not fully across Britain's tax system, but wouldn't some indirect taxes-aka levies-increase automatically? Even a promise to not increase the tax burden at all on 'working people' will be difficult to keep.

Given wages will rise in absolute terms, Labour could de facto increase taxes just by keeping the current bands and letting more people’s income drift into higher tax bands. The top rate of income tax pledge is obviously very cautious given it’s been Labour policy since Miliband, but it’s not a massive revenue raiser. If you wanted to raise a lot of money progressively through income tax, you’d have to go down the Corbyn route of increasing taxes on the upper middle class which risks alienating ‘aspirational’ voters. I can’t see Labour raising corporation tax or anything else that would be seen as ‘anti-business’. That leaves a rather limited number of smaller taxes that can be raised like tobacco duty or something.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you wanted to raise a lot of money progressively through income tax, you’d have to go down the Corbyn route of increasing taxes on the upper middle class which risks alienating ‘aspirational’ voters.

You would also have to do it by more than proposed in the 2019 manifesto, which was more of a genuflection in that direction than anything else. Tempting to point to all of this as an example of how different the politics of income tax is now, and, yes, that's true, but the change happened a while ago: even the 1983 manifesto is oddly coy on the topic.

[CumbrianLefty]

So, what has Nandy done to upset Starmer so much?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So, what has Nandy done to upset Starmer so much?

I don't think a great deal, but someone more important than her wanted her portfolio and that was that. She did well in policy terms there, but a Shadow post in which the balance between policy work and media opportunities is very heavily tilted in favour of the former will usually be a low profile one even if it's for an important area unless the portfolio holder is high profile for other reasons. This does seem to have been held against her by some people giving the briefings over the past year or so, which isn't particularly fair, but is how these things tend to go.

[CumbrianLefty]

She seems to have accepted her new post willingly enough, which is something.

Maybe the only blot on this is RAK walking out (hard to believe it will be for that long)

[MaxQue]

She seems to have accepted her new post willingly enough, which is something.

Maybe the only blot on this is RAK walking out (hard to believe it will be for that long)

Might she pay her proximity with Khan?