The Student Room Group

5th March 2025: ‘Labours’ Real first Budget– fiscal years 25/26.

Most are unaware of what policies the Labour Party will seek implement upon taking up office.

Below are a list of policies which could be put into place in Labour's first Budget in order to boost economic growth, stimulate the economy and enhance quality of living amongst all UK citizens.

Abolish DWP spending and introduce a ‘flat rate’ payment of £1,500 per month for all over 16 total estimated cost: £900 billion per year.

Introduce a ‘spending card’ whereby £750.00 per month of the ‘flat rate’ payment will automatically be placed onto a card with which individuals have 30 days to use the full balance of otherwise the rest of the payment will be clawed back.

Introduce a 100% rate of VAT for any payments made via the new ‘spending card’ this measure at full capacity would help claw back £225 billion in taxation and boost overall consumer spending.

Abolish National Insurance and Income Tax and introduce a one-tiered system of ‘taxed’ income equal to 50% per £1 earned this means a worker who earns £11.87 per hour, or £1,900 per month, working 40 hours, will pay £950.00 per month in taxation, although with the additional £750.00 per month in terms of the ‘flat rate’ payment and the 30 day ‘spending card’, the total net income would effectively be £2,450 per month.

If the employment rate decreased from 33 million to 15 million, the combination of the new tax system, even if the average wage dropped to £25,000 per year, would be £190 billion.

Increase the ‘overall’ rate of VAT from 20% to 100% for all goods, including for exempted items.

Seek to relax ‘import’ rules concerning goods coming to the UK liberalise rules to ensure at least 95% of all ‘consumable’ goods and other products are imported to the UK Introduce 0% rates of import tariffs for all goods and reduce all customs paperwork to nil.

Immediately seek to finance, over a period of 50 years, 100% of all UK housing stock at a fixed rate of 4.35% - this measure would bring all UK housing stock into public ownership and cost £300 billion per year after this measure is in place, introduce a ‘property tax’ of £85 per month, or £1,020 per year to help offset the debt and reduce household bills this measure would bring in nearly £33 billion a year of revenue.

Introduce a ‘membership’ fee of £350.00 per month for all 50 million adults in order to manage importing of foods and drink into the UK - introduce ‘collection’ points for all adults to access and receive one week’s worth of food/drink based on what they pick the week before. Based on the cost of 3 meals per day, per person, costing £5.25 (wholesale), this measure for all adults would generate a total revenue of £220 billion a year and cost an estimated £100 billion per year, resulting in a net cost of £120 billion additionally, based on one member of staff being appointed per 150 people and the total number of staff employed being 335,000 at £25,000 per year, the cost of wages and running costs would be £100 billion per year, resulting in a total net of £20 billion per year; additionally, the tax revenue generated would amount to £40 billion per year.

Introduce membership fee of £250.00 per adult in order to provide funding, generating a total income of £150 billion per year to fund 600,000 staff, or 1200 staff spread over 500 ‘import’ sites to deal with distributing goods imported to the UK to customers, additionally, the tax revenue generated would amount to £75 billion per year.

Introduce a state backed investment scheme whereby a £150 per month membership fee will be charged to all 50 million adults in the UK - generating a revenue of around £90 billion per year. On the 1st of December each year, 5 million individuals will receive a grant worth £10,000 which they have to spend within 7 days boosting GDP by an estimated £50 billion and generating £40 billion in terms of investment for the Government.

Use the £40 billion generated from the investment scheme to invest in 1000 state backed investment hubs across the country, with a total of £40 million per year per hub those hubs would have the capacity to issue grants of £8000 for a total of 5000 individuals per year. Those who receive the grants will have 14 days to spend the £8000, generating an additional £40 million per year, per hub in GDP growth.

Build 10 Nuclear power stations across the UK, enough to power over 40 million houses, finance the £350 billions of costs over a 50-year period at a rate of 5.85% per year, or £15 billion per year also invest £150 billion over 5 years in heat pumps/ground source heat pumps, solar, battery storage to reduce the UKs reliance of fossil fuels to 0% over 5 years.

Introduce a £100 per month energy and water membership for all adults over 18, generating a total revenue of £30 billion per year employ 35,000 staff, at £58,00 per year, to manage to cost of repair and other duties at a cost of £2 billion per year ringfence an additional £10 billion per year for other staff and materials generating a total profit of £18 billion per year. Introduce a 100% windfall tax on profits, generating £18 billion per the tax generated from the salaries will also ensure £1 billion per year of revenue.

Introduce working aged investment scheme’ whereby all adults in the UK are automatically assigned a £50,000 loan, for all 50million individuals , repayable over 25 years introduce a ‘repayment’ fee of £487.11 per month, automatically taken from the ‘flat rate’ payment give individuals 14 days to spend the £50,000, otherwise the remaining balance of the payment is automatically clawed back, allocated the £3.5k of interest per person into a ‘wealth fund’ worth a total of £175 billion per year.

To reduce GDP, use all of the £100 billion from the wealth fund to attract individuals to the UK who are able to work and provide additional tax revenue. Pay 10 million £10,000 each come to the UK stay in the UK for 5 years, after a period of 5 years, they would be able to access the ‘flat payment’. Assuming employment rate amongst the 10 million was 50%, at a wage of £25,000, the additional tax generated would be £125 billion.
Original post by EmilyJade24
Most are unaware of what policies the Labour Party will seek implement upon taking up office.
Below are a list of policies which could be put into place in Labour's first Budget in order to boost economic growth, stimulate the economy and enhance quality of living amongst all UK citizens.
Abolish DWP spending and introduce a ‘flat rate’ payment of £1,500 per month for all over 16 total estimated cost: £900 billion per year.
Introduce a ‘spending card’ whereby £750.00 per month of the ‘flat rate’ payment will automatically be placed onto a card with which individuals have 30 days to use the full balance of otherwise the rest of the payment will be clawed back.
Introduce a 100% rate of VAT for any payments made via the new ‘spending card’ this measure at full capacity would help claw back £225 billion in taxation and boost overall consumer spending.
Abolish National Insurance and Income Tax and introduce a one-tiered system of ‘taxed’ income equal to 50% per £1 earned this means a worker who earns £11.87 per hour, or £1,900 per month, working 40 hours, will pay £950.00 per month in taxation, although with the additional £750.00 per month in terms of the ‘flat rate’ payment and the 30 day ‘spending card’, the total net income would effectively be £2,450 per month.
If the employment rate decreased from 33 million to 15 million, the combination of the new tax system, even if the average wage dropped to £25,000 per year, would be £190 billion.
Increase the ‘overall’ rate of VAT from 20% to 100% for all goods, including for exempted items.
Seek to relax ‘import’ rules concerning goods coming to the UK liberalise rules to ensure at least 95% of all ‘consumable’ goods and other products are imported to the UK Introduce 0% rates of import tariffs for all goods and reduce all customs paperwork to nil.
Immediately seek to finance, over a period of 50 years, 100% of all UK housing stock at a fixed rate of 4.35% - this measure would bring all UK housing stock into public ownership and cost £300 billion per year after this measure is in place, introduce a ‘property tax’ of £85 per month, or £1,020 per year to help offset the debt and reduce household bills this measure would bring in nearly £33 billion a year of revenue.
Introduce a ‘membership’ fee of £350.00 per month for all 50 million adults in order to manage importing of foods and drink into the UK - introduce ‘collection’ points for all adults to access and receive one week’s worth of food/drink based on what they pick the week before. Based on the cost of 3 meals per day, per person, costing £5.25 (wholesale), this measure for all adults would generate a total revenue of £220 billion a year and cost an estimated £100 billion per year, resulting in a net cost of £120 billion additionally, based on one member of staff being appointed per 150 people and the total number of staff employed being 335,000 at £25,000 per year, the cost of wages and running costs would be £100 billion per year, resulting in a total net of £20 billion per year; additionally, the tax revenue generated would amount to £40 billion per year.
Introduce membership fee of £250.00 per adult in order to provide funding, generating a total income of £150 billion per year to fund 600,000 staff, or 1200 staff spread over 500 ‘import’ sites to deal with distributing goods imported to the UK to customers, additionally, the tax revenue generated would amount to £75 billion per year.
Introduce a state backed investment scheme whereby a £150 per month membership fee will be charged to all 50 million adults in the UK - generating a revenue of around £90 billion per year. On the 1st of December each year, 5 million individuals will receive a grant worth £10,000 which they have to spend within 7 days boosting GDP by an estimated £50 billion and generating £40 billion in terms of investment for the Government.
Use the £40 billion generated from the investment scheme to invest in 1000 state backed investment hubs across the country, with a total of £40 million per year per hub those hubs would have the capacity to issue grants of £8000 for a total of 5000 individuals per year. Those who receive the grants will have 14 days to spend the £8000, generating an additional £40 million per year, per hub in GDP growth.
Build 10 Nuclear power stations across the UK, enough to power over 40 million houses, finance the £350 billions of costs over a 50-year period at a rate of 5.85% per year, or £15 billion per year also invest £150 billion over 5 years in heat pumps/ground source heat pumps, solar, battery storage to reduce the UKs reliance of fossil fuels to 0% over 5 years.
Introduce a £100 per month energy and water membership for all adults over 18, generating a total revenue of £30 billion per year employ 35,000 staff, at £58,00 per year, to manage to cost of repair and other duties at a cost of £2 billion per year ringfence an additional £10 billion per year for other staff and materials generating a total profit of £18 billion per year. Introduce a 100% windfall tax on profits, generating £18 billion per the tax generated from the salaries will also ensure £1 billion per year of revenue.
Introduce working aged investment scheme’ whereby all adults in the UK are automatically assigned a £50,000 loan, for all 50million individuals , repayable over 25 years introduce a ‘repayment’ fee of £487.11 per month, automatically taken from the ‘flat rate’ payment give individuals 14 days to spend the £50,000, otherwise the remaining balance of the payment is automatically clawed back, allocated the £3.5k of interest per person into a ‘wealth fund’ worth a total of £175 billion per year.
To reduce GDP, use all of the £100 billion from the wealth fund to attract individuals to the UK who are able to work and provide additional tax revenue. Pay 10 million £10,000 each come to the UK stay in the UK for 5 years, after a period of 5 years, they would be able to access the ‘flat payment’. Assuming employment rate amongst the 10 million was 50%, at a wage of £25,000, the additional tax generated would be £125 billion.
Absolutely horrible ideas 🫣
Reply 2
Original post by BenRyan99
Absolutely horrible ideas 🫣

Rachel Reeves has regularly spoken of creating a 'national wealth' fund in order to boost economic growth. This combined with measures to reform and boost the supply side of the economy and a simpler tax system is exactly what the ideas strive to do.

Hundreds of national investment hubs spread out through the country to target investment led projects, thousands of new well paid jobs and a simpler 1 tier income tax system combined with a 100% rate of VAT to help claw back additional state spending and reduce the risk of hyperinflation.

Labour have also spoken of a 'green prosperity plan' to bolster the UK's green economy, in a similar way to the policies above.
(edited 1 month ago)
VAT at 100% ? So the price of everything rises if we use the 'magic card' but otherwise it doesn't?
A government scheme to take control over my food and drink choices?
It takes around 7 years to commission and deliver a nuclear power plant, yet power from fossil fuels will be eliminated in 5?
All UK housing stock into public ownership - you mean take away my house, and thereby my choice of where I live, the chance of saving for something better ?
(edited 1 month ago)
Reply 4
Original post by SomeonesDad
VAT at 100% ? So the price of everything rises if we use the 'magic card' but otherwise it doesn't?
A government scheme to take control over my food and drink choices?
It takes around 7 years to commission and deliver a nuclear power plant, yet power from fossil fuels will be eliminated in 5?
All UK housing stock into public ownership - you mean take away my house, and thereby my choice of where I live, the chance of saving for something better ?
You'd be provided a card with £750.00 worth of 'spending' potential each month which you have 30 days to use.

Also, once the policies are in force, there will be 4 effective tax streams for the treasury:

Income Tax - 50p per £1 earned.

VAT - 100% for all goods.

100% windfall tax on state backed investment schemes.

'Membership fees' - which will fund state investment schemes where many thousands each year, millions in some cases, will have the chance to win many thousands each year to spend on products via the spending card; and other public services.

There would also be radical reform to the planning system to ensure all policies were swifty completed without delay.

Additionally, you'd be able to pick whatever food and drink items you want each week, every week, although the concept of going to a supermarket would be abolished and 'direct' home delivers would be the norm.

You'd pay a 'property tax' to remain in your property of a measly £85 per month, although you'd no longer owe any additional amount of the property - you'd also be able to save to move to another property if you so wish, providing you have remained in your property for a period of no less than 5 years and there is availability to move - similar to the social housing system although with much more capacity.

Finally, you'd be given a 'flat payment' of £1500 per month and if you earn £2,500 a month at the moment, you'd pay £1,250 a month in tax, meaning your net income would be £2,750 per month - with £750 (not including VAT) directly designed for you to purchase any product you want and the reaming £750.00 you can save, if you so wish.

Even after the membership fees, you'd probably most likely on an income of £30k a year be much better off - You'd most likely have well over £1,300 a month after bills and other costs, including the £750.00 worth of consumer spending.

You could either save this money, or save it.
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post by EmilyJade24
You'd be provided a card with £750.00 worth of 'spending' potential each month which you have 30 days to use.
Also, once the policies are in force, there will be 4 effective tax streams for the treasury:
Income Tax - 50p per £1 earned.
VAT - 100% for all goods.
100% windfall tax on state backed investment schemes.
'Membership fees' - which will fund state investment schemes where many thousands each year, millions in some cases, will have the chance to win many thousands each year to spend on products via the spending card; and other public services.
There would also be radical reform to the planning system to ensure all policies were swifty completed without delay.
Additionally, you'd be able to pick whatever food and drink items you want each week, every week, although the concept of going to a supermarket would be abolished and 'direct' home delivers would be the norm.
You'd pay a 'property tax' to remain in your property of a measly £85 per month, although you'd no longer owe any additional amount of the property - you'd also be able to save to move to another property if you so wish, providing you have remained in your property for a period of no less than 5 years and there is availability to move - similar to the social housing system although with much more capacity.
Finally, you'd be given a 'flat payment' of £1500 per month and if you earn £2,500 a month at the moment, you'd pay £1,250 a month in tax, meaning your net income would be £2,750 per month - with £750 (not including VAT) directly designed for you to purchase any product you want and the reaming £750.00 you can save, if you so wish.
Even after the membership fees, you'd probably most likely on an income of £30k a year be much better off - You'd most likely have well over £1,300 a month after bills and other costs, including the £750.00 worth of consumer spending.
You could either save this money, or save it.
Now show us the evidence that the majority of the electorate would vote for this kind of radical change.

A government wouldn't be able to put these crazy policies into practice without including them on their manifesto. With being at least 20ppts up in the polls, why on earth would labour risk the election by including a policy mix like this in their manifesto, when there's no evidence a majority of people want this?
Reply 6
Original post by EmilyJade24
Most are unaware of what policies the Labour Party will seek implement upon taking up office.
Below are a list of policies which could be put into place in Labour's first Budget in order to boost economic growth, stimulate the economy and enhance quality of living amongst all UK citizens.
Abolish DWP spending and introduce a ‘flat rate’ payment of £1,500 per month for all over 16 total estimated cost: £900 billion per year.
Introduce a ‘spending card’ whereby £750.00 per month of the ‘flat rate’ payment will automatically be placed onto a card with which individuals have 30 days to use the full balance of otherwise the rest of the payment will be clawed back.
Introduce a 100% rate of VAT for any payments made via the new ‘spending card’ this measure at full capacity would help claw back £225 billion in taxation and boost overall consumer spending.
Abolish National Insurance and Income Tax and introduce a one-tiered system of ‘taxed’ income equal to 50% per £1 earned this means a worker who earns £11.87 per hour, or £1,900 per month, working 40 hours, will pay £950.00 per month in taxation, although with the additional £750.00 per month in terms of the ‘flat rate’ payment and the 30 day ‘spending card’, the total net income would effectively be £2,450 per month.
If the employment rate decreased from 33 million to 15 million, the combination of the new tax system, even if the average wage dropped to £25,000 per year, would be £190 billion.
Increase the ‘overall’ rate of VAT from 20% to 100% for all goods, including for exempted items.
Seek to relax ‘import’ rules concerning goods coming to the UK liberalise rules to ensure at least 95% of all ‘consumable’ goods and other products are imported to the UK Introduce 0% rates of import tariffs for all goods and reduce all customs paperwork to nil.
Immediately seek to finance, over a period of 50 years, 100% of all UK housing stock at a fixed rate of 4.35% - this measure would bring all UK housing stock into public ownership and cost £300 billion per year after this measure is in place, introduce a ‘property tax’ of £85 per month, or £1,020 per year to help offset the debt and reduce household bills this measure would bring in nearly £33 billion a year of revenue.
Introduce a ‘membership’ fee of £350.00 per month for all 50 million adults in order to manage importing of foods and drink into the UK - introduce ‘collection’ points for all adults to access and receive one week’s worth of food/drink based on what they pick the week before. Based on the cost of 3 meals per day, per person, costing £5.25 (wholesale), this measure for all adults would generate a total revenue of £220 billion a year and cost an estimated £100 billion per year, resulting in a net cost of £120 billion additionally, based on one member of staff being appointed per 150 people and the total number of staff employed being 335,000 at £25,000 per year, the cost of wages and running costs would be £100 billion per year, resulting in a total net of £20 billion per year; additionally, the tax revenue generated would amount to £40 billion per year.
Introduce membership fee of £250.00 per adult in order to provide funding, generating a total income of £150 billion per year to fund 600,000 staff, or 1200 staff spread over 500 ‘import’ sites to deal with distributing goods imported to the UK to customers, additionally, the tax revenue generated would amount to £75 billion per year.
Introduce a state backed investment scheme whereby a £150 per month membership fee will be charged to all 50 million adults in the UK - generating a revenue of around £90 billion per year. On the 1st of December each year, 5 million individuals will receive a grant worth £10,000 which they have to spend within 7 days boosting GDP by an estimated £50 billion and generating £40 billion in terms of investment for the Government.
Use the £40 billion generated from the investment scheme to invest in 1000 state backed investment hubs across the country, with a total of £40 million per year per hub those hubs would have the capacity to issue grants of £8000 for a total of 5000 individuals per year. Those who receive the grants will have 14 days to spend the £8000, generating an additional £40 million per year, per hub in GDP growth.
Build 10 Nuclear power stations across the UK, enough to power over 40 million houses, finance the £350 billions of costs over a 50-year period at a rate of 5.85% per year, or £15 billion per year also invest £150 billion over 5 years in heat pumps/ground source heat pumps, solar, battery storage to reduce the UKs reliance of fossil fuels to 0% over 5 years.
Introduce a £100 per month energy and water membership for all adults over 18, generating a total revenue of £30 billion per year employ 35,000 staff, at £58,00 per year, to manage to cost of repair and other duties at a cost of £2 billion per year ringfence an additional £10 billion per year for other staff and materials generating a total profit of £18 billion per year. Introduce a 100% windfall tax on profits, generating £18 billion per the tax generated from the salaries will also ensure £1 billion per year of revenue.
Introduce working aged investment scheme’ whereby all adults in the UK are automatically assigned a £50,000 loan, for all 50million individuals , repayable over 25 years introduce a ‘repayment’ fee of £487.11 per month, automatically taken from the ‘flat rate’ payment give individuals 14 days to spend the £50,000, otherwise the remaining balance of the payment is automatically clawed back, allocated the £3.5k of interest per person into a ‘wealth fund’ worth a total of £175 billion per year.
To reduce GDP, use all of the £100 billion from the wealth fund to attract individuals to the UK who are able to work and provide additional tax revenue. Pay 10 million £10,000 each come to the UK stay in the UK for 5 years, after a period of 5 years, they would be able to access the ‘flat payment’. Assuming employment rate amongst the 10 million was 50%, at a wage of £25,000, the additional tax generated would be £125 billion.

This stuff is more mad than what you posted on your old account.

I guess 'your team' have left you....?
Reply 7
Original post by BenRyan99
Now show us the evidence that the majority of the electorate would vote for this kind of radical change.
A government wouldn't be able to put these crazy policies into practice without including them on their manifesto. With being at least 20ppts up in the polls, why on earth would labour risk the election by including a policy mix like this in their manifesto, when there's no evidence a majority of people want this?


They can't, which is why @emilyjade24 no longer has a team, nor does it appear intent to setup a new party...
(edited 1 month ago)
Reply 8
Original post by BenRyan99
Now show us the evidence that the majority of the electorate would vote for this kind of radical change.
A government wouldn't be able to put these crazy policies into practice without including them on their manifesto. With being at least 20ppts up in the polls, why on earth would labour risk the election by including a policy mix like this in their manifesto, when there's no evidence a majority of people want this?

It's rare for any party, nevermind one in opposition, to go into great detail concerning how the general policies they put forward will be implemented.

The indications in terms of 'public support exists in terms of the 20 point lead which you speak of.

Labour has currently committed, both directly and indirectly, to opening the door to the policies above - this is how:

On the 10th January 2023 - Labour committed to "fundamentally reform" Universal Credit to "simplify" the system - this would align with introducing a 'flat rate' payment and a new form of consumer 'spending card'.

On the 10th March 2024 - Rachel Reeves committed to introducing a 'national wealth fund' to attract private investment. This would align with at least 2 of the 'wealth fund' policies proposed above with funding coming from private investors - i.e the general public.

On the 6th March 2024 - Rachel Reeves stated a Labour Government would 'aim' to cut taxes. This aligns with the simplified tax reforms proposed in the policies above, introducing a single tier system combined with a generous flat payment, which would be the DWP reform, significantly leaves the majority of 'lower and middle' earners better off.

On the 9th February 2024 - Kier Starmer committed to 'reform housing in this country' again aligning with the policies above.

...and the list goes on.

The evidence is there in the form of fundamental system reform which Labour often speak of.
(edited 1 month ago)
Reply 9
Original post by Quady
They can't, which is why @emilyjade24 no longer has a team, nor does it appear intent to setup a new party...

I would refer you to my last post.
Original post by Quady
This stuff is more mad than what you posted on your old account.
I guess 'your team' have left you....?

I am unsure to what you are referring.

I am simply a Law Graduate with a desire to see fundamental legal and economic change within the UK.

My one aim is to assess what an opposition party, namely Labour, could enact if voted into office.

I have provided the 'evidence' in terms of how I reached my conclusions of what Labour could do in this thread.
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post by EmilyJade24
It's rare for any party, nevermind one in opposition, to go into great detail concerning how their general policies they put forward will be implemented.
The indications in terms of 'public support exists in terms of the 20 point lead which you speak of.
Labour has currently committed, both directly and indirectly, to opening the door to the policies above - this is how:
On the 10th January 2023 - Labour committed to "fundamentally reform" Universal Credit to "simplify" the system - this would align with introducing a 'flat rate' payment and a new form of consumer 'spending card'.
On the 10th March 2024 - Rachel Reeves committed to introducing a 'national wealth fund' to attract private investment. This would align with at least 2 of the 'wealth fund' policies proposed above with funding coming from private investors - i.e the general public.
On the 6th March 2024 - Rachel Reeves stated a Labour Government would 'aim' to cut taxes. This aligns with the simplified tax reforms proposed in the policies above, introducing a single tier system combined with a generous flat payment, which would be the the DWP reform, significantly leaves the majority of 'lower and middle' earners better off.
On the 9th February 2024 - Kier Starmer committed to 'reform housing in this country' again aligning with the policies above.
...and the list goes on.
The evidence is there, in the form of fundamental system reform Labour often speak of.
You've just listed a set of false equivalencies. Committing to reforming the housing system, doesn't point to either government or public support for this specific type of 'reform'. The same applies to all the other examples you gave. Aiming to cut taxes doesn't imply an intent or anything close to a plan to do what you lay out. Aiming to simplify the tax system and put a flat tax system in place isn't evidence of support for your proposed reforms to the tax system.

How you can argue that there's public support for this is laughable. So because labour have a lead without proposing these policies, this somehow shows there's public support for these policies....
Taking on reforms to the housing system, I would disagree with your analysis. The support is there.

On the 24th April 2024 in a recent Yougov poll concerning house prices, 26% stated they would be 'better off' if house prices fell and 46% stated it would make 'little difference to them' if house prices either increased or decreased. The majority exists in terms of the public either wanting to see lower house prices and/being unconcerned regarding house prices - therefore meaning the analysis suggests that the majority, or 72% in this case, wouldn't be negatively impacted by the housing policy above.

You've also failed to take into consideration the 'real world' impact of all the policies when implemented. If polled, the majority of people want to see economic growth increase, want to see reasonable tax rates, want higher salaries, want lower energy bills, want to see more jobs and want to see trade between the EU and UK made easier, which the policies above achieve.

Take one just one form of the investment hub policy above for example, over 5 million people each year would be able to spend a £10,000 grant on boosting their local economy, reviving the high street and improving the quality of life of the consumer. This is before the £750.00 per month of consumer spending via the 'spending card' is even taken into consideration.

On a side note, you also haven't given any analysis into why the individual policies have no public support at the moment or indeed why once implemented the outcome wouldn't be transformational? The energy policy above for example, GB energy a policy proposed by Labour, has vast support at the moment - the policy above would be part of how GB energy is formed.

Therefore, I would suggest that once the real world impacts of the policies above are in force, even if support wasn't there previously, which I believe it is, it is highly likely the combination of all the policies would result in large increases in public approval ratings for the incumbent government.

As I stated previously, how many opposition parties go into great detail concerning how their policy agenda will be implemented? 'We aim to cut your taxes' is labours mission - this lacks details and therefore leaves open the door to the policies above.
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post by EmilyJade24
Taking on reforms to the housing system, I would disagree with your analysis. The support is there.
On the 24th April 2024 in a recent Yougov poll concerning house prices, 26% stated they would be 'better off' if house prices fell and 46% stated it would make 'little difference to them' if house prices either increased or decreased. The majority exists in terms of the public either wanting to see lower house prices and/being unconcerned regarding house prices - therefore meaning the analysis suggests that the majority, or 72% in this case, wouldn't be negatively impacted by the housing policy above.
You've also failed to take into consideration the 'real world' impact of all the policies when implemented. If polled, the majority of people want to see economic growth increase, want to see reasonable tax rates, want higher salaries, want lower energy bills, want to see more jobs and want to see trade between the EU and UK made easier, which the policies above achieve.
Take one just one form of the investment hub policy above for example, over 5 million people each year would be able to spend a £10,000 grant on boosting their local economy, reviving the high street and improving the quality of life of the consumer. This is before the £750.00 per month of consumer spending via the 'spending card' is even taken into consideration.
On a side note, you also haven't given any analysis into why the individual policies have no public support at the moment or indeed why once implemented the outcome wouldn't be transformational? The energy policy above for example, GB energy a policy proposed by Labour, has vast support at the moment - the policy above would be part of how GB energy is formed.
Therefore, I would suggest that once the real world impacts of the policies above are in force, even if support wasn't there previously, which I believe it is, it is highly likely the combination of all the policies would result in large increases in public approval ratings for the incumbent government.
As I stated previously, how many opposition parties go into great detail concerning how their policy agenda will be implemented? 'We aim to cut your taxes' is labours mission - this lacks details and therefore leaves open the door to the policies above.
Again, these are false equivalencies.

Polls showing the public are concerned about how high house prices are... this is not evidence of support for your very specific 'solution'.

Gotta love your idea that once these policies are put into place, then people would see how good they are and you'd see the public support rise...... this is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Any political party could say this about any policy mix.

This just screams of someone who has never worked in politics/economics. You vastly overestimate how much public support there is for radical change, people really really don't like big sudden changes - especially if parties haven't aired these policies in detail before an election. This honestly reads like someone who lives in a bit of a bubble.
Original post by BenRyan99
Again, these are false equivalencies.
Polls showing the public are concerned about how high house prices are... this is not evidence of support for your very specific 'solution'.
Gotta love your idea that once these policies are put into place, then people would see how good they are and you'd see the public support rise...... this is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Any political party could say this about any policy mix.
This just screams of someone who has never worked in politics/economics. You vastly overestimate how much public support there is for radical change, people really really don't like big sudden changes - especially if parties haven't aired these policies in detail before an election. This honestly reads like someone who lives in a bit of a bubble.
I fail to see how the policy suggestions, if enacted, 'screams' of someone who has never worked in economics/politics? I have experience in the realms of Public Law and policy implementation.

If the policies above were to be enacted within the first year of a new administration, would you dispute my belief that the outcome of such policies would have a positive impact on the majority of the population?

I would agree that people don't like 'big sudden' changes, although, if you take the 'Mini Budget' of 2022 for example, the majority of the concerns were driven by the perception that the fiscal measures resulted immediate unintended consequences which would impact a section of the country negatively.

Take the governments 'furlow' scheme back in 2020, the majority of UK working age adults looked favourable upon this policy and even though public sector borrowing radically shot up during the period of 2020/21, due to the combination of the fiscal measures put into force, people looked favourably upon the government's response at the time.

Keir Starmer in his remarks during 2022 that 'Liz Truss' didn't crash the economy for working people, she did it for the wealthy (paraphrase) would suggest that working people mind less about economic turbulence, given the poll lead at the time was well above 20%, and more about the impact of turbulence on their personal finances.

People can stomach 'big changes' for a purpose, this ties in perfectly with Labours mission driven government approach. Back in 2020, the population banded together as part of a 'national' mission, Labour propose a similar mission led response. This would suggest to me that what you regard as 'radical' measures would be palatable and indeed not an overestimation of people's ability to stomach change.

If change is wrapped up in the package of 'mission driven government', in a similar way to Labour is proposing, as the polls show is an 'attractive' proposition in terms of Labours poll lead, the population are less weary than what you are suggesting.

I would suggest that the economic impact of all the above policies in combination, which draws from having a mission led government approach, which successfully worked for the incumbent administration in the form of furlow and other direct measures in response to the various turbulences, led to high poll leads during 2020. This could very well, if repackaged in terms of 'new missions' produce the same poll outcomes for a new administration.
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post by EmilyJade24
I fail to see how the policy suggestions, if enacted, 'screams' of someone who has never worked in economics/politics? I have experience in the realms of Public Law and policy implementation.
If the policies above were to be enacted within the first year of a new administration, would you dispute my belief that the outcome of such policies would have a positive impact on the majority of the population?
I would agree that people don't like 'big sudden' changes, although, if you take the 'Mini Budget' of 2022 for example, the majority of the concerns were driven by the perception that the fiscal measures resulted immediate unintended consequences which would impact a section of the country negatively.
Take the governments 'furlow' scheme back in 2020, the majority of UK working age adults looked favourable upon this policy and even though public sector borrowing radically shot up during the period of 2020/21, due to the combination of the fiscal measures put into force, people looked favourably upon the government's response at the time.
Keir Starmer in his remarks during 2022 that 'Liz Truss' didn't crash the economy for working people, she did it for the wealthy (paraphrase) would suggest that working people mind less about economic turbulence, given the poll lead at the time was well above 20%, and more about the impact of turbulence on their personal finances.
People can stomach 'big changes' for a purpose, this ties in perfectly with Labours mission driven government approach. Back in 2020, the population banded together as part of a 'national' mission, Labour propose a similar mission led response. This would suggest to me that what you regard as 'radical' measures would be palatable and indeed not an overestimation of people's ability to stomach change.
If change is wrapped up in the package of 'mission driven government', in a similar way to Labour is proposing, as the polls show is an 'attractive' proposition in terms of Labours poll lead, the population are less weary than what you are suggesting.
I would suggest that the economic impact of all the above policies in combination, which draws from having a mission led government approach, which successfully worked for the incumbent administration in the form of furlow and other direct measures in response to the various turbulences, led to high poll leads during 2020. This could very well, if repackaged in terms of 'new missions' produce the same poll outcomes for a new administration.
To answer your key question - "would you dispute my belief that the outcome of such policies would have a positive impact on the majority of the population?". I think the fairest and most balanced answer is that nobody (not me, not you, not anyone else) can claim to have an accurate view on what the outcome would be from implementing these policies, neither good nor bad.

And because none of us know what the outcomes would be (even if you claim the outcomes would be positive), my criticism was centered around the idea that there is absolutely no incentive for a Starmer government to campaign for policies as radical as these, given his current lead and how gradual the public want to the pace of change to occur at in practice.
Reply 16
Original post by EmilyJade24
It's rare for any party, nevermind one in opposition, to go into great detail concerning how the general policies they put forward will be implemented.
The indications in terms of 'public support exists in terms of the 20 point lead which you speak of.
Labour has currently committed, both directly and indirectly, to opening the door to the policies above - this is how:
On the 10th January 2023 - Labour committed to "fundamentally reform" Universal Credit to "simplify" the system - this would align with introducing a 'flat rate' payment and a new form of consumer 'spending card'.
On the 10th March 2024 - Rachel Reeves committed to introducing a 'national wealth fund' to attract private investment. This would align with at least 2 of the 'wealth fund' policies proposed above with funding coming from private investors - i.e the general public.
On the 6th March 2024 - Rachel Reeves stated a Labour Government would 'aim' to cut taxes. This aligns with the simplified tax reforms proposed in the policies above, introducing a single tier system combined with a generous flat payment, which would be the DWP reform, significantly leaves the majority of 'lower and middle' earners better off.
On the 9th February 2024 - Kier Starmer committed to 'reform housing in this country' again aligning with the policies above.
...and the list goes on.
The evidence is there in the form of fundamental system reform which Labour often speak of.

Yet you did before you failed to launch your party.
Original post by Quady
Yet you did before you failed to launch your party.

While I am not affiliated to any political party, the proposals by the UK government concerning Personal Independence Payment, namely issuing 'spending vouchers' and limiting eligibility will certainly be distressing for some claimants.

From my recollection, there may have been an account using TSR last year which prepared policies detailing potential reforms to the welfare state, quite a number of which are planned to be implemented after the next general election - if the incumbent administration wins another term, although I accept, this is unlikely.

The person in question prepared detailed plans to restrict access to the 'out of work' element of Universal Credit for claimants who fail to find work within 12 months and progressing to a system of 'prepaid' spending cards and vouchers for all forms of welfare.

These policies, if I can recall, were also combined with plans to abolish national insurance contributions and see spending on the DWP reduced in real terms over a period of 5 years.
(edited 1 month ago)
Reply 18
Original post by EmilyJade24
While I am not affiliated to any political party, the proposals by the UK government concerning Personal Independence Payment, namely issuing 'spending vouchers' and limiting eligibility will certainly be distressing for some claimants.
From my recollection, there may have been an account using TSR last year which prepared policies detailing potential reforms to the welfare state, quite a number of which are planned to be implemented after the next general election - if the incumbent administration wins another term, although I accept, this is unlikely.
The person in question prepared detailed plans to restrict access to the 'out of work' element of Universal Credit for claimants who fail to find work within 12 months and progressing to a system of 'prepaid' spending cards and vouchers for all forms of welfare.
These policies, if I can recall, were also combined with plans to abolish national insurance contributions and see spending on the DWP reduced in real terms over a period of 5 years.

Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist?
Original post by Quady
Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist?

Have you considered taking a more holistic approach to responding to a list of policy proposals which are intended to boost the standard of living for large sections of society?

Imagine the impact of the above policies on a struggling young mother impacted by the 2 child benefit cap. Or a claimant of PIP worried about the upcoming benefit changes if the incumbent wins in late 2024 or early 2025.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending