2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge

Either way it's not a good look for them. If Reeves in particular was not aware of the possible consequences of their pre election promises then there are serious doubts over her competence as Chancellor. If she was, then effectively they've been fibbing and keeping their fingers crossed.

I'll also be on the lookout next week for these pro business, pro growth policies to back up the rhetoric.

Oh boo hoo everyone.

Just imagine that they said it meaning the same as their predecessors would have said "the working man" and get over it.

The issue is that they don't know what the term means themselves. I think most vaguely politically aware types know that "workers" was political rhetoric, given that it nods to previous concepts such as "downtrodden workers", rather than being a formal reference to people who work. But not having a definition ready to hand, having clearly not seen the need for this is not suggestive of great political minds at work.

Presumably what they want to define as a worker (but are too scared to actually do so) is anyone in the public sector plus anyone in the private sector earning £100k or less. The reference to income from property and shares is presumably a proxy for folk outside this definition.

I would have guessed it's more anyone below retirement age whose primary income is derived from ownership of assets, rather than their job. Perhaps more ambiguously it's anyone who is wealthy, rather than simply high earning.

It's just repackaging the just about managings, or the squeezed middles or whatever.

Of course, 95% of employers are small businesses but 52% of people employed by businesses work for medium or large businesses.

But surely there should be a clue in the name Labour.

Obviously Labour will sting whoever and for however much it thinks it can get away with in electoral terms. But having a "national debate" as to what a worker is, based round the ability to write a (presumably non-bouncing) cheque (for those who remember what they actually) is quite depressing.

Why not just call it the "Excessive non-employment income tax" and have done with it? I don't know anyone who voted Labour thinking that "the rich" weren't going to get stung further, so I don't think being honest would actually have been too much of a gamechanger. They weren't that popular really, and only got a big majority as the right wing vote was split between the Tories and Reform, which had bog all to do with tax policy.

Tbh, the real political eye-opening has already happened i.e. the demonstration of decidedly poor judgement over the freebies etc. before we even got to needing a definition of "worker". I don't think anything next week will be a surprise conceptually, even if there are some unexpected "wizard wheezes" in the fine detail of how the broad shouldered will be stung.

Off at a tangent maybe, but I have to laugh ironically when politicians talk about making "tough choices". What they mean is having to make a choice that isn't going to be tough for them at all, as they are insulated from the impact, but that will potentially make them unpopular. Stop ****ing moaning and just make the decisions. No-one forces you to be Chancellor etc.

I reckon they haven't got the guts to do it.

1p on the basic rate of income tax plus a 1% VAT hike would cover most of what Reeves wants to raise and save all the frigging around with peripheral taxes. I'd also recommend they cut the public payroll to save a decent chunk of change, but have my squadron of pigs on standby for that.

A couple of part time landlords I know would disagree with that, given the hours they put in.

In reality most people in that situation have their employment or business income as their main source and dividends/interest/rent as a top up. However they seem to be saying that such people are excluded from their 'protected' category. Remains to be seen what that means in practice.

"But I thought they were going to raise tax but not affect anyone who has a job" doesn't pass the stupid test.

If we were starting with a blank piece of paper then I think you're right, as I think there's practice of amongst the self-employed to take dividends rather than salary so as to not pay NICs even though the income tax treatment of salary and dividends are roughly the same, I think. (Call to Stevo for clarification here!)

But Labour was obviously with the benefit of hindsight (and realistically with foresight) being disingenuous with its reference to "workers", for electoral gain, trying to win the votes of "rich" workers who might be expected to vote Tory by making them think they'd also be safe from increases in income tax. Labour didn't mean "workers" though. They meant "workers of the type we approve of" (i.e. low paid, preferably in a precarious existence and thus more dependent on the state and therefore more likely to support Labour long term. Such dishonesty is unfortunately part of UK politics, but it is most definitely not "fair enough".

But that's what they were trying to claim in the run up to the general election. The fact that a lot of people actually bought that line and voted Labour should tell you something.