The 2019 General Election Result and Aftermath

[bramling]

A bit like Brown's "bigoted woman" moment. It's stupid things like that which helped cause the rift and feeling (esp in the North) that the metropolitan political elite just didn't understand (and didn't care) about the issues facing the regions.

Whether it was intended to rub the right’s nose in it is a matter of conjecture, however I think it’s highly likely there was an element of vote garnering - particularly in London. Ethnic minorities are after all generally more likely to vote Labour.

The strategy might have worked if it hadn’t served to alienate others.

 

[AlterEgo]

Whether it was intended to rub the right’s nose in it is a matter of conjecture, however I think it’s highly likely there was an element of vote garnering - particularly in London. Ethnic minorities are after all generally more likely to vote Labour.

The strategy might have worked if it hadn’t served to alienate others.

Blair did many good things but the forcible implementation of multiculturalism was disastrous.

Labour’s pummelling has been a long time in coming.

 

[option]

I think this is an excellent result.

We need to move on from the utter morass of the last few years. We need to move beyond the arguing and get a strong government into power who can deliver, for once.

I haven't got everything I wanted. BoJo isn’t my first choice, but he will hopefully do the business.

Happy to own all of it - I just hope the exit poll is correct - and have just purchased a bottle of champagne (to keep on ice) to that effect - it would be so cruel if it were to be wrong and snatched away from us!

What in the past 4 years has prevented the Tories from doing these ideas already?

What has changed so that it is only now that there can be an increase in nurses being trained?
What has changed so that it is only now that there can be extra house building?
etc etc etc

 

[The Ham]

Ironically I live in a Northern village with a population recently grown to 6,000. Shops and pubs have closed down as most people travel to work in nearby towns and cities, so the village itself is a ghost town. It's now impossible to get a GP appointment as we have fewer appointments due to every single GP reducing their working hours due to the 62% marginal tax rate - we usually have to travel to another one of their branch surgeries in a nearby town or village! The school is grossly oversubscribed so new villagers have to drive their kids to school in the next town. Your philosophy only works if the infrastructure had been put in place to cope with a 20% increase in population - it wasn't! That's the same issue repeated all over the North - more people but no facilities, so the extra people have to travel to other towns and cities - unhelpfully usually by road as the railways are either non existent or unreliable/unsuitable.

School provision is defined by county, they would have recovered funding from the developers to provide extra school places, it sounds like the new places were provided elsewhere. It depends on how many houses were built to bring the population up to 6,000.

If it was 200 (or about 500 extra people) then that's only half a class per year. If there had already been people coming in from outside then they will (in time) no longer be able to apply to the village school and so it could be that it's about the right size and will be fine in a few years time.

However as there's 15-20 kids per year coming in from the next town over the county have expanded another school to stop the traveling. However for the time being, as the school can't kick those kids out, there's a load having to travel from the village to go to school.

If you look into it there'll have been a load of money paid by the developer to fund various things, often the problem is that councils don't always spend that money or if they do it's not obvious that it's for the benefit of the people that are supposed to benefit from it.

 

[Aictos]

Well as expected Labour leadership hopefuls are all fighting between themselves like a pack of dogs over a bone, Liberal Democrat’s are blaming Labour for their poor showing despite the fact that they stood candidates against Labour and Conservatives, SNP’s No1 priority is a vote on leaving the Union while the Conservatives for obviously reasons are celebrating a fantastic result.

The Labour leadership should accept full responsibility for the election disaster and not just part responsibility, it was clear that the majority of the UK didn’t want a hard left Government.

The Liberal Democrat’s biggest mistake was their former leader assuming she was going to be our next Prime Minister with them pushing more on her leadership and stopping Brexit.

The SNP rather then deal with their own issues such as schools, police etc like any devolved government should be doing is more concerned with declaring independence and leaving the union which is why I don’t think any vote on the union should be entertained until they get their own house in order.

As to the Conservatives well let’s see if Johnson can deliver as the alternative is a hard left Government.

 

[EM2]

Nicky Morgan, who had stood down as an MP, is taking a peerage so that she continue as Secretary Of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
What was that about unelected bureaucrats?

 

[option]

School provision is defined by county, they would have recovered funding from the developers to provide extra school places, it sounds like the new places were provided elsewhere. It depends on how many houses were built to bring the population up to 6,000.

If it was 200 (or about 500 extra people) then that's only half a class per year. If there had already been people coming in from outside then they will (in time) no longer be able to apply to the village school and so it could be that it's about the right size and will be fine in a few years time.

However as there's 15-20 kids per year coming in from the next town over the county have expanded another school to stop the traveling. However for the time being, as the school can't kick those kids out, there's a load having to travel from the village to go to school.

If you look into it there'll have been a load of money paid by the developer to fund various things, often the problem is that councils don't always spend that money or if they do it's not obvious that it's for the benefit of the people that are supposed to benefit from it.

Developer payments are one-off payments, they don't fund the ongoing costs of providing additional school places.
Education funding is also not under the control of local authorities, the funds go directly to schools.
So, even if you've predicted a need for extra school places in a location due to development, & the developer is willing to give some funds towards school infrastructure, there may be no funds made available for the staffing required.


Community Infrastructure Levy payments in Birmingham for 2017/18 was ~£2.2m
Council budget for then was ~£900m.

 

[43066]

What in the past 4 years has prevented the Tories from doing these ideas already?

What has changed so that it is only now that there can be an increase in nurses being trained?
What has changed so that it is only now that there can be extra house building?
etc etc etc

Nothing has changed. They’ve thrown a few bones to the electorate in order to get elected. That’s just standard electioneering.

It seems to have worked pretty well, to be fair.

By far the most appetising bone the Tories threw, of course, was not being the opposition.

 

[bramling]

Nothing has changed. They’ve thrown a few bones to the electorate in order to get elected. That’s just standard electioneering.

It seems to have worked pretty well, to be fair.

By far the most appetising bone the Tories threw, of course, was not being the opposition.

The first budget will be interesting for sure. Cut in inheritance tax perhaps? That’s always popular with middle England. Of course traditionally the best budgets are saved until nearer to an election.

 

[telstarbox]

The Labour leadership should accept full responsibility for the election disaster and not just part responsibility, it was clear that the majority of the UK didn’t want a hard left Government.

I would partly dispute that as Labour's policies on their own were popular - for example about 60% of the population support renationalising the railways. I think a different leader in an election without the background torrent of Brexit would have done better, even if the manifesto was identical.

 

[Journeyman]

The Liberal Democrat’s biggest mistake was their former leader assuming she was going to be our next Prime Minister with them pushing more on her leadership and stopping Brexit.

Swinson presenting herself as a possible PM was utterly delusional and made herself appear completely divorced from reality. Apart from anything else, she voted with the Tories on practically everything during the Coalition years, so it's no surprise they did badly.

 

[43066]

The first budget will be interesting for sure. Cut in inheritance tax perhaps? That’s always popular with middle England. Of course traditionally the best budgets are saved until nearer to an election.

Let’s hope so. IHT is the worst of all taxes, in my view.

People who have grafted all their lives and acquired assets (from income they have already been taxed on!) should be allowed to leave the fruits of their labours to their children, without the government coming back for a second bite of the cherry.

Yet if someone wins £100m+ from the Euromillions, their winnings are tax free. What message does that send out!?

 

[Darandio]

Yet if someone wins £100m+ in the Euromillions, their winnings are tax free. What message does that send out!?

You already mentioned IHT being a second bite of the cherry and the government takes 12% of each lottery ticket sale. If they then took from the winnings, what is the difference?

 

[Peter Kelford]

On one of the forms of Proportional Representation that might be adopted in the future, the 'result' of Thursday's election would show the Tories with 288 seats, and Labour and Lib Dem combined with a total of 289 seats. But, of course, the latter wouldn't have worked together and with the SDP to form a government, would they?

Without going to full proportional representation, and thus requiring all candidates to live somewhere in the (admittedly much larger) constituencies, we might end up with more minority representation. It's interesting how in my constituency Conservatives won with 16,768 and Labour lost with 16,618. It only seems fair that the two parties have (largely) equal representation as it may just be 160 people who didn't show up. In Blyth Valley (Labour Stronghold), The Conservatives won with 17 440 votes against 16 728. Would it not be more proportional if the Conservatives and Labour got a slightly more proportional representation? In Sedgefield, the voting was 19 609 against 15 096. Looking over to Labour seats, 16 210 votes against 13 095 were recorded. Here, the Conservatives probably merit a greater involvement seeing as they do have 2/5 of the vote.

What in the past 4 years has prevented the Tories from doing these ideas already?

What has changed so that it is only now that there can be an increase in nurses being trained?
What has changed so that it is only now that there can be extra house building?
etc etc etc

Let’s hope so. IHT is the worst of all taxes, in my view.

People who have grafted all their lives and acquired assets (from income they have already been taxed on!) should be allowed to leave the fruits of their labours to their children, without the government coming back for a second bite of the cherry.

Yet if someone wins £100m+ in the Euromillions, their winnings are tax free. What message does that send out!?

I have got to agree there. Not to mention the fact that when one is bereaved, paying 40% of your relative or friend's memory to the state seems to add insult to injury.

 

[43066]

You already mentioned IHT being a second bite of the cherry and the government takes 12% of each lottery ticket sale. If they then took from the winnings, what is the difference?

The difference is as follows.

I could go out tonight and buy a lottery ticket for a couple of quid, pay tax only on the purchase price, and then pocket £100m+ tax free.

Yet I could work hard all my life, pay lots of tax on my earnings, and acquire assets that I then wish to leave to my children. They would then suffer a 40% tax hit on the value of my estate.

Hard work and thrift is what society should be encouraging. That should be reflected through the taxation system.

 

[Darandio]

The difference is as follows.

I could go out tonight and buy a lottery ticket for a couple of quid, pay tax only on the purchase price, and then pocket £100m+ tax free.

Yet I could work hard all my life, pay lots of tax on my earnings, and acquire assets that I then wish to leave to my children. They would then suffer a 40% tax hit on the value of my estate.

Hard work and thrift is what society should be encouraging. That should be reflected through the taxation system.

It would still be a second bite of the cherry on both though, yes? They shouldn't get a second bite at either of them.

 

[87 027]

Nicky Morgan, who had stood down as an MP, is taking a peerage so that she continue as Secretary Of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
What was that about unelected bureaucrats?

Daily Telegraph points out that Lord Adonis, Secretary of State for Transport under Gordon Brown, might see it differently...

 

[EM2]

Daily Telegraph points out that Lord Adonis, Secretary of State for Transport under Gordon Brown, might see it differently...

If the point is it was OK for Adonis therefore it's OK for Morgan, that's fine. Except when the party that Morgan represents consistently rails against 'unelected bureaucrats in Brussels', it's a bit rich for them to create more in Westminster, no?
https://vote.conservatives.com/news/delivering-the-change-people-voted-for

The Prime Minister today set out his Brexit roadmap, explaining how a Conservative majority Government will unleash the benefits of getting Brexit done.

In a keynote speech alongside former Vote Leave campaigners Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart, Mr Johnson set out a bold and ambitious plan to make sure that people get the change that they voted for three years ago.

Speaking in London, Michael Gove said:

“Thank you for coming here today.

In the referendum three and a half years ago, people voted for change.

They wanted to change the way we were told what to do by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Daily Telegraph points out that Lord Adonis, Secretary of State for Transport under Gordon Brown, might see it differently...

Peter Mandelson may have something to say as well...

 

[EM2]

Boris Johnson to redraw electoral map to consolidate majority
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...p-consolidate-majority/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

Boris Johnson will redraw the electoral map of Britain to maximise the chances of an even bigger Conservative majority at the next general election.
Senior Tory sources confirmed that the Prime Minister is committed to reforming a system that currently gives an in-built advantage to Labour.
But the unexpectedly high number of seats won by the Tories from Labour last week might force him to re-think how he does it.
Detailed plans had already been drawn up for cutting the number of MPs from 650 to 600, which were blocked by the Liberal Democrats during the coalition.

The rest of the article is paywalled.

 

[43066]

It would still be a second bite of the cherry on both though, yes? They shouldn't get a second bite at either of them.

Tax revenue has to come from somewhere.

I’d rather the government took a second bite of the cherry from someone who has paid 60p’s worth of tax on a lottery ticket, and made £100m from it, than someone who has sweated all their life to acquire assets they’ve left to their kids.

 

[ainsworth74]

than someone who has sweated all their life to acquire assets they’ve left to their kids

Of course the easy way to protect an individual like that isn't to get rid of inheritance tax it's just to raise the threshold above which its due. Whack it up £750,000 or similar.

 

[muz379]

I have got to agree there. Not to mention the fact that when one is bereaved, paying 40% of your relative or friend's memory to the state seems to add insult to injury.

Yet I could work hard all my life, pay lots of tax on my earnings, and acquire assets that I then wish to leave to my children. They would then suffer a 40% tax hit on the value of my estate.

Hard work and thrift is what society should be encouraging. That should be reflected through the taxation system.

Of course you dont pay Inheritance tax if the estate is passed to spouse or civil partner , or the value of your estate is below £375,000 .If you give away your home to your children then the threshold increases to £475,000. And if your estate passes to a spouse or civil partner first then your threshold is in effect doubled .So you could own a house worth £950,000 which passes from yourself to your spouse , and then after their passing to your children and no inheritance tax would be due .

Even then , like income tax IHT is a progressive tax , that is you only pay 40% of anything above the threshold . So factually incorrect to say your children would suffer a 40% tax hit on the value of your estate . They would pay 40% of anything above that threshold , which has interestingly throughout history always sat above the average house value .

How likely are you to leave an estate worth this much (£475k or £950k) to your children ?

Of course the situation which can prevail without inheritance tax is that wealth can just be passed from generation to generation without actually being used to stimulate the economy , the measure of how many wealthy people a country has is largely unimportant , its GDP and household disposable income that is more important . I mean even in '86 when Nigel Lawson was reforming the old Capital Transfer tax as it was then known to get rid of the tax on lifetime gifts he did nothing to manifestly change the idea of tax on inheritance , even thatcherite's knew the issues unmoderated inheritance could cause .

 

[adrock1976]

"If you vote to remain in the United Kingdom, Scotland will remain in the European Union" (words more or less to that effect) - David Cameron, the then Prime Minister in 2014 in the lead up to the Scottish independence referendum.

It seems that Scotland (as well as Northern Ireland) have been sold a lie by the elite in Westminster, as in the 2016 referendum, they both voted to remain. This has led to a democratic deficit more so over the last three years in that Westminster have not listened to the concerns of Northern Ireland and Scotland, with the biggest threat in the near future being the break up of the United Kingdom. With the three types of nationalism (England - Conservative, Scotland - SNP, and Northern Ireland - Sinn Fein) returning the most number of MPs in 2019 for those parties in those parts of the UK, I believe it is this rather than had the UK (as a whole) remained in the EU that will see the end of the UK as we know it.

Again, Scotland (this may possibly apply to the former Metropolitan Counties areas as well) once again, has not had the government it has voted for, and this has been the case since 1979. I have summarised the Scotland voting patterns for each General Election since 1979 below, with which government has ended up being in power:

1979 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives
1983 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives
1987 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives
1992 - Mainly Labour, got Conservatives (only just, due to a late swing in the day to the Conservatives)
1997 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2001 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2005 - Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2010 - Mainly Labour (with the only constituency changing hands was mine of Glasgow North East from Speaker to Labour), got Conservative-Lib Dem coalition

2015 - Overwhelmingly SNP (with 56 out of the 59 constituencies, with the remaining 3 being 1 each to Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem), got Conservatives (only just, due to errors in the polling methods)
2017 - Mainly SNP (reduced to 41 constituencies), got Conservatives with some support from DUP
2019 - Mainly SNP (48 out of 59 constituencies), got Conservatives

As can be seen above, no matter what the voting pattern of Scotland is at General Elections, since 1979, Scotland has not had the government it has voted for. Although I do understand the reasons how Scottish nationalism has become fashionable nowadays, I do not support the SNP's version of independence. I would like to see the whole of Great Britain (assuming Northern Ireland is returned back to the Irish) having progressive federalism, with the voting system being one of proportional representation rather than the outdated and ineffective First Past the Post system.

 

[43066]

Of course the easy way to protect an individual like that isn't to get rid of inheritance tax it's just to raise the threshold above which its due. Whack it up £750,000 or similar.

True. But I’d prefer a figure rather higher than that, please!

At least whileever dotty old second cousin Margaret remains alive (she’s in her 90s, no kids, lives in a six bed pile in Ashtead).

The family are circling around her like vultures .

How likely are you to leave an estate worth this much (£475k or £950k) to your children ?

Thinking ahead a few decades (even taking into account inflation), I’m almost certain to.

Those are hardly excessive amounts given London property values.

 

[radamfi]

with the voting system being one of proportional representation rather than the outdated and ineffective First Past the Post system.

The UK is not a democracy.

 

[muz379]

Thinking ahead a few decades, I’m almost certain to. Those are not excessive amounts given London property values.

And in a couple of decades the thresholds will be higher than that , and unless things change from their current course the thresholds will still be above the average house price . Less than 5% of deaths even result in any inheritance tax being due . If you manage to make it into the top 5% I am sure your children wont miss 40% of anything above what the threshold is at the time .

I mean after-all their own life prospects are likely to be understandably fairly decent as well .

 

[mpthomson]

I would partly dispute that as Labour's policies on their own were popular - for example about 60% of the population support renationalising the railways. I think a different leader in an election without the background torrent of Brexit would have done better, even if the manifesto was identical.

A different leader (ie one that was electable) wouldn’t have had most of those economically illiterate policies in their manifesto....

 

[bramling]

Of course you dont pay Inheritance tax if the estate is passed to spouse or civil partner , or the value of your estate is below £375,000 .If you give away your home to your children then the threshold increases to £475,000. And if your estate passes to a spouse or civil partner first then your threshold is in effect doubled .So you could own a house worth £950,000 which passes from yourself to your spouse , and then after their passing to your children and no inheritance tax would be due .

Even then , like income tax IHT is a progressive tax , that is you only pay 40% of anything above the threshold . So factually incorrect to say your children would suffer a 40% tax hit on the value of your estate . They would pay 40% of anything above that threshold , which has interestingly throughout history always sat above the average house value .

How likely are you to leave an estate worth this much (£475k or £950k) to your children ?

Of course the situation which can prevail without inheritance tax is that wealth can just be passed from generation to generation without actually being used to stimulate the economy , the measure of how many wealthy people a country has is largely unimportant , its GDP and household disposable income that is more important . I mean even in '86 when Nigel Lawson was reforming the old Capital Transfer tax as it was then known to get rid of the tax on lifetime gifts he did nothing to manifestly change the idea of tax on inheritance , even thatcherite's knew the issues unmoderated inheritance could cause .

The problem with inheritance tax is the massive increase in property prices, particularly in the London and south-east area, over the last decade or two. The inheritance tax thresholds simply haven’t kept up with this inflation. Another thing to blame on the EU, through rising population as a result of free movement.

 

[AlterEgo]

A different leader (ie one that was electable) wouldn’t have had most of those economically illiterate policies in their manifesto....

Yes - part of the problem on the doorsteps was not just that Corbyn was toxic, but also that the policies proposed didn't seem like they came from a party serious about actually governing.