The (UK) Black Hole

[Mysstree]

Rachel Reeves, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer is apparently going to reveal a 20 Billion pound black hole per year for Public Finances on Monday.

There is a rumour that at some point, probably the autumn budget, that the 40% tax relief on pensions will be cut to 30%.

Anyone have an opinion on what effect on precious metals (in the UK) these two issues could have?

[Olivard]

3 hours ago, Mysstree said:

Rachel Reeves, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer is apparently going to reveal a 20 Billion pound black hole per year for Public Finances on Monday.

There is a rumour that at some point, probably the autumn budget, that the 40% tax relief on pensions will be cut to 30%.

Anyone have an opinion on what effect on precious metals (in the UK) these two issues could have?

Can't see it having much effect on gold price. Tends to be shaped by international factors rather than country specific (possibly with the exception of the USA).

There's been this kind of rumour every time there's a budget. Last time it was relief would be at the basic rate (20%). The gossip I've seen was that it was going to be a flat rate of 30% relief. That would be a redistribution of wealth measure. So some losers (40% tax payers) and some winners (20% tax payers).

[Orpster]

Labour do like to bugger up peoples pensions so them messing with the tax relief on pensions would be of little surprise

While this would hurt me personally, it will not touch the gold price, other than crashing the pound and affecting the UK gold price that way I don't see that anything labour may do will touch gold price at all

[Orpster]

2 minutes ago, Orpster said:

Labour do like to bugger up peoples pensions so them messing with the tax relief on pensions would be of little surprise

While this would hurt me personally, it will not touch the gold price, other than crashing the pound and affecting the UK gold price that way I don't see that anything labour may do will touch gold price at all

Wait, thought of one thing, putting VAT on it

[Bratnia]

42 minutes ago, Orpster said:

Wait, thought of one thing, putting VAT on it

And hand the LBMA on a platter to the EU. The reason tax was removed was that it disadvantaged those that applied tax, buyers simply buy from alternatives where the tax isn't applied. But who's to say, Labour have a history of applying a 130% tax rate (1968) ... as a perceived "sound" idea.

[Dankanugget]

I pay a lot into my pension and I get 40% relief on the contributions.

I hope they don’t touch the tax free lump sum….when I take my pension as it would then be both ends.

[Mysstree]

1 hour ago, Dankanugget said:

I pay a lot into my pension and I get 40% relief on the contributions.

I hope they don’t touch the tax free lump sum….when I take my pension as it would then be both ends.

Probably as @Olivard above says … a cut to 30%.

[ArgentSmith]

Imagine taxing pension contributions 😳

[NGMD]

The Labour magic money tree.

The only money the Government has is through taxation. There is no free lunches or the illusion of just print more money. 

It’s coming from somewhere. Gonna be epic and didn’t take them long to say ‘ it’s worse than we thought so we have to tax…..’

 

[ArgentSmith]

27 minutes ago, NGMD said:

The only money the Government has is through confiscation.

👍

[MBTPSilver]

Yes, most likely impact would be a weaker pound potentially. The pound had bounced back a bit since the election was announced and ended up as polls suggested, otherwise we might have got very close to £2,000 per ounce a couple weeks ago when gold hit the all-time USD high.

[Zhorro]

If Labour had said before the election that they were going to abolish the Winter Fuel Payments, I wonder if they would be in power now?

[Olivard]

2 hours ago, Zhorro said:

If Labour had said before the election that they were going to abolish the Winter Fuel Payments, I wonder if they would be in power now?

Yes. The electorate were determined to end the chaos and punish the Tories and voted accordingly.  

[Mysstree]

2 hours ago, Zhorro said:

If Labour had said before the election that they were going to abolish the Winter Fuel Payments, I wonder if they would be in power now?

Doubt it would have made  much difference. The Labour vote did not increase in fact they got 600,000 or so less votes than dear old Jeremy Corbyn.

The Conservative vote collapsed and went largely to Reform, Lib Dem’s and Greens. The SNP implosion as well handed Scotland to Labour.

[Bratnia]

53 minutes ago, Mysstree said:

Doubt it would have made  much difference. The Labour vote did not increase in fact they got 600,000 or so less votes than dear old Jeremy Corbyn.

The Conservative vote collapsed and went largely to Reform, Lib Dem’s and Greens. The SNP implosion as well handed Scotland to Labour.

On a proportional voting based system rather than the existing system (that more often installs a government that the majority didn't vote for), Labour would have around 219 MP's and have 154 Tory MP's and 93 Reform MP's to hold them to account rather than their outright dictatorship majority they actually have (412 MP's)

Party                                                 Votes      Actual_MPs     Vote_weighted_MPs
Labour                                          9708716          412                   219
Conservative                               6828925          121                   154
Reform                                           4117610             5                     93
Liberal Democrat                          3519143           72                    79
Green                                             1943813            4                    44
SNP                                                  724758            9                    16
Sinn Fein                                           210891            7                      5
Independent                                    564042            6                    13
DUP                                                   172058            5                     4
Plaid Cymru                                       194811            4                     4
Social Democratic & Labour Party    86861            2                      2
Alliance Party                                     117191            1                      3
Ulster Unionist Party                         94779            1                      2
Traditional Unionist Voice                 48685            1                      1
Workers Party of Britain                   210252           0                      5
Social Democratic Party                     33811           0                      1
 

[Mysstree]

38 minutes ago, Bratnia said:

On a proportional voting based system rather than the existing system (that more often installs a government that the majority didn't vote for), Labour would have around 219 MP's and have 154 Tory MP's and 93 Reform MP's to hold them to account rather than their outright dictatorship majority they actually have (412 MP's)

Party                                                 Votes      Actual_MPs     Vote_weighted_MPs
Labour                                          9708716          412                   219
Conservative                               6828925          121                   154
Reform                                           4117610             5                     93
Liberal Democrat                          3519143           72                    79
Green                                             1943813            4                    44
SNP                                                  724758            9                    16
Sinn Fein                                           210891            7                      5
Independent                                    564042            6                    13
DUP                                                   172058            5                     4
Plaid Cymru                                       194811            4                     4
Social Democratic & Labour Party    86861            2                      2
Alliance Party                                     117191            1                      3
Ulster Unionist Party                         94779            1                      2
Traditional Unionist Voice                 48685            1                      1
Workers Party of Britain                   210252           0                      5
Social Democratic Party                     33811           0                      1
 

In this scenario it would probably be a Labour / Green coalition and a Conservative / Reform coalition with the Lib Dem’s holding sway.

The curiosity here is how do you proportionally give 13 Independents seats as they are individuals not a Party.

I actually think it gives more stable government (proportional representation).

[Jimmock]

The Scottish Parliament has a form of proportional representation,that was set up to try and ensure that no party could have a majority government,although S.N.P. did manage it once.

[Xander]

16 hours ago, Bratnia said:

On a proportional voting based system rather than the existing system (that more often installs a government that the majority didn't vote for), Labour would have around 219 MP's and have 154 Tory MP's and 93 Reform MP's to hold them to account rather than their outright dictatorship majority they actually have (412 MP's)

Party                                                 Votes      Actual_MPs     Vote_weighted_MPs
Labour                                          9708716          412                   219
Conservative                               6828925          121                   154
Reform                                           4117610             5                     93
Liberal Democrat                          3519143           72                    79
Green                                             1943813            4                    44
SNP                                                  724758            9                    16
Sinn Fein                                           210891            7                      5
Independent                                    564042            6                    13
DUP                                                   172058            5                     4
Plaid Cymru                                       194811            4                     4
Social Democratic & Labour Party    86861            2                      2
Alliance Party                                     117191            1                      3
Ulster Unionist Party                         94779            1                      2
Traditional Unionist Voice                 48685            1                      1
Workers Party of Britain                   210252           0                      5
Social Democratic Party                     33811           0                      1
 

We also get the same half-wits, decade after decade installed by the party. 

Edited July 31 by Xander

[LemmyMcGregor]

17 hours ago, Mysstree said:

I actually think it gives more stable government (proportional representation).

Yeah, no.

I grew up in Italy with a proportional system, we had a million parties and those were the years of the "pentapartito" (party of 5). You would have a million parties getting voted and getting their "fair share" of the vote, then the same 5 parties would coalition and lead. Eventually someone will get upset because of something, government will fall and they'll find another fifth or go to vote again.

There are pros and cons to every system and, personally, the first past the post system is growing on me.

The problem is that there is no real discussion, only slogans and demands from the smaller entities to shift to a proportional system because it would benefit them, but nobody ever asks why would benefit the public and what are the pros of keeping the current system.

[Mysstree]

25 minutes ago, LemmyMcGregor said:

Yeah, no.

I grew up in Italy with a proportional system, we had a million parties and those were the years of the "pentapartito" (party of 5). You would have a million parties getting voted and getting their "fair share" of the vote, then the same 5 parties would coalition and lead. Eventually someone will get upset because of something, government will fall and they'll find another fifth or go to vote again.

There are pros and cons to every system and, personally, the first past the post system is growing on me.

The problem is that there is no real discussion, only slogans and demands from the smaller entities to shift to a proportional system because it would benefit them, but nobody ever asks why would benefit the public and what are the pros of keeping the current system.

No system appears perfect.

As i referenced in an earlier post, under first past the post Jeremy Corbyn lost an election yet Kier Starmer has won an election with a thumping majority yet with 600,000 odd less votes than Corbyn.

My constituency was Conservative from its inception. The saying was that Gary Glitter could have stood as a Tory with the promise that his brief was as children’s minister. He would have won.

A growing university changed the voting demographic and much to everyone’s surprise in 2017 Labour took the seat and has retained it twice.

So first past the post can work.

Perhaps a combination of FPTP and PR would work.

I believe that if a candidate secures over 50% of votes cast then they should be that constituency’s MP.

All other seats could then be proportionally dished out with the proviso that which ever party is awarded a constituency, the MP there must be the candidate who stood for that Party. If you secured 49% of a vote then you should be top of a list in descending order of percentage won.

[LemmyMcGregor]

21 hours ago, Mysstree said:

No system appears perfect.

As i referenced in an earlier post, under first past the post Jeremy Corbyn lost an election yet Kier Starmer has won an election with a thumping majority yet with 600,000 odd less votes than Corbyn.

My constituency was Conservative from its inception. The saying was that Gary Glitter could have stood as a Tory with the promise that his brief was as children’s minister. He would have won.

A growing university changed the voting demographic and much to everyone’s surprise in 2017 Labour took the seat and has retained it twice.

So first past the post can work.

Perhaps a combination of FPTP and PR would work.

I believe that if a candidate secures over 50% of votes cast then they should be that constituency’s MP.

All other seats could then be proportionally dished out with the proviso that which ever party is awarded a constituency, the MP there must be the candidate who stood for that Party. If you secured 49% of a vote then you should be top of a list in descending order of percentage won.

I give you a different perspective, for the sake of the discussion.

Under a proportional system you lose local direct contact inb favour of a centralised system. Your local candidate doesn't mean anything any more, as long as you get votes nationally you can take your seats. Not only this, but I could gain a seat by getting handful of votes across different constituencies.

With the first past the post system you don't just get protest votes, you can't just appear and take seats, you need to work your arse from the ground up; you need to start local, work with the folks, prove yourself in the small fights before going for the championship.

What you have with many people pushing for a proportional system is the refusal to engage at local level, then they cry faul when they don't go anywhere.

 

Funny electoral story. I stood myself this year, I didn't really plan on achieving anything, was to make a point after a conversation I had with some friends. I also happen to moonlight as a bouncer. Last Saturday one of the patrons was drunk and getting out of control, so we kindly escorted him out and I had to explain to him that, because we suspected him to be intoxicated and for his behaviour, he was not allowed back in for the night, to which he replied "you can't kick me out, I voted for you!".

[Bratnia]

22 hours ago, Mysstree said:

No system appears perfect.

As i referenced in an earlier post, under first past the post Jeremy Corbyn lost an election yet Kier Starmer has won an election with a thumping majority yet with 600,000 odd less votes than Corbyn.

My constituency was Conservative from its inception. The saying was that Gary Glitter could have stood as a Tory with the promise that his brief was as children’s minister. He would have won.

A growing university changed the voting demographic and much to everyone’s surprise in 2017 Labour took the seat and has retained it twice.

So first past the post can work.

Perhaps a combination of FPTP and PR would work.

I believe that if a candidate secures over 50% of votes cast then they should be that constituency’s MP.

All other seats could then be proportionally dished out with the proviso that which ever party is awarded a constituency, the MP there must be the candidate who stood for that Party. If you secured 49% of a vote then you should be top of a list in descending order of percentage won.

One representative per shire/county, 90 odd total MP's each locally elected to sit at a round table ... would go a long way towards a better system IMO. Rather than 650 all trying to justify their £90K salary and another £90K expenses - driving micro management/changes and/or playing party games (political point scoring).

[Snowmen]

On 30/07/2024 at 17:42, Bratnia said:

On a proportional voting based system rather than the existing system (that more often installs a government that the majority didn't vote for), Labour would have around 219 MP's and have 154 Tory MP's and 93 Reform MP's to hold them to account rather than their outright dictatorship majority they actually have (412 MP's)

Party                                                 Votes      Actual_MPs     Vote_weighted_MPs
Labour                                          9708716          412                   219
Conservative                               6828925          121                   154
Reform                                           4117610             5                     93
Liberal Democrat                          3519143           72                    79
Green                                             1943813            4                    44
SNP                                                  724758            9                    16
Sinn Fein                                           210891            7                      5
Independent                                    564042            6                    13
DUP                                                   172058            5                     4
Plaid Cymru                                       194811            4                     4
Social Democratic & Labour Party    86861            2                      2
Alliance Party                                     117191            1                      3
Ulster Unionist Party                         94779            1                      2
Traditional Unionist Voice                 48685            1                      1
Workers Party of Britain                   210252           0                      5
Social Democratic Party                     33811           0                      1
 

You can't really take the results from a FPTP election and map it to a PR outcome. People vote differently based on what type of voting system is used, especially this election as there was a higher rate of tactical voting between Lib Dems and Labour. With PR there is less of a need for tactical voting which may be a good thing.
I'm usually in support of PR, however with the current situation in France and the rest of Europe maybe there's some benefit to FPTP?