1 Deliver two million more NHS appointments a year How we’ll do it: Labour’s policy to increase the numbers of NHS appointments will see NHS staff paid extra to work evenings and weekends in order to tackle the backlog. We will also use spare capacity in private healthcare providers to clear the NHS backlog, free at the point of use, as well as recruiting 8,500 new NHS mental health staff. We will bring down waits for cancer appointments with a ‘Fit For the Future Fund’ doubling the number of state-of-the-art MRI and CT scanners in the NHS to ensure early diagnosis. 2 Set up Great British Energy, a new publicly owned British energy company What this means: Labour’s policy offer includes a Green Prosperity Plan to cut energy bills and creating good jobs in every region. A Labour government will invest in homegrown clean power, cut bills, create jobs, and give us independence from dictators like Putin, paid for in part by a proper windfall tax on oil and gas giants. 3 Closing private education tax loopholes to improve schools What this means: Private schools currently benefit from an unfair tax break that means they avoid paying VAT on fees. Through closing this loophole, Labour will raise vital money needed to improve standards in stretched state schools with more teachers. This funding will also help pay for mental health support staff in every school, working to boost the wellbeing of young people, many of whom still suffering the effects of lockdown. 4 Bring back the family doctor and improve local NHS care What this means: At the heart of Labour’s health policy offer is a commitment to make the NHS a Neighbourhood Health Service as much as a National Health Service. Labour will cut red tape, freeing up GPs so they have more time to see patients. We will ensure patients can see the same GP each appointment if they choose to, and we will trial Neighbourhood Health Centres, bringing together family doctors, district nurses, care workers, physiotherapists, and mental health specialists under one roof. 5 Stop water bosses’ bonuses when their companies harm the environment What this means: Labour will clamp down on water companies that harm the environment and pollute our rivers with automatic and severe fines, as well as new powers to the regulator to block bonuses until water bosses have cleaned up the filth. For the most serious cases, Labour will allow the regulator to pursue criminal charges against water bosses. 6 End hotel use for asylum seekers Labour’s policy to secure Britain’s borders will see the introduction of more staff to process claims and return people to safe countries, clearing the asylum backlog, and a new cross-border police unit smashing criminal people-smuggling gangs by using counter-terror style tactics. 7 Greater support for victims of violence against women How we’ll do it: Labour will create a requirement for a rape unit in every police force, specialists in every 999 control room, and fast track courts and legal advice for rape victims. This will mean that early opportunities for prevention and protection are not missed, and will be followed up with requiring police forces to target dangerous repeat offenders with the tactics and tools normally reserved for counter-terror and serious organised crime investigations, getting serious perpetrators off our streets. We will also put specialists in the court system to support rape victims, meaning that victims are given better support at every stage. 8 Put passengers first and establish Great British Railways What this means: Labour’s plan will fix our railways for the benefit of passengers and the taxpayer. It can usher in a decade of growth, innovation and service improvement, with the railways playing their part in Britain’s national renewal. Labour will create a unified and simplified governance structure that places passengers at the heart of the goal, objectives and incentives for the railway, and to bring train operators under public ownership and control. Public ownership for our railways is about the practical need to deliver better services where they have failed. 9 Make the minimum wage a genuine living wage What this means: Labour will strengthen the minimum wage that employers must pay to ensure it reflects the cost of living. 10 Free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England What this means: Labour has a plan to improve school attendances that includes the introduction of breakfast clubs for all primary school children in England. This would be the first step on the road to a modern childcare system so every child has the best start at school, and parents have more choices about work.
The Labour manifesto isn't released yet. So this is presumably just a list of things they've trailed ahead of that?
1 Deliver two million more NHS appointments a year Paying NHS staff extra for evenings and weekends didn't really hep with GPs last tiem labour were in. The money was pocketed and GP hours didn't increase. I've had a of of experience with the NHS in the last 2 years and it's very much an 8:00-16:00 Mon to Thursday, knock off at lunchtime on Friday type vibe. Apart from the frontline staff that put a massive shift in and don't get the salary they deserve. The seniors and the admin staff, don't seem to be that st5ressed out, or indeed poorly paid. It;s not as simple as chcking in more money and asking for longer hours, a massive fundemental shake up is needed. It'll take more than one term and it'll take more than one party to sort it out. 2 Set up Great British Energy, a new publicly owned British energy company By and large a waste of money and didn;t fare to well in Scotland, mind you the SNP could'nt organise a drink up in a brewery. Legislate and regulate effectively what we have, don;t spend money on soemthign new. 3 Closing private education tax loopholes to improve schools VAT on private education? I'm in two minds on this one. Those that would notice the difference will drop back into state schools and will it raise enough to cover the extra places needed as well as the inevitable job losses? 4 Bring back the family doctor and improve local NHS care Yes. Half my battles with the NHS in recent years are because there's not one person with all the records, knowing what's going on and there's no communication between departments and areas. 5 Stop water bosses’ bonuses when their companies harm the environment Difficult and costly to do legally. We need to more effectively regulate and fine companies & company bosses that are not playing fair. 6 End hotel use for asylum seekers The only way to solve the asylum crisis is to have speedy, efficient and effective processing. We need to target resources allowing people to apply possibly even before arrival. 7 Greater support for victims of violence against women And men and children and whatever other people identify as 8 Put passengers first and establish Great British Railways See point 2. Unneccesary costs setting up an alternative to somethign that already exists. Fix what's there 9 Make the minimum wage a genuine living wage Agreed. It should also be the level at which taxation starts and un assessed benefits (ie not disability etc) stops. 10 Free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England Nope. Parents need to take responsibility for the children their raise. It's not up to schools to feed, clothe potty train someone elses kids. Schools are to educate. Society should be good enough that free breakfast clubs are not required. Fix the cause nto the symptom.
C&P from their www site will adjust thread title https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/10-labour-policies-to-change-britain/
A modest start to House of Lords reform on the cards: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c033dpqmnrgo Lords over 80 forcibly retired at the end of each Parliament. Participation requirements. Hereditary peers booted out completely. And sorting out a proper process to get rid of 'disgraced peers'. I reckon if they could get rid of 20% by 2029 that would be a good start. Then HoL reform proper in a prospective second term.
In what sense does Great British Railways already exist? Unless you are talking about Michael Portillo. It was announced in the King’s Speech in 2023 but the legislation has not been passed.
I think he means the railways already exist? As in, rather than creating new bodies to run it, Labour should just make what's there work.
More DRs appointments means more referrals, which has a kick on to waiting lists. More hospital appointments then generates more DR follow up appointments that soon eats into new DR appointments made. The most appointments are taken up by pediatrics and an aging population. This for me is where the focus should be locally. The breakfast club thing is a bit of a deceptive policy. 85% of schools have breakfast cubs, the average take up is around 35 children. Wales are the Country where parents say they have trouble feeding their kids in the morning. https://www.kelloggs.co.uk/content/...pdf/R5_Kelloggs Breakfast Club Audit APSE.pdf So they are looking at 15% of schools. I wonder how many of the 15% are part of a campus or affiliated to another school, maybe only 2 or 3%, by the time you take out the very small regional, Scottish island, or rural schools, you are probably looking at about 10% of schools.
But they're not free. Or at least I don't imagine many are. Our girls do breakfast club once a week and it costs about a fiver each. The Labour policy here is to make them free. Though as we can afford it (having already had a tax break by paying for them with childcare vouchers) I wouldn't mind that being means tested.
As it probably should be. Childcare vouchers will be used by a lot of families, but there are also going to be as many families who can afford breakfast as can't. If a household is earning £100k + there is probably no reason for their costs to be covered.
I think providing children with a free breakfast is a good investment. Regardless of the wealth of their family, many children go without a nutritional meal to start the day. It's been proven, beyond doubt, that children perform better in school if they have a decent breakfast. In addition, I think that modern society is taking away opportunities for children to develope their social skills. How many families gather around a table to have a meal these days? How often do children get to share a social gathering, devoid of electronic gadgets, and talk? I think we need to get away from this mentality where we only consider cost and not the benefits. With a free breakfast at school for every child, there will be no stigma, it will create a social event to start the day and children will have the energy to learn. I may be wrong, but I think the educational and social outcomes will be well worth the cost. It will be easy enough to reverse the policy if it proves not to be, but I think it's definitely worth a trial.
I don't know the details but I would imagine that it would depend on the individual schools. Some smaller schools may not have the support staff needed so teachers would, I imagine, have to be involved. I would expect any extra hours, by any staff, to support this policy would be paid for. I can't believe the unions would accept anything else!
As a governor I can say our urban primary school has real issues recruiting/retaining the casual staff to man its breakfast and afterschool clubs. It gets by but often with teaching assistants volunteering to do paid overtime to cover it. Doing it for all rather than means testing also removes the cost of administering the threshold and determining who qualifies or not. Not doubt the Tories would jam that burden onto the schools themselves for good measure too. Not sure how nutritious the breakfast is though. Ironically we always make sure ours eat before they go (it's essentially childcare before school from our perspective). I'd have to ask them what the offering is at breakfast but I know at afterschool club it's usually toast and little muffin or the like. Obvious that's infinitely better than nothing at all or last nights McDonalds left overs which some children sadly get at home but still, we shouldn't get carried away by imagining it's a feast of breakfast delights.
I should also add (because it might not be obvious if you're not involved) it has to be run as at worst a cost-neutral exercise at the moment. The school can't afford to subsidise the club at all beyond giving it benefits in kind like space to operate and free advertising. But any time the economics of it start to impact on the school budget because it's costing more to run than it brings in they either have to put the fees up or reduce their opening hours. So government funding to run even part of it universally would really help out.
Article in the New Statesman about Labour’s manifesto is a useful overview. Addresses points made @Lloyd about short-termism and the they’re all the same argument regularly booted into touch by @EnjoytheGame https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/06/labours-manifesto-is-quietly-radical or below in full. Some party manifestos are presented as literary or philosophical works. Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto, launched at the Co-Op HQ in Manchester, does not fall into these categories. Its front cover, emblazoned with a black-and-white photo of a sober Keir Starmer, features a single word: “Change”. As titles go, it won’t win prizes for originality. But do not confuse this with an absence of substance. The “slim document” that some in Labour spoke of has proved to be 23,000 words long (the Starmer project’s problem has never been a lack of policy). Those looking for surprises will be disappointed – the party has learned from Theresa May’s ill-fated social care plan (the “dementia tax”), sprung on an unsuspecting electorate in 2017. John McDonnell’s 2019 promise of free broadband – which bemused rather than attracted voters – is cited as another cautionary tale. Labour has eschewed this scattergun approach in favour of a manifesto structured around the party’s long-standing “five missions” for government on the economy, decarbonisation, the NHS, crime and education. This mission-driven approach – an idea Starmer’s senior adviser Peter Hyman adapted from the UCL economist Mariana Mazzucato – is designed to address the UK’s chronic short-termism and serve as an anchor for all policy decisions. So is the Starmer project a purely technocratic one? Is the aim simply to manage the economy more efficiently than the Conservatives? The answer from the manifesto is a resounding no. In numerous areas it represents a departure not only from the last 14 years of Conservative government but from the last Labour administration. The New Deal for Working People – alleged by some to have been “gutted” – is featured, along with a pledge to introduce legislation within 100 days. “This will include banning exploitative zero hour contracts; ending fire and rehire; and introducing basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal,” reads the text. Though Starmer and Rachel Reeves have waged a “smoked salmon offensive” in the City of London, the intention is to forge a new social democratic settlement. “Labour will turn the page to create a partnership between business and trade unions,” the manifesto declares in language that Harold Wilson would recognise. Business gets stability, planning reform and greater investment; the unions get the biggest programme of workers’ rights for decades. Public ownership – words that never appeared in a New Labour manifesto – is not only included but celebrated. The party commits to renationalising the railways “as contracts with existing operators expire or are broken through a failure to deliver” and to ending the ban on municipal bus ownership. Labour also vows to establish Great British Energy – “it will be owned by the British people and deliver power back to the British people” – and to capitalise it with £8.3bn of public investment. In strikingly unambiguous language, the party’s commitment to ban new North Sea oil and gas licences has also survived: “They [the licences] will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis”. By 2030, the party aims to double onshore wind, triple solar power and quadruple offshore wind. Other notable pledges include the creation of a National Care Service, a new UK-EU security pact, the removal of the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords and votes at 16. The real question is whether Labour – and Whitehall – have the capacity to deliver all of the above in a single term. Why, then, is Starmer’s party regularly accused of being indistinguishable from the Conservatives? In part, this reflects the party’s journey since 2019. After the (defeated) radicalism of Jeremy Corbyn’s manifesto, Starmer’s document was always destined to appear moderate by comparison. The factional feuds of recent years have also served to obscure where this is continuity as well as change. And Labour’s manifesto is a work of fiscal caution. Though promises to tax non-doms, energy giants, private schools and private equity executives endure, they collectively amount to just £8.6bn of tax rises. The original pledge to spend £28bn a year on green investment has been reduced to just £4.7bn a year. As a share of GDP, Labour’s tax and spending commitments are far outweighed by both the Tories’ and the Lib Dems’. Yet Starmer and Reeves insist repeatedly that “there will be no return to austerity”. To keep this promise, Labour will almost certainly need to raise taxes by more than stated. Focus not only on what is in the manifesto but what isn’t: higher capital gains tax and new council tax bands are not ruled out (unlike higher income tax, National Insurance, VAT and corporation tax). For now, silence reigns. But in common with most new chancellors, Reeves may well enter the Treasury and conveniently discover that “the books are worse than thought”. There is a final reason for the left’s dismissal of the Starmer project: both he and Reeves have consistently presented radical policies in moderate language. There has been no talk of “predators” and “fat cats” or of “conflict” and “struggle”. Mindful that Labour usually loses elections, Starmer and Reeves are offering a quiet radicalism – one that won’t scare Middle England. The same was true of Joe Biden who campaigned as a moderate but has proved perhaps the most radical US president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Will Starmer emulate this pivot? The answer, for now, is unknown. But the UK is not only being offered a change of government – it is being offered a change of ideology too.
Somewhat concerned that Labour are not going to raise tax on working people but SKS considers a working person as someone who doesn't have savings. His economic proposition requires more tax and people with real saving can afford to utilise schemes which place their asserts outside of tax. So it looks liek those that work hard are prudent and save willl get hammered as usual. Wonder if we'll get another raid on pensions. Those who save already get penalised when things like care are required as funding is assessed and this could be another penalty in waiting for those that don't spank their wages up the wall.
Where exactly is your worry coming from here? What in any Labour policy makes you think they're coming for your savings? Because this just looks like a rehash of a new line of attack the Telegraph has developed last night and today.
There are various comments including from the IMF that an extra £30bn pa needs to be found to fund the promises (Similar for Tories) IIRC. Labour have stated they will not Rasie NI, Income Tax Vat or corporation tax which are the big 4. That in conjunction with SKS not ruling out taxing savings as quoted above and Labour's previous pension raid, means that it's a possibility. Additionally, sticking VAT on private tuition is not going to raise what Labour thinks it is. Those that can afford to pay it are just paying in advance to avoid. Those that can't may well drop out of private education altogether and that will affect jobs and state facilities. I would suggest any net gain would be minimal. Just my 2p worth for the discussion and certainly the proposals look less scary that the largely uncosted reform plans and we know the Tories can't efficiently spend taxation. It's all very depressing.
VAT on private schools is a massive red herring. Let's at least call it what it is currently. It's a tax break for the well-off. There's VAT on almost everything we buy and use but private school places are exempt? It's a benefit in any other name and if, as a society, we're going to have a serious conversation about benefits let's start right up at the top. People with an interest in the subject will say it'll affect the state system, but that's not backed up by the stats. There are 550,000 children in the private school system. There are 29,000 state schools. If every single child was pulled out of private school tomorrow it would be the equivalent of a couple of children being inserted into each year group at each state school. That is not going to overwhelm the state system. But, it might make 'aspirational parents' a little more concerned about the quality of state education. (Of course, the percentage of parents who will actually pull their children out will be tiny). If they still want to send their children to private school they can. They just won't get a tax break – and rightly so. I won't resort to the lazy line that's used on poorer people, such as "well, they could cancel Netflix or have fewer lattes or go to Bognor on holiday instead of the Marche." Having said that, we live in a country where the poor are told to cut their coat according to their cloth, spend within their means, and get a better job if they want a better car or a house. But when it comes to the rich, and well-off, suddenly all that language flips right around. They're apparently being penalised for wanting more. Well, a place at private school costs X thousand a year. If you can afford it, fantastic. If you can't don't expect the taxpayer to subsidise.
This, horror (Sara Gezdari), was on the first of Matt Forde's election thing (also with Bim Afoalmi who sounds "really out there" riffing on his potential electors' Christian religious beliefs are going to get his victory). In her interview, Gezardi, made the claim that she was going to win because her prospective constituency has an independent school uptake of "...27%..." (the national average is 4%). During the interview this number suddenly became "...around thirty..." and then "...about a third..." and these teeming hordes would swamp the over-burdened local state schools...
Absolutely. There's no reason why Private schooling should be tax exempt. Looking a the numbers I just don't feel there will be much of a net gain in changing it. Drop it yeah, but don't rely on it creating a large wedge to fund the other stuff.
If Labour were savvy they'd get in, spend a couple of months scrutinising the books, announce an emergency budget and explain they've sadly had to reverse course slightly because of the utter mess they've inherited. I'm not talking massive hikes across the board but these are the biggest levers and I think plenty of people would understand, especially if they saw bang for their buck. Either that or they ditch the Tories' restrictive fiscal rules, though not as violently as Truss. Or sacrificial lambs like the triple lock will have to go. Of course Reform and the smoking-crater-that-used-to-be-the-Conservative Party would jump up and down a lot, but with 4 years+ til the next election Labour could do this pretty confident that most people would forget long before then.
Totally agree. They will be better off moving quickly and aggressively as soon as they take office rather than waiting for later in their first term. If they can show some improvement in people's overall lifestyles before the next election then any ranting and raving from the Tories (and their client press) will be long forgotten by then.
I actually think to some extent it does. It just a shame everything is so trashed here on the home front, as I don't think there will be a lot of patience for Kier heading off to Brussels cap in hand to kick off years of negotiations. I don't think the political calculus enables that either. But the hope must be there are some low hanging fruit and quick wins to be had in improving the UK/EU relationship that the Tories have refused for ideological reasons. The EU needs to understand this is their window of opportunity too and if they fall back into age-old EU custom of long, interminable and opaque negotiations to move an inch, they'll only add fuel to Reform's fire.
Margaret Thatcher almost doubled VAT from 8% to 15% following the 1979 GE. A quick google search doesn't seem to show that as a manifesto promise! (I know it was part of a VAT restructuring, but 8% was the standard rate)
Also, given the current lurch to the right in Europe, there are probably a significant number of centrist and centre-left politicians who might now be happier to accommodate a UK with a strong centre-left government which will (one assumes) be around for a while.......
I think they've shot themselves in the foot somewhat. They've made tax promises that are not going to let them pay for the improved services they are offering. They should really have said as little as possible to soften the blow when tax increases are eventually announced. At least then they can't be accused of breaking promises. They are in an incredibly strong political position currently but need to play it with intelligance as blowbac,k if they start to U-turn on promise,s could trigger a Torry like implosion of support. My worry that the omission of saying taxation on savings & pensions won't increase is compiounded because I can't find anywhere where thay've ruled out increasing council tax. They suggest that their extra expenditure will be funded by cracking down on tax avoidance like non-doms and private schooling and I just don't see their numbers adding up. I agree with the premise but these are the people with the means to find other legal avoidance measures and as stated before I think the net gains will be small. Personally I think the whole taxation system needs a complete rewrite. It's hugely cumbersome, needs simplification. A simple system is more difficult to avoid and cheaper to implement. Much as I hate to admit it Refom have some good ideas in this area. Taxation above £20K reduction of corporation tax to improve business and hence raise incoem tax, simplification of tax system. Unfortunately I feel their contract (manifesto) is even less costed than Labour and the other stuff......... I'm a financial analyst by trade - certainly the last 20 years of my career, the arse end of which workign fro an IFA. Taxation is probably the thing I can focus on most, with the most insight and not one party has proposed a taxation policy I can support. It's all very depressing that meister manor has again changed boundaries and Binface is no longer a protest vote option. Infact All I have as options is LD Lab Con Ref Green. Might just have to be a spoilt ballot.
Weren't you previously critical of Labour for being too vague as to its policies? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Binface is off propping up Sunak isn't he? Labour's promises are far more modest than the Tories I thought? I know you said earlier they were both around £30bn but I'm sure I read Labour's costed ones were nearer £7.5bn? The criticism of them is that they've promised improvements with a very unambitious programme for achieving them, mainly because they've towed this line of only putting out policies they think they can fund from day one. Taxation on savings interest was always a thing wasn't it? I remember pretty modest savings accounts as a teenager having tax deducted and then having to fill out the form to get it back. The Tories introduced tax-free allowances but then that coincided with the period where interest rates on savings were essentially zero, so it was a classic politician move of abolishing something that had already abolished itself. I know with interest rates back up it's a thing again but what would it really raise? The Treasury got £6.6bn from 2.7 million people in 2023 according to a quick Google. Drag a few more people in by reducing the tax-free allowance, sure, but it's hardly going to fund much. Council tax increases are up to local councils, though Westminster can legislate to cap them. It's also a broken system like taxation in general. Keeping the status quo is probably just as bad as putting it up for some and down for others after a proper review.
Yes. and Yes. Sort of. Let me explain.... For Labour not to **** it up they can stay quiet. That however doesn't help win the vote of someone like me who examins policy and votes accordingly. Releasing policy is in all our interest, unfortunately the policy Labour has released has turned me off them as I feel it's not well thought out. So I criticise labour from my point of view for not releasing policy. I critice Labour from Labour's strategy point of view for promising stuff they don't need to to win the election. I criticse them again because what they have released is not up to scratch - from my point of view. Labour are the only people that can stop Labour winning the election. Going back on promises they didn't need to make will affect their chances of re-election.
How very dare you. I'm relaibly infomed he's busy reviewing saved ceefax pages as we type. Probably are. I haven't examined Tory ecconomic policy in too muich depth as the other headline stuff and legacy means there's no way in hell they'd get my vote. They've had umpteen years in charge and taking circumstances out of their control into account have performed poorly econimically. If they had plans to turn it around they've had time to put them in place. & Liz truss. Yes. When I mentioned savings I include investments and pensions. As a rule I'm against taxation on wealth for the simple reason that it makes no account of how the wealth is accrued and doesn't neccesarilly correlate with an ability to pay. For example if two pople earn the same but both die early unexpectedly. Person A has 4 holidays a year and dies with £0 in savings yet person B lives frugally saves for their future which is unexpectedly cut short, why should the government then take a cut. Income on savings, pensions and investments is another matter. That I feel should be treated along with income tax at the same rates. If people build up "too much wealth" then it's a fault of poor historic income taxation. Yep. It's a form of wealth taxation above and penalises cash poor people. Poll tax was fairer but understandably unpopular. Personally I think council tax should be abolished and included in income tax.
