Best Of

Clearly Zara's move is unhelpful and will dominate the reports in the media. That said, I've been watching most of the conference online (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-755kRtHWdw) and it's overwhelmingly polite and friendly - Lee's Harpin's description of "chaos" is just silly.

Your Party is a very silly name. It's lazy. We are whatever 'you' want us to be.

They should say what they are, and give people something to rally to.

Possibly the issue is that there's not really anything there they think people will want to rally to.

It was an interim name - the long-term name will be decided tomorrow.

"Decided Tomorrow" is the best they have come up with yet, although I still prefer the "Rebel Alliance". Gets them on a solid 3% base from Star Wars fans and describes the motley crew pretty well.

I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.

The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.

Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.

The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.

The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.

There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.

But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.

Can we have a second election and give people the bring to get Sunak and Hunt back now they know the full facts about Starmer?

Hunt was hiding the public finance truth just as Reeves has done.

There was no £ for an NI cut months before the 2024 GE and he knew it.

Yes there was, the money would have come out of welfare cuts.

The one thing this Labour exercise in taxing working people to pay for welfare has done is swing the people who feel bullied by the "it's just being compassionate" nonsense about benefits to finally say enough is enough.

I think Labour are heading for a wipeout. The delusion that they can come back from this is truly laughable. They're actively wrecking the economy and destroying jobs as well as the life chances of young people by pricing them out of the jobs market.

I really can't think of a government that was worse. Even Liz Truss wasn't this bad as she had the wherewithal to resign and hand over to someone competent. The worst part is that there's no one in Labour who can take over and tackle the welfare bill because the back benchers are all twats.

Take a chill pill

Both blue and red Tories have been increasing the tax burden for the last 15 years whilst allowing the welfare bill to spiral upward.

The main element of welare expenditure is pensions and because pensioners vote in huge numbers all Govts have caved. To ignore that element of welfare and try to target the tiny percentage that makes up working age benefits is ridiculous.

Although i loathe SKS and austerity Reeves to claim they are worse than unfunded tax cutter Truss says more about your bias than having any basis in reality

Working age benefits are larger than state pensions.

Benefits going to those people of working age who are not in work are far lower than those received by pensiiners though

That may well be true. And it is also likely true that scrapping the two-child limit will do a lot to alleviate child poverty.

Unfortunately it is also true that WWC voters associate it with helping the improvident and immigrants. Scrapping the limit has the makings of a political disaster. Labour MPs are completely out of touch with the red wall. Voters won't tolerate paying more tax to support welfare recipients during a cost of living crisis.

The fabled red wall has a lot to answer for.

Seeing as over 60% in the polling after the budget oppose the measure it is far more than just the mythical red wall, getting its usual kicking here.

Also,when you have stories like the ones in the Mirror of a single mother with three kids pulling in just over 6 grand a month already it is no wonder people question it.

The story is plainly ridiculous. £72,000 for having three kids?

Misleading. Iirc her take home pay from her job is around £2,800pcm. Additional benefits for her and her three children bring that up to £6,000 pcm. That's quite a lot (obvs) but it includes childcare so she can go to work.

Giving anyone £38k a year in benefits is obscene, never mind giving that to someone earning earning £42k. Why should I, currently bringing up two kids on a fraction of that, be forking out a huge wedge of extra tax so she can get £72k/year? That the system funds people like her to that extent is wicked and iniquitous. It's also completely unaffordable.

And if the argument is that it's because of the cost of living in London - well, don't live in London if you can't afford it then. Pouring benefit cash into inflating London rents is insanity anyway, it's basically just a "greedy landlord subsidy".

I was shocked by it, but also saddened. I don't know how much money it takes to being up a family. I was surprised that it was so much. It made me feel rather poor. Some members of my family "married up" and conversations can be difficult, with one relative with a mortgage costing £4,000 pcm. Mine is less than a tenth of that.

So when I see people with benefits of over £3500 a month, I'm just wearily depressed. That's more than my takehome pay