Best Of

Two things the next Chancellor should immediately promise are:

1) No more increases in business taxation
2) No more increases in pension taxation

Reeves twice allowing months of speculation about increases in business and pension taxation had detrimental effects on business investment and pension planning.

I'm a pensioner, and most of my friends are now pensioners. It's eccentric to suggest that we should be exempt from tax increases (especially as pensioners tend to vote Tory or Reform anyway). A means-tested increase, including abolition of the right to a state pension if one's already got ample private pension, would meet widespread approval. I appreciate that this would go against promises made in ca. 1945 but really one needs to revisit these things sometimes - someone getting £80K in private pension really doesn't need the national pension.

Utter bollox, pensioners pay tax and are not exempt from anything. Also if they have paid over 50 years for a state pension then they deserve it, lazy spongers should not be entitled just because they did nothing and expect people. who worked hard to have some money for retirement have to pay to keep the lazy barstewards living high on the hog for free.
Only MP's are likely to have 80K private pension, will be very few others for sure having more than a small amount which precludes them from all the freebies the spongers get on top of pension tax free.

The bit I find funny is that most people will be on defined contribution schemes that they have some or all control over.

Start tapering away the state pension at £55,000 say and I and most others will make sure to never extract more than £55,000.

Recommended educational listening from the BBC World service:

The history of segregated categorisation of disabled people in Germany as "them, not us", and the elements of historical legacy that still persist.

There exists a range of separated institutions called "Workshops", where disabled people get subsidised jobs and work from major companies - who are often unwilling publicly to admit they are in the scheme, and do not themselves meet their legal obligations to employ 5% of their workforce being with a disability.

I'm fascinated by the mental baggage / assumptions which still exist in the culture from earlier (read 1920s/30s) times, especially around embarrassment and stigma, and permeates career advice, employment practice, employer attitudes, imposed unnecessary exclusion and denial of autonomy.

It is a different set of issues to the UK, but in some ways socially parallel.

Part of the BBC WS "Assigment" series. 30 minutes. It is better than the slightly clickbait title suggests ("How Germany fails disabled people.")

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct8h19

Excluding Liz Truss who is Scottish, Andy Burnham is first bona fide Northerner to become PM in 50 years.

Jessica Elgot
@jessicaelgot
·
58m
I’m really sorry to do this but the last Northern PM was actually Roundhay’s Liz Truss - as much as she tried to disown our great city.

https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/2069701020280561709

She was born in Oxford, that rules her out as a bona fide Northerner.

As the most bona fide Northerner on PB I can tell you we Northerners take this stuff very seriously.

I'm not quibbling with your overall conclusion, but how does that make her Scottish?

In 1977 Truss and her parents moved to Warsaw in Poland, but returned to Britain after John and Priscilla found it "quite grim".

After living briefly in Kidderminster, Worcestershire, the family moved to Paisley in Scotland when Truss was four years old, where she attended West Primary School. In 1985 they moved south to Leeds,

And this makes her Scottish?? Not even the SRU would claim that.

She spent her formative years in Scotland (ages 4 to 10), if that's not Scottish then I don't know what is.

Some Scots don't even accept Tony Blair was Scottish, I mean born in Edinburgh, educated in Scotland...

To some Scots, if a Scot has ever left Scotland for more than a holiday they are no longer Scottish.

Remember the Is Andy Murray British website and ramp the logic up to insane levels and that is how Scots work.

Don't think so. The Scottish emigration culture is very strong. Probably second to the Irish.

Two things the next Chancellor should immediately promise are:

1) No more increases in business taxation
2) No more increases in pension taxation

Reeves twice allowing months of speculation about increases in business and pension taxation had detrimental effects on business investment and pension planning.

I'm a pensioner, and most of my friends are now pensioners. It's eccentric to suggest that we should be exempt from tax increases (especially as pensioners tend to vote Tory or Reform anyway). A means-tested increase, including abolition of the right to a state pension if one's already got ample private pension, would meet widespread approval. I appreciate that this would go against promises made in ca. 1945 but really one needs to revisit these things sometimes - someone getting £80K in private pension really doesn't need the national pension.

Utter bollox, pensioners pay tax and are not exempt from anything. Also if they have paid over 50 years for a state pension then they deserve it, lazy spongers should not be entitled just because they did nothing and expect people. who worked hard to have some money for retirement have to pay to keep the lazy barstewards living high on the hog for free.
Only MP's are likely to have 80K private pension, will be very few others for sure having more than a small amount which precludes them from all the freebies the spongers get on top of pension tax free.

They didn't pay over 50 years for a state pension. They paid over 50 years for their parents and grandparents pension. I'm now contributing towards your ability to live in retirement which takes a lot more of my tax contributionsthan your parents did thanks to the triple lock. Happy to do so of course and no need to thank me.

Utter bollox it is not the public's fault the government defrauds the system and spends the contributions. It was always clear that the payments were to include a state pension at age 65 , now rising to 68 or more. I have paid enough to give me the pension till I am two hundred years old

'The prime minister's chief secretary Darren Jones might have ruled himself out of the Labour leadership contest - but former Armed Forces Minister Al Carns could still challenge Andy Burnham.

Speaking to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, Carns insisted he is "pretty serious" in considering a leadership bid, but wants to "see behind Andy Burnham what the policies are" before making a final call.

As a reminder, leadership nominations open on 9 July and run until 16 July. Potential candidates have until then to amass the support of at least 81 Labour MPs to enter the race.

Asked whether he will back Burnham if he agrees with his policies, Carns tells BBC Newsnight: "I think that's a collective view across the Labour Party as a whole."

He explains the party wants to "get behind" Andy but says "we need to see that material before I can make a decision to back anyone".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwyewjpwgk9t

"Please give me a cabinet post."

If the party "wants to get behind Burnham", why does Carns want to waste a couple of months for him with a leadership election ?

In order to consider a leadership bid, you still need >80 other Labour MPs to think it is a wizard wheeze, don't you?

An interesting question.
I suspect he doesn't, but OTOH there might just be enough pissed off Starmerites to grasp the opportunity of throwing a spanner into the works ?

I think it would be fairly irresponsible at this point, FWIW.

Burnham is facing a pretty steep learning curve as it is.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/23/burnham-and-starmer-hold-frosty-meeting-to-thrash-out-transition-of-power
...Allies of Starmer said that although he was serious about an orderly handover, he had no qualms in denying Burnham – who had initially hoped to take over in September – a long coronation in order to prepare for government.

“There was a strong push from the Burnham camp to be given longer. But why should they tell Keir they want him out, then expect him to manage the ship through a potentially difficult summer? Keir will of course cooperate on transition, but it will be through gritted teeth,” one said.

Some in Burnham’s team were exasperated about the shorter timetable. “The last lot had years to prepare and still fucked it up. We’ll just have to do it in three weeks,” one senior source said. “The length of the transition will focus minds.”.

Yes must be a complete surprise to team Andy that he has become PM.

TBF, that's not really the point.
No doubt he has at least some idea of what he wants to do (at least I hope so), but developing detailed policy that can quickly be implemented at government level requires civil service resources.

I think that point is overblown and a cheap excuse from politicians. The reason for inertia in government is not a lack of policy options but a lack of political will, money and consensus. I doubt Burnham will change much.

Ah the lack of Will. What was it Reagan said;

"There are simple answers to the nation's problems, but not easy ones. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right."

He was of course wrong.

What he offered weren't simple solutions but simpistic ones.

He put the practical difficulties of implimenting policy down to it being the governments fault and red tape. Take that away and we'll be fine. They weren't.

All of this from "Drain the Swamp!" to the "Blob" just comes down to peoples frustrations about how challenging Government and change are, and that they can't just decree change and make it happen.

Peter.

I disagree, I think the answers are generally quite simple. Invest, invest, invest. Create a vision and then build it rather than fiddling by focus group. We don't invest because the lifespan of a PM is now a couple of years, for them what is the point of thinking about 10-25 years ahead?

This is the cabinet from just 10 years ago:

May, Hammond, Rudd, Johnson, Fallon, Truss, Greening, Davis, Fox, Clark, Hunt, Green, Evans, Grayling, Javid, Lidington, Mundell, Cairns, Brokenshire, Leadsom, Patel, Bradley.

How many of those are still involved bar the odd TV or media interview, if that?

We already have 100% debt and struggle to pay teh interest in that. We could have before teh crash when it was 40% but the orthadoxy then was to keep it low. We also left investment to teh city not the "Dead Hand of Government!"

Thatcher folllowed Reagan and Blair followed Thatcher.
We can only Invest if we can afford the cost of teh borrowing and right now we struggle to do that.
Good idea 20 years ago but I think we have largely misssed that boat.

Peter.

Those that say we need to borrow more to invest need to explain how the return on that investment is going to pay the interest and, hopefully, a little bit more. As gilt rates go up this gets more and more difficult. Sometimes that forces us to be penny wise and pound foolish but that is the price of poverty and current overspending. See Vimes boots.

The problem is that 100% worth of U.K. GDP has been invested already.

This is why people are dubious about promises to “invest”.

No, its been spent which is entirely different.

Frittered away sounds more like it David.

https://x.com/guidofawkes/status/2069649219112071576

Jones also confirms Burnham will borrow more. However mostly for infrastructure which is an excellent idea.

Council house building.

Put like that, it's pretty sensible, isn't it? Borrowing to create things that are both useful and should generate income.

And, splendid as the profit motive is, in housebuilding it seems to lead to a throttling of supply.

Borrowing for investment in new labour speak was simply spending money on day to day stuff so if they do this, I cannot see an issue. As long as it is a proper market based return and not heavily subsidised.

There is plenty of spare capacity in the house building industry. Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off

If,you can’t make a profit or adequate return doing something, why do it. I listened to a Bloomberg money podcast on housing. In some parts of London if a builder had the land for free they wouldn’t make any money. We need to encourage private businesses.

Vistry and Crest Nicholson are laying people off because the demand isn't there for houses at the current cost of building.

Unless the Government kicks off a social housing scheme which would open up a whole set of Nimby issues I can't see much that can be done to resolve the issue.

Down here in the South after all the pressure to build new homes, Vistry are offering shared ownership on a large 600+ homes development. Normally it would be 50% equity. Then it dropped to 25% equity. Now they are offering 10% which equates to £45K on a £450K 3 bed. Desperate not to cut prices.

Shared ownership, I’d run like hell from it.