This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of a 45 billion package, as Bartholomew says.
Now there'll have to be more changes of policy on the back of this one..
Well indeed, as I said last week politically and media management this has been utterly mishandled and is atrocious, but economically its different.
The idea that a £2bn tax change was responsible for rational market movements last week was absurd and I said so all along.
The Government is potentially having to borrow £150bn for energy support, which was called for by Labour, and £43bn per annum of alternative tax cuts which the Labour Party have said they'd keep too. Plus more importantly but completely missed by the media narrative, the Bank of England had said it would engage in £80bn in Quantitative Tightening, with more QT to come.
The notion that the Gilt markets could bear the £150bn + £43bn + £80bn but the £2bn extra was economically flawed was just absurd. It always was.
But the media narrative and public first impression is that is that everything is going to rich people.
Every working person just got a 2.25% tax cut between NI and Income Tax, 3.5% if you include Employers NI as you should, and the Government is going to get no credit for that at all as the £2bn has overshadowed everything else.
Ridiculous, just ridiculous.
So what part of it moved the markets then? making our debt very very much more expensive
All of it, its a big, complicated picture. There is no individual thing that you can point to and say "that alone".
The markets had to move because they hadn't priced in the QT and the extent of debt enough. The markets are moving globally. The 45p was poor politics but not poor economics.
Yes yes, I agree with that - it got the political focus but alone did not move the markets - straightforward gcse economics I’ve been saying it all week too, and we are right to because in peoples minds controversial tax change dominating headlines and the markets moving became blurred in peoples minds.
The pound is another one you need to put people straight on too Bart, tell them not just to look at pound movements but costs of debt, or else they are making exactly the same silly mistake arn’t they?
I agree, it was everything that made debt more expensive, quarter of a trillion loan in a shopping basket, and not only no tax rises to sweeten the markets he surprised them with tax cuts.
But do you agree with me, if he hadn’t announced the tax cuts, quarter of trillion in borrowing alone for the energy market fix would have moved debt market against us?
Indeed you have been saying it too and yes you're right the market had to move either way with or without the tax cuts. Markets are moving globally with or without tax cuts.
The ECB haven't yet begun QT and after the past ten days I suspect they're not going to for a long time now, if ever. The BoE will kick it into the long grass too. That was a significant proposal that moved the markets, which is why its reversal largely helped stabilise them, but its not getting any metaphorical column inches at all.
Effectively we tried to cash out a shopping basket of goodies out at the till on UK credit card believing we are the USA, for they would have got that thorough the till no problem. But we are not the USA, our largesse was declined.
Getting your thinking from the USA is dangerous if you forget you are not the USA.
So the straightforward economics is, the borrowing we wanted for the items in the basket is now more expensive, the items will cost us more. The remaining tax cuts now cost a lot more than when announced? The freezing of bills now will cost even more?
If you are going to answer yes, then the most obvious thing in my mind is re look at those things for savings to make them cheaper. That’s the right step isn’t it?
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.
Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.
For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.
Is it wrong to protest that?
You're protesting the building of a school ?!
I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
My girlfriend works in this area of law. The obligation to build said schools etc in the Section 106 agreement is very hard to avoid/get out of, so I would be curious to know the explanation.
I think it's a combination of splitting the scheme up so literally every building firm you can think of (and many you've never heard of) are all building 100 or so houses max and similar games - the end result is the council has a pile of money but no actual infrastructure nor space to build anything...
The money goes to the Council, the Council needs to build it.
If the Council isn't doing so, then that's their responsibility. If they're blaming the developers, while pocketing the money, then that's almost corrupt.
Part of the trouble is that you need an awful lot of houses to make it worth building a whole new school.
(Back of envelope: to make a two form entry primary school, you need around 60 kids in each year group. That's about 60 children per year x 80 years of life, call it a neghbourhood population of 5000 people, so rather more than 1000 homes. You could have a smaller intake, but then it's hard to make the school work well or viably.)
So the developer contributions towards schools get parcelled out among existing schools to improve/expand their existing facilities. Which makes sense, but means that you never get round to doing the step-change expansion (a new school, surgery, tram line) that all the little developments collectively probably require.
Our daughters primary school is very good and only has 30 kids in each year group, which means there's just one class per year, which I think is a small but good thing as it means the kids know they are staying with the same classmates every year. So you could halve your number.
But yes, I completely agree, the notion each new housing estate requires a new school is absurd, which is why the Council should be responsible for any new school or other community developments, not developers.
Having been a governor for a single intake school I really wouldn't recommend them unless you can pair them up with an equivalent school to ensure proper comparisons are easily available. When things are going well you won't see the need for it but believe me when Ofsted comes calling and you discover your lack of comparisons has lured you into a false sense of security...
The place where I was governor was also single form entry. Whilst they can work, there are hefty problems making the budget work (all your overheads are spread over less income) and everyone on the staff is very professionally lonely (it really helps with teaching if you have a teacher with an equivalent class to share planning with). And heaven help you if one of your tiny SLT vanishes for whatever reason.
This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!
Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories?
You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.
Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
You do seem stuck in the past.
Not at all
In the past I voted Labour.
In the present and future I am not.
Hope that helps.
You, like a few others, do seem stuck on Corbyn. A bit like someone going on about how great Blair was in 2016. They would have said what you just did.
Blair is and was great, I said that even when I was singing Corbyn's theme. He won three elections.
Blair allowed Socialits to co exist in Labour I voted Blair twice. SKS hasn't he is a divisive factionalist
John McDonnell and a few others on the left beg to differ.
Tony Benn and Robin Cook were in Blairs top team.
Who has SKS got of a Socialist persuasion?
He has found made up reasons to get rid of them.
Are you not a bit embarrassed the only Jewish woman voted on to the NEC has been suspended for speaking at an organisation that was allowed when she spoke. Retrospective application of prohibited groups is a complete joke and of course only applied against Socialists.
We had people who stood against the Party in 2017 and 2019 at Conference calling lifelong Labour Tory enablers without a hint of irony.
What next Sunil for PM
He couldn't possibly be worse than Corbyn, Johnson or Truss.
I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs. Fair's fair. Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
They are employees not partners.
But you are right that limited liability partnerships are the spawn of Satan
I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs. Fair's fair. Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
They are employees not partners.
But you are right that limited liability partnerships are the spawn of Satan
There's a certain irony that the only bank in the UK that's an unlimited liability partnership and therefore can't screw us in that way is run by a bunch of Hoares.
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
You know they haven’t actually defined the investment zones yet? The charities have been getting upset because they highlighted the counties try at they are going to look at in detail and someone on twitter overlaid those counties against SSSIs.
Now the 45p rate is gone the focus is going to drop from tax. The next set of battles will clearly be around planning reform and deregulation. I expect a rolling thunder of arguments, Tory backbench rebellions and possibly u-turns.
The triumvirate will be:
1. Fracking - likely to fade without trace 2. Banking deregulation: alongside the banking bonus cap and possibly some insolvency coming up, big controversy 3. The investment zones: these have the makings of a NIMBY apocalypse. Expect proliferation of maps showing vast swathes of the countryside being concreted over
Alongside of course the ongoing stories like sewage release into the waterways.
The number one focus now in my opinion is protect our least well off from ideologue politicians who only have warmth for themselves and supporters,
financial support for low income households which takes into account actual energy bills due to family size and need, including for those not in receipt of means-tested benefits. Increase Local Housing Allowance and uprate benefits ahead Winter 2023 to reflect the inflation rate faced by low income households across the essentials they need. A winter ban on energy companies forcibly switching customers to prepayment meters, including smart prepay, and a moratorium on court action to collect energy debts.
This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!
Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories?
You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.
Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
You do seem stuck in the past.
Not at all
In the past I voted Labour.
In the present and future I am not.
Hope that helps.
The hard fact is that whenever your wing of the party is in the ascendent (be it Militant, Momentum or Corbynistas) you gift power to the Tories. You never, ever learn. This country is not going to elect a far left government, it's pure self-indulgence on your part.
I have voted for Callaghan, Foot,Kinnock, Blair, Brown Ed, Jezza.
The Party is a broad church.
Not anymore.
BTW everytime my wing of the Party has been ascendant those who claim to be Labour MPs have actually fooked off and joined the SDP, Change UK etc as they are so incredibly self indulgent to the extent they hate Democratic Socialism
They hate losing.
Not in Labour Central office.
In 2017 they tried to lose by diverting monies from winnable seats to factional buddies. See Foorde for more info.
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!
Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories?
You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.
Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
You do seem stuck in the past.
Not at all
In the past I voted Labour.
In the present and future I am not.
Hope that helps.
The hard fact is that whenever your wing of the party is in the ascendent (be it Militant, Momentum or Corbynistas) you gift power to the Tories. You never, ever learn. This country is not going to elect a far left government, it's pure self-indulgence on your part.
I have voted for Callaghan, Foot,Kinnock, Blair, Brown Ed, Jezza.
The Party is a broad church.
Not anymore.
BTW everytime my wing of the Party has been ascendant those who claim to be Labour MPs have actually fooked off and joined the SDP, Change UK etc as they are so incredibly self indulgent to the extent they hate Democratic Socialism
They hate losing.
Not in Labour Central office.
In 2017 they tried to lose by diverting monies from winnable seats to factional buddies. See Foorde for more info.
Whether you agree with Gove's policies or not. He is competent and sensible. The Tories have lost the next General Election. They are in damage limitation mode now.
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
Whether you agree with Gove's policies or not. He is competent and sensible. The Tories have lost the next General Election. They are in damage limitation mode now.
Er...no.
He is wilful, stubborn and arrogant. Which is great when he's right, and a bit of an issue when he's wrong.
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
This is an absolute car crash. He interviews worse than Corbyn!
Comments like that are why despite my hatred for the Tories I will never vote for SKS
Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories?
You voted for this lot therefore all this fiasco is your fault.
You supported Corbyn, which to put it mildly didn't help.
I voted Labour despite been strongly opposed to their peoples vote bollocks so don't blame me.
Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
You do seem stuck in the past.
Not at all
In the past I voted Labour.
In the present and future I am not.
Hope that helps.
The hard fact is that whenever your wing of the party is in the ascendent (be it Militant, Momentum or Corbynistas) you gift power to the Tories. You never, ever learn. This country is not going to elect a far left government, it's pure self-indulgence on your part.
I have voted for Callaghan, Foot,Kinnock, Blair, Brown Ed, Jezza.
The Party is a broad church.
Not anymore.
BTW everytime my wing of the Party has been ascendant those who claim to be Labour MPs have actually fooked off and joined the SDP, Change UK etc as they are so incredibly self indulgent to the extent they hate Democratic Socialism
They hate losing.
Not in Labour Central office.
In 2017 they tried to lose by diverting monies from winnable seats to factional buddies. See Foorde for more info.
When the latest Labour leads in the opinion polls showed an even bigger lead than shown by Blair you were nowhere to be seen. Now, I am not an "SKS fan", but can I please ask:
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
Now the 45p rate is gone the focus is going to drop from tax. The next set of battles will clearly be around planning reform and deregulation. I expect a rolling thunder of arguments, Tory backbench rebellions and possibly u-turns.
The triumvirate will be:
1. Fracking - likely to fade without trace 2. Banking deregulation: alongside the banking bonus cap and possibly some insolvency coming up, big controversy 3. The investment zones: these have the makings of a NIMBY apocalypse. Expect proliferation of maps showing vast swathes of the countryside being concreted over
Alongside of course the ongoing stories like sewage release into the waterways.
The number one focus now in my opinion is protect our least well off from ideologue politicians who only have warmth for themselves and supporters,
financial support for low income households which takes into account actual energy bills due to family size and need, including for those not in receipt of means-tested benefits. Increase Local Housing Allowance and uprate benefits ahead Winter 2023 to reflect the inflation rate faced by low income households across the essentials they need. A winter ban on energy companies forcibly switching customers to prepayment meters, including smart prepay, and a moratorium on court action to collect energy debts.
Ain't going to happen
The datasets don't exist and this Government is wishing to cut benefits because the "energy benefits means we don't need to give them an inflationary matching increase in benefits"...
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
You think the shadow cabinet are there on merit?
Bless
Well, in that case, say who should be in there on merit from the left. Or, to put it another way, answer the question.
Give me three names of Left politicians other than McDonnell and Trickett who might get into the shadow cabinet because they're better choices than any three (named) people already there, and I'll concede your point.
This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.
Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..
The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.
Golly - I'm in the top 83% here in sunny Spain - and I'm just a struggling pensionista!
Similar here - it is surprising.
Allegedly I'm 93%. No kids (until Feb helps a lot). I don't feel that wealthy but I suppose we rarely have a worry about stuff (yet). The wife is terrible for spending whatever she earns - expand her pay, expand her spending.
And this issue is this - many people call for tax rises on the wealthy without twigging that they ARE the wealthy. They always assume its people earning more than them.
Yeah I am reminded of a recent job I did. Public sector workers taking up 50k with good conditions and a guaranteed defined benefit pension where the employer contributes about 16%. They complained endlessly about the pay and pleaded poverty all the time but the reality is that most of them were on double incomes that puts them in the top 10% of earners.
The problem with all this is though is that it is not adjusted for housing costs, ie the difference between a 100k mortgage and 350k mortgage.
Interestingly, the local paper had a wrap around ad for Drax this week, going big on the benefits of Drax to local jobs (which are real) and the apparently planned, but still mythical, BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage)
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
Forgive me @Beibheirli_C , because we normally agree on so much, but there can be significant savings to be made in the public sector without degrading the important things mentioned there. The most significant of all would be the alignment of the bloated public sector pension system so that it reflected the private sector. This would save huge sums. The problem is that politicians won't do it because it would negatively impact them too.
Now the 45p rate is gone the focus is going to drop from tax. The next set of battles will clearly be around planning reform and deregulation. I expect a rolling thunder of arguments, Tory backbench rebellions and possibly u-turns.
The triumvirate will be:
1. Fracking - likely to fade without trace 2. Banking deregulation: alongside the banking bonus cap and possibly some insolvency coming up, big controversy 3. The investment zones: these have the makings of a NIMBY apocalypse. Expect proliferation of maps showing vast swathes of the countryside being concreted over
Alongside of course the ongoing stories like sewage release into the waterways.
I just posted a link to a tweet promising (more or less) exactly that. Any business under 500 employees to be utterly unregulated.
Julian Röpcke🇺🇦 @JulianRoepcke · 6m #NewsMap The Russian front in eastern Kharkiv oblast is collapsing. Ukrainian forces liberated Nyzhe Zolone, Pidlyman, Nyznya Zhuravka, Borova and Shyikivka.
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
Forgive me @Beibheirli_C , because we normally agree on so much, but there can be significant savings to be made in the public sector without degrading the important things mentioned there. The most significant of all would be the alignment of the bloated public sector pension system so that it reflected the private sector. This would save huge sums. The problem is that politicians won't do it because it would negatively impact them too.
Again - a great idea except that public sector pay including pensions ain't much different from private sector pay with pensions - the difference mostly comes down to the split between pay and pension.
So you can cut Public sector pensions but you will need to pay them more as many accept low pay in return for their better pension plan...
I guess you are looking at well paid chief executive salaries and ignore elsewhere where a public sector planner say earns £35,000 but would be on £45,000+ in the private sector...
Now the 45p rate is gone the focus is going to drop from tax. The next set of battles will clearly be around planning reform and deregulation. I expect a rolling thunder of arguments, Tory backbench rebellions and possibly u-turns.
The triumvirate will be:
1. Fracking - likely to fade without trace 2. Banking deregulation: alongside the banking bonus cap and possibly some insolvency coming up, big controversy 3. The investment zones: these have the makings of a NIMBY apocalypse. Expect proliferation of maps showing vast swathes of the countryside being concreted over
Alongside of course the ongoing stories like sewage release into the waterways.
I just posted a link to a tweet promising (more or less) exactly that. Any business under 500 employees to be utterly unregulated.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
~53m adults, UK welfare spending is 264bn. So everyone can have about five grand. Can you explain to pensioners why their state pension has halved and stay in office? I doubt it.
At some point I think we will be a wealthy enough society to just give everyone the minimum to get by. But don't think we are there yet.
Mr. Roberts, the state throwing taxpayers' money at every individual is bizarre and entirely unnecessary.
"Mr. Roberts" clearly likes the idea because it would subsidise his economic inactivity. No doubt he would like it funded by taxing other people's property. Amazes me he didn't like Jeremy Corbyn a bit more.
Julian Röpcke🇺🇦 @JulianRoepcke · 6m #NewsMap The Russian front in eastern Kharkiv oblast is collapsing. Ukrainian forces liberated Nyzhe Zolone, Pidlyman, Nyznya Zhuravka, Borova and Shyikivka.
I do appreciate the Ukrainian system of putting the town name in massive concrete letters are the city limits. Makes it easy to verify where people are.
Now the 45p rate is gone the focus is going to drop from tax. The next set of battles will clearly be around planning reform and deregulation. I expect a rolling thunder of arguments, Tory backbench rebellions and possibly u-turns.
The triumvirate will be:
1. Fracking - likely to fade without trace 2. Banking deregulation: alongside the banking bonus cap and possibly some insolvency coming up, big controversy 3. The investment zones: these have the makings of a NIMBY apocalypse. Expect proliferation of maps showing vast swathes of the countryside being concreted over
Alongside of course the ongoing stories like sewage release into the waterways.
The number one focus now in my opinion is protect our least well off from ideologue politicians who only have warmth for themselves and supporters,
financial support for low income households which takes into account actual energy bills due to family size and need, including for those not in receipt of means-tested benefits. Increase Local Housing Allowance and uprate benefits ahead Winter 2023 to reflect the inflation rate faced by low income households across the essentials they need. A winter ban on energy companies forcibly switching customers to prepayment meters, including smart prepay, and a moratorium on court action to collect energy debts.
Ain't going to happen
The datasets don't exist and this Government is wishing to cut benefits because the "energy benefits means we don't need to give them an inflationary matching increase in benefits"...
Yes I know. You told us. You fired us up. We gotta fight that as number 1 priority is what I’m saying. Nothing could be more wrong. It’s more wrong than giving tax cut to rich this
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
~53m adults, UK welfare spending is 264bn. So everyone can have about five grand. Can you explain to pensioners why their state pension has halved and stay in office? I doubt it.
At some point I think we will be a wealthy enough society to just give everyone the minimum to get by. But don't think we are there yet.
It wouldn't cost us £264bn since it would be implemented as part of a package, and part of that package would be abolishing all the cliff edges in the tax system. Which would include for instance the abolition of the tax-free allowance on working, so it would be swings and roundabouts for most people ending up relatively revenue neutral for them but would abolish all the disincentives the current cliff edges create.
Plus we could abolish the DWP and save money there.
PB has always been too eager for ex-military types. Wallace does not seem to want the job and even hints at retirement, although he is only 52.
Perhaps he is self aware - realising that he is fairly good at his current job and that the possible promotion is a poison chalice at the he best of times.
If Wallace were to be appointed by MPs, it would be as a consensus figurehead. His Chancellor would effectively run much of government policy.
Why do you believe that?
If he was appointed PM, why would he be a figurehead rather than actually doing the job?
The history of figurehead leaders is that they rapidly turn into actual leaders or fail, equally rapidly.
Pretty sure I saw the crack in the universe from Dr Who in his forehead too. Having a tear in the fabric of reality right there won't help.
Although others will say plenty of exciting leaders queuing up, I think his experience and gravitas is important to take Lib Dems into next election.
The Lib dems were shafted by cancelling their conference, but aside of that, they seem very quiet at the moment. Are they planning away in secret, ready to astonish us with their plans?
Ummmm - another this Government isn't doing any research nor thinking
Capital Moments @CapitalMoments Britain has too many low-skilled migrant workers and very high numbers of international students, Home Secretary Suella Braverman has said.
The reason we have a lot of international students is because each international student is worth approximately 3 times the income of a UK student.....
And Universities love receiving enough money to run their courses and pay their staff...
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
Forgive me @Beibheirli_C , because we normally agree on so much, but there can be significant savings to be made in the public sector without degrading the important things mentioned there. The most significant of all would be the alignment of the bloated public sector pension system so that it reflected the private sector. This would save huge sums. The problem is that politicians won't do it because it would negatively impact them too.
Again - a great idea except that public sector pay including pensions ain't much different from private sector pay with pensions - the difference mostly comes down to the split between pay and pension.
So you can cut Public sector pensions but you will need to pay them more as many accept low pay in return for their better pension plan...
I guess you are looking at well paid chief executive salaries and ignore elsewhere where a public sector planner say earns £35,000 but would be on £45,000+ in the private sector...
The local government pensions are not really that lucrative. I concluded myself that there are big advantages working as a contractor and having a private pension. The LGPS suits a lot of people but also acts as a bit of a straightjacket.
Julian Röpcke🇺🇦 @JulianRoepcke · 6m #NewsMap The Russian front in eastern Kharkiv oblast is collapsing. Ukrainian forces liberated Nyzhe Zolone, Pidlyman, Nyznya Zhuravka, Borova and Shyikivka.
Julian Röpcke🇺🇦 @JulianRoepcke · 6m #NewsMap The Russian front in eastern Kharkiv oblast is collapsing. Ukrainian forces liberated Nyzhe Zolone, Pidlyman, Nyznya Zhuravka, Borova and Shyikivka.
I do appreciate the Ukrainian system of putting the town name in massive concrete letters are the city limits. Makes it easy to verify where people are.
It only works because they mass-produce them, when you go to look up the place where something's happening there are always like 7 or 8 with the same name.
I see from tonight's thread that you scratch the surface of the appeaser types, and it turns out to be deep seated anti-Americanism behind it. Still smarting from the loss of global superpower status by the British Empire a century ago. All the blame can go to British politicians standing up for the freedom of Europe. Not, say, the fact that millions of Africans and Indians resented living under authoritarian government where they didn't get to choose who runs them.
And of course, just like United Russia scum, the only way they can justify this immoral empire is by pretending democracy is no better. Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians aren't able to be free democracies like the Brits. We are either Russian puppets or American puppets.
"Free democracy like the Brits", Mr WillG??? Nothing of the kind..... Starting with our broken voting system...
Why is it 'broken' ? What guiding principles would you start with to choose a 'better' system?
One where every vote counts. And where we end up with a government - not necessarily of just one party - which reflects the wishes of the people.
So no minority governments, and no safe seats.
Why 'no safe seats' ? How do you achieve that whilst still reflecting the wishes of the (local) people?
Here are some of my thoughts on this: *) I want a system where we vote for individuals, not parties. *) I want to vote on manifestos, not post-election backroom deals. *) I want to reduce, not increase, the power of parties. (*) *) I want a voting system where votes are accountable and transparent, yet also protects the individual's vote. *) I would like (but won't get) a system that allows governments to look more than one electoral cycle ahead.
(*) IMO this is *really* important in a democracy. Powerful parties are one of the steps on the road towards bad government, or even non-democracy.
All desirable points, but the tricky bit is when they push against each other.
There's a lot wrong with political parties and whipping, but they're almost certainly needed if your body is bigger than a parish council. Without them, it's really hard for manifestoes for government to exist. Politicians saying in advance that they are on the same team as Ms Tweedle and Mr Dee is important information for voters.
Oh, I agree, and it's important not to turn them into holy grails. Like voting at an election: unless you're a party zealot, no one party will probably match everything you want. There will be some policies you love, and some you dislike. Ditto the people within.
There'll be things I dislike about *any* voting system; there will be compromises to the above (except for the sanctity of the actual voting process - I won't back down on that). It's a case of being adult and picking the bext compromise.
I'm not saying we do not have political parties; just that they should be given as little power as possible, whereas they always want to get more power.
Quite. There is only one perfect voting system - it combines FPTP and all versions of PR into one, easy to understand system.
Galaxy Brain Strategy: The Office for Budget responsibility can't evaluate the economic & fiscal impact of the Mini-Budget by November if you abandon most of the things in the Mini-Budget before November. https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/1576873244938113025
Julian Röpcke🇺🇦 @JulianRoepcke · 6m #NewsMap The Russian front in eastern Kharkiv oblast is collapsing. Ukrainian forces liberated Nyzhe Zolone, Pidlyman, Nyznya Zhuravka, Borova and Shyikivka.
You make it fiscally neutral, by getting rid of personal allowances and progressive tax rates so the net effect is zero in terms of tax revenues vs universal income payments. It removes all vulnerable people from poverty and ensures people who are due benefits don't miss out. It removes exploitation of the benefits system as there is nothing to exploit anymore. It simplifies tax, it removes just about all benefits, it removes maternity and sickness benefits and unemployment benefits, it removes state pension and student maintenance loans. A bucket load of civil servants can be removed and the DWP just about closed down. It also provides a little help for people wishing to take a risk on starting their own business by giving a small cushion to start with.
I could go on. All those benefits and savings at zero cost.
Now the 45p rate is gone the focus is going to drop from tax. The next set of battles will clearly be around planning reform and deregulation. I expect a rolling thunder of arguments, Tory backbench rebellions and possibly u-turns.
The triumvirate will be:
1. Fracking - likely to fade without trace 2. Banking deregulation: alongside the banking bonus cap and possibly some insolvency coming up, big controversy 3. The investment zones: these have the makings of a NIMBY apocalypse. Expect proliferation of maps showing vast swathes of the countryside being concreted over
Alongside of course the ongoing stories like sewage release into the waterways.
I just posted a link to a tweet promising (more or less) exactly that. Any business under 500 employees to be utterly unregulated.
They won’t be utterly unregulated. That is not what it is saying. It talks of business regulations. Workers rights will be protected. Whether or not this change is good or not is one thing but these businesses will still have to comply with regulations.
I wouldn’t take that tweet from Dr Oxford, a labour activist, as being anything near the truth.
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
Forgive me @Beibheirli_C , because we normally agree on so much, but there can be significant savings to be made in the public sector without degrading the important things mentioned there. The most significant of all would be the alignment of the bloated public sector pension system so that it reflected the private sector. This would save huge sums. The problem is that politicians won't do it because it would negatively impact them too.
Again - a great idea except that public sector pay including pensions ain't much different from private sector pay with pensions - the difference mostly comes down to the split between pay and pension.
So you can cut Public sector pensions but you will need to pay them more as many accept low pay in return for their better pension plan...
I guess you are looking at well paid chief executive salaries and ignore elsewhere where a public sector planner say earns £35,000 but would be on £45,000+ in the private sector...
The local government pensions are not really that lucrative. I concluded myself that there are big advantages working as a contractor and having a private pension. The LGPS suits a lot of people but also acts as a bit of a straightjacket.
But that's actually the point - they are perceived to be way better than they actually are.
Were you to transform them into something closer to a private sector salary you would need to start paying private sector salaries (or probably more in many cases)..
Interestingly, the local paper had a wrap around ad for Drax this week, going big on the benefits of Drax to local jobs (which are real) and the apparently planned, but still mythical, BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage)
I was talking to a Danish colleague a couple of weeks ago who said their biomass plants take wood from Russia. So biomass has challenges.
One of the other big shames about Russia. Alongside its oil and gas and agricultural resources it has the Taiga. Vast swathes of forest much of which (though not all) is not particularly biodiverse and is suitable for arboriculture on a massive scale.
Now the 45p rate is gone the focus is going to drop from tax. The next set of battles will clearly be around planning reform and deregulation. I expect a rolling thunder of arguments, Tory backbench rebellions and possibly u-turns.
The triumvirate will be:
1. Fracking - likely to fade without trace 2. Banking deregulation: alongside the banking bonus cap and possibly some insolvency coming up, big controversy 3. The investment zones: these have the makings of a NIMBY apocalypse. Expect proliferation of maps showing vast swathes of the countryside being concreted over
Alongside of course the ongoing stories like sewage release into the waterways.
I just posted a link to a tweet promising (more or less) exactly that. Any business under 500 employees to be utterly unregulated.
Edit: Obviously, "will be utterly unregulated" is a mischaracterisation.
Really? What did the Chief Sec.y mean when he claimed that businesses under 500 employee will not be subject to regulation? Surely "... not be subject to regulation ..." means that they will err... not be subject to regulations. i.e. they can do as they like.
He is outlining a proposed policy here. He needs to be clear.
Liz Truss, Kwasi Kwarteng, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Suella Braverman have seen how beautiful Cannock Chase is. They decide to take advantage of the conference in Birmingham to go out and visit it.
Once north of Birmingham, they struggle to find signs to Cannock Chase but off the A34 there's a big sign to 'Chasewater.' 'That must be it,' says Braverman. 'Let's go there.'
Once they arrive, they agree it's all very nice with the lake and everything, but they're bored. This isn't quite what they expected. Kwarteng has a brilliant idea. 'I know!' he says. 'Look, that sign says "boats for hire." Why don't we hire one and go for a trip?'
So they pay their money over, and take a nice motorboat out. Truss is steering, and there's a problem. 'Liz, you're going too fast,' shouts Braverman as she clings to the side.
Truss laughs. 'If things get bad, all you do is go further and faster!' she shouts, giving it more throttle. 'Only cowards turn back.'
Suddenly, in the deepest part of the lake, it happens. The boat hits a floating log and starts leaking badly.
'Lifejackets on!' shouts Kwarteng.
'What are lifejackets?' asks Mogg.
'Big orange things that help you float!' roars Truss.
'Ah...yes.' says Mogg. 'I was given those, but, I didn't see the point of them. They were modern and ugly and would only take up space I wanted for my legs. So I left them on the bank.'
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
Forgive me @Beibheirli_C , because we normally agree on so much, but there can be significant savings to be made in the public sector without degrading the important things mentioned there. The most significant of all would be the alignment of the bloated public sector pension system so that it reflected the private sector. This would save huge sums. The problem is that politicians won't do it because it would negatively impact them too.
Again - a great idea except that public sector pay including pensions ain't much different from private sector pay with pensions - the difference mostly comes down to the split between pay and pension.
So you can cut Public sector pensions but you will need to pay them more as many accept low pay in return for their better pension plan...
I guess you are looking at well paid chief executive salaries and ignore elsewhere where a public sector planner say earns £35,000 but would be on £45,000+ in the private sector...
That is a bit of a myth put about by those who want to justify the absurd levels of pension offered to public sector, and while it was perhaps the case in about 1980, it certainly isn't now. And if public sector pay is a little lower (evidence only suggests a little lower and in fact during last Labour government it was actually higher) then by all means, let's even it out. Pay them a little more and put them on the average pension achieved by the equivalent private sector worker. Then improve the pensions for all. Why should greedy public sector workers get all the pension benefits?
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
Forgive me @Beibheirli_C , because we normally agree on so much, but there can be significant savings to be made in the public sector without degrading the important things mentioned there. The most significant of all would be the alignment of the bloated public sector pension system so that it reflected the private sector. This would save huge sums. The problem is that politicians won't do it because it would negatively impact them too.
I am happy to see things being updated, adapted, changed or removed, but my worry with this bunch of Libertarian simpletons is that they will do exactly as they say and simply just remove about 100 years of consumer legislation and employee rights.
We have already seen that they do not think through the consequences of their utterances.
A letter from Ofgem from Friday with significant changes to the market hidden within it (think roughly equivalent to using a letter in the Times to change the constitution)
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
The DWP is a brutally inept monolith , that much is certain.
As the The Mighty Alex reminded us the other day, it's sitting on no less than *seven* reports on the utter uselessness and pointlessness of so many aspects of current welfare policy, which the devout Mother Therese Coffey has suppressed one after the other.
The danger is that Labour gets in and continues to pursue a New Labour-style policy on this, to play to the wretched tabloids, and populist gallery, yet again.
There's no question that massive reform is needed for these failing policies, and if not UBI itself at first, then more UBI-like policies should definitely be under consideration, and in the mix by now.
This is quite funny, world leaders impersonated by how they walk. Often hear impressions of how people talk, never seen this done before, but its great.
Now the 45p rate is gone the focus is going to drop from tax. The next set of battles will clearly be around planning reform and deregulation. I expect a rolling thunder of arguments, Tory backbench rebellions and possibly u-turns.
The triumvirate will be:
1. Fracking - likely to fade without trace 2. Banking deregulation: alongside the banking bonus cap and possibly some insolvency coming up, big controversy 3. The investment zones: these have the makings of a NIMBY apocalypse. Expect proliferation of maps showing vast swathes of the countryside being concreted over
Alongside of course the ongoing stories like sewage release into the waterways.
I just posted a link to a tweet promising (more or less) exactly that. Any business under 500 employees to be utterly unregulated.
Now the 45p rate is gone the focus is going to drop from tax. The next set of battles will clearly be around planning reform and deregulation. I expect a rolling thunder of arguments, Tory backbench rebellions and possibly u-turns.
The triumvirate will be:
1. Fracking - likely to fade without trace 2. Banking deregulation: alongside the banking bonus cap and possibly some insolvency coming up, big controversy 3. The investment zones: these have the makings of a NIMBY apocalypse. Expect proliferation of maps showing vast swathes of the countryside being concreted over
Alongside of course the ongoing stories like sewage release into the waterways.
I just posted a link to a tweet promising (more or less) exactly that. Any business under 500 employees to be utterly unregulated.
This is simply not true. At least, unless you consider businesses under 50 employees to be 'completely unregulated' which I can assure you they are not.
The suggestion is to extend the current small business (under 50 employees) exemptions from reporting to larger businesses up to 500 employees. The tweet you quote is simply an outright lie.
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
Forgive me @Beibheirli_C , because we normally agree on so much, but there can be significant savings to be made in the public sector without degrading the important things mentioned there. The most significant of all would be the alignment of the bloated public sector pension system so that it reflected the private sector. This would save huge sums. The problem is that politicians won't do it because it would negatively impact them too.
Again - a great idea except that public sector pay including pensions ain't much different from private sector pay with pensions - the difference mostly comes down to the split between pay and pension.
So you can cut Public sector pensions but you will need to pay them more as many accept low pay in return for their better pension plan...
I guess you are looking at well paid chief executive salaries and ignore elsewhere where a public sector planner say earns £35,000 but would be on £45,000+ in the private sector...
That is a bit of a myth put about by those who want to justify the absurd levels of pension offered to public sector, and while it was perhaps the case in about 1980, it certainly isn't now. And if public sector pay is a little lower (evidence only suggests a little lower and in fact during last Labour government it was actually higher) then by all means, let's even it out. Pay them a little more and put them on the average pension achieved by the equivalent private sector worker. Then improve the pensions for all. Why should greedy public sector workers get all the pension benefits?
Since the Labour Government left in 2010 - public sector pay increases have been minimal but hey continue your fantasy that there is money to be saved by kicking public sector workers...
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
You think the shadow cabinet are there on merit?
Bless
Well, in that case, say who should be in there on merit from the left. Or, to put it another way, answer the question.
Give me three names of Left politicians other than McDonnell and Trickett who might get into the shadow cabinet because they're better choices than any three (named) people already there, and I'll concede your point.
Clive Lewis, Barry Gardiner and Dawn Butler to replace Pat Mcfadden David Lammy and Lucy Powell
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
The DWP is a brutally inept monolith , that much is certain.
As the The Mighty Alex reminded us the other day, it's sitting on no less than *seven* reports on the utter uselessness and pointlessness of so many aspects of current welfare policy, which the devout Mother Therese Coffey suppressed one after the other.
The danger is that Labour gets in and continues to pursue a New Labour-style policy on this, to play to the wretched tabloids, and populist gallery, yet again.
There's no question that massive reform is needed for these failing policies, and if not UBI itself at first, then more UBI-like policies should definitely be under consideration, and in the mix by now.
A UBI is not a socialist concept as some characterise it as, in fact its been advocated for by plenty of sensible right-wing economists and thinkers like Milton Friedman and more.
Abolishing the cliff edges in the tax system with a UBI would be the most sensible supply side reform of taxation that any government could make. I would vote for any party, of any colour, that promised to do that.
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
Forgive me @Beibheirli_C , because we normally agree on so much, but there can be significant savings to be made in the public sector without degrading the important things mentioned there. The most significant of all would be the alignment of the bloated public sector pension system so that it reflected the private sector. This would save huge sums. The problem is that politicians won't do it because it would negatively impact them too.
You're obsessed with public sector pensions, which are nowhere near as bloated these days as you make out. They're very different from 25 years ago.
Regardless of that, how about a bit of levelling up? Why not aspire to make private sector pensions as good as public sector pensions, rather than levelling down?
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
The DWP is a brutally inept monolith , that much is certain.
As the The Mighty Alex reminded us the other day, it's sitting on no less than *seven* reports on the utter uselessness and pointlessness of so many aspects of current welfare policy, which the devout Mother Therese Coffey suppressed one after the other.
The danger is that Labour gets in and continues to pursue a New Labour-style policy on this, to play to the wretched tabloids, and populist gallery, yet again.
There's no question that massive reform is needed for these failing policies, and if not UBI itself at first, then more UBI-like policies should definitely be under consideration, and in the mix by now.
A UBI is not a socialist concept as some characterise it as, in fact its been advocated for by plenty of sensible right-wing economists and thinkers like Milton Friedman and more.
Abolishing the cliff edges in the tax system with a UBI would be the most sensible supply side reform of taxation that any government could make. I would vote for any party, of any colour, that promised to do that.
I first heard about it from a right wing think tank in the 1990s and was most impressed with the details.
Whether you agree with Gove's policies or not. He is competent and sensible. The Tories have lost the next General Election. They are in damage limitation mode now.
Er...no.
He is wilful, stubborn and arrogant. Which is great when he's right, and a bit of an issue when he's wrong.
It isn't a sign of great common sense.
True, but in the stubborn/arrogant stakes he's far short of the current top two.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
You think the shadow cabinet are there on merit?
Bless
Well, in that case, say who should be in there on merit from the left. Or, to put it another way, answer the question.
Give me three names of Left politicians other than McDonnell and Trickett who might get into the shadow cabinet because they're better choices than any three (named) people already there, and I'll concede your point.
Clive Lewis, Barry Gardiner and Dawn Butler to replace Pat Mcfadden David Lammy and Lucy Powell
Clive Lewis for Lucy Powell I will give you, although I should note he's a rather loose cannon as well (talking about shagging goats was not a clever idea).
Dawn Butler is a curious case, because she started her career with that weird non-endorsement endorsement by Obama and since then has gone on to shoot her mouth off at every opportunity including her remarks about giraffes. She has of course also been ill. At the same time, while erratic, she's not stupid. She might do OK if she can learn when not to say something. Equally, I would say she wouldn't be a candidate ahead of Lammy or Mcfadden.
Barry Gardiner, an enthusiast for nuclear power and a man who took money from the Chinese intelligence services, albeit unknowingly? Hmmm. Not convinced.
I suspect your hatred for Mcfadden in particular is because he dared to call out Corbyn.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Dawn "Jamie Oliver stop appropriating Caribbean culture" Butler
Barry "I am running for leader no I am not running yes I am running no I am not running" Gardner.
On an objective basis, the Labour left is fucking screwed. McDonnell was the only intelligent one they had and he won't be in front-line politics ever again.
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
Forgive me @Beibheirli_C , because we normally agree on so much, but there can be significant savings to be made in the public sector without degrading the important things mentioned there. The most significant of all would be the alignment of the bloated public sector pension system so that it reflected the private sector. This would save huge sums. The problem is that politicians won't do it because it would negatively impact them too.
Again - a great idea except that public sector pay including pensions ain't much different from private sector pay with pensions - the difference mostly comes down to the split between pay and pension.
So you can cut Public sector pensions but you will need to pay them more as many accept low pay in return for their better pension plan...
I guess you are looking at well paid chief executive salaries and ignore elsewhere where a public sector planner say earns £35,000 but would be on £45,000+ in the private sector...
The local government pensions are not really that lucrative. I concluded myself that there are big advantages working as a contractor and having a private pension. The LGPS suits a lot of people but also acts as a bit of a straightjacket.
But that's actually the point - they are perceived to be way better than they actually are.
Were you to transform them into something closer to a private sector salary you would need to start paying private sector salaries (or probably more in many cases)..
The other thing you could do is just give people the option to opt out and add the employer contributions to their gross salary. I think it would rise by about 20%.
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
You think the shadow cabinet are there on merit?
Bless
Well, in that case, say who should be in there on merit from the left. Or, to put it another way, answer the question.
Give me three names of Left politicians other than McDonnell and Trickett who might get into the shadow cabinet because they're better choices than any three (named) people already there, and I'll concede your point.
Clive Lewis, Barry Gardiner and Dawn Butler to replace Pat Mcfadden David Lammy and Lucy Powell
A reminder of how easily Labour could lose the several million Tories it has just recruited.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
The DWP is a brutally inept monolith , that much is certain.
As the The Mighty Alex reminded us the other day, it's sitting on no less than *seven* reports on the utter uselessness and pointlessness of so many aspects of current welfare policy, which the devout Mother Therese Coffey suppressed one after the other.
The danger is that Labour gets in and continues to pursue a New Labour-style policy on this, to play to the wretched tabloids, and populist gallery, yet again.
There's no question that massive reform is needed for these failing policies, and if not UBI itself at first, then more UBI-like policies should definitely be under consideration, and in the mix by now.
A UBI is not a socialist concept as some characterise it as, in fact its been advocated for by plenty of sensible right-wing economists and thinkers like Milton Friedman and more.
Abolishing the cliff edges in the tax system with a UBI would be the most sensible supply side reform of taxation that any government could make. I would vote for any party, of any colour, that promised to do that.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Not sure that adds up. Call me a cynic, but unless you are claiming this from efficiencies is not possible to have a system that takes less and pays out more. A 30% top rate tax and no NI would cost a lot.
Comments
Getting your thinking from the USA is dangerous if you forget you are not the USA.
So the straightforward economics is, the borrowing we wanted for the items in the basket is now more expensive, the items will cost us more. The remaining tax cuts now cost a lot more than when announced? The freezing of bills now will cost even more?
If you are going to answer yes, then the most obvious thing in my mind is re look at those things for savings to make them cheaper. That’s the right step isn’t it?
But you are right that limited liability partnerships are the spawn of Satan
financial support for low income households which takes into account actual energy bills due to family size and need, including for those not in receipt of means-tested benefits.
Increase Local Housing Allowance and uprate benefits ahead Winter 2023 to reflect the inflation rate faced by low income households across the essentials they need.
A winter ban on energy companies forcibly switching customers to prepayment meters, including smart prepay, and a moratorium on court action to collect energy debts.
In 2017 they tried to lose by diverting monies from winnable seats to factional buddies. See Foorde for more info.
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
in
the
past
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1576609024178458625
He is wilful, stubborn and arrogant. Which is great when he's right, and a bit of an issue when he's wrong.
It isn't a sign of great common sense.
BJO fans. Please explain
Bless
The datasets don't exist and this Government is wishing to cut benefits because the "energy benefits means we don't need to give them an inflationary matching increase in benefits"...
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1576869888219836416
Give me three names of Left politicians other than McDonnell and Trickett who might get into the shadow cabinet because they're better choices than any three (named) people already there, and I'll concede your point.
The problem with all this is though is that it is not adjusted for housing costs, ie the difference between a 100k mortgage and 350k mortgage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63089348
("Drax: UK power station owner cuts down primary forests in Canada")
Interestingly, the local paper had a wrap around ad for Drax this week, going big on the benefits of Drax to local jobs (which are real) and the apparently planned, but still mythical, BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage)
🚨 Treasury minister Chris Philp says no business with under 500 staff will be subject to business regulation
So that is most food manufacturers, most child care providers, most care homes.......
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1576870341229412353
That would be most businesses then...
[Edit: here you go - https://twitter.com/votepoliticsuk/status/1576592779203215360 ]
Julian Röpcke🇺🇦
@JulianRoepcke
·
6m
#NewsMap
The Russian front in eastern Kharkiv oblast is collapsing.
Ukrainian forces liberated Nyzhe Zolone, Pidlyman, Nyznya Zhuravka, Borova and Shyikivka.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1576868852650188800
BlueSauron👁️
@Blue_Sauron
📸 Ukrainian forces in Mykhailivka, Kherson Oblast.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1576831093168570368
So you can cut Public sector pensions but you will need to pay them more as many accept low pay in return for their better pension plan...
I guess you are looking at well paid chief executive salaries and ignore elsewhere where a public sector planner say earns £35,000 but would be on £45,000+ in the private sector...
Edit: Obviously, "will be utterly unregulated" is a mischaracterisation.
At some point I think we will be a wealthy enough society to just give everyone the minimum to get by. But don't think we are there yet.
Hankering after Sunak now, is a bit like wanting a new Labour shadow chancellor under Corbyn.
Plus we could abolish the DWP and save money there.
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1576872593592025088
If he was appointed PM, why would he be a figurehead rather than actually doing the job?
The history of figurehead leaders is that they rapidly turn into actual leaders or fail, equally rapidly.
Capital Moments
@CapitalMoments
Britain has too many low-skilled migrant workers and very high numbers of international students, Home Secretary Suella Braverman has said.
https://standard.co.uk/news/politics/migrants-home-office-uk-tory-suella-braverman-immigration-students-b1029583.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_trending_article_component&itm_campaign=trending_section&itm_content=1
The reason we have a lot of international students is because each international student is worth approximately 3 times the income of a UK student.....
And Universities love receiving enough money to run their courses and pay their staff...
One man, one vote. And it’ll be my vote….
https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/1576873244938113025
from https://twitter.com/cath_haddon/status/1576872706200387584/photo/1
You make it fiscally neutral, by getting rid of personal allowances and progressive tax rates so the net effect is zero in terms of tax revenues vs universal income payments. It removes all vulnerable people from poverty and ensures people who are due benefits don't miss out. It removes exploitation of the benefits system as there is nothing to exploit anymore. It simplifies tax, it removes just about all benefits, it removes maternity and sickness benefits and unemployment benefits, it removes state pension and student maintenance loans. A bucket load of civil servants can be removed and the DWP just about closed down. It also provides a little help for people wishing to take a risk on starting their own business by giving a small cushion to start with.
I could go on. All those benefits and savings at zero cost.
I wouldn’t take that tweet from Dr Oxford, a labour activist, as being anything near the truth.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/red-tape-cut-for-thousands-of-growing-businesses
Were you to transform them into something closer to a private sector salary you would need to start paying private sector salaries (or probably more in many cases)..
One of the other big shames about Russia. Alongside its oil and gas and agricultural resources it has the Taiga. Vast swathes of forest much of which (though not all) is not particularly biodiverse and is suitable for arboriculture on a massive scale.
He is outlining a proposed policy here. He needs to be clear.
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1576872066350911488?s=20&t=1TN3sH4wDxz80tGJm1TlbA
Once north of Birmingham, they struggle to find signs to Cannock Chase but off the A34 there's a big sign to 'Chasewater.' 'That must be it,' says Braverman. 'Let's go there.'
Once they arrive, they agree it's all very nice with the lake and everything, but they're bored. This isn't quite what they expected. Kwarteng has a brilliant idea. 'I know!' he says. 'Look, that sign says "boats for hire." Why don't we hire one and go for a trip?'
So they pay their money over, and take a nice motorboat out. Truss is steering, and there's a problem. 'Liz, you're going too fast,' shouts Braverman as she clings to the side.
Truss laughs. 'If things get bad, all you do is go further and faster!' she shouts, giving it more throttle. 'Only cowards turn back.'
Suddenly, in the deepest part of the lake, it happens. The boat hits a floating log and starts leaking badly.
'Lifejackets on!' shouts Kwarteng.
'What are lifejackets?' asks Mogg.
'Big orange things that help you float!' roars Truss.
'Ah...yes.' says Mogg. 'I was given those, but, I didn't see the point of them. They were modern and ugly and would only take up space I wanted for my legs. So I left them on the bank.'
The boat sinks.
Who is saved?
The United Kingdom.
https://moneyweek.com/economy/uk-economy/602141/private-vs-public-sector-pay-who-really-gets-more
We have already seen that they do not think through the consequences of their utterances.
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1576872022692745216
As the The Mighty Alex reminded us the other day, it's sitting on no less than *seven* reports on the utter uselessness and pointlessness of so many aspects of current welfare policy, which the devout Mother Therese Coffey has suppressed one after the other.
The danger is that Labour gets in and continues to pursue a New Labour-style policy on this, to play to the wretched tabloids, and populist gallery, yet again.
There's no question that massive reform is needed for these failing policies, and if not UBI itself at first, then more UBI-like policies should definitely be under consideration, and in the mix by now.
https://mobile.twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1576534616382447617
The suggestion is to extend the current small business (under 50 employees) exemptions from reporting to larger businesses up to 500 employees. The tweet you quote is simply an outright lie.
SKS, divisive factionalism? The fuck? Half of his cabinet are more right wing than him!
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Tax U-turn reminder of her leadership launch "when she looked like a robot vacuum cleaner that bumps into a wall and reverses".
https://twitter.com/jamesorharry/status/1547514330295549953/video/1
Abolishing the cliff edges in the tax system with a UBI would be the most sensible supply side reform of taxation that any government could make. I would vote for any party, of any colour, that promised to do that.
Regardless of that, how about a bit of levelling up? Why not aspire to make private sector pensions as good as public sector pensions, rather than levelling down?
Unsurprisingly, they’re not happy
https://twitter.com/Stefan_Boscia/status/1576874898991218688
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Dawn Butler is a curious case, because she started her career with that weird non-endorsement endorsement by Obama and since then has gone on to shoot her mouth off at every opportunity including her remarks about giraffes. She has of course also been ill. At the same time, while erratic, she's not stupid. She might do OK if she can learn when not to say something. Equally, I would say she wouldn't be a candidate ahead of Lammy or Mcfadden.
Barry Gardiner, an enthusiast for nuclear power and a man who took money from the Chinese intelligence services, albeit unknowingly? Hmmm. Not convinced.
I suspect your hatred for Mcfadden in particular is because he dared to call out Corbyn.
Dawn "Jamie Oliver stop appropriating Caribbean culture" Butler
Barry "I am running for leader no I am not running yes I am running no I am not running" Gardner.
On an objective basis, the Labour left is fucking screwed. McDonnell was the only intelligent one they had and he won't be in front-line politics ever again.
The Labour Right/centre are nothing like they used to be but they have some intelligent and sensible people like Reeves, Lammy, Starmer.
Nothing compared to Blair or even Brown's cabinets but they failed to foster a younger generation. Hopefully Keir can