Are we still on this “Starmer is actually a North London luvvie” stuff? For goodness sake, no he isn’t.
Yes, he really is. And if the only place he goes for 'walking' holidays is the Lake District, then it'll just be North London on holiday: going to the same artisan shops and meeting the same sorts of people they know from home. And only, I'm guessing, in the season.
The sheer lack of imagination that causes people to go to the Lake District for walking holidays, when there's the rest of the brilliant UK to choose from, is staggering. Wainwright has a lot to answer for.
I'd argue the Lake District is superb for a walking holiday - huge range of terrain, some very remote spots that are not actually that remote but feel like they are, a region set up for tourism. Of course other parts are great too, but most people don't restrict themselves to just the Lakes.
It is, for one or two trips. The problem is that it is filled with second-homers (I wonder if SKS has one...?), and your comments about "remote but not remote" can be made for many other places as well - the Peak District for one.
The Lake District is popular amongst some because they can go there and be with people like them. A bit like Southwold; well, Walberswick at least.
(I love Southwold and Walberswick, but realise the issues.)
These growth figures imply a drop in GDP per capita so people will feel poorer and be paying more tax. Disposable incomes are going to fall quite substantially over the next 5 years I think.
It's real GDP growth - but any growth per head is likely to be offset by tax increases.
£40 bn in tax rises is about 1.5% of GDP.
The government seems to have given up on growing the economy before it even started.
How red tape holds back nuclear power in Britain And how to fix it
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-red-tape-holds-back-nuclear-power ...Although Hinkley Point C uses the same EPR design as in Finland and France, the UK’s nuclear regulator insisted on 7,000 changes such as the requirement of having both an analog and digital control centre. France’s Flamanville only has the latter. Hinkley Point C will use 25% more concrete and 35% more steel than other EPRs as a result.
All of this makes the kind of fleet-based approach that works in South Korea (and worked in France and Britain historically) next-to-impossible. You do not get the benefits of learning-by-doing or supply chain investment, if there’s no certainty around what you are building and when you will be building it, if at all.
Beyond planning, there is the problem that our regulators treat nuclear differently to any other technology when it comes to safety.
The underlying principle governing the regulation of radiation in Britain is ‘As Low as Reasonably Practicable’ or ALARP. In effect, it means that whenever a productivity gain in nuclear construction is discovered, it is seen as an opportunity to make the safest way to produce electricity even safer. The Office for Nuclear Regulation’s starting point for whether or not nuclear safety measures are ‘grossly disproportionate’ is if costs outweigh benefits by a factor of ten.
Not only does this make nuclear uncompetitive, it also makes the public less safe because instead of using safe nuclear, we burn dirty gas (or until very recently, coal) where similarly costly regulations aren’t being imposed...
Much of this is not new to PBers, but very good article.
The requirement to have both analog and digital control reminds me of the Chinook comedy....
So you have 2 dials with different figures htf do you know which one is correct and which is wrong?
These growth figures imply a drop in GDP per capita so people will feel poorer and be paying more tax. Disposable incomes are going to fall quite substantially over the next 5 years I think.
It's real GDP growth - but any growth per head is likely to be offset by tax increases.
£40 bn in tax rises is about 1.5% of GDP.
The government seems to have given up on growing the economy before it even started.
I see we are getting the Chess fake news story again,
Rachel Reeves: Playing Labour's first big gambit
Reeves played chess from an early age, with her father teaching her the key moves. She became a national under-14 champion, and would "quietly thrash" any boys who might think they were in for an easy game, according to Ellie.
It is bizarrely poor reporting. Reeves has never claimed to have won the tournament (she actually reached the Round of 16 in the UK Under-14s Girls Chess Championship as I understand it). It's not clear to me why the BBC have got this simple fact wrong. Sloppy.
These growth figures imply a drop in GDP per capita so people will feel poorer and be paying more tax. Disposable incomes are going to fall quite substantially over the next 5 years I think.
It's real GDP growth - but any growth per head is likely to be offset by tax increases.
£40 bn in tax rises is about 1.5% of GDP.
The government seems to have given up on growing the economy before it even started.
Yes, as I said earlier, all productivity gain from the private sector over the next 5 years is going to be absorbed by the state which is extremely low productivity. This budget sets us on the path of Japan, low yield, low growth and very timid. I guess it's better than Argentina though.
Fucks sake the "investment" is on carbon capture - why can't the state simply buy some turbines and get the return from the north sea ?!
So the government are actually going to put in money upfront, rather than this £22bn pay out if the private sector do it (which was the don't worry, they will never actually pay that out, because it won't happen).
I'd want to see the contracts before being so confident. Which of course we won't, because "commercial confidentiality".
Forecast seems to be for lower growth overall (from the Guardian). Total +8.2% down from +8.5% to 2028. Not a big change, but the wrong direction.
GDP in 2024: +1.1%, up from 0.8% growth forecast at the March budget GDP in 2025: +2%, up from 1.9% growth forecast at the March budget GDP in 2026: +1.8%, down from 2.0% growth forecast at the March budget GDP in 2027: +1.5%, down from 1.8% growth forecast at the March budget GDP in 2028: +1.5% down from 1.7% growth forecast at the March budget GDP in 2029: +1.6%, a new forecast
Fucks sake the "investment" is on carbon capture - why can't the state simply buy some turbines and get the return from the north sea ?!
As I said the other day, my friend says Ed Miliband is the embodiment of the competence of Chris Grayling and the ideological entrenchment of Jeremy Corbyn.
These growth figures imply a drop in GDP per capita so people will feel poorer and be paying more tax. Disposable incomes are going to fall quite substantially over the next 5 years I think.
It's real GDP growth - but any growth per head is likely to be offset by tax increases.
£40 bn in tax rises is about 1.5% of GDP.
The government seems to have given up on growing the economy before it even started.
The projected growth figures are dismal.
However, tax cuts and structural deficits only produce sugar-rush growth. Proper investment, if well-targeted, will do more. But scrapping red tape (eg on planning) would do much more again.
Are we still on this “Starmer is actually a North London luvvie” stuff? For goodness sake, no he isn’t.
Yes, he really is. And if the only place he goes for 'walking' holidays is the Lake District, then it'll just be North London on holiday: going to the same artisan shops and meeting the same sorts of people they know from home. And only, I'm guessing, in the season.
The sheer lack of imagination that causes people to go to the Lake District for walking holidays, when there's the rest of the brilliant UK to choose from, is staggering. Wainwright has a lot to answer for.
I'd argue the Lake District is superb for a walking holiday - huge range of terrain, some very remote spots that are not actually that remote but feel like they are, a region set up for tourism. Of course other parts are great too, but most people don't restrict themselves to just the Lakes.
It is, for one or two trips. The problem is that it is filled with second-homers (I wonder if SKS has one...?), and your comments about "remote but not remote" can be made for many other places as well - the Peak District for one.
The Lake District is popular amongst some because they can go there and be with people like them. A bit like Southwold; well, Walberswick at least.
(I love Southwold and Walberswick, but realise the issues.)
I've been visiting, irregularly, for over fifty years. "Good for one or two trips" is rubbish.
Forecast seems to be for lower growth overall (from the Guardian). Total +8.2% down from +8.5% to 2028. Not a big change, but the wrong direction.
GDP in 2024: +1.1%, up from 0.8% growth forecast at the March budget GDP in 2025: +2%, up from 1.9% growth forecast at the March budget GDP in 2026: +1.8%, down from 2.0% growth forecast at the March budget GDP in 2027: +1.5%, down from 1.8% growth forecast at the March budget GDP in 2028: +1.5% down from 1.7% growth forecast at the March budget GDP in 2029: +1.6%, a new forecast
That's a reduction in the trend growth rate from 1.8% per year to 1.5% per year which is because of the net productivity loss from the tax rises. I'd be surprised if it was as high as 1.5% as well, we'll probably get closer to 1.2% in the end with taxes on business and individuals rising by such a large amount.
That's was on 35 billion tax rises. This surpasses Lamont and is the largest in at least 50 years.
You can't compare cash figures decades apart.
Percentage of GDP is only rational way to look at it.
Well quite, this would be a larger percentage of GDP. The point I was making was that chart was making the comparison with the tax rises today only being 35 billion, not 40 billion.
These growth figures imply a drop in GDP per capita so people will feel poorer and be paying more tax. Disposable incomes are going to fall quite substantially over the next 5 years I think.
It's real GDP growth - but any growth per head is likely to be offset by tax increases.
£40 bn in tax rises is about 1.5% of GDP.
The government seems to have given up on growing the economy before it even started.
The projected growth figures are dismal.
However, tax cuts and structural deficits only produce sugar-rush growth. Proper investment, if well-targeted, will do more. But scrapping red tape (eg on planning) would do much more again.
I think that's correct. But, what we're getting is simply redistribution from the private to public sectors. I'll believe that red tape will be scrapped by a Labour government the day that I meet a unicorn.
How red tape holds back nuclear power in Britain And how to fix it
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-red-tape-holds-back-nuclear-power ...Although Hinkley Point C uses the same EPR design as in Finland and France, the UK’s nuclear regulator insisted on 7,000 changes such as the requirement of having both an analog and digital control centre. France’s Flamanville only has the latter. Hinkley Point C will use 25% more concrete and 35% more steel than other EPRs as a result.
All of this makes the kind of fleet-based approach that works in South Korea (and worked in France and Britain historically) next-to-impossible. You do not get the benefits of learning-by-doing or supply chain investment, if there’s no certainty around what you are building and when you will be building it, if at all.
Beyond planning, there is the problem that our regulators treat nuclear differently to any other technology when it comes to safety.
The underlying principle governing the regulation of radiation in Britain is ‘As Low as Reasonably Practicable’ or ALARP. In effect, it means that whenever a productivity gain in nuclear construction is discovered, it is seen as an opportunity to make the safest way to produce electricity even safer. The Office for Nuclear Regulation’s starting point for whether or not nuclear safety measures are ‘grossly disproportionate’ is if costs outweigh benefits by a factor of ten.
Not only does this make nuclear uncompetitive, it also makes the public less safe because instead of using safe nuclear, we burn dirty gas (or until very recently, coal) where similarly costly regulations aren’t being imposed...
Much of this is not new to PBers, but very good article.
The requirement to have both analog and digital control reminds me of the Chinook comedy....
So you have 2 dials with different figures htf do you know which one is correct and which is wrong?
Are we still on this “Starmer is actually a North London luvvie” stuff? For goodness sake, no he isn’t.
Yes, he really is. And if the only place he goes for 'walking' holidays is the Lake District, then it'll just be North London on holiday: going to the same artisan shops and meeting the same sorts of people they know from home. And only, I'm guessing, in the season.
The sheer lack of imagination that causes people to go to the Lake District for walking holidays, when there's the rest of the brilliant UK to choose from, is staggering. Wainwright has a lot to answer for.
I'd argue the Lake District is superb for a walking holiday - huge range of terrain, some very remote spots that are not actually that remote but feel like they are, a region set up for tourism. Of course other parts are great too, but most people don't restrict themselves to just the Lakes.
It is, for one or two trips. The problem is that it is filled with second-homers (I wonder if SKS has one...?), and your comments about "remote but not remote" can be made for many other places as well - the Peak District for one.
The Lake District is popular amongst some because they can go there and be with people like them. A bit like Southwold; well, Walberswick at least.
(I love Southwold and Walberswick, but realise the issues.)
I've been visiting, irregularly, for over fifty years. "Good for one or two trips" is rubbish.
No, I mean at a time. The 'irregularly' makes my point: at least, I assume you go elsewhere as well to go 'walking' ?
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
For micro businesses a big question here is the employers allowance. The first £5k of employers national insurance is free so if you are employing 1 person or two or three part time, the actual rate doesn't matter if that allowance is kept.
Very significant change for micro businesses to have this increase to £10k. Far more impact than the changes in the rate.
These growth figures imply a drop in GDP per capita so people will feel poorer and be paying more tax. Disposable incomes are going to fall quite substantially over the next 5 years I think.
It's real GDP growth - but any growth per head is likely to be offset by tax increases.
£40 bn in tax rises is about 1.5% of GDP.
The government seems to have given up on growing the economy before it even started.
The projected growth figures are dismal.
However, tax cuts and structural deficits only produce sugar-rush growth. Proper investment, if well-targeted, will do more. But scrapping red tape (eg on planning) would do much more again.
I think that's correct. But, what we're getting is simply redistribution from the private to public sectors. I'll believe that red tape will be scrapped by a Labour government the day that I meet a unicorn.
Either it happens in the next twelve months, or it's the usual rubbish. It wouldn't actually be hard to do in specific sectors. It just requires the will.
And it's the one really big economically beneficial thing government can do without spending hard cash. Which is why there's still a small chance of it's actually happening. (Not holding my breath, though.)
Are we still on this “Starmer is actually a North London luvvie” stuff? For goodness sake, no he isn’t.
Yes, he really is. And if the only place he goes for 'walking' holidays is the Lake District, then it'll just be North London on holiday: going to the same artisan shops and meeting the same sorts of people they know from home. And only, I'm guessing, in the season.
The sheer lack of imagination that causes people to go to the Lake District for walking holidays, when there's the rest of the brilliant UK to choose from, is staggering. Wainwright has a lot to answer for.
I'd argue the Lake District is superb for a walking holiday - huge range of terrain, some very remote spots that are not actually that remote but feel like they are, a region set up for tourism. Of course other parts are great too, but most people don't restrict themselves to just the Lakes.
It is, for one or two trips. The problem is that it is filled with second-homers (I wonder if SKS has one...?), and your comments about "remote but not remote" can be made for many other places as well - the Peak District for one.
The Lake District is popular amongst some because they can go there and be with people like them. A bit like Southwold; well, Walberswick at least.
(I love Southwold and Walberswick, but realise the issues.)
There are many versions of the Lake District and many versions of a holiday there. I tend to stay in a cottage, have nice long walks to the tops of fells and back and then enjoy a pint or two. Other never leave low ground, mooch around the shops in Keswick, Ambleside and Windermere. I rather like that relatively small area of the lakes, as opposed to say the vastness of Scottish hills/mountains or even the Dales. That said North Wales gets to combine the superb mountains of Snowdonia (take that wokesters) plus superb sandy beaches.
These growth figures imply a drop in GDP per capita so people will feel poorer and be paying more tax. Disposable incomes are going to fall quite substantially over the next 5 years I think.
It's real GDP growth - but any growth per head is likely to be offset by tax increases.
£40 bn in tax rises is about 1.5% of GDP.
The government seems to have given up on growing the economy before it even started.
The projected growth figures are dismal.
However, tax cuts and structural deficits only produce sugar-rush growth. Proper investment, if well-targeted, will do more. But scrapping red tape (eg on planning) would do much more again.
I think that's correct. But, what we're getting is simply redistribution from the private to public sectors. I'll believe that red tape will be scrapped by a Labour government the day that I meet a unicorn.
They're mainly interested in rewarding their client groups
Fuel duty was surely an easy one, price at the pump is down from highs, hasn't risen for forever.
Bit weird bus wankers have got hammered, but not drivers.
Bus use tends to be pretty price inelastic and routes being cut has more political impact than fares. One consequence of the cap has been a reduction in routes because of the reduced income. I assume the govt (and Labour mayors around the country) are trying to get routes back, or at least not cut further.
Though I agree the fuel duty rise should have been an easy hit, particularly alongside the bus fare cap rise.
Lower rate from 10% to 18% Higher rate from 20% to 24%
I can live with this, 24% still feels fair for risk takers.
Big increase at lower rate
Yeah but it's not unreasonable and really how many CGT payers have very much lower rate available to them? It's actually a good way to increase revenue from retired people who are more likely to have income lower than £50k.
Lower rate from 10% to 18% Higher rate from 20% to 24%
Bit of a hike for the lower rate!
Serves working people right for dabbling in shares.
If you are dabbling in shares you get 20k per year ISA allowance, pension contributions and an annual CGT allowance. A bit of dabbling doesnt generate any tax.
Amazed that fuel duty is frozen. The country can't afford it.
A rise would be regressive, no?
Absolutely! It's the most regressive tax there is, those who can afford a new EV don't pay a penny. Those who can afford a new hybrid pay less. Those who rely on their old banger get stung.
And it's a pointless tax to raise anyway since it's getting phase out. Raise it today and you'll have a bigger black hole in the future.
But what qualifies as craft, I mean most of the "craft" beer brands in the UK are owned by the big drinks conglomerates now. I hope this is defined properly.
Amazed that fuel duty is frozen. The country can't afford it.
A rise would be regressive, no?
Absolutely! It's the most regressive tax there is, those who can afford a new EV don't pay a penny. Those who can afford a new hybrid pay less. Those who rely on their old banger get stung.
And it's a pointless tax to raise anyway since it's getting phase out. Raise it today and you'll have a bigger black hole in the future.
Simply not true. Mileage and car ownership increase in line with incomes.
The EV thing is a complication that they will need o fix at some point.
But what qualifies as craft, I mean most of the "craft" beer brands in the UK are owned by the big drinks conglomerates now. I hope this is defined properly.
But what qualifies as craft, I mean most of the "craft" beer brands in the UK are owned by the big drinks conglomerates now. I hope this is defined properly.
But what qualifies as craft, I mean most of the "craft" beer brands in the UK are owned by the big drinks conglomerates now. I hope this is defined properly.
Comments
The Lake District is popular amongst some because they can go there and be with people like them. A bit like Southwold; well, Walberswick at least.
(I love Southwold and Walberswick, but realise the issues.)
Anyone want to apply for the enquiry into my enquiry?
£40 bn in tax rises is about 1.5% of GDP.
The government seems to have given up on growing the economy before it even started.
https://x.com/ArchieHall/status/1851553092963013099
Lamont still, narrowly, the record holder.
What we want to know: how much are you going to screw us?
Get on with it.
Which of course we won't, because "commercial confidentiality".
Precedents are not promising.
But given the likely contenders (Lammy, Rayner, etc.) she may even be the best choice. Which says a huge amount about the Labour Party.
Percentage of GDP is only rational way to look at it.
GDP in 2024: +1.1%, up from 0.8% growth forecast at the March budget
GDP in 2025: +2%, up from 1.9% growth forecast at the March budget
GDP in 2026: +1.8%, down from 2.0% growth forecast at the March budget
GDP in 2027: +1.5%, down from 1.8% growth forecast at the March budget
GDP in 2028: +1.5% down from 1.7% growth forecast at the March budget
GDP in 2029: +1.6%, a new forecast
However, tax cuts and structural deficits only produce sugar-rush growth. Proper investment, if well-targeted, will do more. But scrapping red tape (eg on planning) would do much more again.
Ouch !!!!
Doing my self-employment tax return as I watch.
meat taxfuel duty rise.So more to rise elsewhere...
Moral: it's a lot (getting on for £1000 per taxpayer?), but it has to be a lot given the mad numbers inherited. But it's not unprecedentedly a lot.
And yes, it's Scrooge now to give space to be Santa later. Because that's what governments in control of events do. Because politically, that works.
"Good for one or two trips" is rubbish.
As the owner of electric vehicles I was hoping for the fuel duty to go up a lot as it is a tax I do not pay.
Fuel duty freeze is a surprise
Bit weird bus wankers have got hammered, but not drivers.
Lower rate from 10% to 18%
Higher rate from 20% to 24%
It wouldn't actually be hard to do in specific sectors. It just requires the will.
And it's the one really big economically beneficial thing government can do without spending hard cash.
Which is why there's still a small chance of it's actually happening.
(Not holding my breath, though.)
Thresholds frozen to 2030
Inherited pensions in by 2027
Agricultural and business property in scope
That said North Wales gets to combine the superb mountains of Snowdonia (take that wokesters) plus superb sandy beaches.
Though I agree the fuel duty rise should have been an easy hit, particularly alongside the bus fare cap rise.
Trying to goad Sunak.. but fell flat
She's learned a little bit of politics
And it's a pointless tax to raise anyway since it's getting phase out. Raise it today and you'll have a bigger black hole in the future.
The EV thing is a complication that they will need o fix at some point.