Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A brutal chart for Labour from the FT – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,263
edited January 19 in General
imageA brutal chart for Labour from the FT – politicalbetting.com

This chart in the FT shows how badly Labour have started, with business confidence in Labour falling like Hans Gruber from Nakatomi Plaza. The only positive for Labour is that they have a long time to turn things around.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Sandpit said:

    Happy Christmas Eve to all PBers, hope everyone will be spending the next few days enjoying themselves with family and friends.

    Spare a thought for all those for whose Christmas won’t be that, many people will be working and some places like Ukraine will barely pause to celebrate.

    Me, I’m off out to a local party this afternoon and to the pub tomorrow, have my most Christmassy of Christmas t-shirts ready to go! 🎅🎄

    Sigh, I guess it is my fault I mentioned Die Hard in the header.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,225
    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,161
    I am very surprised by this threader. It’s really quite astonishing.

    Something must be wrong with the very fabric of the universe for TSE to mention Die Hard on Christmas Eve.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    edited December 2024
    Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr has had her contract “cancelled” by the Guardian following the Sunday newspaper’s controversial sale to Tortoise Media. Ms Cadwalladr, an investigative journalist who has written several high profile stories on Brexit, wrote on social media site X that the Guardian was “cancelling my contract after 19 years continuous employment with no pay-off”.

    Ms Cadwalladr is among several freelancers and casual staff who have been contacted by senior management to say their current contracts will “end” once the Observer is formally sold.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/23/guardian-axe-pulitzer-nominate-writer-carole-cadwalladr/

    To be honest, I am surprised she lasted so long, with the seemingly weekly legal bills that Guardian have been incurring for years and required corrections / apologies. But the legal bills not over yet....

    "She is understood to be considering legal action alongside dozens of casual staff."
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 52,106
    Sandpit said:

    Happy Christmas Eve to all PBers, hope everyone will be spending the next few days enjoying themselves with family and friends.

    Spare a thought for all those for whose Christmas won’t be that, many people will be working and some places like Ukraine will barely pause to celebrate.

    Me, I’m off out to a local party this afternoon and to the pub tomorrow, have my most Christmassy of Christmas t-shirts ready to go! 🎅🎄

    Yeah


  • On topic...who could have guessed this would have happened....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,161
    DavidL said:

    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

    There isn’t any very obvious replacement who would do better, which may help somewhat.

    Yvette Cooper possibly, but given her seniority coupled to the fact she is much younger than he is, he may be reluctant to promote a potential leadership rival.

    Also if he has to fire Tulip Siddiq that will destabilise the Treasury team anyway, and he won’t want to cause more angst than necessary.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,161

    On topic...who could have guessed this would have happened....

    Well, not Hans Gruber to judge from that look on his face.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,900
    edited December 2024
    People largely go on first impressions. Labour are a dud. Starmer lies about the Sun Newspaper... Rayner lies about how Labour will recompense WASPI women. You can't trust anything Labour say and people know it
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    edited December 2024
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

    There isn’t any very obvious replacement who would do better, which may help somewhat.

    Yvette Cooper possibly, but given her seniority coupled to the fact she is much younger than he is, he may be reluctant to promote a potential leadership rival.

    Also if he has to fire Tulip Siddiq that will destabilise the Treasury team anyway, and he won’t want to cause more angst than necessary.
    This highlights the problem with Labour full stop, the lack of talent. The current talent on the field isn't up to much, and the bench is empty with ready to go replacements. This is no Labour 1997 or Coalition 2010.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,225
    Yep, its Christmas Eve and guess whose going to collect the Markies order, the baker order, etc

    It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest I go to than I have ever known. (not sure about the rest bit, ed).

    Or. perhaps more appropriately, I may be some time.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    edited December 2024

    People largely go on first impressions. Labour are a dud. Starmer lies about the Sun Newspaper... Rayner lies about how Labour will recompense WASPI women. You can't trust anything Labour say and people know it

    Gift-gate set the tone. Starmer was still explaining his freebies weeks later and only after many many weeks did he quietly whisper I am not going to take as many in the future. His freebie / not-freebie Arsenal season tickets where in the worst in that every time he spoke he made it worse with his lawyer-esque tone, making everything more unclear.

    Counter that to how Cameron got out in front of expenses scandal.
  • Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr has had her contract “cancelled” by the Guardian following the Sunday newspaper’s controversial sale to Tortoise Media. Ms Cadwalladr, an investigative journalist who has written several high profile stories on Brexit, wrote on social media site X that the Guardian was “cancelling my contract after 19 years continuous employment with no pay-off”.

    Ms Cadwalladr is among several freelancers and casual staff who have been contacted by senior management to say their current contracts will “end” once the Observer is formally sold.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/23/guardian-axe-pulitzer-nominate-writer-carole-cadwalladr/

    To be honest, I am surprised she lasted so long, with the seemingly weekly legal bills that Guardian have been incurring for years and required corrections / apologies. But the legal bills not over yet....

    "She is understood to be considering legal action alongside dozens of casual staff."

    It really is quite a rare thing to hear anything positive about the Guardian
  • edited December 2024

    People largely go on first impressions. Labour are a dud. Starmer lies about the Sun Newspaper... Rayner lies about how Labour will recompense WASPI women. You can't trust anything Labour say and people know it

    Theresa, Boris, Liz and Rishi showed that it is hard to be a good Prime Minister.

    Keir is showing it is easy to be a bad one.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,900
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

    There isn’t any very obvious replacement who would do better, which may help somewhat.

    Yvette Cooper possibly, but given her seniority coupled to the fact she is much younger than he is, he may be reluctant to promote a potential leadership rival.

    Also if he has to fire Tulip Siddiq that will destabilise the Treasury team anyway, and he won’t want to cause more angst than necessary.
    Vetted Cooper.. the only thing she has ever done was enforce H I P S. and that was a joke. The very idea that she should become Chancellor shows the paucity of talent within Labour and with Lammy as Foreign Sec just reinforces how poor Labour are.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,554

    Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr has had her contract “cancelled” by the Guardian following the Sunday newspaper’s controversial sale to Tortoise Media. Ms Cadwalladr, an investigative journalist who has written several high profile stories on Brexit, wrote on social media site X that the Guardian was “cancelling my contract after 19 years continuous employment with no pay-off”.

    Ms Cadwalladr is among several freelancers and casual staff who have been contacted by senior management to say their current contracts will “end” once the Observer is formally sold.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/23/guardian-axe-pulitzer-nominate-writer-carole-cadwalladr/

    To be honest, I am surprised she lasted so long, with the seemingly weekly legal bills that Guardian have been incurring for years and required corrections / apologies. But the legal bills not over yet....

    "She is understood to be considering legal action alongside dozens of casual staff."

    It really is quite a rare thing to hear anything positive about the Guardian
    It’s rather amusing that Ms Cadwalladr appears to know about as much contract law as she does defamation law.

    No Carole, contractors and freelancers are most definitely not employees, and most definitely won’t be getting severance pay or TUPE provisions.
  • Who could have guessed that absolutely hammering companies for taxes, smashing up National Insurance rate while at the same slashing the threshold making it cost billions more to hire people might be bad for the economy?

    Utter morons!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,387
    The moaning Minnies of the business community. Talking the country down.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,758

    Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr has had her contract “cancelled” by the Guardian following the Sunday newspaper’s controversial sale to Tortoise Media. Ms Cadwalladr, an investigative journalist who has written several high profile stories on Brexit, wrote on social media site X that the Guardian was “cancelling my contract after 19 years continuous employment with no pay-off”.

    Ms Cadwalladr is among several freelancers and casual staff who have been contacted by senior management to say their current contracts will “end” once the Observer is formally sold.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/23/guardian-axe-pulitzer-nominate-writer-carole-cadwalladr/

    To be honest, I am surprised she lasted so long, with the seemingly weekly legal bills that Guardian have been incurring for years and required corrections / apologies. But the legal bills not over yet....

    "She is understood to be considering legal action alongside dozens of casual staff."

    ‘Considering’

    She’s reportedly a contractor to the guardian. Good luck with that.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,758

    Who could have guessed that absolutely hammering companies for taxes, smashing up National Insurance rate while at the same slashing the threshold making it cost billions more to hire people might be bad for the economy?

    Utter morons!

    Who could have guessed it. Most of us here bar the die hard labour fans.

    Utter Morons as you say.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,758

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

    There isn’t any very obvious replacement who would do better, which may help somewhat.

    Yvette Cooper possibly, but given her seniority coupled to the fact she is much younger than he is, he may be reluctant to promote a potential leadership rival.

    Also if he has to fire Tulip Siddiq that will destabilise the Treasury team anyway, and he won’t want to cause more angst than necessary.
    Vetted Cooper.. the only thing she has ever done was enforce H I P S. and that was a joke. The very idea that she should become Chancellor shows the paucity of talent within Labour and with Lammy as Foreign Sec just reinforces how poor Labour are.
    Darren Jones ?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 52,106

    On topic...who could have guessed this would have happened....

    On topic - there are a number of theories of how governments can promote growth. From extreme left to extreme right, oceans of ink have been spilled on the subject.

    The budget implemented none of them. Just raised taxes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,582

    Who could have guessed that absolutely hammering companies for taxes, smashing up National Insurance rate while at the same slashing the threshold making it cost billions more to hire people might be bad for the economy?

    Utter morons!

    If you look at the timeline in the graph then that cannot be true.

    From the graph Business Confidence was dropping from the day after the GE, so nothing to do with NI changes etc as that wasn't until November.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,958

    People largely go on first impressions. Labour are a dud. Starmer lies about the Sun Newspaper... Rayner lies about how Labour will recompense WASPI women. You can't trust anything Labour say and people know it

    The time for a LOTO to set first impressions is during their time in opposition, when saying things is easy because you don't actually have much responsibility. Blair did this, developing his shadow cabinet into quite a formidable team, with a support crew that had an air of competence. This was a message Blair, Brown. Campbell and Mandelson spent two or three years ramming into the media before they got anywhere near power.

    Starmer did not do this. Which means he had to set 'first impressions' whilst he was in government and having to make hard decisions.

    Of course, Blair had the advantage of having a lot of relatively capable and competent prospective ministers. I don't think Starmer does...
  • ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

    There isn’t any very obvious replacement who would do better, which may help somewhat.

    Yvette Cooper possibly, but given her seniority coupled to the fact she is much younger than he is, he may be reluctant to promote a potential leadership rival.

    Also if he has to fire Tulip Siddiq that will destabilise the Treasury team anyway, and he won’t want to cause more angst than necessary.
    Cooper is 7 years younger than SKS, I wouldn’t describe that as ‘much’.
    If she became chancellor it would be an opportunity for a deep dive into her PB career (before my time). Cooper must have said something scandalous or ill judged which would make her more interesting than the on message drone she now appears to be.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,758
    Long term gilts now above the Truss induced panic.

    Well done Rachel.

    Interest rates higher for longer. Mortgage holders will be so appreciative 😂😂😂😂

    So the same people who claimed Truss crashed the economy, she didn’t, will make the same claim about Reeves ?

    Course not.

    https://x.com/hawkeye_74/status/1871140530673082551?s=61
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,481
    DavidL said:

    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

    Certainly not after all that beer and curry he consumed.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 52,106
    Sandpit said:

    Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr has had her contract “cancelled” by the Guardian following the Sunday newspaper’s controversial sale to Tortoise Media. Ms Cadwalladr, an investigative journalist who has written several high profile stories on Brexit, wrote on social media site X that the Guardian was “cancelling my contract after 19 years continuous employment with no pay-off”.

    Ms Cadwalladr is among several freelancers and casual staff who have been contacted by senior management to say their current contracts will “end” once the Observer is formally sold.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/23/guardian-axe-pulitzer-nominate-writer-carole-cadwalladr/

    To be honest, I am surprised she lasted so long, with the seemingly weekly legal bills that Guardian have been incurring for years and required corrections / apologies. But the legal bills not over yet....

    "She is understood to be considering legal action alongside dozens of casual staff."

    It really is quite a rare thing to hear anything positive about the Guardian
    It’s rather amusing that Ms Cadwalladr appears to know about as much contract law as she does defamation law.

    No Carole, contractors and freelancers are most definitely not employees, and most definitely won’t be getting severance pay or TUPE provisions.
    Over the years the Guardian has run opinion pieces, editorials and backed campaigns to make employment rights accrue through time employed, not contract type. Specifically to create rights for contract workers.

    Hmmmmm
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,980
    The ONS may have been overestimating economic inactivity: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/23/ons-job-figures-labour-force-survey-data
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 463
    edited December 2024
    Taz said:

    Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr has had her contract “cancelled” by the Guardian following the Sunday newspaper’s controversial sale to Tortoise Media. Ms Cadwalladr, an investigative journalist who has written several high profile stories on Brexit, wrote on social media site X that the Guardian was “cancelling my contract after 19 years continuous employment with no pay-off”.

    Ms Cadwalladr is among several freelancers and casual staff who have been contacted by senior management to say their current contracts will “end” once the Observer is formally sold.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/23/guardian-axe-pulitzer-nominate-writer-carole-cadwalladr/

    To be honest, I am surprised she lasted so long, with the seemingly weekly legal bills that Guardian have been incurring for years and required corrections / apologies. But the legal bills not over yet....

    "She is understood to be considering legal action alongside dozens of casual staff."

    ‘Considering’

    She’s reportedly a contractor to the guardian. Good luck with that.
    Depends what type of legal action she is considering. Maya Forstater won her Employment Tribunal case against the Centre for Global Development Europe when they did not renew her consulting contract. She had been with them for 4 years.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,582

    Foxy said:

    Who could have guessed that absolutely hammering companies for taxes, smashing up National Insurance rate while at the same slashing the threshold making it cost billions more to hire people might be bad for the economy?

    Utter morons!

    If you look at the timeline in the graph then that cannot be true.

    From the graph Business Confidence was dropping from the day after the GE, so nothing to do with NI changes etc as that wasn't until November.
    The drop was from the fictitious £22billion black hole and the accompanying story of eye watering tax hikes to come.

    First Reeves talked confidence away and then she hit us with the tax rises.
    It's true though. That's why the Tories hadn't done spending review, and cut and ran before the prisons burst.

    They could see the chickens coming home to roost.

    I am surprised that our business leaders were too stupid to see it. We all could and we are a bunch of armchair pundits.
  • Taz said:

    Long term gilts now above the Truss induced panic.

    Well done Rachel.

    Interest rates higher for longer. Mortgage holders will be so appreciative 😂😂😂😂

    So the same people who claimed Truss crashed the economy, she didn’t, will make the same claim about Reeves ?

    Course not.

    https://x.com/hawkeye_74/status/1871140530673082551?s=61

    Aren't our long term gilts mainly tracking US 10-year which also yield significantly up?
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,758

    Taz said:

    Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr has had her contract “cancelled” by the Guardian following the Sunday newspaper’s controversial sale to Tortoise Media. Ms Cadwalladr, an investigative journalist who has written several high profile stories on Brexit, wrote on social media site X that the Guardian was “cancelling my contract after 19 years continuous employment with no pay-off”.

    Ms Cadwalladr is among several freelancers and casual staff who have been contacted by senior management to say their current contracts will “end” once the Observer is formally sold.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/23/guardian-axe-pulitzer-nominate-writer-carole-cadwalladr/

    To be honest, I am surprised she lasted so long, with the seemingly weekly legal bills that Guardian have been incurring for years and required corrections / apologies. But the legal bills not over yet....

    "She is understood to be considering legal action alongside dozens of casual staff."

    ‘Considering’

    She’s reportedly a contractor to the guardian. Good luck with that.
    Depends what type of legal action she is considering. Maya Forstater won her Employment Tribunal case against the Centre for Global Development Europe when they did not renew her consulting contract. She had been with them for 4 years.
    Forstater won for discrimination based on her gender critical beliefs. No sign of that or any discrimination here.

    She won’t challenge it and if she did she wouldn’t get a penny.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Who could have guessed that absolutely hammering companies for taxes, smashing up National Insurance rate while at the same slashing the threshold making it cost billions more to hire people might be bad for the economy?

    Utter morons!

    If you look at the timeline in the graph then that cannot be true.

    From the graph Business Confidence was dropping from the day after the GE, so nothing to do with NI changes etc as that wasn't until November.
    The drop was from the fictitious £22billion black hole and the accompanying story of eye watering tax hikes to come.

    First Reeves talked confidence away and then she hit us with the tax rises.
    It's true though. That's why the Tories hadn't done spending review, and cut and ran before the prisons burst.

    They could see the chickens coming home to roost.

    I am surprised that our business leaders were too stupid to see it. We all could and we are a bunch of armchair pundits.
    Dumping all the taxes on business and employment was a choice though.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,958
    Interesting if a correct translation:

    One Russian paper today: “Assad’s fall confirms the indisputable fact that the percentage of votes won by a dictator/autocrat/usurper at an election before he falls means absolutely nothing. None of that ‘95% support’ came out to defend him.”

    https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/1871450688095756629
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,883
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

    There isn’t any very obvious replacement who would do better, which may help somewhat.

    Yvette Cooper possibly, but given her seniority coupled to the fact she is much younger than he is, he may be reluctant to promote a potential leadership rival.

    Also if he has to fire Tulip Siddiq that will destabilise the Treasury team anyway, and he won’t want to cause more angst than necessary.
    He could make Ed Balls chancellor from the Lords.
  • It's beginning to look a lot like Labour haven't a fucking clue about the economy
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,068
    edited December 2024
    DavidL said:

    Yep, its Christmas Eve and guess whose going to collect the Markies order, the baker order, etc

    It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest I go to than I have ever known. (not sure about the rest bit, ed).

    Or. perhaps more appropriately, I may be some time.

    The first amendment to the constitution states that I do not enter, or attempt to enter, any retail premises on Christmas eve.

    Glad to note the subtle Dickens/Scott expedition references.
  • The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

    There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

    Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

    ... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,061
    Evening all from New Zealand :)

    Not much Christmas spirit for Starmer or Reeves on here it would seem and not much for Luxon and Willis here with the NZ economy contracting 1% in Q2 after a 1.1% fall in Q1.

    Rather like Starmer, Luxon came in after a disastrous defeat in the previous election and has followed traditional policies of public spending cuts including to key infrastructure such as the Interislander Ferries.

    While I won’t argue mistakes have been made by the Labour Government in the last six months, they pale into insignificance beside the ineptitude of the Conservative years.

    Whether you call it austerity, rebalancing or whatever, the public finances need to be brought under control. Tax cuts and borrowing are no solution - they are basically economic methadone. No one wants to pay more taxes and see public services reduced but something needed to be done and the Conservatives were never going to do it.

    That’s not to say how Labour has comported itself in Government has been far from ideal - the presentation and communication of policies was initially awful and has only just started to improve but valuable time was lost and valuable trust broken.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,161
    edited December 2024

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

    There isn’t any very obvious replacement who would do better, which may help somewhat.

    Yvette Cooper possibly, but given her seniority coupled to the fact she is much younger than he is, he may be reluctant to promote a potential leadership rival.

    Also if he has to fire Tulip Siddiq that will destabilise the Treasury team anyway, and he won’t want to cause more angst than necessary.
    He could make Ed Balls chancellor from the Lords.
    Chancellor has to be in the Commons. The original idea was the Chancellor would act as spokesman for the First Lord (who until the 1860s controlled the Treasury directly) if the First Lord was a peer- essentially the role now fulfilled by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. If the First Lord was an MP, usually there was no Chancellor at all.

    That could be changed I suppose (as the Lord Chancellor's role was eventually) but it wouldn't be as straightforward as just ennobling Balls and appointing him (as Blair found when he tried to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor via a reshuffle).
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Speaking of stupid decisions, there's a consultation over changing the phasing out of petrol/diesel cars from 2035 (already daft) to 2030.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y7x3jgw7no

    "In 2024, EVs must make up 22% of a carmaker's car sales, and 10% of van sales. This target is set to rise. Firms failing to meet these targets face a £15,000 fine per sale."

    That is, of course, a continuation of the previous government's stupid decision.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,387
    If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.

    And not claiming their commute as a business expense.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,387

    It's beginning to look a lot like Labour haven't a fucking clue about the economy

    And the Tories did?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,883
    edited December 2024
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

    There isn’t any very obvious replacement who would do better, which may help somewhat.

    Yvette Cooper possibly, but given her seniority coupled to the fact she is much younger than he is, he may be reluctant to promote a potential leadership rival.

    Also if he has to fire Tulip Siddiq that will destabilise the Treasury team anyway, and he won’t want to cause more angst than necessary.
    He could make Ed Balls chancellor from the Lords.
    Chancellor has to be in the Commons. The original idea was the Chancellor would act as spokesman for the First Lord (who until the 1860s controlled the Treasury directly) if the First Lord was a peer- essentially the role now fulfilled by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. If the First Lord was an MP, usually there was no Chancellor at all.

    That could be changed I suppose (as the Lord Chancellor's role was eventually) but it wouldn't be as straightforward as just appointing him (as Blair found when he tried to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor via a reshuffle).
    It would be fitting if Starmer’s promise to abolish the Lords was followed up by making it more central.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,161

    It's beginning to look a lot like Labour haven't a fucking clue about the economy

    And the Tories did?
    Well yes. Or at least, Truss had many a clue about how to fuck it.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,068

    Who could have guessed that absolutely hammering companies for taxes, smashing up National Insurance rate while at the same slashing the threshold making it cost billions more to hire people might be bad for the economy?

    Utter morons!

    Of course, but hang on. We are, even now, borrowing billions to cover current day to day expenditure, so taxes have to rise. No-one has a serious plan for spending less.

    So the critics of the NI rises have to deal with the question they are avoiding: What are the replacement tax rises which would do no damage, take no money out of the economy, be popular with everyone and actually raise between 40-100 billion. (We are going to need loads more than the current rises)?

    Personally I would put it on VAT, with much higher rates on luxuries and a low rate on food, further breaking the promises, but I imagine no-one on the planet would cheer.
  • Battlebus said:

    The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

    There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

    Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

    ... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?

    It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.

    You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.

    In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.

    That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.

    And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,222
    edited December 2024
    Taz said:

    Long term gilts now above the Truss induced panic.

    Well done Rachel.

    Interest rates higher for longer. Mortgage holders will be so appreciative 😂😂😂😂

    So the same people who claimed Truss crashed the economy, she didn’t, will make the same claim about Reeves ?

    Course not.

    https://x.com/hawkeye_74/status/1871140530673082551?s=61

    There's plenty to blame Reeves for, but the rise in long-term gilt yields mostly reflects global factors, rather than anything this - admittedly dismal - government has done. If it reflected UK-specific risk, our currency would have plummeted, and our credit default risk would have soared.

    Instead, sterling's trade-weighted exchange rate hasn't budged since the election, while our credit default swaps, which measure the riskiness of government debt, are down 41% on a year ago, lower than the US, France, Italy and Canada and about the same as Japan. Only Australia, Germany and - of course - Switzerland are much better:

    https://uk.investing.com/rates-bonds/world-cds

    In fact, low long-term interest rates can be a danger sign, as in Japan and China now, if they reflect low long-term growth potential. That's the real danger, and where Labour are screwing us.

    (Not that the last government was much better, but at least it had to fund the once-in-a-century panademic, and the inflationary shocks from the war in Ukraine, not just spend money we don't have to pay for its lazy public union mates and white elephant infrastructure projects).
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,387
    Off topic, I remember the pre-Covid days, when we all still had to turn up in the office on Christmas Eve, faff about for the morning listening to Christmas music, and then have a boss tell us to get on our way around lunchtime. Today, checking our office desk booking app, only two dedicated souls have made it in.

    This does mean, however, that for those WFH, it is up to the individual when they decide it is time to down tools. Is 09:00 too early?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,068

    Good morning, everyone.

    Speaking of stupid decisions, there's a consultation over changing the phasing out of petrol/diesel cars from 2035 (already daft) to 2030.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y7x3jgw7no

    "In 2024, EVs must make up 22% of a carmaker's car sales, and 10% of van sales. This target is set to rise. Firms failing to meet these targets face a £15,000 fine per sale."

    That is, of course, a continuation of the previous government's stupid decision.

    A policy of punishing major manufacturers for the (rational and lawful) decisions of their customers is a pure and obvious injustice, compounded by government cowardice.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,554

    Taz said:

    Long term gilts now above the Truss induced panic.

    Well done Rachel.

    Interest rates higher for longer. Mortgage holders will be so appreciative 😂😂😂😂

    So the same people who claimed Truss crashed the economy, she didn’t, will make the same claim about Reeves ?

    Course not.

    https://x.com/hawkeye_74/status/1871140530673082551?s=61

    Aren't our long term gilts mainly tracking US 10-year which also yield significantly up?
    Last year the US Federal Government raised $4.5trn and spent $6.2trn.

    https://x.com/doge/status/1860211822722449910

    It’s not too difficult to see why gilt yields are up.
  • algarkirk said:

    Who could have guessed that absolutely hammering companies for taxes, smashing up National Insurance rate while at the same slashing the threshold making it cost billions more to hire people might be bad for the economy?

    Utter morons!

    Of course, but hang on. We are, even now, borrowing billions to cover current day to day expenditure, so taxes have to rise. No-one has a serious plan for spending less.

    So the critics of the NI rises have to deal with the question they are avoiding: What are the replacement tax rises which would do no damage, take no money out of the economy, be popular with everyone and actually raise between 40-100 billion. (We are going to need loads more than the current rises)?

    Personally I would put it on VAT, with much higher rates on luxuries and a low rate on food, further breaking the promises, but I imagine no-one on the planet would cheer.
    I've answered that question, previously, and coincidentally in the post immediately after yours. :)

    You added extra caveats though, it doesn't need to be "popular with everyone" but it does need to be good for the economy.

    Jacking up NI is bad for the economy.

    Merging NI and Income Tax may be unpopular with those who are currently undertaxed compared to people who go to work to earn their income, but it won't be increasing taxes on employment and won't be bad for the economy.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,481

    Good morning, everyone.

    Speaking of stupid decisions, there's a consultation over changing the phasing out of petrol/diesel cars from 2035 (already daft) to 2030.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y7x3jgw7no

    "In 2024, EVs must make up 22% of a carmaker's car sales, and 10% of van sales. This target is set to rise. Firms failing to meet these targets face a £15,000 fine per sale."

    That is, of course, a continuation of the previous government's stupid decision.

    If the traditional motor manufacturers don't have a viable alternative to ICE offerings by 2030 they will all be out of business by 2035. The market and not government will drive this. MG, BYD and Omodo dealerships are popping up everywhere. Sell your shares in Stellantis.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,958

    Off topic, I remember the pre-Covid days, when we all still had to turn up in the office on Christmas Eve, faff about for the morning listening to Christmas music, and then have a boss tell us to get on our way around lunchtime. Today, checking our office desk booking app, only two dedicated souls have made it in.

    This does mean, however, that for those WFH, it is up to the individual when they decide it is time to down tools. Is 09:00 too early?

    In my case, set off a *really* long series of software build and consequent test scripts, that need checking every few hours. ;)

    (For a couple of years, I actually worked the three days between Christmas and New Year, rather than taking them off as holiday. As the office was empty and there were no meetings, I could get loads of work done that involved intense concentration.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,161
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Long term gilts now above the Truss induced panic.

    Well done Rachel.

    Interest rates higher for longer. Mortgage holders will be so appreciative 😂😂😂😂

    So the same people who claimed Truss crashed the economy, she didn’t, will make the same claim about Reeves ?

    Course not.

    https://x.com/hawkeye_74/status/1871140530673082551?s=61

    Aren't our long term gilts mainly tracking US 10-year which also yield significantly up?
    Last year the US Federal Government raised $4.5trn and spent $6.2trn.

    https://x.com/doge/status/1860211822722449910

    It’s not too difficult to see why gilt yields are up.
    And with Trump's desire to lift the debt ceiling that's only going one way.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,068
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

    There isn’t any very obvious replacement who would do better, which may help somewhat.

    Yvette Cooper possibly, but given her seniority coupled to the fact she is much younger than he is, he may be reluctant to promote a potential leadership rival.

    Also if he has to fire Tulip Siddiq that will destabilise the Treasury team anyway, and he won’t want to cause more angst than necessary.
    He could make Ed Balls chancellor from the Lords.
    Chancellor has to be in the Commons. The original idea was the Chancellor would act as spokesman for the First Lord (who until the 1860s controlled the Treasury directly) if the First Lord was a peer- essentially the role now fulfilled by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. If the First Lord was an MP, usually there was no Chancellor at all.

    That could be changed I suppose (as the Lord Chancellor's role was eventually) but it wouldn't be as straightforward as just ennobling Balls and appointing him (as Blair found when he tried to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor via a reshuffle).
    The old role of Lord Chancellor - which didn't work in theory but worked in practice - should be restored. A great office of state giving a crucial interface between the political and judicial has been turned into a minor side show.

    Most people, even those a bit interested in these things would be unable to name the Lord Chancellor, the speaker of the House of Lords, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the DPP.

    These were big cheeses not all that long ago.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,554

    Good morning, everyone.

    Speaking of stupid decisions, there's a consultation over changing the phasing out of petrol/diesel cars from 2035 (already daft) to 2030.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y7x3jgw7no

    "In 2024, EVs must make up 22% of a carmaker's car sales, and 10% of van sales. This target is set to rise. Firms failing to meet these targets face a £15,000 fine per sale."

    That is, of course, a continuation of the previous government's stupid decision.

    If European governments had started of with the explicit intention of turning the whole car market into Chinese white goods, it’s different to see anything they’d have done differently than what has actually been done.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,958
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Long term gilts now above the Truss induced panic.

    Well done Rachel.

    Interest rates higher for longer. Mortgage holders will be so appreciative 😂😂😂😂

    So the same people who claimed Truss crashed the economy, she didn’t, will make the same claim about Reeves ?

    Course not.

    https://x.com/hawkeye_74/status/1871140530673082551?s=61

    Aren't our long term gilts mainly tracking US 10-year which also yield significantly up?
    Last year the US Federal Government raised $4.5trn and spent $6.2trn.

    https://x.com/doge/status/1860211822722449910

    It’s not too difficult to see why gilt yields are up.
    And with Trump's desire to lift the debt ceiling that's only going one way.
    And don't forget giving tax breaks to the rich. That'll *really* help.

    I'm also unsurprised thast Sandpit believes something coming out of 'DOGE'. ffs...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,481
    algarkirk said:

    Who could have guessed that absolutely hammering companies for taxes, smashing up National Insurance rate while at the same slashing the threshold making it cost billions more to hire people might be bad for the economy?

    Utter morons!

    Of course, but hang on. We are, even now, borrowing billions to cover current day to day expenditure, so taxes have to rise. No-one has a serious plan for spending less.

    So the critics of the NI rises have to deal with the question they are avoiding: What are the replacement tax rises which would do no damage, take no money out of the economy, be popular with everyone and actually raise between 40-100 billion. (We are going to need loads more than the current rises)?

    Personally I would put it on VAT, with much higher rates on luxuries and a low rate on food, further breaking the promises, but I imagine no-one on the planet would cheer.
    VAT is a regressive tax which is why the Tories always liked it. It affected Labour voters more, but now as the Cons and Ref are courting salt of the earth John Bull hardworking voters that is not the slam dunk it once was.

    The reality is the Conservatives in (certainly later) government painted a picture that taxes could be cut and services would improve. Labour didn't call out this lie and went along with it. This is why they are so well and truly mullered.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 29,249
    algarkirk said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Speaking of stupid decisions, there's a consultation over changing the phasing out of petrol/diesel cars from 2035 (already daft) to 2030.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y7x3jgw7no

    "In 2024, EVs must make up 22% of a carmaker's car sales, and 10% of van sales. This target is set to rise. Firms failing to meet these targets face a £15,000 fine per sale."

    That is, of course, a continuation of the previous government's stupid decision.

    A policy of punishing major manufacturers for the (rational and lawful) decisions of their customers is a pure and obvious injustice, compounded by government cowardice.
    If Labour *really* wanted to annoy Musk, they'd push the date out again.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,387

    Off topic, I remember the pre-Covid days, when we all still had to turn up in the office on Christmas Eve, faff about for the morning listening to Christmas music, and then have a boss tell us to get on our way around lunchtime. Today, checking our office desk booking app, only two dedicated souls have made it in.

    This does mean, however, that for those WFH, it is up to the individual when they decide it is time to down tools. Is 09:00 too early?

    In my case, set off a *really* long series of software build and consequent test scripts, that need checking every few hours. ;)

    (For a couple of years, I actually worked the three days between Christmas and New Year, rather than taking them off as holiday. As the office was empty and there were no meetings, I could get loads of work done that involved intense concentration.)
    We used to be obliged to take 3 days of annual leave between Christmas and New Year, as all offices are closed. However, now we can work if we want to - we can even work on Christmas Day and Boxing Day (and any other Bank Holidays).

    One of my colleagues is returning to work on Dec 30th in order to escape from their in-laws.
  • If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.

    And not claiming their commute as a business expense.

    Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene
    Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments.
    Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you.
    Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.

    1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,068
    Christmas straw polling.

    Unreliable and anecdotal research suggests that most people cannot name any one of: shadows foreign sec, home sec, chancellor.

    The Tories are a bit short of memorable characters apart from the eccentric fringe.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    edited December 2024
    algarkirk said:

    Christmas straw polling.

    Unreliable and anecdotal research suggests that most people cannot name any one of: shadows foreign sec, home sec, chancellor.

    The Tories are a bit short of memorable characters apart from the eccentric fringe.

    Its always the case. Its not just shadow cabinet, time after time polling has shown outside of about 3-4 politicians, the public struggle to know who holds what position in government. Pollsters have done surveys where they just made up names of people supposedly holding positions of great office and the public have gone yeah he / she is good'un / terrible. Same with policies, people give wildly different responses to the same policy if they think it came from red / blue / yellow team.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,649
    edited December 2024
    Dopermean said:

    If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.

    And not claiming their commute as a business expense.

    Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene
    Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments.
    Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you.
    Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.

    1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
    Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.

    Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    Yes if confidence in Labour's handling of the economy remains as low as this with sluggish growth and inflation on the rise it risks losing its majority at best and losing power altogether at worst. Mind you that is a fate many incumbent governments are facing at present
  • What are these days off people speak of?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,068

    algarkirk said:

    Who could have guessed that absolutely hammering companies for taxes, smashing up National Insurance rate while at the same slashing the threshold making it cost billions more to hire people might be bad for the economy?

    Utter morons!

    Of course, but hang on. We are, even now, borrowing billions to cover current day to day expenditure, so taxes have to rise. No-one has a serious plan for spending less.

    So the critics of the NI rises have to deal with the question they are avoiding: What are the replacement tax rises which would do no damage, take no money out of the economy, be popular with everyone and actually raise between 40-100 billion. (We are going to need loads more than the current rises)?

    Personally I would put it on VAT, with much higher rates on luxuries and a low rate on food, further breaking the promises, but I imagine no-one on the planet would cheer.
    VAT is a regressive tax which is why the Tories always liked it. It affected Labour voters more, but now as the Cons and Ref are courting salt of the earth John Bull hardworking voters that is not the slam dunk it once was.

    The reality is the Conservatives in (certainly later) government painted a picture that taxes could be cut and services would improve. Labour didn't call out this lie and went along with it. This is why they are so well and truly mullered.
    I can see that TV licence and council taxes are regressive, but less sure about VAT. The more you spend the more you pay, and if you only spend on life's most basic items you pay absolutely and proportionately much less than people who always dine out 5 star and buy several Bentleys at a time.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,554

    What are these days off people speak of?

    Some of us had to book a day’s annual leave for tomorrow!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    algarkirk said:

    Christmas straw polling.

    Unreliable and anecdotal research suggests that most people cannot name any one of: shadows foreign sec, home sec, chancellor.

    The Tories are a bit short of memorable characters apart from the eccentric fringe.

    I doubt most could name the majority of the Cabinet either
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689

    algarkirk said:

    Who could have guessed that absolutely hammering companies for taxes, smashing up National Insurance rate while at the same slashing the threshold making it cost billions more to hire people might be bad for the economy?

    Utter morons!

    Of course, but hang on. We are, even now, borrowing billions to cover current day to day expenditure, so taxes have to rise. No-one has a serious plan for spending less.

    So the critics of the NI rises have to deal with the question they are avoiding: What are the replacement tax rises which would do no damage, take no money out of the economy, be popular with everyone and actually raise between 40-100 billion. (We are going to need loads more than the current rises)?

    Personally I would put it on VAT, with much higher rates on luxuries and a low rate on food, further breaking the promises, but I imagine no-one on the planet would cheer.
    I've answered that question, previously, and coincidentally in the post immediately after yours. :)

    You added extra caveats though, it doesn't need to be "popular with everyone" but it does need to be good for the economy.

    Jacking up NI is bad for the economy.

    Merging NI and Income Tax may be unpopular with those who are currently undertaxed compared to people who go to work to earn their income, but it won't be increasing taxes on employment and won't be bad for the economy.
    NI should be ringfenced for JSA and state pensions and ideally social care too. Merging it with income tax would be a disaster when we need more contributory welfare not less
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689

    Off topic, I remember the pre-Covid days, when we all still had to turn up in the office on Christmas Eve, faff about for the morning listening to Christmas music, and then have a boss tell us to get on our way around lunchtime. Today, checking our office desk booking app, only two dedicated souls have made it in.

    This does mean, however, that for those WFH, it is up to the individual when they decide it is time to down tools. Is 09:00 too early?

    Only if you are not checking emails and Teams messages until lunchtime
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,068

    Battlebus said:

    The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

    There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

    Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

    ... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?

    It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.

    You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.

    In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.

    That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.

    And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
    I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,900

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

    There isn’t any very obvious replacement who would do better, which may help somewhat.

    Yvette Cooper possibly, but given her seniority coupled to the fact she is much younger than he is, he may be reluctant to promote a potential leadership rival.

    Also if he has to fire Tulip Siddiq that will destabilise the Treasury team anyway, and he won’t want to cause more angst than necessary.
    Cooper is 7 years younger than SKS, I wouldn’t describe that as ‘much’.
    If she became chancellor it would be an opportunity for a deep dive into her PB career (before my time). Cooper must have said something scandalous or ill judged which would make her more interesting than the on message drone she now appears to be.
    I think she used to.post on pb under an
    assumed nane that seems rather apt now.
  • Sandpit said:

    What are these days off people speak of?

    Some of us had to book a day’s annual leave for tomorrow!
    I applied for the full day off, it was rejected, I was allowed half....tough gig.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,290
    Roger said:

    This could be a reaction to what Reeves might have done in her budget or it might be a reaction to what is likely to happen in the US with Trump or it could just be a bunch of whingeing directors predicting doom as they often do

    The only certainty is that if she want's to instantly turn the graph around all they need to do is announce that the UK are starting talks to fully rejoin the EU thus addiing an estimated 4-5% to our GDP.

    ......and also making the UK a much more cheerful place.

    Ooh, yes, more constitutional wrangling about Europe - that'll cheer people up. Worked brilliantly last time. Bound to be a recipe for harmony.

    (I think you might be extrapolating from "Roger" to "people" here).
  • algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Who could have guessed that absolutely hammering companies for taxes, smashing up National Insurance rate while at the same slashing the threshold making it cost billions more to hire people might be bad for the economy?

    Utter morons!

    Of course, but hang on. We are, even now, borrowing billions to cover current day to day expenditure, so taxes have to rise. No-one has a serious plan for spending less.

    So the critics of the NI rises have to deal with the question they are avoiding: What are the replacement tax rises which would do no damage, take no money out of the economy, be popular with everyone and actually raise between 40-100 billion. (We are going to need loads more than the current rises)?

    Personally I would put it on VAT, with much higher rates on luxuries and a low rate on food, further breaking the promises, but I imagine no-one on the planet would cheer.
    VAT is a regressive tax which is why the Tories always liked it. It affected Labour voters more, but now as the Cons and Ref are courting salt of the earth John Bull hardworking voters that is not the slam dunk it once was.

    The reality is the Conservatives in (certainly later) government painted a picture that taxes could be cut and services would improve. Labour didn't call out this lie and went along with it. This is why they are so well and truly mullered.
    I can see that TV licence and council taxes are regressive, but less sure about VAT. The more you spend the more you pay, and if you only spend on life's most basic items you pay absolutely and proportionately much less than people who always dine out 5 star and buy several Bentleys at a time.
    The list of basic items that are classed as "non-basic" is pretty massive and yes its regressive as a proportion of income as poorer households need to spend more of their income and can't save as much and anything saved is entirely untaxed by it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,958
    Sandpit said:

    What are these days off people speak of?

    Some of us had to book a day’s annual leave for tomorrow!
    Indeed. And we should remember all those who need to work on Christmas Day to keep the country running: not just nurses, police and firefighters, but people like those staffing power stations.

    IMO a good sign of a 'key worker' should be "Role needs to be able to work on Christmas Day."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    edited December 2024
    xAI, Elon Musk’s AI company, has raised $6 billion, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday.

    Investors gave a minimum of $77,593, per the filing (97 participated, but the document doesn’t reveal their identities). xAI later announced (confirming some earlier reporting) that Andreessen Horowitz , Blackrock, Fidelity, Kingdom Holdings, Lightspeed, MGX, Morgan Stanley, OIA, QIA, Sequoia Capital, Valor Equity Partners, Vy Capital, Nvidia, AMD, and others numbered among them.

    The new cash brings xAI’s total raised to $12 billion, adding to the $6 billion tranche xAI raised this spring. CNBC reported in November that xAI was aiming for a $50 billion valuation — double its valuation of six months prior.

    https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/23/elon-musks-xai-lands-billions-in-new-cash-to-fuel-ai-ambitions/

    That meme AI for twitter users is becoming worth some proper money.
  • It’s difficult to like Labour but we chose them because the alternative was much worse.

    That hasn’t changed.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062

    It's beginning to look a lot like Labour haven't a fucking clue about the economy

    Leon Returns!

    (You thought you'd fool us by not putting "fucking" in caps)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,161

    Sandpit said:

    What are these days off people speak of?

    Some of us had to book a day’s annual leave for tomorrow!
    Indeed. And we should remember all those who need to work on Christmas Day to keep the country running: not just nurses, police and firefighters, but people like those staffing power stations.

    IMO a good sign of a 'key worker' should be "Role needs to be able to work on Christmas Day."
    Or indeed, staffing petrol stations and shops that stay open Christmas Day, like at Burntwood Morrisons, although I hope they are all volunteers being paid decent overtime rates.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,222
    edited December 2024
    Dopermean said:

    If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.

    And not claiming their commute as a business expense.

    Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene
    Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments.
    Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you.
    Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.

    1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
    Eh? 2 was created by IR35 which was introduced by Gordon Brown in 2000.

    It was an incompetent technocratic fix that showed no understanding of how business works, was designed to solve a largely non-existent problem and caused far more damage than it solved.

    Typical fucking Labour. Typical fucking Brown.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,068
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Ouch. You do wonder how long Starmer will keep Reeves. He's never struck me as someone you would want to be in a trench with.

    There isn’t any very obvious replacement who would do better, which may help somewhat.

    Yvette Cooper possibly, but given her seniority coupled to the fact she is much younger than he is, he may be reluctant to promote a potential leadership rival.

    Also if he has to fire Tulip Siddiq that will destabilise the Treasury team anyway, and he won’t want to cause more angst than necessary.
    He could make Ed Balls chancellor from the Lords.
    Chancellor has to be in the Commons. The original idea was the Chancellor would act as spokesman for the First Lord (who until the 1860s controlled the Treasury directly) if the First Lord was a peer- essentially the role now fulfilled by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. If the First Lord was an MP, usually there was no Chancellor at all.

    That could be changed I suppose (as the Lord Chancellor's role was eventually) but it wouldn't be as straightforward as just ennobling Balls and appointing him (as Blair found when he tried to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor via a reshuffle).
    Not convinced. If the PM just went ahead and appointed a CoE from the Lords, or appointed and put him/her there no force on earth could or would stop that happening.

    Litigation would be the only route. It would not happen.

    BTW, we are going to need a second chamber with a non elected element increasingly. More and more as the political quality declines PMs will have to look to appointments to get ministerial jobs done. Lord Salisbury would find this quite amusing.
  • Dopermean said:

    If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.

    And not claiming their commute as a business expense.

    Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene
    Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments.
    Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you.
    Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.

    1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
    Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.

    Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.
    Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    algarkirk said:

    Christmas straw polling.

    Unreliable and anecdotal research suggests that most people cannot name any one of: shadows foreign sec, home sec, chancellor.

    The Tories are a bit short of memorable characters apart from the eccentric fringe.

    Mel Stride is the shadow chancellor, who is as forgettable a political character as it is to be - must confess can't think who the shadow Home and Foreign are. Probably more people saying Cleverly to either than getting the right answer lol.
  • ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    What are these days off people speak of?

    Some of us had to book a day’s annual leave for tomorrow!
    Indeed. And we should remember all those who need to work on Christmas Day to keep the country running: not just nurses, police and firefighters, but people like those staffing power stations.

    IMO a good sign of a 'key worker' should be "Role needs to be able to work on Christmas Day."
    Or indeed, staffing petrol stations and shops that stay open Christmas Day, like at Burntwood Morrisons, although I hope they are all volunteers being paid decent overtime rates.
    And social care workers.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,958

    xAI, Elon Musk’s AI company, has raised $6 billion, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday.

    Investors gave a minimum of $77,593, per the filing (97 participated, but the document doesn’t reveal their identities). xAI later announced (confirming some earlier reporting) that Andreessen Horowitz , Blackrock, Fidelity, Kingdom Holdings, Lightspeed, MGX, Morgan Stanley, OIA, QIA, Sequoia Capital, Valor Equity Partners, Vy Capital, Nvidia, AMD, and others numbered among them.

    The new cash brings xAI’s total raised to $12 billion, adding to the $6 billion tranche xAI raised this spring. CNBC reported in November that xAI was aiming for a $50 billion valuation — double its valuation of six months prior.

    https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/23/elon-musks-xai-lands-billions-in-new-cash-to-fuel-ai-ambitions/

    That meme AI for twitter users is becoming worth some proper money.

    Given the way Musky Baby finds it hard to separate his business interests, who knows where they money will end up.

    (He routinely uses SpaceX staff for Tesla, Tesla staff for Twix, etc, etc. Despite them being separate, and in Tesla's case a public, company.)
  • algarkirk said:

    Battlebus said:

    The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.

    There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.

    Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)

    ... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?

    It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.

    You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.

    In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.

    That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.

    And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
    I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
    So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?

    In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.

    Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.

    The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.

    They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!

    A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,856

    Good morning, everyone.

    Speaking of stupid decisions, there's a consultation over changing the phasing out of petrol/diesel cars from 2035 (already daft) to 2030.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y7x3jgw7no

    "In 2024, EVs must make up 22% of a carmaker's car sales, and 10% of van sales. This target is set to rise. Firms failing to meet these targets face a £15,000 fine per sale."

    That is, of course, a continuation of the previous government's stupid decision.

    For the umpteenth fucking time, it's NON-HYBRID petrol/diesel cars not all ICE cars.

    There will be precious few non-hybrid ICE cars available from volume manufacturers in 2030 and even less demand.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,554
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    What are these days off people speak of?

    Some of us had to book a day’s annual leave for tomorrow!
    Indeed. And we should remember all those who need to work on Christmas Day to keep the country running: not just nurses, police and firefighters, but people like those staffing power stations.

    IMO a good sign of a 'key worker' should be "Role needs to be able to work on Christmas Day."
    Or indeed, staffing petrol stations and shops that stay open Christmas Day, like at Burntwood Morrisons, although I hope they are all volunteers being paid decent overtime rates.
    I had a job in a “24-hour” One Stop as a teenager, and got paid £10/hour instead of the usual £2.50 to open up from 9am to midday on Christmas Day - selling mostly batteries and alcohol.

    Don’t also forget the many hotels, bar staff, taxi drivers etc who are also working, keeping the wheels of the service economy greased and saving families everywhere from having arguments about the washing-up!
  • OK, I get that business is not happy right now. I get why. Though, as @algarkirk pointed out upthread, the massive gap between government income and expenditure has to be closed somehow. Hangovers aren't meant to be fun.

    But for business confidence to be as low as during the pandemic, or the aftermath of the Trusstershambles... Maybe that's a bit of an overreaction?
  • Dopermean said:

    Dopermean said:

    If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.

    And not claiming their commute as a business expense.

    Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene
    Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments.
    Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you.
    Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.

    1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
    Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.

    Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.
    Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.
    80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.

    Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.
  • HYUFD said:

    Off topic, I remember the pre-Covid days, when we all still had to turn up in the office on Christmas Eve, faff about for the morning listening to Christmas music, and then have a boss tell us to get on our way around lunchtime. Today, checking our office desk booking app, only two dedicated souls have made it in.

    This does mean, however, that for those WFH, it is up to the individual when they decide it is time to down tools. Is 09:00 too early?

    Only if you are not checking emails and Teams messages until lunchtime
    *cough*.. I mean who would do that??
  • I must say that it’s great to see Stephen Flynn throw his own council (SNP) and residents under the bus in a pissy power play over compensation for people trapped in RAAC properties.

    Definitely not the fault of the Scottish government. It’s the fault of the English. Or the council. Whatever, it’s not the Scottish government. Despite housing being devolved and the Scottish government having a death grip over councils and what they can spend their meagre handouts on.
This discussion has been closed.