A challenger on the Left (in addition to the Greens) is nothing but a negative for Labour. I won't be tempted (I see it as self-indulgent) but I bet some people will be. They'll think Labour under Starmer is not the beautiful game so let's do a feelgood vote. The good news (for Labour) is the new party's lack of credible leadership. It seems the only Jeremy Corbyn they can find to front the operation is the actual Jeremy Corbyn. This will surely hold them back.
It's perhaps more of a challenge for the Greens than for Labour. That's what the hypothetical polling suggests.
A key question would be about those 2024 Labour voters on the Left who are disillusioned with them but wouldn't vote Green. Are there many of these and would they vote for Corbyn/Sultana? If that's 'quite a lot' and 'yes' it's bad for Labour. If not, it's no big deal for them.
There's also the generally angry andies who want to throw rocks in the pond. "It's all gone to shit, whole thing needs a shake-up bla bla". Reform gets these types atm but a left populist party might take some. One of our posters cited his grandma as an example. Likes Corbyn and Farage.
I think a party to the left of Labour could be successful, but I think to do so, it needs (a) to clear the field of rivals, and (b) to be reaching out to the centre. Your Party or Polanski's vision for the Greens is rabble-rousing, strident, confrontational populism. It's big on social media, but won't win under FPTP, even if they merged into one project.
A party to the left of Labour reaching out to the centre - that sounds like my ideal party. Left but in a contemporary non-Corbyn way, and with the skill and pizazz to attract floating voters. It's where I want the actual Labour to be.
Nearly three thefts a minute are being reported by shops amid a growing shoplifting epidemic, official figures show.
Shoplifting hit a record high of 530,643 offences reported to police in the year to March, a 20 per cent increase on the previous year’s total of 444,022.
The rate of shoplifting is nearly double the rate two decades ago, according to the figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
A challenger on the Left (in addition to the Greens) is nothing but a negative for Labour. I won't be tempted (I see it as self-indulgent) but I bet some people will be. They'll think Labour under Starmer is not the beautiful game so let's do a feelgood vote. The good news (for Labour) is the new party's lack of credible leadership. It seems the only Jeremy Corbyn they can find to front the operation is the actual Jeremy Corbyn. This will surely hold them back.
It's perhaps more of a challenge for the Greens than for Labour. That's what the hypothetical polling suggests.
A key question would be about those 2024 Labour voters on the Left who are disillusioned with them but wouldn't vote Green. Are there many of these and would they vote for Corbyn/Sultana? If that's 'quite a lot' and 'yes' it's bad for Labour. If not, it's no big deal for them.
There's also the generally angry andies who want to throw rocks in the pond. "It's all gone to shit, whole thing needs a shake-up bla bla". Reform gets these types atm but a left populist party might take some. One of our posters cited his grandma as an example. Likes Corbyn and Farage.
I think a party to the left of Labour could be successful, but I think to do so, it needs (a) to clear the field of rivals, and (b) to be reaching out to the centre. Your Party or Polanski's vision for the Greens is rabble-rousing, strident, confrontational populism. It's big on social media, but won't win under FPTP, even if they merged into one project.
A party to the left of Labour reaching out to the centre - that sounds like my ideal party. Left but in a contemporary non-Corbyn way, and with the skill and pizazz to attract floating voters. It's where I want the actual Labour to be.
Apparently some MAGA types not only think Epstein didn't kill himself. He was also not murdered. In fact he was smuggled out of the prison and is now living in Madagascar.
If this pollster wasn't BPC accredited I would doubt the accuracy of Ref 34 and Cons as low as 16. But they are so it is what it is.
Find Out Now posted a long piece on their site yesterday about why they are finding Reform higher than other pollsters and why they think they are right.
Was that one of Matt's impartial analysis pieces?
Do you have a link?
Matt Goodwin has nothing to do with Find Out Now and never has
Nearly three thefts a minute are being reported by shops amid a growing shoplifting epidemic, official figures show.
Shoplifting hit a record high of 530,643 offences reported to police in the year to March, a 20 per cent increase on the previous year’s total of 444,022.
The rate of shoplifting is nearly double the rate two decades ago, according to the figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
This isn't a problem according to many on the left.
Nearly three thefts a minute are being reported by shops amid a growing shoplifting epidemic, official figures show.
Shoplifting hit a record high of 530,643 offences reported to police in the year to March, a 20 per cent increase on the previous year’s total of 444,022.
The rate of shoplifting is nearly double the rate two decades ago, according to the figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
One of the main drivers of the Reform vote, to my mind
The sense of lawlessness. And these pitiful replies from Labour - “there is no silver bullet”. Yes there is. Kill the fucking werewolf
Nearly three thefts a minute are being reported by shops amid a growing shoplifting epidemic, official figures show.
Shoplifting hit a record high of 530,643 offences reported to police in the year to March, a 20 per cent increase on the previous year’s total of 444,022.
The rate of shoplifting is nearly double the rate two decades ago, according to the figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
This isn't a problem according to many on the left.
Self-service doesn't help the situation, of course. Especially when the till is sited right at the back of the shop.
Monty Python cannot compete with Corbyn and Sultana
Careful, Zarah will find a way to claim that saying such a thing is racist and sexist....
Observer should not have caved on that. There was nothing racist about that cartoon. Was it funny, not really. But in comparison to normal political cartoons, especially in Guardian / Observer, over the recent past, most aren't, but are far more savage. Snowflake generation.
Guardian cartoons have been very poor since Viner took over and fired anyone with talent. Ben Jennings is improving and Rowson still gets commissioned but otherwise it seems to be talentless beneficiaries of nepotism, Observer just seems to have added "racist" to the description.
"Police raid on 'Epping migrant hotel protester': Suspect is arrested at his home as a ring of steel is put up around two taxpayer-funded asylum seeker centres amid fears of riots"
“I’d got home after a peaceable day chanting racist slogans and politely throwing bricks at the police. I was innocently typing a tweet advocating setting fire to immigrants when the police arrested me. The vicious, fascist thugs.”
He was arrested on suspicion of Section 2 Violent Disorder:
"Section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 defines the offense of violent disorder. This occurs when three or more people use or threaten unlawful violence, and their collective conduct would cause a person of reasonable firmness present to fear for their safety. It's a serious public order offense in England and Wales. " (Google summary)
I think that is middle level - above affray and below riot, which was the route pursued in summer 2024. It is being tackled quite seriously and rapidly, like last year. One of the people wanted is a former Combat 18 individual.
The "ring of steel" reported around the London hotel does not seem huge ... yet. Only a dozen from the Met.
Guards kitted out in black uniforms and wearing face masks manned the barriers this morning as more than a dozen Met Police officers gathered outside the building amid fresh fears of further protests tomorrow and over the weekend.
Nearly three thefts a minute are being reported by shops amid a growing shoplifting epidemic, official figures show.
Shoplifting hit a record high of 530,643 offences reported to police in the year to March, a 20 per cent increase on the previous year’s total of 444,022.
The rate of shoplifting is nearly double the rate two decades ago, according to the figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
This isn't a problem according to many on the left.
"Police raid on 'Epping migrant hotel protester': Suspect is arrested at his home as a ring of steel is put up around two taxpayer-funded asylum seeker centres amid fears of riots"
“I’d got home after a peaceable day chanting racist slogans and politely throwing bricks at the police. I was innocently typing a tweet advocating setting fire to immigrants when the police arrested me. The vicious, fascist thugs.”
It's another egregious example of two tier policing. Totally different approaches taken to people who commit a crime compared to those who haven't.
Comments like that will get you cancelled.
It’s “members of The Legally Challenged Community”
Q. Why did the lawyer cross the road?
A. I can't tell you for legal reasons.
{narrator : he was immediately sent to jail for contempt of court, under a super injunction, for that answer}
He was Mr Loophole and he was knocked down by Mrs Loophole, who kept her licence because she had to ferry her husband around, for whom she had become a carer.
Nearly three thefts a minute are being reported by shops amid a growing shoplifting epidemic, official figures show.
Shoplifting hit a record high of 530,643 offences reported to police in the year to March, a 20 per cent increase on the previous year’s total of 444,022.
The rate of shoplifting is nearly double the rate two decades ago, according to the figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
This isn't a problem according to many on the left.
Self-service doesn't help the situation, of course. Especially when the till is sited right at the back of the shop.
Yet in Norway, when the road you are driving along comes to a fjord, so you drive on the ferry and go upstairs for a snack during the twenty minute crossing, they don't bother to staff their shipboard canteens any more. They just put all the cakes and sandwiches out, have a coffee machine at the end, and you go to the self checkout and tell the machine what you have taken, and pay.
Nearly three thefts a minute are being reported by shops amid a growing shoplifting epidemic, official figures show.
Shoplifting hit a record high of 530,643 offences reported to police in the year to March, a 20 per cent increase on the previous year’s total of 444,022.
The rate of shoplifting is nearly double the rate two decades ago, according to the figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
This isn't a problem according to many on the left.
Self-service doesn't help the situation, of course. Especially when the till is sited right at the back of the shop.
Yet in Norway, when the road you are driving along comes to a fjord, so you drive on the ferry and go upstairs for a snack during the twenty minute crossing, they don't bother to staff their shipboard canteens any more. They just put all the cakes and sandwiches out, have a coffee machine at the end, and you go to the self checkout and tell the machine what you have taken, and pay.
Greggs have implemented this, but without the paying bit.
A challenger on the Left (in addition to the Greens) is nothing but a negative for Labour. I won't be tempted (I see it as self-indulgent) but I bet some people will be. They'll think Labour under Starmer is not the beautiful game so let's do a feelgood vote. The good news (for Labour) is the new party's lack of credible leadership. It seems the only Jeremy Corbyn they can find to front the operation is the actual Jeremy Corbyn. This will surely hold them back.
It's perhaps more of a challenge for the Greens than for Labour. That's what the hypothetical polling suggests.
A key question would be about those 2024 Labour voters on the Left who are disillusioned with them but wouldn't vote Green. Are there many of these and would they vote for Corbyn/Sultana? If that's 'quite a lot' and 'yes' it's bad for Labour. If not, it's no big deal for them.
There's also the generally angry andies who want to throw rocks in the pond. "It's all gone to shit, whole thing needs a shake-up bla bla". Reform gets these types atm but a left populist party might take some. One of our posters cited his grandma as an example. Likes Corbyn and Farage.
I think a party to the left of Labour could be successful, but I think to do so, it needs (a) to clear the field of rivals, and (b) to be reaching out to the centre. Your Party or Polanski's vision for the Greens is rabble-rousing, strident, confrontational populism. It's big on social media, but won't win under FPTP, even if they merged into one project.
A party to the left of Labour reaching out to the centre - that sounds like my ideal party. Left but in a contemporary non-Corbyn way, and with the skill and pizazz to attract floating voters. It's where I want the actual Labour to be.
You mean a real Labour Party?
But not in a 'back to the seventies' way. And not a Blairite reboot either. So neither New Labour nor Old Labour. Trouble is, I find it easier to define what it shouldn't be than what it should.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Kemi had a go and then got shouted down by simpletons. The Tories have to go into the election being the party that tells the unvarnished truth to voters. It may or may not work but something has got to change or we're heading for ruin.
What's interesting is that for every £25bn the government cuts out of spending there would be another £6-8bn cut from the debt interest bill due to falling inflation and bond yields. Labour chose this when they decided to add £60bn per year to government spending, they've pushed up inflation with unnecessary tax rises to pay for their spending binge and gold plated pay rises for the public sector which has resulted in a huge interest bill, falling bond prices which means the BoE quantitative tightening scheme becomes more expensive.
The UK is in a vicious cycle of tax rises not yielding enough resulting in higher borrowing which drives bond prices down as the government increases supply and round and round we go. Someone has got to say enough is enough, tell the pampered public sector fatcats they're out of a job, sack 1m of them within two years, cut the benefits bill by 20%, axe the triple lock, taper the state pension for retirees with more than £40k in private income and probably bring the 45p rate down to £50k and push up the 20p rate to 23p.
Fundamentally we need to start thinking about living within our means and that means for a lot of people things will become more difficult and a lot of people will have to sacrifice an extra holiday or buy a smaller car because they can't afford to do it any longer. That's the truth of where we are as a nation.
A challenger on the Left (in addition to the Greens) is nothing but a negative for Labour. I won't be tempted (I see it as self-indulgent) but I bet some people will be. They'll think Labour under Starmer is not the beautiful game so let's do a feelgood vote. The good news (for Labour) is the new party's lack of credible leadership. It seems the only Jeremy Corbyn they can find to front the operation is the actual Jeremy Corbyn. This will surely hold them back.
It's perhaps more of a challenge for the Greens than for Labour. That's what the hypothetical polling suggests.
A key question would be about those 2024 Labour voters on the Left who are disillusioned with them but wouldn't vote Green. Are there many of these and would they vote for Corbyn/Sultana? If that's 'quite a lot' and 'yes' it's bad for Labour. If not, it's no big deal for them.
There's also the generally angry andies who want to throw rocks in the pond. "It's all gone to shit, whole thing needs a shake-up bla bla". Reform gets these types atm but a left populist party might take some. One of our posters cited his grandma as an example. Likes Corbyn and Farage.
I think a party to the left of Labour could be successful, but I think to do so, it needs (a) to clear the field of rivals, and (b) to be reaching out to the centre. Your Party or Polanski's vision for the Greens is rabble-rousing, strident, confrontational populism. It's big on social media, but won't win under FPTP, even if they merged into one project.
A party to the left of Labour reaching out to the centre - that sounds like my ideal party. Left but in a contemporary non-Corbyn way, and with the skill and pizazz to attract floating voters. It's where I want the actual Labour to be.
You mean a real Labour Party?
But not in a 'back to the seventies' way. And not a Blairite reboot either. So neither New Labour nor Old Labour. Trouble is, I find it easier to define what it shouldn't be than what it should.
Could Your Party cost Reform in the polls taking some of their 'NOTA' votes?
*disappears back into shadows*
Absolutely it will, there's probably loads of socially conservative old left wingers who have no time for Labour but also have nowhere else to go. They won't care or probably even realise that this new jezlamist vehicle is going to be all singing all dancing trans rights etc... but it not being Labour and a lefty party means it grabs NOTA votes regardless.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
If this pollster wasn't BPC accredited I would doubt the accuracy of Ref 34 and Cons as low as 16. But they are so it is what it is.
Find Out Now posted a long piece on their site yesterday about why they are finding Reform higher than other pollsters and why they think they are right.
Was that one of Matt's impartial analysis pieces?
Do you have a link?
Matt Goodwin has nothing to do with Find Out Now and never has
Over-engagement and “career responders” have been a perennial issue for polling (one example of many here). In effect, respondents who sign up to take part in surveys – and particularly online surveys – are much more politically engaged than the average person. On the contrary, those who are less politically engaged are less likely to take part in polls, and less likely to answer questions about politics. This is a problem due to ‘Nonignorable nonresponse’, where the reasons for a respondent not doing a survey are related to the variable being measured. In this case, the same factors which cause a respondent to be more likely to vote Reform, are the same ones which cause them to be less likely to sign up for a polling panel. Without addressing this, polls are likely to understate the extent of Reform party support. This is normally not a big issue, given most low-engaged people naturally don’t engage with voting (so the problems cancel out). However, Reform voting – with parallels to Brexit – correlates with low political engagement. As British pollster James Johnson has said on American polling “They [pollsters] understated the Trump voter who is less likely to be engaged politically, and crucially, more likely to be busy, not spending 20 minutes talking to pollsters”.
"Police raid on 'Epping migrant hotel protester': Suspect is arrested at his home as a ring of steel is put up around two taxpayer-funded asylum seeker centres amid fears of riots"
“I’d got home after a peaceable day chanting racist slogans and politely throwing bricks at the police. I was innocently typing a tweet advocating setting fire to immigrants when the police arrested me. The vicious, fascist thugs.”
Oh dear. And you wonder why Reform are so high in the polls. The left never learn.
"Police raid on 'Epping migrant hotel protester': Suspect is arrested at his home as a ring of steel is put up around two taxpayer-funded asylum seeker centres amid fears of riots"
“I’d got home after a peaceable day chanting racist slogans and politely throwing bricks at the police. I was innocently typing a tweet advocating setting fire to immigrants when the police arrested me. The vicious, fascist thugs.”
Oh dear. And you wonder why Reform are so high in the polls. The left never learn.
"Police raid on 'Epping migrant hotel protester': Suspect is arrested at his home as a ring of steel is put up around two taxpayer-funded asylum seeker centres amid fears of riots"
“I’d got home after a peaceable day chanting racist slogans and politely throwing bricks at the police. I was innocently typing a tweet advocating setting fire to immigrants when the police arrested me. The vicious, fascist thugs.”
Oh dear. And you wonder why Reform are so high in the polls. The left never learn.
As a Neon Fascist Imperialist Enslaver of The Oppressed, just no….
I’ve got family living in Epping. The demonstrators are football hooligan types, not peaceful at all.
If this pollster wasn't BPC accredited I would doubt the accuracy of Ref 34 and Cons as low as 16. But they are so it is what it is.
Find Out Now posted a long piece on their site yesterday about why they are finding Reform higher than other pollsters and why they think they are right.
Was that one of Matt's impartial analysis pieces?
Do you have a link?
Matt Goodwin has nothing to do with Find Out Now and never has
Yes; a very interesting link to FON methodology. Unreliable slang version: low attention people support Reform in large numbers, we have found a way to get them to pay attention without having to pay them actual money and we think data shows that though people with low attention usually are bad at voting they are good at voting Reform.
(I think 'low attention' is slang for what is technically known as being a bit dim but I'm not sure, as I am obvs fairly low attention myself).
Betting implications: huge if true. Reform at 5/4 for most seats would be value. As yet, I am unconvinced but worth considering.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Debt, growing debt, the cost of interest payments and the risk of a sovereign debt crisis are being discussed all the time by everyone from OBR and IFS downwards APART FROM every political party with the responsibility of formulating a short term, five year, ten year and long term plan to put to the electorate.
Nearly three thefts a minute are being reported by shops amid a growing shoplifting epidemic, official figures show.
Shoplifting hit a record high of 530,643 offences reported to police in the year to March, a 20 per cent increase on the previous year’s total of 444,022.
The rate of shoplifting is nearly double the rate two decades ago, according to the figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
This isn't a problem according to many on the left.
Really? Who on the left says it isn't a problem?
I think it's the formulation whereby if you don't repeatedly opine that it's one of the very gravest issues we face, and a definitive sign of the country going to hell in a handcart, this equates to saying it's not a problem.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Kemi had a go and then got shouted down by simpletons. The Tories have to go into the election being the party that tells the unvarnished truth to voters. It may or may not work but something has got to change or we're heading for ruin.
What's interesting is that for every £25bn the government cuts out of spending there would be another £6-8bn cut from the debt interest bill due to falling inflation and bond yields. Labour chose this when they decided to add £60bn per year to government spending, they've pushed up inflation with unnecessary tax rises to pay for their spending binge and gold plated pay rises for the public sector which has resulted in a huge interest bill, falling bond prices which means the BoE quantitative tightening scheme becomes more expensive.
The UK is in a vicious cycle of tax rises not yielding enough resulting in higher borrowing which drives bond prices down as the government increases supply and round and round we go. Someone has got to say enough is enough, tell the pampered public sector fatcats they're out of a job, sack 1m of them within two years, cut the benefits bill by 20%, axe the triple lock, taper the state pension for retirees with more than £40k in private income and probably bring the 45p rate down to £50k and push up the 20p rate to 23p.
Fundamentally we need to start thinking about living within our means and that means for a lot of people things will become more difficult and a lot of people will have to sacrifice an extra holiday or buy a smaller car because they can't afford to do it any longer. That's the truth of where we are as a nation.
None of what you set out is going to happen.
Unless the IMF insists on it of course so the politicians can escape blame.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Kemi had a go and then got shouted down by simpletons. The Tories have to go into the election being the party that tells the unvarnished truth to voters. It may or may not work but something has got to change or we're heading for ruin.
What's interesting is that for every £25bn the government cuts out of spending there would be another £6-8bn cut from the debt interest bill due to falling inflation and bond yields. Labour chose this when they decided to add £60bn per year to government spending, they've pushed up inflation with unnecessary tax rises to pay for their spending binge and gold plated pay rises for the public sector which has resulted in a huge interest bill, falling bond prices which means the BoE quantitative tightening scheme becomes more expensive.
The UK is in a vicious cycle of tax rises not yielding enough resulting in higher borrowing which drives bond prices down as the government increases supply and round and round we go. Someone has got to say enough is enough, tell the pampered public sector fatcats they're out of a job, sack 1m of them within two years, cut the benefits bill by 20%, axe the triple lock, taper the state pension for retirees with more than £40k in private income and probably bring the 45p rate down to £50k and push up the 20p rate to 23p.
Fundamentally we need to start thinking about living within our means and that means for a lot of people things will become more difficult and a lot of people will have to sacrifice an extra holiday or buy a smaller car because they can't afford to do it any longer. That's the truth of where we are as a nation.
None of what you set out is going to happen.
Unless the IMF insists on it of course so the politicians can escape blame.
The IMF is so wedded to liberal lefty governments that they wouldn't ever force Labour to bow down to these kinds of terms, only when Reform or the Tories come back will they impose this level of austerity.
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Yes, it's the only viable strategy to become popular again for the Tories. They need to push Liz Truss out of the party and become the doom and gloom cult that predicts the incoming debt crisis and offers a real world solution to it, not just asking the BoE to print some money and bail out the state which will surely be Labour's big idea.
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Yes, it's the only viable strategy to become popular again for the Tories. They need to push Liz Truss out of the party and become the doom and gloom cult that predicts the incoming debt crisis and offers a real world solution to it, not just asking the BoE to print some money and bail out the state which will surely be Labour's big idea.
Yes.
Even if it doesn't yield immediate electoral results for them now, it's the right thing to do for the country.
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Problem for Kemi is that a lot of the mess can be pinned on Hunt who created the mess with his 4p reduction in National Insurance.
Now it probably doesn't require much more than keeping Hunt and anyone else who can be blamed well away from the public gaze but it's something she needs to be aware of...
Also, I don't want taxes going up anymore until the gold-plated pensions of the public sector (with taxpayer funded 20-30%+ employer contributions plus ) are ended.
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Problem for Kemi is that a lot of the mess can be pinned on Hunt who created the mess with his 4p reduction in National Insurance.
Now it probably doesn't require much more than keeping Hunt and anyone else who can be blamed well away from the public gaze but it's something she needs to be aware of...
No it's not, Labour pushed spending up by £60bn per year. If they hadn't done that and gone on a gigantic spending binge there would be a current budget surplus and our debt yields would be appreciably lower. Rachel Reeves is Liz Truss in slow motion.
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Yes, it's the only viable strategy to become popular again for the Tories. They need to push Liz Truss out of the party and become the doom and gloom cult that predicts the incoming debt crisis and offers a real world solution to it, not just asking the BoE to print some money and bail out the state which will surely be Labour's big idea.
Yes.
Even if it doesn't yield immediate electoral results for them now, it's the right thing to do for the country.
I think you’re both right. Kemi should Keep Calm and Carry On banging the drum for financial prudence
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Problem for Kemi is that a lot of the mess can be pinned on Hunt who created the mess with his 4p reduction in National Insurance.
Now it probably doesn't require much more than keeping Hunt and anyone else who can be blamed well away from the public gaze but it's something she needs to be aware of...
No it's not, Labour pushed spending up by £60bn per year. If they hadn't done that and gone on a gigantic spending binge there would be a current budget surplus and our debt yields would be appreciably lower. Rachel Reeves is Liz Truss in slow motion.
Sorry but what spending binge.
We have a set of payrises which are only attached to Labour because Rishi called the election between the independent pay review boards suggesting increases and Rishi having to pay or reject them
And some benefits cuts that were reversed. I'm struggling (and have struggled for a while) to see any spending that Labour has actually committed to - bar an overpriced but unavoidable nuclear power station and defence..
But equally I wasn't actually arguing anything beyond - if Kemi adopts your recommendation - best to keep as much of the 2022-24 cabinet away from the public as she can get away with.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Kemi had a go and then got shouted down by simpletons. The Tories have to go into the election being the party that tells the unvarnished truth to voters. It may or may not work but something has got to change or we're heading for ruin.
What's interesting is that for every £25bn the government cuts out of spending there would be another £6-8bn cut from the debt interest bill due to falling inflation and bond yields. Labour chose this when they decided to add £60bn per year to government spending, they've pushed up inflation with unnecessary tax rises to pay for their spending binge and gold plated pay rises for the public sector which has resulted in a huge interest bill, falling bond prices which means the BoE quantitative tightening scheme becomes more expensive.
The UK is in a vicious cycle of tax rises not yielding enough resulting in higher borrowing which drives bond prices down as the government increases supply and round and round we go. Someone has got to say enough is enough, tell the pampered public sector fatcats they're out of a job, sack 1m of them within two years, cut the benefits bill by 20%, axe the triple lock, taper the state pension for retirees with more than £40k in private income and probably bring the 45p rate down to £50k and push up the 20p rate to 23p.
Fundamentally we need to start thinking about living within our means and that means for a lot of people things will become more difficult and a lot of people will have to sacrifice an extra holiday or buy a smaller car because they can't afford to do it any longer. That's the truth of where we are as a nation.
The Tories have told us all sorts of palpable nonsense for more than a decade now; I don't see much prospect of their going cold turkey and suddenly telling us the truth?
Not least because the truth about most things is that they either watched while Rome burned, or were the ones who were seen in the backstreets carrying the petrolcan.
Also, I don't want taxes going up anymore until the gold-plated pensions of the public sector (with taxpayer funded 20-30%+ employer contributions plus ) are ended.
They can get 5-10% like the rest of us.
It's not just the contributions, CR. It's the current payouts and future liability for the defined benefit pension schemes that they all awarded themselves at our expense. A 50% haircut for DB pension amounts over £30k would do it, so a £50k pension becomes £40k, £80k becomes £55k etc...
Push through primary legislation, write in the bill that "parliament is sovereign" and dare the courts to try and overturn it.
We are broke and it's time we started acting like it.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Debt, growing debt, the cost of interest payments and the risk of a sovereign debt crisis are being discussed all the time by everyone from OBR and IFS downwards APART FROM every political party with the responsibility of formulating a short term, five year, ten year and long term plan to put to the electorate.
Except that responsibility doesn't really exist. And all the evidence is that the public doesn't want a properly prudent plan.
Hunt offered tax NI cuts, despite those cuts being unaffordable because the government was on track to be borrowing shedloads. Partly to box Reeves in, partly to buy votes. Reeves didn't disavow them, becuase she feared losing votes (and given the low vote share of the 2024 landslide, she was right to be careful). And the most top party in the polls right now is the most fiscally incontenent of the lot.
One of the big flaws in the least bad system of government is that voters can demand something for nothing. In various ways, governments have been able to deliver that by short-term contrivances. They've run out of road, but we still have the expectations- see the howling at any tax rises or real reductions in spending.
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Yes, it's the only viable strategy to become popular again for the Tories. They need to push Liz Truss out of the party and become the doom and gloom cult that predicts the incoming debt crisis and offers a real world solution to it, not just asking the BoE to print some money and bail out the state which will surely be Labour's big idea.
Yes.
Even if it doesn't yield immediate electoral results for them now, it's the right thing to do for the country.
I agree. That should be their USP
It won’t be enough to win in 2028 but it might be enough to make them relevant and perhaps the “sensible”’wing of a Tory-reform coalition government
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Politically yes, but the biggest issue she has is that her colleagues in a potential future government are really useless. The Tories failed, and failed very badly.
Also, I don't want taxes going up anymore until the gold-plated pensions of the public sector (with taxpayer funded 20-30%+ employer contributions plus ) are ended.
They can get 5-10% like the rest of us.
It's not just the contributions, CR. It's the current payouts and future liability for the defined benefit pension schemes that they all awarded themselves at our expense. A 50% haircut for DB pension amounts over £30k would do it, so a £50k pension becomes £40k, £80k becomes £55k etc...
Push through primary legislation, write in the bill that "parliament is sovereign" and dare the courts to try and overturn it.
We are broke and it's time we started acting like it.
Less dramatically we could just tax pension recipients the same as workers by merging NIC and ICT.
So the benefit is honoured, but a chunk is withheld as tax.
Those who are working for a living shouldn't be taxed any more than those who are not.
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Problem for Kemi is that a lot of the mess can be pinned on Hunt who created the mess with his 4p reduction in National Insurance.
Now it probably doesn't require much more than keeping Hunt and anyone else who can be blamed well away from the public gaze but it's something she needs to be aware of...
No it's not, Labour pushed spending up by £60bn per year. If they hadn't done that and gone on a gigantic spending binge there would be a current budget surplus and our debt yields would be appreciably lower. Rachel Reeves is Liz Truss in slow motion.
Sorry but what spending binge.
We have a set of payrises which are only attached to Labour because Rishi called the election between the independent pay review boards suggesting increases and Rishi having to pay or reject them
And some benefits cuts that were reversed. I'm struggling (and have struggled for a while) to see any spending that Labour has actually committed to - bar an overpriced but unavoidable nuclear power station and defence..
But equally I wasn't actually arguing anything beyond - if Kemi adopts your recommendation - best to keep as much of the 2022-24 cabinet away from the public as she can get away with.
Huge public sector pay rises, an extra £25bn of unfunded spending for the NHS, a huge rise in the benefits bill due to much higher inflation that they have caused with their idiotic tax increases.
It was literally there in black and white in October, Labour added £60bn per year to state spending and on average increased borrowing by £37bn per year because their tax rises didn't cover the full amount. I very clearly remember pointing out that this would end up becoming Liz Truss in slow motion as the markets have to digest a huge increase on gilt supply and now we are one adverse fiscal event away from a full on debt crisis, failed auctions and a BoE backstop at debt auctions.
Also, I don't want taxes going up anymore until the gold-plated pensions of the public sector (with taxpayer funded 20-30%+ employer contributions plus ) are ended.
They can get 5-10% like the rest of us.
It's not just the contributions, CR. It's the current payouts and future liability for the defined benefit pension schemes that they all awarded themselves at our expense. A 50% haircut for DB pension amounts over £30k would do it, so a £50k pension becomes £40k, £80k becomes £55k etc...
Push through primary legislation, write in the bill that "parliament is sovereign" and dare the courts to try and overturn it.
We are broke and it's time we started acting like it.
Less dramatically we could just tax pension recipients the same as workers by merging NIC and ICT.
So the benefit is honoured, but a chunk is withheld as tax.
Those who are working for a living shouldn't be taxed any more than those who are not.
Add in keeping the ICT rate the same for pensioners on the lower rate of tax and you have something politically survivable.
Also, I don't want taxes going up anymore until the gold-plated pensions of the public sector (with taxpayer funded 20-30%+ employer contributions plus ) are ended.
They can get 5-10% like the rest of us.
It's not just the contributions, CR. It's the current payouts and future liability for the defined benefit pension schemes that they all awarded themselves at our expense. A 50% haircut for DB pension amounts over £30k would do it, so a £50k pension becomes £40k, £80k becomes £55k etc...
Push through primary legislation, write in the bill that "parliament is sovereign" and dare the courts to try and overturn it.
We are broke and it's time we started acting like it.
Less dramatically we could just tax pension recipients the same as workers by merging NIC and ICT.
So the benefit is honoured, but a chunk is withheld as tax.
Those who are working for a living shouldn't be taxed any more than those who are not.
Add in keeping the ICT rate the same for pensioners on the lower rate of tax and you have something politically survivable.
“Pensioners on £50k can pay more.”
So a pensioner on £40k who has no housing costs would have a lower tax rate than an employee on £40k who is working for a living and has to pay for housing?
Everyone on the same income should pay the same rate of tax, if you want a lower tax rate for pensioners under £50k it should apply to employees on that income too.
Also, I don't want taxes going up anymore until the gold-plated pensions of the public sector (with taxpayer funded 20-30%+ employer contributions plus ) are ended.
They can get 5-10% like the rest of us.
It's not just the contributions, CR. It's the current payouts and future liability for the defined benefit pension schemes that they all awarded themselves at our expense. A 50% haircut for DB pension amounts over £30k would do it, so a £50k pension becomes £40k, £80k becomes £55k etc...
Push through primary legislation, write in the bill that "parliament is sovereign" and dare the courts to try and overturn it.
We are broke and it's time we started acting like it.
Less dramatically we could just tax pension recipients the same as workers by merging NIC and ICT.
So the benefit is honoured, but a chunk is withheld as tax.
Those who are working for a living shouldn't be taxed any more than those who are not.
It's not enough. Over the next 10 years there's a huge liability of DB pensions that's going to come due for overpaid, over promoted final salary scheme holders at 35-45/60 years with many of those ending their careers on very high salaries due to their mates promoting them on the way out.
A haircut is the only reasonable way to deal with that unreasonable behaviour by these people, and applying it to people currently in receipt too. Either by a tax at source or a haircut, it needs to be done.
Beyond areas where Corbynite Independents already do well, I can't see the new party getting that much traction with FPTP.
If we had PR like Germany they might gain more traction and seats as Linke have. In France Melenchon's party effectively has formed a combined block with the Socialist Party under their second ballot system
If it takes a thousand votes from Labour in every Labour constituency it returns right wing MPs and a right wing government.
Mission accomplished.
Thus ridding us of the most malign British Government of my lifetime. Good.
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Politically yes, but the biggest issue she has is that her colleagues in a potential future government are really useless. The Tories failed, and failed very badly.
The Tories failed to manage their own base (pensioners) on it as well, preferring to gild their lily.
I get that people don't like being told what they don't want to hear but there is a little bit of leadership about telling people bad news and showing them a better more sustainable path exists in future if you do it and follow it through.
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Problem for Kemi is that a lot of the mess can be pinned on Hunt who created the mess with his 4p reduction in National Insurance.
Now it probably doesn't require much more than keeping Hunt and anyone else who can be blamed well away from the public gaze but it's something she needs to be aware of...
No it's not, Labour pushed spending up by £60bn per year. If they hadn't done that and gone on a gigantic spending binge there would be a current budget surplus and our debt yields would be appreciably lower. Rachel Reeves is Liz Truss in slow motion.
Sorry but what spending binge.
We have a set of payrises which are only attached to Labour because Rishi called the election between the independent pay review boards suggesting increases and Rishi having to pay or reject them
And some benefits cuts that were reversed. I'm struggling (and have struggled for a while) to see any spending that Labour has actually committed to - bar an overpriced but unavoidable nuclear power station and defence..
But equally I wasn't actually arguing anything beyond - if Kemi adopts your recommendation - best to keep as much of the 2022-24 cabinet away from the public as she can get away with.
Huge public sector pay rises, an extra £25bn of unfunded spending for the NHS, a huge rise in the benefits bill due to much higher inflation that they have caused with their idiotic tax increases.
It was literally there in black and white in October, Labour added £60bn per year to state spending and on average increased borrowing by £37bn per year because their tax rises didn't cover the full amount. I very clearly remember pointing out that this would end up becoming Liz Truss in slow motion as the markets have to digest a huge increase on gilt supply and now we are one adverse fiscal event away from a full on debt crisis, failed auctions and a BoE backstop at debt auctions.
Huge public pay rises which would have been announced in June if Rishi hadn't ran away from the decision but hey blame Labour - it would have been the same regardles..
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Debt, growing debt, the cost of interest payments and the risk of a sovereign debt crisis are being discussed all the time by everyone from OBR and IFS downwards APART FROM every political party with the responsibility of formulating a short term, five year, ten year and long term plan to put to the electorate.
Except that responsibility doesn't really exist. And all the evidence is that the public doesn't want a properly prudent plan.
Hunt offered tax NI cuts, despite those cuts being unaffordable because the government was on track to be borrowing shedloads. Partly to box Reeves in, partly to buy votes. Reeves didn't disavow them, becuase she feared losing votes (and given the low vote share of the 2024 landslide, she was right to be careful). And the most top party in the polls right now is the most fiscally incontenent of the lot.
One of the big flaws in the least bad system of government is that voters can demand something for nothing. In various ways, governments have been able to deliver that by short-term contrivances. They've run out of road, but we still have the expectations- see the howling at any tax rises or real reductions in spending.
Hunt had tax rises.
In consecutive budgets he froze thresholds and cut [NI] rates which, net, was an overall tax rise but lowered the differential between the taxes paid by those working for a living and those who are not.
Reeves should do the same thing, in one Budget rather than two if it makes you happier. Freeze the thresholds, use a fraction of the taxes raised by the freeze to cut NI further, while keeping the rest as a net tax rise.
Keep doing that until NI is abolished. Employee at least.
Also, I don't want taxes going up anymore until the gold-plated pensions of the public sector (with taxpayer funded 20-30%+ employer contributions plus ) are ended.
They can get 5-10% like the rest of us.
It's not just the contributions, CR. It's the current payouts and future liability for the defined benefit pension schemes that they all awarded themselves at our expense. A 50% haircut for DB pension amounts over £30k would do it, so a £50k pension becomes £40k, £80k becomes £55k etc...
Push through primary legislation, write in the bill that "parliament is sovereign" and dare the courts to try and overturn it.
We are broke and it's time we started acting like it.
Less dramatically we could just tax pension recipients the same as workers by merging NIC and ICT.
So the benefit is honoured, but a chunk is withheld as tax.
Those who are working for a living shouldn't be taxed any more than those who are not.
It's not enough. Over the next 10 years there's a huge liability of DB pensions that's going to come due for overpaid, over promoted final salary scheme holders at 35-45/60 years with many of those ending their careers on very high salaries due to their mates promoting them on the way out.
A haircut is the only reasonable way to deal with that unreasonable behaviour by these people, and applying it to people currently in receipt too. Either by a tax at source or a haircut, it needs to be done.
I agree with Barty that it would be a good start though.
I can imagine fruit and nut sweeping a noticeable percentage off Labour that hates reform but has some reason for avoiding green. He’s still got a personal following.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Debt, growing debt, the cost of interest payments and the risk of a sovereign debt crisis are being discussed all the time by everyone from OBR and IFS downwards APART FROM every political party with the responsibility of formulating a short term, five year, ten year and long term plan to put to the electorate.
Except that responsibility doesn't really exist. And all the evidence is that the public doesn't want a properly prudent plan.
Hunt offered tax NI cuts, despite those cuts being unaffordable because the government was on track to be borrowing shedloads. Partly to box Reeves in, partly to buy votes. Reeves didn't disavow them, becuase she feared losing votes (and given the low vote share of the 2024 landslide, she was right to be careful). And the most top party in the polls right now is the most fiscally incontenent of the lot.
One of the big flaws in the least bad system of government is that voters can demand something for nothing. In various ways, governments have been able to deliver that by short-term contrivances. They've run out of road, but we still have the expectations- see the howling at any tax rises or real reductions in spending.
Hunt had tax rises.
In consecutive budgets he froze thresholds and cut [NI] rates which, net, was an overall tax rise but lowered the differential between the taxes paid by those working for a living and those who are not.
Reeves should do the same thing, in one Budget rather than two if it makes you happier. Freeze the thresholds, use a fraction of the taxes raised by the freeze to cut NI further, while keeping the rest as a net tax rise.
Keep doing that until NI is abolished. Employee at least.
As long as the deficit was a big as it was, that doesn't matter.
Hunt's actions were the fiscal equivalent of thinking that, because you went to the gym yesterday, you deserve a big slice of chocolate cake today.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Debt, growing debt, the cost of interest payments and the risk of a sovereign debt crisis are being discussed all the time by everyone from OBR and IFS downwards APART FROM every political party with the responsibility of formulating a short term, five year, ten year and long term plan to put to the electorate.
Except that responsibility doesn't really exist. And all the evidence is that the public doesn't want a properly prudent plan.
Hunt offered tax NI cuts, despite those cuts being unaffordable because the government was on track to be borrowing shedloads. Partly to box Reeves in, partly to buy votes. Reeves didn't disavow them, becuase she feared losing votes (and given the low vote share of the 2024 landslide, she was right to be careful). And the most top party in the polls right now is the most fiscally incontenent of the lot.
One of the big flaws in the least bad system of government is that voters can demand something for nothing. In various ways, governments have been able to deliver that by short-term contrivances. They've run out of road, but we still have the expectations- see the howling at any tax rises or real reductions in spending.
Hunt had tax rises.
In consecutive budgets he froze thresholds and cut [NI] rates which, net, was an overall tax rise but lowered the differential between the taxes paid by those working for a living and those who are not.
Reeves should do the same thing, in one Budget rather than two if it makes you happier. Freeze the thresholds, use a fraction of the taxes raised by the freeze to cut NI further, while keeping the rest as a net tax rise.
Keep doing that until NI is abolished. Employee at least.
As long as the deficit was a big as it was, that doesn't matter.
Hunt's actions were the fiscal equivalent of thinking that, because you went to the gym yesterday, you deserve a big slice of chocolate cake today.
Hunt did as most chancellors have done - employed smoke and mirrors. I don't think he was particularly guilty. Sunak was really poor, as was Osborne - they had enough rope to actually do something.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Debt, growing debt, the cost of interest payments and the risk of a sovereign debt crisis are being discussed all the time by everyone from OBR and IFS downwards APART FROM every political party with the responsibility of formulating a short term, five year, ten year and long term plan to put to the electorate.
Except that responsibility doesn't really exist. And all the evidence is that the public doesn't want a properly prudent plan.
Hunt offered tax NI cuts, despite those cuts being unaffordable because the government was on track to be borrowing shedloads. Partly to box Reeves in, partly to buy votes. Reeves didn't disavow them, becuase she feared losing votes (and given the low vote share of the 2024 landslide, she was right to be careful). And the most top party in the polls right now is the most fiscally incontenent of the lot.
One of the big flaws in the least bad system of government is that voters can demand something for nothing. In various ways, governments have been able to deliver that by short-term contrivances. They've run out of road, but we still have the expectations- see the howling at any tax rises or real reductions in spending.
Hunt had tax rises.
In consecutive budgets he froze thresholds and cut [NI] rates which, net, was an overall tax rise but lowered the differential between the taxes paid by those working for a living and those who are not.
Reeves should do the same thing, in one Budget rather than two if it makes you happier. Freeze the thresholds, use a fraction of the taxes raised by the freeze to cut NI further, while keeping the rest as a net tax rise.
Keep doing that until NI is abolished. Employee at least.
As long as the deficit was a big as it was, that doesn't matter.
Hunt's actions were the fiscal equivalent of thinking that, because you went to the gym yesterday, you deserve a big slice of chocolate cake today.
When its a net tax rise, and its also an improvement in the tax structure so we are taxing proportionately more those who aren't working for a living (which is both morally and economically the right thing to do) of course it does matter.
For most normal people, absolutely having a slice of cake sometimes is perfectly acceptable. Especially if you've been good at eating right and exercising otherwise. Indeed you can have a slice of cake and still be in a calorific deficit for the day/week overall by making other good choices, which is effectively what Hunt did.
Also, I don't want taxes going up anymore until the gold-plated pensions of the public sector (with taxpayer funded 20-30%+ employer contributions plus ) are ended.
They can get 5-10% like the rest of us.
It's not just the contributions, CR. It's the current payouts and future liability for the defined benefit pension schemes that they all awarded themselves at our expense. A 50% haircut for DB pension amounts over £30k would do it, so a £50k pension becomes £40k, £80k becomes £55k etc...
Push through primary legislation, write in the bill that "parliament is sovereign" and dare the courts to try and overturn it.
We are broke and it's time we started acting like it.
Less dramatically we could just tax pension recipients the same as workers by merging NIC and ICT.
So the benefit is honoured, but a chunk is withheld as tax.
Those who are working for a living shouldn't be taxed any more than those who are not.
It's not enough. Over the next 10 years there's a huge liability of DB pensions that's going to come due for overpaid, over promoted final salary scheme holders at 35-45/60 years with many of those ending their careers on very high salaries due to their mates promoting them on the way out.
A haircut is the only reasonable way to deal with that unreasonable behaviour by these people, and applying it to people currently in receipt too. Either by a tax at source or a haircut, it needs to be done.
Obviously our fin-tech bros should not be taxed on their massive earnings.
Where would we be without their big swinging dicks?
I can imagine fruit and nut sweeping a noticeable percentage off Labour that hates reform but has some reason for avoiding green. He’s still got a personal following.
Unless they come to an electoral pact with the Gaza independents and Polanski Greens they are doomed to early extinction.
Their only prospect is some form of "Popular Front" type electoral alliance.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Debt, growing debt, the cost of interest payments and the risk of a sovereign debt crisis are being discussed all the time by everyone from OBR and IFS downwards APART FROM every political party with the responsibility of formulating a short term, five year, ten year and long term plan to put to the electorate.
Except that responsibility doesn't really exist. And all the evidence is that the public doesn't want a properly prudent plan.
Hunt offered tax NI cuts, despite those cuts being unaffordable because the government was on track to be borrowing shedloads. Partly to box Reeves in, partly to buy votes. Reeves didn't disavow them, becuase she feared losing votes (and given the low vote share of the 2024 landslide, she was right to be careful). And the most top party in the polls right now is the most fiscally incontenent of the lot.
One of the big flaws in the least bad system of government is that voters can demand something for nothing. In various ways, governments have been able to deliver that by short-term contrivances. They've run out of road, but we still have the expectations- see the howling at any tax rises or real reductions in spending.
Hunt had tax rises.
In consecutive budgets he froze thresholds and cut [NI] rates which, net, was an overall tax rise but lowered the differential between the taxes paid by those working for a living and those who are not.
Reeves should do the same thing, in one Budget rather than two if it makes you happier. Freeze the thresholds, use a fraction of the taxes raised by the freeze to cut NI further, while keeping the rest as a net tax rise.
Keep doing that until NI is abolished. Employee at least.
As long as the deficit was a big as it was, that doesn't matter.
Hunt's actions were the fiscal equivalent of thinking that, because you went to the gym yesterday, you deserve a big slice of chocolate cake today.
As Reeves found out to all our cost (sadly not hers) the economy is a living organism, running on confidence, trust, energy. It is not 'done' because you've successfully shown that you've taxed the crap out of people to match your ludicrous outgoings, and you hand that in to the teacher and they give you ten out of ten and a gold star. Reeves' tax changes actively harmed growth, which actively undermined her own fiscal position. Hunt was one of the worst Chancellors ever, but at least he was at the races because understood the basic concept.
Also, I don't want taxes going up anymore until the gold-plated pensions of the public sector (with taxpayer funded 20-30%+ employer contributions plus ) are ended.
They can get 5-10% like the rest of us.
It's not just the contributions, CR. It's the current payouts and future liability for the defined benefit pension schemes that they all awarded themselves at our expense. A 50% haircut for DB pension amounts over £30k would do it, so a £50k pension becomes £40k, £80k becomes £55k etc...
Push through primary legislation, write in the bill that "parliament is sovereign" and dare the courts to try and overturn it.
We are broke and it's time we started acting like it.
Less dramatically we could just tax pension recipients the same as workers by merging NIC and ICT.
So the benefit is honoured, but a chunk is withheld as tax.
Those who are working for a living shouldn't be taxed any more than those who are not.
It's not enough. Over the next 10 years there's a huge liability of DB pensions that's going to come due for overpaid, over promoted final salary scheme holders at 35-45/60 years with many of those ending their careers on very high salaries due to their mates promoting them on the way out.
A haircut is the only reasonable way to deal with that unreasonable behaviour by these people, and applying it to people currently in receipt too. Either by a tax at source or a haircut, it needs to be done.
Any idea how much money is involved per annum (ie what would your proposal save) ?
It's one of your more sensible ideas, but the political headwind from senior civil servants, senior parliamentarians, and ministers (all of whom might well be in its crosshairs) is possibly insurmountable.
Also, I don't want taxes going up anymore until the gold-plated pensions of the public sector (with taxpayer funded 20-30%+ employer contributions plus ) are ended.
They can get 5-10% like the rest of us.
It's not just the contributions, CR. It's the current payouts and future liability for the defined benefit pension schemes that they all awarded themselves at our expense. A 50% haircut for DB pension amounts over £30k would do it, so a £50k pension becomes £40k, £80k becomes £55k etc...
Push through primary legislation, write in the bill that "parliament is sovereign" and dare the courts to try and overturn it.
We are broke and it's time we started acting like it.
Less dramatically we could just tax pension recipients the same as workers by merging NIC and ICT.
So the benefit is honoured, but a chunk is withheld as tax.
Those who are working for a living shouldn't be taxed any more than those who are not.
It's not enough. Over the next 10 years there's a huge liability of DB pensions that's going to come due for overpaid, over promoted final salary scheme holders at 35-45/60 years with many of those ending their careers on very high salaries due to their mates promoting them on the way out.
A haircut is the only reasonable way to deal with that unreasonable behaviour by these people, and applying it to people currently in receipt too. Either by a tax at source or a haircut, it needs to be done.
Any idea how much money is involved per annum (ie what would your proposal save) ?
It's one of your more sensible ideas, but the political headwind from senior civil servants, senior parliamentarians, and ministers (all of whom might well be in its crosshairs) is possibly insurmountable.
In the short term and medium term it costs money.
The pensions liabilities continue, while inputs greatly reduce.
NHS Superannuation currently is a net £2 billion per annum positive to the exchequer.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Debt, growing debt, the cost of interest payments and the risk of a sovereign debt crisis are being discussed all the time by everyone from OBR and IFS downwards APART FROM every political party with the responsibility of formulating a short term, five year, ten year and long term plan to put to the electorate.
Except that responsibility doesn't really exist. And all the evidence is that the public doesn't want a properly prudent plan.
Hunt offered tax NI cuts, despite those cuts being unaffordable because the government was on track to be borrowing shedloads. Partly to box Reeves in, partly to buy votes. Reeves didn't disavow them, becuase she feared losing votes (and given the low vote share of the 2024 landslide, she was right to be careful). And the most top party in the polls right now is the most fiscally incontenent of the lot.
One of the big flaws in the least bad system of government is that voters can demand something for nothing. In various ways, governments have been able to deliver that by short-term contrivances. They've run out of road, but we still have the expectations- see the howling at any tax rises or real reductions in spending.
Hunt had tax rises.
In consecutive budgets he froze thresholds and cut [NI] rates which, net, was an overall tax rise but lowered the differential between the taxes paid by those working for a living and those who are not.
Reeves should do the same thing, in one Budget rather than two if it makes you happier. Freeze the thresholds, use a fraction of the taxes raised by the freeze to cut NI further, while keeping the rest as a net tax rise.
Keep doing that until NI is abolished. Employee at least.
As long as the deficit was a big as it was, that doesn't matter.
Hunt's actions were the fiscal equivalent of thinking that, because you went to the gym yesterday, you deserve a big slice of chocolate cake today.
When its a net tax rise, and its also an improvement in the tax structure so we are taxing proportionately more those who aren't working for a living (which is both morally and economically the right thing to do) of course it does matter.
For most normal people, absolutely having a slice of cake sometimes is perfectly acceptable. Especially if you've been good at eating right and exercising otherwise. Indeed you can have a slice of cake and still be in a calorific deficit for the day/week overall by making other good choices, which is effectively what Hunt did.
Once things are broadly in balance, sure, we can talk about what mixture of tax cuts and spending rises to go forward with. But Hunt's budgets weren't remotely like that. Mostly it was "the fiscal deadline has moved forwards another 12 months, so there's less need to do the repulsive-but-right stuff now."
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Debt, growing debt, the cost of interest payments and the risk of a sovereign debt crisis are being discussed all the time by everyone from OBR and IFS downwards APART FROM every political party with the responsibility of formulating a short term, five year, ten year and long term plan to put to the electorate.
Except that responsibility doesn't really exist. And all the evidence is that the public doesn't want a properly prudent plan.
Hunt offered tax NI cuts, despite those cuts being unaffordable because the government was on track to be borrowing shedloads. Partly to box Reeves in, partly to buy votes. Reeves didn't disavow them, becuase she feared losing votes (and given the low vote share of the 2024 landslide, she was right to be careful). And the most top party in the polls right now is the most fiscally incontenent of the lot.
One of the big flaws in the least bad system of government is that voters can demand something for nothing. In various ways, governments have been able to deliver that by short-term contrivances. They've run out of road, but we still have the expectations- see the howling at any tax rises or real reductions in spending.
Hunt had tax rises.
In consecutive budgets he froze thresholds and cut [NI] rates which, net, was an overall tax rise but lowered the differential between the taxes paid by those working for a living and those who are not.
Reeves should do the same thing, in one Budget rather than two if it makes you happier. Freeze the thresholds, use a fraction of the taxes raised by the freeze to cut NI further, while keeping the rest as a net tax rise.
Keep doing that until NI is abolished. Employee at least.
As long as the deficit was a big as it was, that doesn't matter.
Hunt's actions were the fiscal equivalent of thinking that, because you went to the gym yesterday, you deserve a big slice of chocolate cake today.
When its a net tax rise, and its also an improvement in the tax structure so we are taxing proportionately more those who aren't working for a living (which is both morally and economically the right thing to do) of course it does matter.
For most normal people, absolutely having a slice of cake sometimes is perfectly acceptable. Especially if you've been good at eating right and exercising otherwise. Indeed you can have a slice of cake and still be in a calorific deficit for the day/week overall by making other good choices, which is effectively what Hunt did.
Once things are broadly in balance, sure, we can talk about what mixture of tax cuts and spending rises to go forward with. But Hunt's budgets weren't remotely like that. Mostly it was "the fiscal deadline has moved forwards another 12 months, so there's less need to do the repulsive-but-right stuff now."
Hunt's budgets were net a tax rise. We don't need to wait until things are broadly in balance before we think about the mixture of tax cuts and spending rises when there are tax rises that more than counter the tax cuts.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Debt, growing debt, the cost of interest payments and the risk of a sovereign debt crisis are being discussed all the time by everyone from OBR and IFS downwards APART FROM every political party with the responsibility of formulating a short term, five year, ten year and long term plan to put to the electorate.
Except that responsibility doesn't really exist. And all the evidence is that the public doesn't want a properly prudent plan.
Hunt offered tax NI cuts, despite those cuts being unaffordable because the government was on track to be borrowing shedloads. Partly to box Reeves in, partly to buy votes. Reeves didn't disavow them, becuase she feared losing votes (and given the low vote share of the 2024 landslide, she was right to be careful). And the most top party in the polls right now is the most fiscally incontenent of the lot.
One of the big flaws in the least bad system of government is that voters can demand something for nothing. In various ways, governments have been able to deliver that by short-term contrivances. They've run out of road, but we still have the expectations- see the howling at any tax rises or real reductions in spending.
Hunt had tax rises.
In consecutive budgets he froze thresholds and cut [NI] rates which, net, was an overall tax rise but lowered the differential between the taxes paid by those working for a living and those who are not.
Reeves should do the same thing, in one Budget rather than two if it makes you happier. Freeze the thresholds, use a fraction of the taxes raised by the freeze to cut NI further, while keeping the rest as a net tax rise.
Keep doing that until NI is abolished. Employee at least.
As long as the deficit was a big as it was, that doesn't matter.
Hunt's actions were the fiscal equivalent of thinking that, because you went to the gym yesterday, you deserve a big slice of chocolate cake today.
When its a net tax rise, and its also an improvement in the tax structure so we are taxing proportionately more those who aren't working for a living (which is both morally and economically the right thing to do) of course it does matter.
For most normal people, absolutely having a slice of cake sometimes is perfectly acceptable. Especially if you've been good at eating right and exercising otherwise. Indeed you can have a slice of cake and still be in a calorific deficit for the day/week overall by making other good choices, which is effectively what Hunt did.
Once things are broadly in balance, sure, we can talk about what mixture of tax cuts and spending rises to go forward with. But Hunt's budgets weren't remotely like that. Mostly it was "the fiscal deadline has moved forwards another 12 months, so there's less need to do the repulsive-but-right stuff now."
Hunt's budgets were net a tax rise. We don't need to wait until things are broadly in balance before we think about the mixture of tax cuts and spending rises when there are tax rises that more than counter the tax cuts.
Sorry Bart, but that's tosh.
The fiscal target was that the debt-to-GDP would (just about) stop increasing in five years time. WIth a rolling deadline, that is as good as saying "never".
Yes, Hunt's budgets raised total taxes, though doing it through threshold freezes is one of the sneakiest, nastiest ways of doing that. But as long as expenditure continued to exceed income (which it did), the only way to describe those tax rises is "insufficient".
Also, I don't want taxes going up anymore until the gold-plated pensions of the public sector (with taxpayer funded 20-30%+ employer contributions plus ) are ended.
They can get 5-10% like the rest of us.
It's not just the contributions, CR. It's the current payouts and future liability for the defined benefit pension schemes that they all awarded themselves at our expense. A 50% haircut for DB pension amounts over £30k would do it, so a £50k pension becomes £40k, £80k becomes £55k etc...
Push through primary legislation, write in the bill that "parliament is sovereign" and dare the courts to try and overturn it.
We are broke and it's time we started acting like it.
Less dramatically we could just tax pension recipients the same as workers by merging NIC and ICT.
So the benefit is honoured, but a chunk is withheld as tax.
Those who are working for a living shouldn't be taxed any more than those who are not.
It's not enough. Over the next 10 years there's a huge liability of DB pensions that's going to come due for overpaid, over promoted final salary scheme holders at 35-45/60 years with many of those ending their careers on very high salaries due to their mates promoting them on the way out.
A haircut is the only reasonable way to deal with that unreasonable behaviour by these people, and applying it to people currently in receipt too. Either by a tax at source or a haircut, it needs to be done.
Any idea how much money is involved per annum (ie what would your proposal save) ?
It's one of your more sensible ideas, but the political headwind from senior civil servants, senior parliamentarians, and ministers (all of whom might well be in its crosshairs) is possibly insurmountable.
I don't think that any of the public sector schemes are still final salary. They pretty much all switched to career average earnings a decade or so ago.
The only people who should be allowed a comfortable retirement are the fin-tech parasites in the City of course. No one disagrees with that.
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Problem for Kemi is that a lot of the mess can be pinned on Hunt who created the mess with his 4p reduction in National Insurance.
Now it probably doesn't require much more than keeping Hunt and anyone else who can be blamed well away from the public gaze but it's something she needs to be aware of...
No it's not, Labour pushed spending up by £60bn per year. If they hadn't done that and gone on a gigantic spending binge there would be a current budget surplus and our debt yields would be appreciably lower. Rachel Reeves is Liz Truss in slow motion.
Sorry but what spending binge.
We have a set of payrises which are only attached to Labour because Rishi called the election between the independent pay review boards suggesting increases and Rishi having to pay or reject them
And some benefits cuts that were reversed. I'm struggling (and have struggled for a while) to see any spending that Labour has actually committed to - bar an overpriced but unavoidable nuclear power station and defence..
But equally I wasn't actually arguing anything beyond - if Kemi adopts your recommendation - best to keep as much of the 2022-24 cabinet away from the public as she can get away with.
Huge public sector pay rises, an extra £25bn of unfunded spending for the NHS, a huge rise in the benefits bill due to much higher inflation that they have caused with their idiotic tax increases.
It was literally there in black and white in October, Labour added £60bn per year to state spending and on average increased borrowing by £37bn per year because their tax rises didn't cover the full amount. I very clearly remember pointing out that this would end up becoming Liz Truss in slow motion as the markets have to digest a huge increase on gilt supply and now we are one adverse fiscal event away from a full on debt crisis, failed auctions and a BoE backstop at debt auctions.
Huge public pay rises which would have been announced in June if Rishi hadn't ran away from the decision but hey blame Labour - it would have been the same regardles..
I'm sorry there's no way that the Tories would have given into the unions like that. They were already resisting public sector pay increases why do you assume they'd suddenly just cave? They'd have lived with the strikes and banked the savings from not having to pay out strike days.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Debt, growing debt, the cost of interest payments and the risk of a sovereign debt crisis are being discussed all the time by everyone from OBR and IFS downwards APART FROM every political party with the responsibility of formulating a short term, five year, ten year and long term plan to put to the electorate.
Except that responsibility doesn't really exist. And all the evidence is that the public doesn't want a properly prudent plan.
Hunt offered tax NI cuts, despite those cuts being unaffordable because the government was on track to be borrowing shedloads. Partly to box Reeves in, partly to buy votes. Reeves didn't disavow them, becuase she feared losing votes (and given the low vote share of the 2024 landslide, she was right to be careful). And the most top party in the polls right now is the most fiscally incontenent of the lot.
One of the big flaws in the least bad system of government is that voters can demand something for nothing. In various ways, governments have been able to deliver that by short-term contrivances. They've run out of road, but we still have the expectations- see the howling at any tax rises or real reductions in spending.
Hunt had tax rises.
In consecutive budgets he froze thresholds and cut [NI] rates which, net, was an overall tax rise but lowered the differential between the taxes paid by those working for a living and those who are not.
Reeves should do the same thing, in one Budget rather than two if it makes you happier. Freeze the thresholds, use a fraction of the taxes raised by the freeze to cut NI further, while keeping the rest as a net tax rise.
Keep doing that until NI is abolished. Employee at least.
As long as the deficit was a big as it was, that doesn't matter.
Hunt's actions were the fiscal equivalent of thinking that, because you went to the gym yesterday, you deserve a big slice of chocolate cake today.
When its a net tax rise, and its also an improvement in the tax structure so we are taxing proportionately more those who aren't working for a living (which is both morally and economically the right thing to do) of course it does matter.
For most normal people, absolutely having a slice of cake sometimes is perfectly acceptable. Especially if you've been good at eating right and exercising otherwise. Indeed you can have a slice of cake and still be in a calorific deficit for the day/week overall by making other good choices, which is effectively what Hunt did.
Once things are broadly in balance, sure, we can talk about what mixture of tax cuts and spending rises to go forward with. But Hunt's budgets weren't remotely like that. Mostly it was "the fiscal deadline has moved forwards another 12 months, so there's less need to do the repulsive-but-right stuff now."
Hunt's budgets were net a tax rise. We don't need to wait until things are broadly in balance before we think about the mixture of tax cuts and spending rises when there are tax rises that more than counter the tax cuts.
Sorry Bart, but that's tosh.
The fiscal target was that the debt-to-GDP would (just about) stop increasing in five years time. WIth a rolling deadline, that is as good as saying "never".
Yes, Hunt's budgets raised total taxes, though doing it through threshold freezes is one of the sneakiest, nastiest ways of doing that. But as long as expenditure continued to exceed income (which it did), the only way to describe those tax rises is "insufficient".
Nah, your comment is tosh.
What's especially nasty is taxing people who actually go to work for a living at a higher rate than those who don't.
Hunt's budgets were net a tax rise, while decreasing the nastiness in the tax system.
So how much time has elapsed since the initial sort-of-announcement about Corbyn's new party and the actual official announcement, with the only new detail being that the party isn't called what they're calling it?
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Problem for Kemi is that a lot of the mess can be pinned on Hunt who created the mess with his 4p reduction in National Insurance.
Now it probably doesn't require much more than keeping Hunt and anyone else who can be blamed well away from the public gaze but it's something she needs to be aware of...
No it's not, Labour pushed spending up by £60bn per year. If they hadn't done that and gone on a gigantic spending binge there would be a current budget surplus and our debt yields would be appreciably lower. Rachel Reeves is Liz Truss in slow motion.
Sorry but what spending binge.
We have a set of payrises which are only attached to Labour because Rishi called the election between the independent pay review boards suggesting increases and Rishi having to pay or reject them
And some benefits cuts that were reversed. I'm struggling (and have struggled for a while) to see any spending that Labour has actually committed to - bar an overpriced but unavoidable nuclear power station and defence..
But equally I wasn't actually arguing anything beyond - if Kemi adopts your recommendation - best to keep as much of the 2022-24 cabinet away from the public as she can get away with.
Huge public sector pay rises, an extra £25bn of unfunded spending for the NHS, a huge rise in the benefits bill due to much higher inflation that they have caused with their idiotic tax increases.
It was literally there in black and white in October, Labour added £60bn per year to state spending and on average increased borrowing by £37bn per year because their tax rises didn't cover the full amount. I very clearly remember pointing out that this would end up becoming Liz Truss in slow motion as the markets have to digest a huge increase on gilt supply and now we are one adverse fiscal event away from a full on debt crisis, failed auctions and a BoE backstop at debt auctions.
Huge public pay rises which would have been announced in June if Rishi hadn't ran away from the decision but hey blame Labour - it would have been the same regardles..
I'm sorry there's no way that the Tories would have given into the unions like that. They were already resisting public sector pay increases why do you assume they'd suddenly just cave? They'd have lived with the strikes and banked the savings from not having to pay out strike days.
There were no savings. They were paying doctors £3k for a single shift to cover the strike days.
Just read that this year UK government will borrow 140 billion, of which 110 will be needed to cover interest on existing borrowing!
Why is no-one talking about this?
Too grim to contemplate.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again. 2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
Not all us centrist dads.
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Debt, growing debt, the cost of interest payments and the risk of a sovereign debt crisis are being discussed all the time by everyone from OBR and IFS downwards APART FROM every political party with the responsibility of formulating a short term, five year, ten year and long term plan to put to the electorate.
Except that responsibility doesn't really exist. And all the evidence is that the public doesn't want a properly prudent plan.
Hunt offered tax NI cuts, despite those cuts being unaffordable because the government was on track to be borrowing shedloads. Partly to box Reeves in, partly to buy votes. Reeves didn't disavow them, becuase she feared losing votes (and given the low vote share of the 2024 landslide, she was right to be careful). And the most top party in the polls right now is the most fiscally incontenent of the lot.
One of the big flaws in the least bad system of government is that voters can demand something for nothing. In various ways, governments have been able to deliver that by short-term contrivances. They've run out of road, but we still have the expectations- see the howling at any tax rises or real reductions in spending.
Hunt had tax rises.
In consecutive budgets he froze thresholds and cut [NI] rates which, net, was an overall tax rise but lowered the differential between the taxes paid by those working for a living and those who are not.
Reeves should do the same thing, in one Budget rather than two if it makes you happier. Freeze the thresholds, use a fraction of the taxes raised by the freeze to cut NI further, while keeping the rest as a net tax rise.
Keep doing that until NI is abolished. Employee at least.
As long as the deficit was a big as it was, that doesn't matter.
Hunt's actions were the fiscal equivalent of thinking that, because you went to the gym yesterday, you deserve a big slice of chocolate cake today.
When its a net tax rise, and its also an improvement in the tax structure so we are taxing proportionately more those who aren't working for a living (which is both morally and economically the right thing to do) of course it does matter.
For most normal people, absolutely having a slice of cake sometimes is perfectly acceptable. Especially if you've been good at eating right and exercising otherwise. Indeed you can have a slice of cake and still be in a calorific deficit for the day/week overall by making other good choices, which is effectively what Hunt did.
Once things are broadly in balance, sure, we can talk about what mixture of tax cuts and spending rises to go forward with. But Hunt's budgets weren't remotely like that. Mostly it was "the fiscal deadline has moved forwards another 12 months, so there's less need to do the repulsive-but-right stuff now."
Hunt's budgets were net a tax rise. We don't need to wait until things are broadly in balance before we think about the mixture of tax cuts and spending rises when there are tax rises that more than counter the tax cuts.
Sorry Bart, but that's tosh.
The fiscal target was that the debt-to-GDP would (just about) stop increasing in five years time. WIth a rolling deadline, that is as good as saying "never".
Yes, Hunt's budgets raised total taxes, though doing it through threshold freezes is one of the sneakiest, nastiest ways of doing that. But as long as expenditure continued to exceed income (which it did), the only way to describe those tax rises is "insufficient".
Nah, your comment is tosh.
What's especially nasty is taxing people who actually go to work for a living at a higher rate than those who don't.
Hunt's budgets were net a tax rise, while decreasing the nastiness in the tax system.
I know that you really dislike NI. I can see your point, though as long as everyone takes turns through their life, I'm not sure it's that important. But:
1 Cutting NI rate and increasing ICT rate to balance- fair enough. But rate cuts benefit people with more income more and threshold freezes are a fixed number of pounds per person for pretty much everyone.
2 The question is not whether total taxes are going up or down. It's whether total taxes are paying sensibly for total government spending. And the answer there is "nowhere near". Which is why we are where are are.
Kemi should go full-on economics and insolvency, actually, because that's a chicken that could very easily home home to roost over the next 4 years.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Problem for Kemi is that a lot of the mess can be pinned on Hunt who created the mess with his 4p reduction in National Insurance.
Now it probably doesn't require much more than keeping Hunt and anyone else who can be blamed well away from the public gaze but it's something she needs to be aware of...
No it's not, Labour pushed spending up by £60bn per year. If they hadn't done that and gone on a gigantic spending binge there would be a current budget surplus and our debt yields would be appreciably lower. Rachel Reeves is Liz Truss in slow motion.
Sorry but what spending binge.
We have a set of payrises which are only attached to Labour because Rishi called the election between the independent pay review boards suggesting increases and Rishi having to pay or reject them
And some benefits cuts that were reversed. I'm struggling (and have struggled for a while) to see any spending that Labour has actually committed to - bar an overpriced but unavoidable nuclear power station and defence..
But equally I wasn't actually arguing anything beyond - if Kemi adopts your recommendation - best to keep as much of the 2022-24 cabinet away from the public as she can get away with.
Huge public sector pay rises, an extra £25bn of unfunded spending for the NHS, a huge rise in the benefits bill due to much higher inflation that they have caused with their idiotic tax increases.
It was literally there in black and white in October, Labour added £60bn per year to state spending and on average increased borrowing by £37bn per year because their tax rises didn't cover the full amount. I very clearly remember pointing out that this would end up becoming Liz Truss in slow motion as the markets have to digest a huge increase on gilt supply and now we are one adverse fiscal event away from a full on debt crisis, failed auctions and a BoE backstop at debt auctions.
Huge public pay rises which would have been announced in June if Rishi hadn't ran away from the decision but hey blame Labour - it would have been the same regardles..
Nonsense. Every single time Starter opens his mouth he blames the Tories for what they did. Now you want them blamed because Labour caved to the doctors etc last year and they're so grateful they're about to walk out again. Do me a favour - smell the coffee!
Comments
Shoplifting hit a record high of 530,643 offences reported to police in the year to March, a 20 per cent increase on the previous year’s total of 444,022.
The rate of shoplifting is nearly double the rate two decades ago, according to the figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
*ducks a blow from tempted Fate*
The sense of lawlessness. And these pitiful replies from Labour - “there is no silver bullet”. Yes there is. Kill the fucking werewolf
William Hill's current odds for most seats at next GE: Reform 5/4; Labour 13/10.
Mirage? Betting opportunity?
Why is no-one talking about this?
"Section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 defines the offense of violent disorder. This occurs when three or more people use or threaten unlawful violence, and their collective conduct would cause a person of reasonable firmness present to fear for their safety. It's a serious public order offense in England and Wales. " (Google summary)
I think that is middle level - above affray and below riot, which was the route pursued in summer 2024. It is being tackled quite seriously and rapidly, like last year. One of the people wanted is a former Combat 18 individual.
The "ring of steel" reported around the London hotel does not seem huge ... yet. Only a dozen from the Met.
Guards kitted out in black uniforms and wearing face masks manned the barriers this morning as more than a dozen Met Police officers gathered outside the building amid fresh fears of further protests tomorrow and over the weekend.
Officially avoided the follow-on.
Could Your Party cost Reform in the polls taking some of their 'NOTA' votes?
*disappears back into shadows*
What's interesting is that for every £25bn the government cuts out of spending there would be another £6-8bn cut from the debt interest bill due to falling inflation and bond yields. Labour chose this when they decided to add £60bn per year to government spending, they've pushed up inflation with unnecessary tax rises to pay for their spending binge and gold plated pay rises for the public sector which has resulted in a huge interest bill, falling bond prices which means the BoE quantitative tightening scheme becomes more expensive.
The UK is in a vicious cycle of tax rises not yielding enough resulting in higher borrowing which drives bond prices down as the government increases supply and round and round we go. Someone has got to say enough is enough, tell the pampered public sector fatcats they're out of a job, sack 1m of them within two years, cut the benefits bill by 20%, axe the triple lock, taper the state pension for retirees with more than £40k in private income and probably bring the 45p rate down to £50k and push up the 20p rate to 23p.
Fundamentally we need to start thinking about living within our means and that means for a lot of people things will become more difficult and a lot of people will have to sacrifice an extra holiday or buy a smaller car because they can't afford to do it any longer. That's the truth of where we are as a nation.
So Party McPartyface it is then.
1. Out fiscal hole isn't particularly about wasteful ongoing spending of the sort where a few cuts/tax rises of the sort that don't hurt people like me are going to make it all fine again.
2. We're here because we voted for the people who brought us here. Some of us for the last four decades.
“Too many highly-engaged respondents
Over-engagement and “career responders” have been a perennial issue for polling (one example of many here). In effect, respondents who sign up to take part in surveys – and particularly online surveys – are much more politically engaged than the average person. On the contrary, those who are less politically engaged are less likely to take part in polls, and less likely to answer questions about politics.
This is a problem due to ‘Nonignorable nonresponse’, where the reasons for a respondent not doing a survey are related to the variable being measured. In this case, the same factors which cause a respondent to be more likely to vote Reform, are the same ones which cause them to be less likely to sign up for a polling panel. Without addressing this, polls are likely to understate the extent of Reform party support.
This is normally not a big issue, given most low-engaged people naturally don’t engage with voting (so the problems cancel out). However, Reform voting – with parallels to Brexit – correlates with low political engagement. As British pollster James Johnson has said on American polling “They [pollsters] understated the Trump voter who is less likely to be engaged politically, and crucially, more likely to be busy, not spending 20 minutes talking to pollsters”.
I’ve got family living in Epping. The demonstrators are football hooligan types, not peaceful at all.
(I think 'low attention' is slang for what is technically known as being a bit dim but I'm not sure, as I am obvs fairly low attention myself).
Betting implications: huge if true. Reform at 5/4 for most seats would be value. As yet, I am unconvinced but worth considering.
https://x.com/katie_lam_mp/status/1947624581428351200?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The next Maggie! I believe she ticks all the boxes. 50/1 next leader, although it may come too soon for her
Hulk Hogan has tapped out.
Shocked
https://news.sky.com/story/wrestling-star-hulk-hogan-has-died-13401278
I voted for a party which ended up in government in 1983 and 2010. Never did like the cut of the Blair/Brown jib, which seems the right call in hindsight.
Ditto for the UK's net financial asset position - though you do sometimes hear people say "Why is X owned by foreigners ? it should be allowed".
Unless the IMF insists on it of course so the politicians can escape blame.
Only the Tories would then be the only ones who'd have credibility on it.
Such a strategy might see her suddenly bounce up to 30%+ in a crisis.
Even if it doesn't yield immediate electoral results for them now, it's the right thing to do for the country.
Now it probably doesn't require much more than keeping Hunt and anyone else who can be blamed well away from the public gaze but it's something she needs to be aware of...
They can get 5-10% like the rest of us.
We have a set of payrises which are only attached to Labour because Rishi called the election between the independent pay review boards suggesting increases and Rishi having to pay or reject them
And some benefits cuts that were reversed. I'm struggling (and have struggled for a while) to see any spending that Labour has actually committed to - bar an overpriced but unavoidable nuclear power station and defence..
But equally I wasn't actually arguing anything beyond - if Kemi adopts your recommendation - best to keep as much of the 2022-24 cabinet away from the public as she can get away with.
Not least because the truth about most things is that they either watched while Rome burned, or were the ones who were seen in the backstreets carrying the petrolcan.
Push through primary legislation, write in the bill that "parliament is sovereign" and dare the courts to try and overturn it.
We are broke and it's time we started acting like it.
Hunt offered
taxNI cuts, despite those cuts being unaffordable because the government was on track to be borrowing shedloads. Partly to box Reeves in, partly to buy votes. Reeves didn't disavow them, becuase she feared losing votes (and given the low vote share of the 2024 landslide, she was right to be careful). And the most top party in the polls right now is the most fiscally incontenent of the lot.One of the big flaws in the least bad system of government is that voters can demand something for nothing. In various ways, governments have been able to deliver that by short-term contrivances. They've run out of road, but we still have the expectations- see the howling at any tax rises or real reductions in spending.
It won’t be enough to win in 2028 but it might be enough to make them relevant and perhaps the “sensible”’wing of a Tory-reform coalition government
So the benefit is honoured, but a chunk is withheld as tax.
Those who are working for a living shouldn't be taxed any more than those who are not.
It was literally there in black and white in October, Labour added £60bn per year to state spending and on average increased borrowing by £37bn per year because their tax rises didn't cover the full amount. I very clearly remember pointing out that this would end up becoming Liz Truss in slow motion as the markets have to digest a huge increase on gilt supply and now we are one adverse fiscal event away from a full on debt crisis, failed auctions and a BoE backstop at debt auctions.
“Pensioners on £50k can pay more.”
Everyone on the same income should pay the same rate of tax, if you want a lower tax rate for pensioners under £50k it should apply to employees on that income too.
A haircut is the only reasonable way to deal with that unreasonable behaviour by these people, and applying it to people currently in receipt too. Either by a tax at source or a haircut, it needs to be done.
I get that people don't like being told what they don't want to hear but there is a little bit of leadership about telling people bad news and showing them a better more sustainable path exists in future if you do it and follow it through.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Party_(UK)
In consecutive budgets he froze thresholds and cut [NI] rates which, net, was an overall tax rise but lowered the differential between the taxes paid by those working for a living and those who are not.
Reeves should do the same thing, in one Budget rather than two if it makes you happier. Freeze the thresholds, use a fraction of the taxes raised by the freeze to cut NI further, while keeping the rest as a net tax rise.
Keep doing that until NI is abolished. Employee at least.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/07/kemi-badenoch-isnt-working
It worked.
But I don't know about "Britain is broke, it needs us to fix it after 5 years of Labour and 14 years of us".
Hunt's actions were the fiscal equivalent of thinking that, because you went to the gym yesterday, you deserve a big slice of chocolate cake today.
For most normal people, absolutely having a slice of cake sometimes is perfectly acceptable. Especially if you've been good at eating right and exercising otherwise. Indeed you can have a slice of cake and still be in a calorific deficit for the day/week overall by making other good choices, which is effectively what Hunt did.
Where would we be without their big swinging dicks?
Their only prospect is some form of "Popular Front" type electoral alliance.
It's one of your more sensible ideas, but the political headwind from senior civil servants, senior parliamentarians, and ministers (all of whom might well be in its crosshairs) is possibly insurmountable.
The pensions liabilities continue, while inputs greatly reduce.
NHS Superannuation currently is a net £2 billion per annum positive to the exchequer.
Very good day for England, but disappointing neither opener managed to get their century. Thanks Leondarmus!
Of course if we were in the Euro we couldn't, but we are not.
The fiscal target was that the debt-to-GDP would (just about) stop increasing in five years time. WIth a rolling deadline, that is as good as saying "never".
Yes, Hunt's budgets raised total taxes, though doing it through threshold freezes is one of the sneakiest, nastiest ways of doing that. But as long as expenditure continued to exceed income (which it did), the only way to describe those tax rises is "insufficient".
The only people who should be allowed a comfortable retirement are the fin-tech parasites in the City of course. No one disagrees with that.
Comment stands.
What's especially nasty is taxing people who actually go to work for a living at a higher rate than those who don't.
Hunt's budgets were net a tax rise, while decreasing the nastiness in the tax system.
1 Cutting NI rate and increasing ICT rate to balance- fair enough. But rate cuts benefit people with more income more and threshold freezes are a fixed number of pounds per person for pretty much everyone.
2 The question is not whether total taxes are going up or down. It's whether total taxes are paying sensibly for total government spending. And the answer there is "nowhere near". Which is why we are where are are.