I bet they do something horrendous on inheritance tax instead.
What's the point anymore?
I guess tomorrow they will brief that despite briefing for weeks that the two child cap will end they have changed their minds. Likewise on EV miles. And every single other thing.
The Budget will be as neutral as a 1970s magnolia bathroom suite.
This one term lot as lame duck as a lame duck can be.
Or maybe all the speculation, rumours and lobbying by special interests was all bollocks in the first place.
Hmm. You had the chancellor all but saying that income taxes would rise. This isn’t just Telegraph made up stuff. This is stuff that has been widely briefed.
I bet they do something horrendous on inheritance tax instead.
What's the point anymore?
I guess tomorrow they will brief that despite briefing for weeks that the two child cap will end they have changed their minds. Likewise on EV miles. And every single other thing.
The Budget will be as neutral as a 1970s magnolia bathroom suite.
This one term lot as lame duck as a lame duck can be.
Or maybe all the speculation, rumours and lobbying by special interests was all bollocks in the first place.
Plenty of it was anchoring and Telegraph getting excitable. But Reeves came out and did the pitch rolliing for breaking the manifesto. Big speech, then media interview rounds and every outlet was running with the story with outriders appearing to try and explain these tough decisions.
Maybe - just maybe - the government will restrict tax relief on pension contributions to 20%, which would be worth £20bn minimum pa. This plus the two year income tax threshold extension worth £10bn would bring in the £30bn possibly being looked for???
I bet they do something horrendous on inheritance tax instead.
What's the point anymore?
I guess tomorrow they will brief that despite briefing for weeks that the two child cap will end they have changed their minds. Likewise on EV miles. And every single other thing.
The Budget will be as neutral as a 1970s magnolia bathroom suite.
This one term lot as lame duck as a lame duck can be.
Or maybe all the speculation, rumours and lobbying by special interests was all bollocks in the first place.
Plenty of it was anchoring and Telegraph getting excitable. But Reeves came out and did the pitch rolliing for breaking the manifesto. Big speech, then media interview rounds and every outlet was running with the story with outriders appearing to try and explain these tough decisions.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Sounds like a set of measures which won't raise what's required. More trouble next year.
And the more obscure, and the more punitive, the more subjective to behavioural change. Having totally trashed their manifesto commitments, now going back on that. The political damage had probably already been largely done.
Hard to see how you get such a large sum from back of the sofa scratching. To raise money on a mansion tax it’s going to be a very small mansion threshold to bring anything in. A two bedroom flat in London is now likely to be considered a mansion.
To bring in the money they claim to need they would have to tax pretty much every home in the country.
Zarah's on QT at the moment, sounding just as shrill as Ash Sarkar
Other than the money is there a reason Corbyn and the Gaza bros are not fans of hers?
Declan Stones @DeclanStones1 · 2h If this wasn't 'left wingers' and Muslim MPs people would rightly call this out for what it is full blown misogyny, every single time they exclude the only female MP in their group and they attack Sultana on everything (not a Zarah fan myself, but plain to see what is happening)
If that is not it, then it is still weird that they agree to publicly brief against her and criticise her, even cuddly Jeremy Corbyn.
Maybe - just maybe - the government will restrict tax relief on pension contributions to 20%, which would be worth £20bn minimum pa. This plus the two year income tax threshold extension worth £10bn would bring in the £30bn possibly being looked for???
I dont think so. Ive heard it would totally mess up (for instance) GP pensions - substantially increasing their tax rate... lets see though!
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Taking the rate that people pay basic down to £10k would raise £15billion alone. And taking the the higher rate down to £45k probably gets another five billion. It does mean every productive taxpayer gets a whopping tax increase though.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Sounds like a set of measures which won't raise what's required. More trouble next year.
And the more obscure, and the more punitive, the more subjective to behavioural change. Having totally trashed their manifesto commitments, now going back on that. The political damage had probably already been largely done.
Hard to see how you get such a large sum from back of the sofa scratching. To raise money on a mansion tax it’s going to be a very small mansion threshold to bring anything in. A two bedroom flat in London is now likely to be considered a mansion.
To bring in the money they claim to need they would have to tax pretty much every home in the country.
It'll be an utter mess.
One idea which has been floated, to simply double the council tax for band G and H homes, would create huge distortions in taxation in particular the gap between bands F and G. And we need to remember that the banding is based on 1991 values, there has been significant change in the variation in real values between properties since then.
A full revaluation with extra bands maybe splitting G into two and extra bands at the current H level would be better but of course that would take time.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Sounds like a set of measures which won't raise what's required. More trouble next year.
And the more obscure, and the more punitive, the more subjective to behavioural change. Having totally trashed their manifesto commitments, now going back on that. The political damage had probably already been largely done.
Hard to see how you get such a large sum from back of the sofa scratching. To raise money on a mansion tax it’s going to be a very small mansion threshold to bring anything in. A two bedroom flat in London is now likely to be considered a mansion.
To bring in the money they claim to need they would have to tax pretty much every home in the country.
It'll be an utter mess.
They had only really got themselves into such a mess because of their tax promises. Whilst not a fan of increasing tax, it’s fairly clear that income taxes at the basic rate could increase quite a bit before any real economic impact, it’s hard to behaviour change on the basic rate. You could probably add 5p or more on the basic rate and it not really having any kind of drag on the economy, it’s low because of political promises, not because it is a bad thing to raise it.
She had freed herself of the trap by dumping the manifesto commitments. Obviously something has happened over the last couple of days, it could have been the talk of a coup (her fate is tied to Starmer, there’s no way any other leader is going to keep her as chancellor), representation from the back benches that manifest commitments must be honoured, cabinet threats of resignation, or their own private polling showing a rise in income taxes will take them down to single figure. So, she jumps back into the trap she was slipping herself out of.
All very odd. No matter what they try to do they just seem to get it wrong.
It'll get through in the end, but there do seem to have been plenty of areas for improvement (even if 900 is surely in part people intending to try to block it).
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Taking the rate that people pay basic down to £10k would raise £15billion alone. And taking the the higher rate down to £45k probably gets another five billion. It does mean every productive taxpayer gets a whopping tax increase though.
If the personal allowance falls below the state pension, then either they will need to go PAYE or every pensioner in the country will have to submit a tax return which will overwhelm HMRC and lead to an awful lot of fines being dished out.
Matthew @MatthewTorbitt · 4h This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
I bet they do something horrendous on inheritance tax instead.
They did that last time with the tax on family farms and family businesses, now it seems Reeves will hammer expensive property owners and gamblers and bring more people into higher rate tax even if she doesn't increase the tax rate
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Matthew @MatthewTorbitt · 4h This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Taking the rate that people pay basic down to £10k would raise £15billion alone. And taking the the higher rate down to £45k probably gets another five billion. It does mean every productive taxpayer gets a whopping tax increase though.
If the personal allowance falls below the state pension, then either they will need to go PAYE or every pensioner in the country will have to submit a tax return which will overwhelm HMRC and lead to an awful lot of fines being dished out.
Matthew @MatthewTorbitt · 4h This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
Maybe - just maybe - the government will restrict tax relief on pension contributions to 20%, which would be worth £20bn minimum pa. This plus the two year income tax threshold extension worth £10bn would bring in the £30bn possibly being looked for???
I dont think so. Ive heard it would totally mess up (for instance) GP pensions - substantially increasing their tax rate... lets see though!
Yep - do that and there will be big issues everywhere as those approaching retirement decide to either cut their hours further or just retire..
Matthew @MatthewTorbitt · 4h This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
As a mate said to me today over coffee - what is the friggin' difference between this shite and the shite of the Truss/Sunak years?
Tory MPs at least have a threat of VONC in their leader and no longer need a stalking horse and Sunak and Hunt were at least competent unlike Liz T and Starmer and Reeves
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Taking the rate that people pay basic down to £10k would raise £15billion alone. And taking the the higher rate down to £45k probably gets another five billion. It does mean every productive taxpayer gets a whopping tax increase though.
If the personal allowance falls below the state pension, then either they will need to go PAYE or every pensioner in the country will have to submit a tax return which will overwhelm HMRC and lead to an awful lot of fines being dished out.
Increasing taxation on people on minimum wage seems the least Labour like thing, possible, to do.
Matthew @MatthewTorbitt · 4h This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
you should carry out the policies you believe in
I think I found the small flaw in Starmer Labour
This, is, after all, the chap who 180'd his views on trans. Because of the Supreme Court decision.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
you should carry out the policies you believe in
I think I found the small flaw in Starmer Labour
This, is, after all, the chap who 180'd his views on trans. Because of the Supreme Court decision.
Matthew @MatthewTorbitt · 4h This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
As a mate said to me today over coffee - what is the friggin' difference between this shite and the shite of the Truss/Sunak years?
There's really no excuse for this when you have a majority of 170 and are only 18 months into the term of office.
It's a cliche at this point but it really does feel like exhausted 2 term government vibes. I know our finances are shot and the public don't know what the hell we want, but even so.
Globetrotting Keir Starmer spends a sixth of his time abroad
Starmer has visited 44 countries on 37 trips out of the country to attend conferences, bilateral meetings and sports fixtures. During his first 17 months in office, Starmer has spent two and a half months abroad. Starmer has travelled abroad an average of more than 300 miles a day so far, compared with Blair’s 164 miles a day in the first 17 months of his premiership.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
A question - How can you spend three weeks telling MPs, you can't do XYZ because the markets think we are too in hoc to our backbenchers - and then do this? All the whips, advisors, external experts who have been faithfully disseminating this to MPs made to look like mugs.
A question - How can you spend three weeks telling MPs, you can't do XYZ because the markets think we are too in hoc to our backbenchers - and then do this? All the whips, advisors, external experts who have been faithfully disseminating this to MPs made to look like mugs.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
A question - How can you spend three weeks telling MPs, you can't do XYZ because the markets think we are too in hoc to our backbenchers - and then do this? All the whips, advisors, external experts who have been faithfully disseminating this to MPs made to look like mugs.
Comments
It'll be an utter mess.
A full revaluation with extra bands maybe splitting G into two and extra bands at the current H level would be better but of course that would take time.
She had freed herself of the trap by dumping the manifesto commitments. Obviously something has happened over the last couple of days, it could have been the talk of a coup (her fate is tied to Starmer, there’s no way any other leader is going to keep her as chancellor), representation from the back benches that manifest commitments must be honoured, cabinet threats of resignation, or their own private polling showing a rise in income taxes will take them down to single figure. So, she jumps back into the trap she was slipping herself out of.
All very odd. No matter what they try to do they just seem to get it wrong.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2drk17p942o
Matthew
@MatthewTorbitt
·
4h
This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1989048321605005348
As a mate said to me today over coffee - what is the friggin' difference between this shite and the shite of the Truss/Sunak years?
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If the AI bubble bursts, an unusual recession could follow" (£)
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/11/13/how-markets-could-topple-the-global-economy
Or am I mad?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/11/the-starmer-mcsweeney-tendency-is-sinking-labour
I think I found the small flaw in Starmer Labour
This, is, after all, the chap who 180'd his views on trans. Because of the Supreme Court decision.
Does he believe in anything?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/11/the-starmer-mcsweeney-tendency-is-sinking-labour
Means a lot of disparate, smaller measures now on the table.
Just yesterday morning I was told they were desperate to avoid that.
https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1989108493547368725?s=20
Starmer has visited 44 countries on 37 trips out of the country to attend conferences, bilateral meetings and sports fixtures. During his first 17 months in office, Starmer has spent two and a half months abroad. Starmer has travelled abroad an average of more than 300 miles a day so far, compared with Blair’s 164 miles a day in the first 17 months of his premiership.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/38417639-5d29-4b0a-b6f1-acb6e5669263?shareToken=f057b9408445605c25cd887af4571114
Won't somebody think of the polar bears....
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1989115123894829521?s=20