I think Reeves gets away with it on a technicality; there was a significant downgrade in growth/productivity assumptions by the OBR which is what she was alluding to - but there was also a significant increase in expected tax receipts. Not really the whole truth, but enough.
Otoh, if Labour ministers are looking for an excuse to bin Reeves then this is a good one. Overall, that this is the main headline after the budget isn't too bad in the grand scheme of things. It's not WFP levels of outrage.
I think Reeves gets away with it on a technicality; there was a significant downgrade in growth/productivity assumptions by the OBR which is what she was alluding to - but there was also a significant increase in expected tax receipts. Not really the whole truth, but enough.
Otoh, if Labour ministers are looking for an excuse to bin Reeves then this is a good one. Overall, that this is the main headline after the budget isn't too bad in the grand scheme of things. It's not WFP levels of outrage.
Labour ministers might want to bin Reeves, but the Labour PM certainly doesn't.
I think Reeves gets away with it on a technicality; there was a significant downgrade in growth/productivity assumptions by the OBR which is what she was alluding to - but there was also a significant increase in expected tax receipts. Not really the whole truth, but enough.
Otoh, if Labour ministers are looking for an excuse to bin Reeves then this is a good one. Overall, that this is the main headline after the budget isn't too bad in the grand scheme of things. It's not WFP levels of outrage.
Labour ministers might want to bin Reeves, but the Labour PM certainly doesn't.
Congratulations to McLaren's new strategist who started the job yesterday.
It reminded me of I think Azerbaijan in 2021 when Lewis Hamilton was the only driver not to pit and was the only one on track at a restart.
I think Reeves gets away with it on a technicality; there was a significant downgrade in growth/productivity assumptions by the OBR which is what she was alluding to - but there was also a significant increase in expected tax receipts. Not really the whole truth, but enough.
Otoh, if Labour ministers are looking for an excuse to bin Reeves then this is a good one. Overall, that this is the main headline after the budget isn't too bad in the grand scheme of things. It's not WFP levels of outrage.
Its hard to get the public excited by this. So the story is that the national finances are better than we thought? That's hardly scandal and sacking territory.
Robert Jenrick inciting hooligans to terrorise immigration judges out of their homes.
Living with an immigration judge was never supposed to be a high-octane affair. But the humdrum of tribunal life was interrupted a few months ago when the threats started.
“We had to leave our home – we had less than 24 hours to get out,” the partner of one judge said. They called the police, stayed with friends, and tried to make sense of how their lives had been upended.
“It completely removes your feeling of security in your home,” the partner said. “You worry that your children will somehow get caught up in this. It turns your life upside down and nothing feels secure afterwards.”
The ordeal started after Robert Jenrick began a campaign highlighting what the shadow justice secretary described as “activist judges”. After months of news reports and feverish online rhetoric about immigration tribunal decisions, in April the Tory frontbencher began naming judges on social media. Jenrick pledged that under his regime, “biased judges will be sacked automatically” and at the Conservative party conferencelast month he revealed that he had compiled a list of more than 30 judges who he claimed had links to “open border charities”. His posts have been circulated among far-right groups online.
An Observer investigation has established that at least six immigration judges have been subjected to threats since April. At least two immigration judges have been advised to move out of their homes. Some have had their home addresses published on social media by far-right activists. One judge received a threat saying: “We know which bus your child catches”.
"In office, but not in power" was a phrase Kemi used a few weeks ago. Perhaps she was just projecting.
It can be both true that immigration judges are activists judges, and that they shouldn’t be in fear of people targeting their addresses. People need to be called out for what they are.
If anyone wants to complain about a judge, they can do so through the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Jenrick can do that. (Of course, Jenrick could have done a lot more when he was immigration minister too, but oddly he’s only noticed these problems subsequently.) Naming judges on social media is not the right way to call them out and obviously has the risk of leading to threats and violence. The Conservative Party should stand up for law and order, not vigilantism.
But presumably Jenrick has chosen this route because he doesn’t actually have any evidence of misconduct and is just rabble-rousing.
I think Reeves gets away with it on a technicality; there was a significant downgrade in growth/productivity assumptions by the OBR which is what she was alluding to - but there was also a significant increase in expected tax receipts. Not really the whole truth, but enough.
Otoh, if Labour ministers are looking for an excuse to bin Reeves then this is a good one. Overall, that this is the main headline after the budget isn't too bad in the grand scheme of things. It's not WFP levels of outrage.
Labour ministers might want to bin Reeves, but the Labour PM certainly doesn't.
Congratulations to McLaren's new strategist who started the job yesterday.
It reminded me of I think Azerbaijan in 2021 when Lewis Hamilton was the only driver not to pit and was the only one on track at a restart.
I think Reeves gets away with it on a technicality; there was a significant downgrade in growth/productivity assumptions by the OBR which is what she was alluding to - but there was also a significant increase in expected tax receipts. Not really the whole truth, but enough.
Otoh, if Labour ministers are looking for an excuse to bin Reeves then this is a good one. Overall, that this is the main headline after the budget isn't too bad in the grand scheme of things. It's not WFP levels of outrage.
Except on here, where WFP outrage applies both to its implementation and its cancellation and therefore is a convenient yardstick for any SKS Baaad bellowings.
I think Reeves gets away with it on a technicality; there was a significant downgrade in growth/productivity assumptions by the OBR which is what she was alluding to - but there was also a significant increase in expected tax receipts. Not really the whole truth, but enough.
Otoh, if Labour ministers are looking for an excuse to bin Reeves then this is a good one. Overall, that this is the main headline after the budget isn't too bad in the grand scheme of things. It's not WFP levels of outrage.
Labour ministers might want to bin Reeves, but the Labour PM certainly doesn't.
Congratulations to McLaren's new strategist who started the job yesterday.
It reminded me of I think Azerbaijan in 2021 when Lewis Hamilton was the only driver not to pit and was the only one on track at a restart.
Keir Starmer will also be dismayed by the Telegraph story about Peppa The Pig's dad and the meme of a weak, incompetent man outwitted by a clever woman. Jeremy Corbyn won't like it, either.
"Economy recovering faster than expected" -"Labour chancellor holds taxes for next year" - just two of the possible headlines that No10 have squandered.
Tax receipts up, which makes the public finances better, but there will be a point when the disinterested punter realises that the amount of tax they’re paying is going up. The wisdom is that, the average punter is earning more and won’t notice past that the money going in net is still greater than it was. But it will bite when people notice that their net increase is buying them less than it did do.
They’ll be a point in time when freezing allowances becomes a live political issue that goes beyond the usual talking heads.
There is something slightly disingenuous about Rachel Reeves.
It's that which is cutting through.
We had a government of barefaced liars for several years. Slightly disingenuous is going to take a long time to cut through.
Economically hopeless is a more profitable line for you to take. (Though the Tories have past form there, too. And Reform have it as a manifesto promise.)
On the Reeves thing it is going to deepen the convictions of those who already dislike her and this government. I'm not sure the few who are still voting Labour will care and the floating voters might care a little but not a lot.
Labours ceiling at the next GE is going to be around 30%, so polling showing 70%+ dislike is standard and inevitable today. Any other party would face the same and anyone getting above 25% at the next GE has a legitimate shot of winning power.
Prime Ministers are or rapidly become used to bad headlines when they wake up - on a scale of 1 to 10 that's a 0.5 in all honesty.
Siddiq quit the Government in January because of the allegations which she denies and as I don't have all the facts and given who she is and her familial connection to her aunt (who ended up a nasty piece of work), it's not hard to argue "politically motivated" is a fair defence. Nonetheless, it has destroyed her UK political career though she may feel not being Chief Secretary to the Treasury at this time as some form of escape.
On the slightly more substantive, time will tell if doing nothing on the economy is the best move - it can be sometimes. "The economy" is such a multi-faceted, perception-driven, subjective thing it's hard to know what it is and where it is. As the old saying goes, there are lies, damn lies and statistics and if you think Reeves has had a bad week (I don't actually), the OBR has had a worse one and will, I suspect, be subject to some pretty vengeful "reform" in the coming weeks and months.
If a basic rate tax payer gets a 5% pay rise - say on £3,000 a month would be worth £150 - would pay 20% tax 8% NI and 4% (net) pension (under Automatic Enrolment) so net increase in take home pay would be £102 an increase of 4.3% on the take home pay. Do think will not notice the increase in tax. They have undersold this budget!
The right wing propaganda sheets are certainly having a lot of fun... the problem is that their own lies and journalistic failings has reduced their power dramatically. Reeves is more intensely hated by those who were going to hate her anyway, but despite her own ethical questions, the majority will simply shrug and go "she would, wouldn't she". The dead tree press has cried wolf so often, that they can't even parse a sentence without apocalyptic manufactured outrage.
There is something slightly disingenuous about Rachel Reeves.
It's that which is cutting through.
This is to do with the fact that she and Starmer are both clumsy communicators and political messengers, who try to be too clever by half.
Most politicians use sleight of hand and power of persuasion to defend mistakes, changes of policy etc. But this pair are uniquely bad at being able to sell it. They never give themselves enough plausible deniability, they rush headlong into committing to things that then become politically inconvenient, and they can’t look anything other than shifty and dishonest when they’re caught out.
I don’t think we’ve had a pair of such poor communicators and political strategists occupying the two most senior positions in our government before. One - yes, quite frequently. But not both.
There is something slightly disingenuous about Rachel Reeves.
It's that which is cutting through.
Come on, you're a Conservative and she's a Labour Chancellor. I don't expect you would "like" her - is there a Labour Chancellor you have liked? I thought Alastair Darling was very good and under rated.
The problem currently is there is no economic "answer" out there - on the one side, you have those who think if you cut taxes enough and spending even more (I saw £100 billion off the benefits budget - that just about covers the annual debt interest from years of Conservative borrowing), the good old "trickle down" will take care of the rest.
On the other, you get the Mehmood Mirzas of this world who think "money" can solve any problem including crime, housing and the cracks in the pavement.
Both are probably true but neither would be practically or politically possible at this time so we jog on with what some call "managed decline" and others call stagnation pending the next "thing" which would give us another growth push and that's lilely to be technological - either AI or much cheaper energy or possibly both.
I've also yet to see a coherent economic theory which allows for growth in an ageing society.
Just to point out that Darren Jones is, IMHO, among the present Labour lot an able media performer who stands out from the crowd. R4 Today (about 8.10) this morning was a nice example, where he sounded quite old fashioned and back to the days of top bananas doing this routinely.
In particular he has the skill of taking hardish questions (Robinson, so not very hard, and of course far too long), not answering but slightly complexifying the matter so that follow up was not easy, at the same time sounding both reasonable and getting out a Labour message.
If a basic rate tax payer gets a 5% pay rise - say on £3,000 a month would be worth £150 - would pay 20% tax 8% NI and 4% (net) pension (under Automatic Enrolment) so net increase in take home pay would be £102 an increase of 4.3% on the take home pay. Do think will not notice the increase in tax. They have undersold this budget!
If a basic rate tax payer gets a 5% pay rise - say on £3,000 a month would be worth £150 - would pay 20% tax 8% NI and 4% (net) pension (under Automatic Enrolment) so net increase in take home pay would be £102 an increase of 4.3% on the take home pay. Do think will not notice the increase in tax. They have undersold this budget!
I'm waiting for someone to claim that Reeves is wasting the Sunak/Hunt 'golden legacy'. Meanwhile the job of government goes on - despite Brexit the MSM
If a basic rate tax payer gets a 5% pay rise - say on £3,000 a month would be worth £150 - would pay 20% tax 8% NI and 4% (net) pension (under Automatic Enrolment) so net increase in take home pay would be £102 an increase of 4.3% on the take home pay. Do think will not notice the increase in tax. They have undersold this budget!
If a basic rate tax payer gets a 5% pay rise - say on £3,000 a month would be worth £150 - would pay 20% tax 8% NI and 4% (net) pension (under Automatic Enrolment) so net increase in take home pay would be £102 an increase of 4.3% on the take home pay. Do think will not notice the increase in tax. They have undersold this budget!
I'm waiting for someone to claim that Reeves is wasting the Sunak/Hunt 'golden legacy'. Meanwhile the job of government goes on - despite Brexit the MSM
"Economy recovering faster than expected" -"Labour chancellor holds taxes for next year" - just two of the possible headlines that No10 have squandered.
What a narrative reset opportunity. As you say, completely squandered.
Stodge: "I've also yet to see a coherent economic theory which allows for growth in an ageing society."
The ageing society presents an opportunity to increase the span of working lives - there you have one possible source of output growth, i.e. increased labour supply. E.g. increasing retirement from 65 to 70 and equalising it between sexes
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
The fact Reeves made out the public finances were in a worse state than are so she could justify increasing taxes to fund higher welfare payments is the most significant story. Siddiq being sentenced in absentia is less of an issue as long as she does not step foot in Bangladesh and she cannot face a recall petition
I think Reeves gets away with it on a technicality; there was a significant downgrade in growth/productivity assumptions by the OBR which is what she was alluding to - but there was also a significant increase in expected tax receipts. Not really the whole truth, but enough.
Otoh, if Labour ministers are looking for an excuse to bin Reeves then this is a good one. Overall, that this is the main headline after the budget isn't too bad in the grand scheme of things. It's not WFP levels of outrage.
Also the press has so far been inconsistent and in several cases just wrong about what the "lie" actually was. Which means the "so what?" has become somewhat lost.
More interesting to me is why Reeves did actually lie/was economical with the truth. There should always be a purpose. My speculation is she wanted OBR support for tax rises she thought were needed and wasn't brave enough to say these rises are my judgement call.
OBR projections aren't definitive statements of the fiscal gap. They are point in time assessments that change every six months and have a historical record of inaccuracy. Reeves wanted a war chest to call on later in parliament when the fiscal projections might be less benign.
Reeves said the glass was half empty, to justify a course of action. Others said the glass was half full, to justify a different course of action. That's to be expected, and I really cannot get excited about it.
Another reality check for the 'why can't we all just get along' tendency.
Putin signed a decree this week escalating efforts to erase all traces of Ukrainian language, culture, and national identity in areas currently under Russian occupation. Hopes for a compromise peace are delusional. Putin is determined to destroy Ukraine https://x.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1995069657066463459
ISW's comments on Putin's position - essentially he is all in as failure would be terminal for him. The WH will know this from their own sources so any peace plan is doomed. Continued support for Ukraine is the route to peace but at the cost of regime change. Perhaps the fear is what happens (again) to all those nukes when there is regime change and there is no central government looking after them.
Putin fears the risks and challenges associated with reintegrating veterans into Russian society and economy and thus remains unlikely to demobilize fully or rapidly — even in the event of a negotiated settlement to its war in Ukraine
Stodge: "I've also yet to see a coherent economic theory which allows for growth in an ageing society."
The ageing society presents an opportunity to increase the span of working lives - there you have one possible source of output growth, i.e. increased labour supply. E.g. increasing retirement from 65 to 70 and equalising it between sexes
I'm not sure that's the game changer you think it is.
I retired at 63 because, to be honest, I could and I wanted to. There's an old adage you work to live, you don't live to work and the current environment doesn't stop people working longer if they want to or have to - look at the number of divorcees in their 50s who are saddled with a home and a mortgage once the husband has moved on with a younger model.
If you want a non-economic thought, I think attitudes to what is called the worklife balance changed with the pandemic. I think a lot of people came to see their life as being more than just eat, sleep, repeat. We are moving into a post-work world (whatever that means) and that will be accelerated by increasing automaton, AI etc and I also think (channelling my inner hippy here) people want more from life than just "things" - other aspects of existence have become more significant.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Yes. Look, I do think Reeves is doing a poor job, but I can’t deny she finds herself in an exceptionally tight spot politically, wanting to please her backbenchers with some goodies while trying to keep the public on side around the need for tax rises to pay for everything (that they promised they wouldn’t do).
This is what’s forced her into running clumsy political arguments, but she is far too flat footed to make them.
As others have said, there was actually a way for the Treasury and No.10 to get on the front foot with all this - things are going OK on the finances, but people still feel things aren’t working for them, we need more gas in the tank to get the job done and build the country the public want. Leaving aside political persuasions there, that would have both (a) delivered some credit for the slightly improved forecasts and (b) actually tried to put down a dividing line and sell the “vision.” It’s unsurprising to me that this government squandered that and got itself into more trouble as a result - because that is essentially the story of this government.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
There is something slightly disingenuous about Rachel Reeves.
It's that which is cutting through.
Come on, you're a Conservative and she's a Labour Chancellor. I don't expect you would "like" her - is there a Labour Chancellor you have liked? I thought Alastair Darling was very good and under rated.
The problem currently is there is no economic "answer" out there - on the one side, you have those who think if you cut taxes enough and spending even more (I saw £100 billion off the benefits budget - that just about covers the annual debt interest from years of Conservative borrowing), the good old "trickle down" will take care of the rest.
On the other, you get the Mehmood Mirzas of this world who think "money" can solve any problem including crime, housing and the cracks in the pavement.
Both are probably true but neither would be practically or politically possible at this time so we jog on with what some call "managed decline" and others call stagnation pending the next "thing" which would give us another growth push and that's lilely to be technological - either AI or much cheaper energy or possibly both.
I've also yet to see a coherent economic theory which allows for growth in an ageing society.
Is there an economic theory which explains the current picture? In an ageing society, with a smaller proportion in the potential workforce and a larger proportion of oldies (like me) shouldn't that precious pool of people of working age find that the world is begging them to come and work for them at high wages because they are so needed - to service the needs of the prosperous old as well as everything else. But we are told that jobs are hard to find.
There is something slightly disingenuous about Rachel Reeves.
It's that which is cutting through.
Come on, you're a Conservative and she's a Labour Chancellor. I don't expect you would "like" her - is there a Labour Chancellor you have liked? I thought Alastair Darling was very good and under rated.
The problem currently is there is no economic "answer" out there - on the one side, you have those who think if you cut taxes enough and spending even more (I saw £100 billion off the benefits budget - that just about covers the annual debt interest from years of Conservative borrowing), the good old "trickle down" will take care of the rest.
On the other, you get the Mehmood Mirzas of this world who think "money" can solve any problem including crime, housing and the cracks in the pavement.
Both are probably true but neither would be practically or politically possible at this time so we jog on with what some call "managed decline" and others call stagnation pending the next "thing" which would give us another growth push and that's lilely to be technological - either AI or much cheaper energy or possibly both.
I've also yet to see a coherent economic theory which allows for growth in an ageing society.
Is there an economic theory which explains the current picture? In an ageing society, with a smaller proportion in the potential workforce and a larger proportion of oldies (like me) shouldn't that precious pool of people of working age find that the world is begging them to come and work for them at high wages because they are so needed - to service the needs of the prosperous old as well as everything else. But we are told that jobs are hard to find.
Jobs arent hard to find. It is that most don't pay enough to own your home and raise a family without help from the state.
There is something slightly disingenuous about Rachel Reeves.
It's that which is cutting through.
Come on, you're a Conservative and she's a Labour Chancellor. I don't expect you would "like" her - is there a Labour Chancellor you have liked? I thought Alastair Darling was very good and under rated.
The problem currently is there is no economic "answer" out there - on the one side, you have those who think if you cut taxes enough and spending even more (I saw £100 billion off the benefits budget - that just about covers the annual debt interest from years of Conservative borrowing), the good old "trickle down" will take care of the rest.
On the other, you get the Mehmood Mirzas of this world who think "money" can solve any problem including crime, housing and the cracks in the pavement.
Both are probably true but neither would be practically or politically possible at this time so we jog on with what some call "managed decline" and others call stagnation pending the next "thing" which would give us another growth push and that's lilely to be technological - either AI or much cheaper energy or possibly both.
I've also yet to see a coherent economic theory which allows for growth in an ageing society.
Is there an economic theory which explains the current picture? In an ageing society, with a smaller proportion in the potential workforce and a larger proportion of oldies (like me) shouldn't that precious pool of people of working age find that the world is begging them to come and work for them at high wages because they are so needed - to service the needs of the prosperous old as well as everything else. But we are told that jobs are hard to find.
Jobs arent hard to find. It is that most don't pay enough to own your home and raise a family without help from the state.
Also as a nation we have chosen to exempt huge swathes of asset income from taxation through pensions and isas, inevitably that pushes more of the taxation onto the working just about managings.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Yes. Look, I do think Reeves is doing a poor job, but I can’t deny she finds herself in an exceptionally tight spot politically, wanting to please her backbenchers with some goodies while trying to keep the public on side around the need for tax rises to pay for everything (that they promised they wouldn’t do).
This is what’s forced her into running clumsy political arguments, but she is far too flat footed to make them.
As others have said, there was actually a way for the Treasury and No.10 to get on the front foot with all this - things are going OK on the finances, but people still feel things aren’t working for them, we need more gas in the tank to get the job done and build the country the public want. Leaving aside political persuasions there, that would have both (a) delivered some credit for the slightly improved forecasts and (b) actually tried to put down a dividing line and sell the “vision.” It’s unsurprising to me that this government squandered that and got itself into more trouble as a result - because that is essentially the story of this government.
The problem is that if they had tried a positive line the pressure to have more benefits, more social spending, more for the NHS and more for defence would have been irresistible. So they felt forced to be more negative than it really was. Matthew Syed's piece in the ST shows the price of this negativity, why on earth, a rich American asked him this week, would they invest here?
This negativity is so damaging to growth. We must somehow get out of it and start selling this country again. A budget that barely mentioned growth and did absolutely nothing to boost it was really not what was needed.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Yes. Look, I do think Reeves is doing a poor job, but I can’t deny she finds herself in an exceptionally tight spot politically, wanting to please her backbenchers with some goodies while trying to keep the public on side around the need for tax rises to pay for everything (that they promised they wouldn’t do).
This is what’s forced her into running clumsy political arguments, but she is far too flat footed to make them.
As others have said, there was actually a way for the Treasury and No.10 to get on the front foot with all this - things are going OK on the finances, but people still feel things aren’t working for them, we need more gas in the tank to get the job done and build the country the public want. Leaving aside political persuasions there, that would have both (a) delivered some credit for the slightly improved forecasts and (b) actually tried to put down a dividing line and sell the “vision.” It’s unsurprising to me that this government squandered that and got itself into more trouble as a result - because that is essentially the story of this government.
The problem is that if they had tried a positive line the pressure to have more benefits, more social spending, more for the NHS and more for defence would have been irresistible. So they felt forced to be more negative than it really was. Matthew Syed's piece in the ST shows the price of this negativity, why on earth, a rich American asked him this week, would they invest here?
This negativity is so damaging to growth. We must somehow get out of it and start selling this country again. A budget that barely mentioned growth and did absolutely nothing to boost it was really not what was needed.
Indeed.
The major problem the Government faces is the infantile nature of its backbench MPs, who just want to spray sweeties over the electorate so the MPs can feel good about themselves.
I will signpost this thread the next time someone challenges the fact that Liberal Democrats are this government's biggest supporters.
I'm not really seeing it. You're just upset they haven't forgiven the Tories.
To be fair I can see the "LDs" being pbs biggest defenders of the government, but they are not supporters. They just respond to fairly regular hyperbolic criticism. The government have hardly any active supporters here or in the media. Most of those who vote for them do so under better than the alternatives rather than support.
Just to point out that Darren Jones is, IMHO, among the present Labour lot an able media performer who stands out from the crowd. R4 Today (about 8.10) this morning was a nice example, where he sounded quite old fashioned and back to the days of top bananas doing this routinely.
In particular he has the skill of taking hardish questions (Robinson, so not very hard, and of course far too long), not answering but slightly complexifying the matter so that follow up was not easy, at the same time sounding both reasonable and getting out a Labour message.
Blairite, big majority, not Oxford PPE.
The MPs and members must absolutely hate him.
14/1 for next leader. Sadly much too short.
Not a standard Cabinet Minister's background, though he is a lawyer 'He attended Portway Community School in Shirehampton, a state comprehensive, and has spoken about his experiences of growing up in poverty.[4]
Jones studied human bioscience at the University of Plymouth, where he was elected President of the Students' Union. He worked in the National Health Service and served on the boards of the University of Plymouth and the Plymouth NHS Trust, and had a weekly newspaper column in the Plymouth Herald. He later read law at the University of the West of England and the University of Law in Bristol before being admitted as a solicitor.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Jones
Another reality check for the 'why can't we all just get along' tendency.
Putin signed a decree this week escalating efforts to erase all traces of Ukrainian language, culture, and national identity in areas currently under Russian occupation. Hopes for a compromise peace are delusional. Putin is determined to destroy Ukraine https://x.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1995069657066463459
ISW's comments on Putin's position - essentially he is all in as failure would be terminal for him. The WH will know this from their own sources so any peace plan is doomed. Continued support for Ukraine is the route to peace but at the cost of regime change. Perhaps the fear is what happens (again) to all those nukes when there is regime change and there is no central government looking after them.
Putin fears the risks and challenges associated with reintegrating veterans into Russian society and economy and thus remains unlikely to demobilize fully or rapidly — even in the event of a negotiated settlement to its war in Ukraine
It is hard to see any acceptable alternative to the continuation and enhancement of support for Ukraine to resist and if possible push back the Russian occupation. I seems such a horrible waste of life but there just seems to be no other way to do it. It is vital that the West gives sufficient support to Ukraine to allow them to prevent any further Russian advances.
I will signpost this thread the next time someone challenges the fact that Liberal Democrats are this government's biggest supporters.
I'm not really seeing it. You're just upset they haven't forgiven the Tories.
To be fair I can see the "LDs" being pbs biggest defenders of the government, but they are not supporters. They just respond to fairly regular hyperbolic criticism. The government have hardly any active supporters here or in the media. Most of those who vote for them do so under better than the alternatives rather than support.
"LDs" being code for any centrists.
LDs also opposed the mansion tax I see and income tax freeze and they also previously opposed the family farm and family business tax and rise in NI for employers and winter fuel allowance cut. The LDs are more also anti Brexit than Labour and want to rejoin a CU and ultimately the EEA https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/news/mansion-tax-lib-dems-sir-ed-davey-rachel-reeves/
Just nonsense. There's nothing there likely to put off a single voter.
Meanwhile we get this from one of the newbies. A load of self important twaddle. My advice: See how Zack does it or come back in 5 years when you've learnt your trade
The 'ethics probe' won't find anything, and Reeves and Starmer will not face a cabinet rebellion because the Cabinet is full of potatoes. It's just another bad day for the Government - same as the last bad day.
I don't really know what the Labour rally that we're seeing in a couple of polls recently means - I don't really chat politics but the bad feeling about the Government is very near the surface in anyone I speak to. Perhaps it's Labour to Reformers getting shy - but I don't think that shyness will translate to votes. Maybe Your Party flirters returning to the fold over the benefit cap lifting and the Your Party chaos?Perhaps some have revised their weighting strategy to be more in line with Yougov.
I believe despite any and all those things, that Labour will continue its downward trajectory, and faces wipeout in May, leading to pressure on Starmer to do one. The Tories will survive with a slightly better than expected night.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
Can’t be all bad; I’ve had my £10 Christmas bonus this morning!
What's the bonus for? Surviving another year under this communist government?
Oooh someone's not happy! If you think this government is 'communist' you must be very naive. Or very young!
The 'winter bonus' is a little something that's been given to all OAP's since Brown was Chancellor. It's lost a lot of it's value since then, of course, thanks to the likes of George Osborne and Rishi Sunak.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
He added £555bn to the national debt, and lied about 'paying down the debt'.
What time are we expecting Reeves' resignation letter?
She isn’t going for this.
There’s just about enough plausible deniability, and it gives the Tories far too much of a big scalp. Plus jeopardises Starmer’s position.
The damage regarding the public perception of Reeves was done a very long time ago; and this budget won’t have helped it one bit. That’s pretty much the long and short of it. She is now very toxic, but it’s hard to see a way that allows her to go without causing damage to Starmer, so they will keep her lashed to the wheel.
I will signpost this thread the next time someone challenges the fact that Liberal Democrats are this government's biggest supporters.
I'm not really seeing it. You're just upset they haven't forgiven the Tories.
To be fair I can see the "LDs" being pbs biggest defenders of the government, but they are not supporters. They just respond to fairly regular hyperbolic criticism. The government have hardly any active supporters here or in the media. Most of those who vote for them do so under better than the alternatives rather than support.
"LDs" being code for any centrists.
LDs also opposed the mansion tax I see and income tax freeze and they also previously opposed the family farm and family business tax and rise in NI for employers and winter fuel allowance cut. The LDs are more also anti Brexit than Labour and want to rejoin a CU and ultimately the EEA https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/news/mansion-tax-lib-dems-sir-ed-davey-rachel-reeves/
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
Just to irritate @Casino_Royale, you aren't wrong inasmuch as you aren't going to eliminate £150 billion of borrowing in one Budget speech. Starmer and Reeves have said as much as the start of their pitch for a second term.
I also agree (as all good LDs and centrists do) increasing borrowing is a step in the wrong direction. There was enough potential via tax rises and spending reductions to apply the brakes and slow the borrowing express and had she done that, I'd have been even more fulsome in my praise for Reeves as all LDs apparently have been. Unfortunately, it looks like a missed opportunity though time will tell - it always does.
I think Reeves gets away with it on a technicality; there was a significant downgrade in growth/productivity assumptions by the OBR which is what she was alluding to - but there was also a significant increase in expected tax receipts. Not really the whole truth, but enough.
Otoh, if Labour ministers are looking for an excuse to bin Reeves then this is a good one. Overall, that this is the main headline after the budget isn't too bad in the grand scheme of things. It's not WFP levels of outrage.
Labour ministers might want to bin Reeves, but the Labour PM certainly doesn't.
O/T but I see we have an entire new Black Company series, A Pitiless Rain, coming out. The first book has just been published, and the next comes out in February. There will be five. George Martin should take note (Glen Cook is four years older).
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
If you're going to cut spending, you need to compensate with pro-growth measures. And Labour have thus far failed almost completely on that score.
Moreover, you can't really expect a Labour government to deliver austerity, since it would bring down the PM. You're effectively saying we should have a different government, which is fair enough ... but that simply isn't going to happen for several years.
I will signpost this thread the next time someone challenges the fact that Liberal Democrats are this government's biggest supporters.
I'm not really seeing it. You're just upset they haven't forgiven the Tories.
To be fair I can see the "LDs" being pbs biggest defenders of the government, but they are not supporters. They just respond to fairly regular hyperbolic criticism. The government have hardly any active supporters here or in the media. Most of those who vote for them do so under better than the alternatives rather than support.
"LDs" being code for any centrists.
LDs also opposed the mansion tax I see and income tax freeze and they also previously opposed the family farm and family business tax and rise in NI for employers and winter fuel allowance cut. The LDs are more also anti Brexit than Labour and want to rejoin a CU and ultimately the EEA https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/news/mansion-tax-lib-dems-sir-ed-davey-rachel-reeves/
I thought the LD's wanted to rejoin the EU.
They have a flexible view of their manifesto commitments (see Student Fees).
Rejoin seemed to be put on the back burner with Davey as he is one of the *very* flexible LD leaders I have come across. Used to have lot of dealings with them locally and found the party to be a bit of a 'cut-n-shut' with two parts, a very Libertarian old guard alongside the lefty social democrats. Depending on who you talked to on a particular day, you could get two polar opposite views.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
He added £555bn to the national debt, and lied about 'paying down the debt'.
Well, as I said you need to reduce a deficit gradually. If you try to do it all at once the economy collapses. This is why the Reform platform is an absurd joke. That gradualism meant that the borrowing did not stop in 2010, it continued all the way to 2019. And, when you think about it, if you are right about your £555bn, that is an average of £61bn a year. Reeves would give her eye teeth for that as would Sunak have.
The 'ethics probe' won't find anything, and Reeves and Starmer will not face a cabinet rebellion because the Cabinet is full of potatoes. It's just another bad day for the Government - same as the last bad day.
I don't really know what the Labour rally that we're seeing in a couple of polls recently means - I don't really chat politics but the bad feeling about the Government is very near the surface in anyone I speak to. Perhaps it's Labour to Reformers getting shy - but I don't think that shyness will translate to votes. Maybe Your Party flirters returning to the fold over the benefit cap lifting and the Your Party chaos?Perhaps some have revised their weighting strategy to be more in line with Yougov.
I believe despite any and all those things, that Labour will continue its downward trajectory, and faces wipeout in May, leading to pressure on Starmer to do one. The Tories will survive with a slightly better than expected night.
Gaza not being on the news every day might be the biggest one.
For Labour to do well they really need an economic boost from peace in Ukraine and the political boost of peace in Palestine.
Another reality check for the 'why can't we all just get along' tendency.
Putin signed a decree this week escalating efforts to erase all traces of Ukrainian language, culture, and national identity in areas currently under Russian occupation. Hopes for a compromise peace are delusional. Putin is determined to destroy Ukraine https://x.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1995069657066463459
ISW's comments on Putin's position - essentially he is all in as failure would be terminal for him. The WH will know this from their own sources so any peace plan is doomed. Continued support for Ukraine is the route to peace but at the cost of regime change. Perhaps the fear is what happens (again) to all those nukes when there is regime change and there is no central government looking after them.
Putin fears the risks and challenges associated with reintegrating veterans into Russian society and economy and thus remains unlikely to demobilize fully or rapidly — even in the event of a negotiated settlement to its war in Ukraine
It is hard to see any acceptable alternative to the continuation and enhancement of support for Ukraine to resist and if possible push back the Russian occupation. I seems such a horrible waste of life but there just seems to be no other way to do it. It is vital that the West gives sufficient support to Ukraine to allow them to prevent any further Russian advances.
Yes, even the Dim-Wit plan is unacceptable to Putin. Ukraine has to be almost completely disarmed, and reduced to a satellite. It is completely pointless, displacement activity, coming up with peace plans.
This is when many families will see just what they can and can't afford. For that reason, I'd be inclined to wait till mid-January to see how things are looking.
What time are we expecting Reeves' resignation letter?
She isn’t going for this.
There’s just about enough plausible deniability, and it gives the Tories far too much of a big scalp. Plus jeopardises Starmer’s position.
The damage regarding the public perception of Reeves was done a very long time ago; and this budget won’t have helped it one bit. That’s pretty much the long and short of it. She is now very toxic, but it’s hard to see a way that allows her to go without causing damage to Starmer, so they will keep her lashed to the wheel.
Yes, it was a sin of omission rather than commission and she'll get away with it. It's a bit like me not telling Mrs PtP about that fifty I had on an 8/1 winner. It's dishonest but you like to hold a bit back for tougher times if you can.
I wouldn't overegg the toxicity. The budget was generally well received and the markets reacted well. Her stock rose briefly as a consequence. Perhaps that explains the hysteria over a bit of fibbing. The Usual Suspects had to nail her for something. What she did wasn't right, but the parliamentary dishonesty bar was set pretty high a few PMs back so I don't see her falling on her sword any time soon.
I will signpost this thread the next time someone challenges the fact that Liberal Democrats are this government's biggest supporters.
I'm not really seeing it. You're just upset they haven't forgiven the Tories.
To be fair I can see the "LDs" being pbs biggest defenders of the government, but they are not supporters. They just respond to fairly regular hyperbolic criticism. The government have hardly any active supporters here or in the media. Most of those who vote for them do so under better than the alternatives rather than support.
"LDs" being code for any centrists.
LDs also opposed the mansion tax I see and income tax freeze and they also previously opposed the family farm and family business tax and rise in NI for employers and winter fuel allowance cut. The LDs are more also anti Brexit than Labour and want to rejoin a CU and ultimately the EEA https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/news/mansion-tax-lib-dems-sir-ed-davey-rachel-reeves/
I thought the LD's wanted to rejoin the EU.
There's a recognition, I think, within the Party that isn't going to happen any time soon whether the UK wants it or not. The atttitude of the EU and their demands would be the key - I very much doubt we could go back on membership terms we rejected so it would have to be an even more semi detached membership and I don't believe the EU would want to go through all that again and we wouldn't accept Schengen and the Euro under any circumstances.
We can't for example rejoin the Single Market because that would mean accepting Freedom of Movement and while there may be an economic argument for allowing uncontrolled immigration, we all know there's not a hope in the proverbial of selling that politically at any level.
An improved trading relationship is probably the aim and no one seriously objects to free trade of goods and services (the old "Common Market" which we happily supported joining in another referendum) though as always the regulatory angle will be a problem but not insurmountable given goodwill on all sides.
Another reality check for the 'why can't we all just get along' tendency.
Putin signed a decree this week escalating efforts to erase all traces of Ukrainian language, culture, and national identity in areas currently under Russian occupation. Hopes for a compromise peace are delusional. Putin is determined to destroy Ukraine https://x.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1995069657066463459
ISW's comments on Putin's position - essentially he is all in as failure would be terminal for him. The WH will know this from their own sources so any peace plan is doomed. Continued support for Ukraine is the route to peace but at the cost of regime change. Perhaps the fear is what happens (again) to all those nukes when there is regime change and there is no central government looking after them.
Putin fears the risks and challenges associated with reintegrating veterans into Russian society and economy and thus remains unlikely to demobilize fully or rapidly — even in the event of a negotiated settlement to its war in Ukraine
It is hard to see any acceptable alternative to the continuation and enhancement of support for Ukraine to resist and if possible push back the Russian occupation. I seems such a horrible waste of life but there just seems to be no other way to do it. It is vital that the West gives sufficient support to Ukraine to allow them to prevent any further Russian advances.
Yes, even the Dim-Wit plan is unacceptable to Putin. Ukraine has to be almost completely disarmed, and reduced to a satellite. It is completely pointless, displacement activity, coming up with peace plans.
Hard to see Trump getting the Nobel Peace Prize for Ukraine if he has gone ahead with starting a war with Venezuela.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
If you look at the cyclically adjusted primary fiscal balance - which is generally viewed as the best measure of the structural fiscal stance - the adjustment anticipated by the OBR is very similar to the one Osborne delivered. Whether or not this actually happens is open to question - Osborne consistently under-delivered and this government may too. But in terms of what the government is proposing it looks very similar to what Osborne did. The OBR expects a structural primary surplus of 1.3% of GDP by 2029. The plan looks reasonable and I think markets are giving the government the benefit of the doubt for now.
I will signpost this thread the next time someone challenges the fact that Liberal Democrats are this government's biggest supporters.
I'm not really seeing it. You're just upset they haven't forgiven the Tories.
To be fair I can see the "LDs" being pbs biggest defenders of the government, but they are not supporters. They just respond to fairly regular hyperbolic criticism. The government have hardly any active supporters here or in the media. Most of those who vote for them do so under better than the alternatives rather than support.
"LDs" being code for any centrists.
LDs also opposed the mansion tax I see and income tax freeze and they also previously opposed the family farm and family business tax and rise in NI for employers and winter fuel allowance cut. The LDs are more also anti Brexit than Labour and want to rejoin a CU and ultimately the EEA https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/news/mansion-tax-lib-dems-sir-ed-davey-rachel-reeves/
I thought the LD's wanted to rejoin the EU.
Yes, but in stages. Rejoin Customs Union, then EEA, then you get to the difficult jump of rejoining the EU.
The right wing propaganda sheets are certainly having a lot of fun... the problem is that their own lies and journalistic failings has reduced their power dramatically. Reeves is more intensely hated by those who were going to hate her anyway, but despite her own ethical questions, the majority will simply shrug and go "she would, wouldn't she". The dead tree press has cried wolf so often, that they can't even parse a sentence without apocalyptic manufactured outrage.
Quite. It's the Tory press. Who cares? Except Tories?
What time are we expecting Reeves' resignation letter?
She isn’t going for this.
There’s just about enough plausible deniability, and it gives the Tories far too much of a big scalp. Plus jeopardises Starmer’s position.
The damage regarding the public perception of Reeves was done a very long time ago; and this budget won’t have helped it one bit. That’s pretty much the long and short of it. She is now very toxic, but it’s hard to see a way that allows her to go without causing damage to Starmer, so they will keep her lashed to the wheel.
Yes, it was a sin of omission rather than commission and she'll get away with it. It's a bit like me not telling Mrs PtP about that fifty I had on an 8/1 winner. It's dishonest but you like to hold a bit back for tougher times if you can.
I wouldn't overegg the toxicity. The budget was generally well received and the markets reacted well. Her stock rose briefly as a consequence. Perhaps that explains the hysteria over a bit of fibbing. The Usual Suspects had to nail her for something. What she did wasn't right, but the parliamentary dishonesty bar was set pretty high a few PMs back so I don't see her falling on her sword any time soon.
I would guess most of the broadsheet's readers don't really understand or even care about the details of her dishonesty (which is absolutely what it was). Just another lying politician... resigned shrug.
To get the boot you have to do something easily explicable to non obsessives.
What time are we expecting Reeves' resignation letter?
She isn’t going for this.
There’s just about enough plausible deniability, and it gives the Tories far too much of a big scalp. Plus jeopardises Starmer’s position.
The damage regarding the public perception of Reeves was done a very long time ago; and this budget won’t have helped it one bit. That’s pretty much the long and short of it. She is now very toxic, but it’s hard to see a way that allows her to go without causing damage to Starmer, so they will keep her lashed to the wheel.
Yes, it was a sin of omission rather than commission and she'll get away with it. It's a bit like me not telling Mrs PtP about that fifty I had on an 8/1 winner. It's dishonest but you like to hold a bit back for tougher times if you can.
I wouldn't overegg the toxicity. The budget was generally well received and the markets reacted well. Her stock rose briefly as a consequence. Perhaps that explains the hysteria over a bit of fibbing. The Usual Suspects had to nail her for something. What she did wasn't right, but the parliamentary dishonesty bar was set pretty high a few PMs back so I don't see her falling on her sword any time soon.
Re the start of the second paragraph, the budget may have been received OK by the markets. But my point wasn’t around how the markets view Reeves - it was how the public view her. She is polling at the worst approval figures for any chancellor on record - hence, toxic. The public reaction to the budget isn’t great. It’s hard to see this dishonesty row helping to salvage her reputation among the electorate.
We may yet be some way off writing the political obituary of this Chancellor (the jury is out), but it’s hard to deny she is particularly poorly regarded by the voters, right now.
I will signpost this thread the next time someone challenges the fact that Liberal Democrats are this government's biggest supporters.
I'm not really seeing it. You're just upset they haven't forgiven the Tories.
To be fair I can see the "LDs" being pbs biggest defenders of the government, but they are not supporters. They just respond to fairly regular hyperbolic criticism. The government have hardly any active supporters here or in the media. Most of those who vote for them do so under better than the alternatives rather than support.
"LDs" being code for any centrists.
LDs also opposed the mansion tax I see and income tax freeze and they also previously opposed the family farm and family business tax and rise in NI for employers and winter fuel allowance cut. The LDs are more also anti Brexit than Labour and want to rejoin a CU and ultimately the EEA https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/news/mansion-tax-lib-dems-sir-ed-davey-rachel-reeves/
I thought the LD's wanted to rejoin the EU.
There's a recognition, I think, within the Party that isn't going to happen any time soon whether the UK wants it or not. The atttitude of the EU and their demands would be the key - I very much doubt we could go back on membership terms we rejected so it would have to be an even more semi detached membership and I don't believe the EU would want to go through all that again and we wouldn't accept Schengen and the Euro under any circumstances.
We can't for example rejoin the Single Market because that would mean accepting Freedom of Movement and while there may be an economic argument for allowing uncontrolled immigration, we all know there's not a hope in the proverbial of selling that politically at any level.
An improved trading relationship is probably the aim and no one seriously objects to free trade of goods and services (the old "Common Market" which we happily supported joining in another referendum) though as always the regulatory angle will be a problem but not insurmountable given goodwill on all sides.
Spot on Stodge.
Even rabid Europhiles like me wouldn't support a policy of rejoining. Even if they would have us (they probably wouldn't) it would be politically destabilising for us, and of course you are right that we would never be offered the terms which we gave up when we left.
Another reality check for the 'why can't we all just get along' tendency.
Putin signed a decree this week escalating efforts to erase all traces of Ukrainian language, culture, and national identity in areas currently under Russian occupation. Hopes for a compromise peace are delusional. Putin is determined to destroy Ukraine https://x.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1995069657066463459
ISW's comments on Putin's position - essentially he is all in as failure would be terminal for him. The WH will know this from their own sources so any peace plan is doomed. Continued support for Ukraine is the route to peace but at the cost of regime change. Perhaps the fear is what happens (again) to all those nukes when there is regime change and there is no central government looking after them.
Putin fears the risks and challenges associated with reintegrating veterans into Russian society and economy and thus remains unlikely to demobilize fully or rapidly — even in the event of a negotiated settlement to its war in Ukraine
It is hard to see any acceptable alternative to the continuation and enhancement of support for Ukraine to resist and if possible push back the Russian occupation. I seems such a horrible waste of life but there just seems to be no other way to do it. It is vital that the West gives sufficient support to Ukraine to allow them to prevent any further Russian advances.
Yes, even the Dim-Wit plan is unacceptable to Putin. Ukraine has to be almost completely disarmed, and reduced to a satellite. It is completely pointless, displacement activity, coming up with peace plans.
Hard to see Trump getting the Nobel Peace Prize for Ukraine if he has gone ahead with starting a war with Venezuela.
When he finishes the Venezuela war that would take him into DOUBLE figures on wars he has personally SOLVED. Some say he may be the most NOBLE peace prize winner EVER!
What time are we expecting Reeves' resignation letter?
She isn’t going for this.
There’s just about enough plausible deniability, and it gives the Tories far too much of a big scalp. Plus jeopardises Starmer’s position.
The damage regarding the public perception of Reeves was done a very long time ago; and this budget won’t have helped it one bit. That’s pretty much the long and short of it. She is now very toxic, but it’s hard to see a way that allows her to go without causing damage to Starmer, so they will keep her lashed to the wheel.
Yes, it was a sin of omission rather than commission and she'll get away with it. It's a bit like me not telling Mrs PtP about that fifty I had on an 8/1 winner. It's dishonest but you like to hold a bit back for tougher times if you can.
I wouldn't overegg the toxicity. The budget was generally well received and the markets reacted well. Her stock rose briefly as a consequence. Perhaps that explains the hysteria over a bit of fibbing. The Usual Suspects had to nail her for something. What she did wasn't right, but the parliamentary dishonesty bar was set pretty high a few PMs back so I don't see her falling on her sword any time soon.
If you want to really see what parliamentary dishonesty can do, I recommend last night's section (3) of Prisoner 951, the story of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, in which was shown the infamous Parliamentary session where the British Foreign Secretary, one Boris Johnson, was shown telling the world that N Z-R had been training journalists, as opposed to being a charity worker, on holiday in Iran, and employed by a charity which had no role or activity in Iran.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
If you're going to cut spending, you need to compensate with pro-growth measures. And Labour have thus far failed almost completely on that score.
Moreover, you can't really expect a Labour government to deliver austerity, since it would bring down the PM. You're effectively saying we should have a different government, which is fair enough ... but that simply isn't going to happen for several years.
The government of the day can make choices within the envelope. So, it was a government choice to retain the triple lock rather than focusing available funds on pensioners actually in need. It was their choice to leave a ridiculously generous pension tax relief scheme largely untouched to the very considerable benefit of the better off. These choices meant that there really was not the money for ending the 2 child benefit cap although the argument that this will be by far the most effective way of lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty is, in my view, unanswerable and probably the best £3bn she spent.
But pretending the envelope simply doesn't exist or that there are no consequences for your decisions is the road to ruin.
What time are we expecting Reeves' resignation letter?
She isn’t going for this.
There’s just about enough plausible deniability, and it gives the Tories far too much of a big scalp. Plus jeopardises Starmer’s position.
The damage regarding the public perception of Reeves was done a very long time ago; and this budget won’t have helped it one bit. That’s pretty much the long and short of it. She is now very toxic, but it’s hard to see a way that allows her to go without causing damage to Starmer, so they will keep her lashed to the wheel.
Yes, it was a sin of omission rather than commission and she'll get away with it. It's a bit like me not telling Mrs PtP about that fifty I had on an 8/1 winner. It's dishonest but you like to hold a bit back for tougher times if you can.
I wouldn't overegg the toxicity. The budget was generally well received and the markets reacted well. Her stock rose briefly as a consequence. Perhaps that explains the hysteria over a bit of fibbing. The Usual Suspects had to nail her for something. What she did wasn't right, but the parliamentary dishonesty bar was set pretty high a few PMs back so I don't see her falling on her sword any time soon.
Re the start of the second paragraph, the budget may have been received OK by the markets. But my point wasn’t around how the markets view Reeves - it was how the public view her. She is polling at the worst approval figures for any chancellor on record - hence, toxic. The public reaction to the budget isn’t great. It’s hard to see this dishonesty row helping to salvage her reputation among the electorate.
We may yet be some way off writing the political obituary of this Chancellor (the jury is out), but it’s hard to deny she is particularly poorly regarded by the voters, right now.
This is just a sign of the times when parties are polling around 20% plus or minus a few. Whoever is chancellor is going to have the vast majority of the public against them and preferring an alternative.
So why did she lie to her Cabinet colleagues and why did Starmer connive in that lie?
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Good morning
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
Neither, in all fairness, did the Conservatives when in Government.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
You need to do it gradually. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited. He managed to keep the economy growing, somewhat slowly, throughout that period by carefully calibrating the reduction each year. After Covid and Ukraine things are nearly as bad as they were in 2010 and we are starting with more than double the debt we had then as a share of GDP. It will take time, patience and skill, some things we seem to lack. A budget that actually increased borrowing for the next 3 years was a seriously bad step in the wrong direction. More debt is the last thing we need.
He added £555bn to the national debt, and lied about 'paying down the debt'.
'Paying down' seems to me to be a relatively recent term in politics. I think its function is to sound a bit like 'paying off' or 'eliminating' while actually meaning 'reduce'. A similar newcomer is 'phasing down' in climate change talk.
WRT debt, no-one has actually done any of this in ordinary language. Successive governments have invented a new language whereby you are 'paying down' or even 'cutting' debt while borrowing a further £100 billion annually, by making it mean not a reduction but a fiscal spreadsheet showing that in five years time, going forward 12 months every year, your debt will be reducing as a % of a GDP you have not yet achieved, and maybe never will.
Why the bond markets don't insist on the achievement of actual targets now and in 12 months is a mystery. But as a guess this sleight of hand will be the source of a major crisis over the next few years as the laws of economic gravity return it to earth.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79x8x82gy4o
Labour’s economic plan will take years to deliver, Keir Starmer says
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/30/labours-economic-plan-will-take-years-to-deliver-keir-starmer-says
Otoh, if Labour ministers are looking for an excuse to bin Reeves then this is a good one. Overall, that this is the main headline after the budget isn't too bad in the grand scheme of things. It's not WFP levels of outrage.
This is the Stasis with Starmer.
It reminded me of I think Azerbaijan in 2021 when Lewis Hamilton was the only driver not to pit and was the only one on track at a restart.
But presumably Jenrick has chosen this route because he doesn’t actually have any evidence of misconduct and is just rabble-rousing.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/hamilton-explains-decision-not-to-pit-for-dry-tyres-at-restart-as-wolff.2HOX8In1vwdoKgPreh9pXW
It's that which is cutting through.
The wisdom is that, the average punter is earning more and won’t notice past that the money going in net is still greater than it was.
But it will bite when people notice that their net increase is buying them less than it did do.
They’ll be a point in time when freezing allowances becomes a live political issue that goes beyond the usual talking heads.
Economically hopeless is a more profitable line for you to take.
(Though the Tories have past form there, too. And Reform have it as a manifesto promise.)
Labours ceiling at the next GE is going to be around 30%, so polling showing 70%+ dislike is standard and inevitable today. Any other party would face the same and anyone getting above 25% at the next GE has a legitimate shot of winning power.
Times have changed dramatically.
Prime Ministers are or rapidly become used to bad headlines when they wake up - on a scale of 1 to 10 that's a 0.5 in all honesty.
Siddiq quit the Government in January because of the allegations which she denies and as I don't have all the facts and given who she is and her familial connection to her aunt (who ended up a nasty piece of work), it's not hard to argue "politically motivated" is a fair defence. Nonetheless, it has destroyed her UK political career though she may feel not being Chief Secretary to the Treasury at this time as some form of escape.
On the slightly more substantive, time will tell if doing nothing on the economy is the best move - it can be sometimes. "The economy" is such a multi-faceted, perception-driven, subjective thing it's hard to know what it is and where it is. As the old saying goes, there are lies, damn lies and statistics and if you think Reeves has had a bad week (I don't actually), the OBR has had a worse one and will, I suspect, be subject to some pretty vengeful "reform" in the coming weeks and months.
The dead tree press has cried wolf so often, that they can't even parse a sentence without apocalyptic manufactured outrage.
Most politicians use sleight of hand and power of persuasion to defend mistakes, changes of policy etc. But this pair are uniquely bad at being able to sell it. They never give themselves enough plausible deniability, they rush headlong into committing to things that then become politically inconvenient, and they can’t look anything other than shifty and dishonest when they’re caught out.
I don’t think we’ve had a pair of such poor communicators and political strategists occupying the two most senior positions in our government before. One - yes, quite frequently. But not both.
The problem currently is there is no economic "answer" out there - on the one side, you have those who think if you cut taxes enough and spending even more (I saw £100 billion off the benefits budget - that just about covers the annual debt interest from years of Conservative borrowing), the good old "trickle down" will take care of the rest.
On the other, you get the Mehmood Mirzas of this world who think "money" can solve any problem including crime, housing and the cracks in the pavement.
Both are probably true but neither would be practically or politically possible at this time so we jog on with what some call "managed decline" and others call stagnation pending the next "thing" which would give us another growth push and that's lilely to be technological - either AI or much cheaper energy or possibly both.
I've also yet to see a coherent economic theory which allows for growth in an ageing society.
In particular he has the skill of taking hardish questions (Robinson, so not very hard, and of course far too long), not answering but slightly complexifying the matter so that follow up was not easy, at the same time sounding both reasonable and getting out a Labour message.
Blairite, big majority, not Oxford PPE.
The MPs and members must absolutely hate him.
14/1 for next leader. Sadly much too short.
Brexitthe MSMRuckus with Reeves?
The ageing society presents an opportunity to increase the span of working lives - there you have one possible source of output growth, i.e. increased labour supply. E.g. increasing retirement from 65 to 70 and equalising it between sexes
I think the answer is reasonably straightforward. She was trying to prevent a series of claims for more money from the Cabinet and the back benches. She was trying to find enough leverage to at least cut the rate of growth of spending, even if it was beyond her party to actually make cuts as were required. She also found the run up to this budget deeply frustrating with every month's figures threatening to knock her off course or back on again. She wanted a buffer in future budgets because it would make it look like she was more in control rather than being tossed around like an autumn leaf in a storm.
All of which is quite sensible, really. There are two problems, firstly a Labour party which still cannot accept the idea of austerity because they remain hooked on the fantasy that this was a Tory "choice" and secondly a top team of Chancellor and PM who are simply dishonest and cannot be trusted. There will be a price to pay for both.
Can’t be all bad; I’ve had my £10 Christmas bonus this morning!
More interesting to me is why Reeves did actually lie/was economical with the truth. There should always be a purpose. My speculation is she wanted OBR support for tax rises she thought were needed and wasn't brave enough to say these rises are my judgement call.
OBR projections aren't definitive statements of the fiscal gap. They are point in time assessments that change every six months and have a historical record of inaccuracy. Reeves wanted a war chest to call on later in parliament when the fiscal projections might be less benign.
I retired at 63 because, to be honest, I could and I wanted to. There's an old adage you work to live, you don't live to work and the current environment doesn't stop people working longer if they want to or have to - look at the number of divorcees in their 50s who are saddled with a home and a mortgage once the husband has moved on with a younger model.
If you want a non-economic thought, I think attitudes to what is called the worklife balance changed with the pandemic. I think a lot of people came to see their life as being more than just eat, sleep, repeat. We are moving into a post-work world (whatever that means) and that will be accelerated by increasing automaton, AI etc and I also think (channelling my inner hippy here) people want more from life than just "things" - other aspects of existence have become more significant.
The lies and deceit gained a little more power"
This is what’s forced her into running clumsy political arguments, but she is far too flat footed to make them.
As others have said, there was actually a way for the Treasury and No.10 to get on the front foot with all this - things are going OK on the finances, but people still feel things aren’t working for them, we need more gas in the tank to get the job done and build the country the public want. Leaving aside political persuasions there, that would have both (a) delivered some credit for the slightly improved forecasts and (b) actually tried to put down a dividing line and sell the “vision.” It’s unsurprising to me that this government squandered that and got itself into more trouble as a result - because that is essentially the story of this government.
Austerity is living within your means
Labour have no idea how to achieve that
You're just upset they haven't forgiven the Tories.
This negativity is so damaging to growth. We must somehow get out of it and start selling this country again. A budget that barely mentioned growth and did absolutely nothing to boost it was really not what was needed.
No one has come up with a coherent and politically practical approach to getting borrowing down substantially - all we can do in the short term is slow the train. Talk of cutting £100 billion from benefits, as espoused by one or two on here, isn't going to happen even with Kemi Badenoch in charge.
I'd love to hear an alternative approach which makes sense but, as with the "small boats" (remember them?), there isn't an easy answer.
The major problem the Government faces is the infantile nature of its backbench MPs, who just want to spray sweeties over the electorate so the MPs can feel good about themselves.
"LDs" being code for any centrists.
Jones studied human bioscience at the University of Plymouth, where he was elected President of the Students' Union. He worked in the National Health Service and served on the boards of the University of Plymouth and the Plymouth NHS Trust, and had a weekly newspaper column in the Plymouth Herald. He later read law at the University of the West of England and the University of Law in Bristol before being admitted as a solicitor.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Jones
What time are we expecting Reeves' resignation letter?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/news/mansion-tax-lib-dems-sir-ed-davey-rachel-reeves/
Meanwhile we get this from one of the newbies. A load of self important twaddle. My advice: See how Zack does it or come back in 5 years when you've learnt your trade
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ne7igOrEhMM
I don't really know what the Labour rally that we're seeing in a couple of polls recently means - I don't really chat politics but the bad feeling about the Government is very near the surface in anyone I speak to. Perhaps it's Labour to Reformers getting shy - but I don't think that shyness will translate to votes. Maybe Your Party flirters returning to the fold over the benefit cap lifting and the Your Party chaos?Perhaps some have revised their weighting strategy to be more in line with Yougov.
I believe despite any and all those things, that Labour will continue its downward trajectory, and faces wipeout in May, leading to pressure on Starmer to do one. The Tories will survive with a slightly better than expected night.
The 'winter bonus' is a little something that's been given to all OAP's since Brown was Chancellor. It's lost a lot of it's value since then, of course, thanks to the likes of George Osborne and Rishi Sunak.
There’s just about enough plausible deniability, and it gives the Tories far too much of a big scalp. Plus jeopardises Starmer’s position.
The damage regarding the public perception of Reeves was done a very long time ago; and this budget won’t have helped it one bit. That’s pretty much the long and short of it. She is now very toxic, but it’s hard to see a way that allows her to go without causing damage to Starmer, so they will keep her lashed to the wheel.
I also agree (as all good LDs and centrists do) increasing borrowing is a step in the wrong direction. There was enough potential via tax rises and spending reductions to apply the brakes and slow the borrowing express and had she done that, I'd have been even more fulsome in my praise for Reeves as all LDs apparently have been. Unfortunately, it looks like a missed opportunity though time will tell - it always does.
And Labour have thus far failed almost completely on that score.
Moreover, you can't really expect a Labour government to deliver austerity, since it would bring down the PM. You're effectively saying we should have a different government, which is fair enough ... but that simply isn't going to happen for several years.
"Tulip Siddiq MP given jail sentence in Bangladesh after trial in her absence"
Rejoin seemed to be put on the back burner with Davey as he is one of the *very* flexible LD leaders I have come across. Used to have lot of dealings with them locally and found the party to be a bit of a 'cut-n-shut' with two parts, a very Libertarian old guard alongside the lefty social democrats. Depending on who you talked to on a particular day, you could get two polar opposite views.
For Labour to do well they really need an economic boost from peace in Ukraine and the political boost of peace in Palestine.
This is when many families will see just what they can and can't afford. For that reason, I'd be inclined to wait till mid-January to see how things are looking.
I wouldn't overegg the toxicity. The budget was generally well received and the markets reacted well. Her stock rose briefly as a consequence. Perhaps that explains the hysteria over a bit of fibbing. The Usual Suspects had to nail her for something. What she did wasn't right, but the parliamentary dishonesty bar was set pretty high a few PMs back so I don't see her falling on her sword any time soon.
We can't for example rejoin the Single Market because that would mean accepting Freedom of Movement and while there may be an economic argument for allowing uncontrolled immigration, we all know there's not a hope in the proverbial of selling that politically at any level.
An improved trading relationship is probably the aim and no one seriously objects to free trade of goods and services (the old "Common Market" which we happily supported joining in another referendum) though as always the regulatory angle will be a problem but not insurmountable given goodwill on all sides.
Just another lying politician... resigned shrug.
To get the boot you have to do something easily explicable to non obsessives.
We may yet be some way off writing the political obituary of this Chancellor (the jury is out), but it’s hard to deny she is particularly poorly regarded by the voters, right now.
Even rabid Europhiles like me wouldn't support a policy of rejoining. Even if they would have us (they probably wouldn't) it would be politically destabilising for us, and of course you are right that we would never be offered the terms which we gave up when we left.
But pretending the envelope simply doesn't exist or that there are no consequences for your decisions is the road to ruin.
So I've just booked ten days in Martinique over Xmas.
WRT debt, no-one has actually done any of this in ordinary language. Successive governments have invented a new language whereby you are 'paying down' or even 'cutting' debt while borrowing a further £100 billion annually, by making it mean not a reduction but a fiscal spreadsheet showing that in five years time, going forward 12 months every year, your debt will be reducing as a % of a GDP you have not yet achieved, and maybe never will.
Why the bond markets don't insist on the achievement of actual targets now and in 12 months is a mystery. But as a guess this sleight of hand will be the source of a major crisis over the next few years as the laws of economic gravity return it to earth.