I bet they do something horrendous on inheritance tax instead.
What's the point anymore?
I guess tomorrow they will brief that despite briefing for weeks that the two child cap will end they have changed their minds. Likewise on EV miles. And every single other thing.
The Budget will be as neutral as a 1970s magnolia bathroom suite.
This one term lot as lame duck as a lame duck can be.
Or maybe all the speculation, rumours and lobbying by special interests was all bollocks in the first place.
Hmm. You had the chancellor all but saying that income taxes would rise. This isn’t just Telegraph made up stuff. This is stuff that has been widely briefed.
I bet they do something horrendous on inheritance tax instead.
What's the point anymore?
I guess tomorrow they will brief that despite briefing for weeks that the two child cap will end they have changed their minds. Likewise on EV miles. And every single other thing.
The Budget will be as neutral as a 1970s magnolia bathroom suite.
This one term lot as lame duck as a lame duck can be.
Or maybe all the speculation, rumours and lobbying by special interests was all bollocks in the first place.
Plenty of it was anchoring and Telegraph getting excitable. But Reeves came out and did the pitch rolliing for breaking the manifesto. Big speech, then media interview rounds and every outlet was running with the story with outriders appearing to try and explain these tough decisions.
Maybe - just maybe - the government will restrict tax relief on pension contributions to 20%, which would be worth £20bn minimum pa. This plus the two year income tax threshold extension worth £10bn would bring in the £30bn possibly being looked for???
I bet they do something horrendous on inheritance tax instead.
What's the point anymore?
I guess tomorrow they will brief that despite briefing for weeks that the two child cap will end they have changed their minds. Likewise on EV miles. And every single other thing.
The Budget will be as neutral as a 1970s magnolia bathroom suite.
This one term lot as lame duck as a lame duck can be.
Or maybe all the speculation, rumours and lobbying by special interests was all bollocks in the first place.
Plenty of it was anchoring and Telegraph getting excitable. But Reeves came out and did the pitch rolliing for breaking the manifesto. Big speech, then media interview rounds and every outlet was running with the story with outriders appearing to try and explain these tough decisions.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Sounds like a set of measures which won't raise what's required. More trouble next year.
And the more obscure, and the more punitive, the more subjective to behavioural change. Having totally trashed their manifesto commitments, now going back on that. The political damage had probably already been largely done.
Hard to see how you get such a large sum from back of the sofa scratching. To raise money on a mansion tax it’s going to be a very small mansion threshold to bring anything in. A two bedroom flat in London is now likely to be considered a mansion.
To bring in the money they claim to need they would have to tax pretty much every home in the country.
Zarah's on QT at the moment, sounding just as shrill as Ash Sarkar
Other than the money is there a reason Corbyn and the Gaza bros are not fans of hers?
Declan Stones @DeclanStones1 · 2h If this wasn't 'left wingers' and Muslim MPs people would rightly call this out for what it is full blown misogyny, every single time they exclude the only female MP in their group and they attack Sultana on everything (not a Zarah fan myself, but plain to see what is happening)
If that is not it, then it is still weird that they agree to publicly brief against her and criticise her, even cuddly Jeremy Corbyn.
Maybe - just maybe - the government will restrict tax relief on pension contributions to 20%, which would be worth £20bn minimum pa. This plus the two year income tax threshold extension worth £10bn would bring in the £30bn possibly being looked for???
I dont think so. Ive heard it would totally mess up (for instance) GP pensions - substantially increasing their tax rate... lets see though!
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Taking the rate that people pay basic down to £10k would raise £15billion alone. And taking the the higher rate down to £45k probably gets another five billion. It does mean every productive taxpayer gets a whopping tax increase though.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Sounds like a set of measures which won't raise what's required. More trouble next year.
And the more obscure, and the more punitive, the more subjective to behavioural change. Having totally trashed their manifesto commitments, now going back on that. The political damage had probably already been largely done.
Hard to see how you get such a large sum from back of the sofa scratching. To raise money on a mansion tax it’s going to be a very small mansion threshold to bring anything in. A two bedroom flat in London is now likely to be considered a mansion.
To bring in the money they claim to need they would have to tax pretty much every home in the country.
It'll be an utter mess.
One idea which has been floated, to simply double the council tax for band G and H homes, would create huge distortions in taxation in particular the gap between bands F and G. And we need to remember that the banding is based on 1991 values, there has been significant change in the variation in real values between properties since then.
A full revaluation with extra bands maybe splitting G into two and extra bands at the current H level would be better but of course that would take time.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Sounds like a set of measures which won't raise what's required. More trouble next year.
And the more obscure, and the more punitive, the more subjective to behavioural change. Having totally trashed their manifesto commitments, now going back on that. The political damage had probably already been largely done.
Hard to see how you get such a large sum from back of the sofa scratching. To raise money on a mansion tax it’s going to be a very small mansion threshold to bring anything in. A two bedroom flat in London is now likely to be considered a mansion.
To bring in the money they claim to need they would have to tax pretty much every home in the country.
It'll be an utter mess.
They had only really got themselves into such a mess because of their tax promises. Whilst not a fan of increasing tax, it’s fairly clear that income taxes at the basic rate could increase quite a bit before any real economic impact, it’s hard to behaviour change on the basic rate. You could probably add 5p or more on the basic rate and it not really having any kind of drag on the economy, it’s low because of political promises, not because it is a bad thing to raise it.
She had freed herself of the trap by dumping the manifesto commitments. Obviously something has happened over the last couple of days, it could have been the talk of a coup (her fate is tied to Starmer, there’s no way any other leader is going to keep her as chancellor), representation from the back benches that manifest commitments must be honoured, cabinet threats of resignation, or their own private polling showing a rise in income taxes will take them down to single figure. So, she jumps back into the trap she was slipping herself out of.
All very odd. No matter what they try to do they just seem to get it wrong.
It'll get through in the end, but there do seem to have been plenty of areas for improvement (even if 900 is surely in part people intending to try to block it).
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Taking the rate that people pay basic down to £10k would raise £15billion alone. And taking the the higher rate down to £45k probably gets another five billion. It does mean every productive taxpayer gets a whopping tax increase though.
If the personal allowance falls below the state pension, then either they will need to go PAYE or every pensioner in the country will have to submit a tax return which will overwhelm HMRC and lead to an awful lot of fines being dished out.
Matthew @MatthewTorbitt · 4h This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
I bet they do something horrendous on inheritance tax instead.
They did that last time with the tax on family farms and family businesses, now it seems Reeves will hammer expensive property owners and gamblers and bring more people into higher rate tax even if she doesn't increase the tax rate
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Matthew @MatthewTorbitt · 4h This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Taking the rate that people pay basic down to £10k would raise £15billion alone. And taking the the higher rate down to £45k probably gets another five billion. It does mean every productive taxpayer gets a whopping tax increase though.
If the personal allowance falls below the state pension, then either they will need to go PAYE or every pensioner in the country will have to submit a tax return which will overwhelm HMRC and lead to an awful lot of fines being dished out.
Matthew @MatthewTorbitt · 4h This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
Maybe - just maybe - the government will restrict tax relief on pension contributions to 20%, which would be worth £20bn minimum pa. This plus the two year income tax threshold extension worth £10bn would bring in the £30bn possibly being looked for???
I dont think so. Ive heard it would totally mess up (for instance) GP pensions - substantially increasing their tax rate... lets see though!
Yep - do that and there will be big issues everywhere as those approaching retirement decide to either cut their hours further or just retire..
Matthew @MatthewTorbitt · 4h This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
As a mate said to me today over coffee - what is the friggin' difference between this shite and the shite of the Truss/Sunak years?
Tory MPs at least have a threat of VONC in their leader and no longer need a stalking horse and Sunak and Hunt were at least competent unlike Liz T and Starmer and Reeves
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Taking the rate that people pay basic down to £10k would raise £15billion alone. And taking the the higher rate down to £45k probably gets another five billion. It does mean every productive taxpayer gets a whopping tax increase though.
If the personal allowance falls below the state pension, then either they will need to go PAYE or every pensioner in the country will have to submit a tax return which will overwhelm HMRC and lead to an awful lot of fines being dished out.
Increasing taxation on people on minimum wage seems the least Labour like thing, possible, to do.
Matthew @MatthewTorbitt · 4h This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
you should carry out the policies you believe in
I think I found the small flaw in Starmer Labour
This, is, after all, the chap who 180'd his views on trans. Because of the Supreme Court decision.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
you should carry out the policies you believe in
I think I found the small flaw in Starmer Labour
This, is, after all, the chap who 180'd his views on trans. Because of the Supreme Court decision.
Matthew @MatthewTorbitt · 4h This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
As a mate said to me today over coffee - what is the friggin' difference between this shite and the shite of the Truss/Sunak years?
There's really no excuse for this when you have a majority of 170 and are only 18 months into the term of office.
It's a cliche at this point but it really does feel like exhausted 2 term government vibes. I know our finances are shot and the public don't know what the hell we want, but even so.
Globetrotting Keir Starmer spends a sixth of his time abroad
Starmer has visited 44 countries on 37 trips out of the country to attend conferences, bilateral meetings and sports fixtures. During his first 17 months in office, Starmer has spent two and a half months abroad. Starmer has travelled abroad an average of more than 300 miles a day so far, compared with Blair’s 164 miles a day in the first 17 months of his premiership.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
A question - How can you spend three weeks telling MPs, you can't do XYZ because the markets think we are too in hoc to our backbenchers - and then do this? All the whips, advisors, external experts who have been faithfully disseminating this to MPs made to look like mugs.
A question - How can you spend three weeks telling MPs, you can't do XYZ because the markets think we are too in hoc to our backbenchers - and then do this? All the whips, advisors, external experts who have been faithfully disseminating this to MPs made to look like mugs.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
A question - How can you spend three weeks telling MPs, you can't do XYZ because the markets think we are too in hoc to our backbenchers - and then do this? All the whips, advisors, external experts who have been faithfully disseminating this to MPs made to look like mugs.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
"...as long as I can remember..."
You are right, and I agree with you, but the rules as they have existed since 1945 I think no longer apply. New factors are:
* People cluster around affinity groups online, not nations * The wealthy move abroad at the drop of a hat, rendering progressive taxation difficult * The state has decided to mimic growth by importing people en masse
So we can't tax rich people, capital markets aren't run by us (arguably vice versa!), a social safety net is made difficult due to a shrinking tax base and ever-expanding debt, the rule of law is undercut by an underfunded justice system, and nobody knows how to square the circle of more money going out and less money coming in. Neither Labour nor Conservatives have answers to these problems and the Reform and Green solutions are fanciful.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
"...as long as I can remember..."
You are right, and I agree with you, but the rules as they have existed since 1945 I think no longer apply. New factors are:
* People cluster around affinity groups online, not nations * The wealthy move abroad at the drop of a hat, rendering progressive taxation difficult * The state has decided to mimic growth by importing people en masse
So we can't tax rich people, capital markets aren't run by us (arguably vice versa!), a social safety net is made difficult due to a shrinking tax base and ever-expanding debt, the rule of law is undercut by an underfunded justice system, and nobody knows how to square the circle of more money going out and less money coming in. Neither Labour nor Conservatives have answers to these problems and the Reform and Green solutions are fanciful.
It remains the best - the only feasible - system. All alternatives are thoroughly unpleasant. As, at some point in its future, China will discover. I find it sad that instead of trying to square that circle, politicians would rather throw the baby out with the bath water.
Yet another whistleblower gets fired by the corrupt administration. This time for revealing illegal collusion to increase mortgage rates.
Top Fannie Mae officials ousted after sounding alarm on sharing confidential housing data A confidant of Bill Pulte, the Trump administration’s top housing regulator, provided confidential mortgage pricing data from Fannie Mae to a principal competitor, alarming senior officials of the government-backed lending giant who warned it could expose the company to claims that it was colluding with a rival to fix mortgage rates...
..While Smith still holds her position, the senior Fannie Mae officials who called her conduct into question were all forced out of their jobs late last month, along with internal ethics watchdogs who were investigating Pulte and his allies.
Anthropic just dropped a bombshell: They disrupted what they call the first large-scale AI-orchestrated cyber espionage campaign, run mostly autonomously by their own Claude model, jailbroken via deceptive prompts framing it as "pen testing." Attributed to a Chinese state group, it targeted ~30 entities in tech, finance, chemicals, and gov't—succeeding in a few infiltrations. Claude handled recon, exploits, credential theft, and data exfil at superhuman speeds (80-90% AI-driven)... https://x.com/seoscottsdale/status/1989168832716660797
Anthropic just dropped a bombshell: They disrupted what they call the first large-scale AI-orchestrated cyber espionage campaign, run mostly autonomously by their own Claude model, jailbroken via deceptive prompts framing it as "pen testing." Attributed to a Chinese state group, it targeted ~30 entities in tech, finance, chemicals, and gov't—succeeding in a few infiltrations. Claude handled recon, exploits, credential theft, and data exfil at superhuman speeds (80-90% AI-driven)... https://x.com/seoscottsdale/status/1989168832716660797
I’d heard something similar on the grapevine a few days ago. I know what that means. As well as NICs on partnerships, a couple of new higher rate bands. The pips will soon be beginning to squeak.
Meanwhile, those planning on leaving the country are not changing their minds. They’re still expecting large rises in the higher rates of income taxes, property taxes, and capital gains taxes.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
By the end of the parliament everybody will be either no IC or 40% band...
Where is this breaking Newsnight item?
It is not on their X feed and I just watched the programme and maybe I nodded off briefly but I don't recall any mention???
Ah, it is right in the knockings at the end of Newsnight (I am on a few mins delay).
It is an FT breaking news.
Madness. Absolute madness. Do it. Be bold. Be bold or go home.
I just despair frankly,
YouGov did a snap survey yesterday evening on all the ways the chancellor could raise money asking whether we thought they were fair and whether they would happen. I wonder who commissioned that one?
People are trying to see what’s the highest “marginal rate on next £100 of income” they can get. 20,000% appears to the record so far, presumably from crossing £100k and losing free childcare.
Nick Fuentes: " [Trump] is a John the Baptist, he's the prefigurement of what will come..."
Good grief they’re all mad . Amazing all these cult members seeing the stain on humanity as sent by God of course ignoring that Trumps broken most of the Ten Commandments .
Fuentes was pro-Trump, but he's now anti-Trump.
He can see the writing on the wall, and does not want to be first up against it
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
I’d heard something similar on the grapevine a few days ago. I know what that means. As well as NICs on partnerships, a couple of new higher rate bands. The pips will soon be beginning to squeak.
There should be NICs on professional partnerships. It is ridiculous to pretend that you are not employees
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
The home secretary is expected to tell Parliament on Monday that successful asylum seekers will only be allowed to stay in the UK temporarily. When their home country is deemed safe, they will be returned. Their status will be regularly reviewed during the time in between.
Going to be interesting to see what the courts make of that. I have a suspicision their rulings on what a safe country is might differ from the general public.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
The home secretary is expected to tell Parliament on Monday that successful asylum seekers will only be allowed to stay in the UK temporarily. When their home country is deemed safe, they will be returned. Their status will be regularly reviewed during the time in between.
Going to be interesting to see what the courts make of that. I have a suspicision their rulings on what a safe country is might differ from the general public.
That will never happen. The army of well funded lawyers and lobbyists who make their living off the backs of asylum seekers won’t let it happen
Also there’s a fairness thing, if people have made a,life and a career here over several years is it fair to remove them ?
The home secretary is expected to tell Parliament on Monday that successful asylum seekers will only be allowed to stay in the UK temporarily. When their home country is deemed safe, they will be returned. Their status will be regularly reviewed during the time in between.
Going to be interesting to see what the courts make of that. I have a suspicision their rulings on what a safe country is might differ from the general public.
I’ll take “Things that are never going to happen” for $500, please Alex.
The home secretary is expected to tell Parliament on Monday that successful asylum seekers will only be allowed to stay in the UK temporarily. When their home country is deemed safe, they will be returned. Their status will be regularly reviewed during the time in between.
Going to be interesting to see what the courts make of that. I have a suspicision their rulings on what a safe country is might differ from the general public.
That will never happen. The army of well funded lawyers and lobbyists who make their living off the backs of asylum seekers won’t let it happen
Also there’s a fairness thing, if people have made a,life and a career here over several years is it fair to remove them ?
On the last point, I can't see the PLP going with the idea. Its all too Faragey for them.
Very cool to watch, that’s now two crazy billionaires with private space programmes.
An incredible advert for innovation in the private sector whilst the public sector rotted. NASA, the most expensive space programme in the world. A 25 billion dollar space programme that lost the ability to put citizens into space. Space X and this one are knocking it out of the park with getting stuff up there and doing it much more efficiently (and environmentally friendly using liquid methane and liquid oxygen as fuel).
"The chief executives of Scotland's four smallest councils are in line to get pay rises of as much as 24% after a review of local authority heads' pay.
The bosses of the councils in Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles and Clackmannanshire will see their salary increase by more than £30,000 as a result of the review seen by BBC News.
The new pay framework agreed by council umbrella body Cosla and the group that represents bosses, Alace, has set salaries of between £165,755 and £230,620 based on council size."
... hilarity ensues? It really is puzzling that a review by well paid admins into well paid admins salaries results in well paid admins being paid more. At 'arms length' and above board, of course.
The home secretary is expected to tell Parliament on Monday that successful asylum seekers will only be allowed to stay in the UK temporarily. When their home country is deemed safe, they will be returned. Their status will be regularly reviewed during the time in between.
Going to be interesting to see what the courts make of that. I have a suspicision their rulings on what a safe country is might differ from the general public.
That will never happen. The army of well funded lawyers and lobbyists who make their living off the backs of asylum seekers won’t let it happen
Also there’s a fairness thing, if people have made a,life and a career here over several years is it fair to remove them ?
On the last point, I can't see the PLP going with the idea. Its all too Faragey for them.
Why are the courts even involved with asylum decisions? They're not involved with PIP or whether people get a hip replacement. It is an administrative decision - get the courts out completely. Free up some of their time.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
But also a certain long-serving Prime Minister with a certain careless soundbite about the non-existence of Society.
And human sinfulness that has always included a tendency to forget exactly who our neighbour is.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
But also a certain long-serving Prime Minister with a certain careless soundbite about the non-existence of Society.
And human sinfulness that has always included a tendency to forget exactly who our neighbour is.
Like a Donald Trump speech, a certain long-serving Prime Minister who’s usually quoted in heavily edited and out of context form.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
But also a certain long-serving Prime Minister with a certain careless soundbite about the non-existence of Society.
And human sinfulness that has always included a tendency to forget exactly who our neighbour is.
Like a Donald Trump speech, a certain long-serving Prime Minister who’s usually quoted in heavily edited and out of context form.
Absolutely. Though saying stuff that can't be misquoted is part of the art of politics. (And, as someone who preferred early Maggie to late Maggie, there is the whole 'she wanted her father's world, but created her son's' thing to contend with.)
It's not a happy thought, but I wonder if the immediate post-WW2 period, when everyone had direct experience of total war, was the aberration. Without that, we're reverting to our brute ways. I was one of those who hoped that COVID might have restarted the societal engine, but no.
The home secretary is expected to tell Parliament on Monday that successful asylum seekers will only be allowed to stay in the UK temporarily. When their home country is deemed safe, they will be returned. Their status will be regularly reviewed during the time in between.
Going to be interesting to see what the courts make of that. I have a suspicision their rulings on what a safe country is might differ from the general public.
That will never happen. The army of well funded lawyers and lobbyists who make their living off the backs of asylum seekers won’t let it happen
Also there’s a fairness thing, if people have made a,life and a career here over several years is it fair to remove them ?
It would be deemed fair if the basis on which they were given asylum was made clear at the outset. Wouldn't bin the idea just yet.
The home secretary is expected to tell Parliament on Monday that successful asylum seekers will only be allowed to stay in the UK temporarily. When their home country is deemed safe, they will be returned. Their status will be regularly reviewed during the time in between.
Going to be interesting to see what the courts make of that. I have a suspicision their rulings on what a safe country is might differ from the general public.
That will never happen. The army of well funded lawyers and lobbyists who make their living off the backs of asylum seekers won’t let it happen
Also there’s a fairness thing, if people have made a,life and a career here over several years is it fair to remove them ?
Yes if it clearer stated up front that those are the conditions on which they are admitted
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
But also a certain long-serving Prime Minister with a certain careless soundbite about the non-existence of Society.
And human sinfulness that has always included a tendency to forget exactly who our neighbour is.
It’s only careless if you deliberately remove part of what she said:
“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour.”
Clearly she is talking about Society as an abstract that is devoid of our own influences, someone to blame that is external to us, when in fact we are all part of it, it’s not an abstract it’s, you and I, it’s our families and our neighbours.
Megyn Kelly: "I know somebody very close to this case…Jeffrey Epstein, in this person's view, was not a pedophile…He was into the barely legal type, like he liked 15 year old girls…He wasn't into like 8 year olds…There's a difference between a 15 year old and a 5 year old."
Not really. The word peadophile is often wrongly used. They're not the same thing. Even the thing that has brought Prince Andrew down was about a 17yr old, totally legal. Of course if you want to raise the age of consent, then advocate for doing so.
Its only legal for regular sex between consenting individuals.
If money is involved, then 18 is the age.
Illegal.
Why does it need to be be regular - I don't see why the number of times should make any difference.
I think Bart means normal sex, as in not paid-for sex, with his use of the word regular.
I suspect Lucky knew that.
Is it that? It's a very confusing choice of words.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
But also a certain long-serving Prime Minister with a certain careless soundbite about the non-existence of Society.
And human sinfulness that has always included a tendency to forget exactly who our neighbour is.
Like a Donald Trump speech, a certain long-serving Prime Minister who’s usually quoted in heavily edited and out of context form.
Absolutely. Though saying stuff that can't be misquoted is part of the art of politics. (And, as someone who preferred early Maggie to late Maggie, there is the whole 'she wanted her father's world, but created her son's' thing to contend with.)
It's not a happy thought, but I wonder if the immediate post-WW2 period, when everyone had direct experience of total war, was the aberration. Without that, we're reverting to our brute ways. I was one of those who hoped that COVID might have restarted the societal engine, but no.
Even in the direct aftermath of the war more people voted for something other than the Attlee-ite communitarian vision than for it.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
No aspect of our politics is more driven by identity politics and social media than Reform and Faragism.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
I think they were planning this as a big bonanza reveal in the budget, but it seems they have been spooked into releasing it early to try to change the news agenda.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
No aspect of our politics is more driven by identity politics and social media than Reform and Faragism.
Don’t entirely disagree, but there were as many “Hamas Independents” elected last year on very sectarian campaigning, as Reform MPs.
I think it’s fair to say that there’s a move towards the extremes by groups of people who feel that life is not working out well for them.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
I think they were planning this as a big bonanza reveal in the budget, but it seems they have been spooked into releasing it early to try to change the news agenda.
No I think this Government leaks like a sieve because it has no control of news management. Now it may be because everything has to be seen by the OBR but I don't think it's that.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Sorry but it would be a breach - no change to Income Tax means no change to start points as much as the rate itself.
And if the best this Government does is not deal with reality by putting taxes up everywhere else instead they will be deservedly heading to single figures at the next election.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
I think they were planning this as a big bonanza reveal in the budget, but it seems they have been spooked into releasing it early to try to change the news agenda.
No I think this Government leaks like a sieve because it has no control of news management. Now it may be because everything has to be seen by the OBR but I don't think it's that.
Either way, I agree with the poster above who said the markets are likely to offer a lukewarm reception at best. Starmer and Reeves have made sooo much of Truss 'crashing the economy' - it's in almost every speech. I feel they may have tempted the fates one too many times.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
Will of course exclude travel for government business. Otherwise between Starmer, Lammy and Miliband, they will be personally filling the black hole in no time.
The leak about IC rise from witin the OBR to the Times was extremely bad. Has that happened before that something has been sent to the OBR to be given the once over and it has instantly been faxed to a newspaper?
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
They really are making it up as they go along. Government by opinion poll and newspaper reactions to kite-flying.
Fun to watch from a distance, but people are making real-world decisions based on the rumours - many of whom will be joining myself in expatville in the near future, at great detriment to the government’s finances.
Comments
It'll be an utter mess.
A full revaluation with extra bands maybe splitting G into two and extra bands at the current H level would be better but of course that would take time.
She had freed herself of the trap by dumping the manifesto commitments. Obviously something has happened over the last couple of days, it could have been the talk of a coup (her fate is tied to Starmer, there’s no way any other leader is going to keep her as chancellor), representation from the back benches that manifest commitments must be honoured, cabinet threats of resignation, or their own private polling showing a rise in income taxes will take them down to single figure. So, she jumps back into the trap she was slipping herself out of.
All very odd. No matter what they try to do they just seem to get it wrong.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2drk17p942o
Matthew
@MatthewTorbitt
·
4h
This week I’ve been made aware of one potential “stalking horse” candidate and a I’ve been sought out for conversations with two other senior MPs readying a challenge to the PM.
https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1989048321605005348
As a mate said to me today over coffee - what is the friggin' difference between this shite and the shite of the Truss/Sunak years?
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If the AI bubble bursts, an unusual recession could follow" (£)
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/11/13/how-markets-could-topple-the-global-economy
Or am I mad?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/11/the-starmer-mcsweeney-tendency-is-sinking-labour
I think I found the small flaw in Starmer Labour
This, is, after all, the chap who 180'd his views on trans. Because of the Supreme Court decision.
Does he believe in anything?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/11/the-starmer-mcsweeney-tendency-is-sinking-labour
Means a lot of disparate, smaller measures now on the table.
Just yesterday morning I was told they were desperate to avoid that.
https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1989108493547368725?s=20
Starmer has visited 44 countries on 37 trips out of the country to attend conferences, bilateral meetings and sports fixtures. During his first 17 months in office, Starmer has spent two and a half months abroad. Starmer has travelled abroad an average of more than 300 miles a day so far, compared with Blair’s 164 miles a day in the first 17 months of his premiership.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/38417639-5d29-4b0a-b6f1-acb6e5669263?shareToken=f057b9408445605c25cd887af4571114
Won't somebody think of the polar bears....
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1989115123894829521?s=20
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/19764/local-council-elections-13th-november?page=4
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/11/13/shabana-mahmood-migrant-deportations-echr
You are right, and I agree with you, but the rules as they have existed since 1945 I think no longer apply. New factors are:
* People cluster around affinity groups online, not nations
* The wealthy move abroad at the drop of a hat, rendering progressive taxation difficult
* The state has decided to mimic growth by importing people en masse
So we can't tax rich people, capital markets aren't run by us (arguably vice versa!), a social safety net is made difficult due to a shrinking tax base and ever-expanding debt, the rule of law is undercut by an underfunded justice system, and nobody knows how to square the circle of more money going out and less money coming in. Neither Labour nor Conservatives have answers to these problems and the Reform and Green solutions are fanciful.
This time for revealing illegal collusion to increase mortgage rates.
Top Fannie Mae officials ousted after sounding alarm on sharing confidential housing data
A confidant of Bill Pulte, the Trump administration’s top housing regulator, provided confidential mortgage pricing data from Fannie Mae to a principal competitor, alarming senior officials of the government-backed lending giant who warned it could expose the company to claims that it was colluding with a rival to fix mortgage rates...
..While Smith still holds her position, the senior Fannie Mae officials who called her conduct into question were all forced out of their jobs late last month, along with internal ethics watchdogs who were investigating Pulte and his allies.
Healthcare Premiums:
🔴GOP: 47%
🔵 DEM: 21%
🟣 Both: 19%
Costs Generally:
🔴 GOP: 46%
🟣 Both: 21%
🔵 DEM: 19%
Electricity:
🔴 GOP: 38%
🟣 Both: 20%
🔵 DEM: 19%
Navigator / Nov 9, 2025
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1988690037245182434
https://x.com/seoscottsdale/status/1989168832716660797
Currie said that she did not receive transcripts for several minutes of the proceedings from late September.
https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/1989004929864753178
The absolute antithesis of leadership.
Starmer and Reeves ditch Budget plan to increase income tax rates
https://x.com/FT/status/1989100368467272006
New Glenn launches NASA’s ESCAPADE Mars mission, lands booster
https://spacenews.com/new-glenn-launches-nasas-escapade-mars-mission-lands-booster/
Time for Europe to step up.
Rachel really doesn’t have a clue, does she?
LD: 43.1% (-14.9)
CON: 24.4% (-17.6)
RFM: 19.9% (New)
GRN: 11.9% (New)
LAB: 0.8% (New) - 8 votes!
LD hold
Turnout 38%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecfxcTEl-1I
Very cool to watch, that’s now two crazy billionaires with private space programmes.
https://x.com/danneidle/status/1988634512817889577
People are trying to see what’s the highest “marginal rate on next £100 of income” they can get. 20,000% appears to the record so far, presumably from crossing £100k and losing free childcare.
https://x.com/damohorts/status/1988940413861060633
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
https://x.com/tendar/status/1989110149127238095
https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/1989196881931694280
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/1989121637367836967
Also a military facility in the same city, probably air defences and ammunition.
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1989146396256334302
https://x.com/tendar/status/1989124320598073606
The Russians, meanwhile, well they’re bombing apartment block in Kyiv.
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/1989122025143824804
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmvjmvyg7o
Going to be interesting to see what the courts make of that. I have a suspicision their rulings on what a safe country is might differ from the general public.
They’d be no better.
Also there’s a fairness thing, if people have made a,life and a career here over several years is it fair to remove them ?
grand Jury.
Not remotely suspicious, Pam.
Space X and this one are knocking it out of the park with getting stuff up there and doing it much more efficiently (and environmentally friendly using liquid methane and liquid oxygen as fuel).
And human sinfulness that has always included a tendency to forget exactly who our neighbour is.
It's not a happy thought, but I wonder if the immediate post-WW2 period, when everyone had direct experience of total war, was the aberration. Without that, we're reverting to our brute ways. I was one of those who hoped that COVID might have restarted the societal engine, but no.
“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour.”
Clearly she is talking about Society as an abstract that is devoid of our own influences, someone to blame that is external to us, when in fact we are all part of it, it’s not an abstract it’s, you and I, it’s our families and our neighbours.
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
I think it’s fair to say that there’s a move towards the extremes by groups of people who feel that life is not working out well for them.
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
And if the best this Government does is not deal with reality by putting taxes up everywhere else instead they will be deservedly heading to single figures at the next election.
Fun to watch from a distance, but people are making real-world decisions based on the rumours - many of whom will be joining myself in expatville in the near future, at great detriment to the government’s finances.