This must increase chances of Badenoch staying in place to the GE.
Badenoch at 20s next PM is a decent trading bet imo. Don't think it is a winner as expect Starmer to be replaced ahead of the GE but can see it shortening significantly.
A swallow does not a summer make. I think she gave a great response, but it is just a speech at the end of the day. But if the economy continues to flatline and starts to take more of a prominence in public debate, and if Reform start faltering, there are some conditions present for a modest Tory recovery to -potentially- begin.
Badenoch could do with that starting in the next 3-4 months really, to avoid a terrible May.
Could Jenrick have done that without putting off middle England? I doubt it.
Kemi can take aim at the ludicrous PC world we now live in, Farage and Jenrick can’t. For that reason, I think Reform and Tory voters should back her. She should be the figurehead, with Farage in a supporting role. I doubt he really wants to be PM anyway, but the accusations about him at school are believable as well as distasteful. I can forgive schoolboy banter, even if it crossed the line. I no doubt did a bit of it myself. But I don’t think it’s good for the right wing cause, or more importantly the country to have someone who kind of admits it to be PM. So, a black woman who I don’t 100% consider English it is!
Why don't you think Mr Farage wants to be PM? He seems pretty driven to me.
I think he’d rather help the country lean to his way of thinking than actually wield power. He used to quit as UKIP/BXP leader every five mins. To be honest I think the Dulwich College claims will harm him quite badly, and could be a hindrance to getting the kind of country he wants
The budget was delivered to silent Labour benche’s, the only sounds really were the opposition gasps and laughter every time Rachel from accounts brazenly lied. Amazing optics. Labour benches so startlingly confused and horrified by their own leaderships budget.
Whilst Starmer and Reeves sit there looking like failures and losers and soon to be gone, Kemi turns in her best ever performance, an absolute tour de force dismantling the budget, looking like a coming force in British politics.
The utter incompetence of this Labour government laid bare, on the astonishing fact Labour spin team headed up by the most incompetence in number 10 in history wrote this LOTO speech weeks ago for Kemi, when usually it’s supposed to be difficult for opposition when don’t know what’s coming out the case shaped hat. Not so when facing this government front bench - the whole of the house should chant you don’t know what you’re doing at them.
But apart from that what did you think? (ducks) 😀
I was just commenting on the politics, not the economics. The whole politics of this budget for months now from Labour has been bizarre, wrong and not the way it should be done. How could it accidentally be leaked when the worlds already had a live 24/7 Rachael Cam for months, watching her agonising over it, flip flop, flip flop back again, pile of screwed up ideas on paper mounting up behind her. The astonishing political optics is the entire Labour back bench not behind their own PM and his chancellor.
The economics of tax rises rather than borrowing probably satisfies the markets. And if I had a five year term I would likely do the same sort of budgets for the first 2 years - but all that gets drained out by mountains of media these days, this is last time you will hear anyone praise it this week. Even though Starmer and Rachael are working sensibly on a 5 year cycle, and it was good decision with lack of growth to go for tax rather than borrowing, they ain’t got five years, they ain’t got their own party on their side - so hastening Labour to destruction will be less sensible budgets later in the parliament.
This is the best I've seen Kemi Badenoch, and among the best opposition responses I've seen to a budget. Helped by the OBR leak no doubt, which gave her more time than most hand. But the blows are landing.
Its a bad budget for Reform. Not visible and will be harder to get themselves into the conversation.
Labour have the two child cap for their core vote, maybe stops some potential slippage to the Greens and "Your Party" or whatever, even though it is unpopular with the electorate as a whole.
The Tories have scored the easy goals available to the opposition when any Chancellor delivers a budget and finances are bad.
I think, for Reform, it’s probably a relief after the ‘Nigel said nasty things when he was 15’ stuff. Moves the news cycle on.
As the resident EV geek ('I'm an influencer don'tcha know') can I boggle at the new tax?
Park how it will work for a moment. The OBR forecasts that this will reduce the number of EVs on the road by 440k. That is huge. Massive. A literal torpedoing of their own policy.
If you look at the maths its simple - you already pay 7p per mile in fuel duty on an average petrol car, so 3p a mile is cheaper.
But the problem is that you pay fuel duty as a hidden tax when you fill up. You will pay EVED as well as VED at the start of the year. A special tax only for you. Where you have to fess up how many miles you do.
Behaviourally this will have a serious effect on people. Who will then choose to pay more to pollute more.
There are positives. Luxury Car tax now starts at £50k. So if you were buying a £45k car you would save £425 in VED - worth 14,166 miles at 3p.
But you can't resolve emotional objections with facts. This is so stupid that its almost a Telegraph story...
The problem is that the whole EV thing is rather built on sand. For a lot of users, their real cost is more than running an ICE car, but this is hidden in the tax arbitrage, with the UK taxpayer taking the financial hit and then some, whilst the user wins out.
Doing something by a more expensive route than necessary ultimately makes us poorer. That is objective fact. It may be worth it for other trade offs (eg reduced pollution), but that doesn't alter the direct costs. But politicans of all stripes have lied to us for the last 20 years, trying to tell us that EVs are cheaper to run compared to ICE cars, rather than that they are choosing to give EV owners a massive tax subsidy.
Now - it's possible for the true costs of an EV to be lower than an ICE - eg when charged off your home solar system - but for a lot of users, that won't be the case. E.g. anyone thinking of going EV via public charging is completely insane.
Morning! 1. EVs are cheaper to run. No real servicing. Less consumables - tyres, brakes etc 2. Most EVs do 8,500 miles a year so mostly charged at home not in public 3. Use Tesla superchargers to pay half the price of Ionity etc
1) Service on my ten year old oil burning barge is £30 in consumables, takes me 15 mins, officially every 20k miles, although I actually do the oil and filer every 10k. I've not done the brakes on the current car, but my previous one was on its third set of pads when it was written off at 168k miles. Probably not £100 every 50k miles. EVs wear tyes faster than the equivalent ICE because they are heavier. Service costs are only expensive because people insist on getting ripped off the dealerships, which is entirely their own stupid fault (and they will manage to still get ripped off the same way with EVs too).
2) As I said, depends on the use case. People who can't charge at home are completly mugged, which is a problem when pressing for wider adoption.
3) Even at half price on the most rip-off chargers, it's still cheaper to run a 2010ish era diesel than an EV, especially if you know how to drive halfway economically.
I think all three principals, Rachel, Kemi and Ed did well today, each in their own way.
Rachel delivered her complex speech in difficult circumstances and kept her composure. The markets have rallied. Kemi provided an excellent entertaining knockabout political speech. She has saved her job. Ed provided a thoughtful, well delivered speech that gave credit to Rachel where due, and offered improvements where needed. He will be ignored.
As the resident EV geek ('I'm an influencer don'tcha know') can I boggle at the new tax?
Park how it will work for a moment. The OBR forecasts that this will reduce the number of EVs on the road by 440k. That is huge. Massive. A literal torpedoing of their own policy.
If you look at the maths its simple - you already pay 7p per mile in fuel duty on an average petrol car, so 3p a mile is cheaper.
But the problem is that you pay fuel duty as a hidden tax when you fill up. You will pay EVED as well as VED at the start of the year. A special tax only for you. Where you have to fess up how many miles you do.
Behaviourally this will have a serious effect on people. Who will then choose to pay more to pollute more.
There are positives. Luxury Car tax now starts at £50k. So if you were buying a £45k car you would save £425 in VED - worth 14,166 miles at 3p.
But you can't resolve emotional objections with facts. This is so stupid that its almost a Telegraph story...
Has a practical and robust way to collect this levy been identified yet?
Nope because most of them would cost an insane amount to implement.
It will be voluntary with checks at MOT and at time of sale because nothing else makes sense
EVED "will be paid alongside VED". Well, will it. Remember that VED is paid by the owner - which means very often that isn't the registered keeper. A lease car or company car? The company pays VED. But EVED is per mile based on the driver, so will be impossible to pay by the company. Which means many cats will have VED paid by one and EVED paid by another.
Confused? Yep. And even where its done online. How do you guess your miles? How do they enforce it? MOT? What about cars younger than 3 years? Would you have to get an MOT centre to validate the mileage when you sell a 2 year old car?
Incidentally, the 440k reduction in EVs on the road is a QUARTER of all EVs currently registered. I know its "by 2031" the year and not the time this evening, but even so, its a huge reduction.
Calculated charge from MOT (Or mileage on sale from v5c) less the previous MOT (Or purchase from v5c) added to the VED bill works doesn't it. Also I think you're overthinking the whole owners/keepers thing - the charge is going to simply be on the vehicle itself and will be paid for by same bod paying the VED.
OK. So I lease a car. VED is paid by the leaseco. Not the driver.
And MOT checks? Perhaps an annual check for EVs from year 1 to validate? Otherwise how does it work?
If this is true, that she had this belief in herself then it underlines just what a dud she is. Will preparation and scripting actually gloss over the absolute lack of ability. Perhaps but lets hope she never gets near power (again)
From April 2027, there will be a two percentage point increase to the basic, higher and additional rates of savings income tax, increasing them to 22%, 42% and 47% respectively.
You will now be taxed more on any income from savings than on money earned via PAYE...and of course you already paid tax on that money when you first earned it in order to save it.
Customs duty imposed on all parcel deliveries whatever the size of parcel
Removing the exemption for small packages has been tried elsewhere and resulted in customs delays, angry recipients, and smaller suppliers simply refusing to ship to those countries. And it has no measurable positive impact on domestic manufacturing.
So Labour decided it's a top idea.
Reeves would have to get smarter to be a moron.
It’s also being used by larger importers to dodge paying import duties by breaking up their imports into zillions of small packages IIRC.
Treasury probably feels (rightly I would guess) that the gain in preventing that is larger than the loss from consumers having to handle paying import duties on small packages.
The idea large importers are abusing the system is mostly a myth spread by lobbyists working on behalf of large UK retailers. Shipping from China is cheap, but not that cheap. If I order, say, 20 reels of 3D printer filament from Temu or AliExpress at £10 a reel they do not send it in 5 or 10 separate packages, because that just isn't viable in terms of shipping costs. It comes in one big box.
Import duties on small value packages are often so small as to cost more to collect than they bring in. The exception is import VAT, but all the major importers already collect VAT on orders under £135 at time of sale and send it to HMRC, that is a legal requirement.
From April 2027, there will be a two percentage point increase to the basic, higher and additional rates of savings income tax, increasing them to 22%, 42% and 47% respectively.
You will now be taxed more on any income from savings than on money earned via PAYE...and of course you already paid tax on that money when you first earned it in order to save it.
It's bringing back the investment income surcharge which existed under Labour in the 1970s and which was abolished by CON in 1979 (?)
As the resident EV geek ('I'm an influencer don'tcha know') can I boggle at the new tax?
Park how it will work for a moment. The OBR forecasts that this will reduce the number of EVs on the road by 440k. That is huge. Massive. A literal torpedoing of their own policy.
If you look at the maths its simple - you already pay 7p per mile in fuel duty on an average petrol car, so 3p a mile is cheaper.
But the problem is that you pay fuel duty as a hidden tax when you fill up. You will pay EVED as well as VED at the start of the year. A special tax only for you. Where you have to fess up how many miles you do.
Behaviourally this will have a serious effect on people. Who will then choose to pay more to pollute more.
There are positives. Luxury Car tax now starts at £50k. So if you were buying a £45k car you would save £425 in VED - worth 14,166 miles at 3p.
But you can't resolve emotional objections with facts. This is so stupid that its almost a Telegraph story...
The problem is that the whole EV thing is rather built on sand. For a lot of users, their real cost is more than running an ICE car, but this is hidden in the tax arbitrage, with the UK taxpayer taking the financial hit and then some, whilst the user wins out.
Doing something by a more expensive route than necessary ultimately makes us poorer. That is objective fact. It may be worth it for other trade offs (eg reduced pollution), but that doesn't alter the direct costs. But politicans of all stripes have lied to us for the last 20 years, trying to tell us that EVs are cheaper to run compared to ICE cars, rather than that they are choosing to give EV owners a massive tax subsidy.
Now - it's possible for the true costs of an EV to be lower than an ICE - eg when charged off your home solar system - but for a lot of users, that won't be the case. E.g. anyone thinking of going EV via public charging is completely insane.
Morning! 1. EVs are cheaper to run. No real servicing. Less consumables - tyres, brakes etc 2. Most EVs do 8,500 miles a year so mostly charged at home not in public 3. Use Tesla superchargers to pay half the price of Ionity etc
It's in any event a truism that EVs are not yet really an option for everyone. But they increasingly make sense for most people, and as battery costs fall further, and capacity continues to increase, will be literally for everyone.
The tax changes are a mess, but better now than making a mess of it several more years down the road.
From April 2027, there will be a two percentage point increase to the basic, higher and additional rates of savings income tax, increasing them to 22%, 42% and 47% respectively.
You will now be taxed more on any income from savings than on money earned via PAYE...and of course you already paid tax on that money when you first earned it in order to save it.
It's bringing back the investment income surcharge which existed under Labour in the 1970s and which was abolished by CON in 1979 (?)
What do we want growth and investment, how are we going to get it, tax people more if they earn from investing....
This must increase chances of Badenoch staying in place to the GE.
Badenoch at 20s next PM is a decent trading bet imo. Don't think it is a winner as expect Starmer to be replaced ahead of the GE but can see it shortening significantly.
A swallow does not a summer make. I think she gave a great response, but it is just a speech at the end of the day. But if the economy continues to flatline and starts to take more of a prominence in public debate, and if Reform start faltering, there are some conditions present for a modest Tory recovery to -potentially- begin.
Badenoch could do with that starting in the next 3-4 months really, to avoid a terrible May.
Could Jenrick have done that without putting off middle England? I doubt it.
Kemi can take aim at the ludicrous PC world we now live in, Farage and Jenrick can’t. For that reason, I think Reform and Tory voters should back her. She should be the figurehead, with Farage in a supporting role. I doubt he really wants to be PM anyway, but the accusations about him at school are believable as well as distasteful. I can forgive schoolboy banter, even if it crossed the line. I no doubt did a bit of it myself. But I don’t think it’s good for the right wing cause, or more importantly the country to have someone who kind of admits it to be PM. So, a black woman who I don’t 100% consider English it is!
Why don't you think Mr Farage wants to be PM? He seems pretty driven to me.
I think he’d rather help the country lean to his way of thinking than actually wield power. He used to quit as UKIP/BXP leader every five mins. To be honest I think the Dulwich College claims will harm him quite badly, and could be a hindrance to getting the kind of country he wants
Hmm possibly. But he's been immersed in politics for decades, stood 7 times for parliament before making it, and now leads a party tracking for power. He looks hellbent on converting to me. I'd be astonished if he pulls back.
That's a big chunk of the Constellation programme, which is the one based on the French/Italian design, because the USA wanted a reliable, already in use, basis. But the USN managed to fook it to the extent that they changed most of the parts. This was supposed to be the easy and straight forward fix to their naval hole. And some say *we* have problems.
It's the naval version of Ajax. A bastardised version of something else, with so many changes it becomes a new design, crippled by the choices imposed by the original platform.
I think one problem Kemi has his her strategy of driving a wedge between "hard working families" and "benefit receiving freeloaders", when there is actually a huge overlap.
Yes their bizarre desire to make the world a better place is really a sight to behold.
You should see the report a friend sent to the Charities Commission on the subject of the charity she works for.
The parallels with the current government are striking - no accountability, breaking multiple laws, personal enrichment, incompetence, dodgy dealings with billionaires, dodgy dealings with… {Ed. That’s enough before OGH gets sued}
I think one problem Kemi has his her strategy of driving a wedge between "hard working families" and "benefit receiving freeloaders", when there is actually a huge overlap.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, and the wee donkey? Is that true? Does explain a lot if you have ever worked in that sector.
Came across this one yesterday in the local Costa. Basics from the Charity Commission is they get their revenue from 'accreditation' but 70%-80% of revenue is staff costs. Another job creation scheme while waiting for the next bandwagon.
As an aside, DV is a terrible situation for anyone (both sexes) to find themselves in. Have worked with a few trying to escape the situation and it's ruinous for the individuals and their children.
Customs duty imposed on all parcel deliveries whatever the size of parcel
Removing the exemption for small packages has been tried elsewhere and resulted in customs delays, angry recipients, and smaller suppliers simply refusing to ship to those countries. And it has no measurable positive impact on domestic manufacturing.
So Labour decided it's a top idea.
Reeves would have to get smarter to be a moron.
It’s also being used by larger importers to dodge paying import duties by breaking up their imports into zillions of small packages IIRC.
Treasury probably feels (rightly I would guess) that the gain in preventing that is larger than the loss from consumers having to handle paying import duties on small packages.
The idea large importers are abusing the system is mostly a myth spread by lobbyists working on behalf of large UK retailers. Shipping from China is cheap, but not that cheap. If I order, say, 20 reels of 3D printer filament from Temu or AliExpress at £10 a reel they do not send it in 5 or 10 separate packages, because that just isn't viable in terms of shipping costs. It comes in one big box.
Import duties on small value packages are often so small as to cost more to collect than they bring in. The exception is import VAT, but all the major importers already collect VAT on orders under £135 at time of sale and send it to HMRC, that is a legal requirement.
Supposedly outfits like Shein are filling entire containers with individual parcels that they are then shipping into the UK. So they get to amortise the costs over a single shipment but are claiming the exemption for every package they ship.
This must increase chances of Badenoch staying in place to the GE.
Badenoch at 20s next PM is a decent trading bet imo. Don't think it is a winner as expect Starmer to be replaced ahead of the GE but can see it shortening significantly.
A swallow does not a summer make. I think she gave a great response, but it is just a speech at the end of the day. But if the economy continues to flatline and starts to take more of a prominence in public debate, and if Reform start faltering, there are some conditions present for a modest Tory recovery to -potentially- begin.
Badenoch could do with that starting in the next 3-4 months really, to avoid a terrible May.
Could Jenrick have done that without putting off middle England? I doubt it.
Kemi can take aim at the ludicrous PC world we now live in, Farage and Jenrick can’t. For that reason, I think Reform and Tory voters should back her. She should be the figurehead, with Farage in a supporting role. I doubt he really wants to be PM anyway, but the accusations about him at school are believable as well as distasteful. I can forgive schoolboy banter, even if it crossed the line. I no doubt did a bit of it myself. But I don’t think it’s good for the right wing cause, or more importantly the country to have someone who kind of admits it to be PM. So, a black woman who I don’t 100% consider English it is!
Why don't you think Mr Farage wants to be PM? He seems pretty driven to me.
I think he’d rather help the country lean to his way of thinking than actually wield power. He used to quit as UKIP/BXP leader every five mins. To be honest I think the Dulwich College claims will harm him quite badly, and could be a hindrance to getting the kind of country he wants
Hmm possibly. But he's been immersed in politics for decades, stood 7 times for parliament before making it, and now leads a party tracking for power. He looks hellbent on converting to me. I'd be astonished if he pulls back.
I can forsee a Boris style “but that person can’t be me” resignation speech. Maybe I’m too into politics do see how the non engaged feel, but I think the racism stories will damage him
Politically, I wonder what the impact of this will be? Taking the ‘what is right for the country’ out of it, what Labour are trying to do is attract enough Labour-curious votes without alienating too many of the Labour-likelies. Once upon a time, these groups were clustered towards the lower end of the income scale, but I don’t think that’s the case any more. It’s probably still the case that these two groups are disproportionately in the in-work sector of the electorate. It doesn’t strike me that the budget contains a lot for the sort of voters Labour fancies its chances with. I’d wondered if having gone to great lengths to extend the franchise to 16 year olds whether there might be a rabbit in a hat for them, but no – so that lot are lost to the Greens and Reform. If it had the air of ‘right for the country because it’s delivering growth’ you could skate over some of this. But without it – puzzling.
If this is true, that she had this belief in herself then it underlines just what a dud she is. Will preparation and scripting actually gloss over the absolute lack of ability. Perhaps but lets hope she never gets near power (again)
I pointed it out earlier on this year about that flaw.
As the resident EV geek ('I'm an influencer don'tcha know') can I boggle at the new tax?
Park how it will work for a moment. The OBR forecasts that this will reduce the number of EVs on the road by 440k. That is huge. Massive. A literal torpedoing of their own policy.
If you look at the maths its simple - you already pay 7p per mile in fuel duty on an average petrol car, so 3p a mile is cheaper.
But the problem is that you pay fuel duty as a hidden tax when you fill up. You will pay EVED as well as VED at the start of the year. A special tax only for you. Where you have to fess up how many miles you do.
Behaviourally this will have a serious effect on people. Who will then choose to pay more to pollute more.
There are positives. Luxury Car tax now starts at £50k. So if you were buying a £45k car you would save £425 in VED - worth 14,166 miles at 3p.
But you can't resolve emotional objections with facts. This is so stupid that its almost a Telegraph story...
The problem is that the whole EV thing is rather built on sand. For a lot of users, their real cost is more than running an ICE car, but this is hidden in the tax arbitrage, with the UK taxpayer taking the financial hit and then some, whilst the user wins out.
Doing something by a more expensive route than necessary ultimately makes us poorer. That is objective fact. It may be worth it for other trade offs (eg reduced pollution), but that doesn't alter the direct costs. But politicans of all stripes have lied to us for the last 20 years, trying to tell us that EVs are cheaper to run compared to ICE cars, rather than that they are choosing to give EV owners a massive tax subsidy.
Now - it's possible for the true costs of an EV to be lower than an ICE - eg when charged off your home solar system - but for a lot of users, that won't be the case. E.g. anyone thinking of going EV via public charging is completely insane.
Morning! 1. EVs are cheaper to run. No real servicing. Less consumables - tyres, brakes etc 2. Most EVs do 8,500 miles a year so mostly charged at home not in public 3. Use Tesla superchargers to pay half the price of Ionity etc
1) Service on my ten year old oil burning barge is £30 in consumables, takes me 15 mins, officially every 20k miles, although I actually do the oil and filer every 10k. I've not done the brakes on the current car, but my previous one was on its third set of pads when it was written off at 168k miles. Probably not £100 every 50k miles. EVs wear tyes faster than the equivalent ICE because they are heavier. Service costs are only expensive because people insist on getting ripped off the dealerships, which is entirely their own stupid fault (and they will manage to still get ripped off the same way with EVs too).
2) As I said, depends on the use case. People who can't charge at home are completly mugged, which is a problem when pressing for wider adoption.
3) Even at half price on the most rip-off chargers, it's still cheaper to run a 2010ish era diesel than an EV, especially if you know how to drive halfway economically.
The serious question is how will you stop people re-engineering the software within the vehicle to make sure it accurately measures mileage done. The only way would be to have analogue mile counters and even my diesel van doesn't have that any more.
I think one problem Kemi has his her strategy of driving a wedge between "hard working families" and "benefit receiving freeloaders", when there is actually a huge overlap.
Precisely, it's so dishonest.
i also don't see it helping win back Blues who have flown the nest to Reform.
As the resident EV geek ('I'm an influencer don'tcha know') can I boggle at the new tax?
Park how it will work for a moment. The OBR forecasts that this will reduce the number of EVs on the road by 440k. That is huge. Massive. A literal torpedoing of their own policy.
If you look at the maths its simple - you already pay 7p per mile in fuel duty on an average petrol car, so 3p a mile is cheaper.
But the problem is that you pay fuel duty as a hidden tax when you fill up. You will pay EVED as well as VED at the start of the year. A special tax only for you. Where you have to fess up how many miles you do.
Behaviourally this will have a serious effect on people. Who will then choose to pay more to pollute more.
There are positives. Luxury Car tax now starts at £50k. So if you were buying a £45k car you would save £425 in VED - worth 14,166 miles at 3p.
But you can't resolve emotional objections with facts. This is so stupid that its almost a Telegraph story...
The problem is that the whole EV thing is rather built on sand. For a lot of users, their real cost is more than running an ICE car, but this is hidden in the tax arbitrage, with the UK taxpayer taking the financial hit and then some, whilst the user wins out.
Doing something by a more expensive route than necessary ultimately makes us poorer. That is objective fact. It may be worth it for other trade offs (eg reduced pollution), but that doesn't alter the direct costs. But politicans of all stripes have lied to us for the last 20 years, trying to tell us that EVs are cheaper to run compared to ICE cars, rather than that they are choosing to give EV owners a massive tax subsidy.
Now - it's possible for the true costs of an EV to be lower than an ICE - eg when charged off your home solar system - but for a lot of users, that won't be the case. E.g. anyone thinking of going EV via public charging is completely insane.
Morning! 1. EVs are cheaper to run. No real servicing. Less consumables - tyres, brakes etc 2. Most EVs do 8,500 miles a year so mostly charged at home not in public 3. Use Tesla superchargers to pay half the price of Ionity etc
1) Service on my ten year old oil burning barge is £30 in consumables, takes me 15 mins, officially every 20k miles, although I actually do the oil and filer every 10k. I've not done the brakes on the current car, but my previous one was on its third set of pads when it was written off at 168k miles. Probably not £100 every 50k miles. EVs wear tyes faster than the equivalent ICE because they are heavier. Service costs are only expensive because people insist on getting ripped off the dealerships, which is entirely their own stupid fault (and they will manage to still get ripped off the same way with EVs too).
2) As I said, depends on the use case. People who can't charge at home are completly mugged, which is a problem when pressing for wider adoption.
3) Even at half price on the most rip-off chargers, it's still cheaper to run a 2010ish era diesel than an EV, especially if you know how to drive halfway economically.
The serious question is how will you stop people re-engineering the software within the vehicle to make sure it accurately measures mileage done. The only way would be to have analogue mile counters and even my diesel van doesn't have that any more.
Sophificated mileage blockers are already becoming quite a widespread problem in higher end cars. They aren't very expensive devices. And of course based upon a video with a lawyer I saw, according to their research nobody has yet to be successly prosecuted for using one.
If those were the best lines then I'm glad I didn't hear the worst ones.
And did she actually coin the phrase "respect is earned" or is it in fact a hackneyed expression that has been in common usage for decades?
In the context of attacking another woman for hiding behind sexism I thought they worked very well.
They may have done - I'm really criticising the tweet in the sense that it just isn't sensible to describe a tired cliche ("respect is earned") as one of the "best lines" of anything. I mean, it's hardly going to leave the editors of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations puzzling over which Oscar Wilde or Winston Churchill quote they need to drop to accommodate it.
I found Reeves's speech odd, in that good budget speeches traditionally combine dignity and seriousness with clever low politics. This felt like pantomime. She didn't rise to the occasion. Good polemic needs to be better hidden as serious comment.
The old customs of not announcing and leaking in advance, taking up about five weeks of political energy, were good and should have been kept.
The custom of listening to the budget in near silence was excellent. The Deputy speaker should keep much better control.
The opportunity (the last for this government I think) for a deep reforming budget was missed. This was about survival, the soft left, the benefits and pensioner class.
Nothing in it for the middling family types.
No central theme or core coherence. Clarke, Howe and Gladstone's reputations are safe.
it was a stark reminder of the anti-intellectualism of public life.
GB news viewers snap poll finds 99% say they will be worse off after the budget and 1% better off.
Given that the sample frame is "GBNews viewers", and the sampling method is "self-selected respondents", and it's not weighted to the general population, and there is differential non-response, the poll is meaningless. But you knew that already.
Given that the last revaluation for council tax was in 1991 and there is no plan (?) for another, how does the project of trying to identify and value and band all properties above a certain value work. Can it be separated from a general revaluation; and will they not be deluged with appeals from a large group of people well used to protecting their own interests?
Former Royal Marine pleads guilty to injuring 29 people at Liverpool FC parade Paul Doyle, who drove into a crowd of celebrating football fans in May, changes plea unexpectedly
Former Royal Marine pleads guilty to injuring 29 people at Liverpool FC parade Paul Doyle, who drove into a crowd of celebrating football fans in May, changes plea unexpectedly
GB news viewers snap poll finds 99% say they will be worse off after the budget and 1% better off.
Given that the sample frame is "GBNews viewers", and the sampling method is "self-selected respondents", and it's not weighted to the general population, and there is differential non-response, the poll is meaningless. But you knew that already.
I suspect it is GBNBS.
A very large proportion of GB News viewers will benefit from some of the measures such as above inflation increase in pension above inflation in minimum wage, on top of things such as reductions in Energy Bills.
Reeves will make a temporary discount for small retail and hospitality premises permanent but fund the move with a tax raid on properties with a rateable value of £500,000. It will hit big warehouse businesses ie Amazon but also leading supermarkets, which had hoped to secure an exemption
I don't think you have to be that large a premise for it to be more than £500k these days!!! Also more costs on supermarkets, I wonder who pays for all those extra wages and taxes?
When Sunak said Labour would tax everything that didn't move, he was wrong, they also taxing everything that moves as well...
Former Royal Marine pleads guilty to injuring 29 people at Liverpool FC parade Paul Doyle, who drove into a crowd of celebrating football fans in May, changes plea unexpectedly
Given that the last revaluation for council tax was in 1991 and there is no plan (?) for another, how does the project of trying to identify and value and band all properties above a certain value work. Can it be separated from a general revaluation; and will they not be deluged with appeals from a large group of people well used to protecting their own interests?
I think they will be taking an "expected" group (eg Top 3 bands), and then taking those within that group that turn out to have the requisite values.
If your mansion gets left out, I'm sure they will be happy for you to tell them.
I think one problem Kemi has his her strategy of driving a wedge between "hard working families" and "benefit receiving freeloaders", when there is actually a huge overlap.
It isn't a very honest strategy, but aren't people actually very clear in their own heads (if nothing else) about the difference between hard working families and benefit receiving freeloaders?
As in "WE are hard working families... THEY are benefit receiving freeloaders".
Former Royal Marine pleads guilty to injuring 29 people at Liverpool FC parade Paul Doyle, who drove into a crowd of celebrating football fans in May, changes plea unexpectedly
Yes their bizarre desire to make the world a better place is really a sight to behold.
That's the positive. Their disconnect from actually getting stuff done in a practical manner is the downside.
To be clear, charities have a role, and are necessary. They do not represent a third of the electorate.
There are vast numbers - perhaps in the millions - of them. Ranging from those with income of £50 to those in hundreds of millions. They are not one thing.
They are very lightly regulated, and small ones not regulated at all. This fact leads common sense to suspect that some (not most of course) are cover for self enrichment and fraud. Others are, while OK, are also quite decent job creation schemes for the right sort.
I simply don't believe that Gift Aid is not used by some (not of course the overwhelming majority) in fraudulent ways.
Most are small and only do local good out of pure human goodness. Like a local duck pond preservation society. Or a village hall.
One day there will be a major scandal and a public enquiry or Royal Commission.
Former Royal Marine pleads guilty to injuring 29 people at Liverpool FC parade Paul Doyle, who drove into a crowd of celebrating football fans in May, changes plea unexpectedly
As the resident EV geek ('I'm an influencer don'tcha know') can I boggle at the new tax?
Park how it will work for a moment. The OBR forecasts that this will reduce the number of EVs on the road by 440k. That is huge. Massive. A literal torpedoing of their own policy.
If you look at the maths its simple - you already pay 7p per mile in fuel duty on an average petrol car, so 3p a mile is cheaper.
But the problem is that you pay fuel duty as a hidden tax when you fill up. You will pay EVED as well as VED at the start of the year. A special tax only for you. Where you have to fess up how many miles you do.
Behaviourally this will have a serious effect on people. Who will then choose to pay more to pollute more.
There are positives. Luxury Car tax now starts at £50k. So if you were buying a £45k car you would save £425 in VED - worth 14,166 miles at 3p.
But you can't resolve emotional objections with facts. This is so stupid that its almost a Telegraph story...
The problem is that the whole EV thing is rather built on sand. For a lot of users, their real cost is more than running an ICE car, but this is hidden in the tax arbitrage, with the UK taxpayer taking the financial hit and then some, whilst the user wins out.
Doing something by a more expensive route than necessary ultimately makes us poorer. That is objective fact. It may be worth it for other trade offs (eg reduced pollution), but that doesn't alter the direct costs. But politicans of all stripes have lied to us for the last 20 years, trying to tell us that EVs are cheaper to run compared to ICE cars, rather than that they are choosing to give EV owners a massive tax subsidy.
Now - it's possible for the true costs of an EV to be lower than an ICE - eg when charged off your home solar system - but for a lot of users, that won't be the case. E.g. anyone thinking of going EV via public charging is completely insane.
Morning! 1. EVs are cheaper to run. No real servicing. Less consumables - tyres, brakes etc 2. Most EVs do 8,500 miles a year so mostly charged at home not in public 3. Use Tesla superchargers to pay half the price of Ionity etc
1) Service on my ten year old oil burning barge is £30 in consumables, takes me 15 mins, officially every 20k miles, although I actually do the oil and filer every 10k. I've not done the brakes on the current car, but my previous one was on its third set of pads when it was written off at 168k miles. Probably not £100 every 50k miles. EVs wear tyes faster than the equivalent ICE because they are heavier. Service costs are only expensive because people insist on getting ripped off the dealerships, which is entirely their own stupid fault (and they will manage to still get ripped off the same way with EVs too).
2) As I said, depends on the use case. People who can't charge at home are completly mugged, which is a problem when pressing for wider adoption.
3) Even at half price on the most rip-off chargers, it's still cheaper to run a 2010ish era diesel than an EV, especially if you know how to drive halfway economically.
The serious question is how will you stop people re-engineering the software within the vehicle to make sure it accurately measures mileage done. The only way would be to have analogue mile counters and even my diesel van doesn't have that any more.
Sophificated mileage blockers are already becoming quite a widespread problem in higher end cars. They aren't very expensive devices. And of course based upon a video with a lawyer I saw, according to their research nobody has yet to be successly prosecuted for using one.
I found Reeves's speech odd, in that good budget speeches traditionally combine dignity and seriousness with clever low politics. This felt like pantomime. She didn't rise to the occasion. Good polemic needs to be better hidden as serious comment.
The old customs of not announcing and leaking in advance, taking up about five weeks of political energy, were good and should have been kept.
The custom of listening to the budget in near silence was excellent. The Deputy speaker should keep much better control.
The opportunity (the last for this government I think) for a deep reforming budget was missed. This was about survival, the soft left, the benefits and pensioner class.
Nothing in it for the middling family types.
No central theme or core coherence. Clarke, Howe and Gladstone's reputations are safe.
it was a stark reminder of the anti-intellectualism of public life.
I got what I wanted from the budget: the removal of the iniquitous two child cap. The government eventually did the right thing in the face of considerable opposition. That's what governments should be in power for.
For the rest, I have no idea, and never do at the time of budgets. Chancellors whose job it is to take revenue from here and there, stand up and tell us how they are taking revenue from here and there, and it's supposed to be some kind of theatre.
The received wisdom on this budget seems to be that Reeves has ducked the difficult decisions that none of predecessors took either, while implementing tax increases which are highly unpopular. We'll see. I don't rule out that paradoxical take transpiring.
This must increase chances of Badenoch staying in place to the GE.
Badenoch at 20s next PM is a decent trading bet imo. Don't think it is a winner as expect Starmer to be replaced ahead of the GE but can see it shortening significantly.
A swallow does not a summer make. I think she gave a great response, but it is just a speech at the end of the day. But if the economy continues to flatline and starts to take more of a prominence in public debate, and if Reform start faltering, there are some conditions present for a modest Tory recovery to -potentially- begin.
Badenoch could do with that starting in the next 3-4 months really, to avoid a terrible May.
Could Jenrick have done that without putting off middle England? I doubt it.
Kemi can take aim at the ludicrous PC world we now live in, Farage and Jenrick can’t. For that reason, I think Reform and Tory voters should back her. She should be the figurehead, with Farage in a supporting role. I doubt he really wants to be PM anyway, but the accusations about him at school are believable as well as distasteful. I can forgive schoolboy banter, even if it crossed the line. I no doubt did a bit of it myself. But I don’t think it’s good for the right wing cause, or more importantly the country to have someone who kind of admits it to be PM. So, a black woman who I don’t 100% consider English it is!
Why don't you think Mr Farage wants to be PM? He seems pretty driven to me.
I think he’d rather help the country lean to his way of thinking than actually wield power. He used to quit as UKIP/BXP leader every five mins. To be honest I think the Dulwich College claims will harm him quite badly, and could be a hindrance to getting the kind of country he wants
Hmm possibly. But he's been immersed in politics for decades, stood 7 times for parliament before making it, and now leads a party tracking for power. He looks hellbent on converting to me. I'd be astonished if he pulls back.
I can forsee a Boris style “but that person can’t be me” resignation speech. Maybe I’m too into politics do see how the non engaged feel, but I think the racism stories will damage him
Ah ok - well if his polling starts to crater (either for racist associations or any other reason) that might change his calculus, yes. Here's hoping (in my case) but it is hope not expectation. He's the undisputed leader of the British populist right at a time when that gamey strand of politics is having its moment. Barring accidents he's going to be riding it, win or lose, all the way to the wire imo.
Faisal Islam making an interesting point . Reeves will hope that economic growth will exceed the forecasts and then she can cancel the freezing of tax thresholds towards the end of the parliament .
Former Royal Marine pleads guilty to injuring 29 people at Liverpool FC parade Paul Doyle, who drove into a crowd of celebrating football fans in May, changes plea unexpectedly
The government of growth...every year 1.5% from the OBR that pretty much always predicts growth levels that turn out to be too high....
The general rule of thumb is you need ~2% growth to fund aging and growing population with enough left over for people to get some perks that make them feel wealthier.
This must increase chances of Badenoch staying in place to the GE.
Badenoch at 20s next PM is a decent trading bet imo. Don't think it is a winner as expect Starmer to be replaced ahead of the GE but can see it shortening significantly.
A swallow does not a summer make. I think she gave a great response, but it is just a speech at the end of the day. But if the economy continues to flatline and starts to take more of a prominence in public debate, and if Reform start faltering, there are some conditions present for a modest Tory recovery to -potentially- begin.
Badenoch could do with that starting in the next 3-4 months really, to avoid a terrible May.
Could Jenrick have done that without putting off middle England? I doubt it.
Kemi can take aim at the ludicrous PC world we now live in, Farage and Jenrick can’t. For that reason, I think Reform and Tory voters should back her. She should be the figurehead, with Farage in a supporting role. I doubt he really wants to be PM anyway, but the accusations about him at school are believable as well as distasteful. I can forgive schoolboy banter, even if it crossed the line. I no doubt did a bit of it myself. But I don’t think it’s good for the right wing cause, or more importantly the country to have someone who kind of admits it to be PM. So, a black woman who I don’t 100% consider English it is!
Why don't you think Mr Farage wants to be PM? He seems pretty driven to me.
I think he’d rather help the country lean to his way of thinking than actually wield power. He used to quit as UKIP/BXP leader every five mins. To be honest I think the Dulwich College claims will harm him quite badly, and could be a hindrance to getting the kind of country he wants
Hmm possibly. But he's been immersed in politics for decades, stood 7 times for parliament before making it, and now leads a party tracking for power. He looks hellbent on converting to me. I'd be astonished if he pulls back.
I can forsee a Boris style “but that person can’t be me” resignation speech. Maybe I’m too into politics do see how the non engaged feel, but I think the racism stories will damage him
Ah ok - well if his polling starts to crater (either for racist associations or any other reason) that might change his calculus, yes. Here's hoping (in my case) but it is hope not expectation. He's the undisputed leader of the British populist right at a time when that gamey strand of politics is having its moment. Barring accidents he's going to be riding it, win or lose, all the way to the wire imo.
I'm with Isam on this. I don't think Nigel wants to be PM. Being PM is hard. Nigel wants to change people's views, not administer. Just a gut feeling.
As the resident EV geek ('I'm an influencer don'tcha know') can I boggle at the new tax?
Park how it will work for a moment. The OBR forecasts that this will reduce the number of EVs on the road by 440k. That is huge. Massive. A literal torpedoing of their own policy.
If you look at the maths its simple - you already pay 7p per mile in fuel duty on an average petrol car, so 3p a mile is cheaper.
But the problem is that you pay fuel duty as a hidden tax when you fill up. You will pay EVED as well as VED at the start of the year. A special tax only for you. Where you have to fess up how many miles you do.
Behaviourally this will have a serious effect on people. Who will then choose to pay more to pollute more.
There are positives. Luxury Car tax now starts at £50k. So if you were buying a £45k car you would save £425 in VED - worth 14,166 miles at 3p.
But you can't resolve emotional objections with facts. This is so stupid that its almost a Telegraph story...
The problem is that the whole EV thing is rather built on sand. For a lot of users, their real cost is more than running an ICE car, but this is hidden in the tax arbitrage, with the UK taxpayer taking the financial hit and then some, whilst the user wins out.
Doing something by a more expensive route than necessary ultimately makes us poorer. That is objective fact. It may be worth it for other trade offs (eg reduced pollution), but that doesn't alter the direct costs. But politicans of all stripes have lied to us for the last 20 years, trying to tell us that EVs are cheaper to run compared to ICE cars, rather than that they are choosing to give EV owners a massive tax subsidy.
Now - it's possible for the true costs of an EV to be lower than an ICE - eg when charged off your home solar system - but for a lot of users, that won't be the case. E.g. anyone thinking of going EV via public charging is completely insane.
Morning! 1. EVs are cheaper to run. No real servicing. Less consumables - tyres, brakes etc 2. Most EVs do 8,500 miles a year so mostly charged at home not in public 3. Use Tesla superchargers to pay half the price of Ionity etc
1) Service on my ten year old oil burning barge is £30 in consumables, takes me 15 mins, officially every 20k miles, although I actually do the oil and filer every 10k. I've not done the brakes on the current car, but my previous one was on its third set of pads when it was written off at 168k miles. Probably not £100 every 50k miles. EVs wear tyes faster than the equivalent ICE because they are heavier. Service costs are only expensive because people insist on getting ripped off the dealerships, which is entirely their own stupid fault (and they will manage to still get ripped off the same way with EVs too).
2) As I said, depends on the use case. People who can't charge at home are completly mugged, which is a problem when pressing for wider adoption.
3) Even at half price on the most rip-off chargers, it's still cheaper to run a 2010ish era diesel than an EV, especially if you know how to drive halfway economically.
The serious question is how will you stop people re-engineering the software within the vehicle to make sure it accurately measures mileage done. The only way would be to have analogue mile counters and even my diesel van doesn't have that any more.
Sophificated mileage blockers are already becoming quite a widespread problem in higher end cars. They aren't very expensive devices. And of course based upon a video with a lawyer I saw, according to their research nobody has yet to be successly prosecuted for using one.
The difference now is that it will be tax evasion, which comes with a two year prison sentence. Joe Public will be a lot less interested in that.
I found Reeves's speech odd, in that good budget speeches traditionally combine dignity and seriousness with clever low politics. This felt like pantomime. She didn't rise to the occasion. Good polemic needs to be better hidden as serious comment.
The old customs of not announcing and leaking in advance, taking up about five weeks of political energy, were good and should have been kept.
The custom of listening to the budget in near silence was excellent. The Deputy speaker should keep much better control.
The opportunity (the last for this government I think) for a deep reforming budget was missed. This was about survival, the soft left, the benefits and pensioner class.
Nothing in it for the middling family types.
No central theme or core coherence. Clarke, Howe and Gladstone's reputations are safe.
it was a stark reminder of the anti-intellectualism of public life.
I got what I wanted from the budget: the removal of the iniquitous two child cap. The government eventually did the right thing in the face of considerable opposition. That's what governments should be in power for.
For the rest, I have no idea, and never do at the time of budgets. Chancellors whose job it is to take revenue from here and there, stand up and tell us how they are taking revenue from here and there, and it's supposed to be some kind of theatre.
The received wisdom on this budget seems to be that Reeves has ducked the difficult decisions that none of predecessors took either, while implementing tax increases which are highly unpopular. We'll see. I don't rule out that paradoxical take transpiring.
Former Royal Marine pleads guilty to injuring 29 people at Liverpool FC parade Paul Doyle, who drove into a crowd of celebrating football fans in May, changes plea unexpectedly
I've read the article and it's still not entirely clear why he did it.
The facts and background, on both sides, won't be discussed on the record until sentencing.
I'm not honestly sure that he is clear himself. I tend not to believe "moment of madness" defences, especially for an extended episode such as this one - unless it is a genuine medical incident.
But I think defence lawyers try to exaggerate both ... as is arguably their role in our system.
I've seen far too many people who assault other road users with their vehicles and claim "moment of madness", when what they have done is violate the most basic rules of the road. Though this - driving a significant distance through a crowd killing and maiming - is not in that category imo.
Faisal Islam making an interesting point . Reeves will hope that economic growth will exceed the forecasts and then she can cancel the freezing of tax thresholds towards the end of the parliament .
That's right. And that's mainly down to happenstance. She'll be hoping the bad luck has been frontloaded.
This must increase chances of Badenoch staying in place to the GE.
Badenoch at 20s next PM is a decent trading bet imo. Don't think it is a winner as expect Starmer to be replaced ahead of the GE but can see it shortening significantly.
A swallow does not a summer make. I think she gave a great response, but it is just a speech at the end of the day. But if the economy continues to flatline and starts to take more of a prominence in public debate, and if Reform start faltering, there are some conditions present for a modest Tory recovery to -potentially- begin.
Badenoch could do with that starting in the next 3-4 months really, to avoid a terrible May.
Could Jenrick have done that without putting off middle England? I doubt it.
Kemi can take aim at the ludicrous PC world we now live in, Farage and Jenrick can’t. For that reason, I think Reform and Tory voters should back her. She should be the figurehead, with Farage in a supporting role. I doubt he really wants to be PM anyway, but the accusations about him at school are believable as well as distasteful. I can forgive schoolboy banter, even if it crossed the line. I no doubt did a bit of it myself. But I don’t think it’s good for the right wing cause, or more importantly the country to have someone who kind of admits it to be PM. So, a black woman who I don’t 100% consider English it is!
Why don't you think Mr Farage wants to be PM? He seems pretty driven to me.
I think he’d rather help the country lean to his way of thinking than actually wield power. He used to quit as UKIP/BXP leader every five mins. To be honest I think the Dulwich College claims will harm him quite badly, and could be a hindrance to getting the kind of country he wants
Hmm possibly. But he's been immersed in politics for decades, stood 7 times for parliament before making it, and now leads a party tracking for power. He looks hellbent on converting to me. I'd be astonished if he pulls back.
I can forsee a Boris style “but that person can’t be me” resignation speech. Maybe I’m too into politics do see how the non engaged feel, but I think the racism stories will damage him
Ah ok - well if his polling starts to crater (either for racist associations or any other reason) that might change his calculus, yes. Here's hoping (in my case) but it is hope not expectation. He's the undisputed leader of the British populist right at a time when that gamey strand of politics is having its moment. Barring accidents he's going to be riding it, win or lose, all the way to the wire imo.
I'm with Isam on this. I don't think Nigel wants to be PM. Being PM is hard. Nigel wants to change people's views, not administer. Just a gut feeling.
He recognises what he's good at and what he's rubbish at.
GB news viewers snap poll finds 99% say they will be worse off after the budget and 1% better off.
Given that the sample frame is "GBNews viewers", and the sampling method is "self-selected respondents", and it's not weighted to the general population, and there is differential non-response, the poll is meaningless. But you knew that already.
Though 28% of GB news viewers said they would vote Labour at the last general election
Yes their bizarre desire to make the world a better place is really a sight to behold.
That's the positive. Their disconnect from actually getting stuff done in a practical manner is the downside.
Lol, "getting stuff done" is pretty central to most charities' mandate.
Indeed, but their world is at something of a disconnect from most of the rest of us.
They don't pay the same VAT, or rates. Their workforce are often unpaid volunteers. And while some are concerned with value for money on delivering services, there are a significant number which are aware of no such constraints, and show alarmingly poor delivery in relation to the money they raise.
None of that is particularly controversial (and some of their fiercest critics are from within the sector rather than from outside).
And they account for around 3% of the UK's workforce.
Former Royal Marine pleads guilty to injuring 29 people at Liverpool FC parade Paul Doyle, who drove into a crowd of celebrating football fans in May, changes plea unexpectedly
Faisal Islam making an interesting point . Reeves will hope that economic growth will exceed the forecasts and then she can cancel the freezing of tax thresholds towards the end of the parliament .
I've seen plenty of complaints that OBR numbers are defined so as not to be able to take into account upsides of policies of this Government. I think there is a possibility of that.
But I don't see her unfreezing the thresholds. I'd say there are plenty of far more useful things that could be done with such extra cash.
I think they have some programmes that are much more limited than they would like (eg grand child of Sure Start) and it would be better directed to furthering those.
But perhaps I am naive, given Mr Starmer's habit of dancing to other party's tunes.
Former Royal Marine pleads guilty to injuring 29 people at Liverpool FC parade Paul Doyle, who drove into a crowd of celebrating football fans in May, changes plea unexpectedly
I found Reeves's speech odd, in that good budget speeches traditionally combine dignity and seriousness with clever low politics. This felt like pantomime. She didn't rise to the occasion. Good polemic needs to be better hidden as serious comment.
The old customs of not announcing and leaking in advance, taking up about five weeks of political energy, were good and should have been kept.
The custom of listening to the budget in near silence was excellent. The Deputy speaker should keep much better control.
The opportunity (the last for this government I think) for a deep reforming budget was missed. This was about survival, the soft left, the benefits and pensioner class.
Nothing in it for the middling family types.
No central theme or core coherence. Clarke, Howe and Gladstone's reputations are safe.
it was a stark reminder of the anti-intellectualism of public life.
I got what I wanted from the budget: the removal of the iniquitous two child cap. The government eventually did the right thing in the face of considerable opposition. That's what governments should be in power for.
For the rest, I have no idea, and never do at the time of budgets. Chancellors whose job it is to take revenue from here and there, stand up and tell us how they are taking revenue from here and there, and it's supposed to be some kind of theatre.
The received wisdom on this budget seems to be that Reeves has ducked the difficult decisions that none of predecessors took either, while implementing tax increases which are highly unpopular. We'll see. I don't rule out that paradoxical take transpiring.
The government of growth...every year 1.5% from the OBR that pretty much always predicts growth levels that turn out to be too high....
The general rule of thumb is you need ~2% growth to fund aging and growing population with enough left over for people to get some perks that make them feel wealthier.
Would it be fair to say the only major western economy to be getting + 2% yr on yr is the us?
Former Royal Marine pleads guilty to injuring 29 people at Liverpool FC parade Paul Doyle, who drove into a crowd of celebrating football fans in May, changes plea unexpectedly
I've read the article and it's still not entirely clear why he did it.
There seems to be an increasing number of articles where you never find out the main thing you wanted to know.
"...Fury rises as remarks were made. Person X has come under attack for remarks they made on the social media site X, formerly known as Twitter. Person Y said they were appalling and Person X should resign. "This kind of thing should not be allowed", they said. Person X has not responded to our requests for comment..."
A fair number of these measures will only start to come in the year or so before the GE. That's a bold strategy Cotton....
There’s a gamble here.
If the economy manages to improve (somehow) and things get better she can magically defer some rises for another couple of years.
This is all about saving her and the boss’s job for the next 24 months.
Reeves has done this twice now - with an opportunity to make meaningful reforms and changes to the tax system, she has (as she did in 2024) flubbed it and just produced political budgets that keep things ticking over for another 12 months.
She doesn’t have another chance. Next year is midterm and this stuff gets even harder to do
GB news viewers snap poll finds 99% say they will be worse off after the budget and 1% better off.
Given that the sample frame is "GBNews viewers", and the sampling method is "self-selected respondents", and it's not weighted to the general population, and there is differential non-response, the poll is meaningless. But you knew that already.
Though 28% of GB news viewers said they would vote Labour at the last general election
Stealth tax rises for working people to fund the feckless having gaggles of chavvy kids.
You have a fixed view on this which leads me to believe you must have been bitten a a chavvy kid at one point.
Was friends with a chavvy kid whose single mother (escaping DV) who relied on benefits and charity. He couldn't afford to go to Uni like the rest of his group but he did end up running a division of BP. You can't measure an individual by their circumstances, only what they do about them.
Politically, I wonder what the impact of this will be? Taking the ‘what is right for the country’ out of it, what Labour are trying to do is attract enough Labour-curious votes without alienating too many of the Labour-likelies. Once upon a time, these groups were clustered towards the lower end of the income scale, but I don’t think that’s the case any more. It’s probably still the case that these two groups are disproportionately in the in-work sector of the electorate. It doesn’t strike me that the budget contains a lot for the sort of voters Labour fancies its chances with. I’d wondered if having gone to great lengths to extend the franchise to 16 year olds whether there might be a rabbit in a hat for them, but no – so that lot are lost to the Greens and Reform. If it had the air of ‘right for the country because it’s delivering growth’ you could skate over some of this. But without it – puzzling.
Deeply disappointing from Reeves from a Labour perspective I think. The Budget surprise was that there were no surprises of any substance. Yes it reduces poverty for low income families with many children, and long distance rail commuters will see a small benefit, but those are the only goodies of substance. Against that she's essentially imposing a poll tax on every current basic rate taxpayer (who will all pay the same extra amount in tax under a tax threshold freeze.) The "mansion tax" is pretty puny, as is the extra 2% on rental income - so any effort to switch taxes towards wealth instead has been pretty minimal.
The best I think that Starmer and Reeves can hope for is that Labour will recover a tad in the polls because people generally feared that the impact on their finances would have been a lot worse. Maybe a recovery into the very low 20s in the polls as opposed to just below it as of now. But that would be far from enough to give Starmer a new lease of life.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 2h Increasing rates of tax on rental and savings incomes sounds all well and good. But without any changes to tax base this reduces investment incentives and hits landlords who are already (believe it or not) overtaxed. Will again limit size of rental sector and increase rents
The government of growth...every year 1.5% from the OBR that pretty much always predicts growth levels that turn out to be too high....
The general rule of thumb is you need ~2% growth to fund aging and growing population with enough left over for people to get some perks that make them feel wealthier.
Would it be fair to say the only major western economy to be getting + 2% yr on yr is the us?
Who have stopped publishing figures for employment, inflation and GDP. Presumably no news is bad news.
The government of growth...every year 1.5% from the OBR that pretty much always predicts growth levels that turn out to be too high....
The general rule of thumb is you need ~2% growth to fund aging and growing population with enough left over for people to get some perks that make them feel wealthier.
Wasn't this issue kind of covered back in the summer, when the OBR published a report that basically accepted they had consistently overestimated in the medium/long term (although actually consistently underestimated in the short term) and were adjusting their models accordingly? This adjustment meant the fiscal hole faced by Reeves was much deeper than expected (more needed filling with cash than with the OBR growth forecast). In turn, that's why we are where we are now, with a significantly tax raising budget on top of rises in 2024.
Now the OBR forecast may still turn out to be over-optimistic (or it may not)... but the historic over-optimism was explicitly recognised and a correction going forward applied, so you're not pointing out something the OBR are blind to.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2025/nov/26/how-does-freezing-tax-thresholds-affect-your-own-tax-bill
Basically, people on around £50,000 get clobbered by the fiscal drag.
She’s improved she’s been taking advice about PMQs from Dave (pbuh)
https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2025/04/29/kemi-badenoch-pmqs-advice-david-cameron/
Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.
The economics of tax rises rather than borrowing probably satisfies the markets. And if I had a five year term I would likely do the same sort of budgets for the first 2 years - but all that gets drained out by mountains of media these days, this is last time you will hear anyone praise it this week.
Even though Starmer and Rachael are working sensibly on a 5 year cycle, and it was good decision with lack of growth to go for tax rather than borrowing, they ain’t got five years, they ain’t got their own party on their side - so hastening Labour to destruction will be less sensible budgets later in the parliament.
Andrew Neil, Jo Coburn and Dominic O'Connell - light years ahead of the BBC.
1/3 of all new MPs are from the charitable sector.
This explains A LOT.
https://x.com/mr_james_c/status/1993590947075309944
EVs wear tyes faster than the equivalent ICE because they are heavier.
Service costs are only expensive because people insist on getting ripped off the dealerships, which is entirely their own stupid fault (and they will manage to still get ripped off the same way with EVs too).
2) As I said, depends on the use case. People who can't charge at home are completly mugged, which is a problem when pressing for wider adoption.
3) Even at half price on the most rip-off chargers, it's still cheaper to run a 2010ish era diesel than an EV, especially if you know how to drive halfway economically.
His bed to lie in.
“Real equality means being held to the same standards as everyone else”
“Respect is earned”
If you missed Kemi, you need to watch this.
A 10/10 Commons performance
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1993684625911148859?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Inflation forecast is higher than in March - despite Reeves announcements making it 0.4% lower than without announcements.
Mortgage rates forecast to rise significantly - despite BoE rate cuts.
Living standards forecast to rise by 0.5% per year (rose 1% per year under last Govt).
Taxes and Govt spending both 6% of GDP higher than pre pandemic.
Rachel delivered her complex speech in difficult circumstances and kept her composure. The markets have rallied.
Kemi provided an excellent entertaining knockabout political speech. She has saved her job.
Ed provided a thoughtful, well delivered speech that gave credit to Rachel where due, and offered improvements where needed. He will be ignored.
And MOT checks? Perhaps an annual check for EVs from year 1 to validate? Otherwise how does it work?
The devil as always is in the detail
You will now be taxed more on any income from savings than on money earned via PAYE...and of course you already paid tax on that money when you first earned it in order to save it.
Import duties on small value packages are often so small as to cost more to collect than they bring in. The exception is import VAT, but all the major importers already collect VAT on orders under £135 at time of sale and send it to HMRC, that is a legal requirement.
And did she actually coin the phrase "respect is earned" or is it in fact a hackneyed expression that has been in common usage for decades?
Not least because half of 'charitable sector' organisations are just lobbying organisations in disguise.
But they increasingly make sense for most people, and as battery costs fall further, and capacity continues to increase, will be literally for everyone.
The tax changes are a mess, but better now than making a mess of it several more years down the road.
A bastardised version of something else, with so many changes it becomes a new design, crippled by the choices imposed by the original platform.
The parallels with the current government are striking - no accountability, breaking multiple laws, personal enrichment, incompetence, dodgy dealings with billionaires, dodgy dealings with… {Ed. That’s enough before OGH gets sued}
Came across this one yesterday in the local Costa. Basics from the Charity Commission is they get their revenue from 'accreditation' but 70%-80% of revenue is staff costs. Another job creation scheme while waiting for the next bandwagon.
As an aside, DV is a terrible situation for anyone (both sexes) to find themselves in. Have worked with a few trying to escape the situation and it's ruinous for the individuals and their children.
I’d wondered if having gone to great lengths to extend the franchise to 16 year olds whether there might be a rabbit in a hat for them, but no – so that lot are lost to the Greens and Reform.
If it had the air of ‘right for the country because it’s delivering growth’ you could skate over some of this. But without it – puzzling.
Their disconnect from actually getting stuff done in a practical manner is the downside.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/01/14/does-kemi-need-to-be-more-modest-and-self-effacing/
(Yes, I am aware of the irony of me calling out somebody else for a lack modest and self effacing behaviour.)
If we are not careful we might be starting to talk about some serious money....
(I despise SUV-type vehicles, and my ideal car style is a large GT/coupe from the 70s/80s. Second choice, an Executive saloon.)
*I call it a people carrier, others call it a mid life crisis masquerading as a 4x4.
They do not represent a third of the electorate.
I found Reeves's speech odd, in that good budget speeches traditionally combine dignity and seriousness with clever low politics. This felt like pantomime. She didn't rise to the occasion. Good polemic needs to be better hidden as serious comment.
The old customs of not announcing and leaking in advance, taking up about five weeks of political energy, were good and should have been kept.
The custom of listening to the budget in near silence was excellent. The Deputy speaker should keep much better control.
The opportunity (the last for this government I think) for a deep reforming budget was missed. This was about survival, the soft left, the benefits and pensioner class.
Nothing in it for the middling family types.
No central theme or core coherence. Clarke, Howe and Gladstone's reputations are safe.
it was a stark reminder of the anti-intellectualism of public life.
Former Royal Marine pleads guilty to injuring 29 people at Liverpool FC parade
Paul Doyle, who drove into a crowd of celebrating football fans in May, changes plea unexpectedly
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/26/former-royal-marine-paul-doyle-pleads-guilty-to-injuring-29-people-at-liverpool-fc-parade
A very large proportion of GB News viewers will benefit from some of the measures such as above inflation increase in pension above inflation in minimum wage, on top of things such as reductions in Energy Bills.
I don't think you have to be that large a premise for it to be more than £500k these days!!! Also more costs on supermarkets, I wonder who pays for all those extra wages and taxes?
When Sunak said Labour would tax everything that didn't move, he was wrong, they also taxing everything that moves as well...
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1993613802630164565?s=20
If your mansion gets left out, I'm sure they will be happy for you to tell them.
As in "WE are hard working families... THEY are benefit receiving freeloaders".
They are very lightly regulated, and small ones not regulated at all. This fact leads common sense to suspect that some (not most of course) are cover for self enrichment and fraud. Others are, while OK, are also quite decent job creation schemes for the right sort.
I simply don't believe that Gift Aid is not used by some (not of course the overwhelming majority) in fraudulent ways.
Most are small and only do local good out of pure human goodness. Like a local duck pond preservation society. Or a village hall.
One day there will be a major scandal and a public enquiry or Royal Commission.
For the rest, I have no idea, and never do at the time of budgets. Chancellors whose job it is to take revenue from here and there, stand up and tell us how they are taking revenue from here and there, and it's supposed to be some kind of theatre.
The received wisdom on this budget seems to be that Reeves has ducked the difficult decisions that none of predecessors took either, while implementing tax increases which are highly unpopular. We'll see. I don't rule out that paradoxical take transpiring.
The general rule of thumb is you need ~2% growth to fund aging and growing population with enough left over for people to get some perks that make them feel wealthier.
Just a gut feeling.
But I think defence lawyers try to exaggerate both ... as is arguably their role in our system.
I've seen far too many people who assault other road users with their vehicles and claim "moment of madness", when what they have done is violate the most basic rules of the road. Though this - driving a significant distance through a crowd killing and maiming - is not in that category imo.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/westminster-voting-intention-by-media-consumption-7-10-june/
They don't pay the same VAT, or rates.
Their workforce are often unpaid volunteers.
And while some are concerned with value for money on delivering services, there are a significant number which are aware of no such constraints, and show alarmingly poor delivery in relation to the money they raise.
None of that is particularly controversial (and some of their fiercest critics are from within the sector rather than from outside).
And they account for around 3% of the UK's workforce.
But I don't see her unfreezing the thresholds. I'd say there are plenty of far more useful things that could be done with such extra cash.
I think they have some programmes that are much more limited than they would like (eg grand child of Sure Start) and it would be better directed to furthering those.
But perhaps I am naive, given Mr Starmer's habit of dancing to other party's tunes.
If the economy manages to improve (somehow) and things get better she can magically defer some rises for another couple of years.
This is all about saving her and the boss’s job for the next 24 months.
Reeves has done this twice now - with an opportunity to make meaningful reforms and changes to the tax system, she has (as she did in 2024) flubbed it and just produced political budgets that keep things ticking over for another 12 months.
She doesn’t have another chance. Next year is midterm and this stuff gets even harder to do
Was friends with a chavvy kid whose single mother (escaping DV) who relied on benefits and charity. He couldn't afford to go to Uni like the rest of his group but he did end up running a division of BP. You can't measure an individual by their circumstances, only what they do about them.
The best I think that Starmer and Reeves can hope for is that Labour will recover a tad in the polls because people generally feared that the impact on their finances would have been a lot worse. Maybe a recovery into the very low 20s in the polls as opposed to just below it as of now. But that would be far from enough to give Starmer a new lease of life.
@PJTheEconomist
·
2h
Increasing rates of tax on rental and savings incomes sounds all well and good. But without any changes to tax base this reduces investment incentives and hits landlords who are already (believe it or not) overtaxed. Will again limit size of rental sector and increase rents
Now the OBR forecast may still turn out to be over-optimistic (or it may not)... but the historic over-optimism was explicitly recognised and a correction going forward applied, so you're not pointing out something the OBR are blind to.