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.
Well fair enough. It's a gut feeling that could profit you if it's right. The betting thinks he's in it to win 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.
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.
Why was it the right thing to do?
Because children in poverty is a blight on society when effective and not massively expensive measures exist to reduce it. The two child cap was designed to punish families with more than two children, which meant it was punishing the children particularly. Because the cap was so targeted removing it will take the most children out of poverty for the least cost.
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.
Maybe he'd prefer to be deputy PM or foreign secretary with Kemi as PM, even if Reform have more seats than the Tories. Interesting idea. A bit like what happened in Sweden.
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.
People said EXACTLY this in 2016 about candidate Trump - it was all a vanity run, shake people up, have some loud rallies, then make big money out of the increased exposure when he went back to TV and business after his inevitable defeat. And maybe, privately or just in his own head, that was part of the thought process.
But the fact is he won and then enjoyed it (rather too much in the view of many of us).
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
Yes quite a few of the changes are a long way in the future. The ev mileage charge starts 2028, the extension of freezing thresholds is 28-31. So its all about theoretical taxes based upon theoretical funding requirements in 2028. We can be pretty sure these are inaccurate.
If it all goes tits up, then its someone elses problem. Quite probably a problem for the next CoE.
I thought RR did well today. She kicked the can down the road a fair old way.
People said EXACTLY this in 2016 about candidate Trump - it was all a vanity run, shake people up, have some loud rallies, then make big money out of the increased exposure when he went back to TV and business after his inevitable defeat. And maybe, privately or just in his own head, that was part of the thought process.
But the fact is he won and then enjoyed it (rather too much in the view of many of us).
Trump 2.0 is all about the grift. If you don't care about ethics, or the law, apparently you can funnel monumental amounts of taxpayer cash into your own pockets
If Farage didn't want to be PM he could be earning loadsamoney in the US as Mr Brexit, yet he's decided to spend ages in Britain doing politics and trying to be PM. He wants to be PM. He wants to stick it to an establishment that he holds a grudge against.
In hindsight making him a Lord would have saved a lot of grief.
Re the budget getting leaked by the OBR. Not the first time in the past 2 months the OBR has leaked badly. Somebody working there is up to no good. The Times had the leak about asking for model for IC rise, then the story about better projection / u-turn and pretty much had all the details of what was in the budget before todays leak.
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.
Why was it the right thing to do?
Because children in poverty is a blight on society when effective and not massively expensive measures exist to reduce it. The two child cap was designed to punish families with more than two children, which meant it was punishing the children particularly. Because the cap was so targeted removing it will take the most children out of poverty for the least cost.
And also because this change has been accompanied by fertility rates dropping to a record low, accelerating the aging of the population.
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.
People said EXACTLY this in 2016 about candidate Trump - it was all a vanity run, shake people up, have some loud rallies, then make big money out of the increased exposure when he went back to TV and business after his inevitable defeat. And maybe, privately or just in his own head, that was part of the thought process.
But the fact is he won and then enjoyed it (rather too much in the view of many of us).
Did he enjoy it?
I think he was hooked on the adulation, especially as when you're President you're surrounded by fawners who will only ever tell you what you want to hear.
Also, when you are only every told what you want to hear (and have never grown up in a world of politics where the voters regularly kick you out), you end up believing your own bullshit about everyone loving you.
Re the budget getting leaked by the OBR. Not the first time in the past 2 months the OBR has leaked badly. Somebody working there is up to no good. The Times had the leak about asking for model for IC rise, then the story about better projection / u-turn and pretty much had all the details of what was in the budget before todays leak.
The ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top. And the OBR is not a ship of state. Don’t swallow the spin around this leak, we all know who was already saturating media and getting to microphones first with what legally should have been in purdah.
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.
In this case it's because he pled guilty so his motivation wasn't uncovered in court. For the same reason we don't really know what motivated Axel Rudakabana.
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.
People said EXACTLY this in 2016 about candidate Trump - it was all a vanity run, shake people up, have some loud rallies, then make big money out of the increased exposure when he went back to TV and business after his inevitable defeat. And maybe, privately or just in his own head, that was part of the thought process.
But the fact is he won and then enjoyed it (rather too much in the view of many of us).
Did he enjoy it?
I think he was hooked on the adulation, especially as when you're President you're surrounded by fawners who will only ever tell you what you want to hear.
Also, when you are only every told what you want to hear (and have never grown up in a world of politics where the voters regularly kick you out), you end up believing your own bullshit about everyone loving you.
Trump seems to be a creature who lives on praise in the moment.
He gets lots of that, tons of Ride-Or-Die supporters. He has completely refilled his pockets - was verging on broke. Now has grifted billions.
His lapdogs in all three chambers on the hill (Congress, Senate and the Supreme Court) have given him more yes pleases than any president I can think off.
He has won the top job in the world twice.
Sure, it will all come crashing down at some point. But I think he is loving it.
I can't believe we've all missed Andrew Tate's words of wisdom:
Which garnered the response:
Ok.
I read that.
But I can’t parse it. It’s simple words and everything. But the brain say NO.
His "point" is that real men don't have girlfriends, they just taken women when they want them, because that's what real men get and what women really want.
Basically, he's a complete piece of shit. But we know this already, right?
I can't believe we've all missed Andrew Tate's words of wisdom:
Which garnered the response:
Ok.
I read that.
But I can’t parse it. It’s simple words and everything. But the brain say NO.
His "point" is that real men don't have girlfriends, they just taken women when they want them, because that's what real men get and what women really want.
Basically, he's a complete piece of shit. But we know this already, right?
I can't believe we've all missed Andrew Tate's words of wisdom:
Which garnered the response:
Ok.
I read that.
But I can’t parse it. It’s simple words and everything. But the brain say NO.
His "point" is that real men don't have girlfriends, they just taken women when they want them, because that's what real men get and what women really want.
Basically, he's a complete piece of shit. But we know this already, right?
Well, 56 quid matched on BF at 70s for him to be the next PM....
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.
In this case it's because he pled guilty so his motivation wasn't uncovered in court. For the same reason we don't really know what motivated Axel Rudakabana.
Sentencing yet to come, of course. The remarks may be interesting.
Chancellor giving a press conference in front of a group of NHS nurses. Not sure why they are being used as political props? Particularly as there didn't seem to be anything specific about the NHS in the budget.
Chancellor giving a press conference in front of a group of NHS nurses. Not sure why they are being used as political props? Particularly as there didn't seem to be anything specific about the NHS in the budget.
Because no businesses will have her these days for a PR shoot?
"One of the most powerful bankers on Wall Street has expressed some backing for the budget.
JPMorgan chairman and chief executive Jamie Dimon said on Wednesday British finance minister Rachel Reeves‘ focus on measures to foster growth in her budget was the only way to “lift up everyone.”
In rare remarks on the day of a national budget, Dimon said the Chancellor’s financial discipline should be something that markets should welcome, in an emailed statement to Reuters."
Chancellor giving a press conference in front of a group of NHS nurses. Not sure why they are being used as political props? Particularly as there didn't seem to be anything specific about the NHS in the budget.
Because no businesses will have her?
That's got to be it! No performative pulling of a pint in the Dog and Duck this year, for shame.
"One of the most powerful bankers on Wall Street has expressed some backing for the budget.
JPMorgan chairman and chief executive Jamie Dimon said on Wednesday British finance minister Rachel Reeves‘ focus on measures to foster growth in her budget was the only way to “lift up everyone.”
In rare remarks on the day of a national budget, Dimon said the Chancellor’s financial discipline should be something that markets should welcome, in an emailed statement to Reuters."
Chancellor giving a press conference in front of a group of NHS nurses. Not sure why they are being used as political props? Particularly as there didn't seem to be anything specific about the NHS in the budget.
Because no businesses will have her?
That's got to be it! No performative pulling of a pint in the Dog and Duck this year, for shame.
Pubs definitely won't have her. Minimum wage up, NI up, business rates up....crippling the industry.
"One of the most powerful bankers on Wall Street has expressed some backing for the budget.
JPMorgan chairman and chief executive Jamie Dimon said on Wednesday British finance minister Rachel Reeves‘ focus on measures to foster growth in her budget was the only way to “lift up everyone.”
In rare remarks on the day of a national budget, Dimon said the Chancellor’s financial discipline should be something that markets should welcome, in an emailed statement to Reuters."
"One of the most powerful bankers on Wall Street has expressed some backing for the budget.
JPMorgan chairman and chief executive Jamie Dimon said on Wednesday British finance minister Rachel Reeves‘ focus on measures to foster growth in her budget was the only way to “lift up everyone.”
In rare remarks on the day of a national budget, Dimon said the Chancellor’s financial discipline should be something that markets should welcome, in an emailed statement to Reuters."
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.
It is likely to be a sentencing nightmare for the judge. At one end of possible intention - bad person sets out to do maximal harm with deadly weapon - it would call for a life sentence with a massive minimum term, at the other end - good person with good record, reckless, panic, fear, mixed up, no settled intent to do harm - it calls for substantial mercy.
OBR - "We have assessed that none of the policy measures in this Budget have a sufficiently material impact to justify adjusting our post-measures potential output forecast."
ie. it's a budget which does nothing new for growth. Managed decline goes on.
State pension increased in line with the triple lock
Another damaging inheritance from your lot.
Its the only thing in the budget worth having. 20pc or 40pc will go.in tax and a lot, though not me, will have their winter fuel allowance clawed back.
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.
Private schools have a role. They do not represent 63% of the electorate... yet 63% of Rishi Sunak's Cabinet was privately educated.
Absolutely. Private Schools set a standard which is that people will pay for the education their child receives there. Quite how many people wish to pay is a function of the cost, the education you might get, and the education you might get otherwise. Governments should look closely at the figures. Unfortunately sticking more tax on private schools makes it a less clear read-over.
"One of the most powerful bankers on Wall Street has expressed some backing for the budget.
JPMorgan chairman and chief executive Jamie Dimon said on Wednesday British finance minister Rachel Reeves‘ focus on measures to foster growth in her budget was the only way to “lift up everyone.”
In rare remarks on the day of a national budget, Dimon said the Chancellor’s financial discipline should be something that markets should welcome, in an emailed statement to Reuters."
Rachel Reeves has increased taxes in this Parliament by more than any other government since at least 1970, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says. It says it 'clearly represents a tax on working people' and a breach of the government's manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT.
Rachel Reeves has increased taxes in this Parliament by more than any other government since at least 1970, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says. It says it 'clearly represents a tax on working people' and a breach of the government's manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT.
Completely true, but I do rather agree with her that it was her predecessors that stuck her in the pickle she is in. Tories, and at least as culpable the great steaming Scottish Brown.
Nobody on the planet agrees with me but I think Reeves is doing a reasonably workman-like job.
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.
It is likely to be a sentencing nightmare for the judge. At one end of possible intention - bad person sets out to do maximal harm with deadly weapon - it would call for a life sentence with a massive minimum term, at the other end - good person with good record, reckless, panic, fear, mixed up, no settled intent to do harm - it calls for substantial mercy.
I guess it depends on whether the police investigation turned up any evidence of premeditation. That would speak to what the risk was of a repeat offence.
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.
Why was it the right thing to do?
Because children in poverty is a blight on society when effective and not massively expensive measures exist to reduce it. The two child cap was designed to punish families with more than two children, which meant it was punishing the children particularly. Because the cap was so targeted removing it will take the most children out of poverty for the least cost.
The cap involves eliding related but different issues. There is an issue about whether benefit levels (whether for working or non working families) are too high or too low. There is an issue about whether some of the wrong people get the wrong amount. There is an issue about 'benefit culture' where people are said to live off the state when they should not. There is an issue about getting people back to work. There is an issue about a handful of people who have 24 children by 17 mothers none of whom ever worked (and I have known a small number of these). I am happy for all those to be addressed and sorted.
All those are to be separated from taking away benefit from those with 3+ children because they are who they are, and because they are poor. It is a workhouse mentality.
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.
Surely that counts as an income tax hike, and therefore a manifesto breach?
Why on earth didn't she just put the main rate up to 22% and take 2% off NI? But oh no, that wouldn't lengthen the tax code.
How does the threshold work with this? Presumably you will have to pay a the highest applicable rate rather than taking savings interest as the first part of your income.
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.
Maybe he'd prefer to be deputy PM or foreign secretary with Kemi as PM, even if Reform have more seats than the Tories. Interesting idea. A bit like what happened in Sweden.
Isn't he rather more of a control freak than that ?
I've recently started following a telegram channel that looks in part at Russian economic statistics, and it's interesting that they talk about housing completions in terms of millions of square metres built, rather than houses/apartments. I wonder how different the British statistics would look if measured in the same way?
I've recently started following a telegram channel that looks in part at Russian economic statistics, and it's interesting that they talk about housing completions in terms of millions of square metres built, rather than houses/apartments. I wonder how different the British statistics would look if measured in the same way?
We're unusual in listing properties by the number of bedrooms rather than floor area.
OBR - "We have assessed that none of the policy measures in this Budget have a sufficiently material impact to justify adjusting our post-measures potential output forecast."
ie. it's a budget which does nothing new for growth. Managed decline goes on.
There's no obvious way to materially stimulate growth whilst keeping to the fiscal rules. Both the small state way (slashing taxes) and the big state way (borrow to invest) would risk a run on gilts and a potentially ruinous increase in debt servicing costs.
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.
Surely that counts as an income tax hike, and therefore a manifesto breach?
Why on earth didn't she just put the main rate up to 22% and take 2% off NI? But oh no, that wouldn't lengthen the tax code.
How does the threshold work with this? Presumably you will have to pay a the highest applicable rate rather than taking savings interest as the first part of your income.
More tax returns all round...
Because that would have increased the combined rate of income tax and NI that pensioners pay from 20% to 22% (compared to 28% for working people.) Pensioners continue to be sacrosanct (and most are getting their winter fuel allowance back this winter.)
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.
Surely that counts as an income tax hike, and therefore a manifesto breach?
Why on earth didn't she just put the main rate up to 22% and take 2% off NI? But oh no, that wouldn't lengthen the tax code.
How does the threshold work with this? Presumably you will have to pay a the highest applicable rate rather than taking savings interest as the first part of your income.
More tax returns all round...
Because that would have increased the combined rate of income tax and NI that pensioners pay from 20% to 22% (compared to 28% for working people.) Pensioners continue to be sacrosanct (and most are getting their winter fuel allowance back this winter.)
If pensioners are relying on savings, surely they'll be paying the higher rates anyway?
OBR - "We have assessed that none of the policy measures in this Budget have a sufficiently material impact to justify adjusting our post-measures potential output forecast."
ie. it's a budget which does nothing new for growth. Managed decline goes on.
There's no obvious way to materially stimulate growth whilst keeping to the fiscal rules. Both the small state way (slashing taxes) and the big state way (borrow to invest) would risk a run on gilts and a potentially ruinous increase in debt servicing costs.
There are many non-fiscal interventions that could be used, and Chancellors have in recent years not been shy of announcing regulatory changes that touch on the economy during the budget.
One of the particularly low notes of today's budget speech was the self-congratulation on planning reform, when so little has been achieved. If you properly reformed the planning system you'd go a very long way to improving the economic contribution construction is likely to make over the next several years.
I feel confident that there are a whole host of other reforms that could be made that would be beneficial, and not require a direct financial investment, or forgoing tax revenue, to implement.
I've recently started following a telegram channel that looks in part at Russian economic statistics, and it's interesting that they talk about housing completions in terms of millions of square metres built, rather than houses/apartments. I wonder how different the British statistics would look if measured in the same way?
We're unusual in listing properties by the number of bedrooms rather than floor area.
Its why so many of our houses are such rabbit hutches.
It's encouraging to see all the love for Kemi on here. It's a good sign that those on the right are not still drooling over Farage. At least not those on here. I thought the zeitgeist was moving when I spoke to my Tommy Robinson loving hairdresser
It's encouraging to see all the love for Kemi on here. It's a good sign that those on the right are not still drooling over Farage. At least not those on here. I thought the zeitgeist was moving when I spoke to my Tommy Robinson loving hairdresser
Yes. Badenoch is grim but Farage is worse. The basic justification for her hasn't changed.
I've recently started following a telegram channel that looks in part at Russian economic statistics, and it's interesting that they talk about housing completions in terms of millions of square metres built, rather than houses/apartments. I wonder how different the British statistics would look if measured in the same way?
We're unusual in listing properties by the number of bedrooms rather than floor area.
Its why so many of our houses are such rabbit hutches.
Floor area is much more sensible.
No, the reasons for that are that government planning policy focuses on number of dwellings built, regardless of quality or size, giving priority on those developments that pack the most number of flats into the smallest possible area, and because developers face similar incentives because land cleared for building is so much in demand anywhere people want to live, eliminating the incentives from healthy competition.
It would be hard to think of a system more likely to produce tiny, low quality housing.
I've recently started following a telegram channel that looks in part at Russian economic statistics, and it's interesting that they talk about housing completions in terms of millions of square metres built, rather than houses/apartments. I wonder how different the British statistics would look if measured in the same way?
We're unusual in listing properties by the number of bedrooms rather than floor area.
Its why so many of our houses are such rabbit hutches.
Floor area is much more sensible.
No, the reasons for that are that government planning policy focuses on number of dwellings built, regardless of quality or size, giving priority on those developments that pack the most number of flats into the smallest possible area, and because developers face similar incentives because land cleared for building is so much in demand anywhere people want to live, eliminating the incentives from healthy competition.
It would be hard to think of a system more likely to produce tiny, low quality housing.
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.
Surely that counts as an income tax hike, and therefore a manifesto breach?
Why on earth didn't she just put the main rate up to 22% and take 2% off NI? But oh no, that wouldn't lengthen the tax code.
How does the threshold work with this? Presumably you will have to pay a the highest applicable rate rather than taking savings interest as the first part of your income.
More tax returns all round...
The budget includes this.
"4.117 Ordering of income tax reliefs and allowances – The government is changing income tax rules so that reliefs and allowances deductible at steps 2 and 3 of the income tax calculation will only be applied to property, savings and dividend income after they have been applied to other sources of income. This will be legislated for in Finance Bill 2025-26 and take effect from 6 April 2027."
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.
I have been a Labour voter more often than not but ditching the cap has lost them my vote for sure. Fully endorse financial support for 2 children, could probably have lived with extending it to 3 but beyond that why should tax payers be required to pay for other people's lifestyle choices? If you want half a dozen kids make bloody sure you can afford to look after them yourself and don't just expect everyone else to fork out for it.
I don’t like being drunk so, while I do drink, I am relatively abstemious. However, I realised today that my optimal operating mode is after slightly less than two pints/glasses of wine. That Mitchell and Webb sketch is actually true.
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.
That's the most damning forecast, as Labour's entire programme in government requires above trend growth, and significantly so. Basically Labour won't do even half the things they wanted to. I've no idea how they can get back into a winning position from here.
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.
Surely that counts as an income tax hike, and therefore a manifesto breach?
Why on earth didn't she just put the main rate up to 22% and take 2% off NI? But oh no, that wouldn't lengthen the tax code.
How does the threshold work with this? Presumably you will have to pay a the highest applicable rate rather than taking savings interest as the first part of your income.
More tax returns all round...
The budget includes this.
"4.117 Ordering of income tax reliefs and allowances – The government is changing income tax rules so that reliefs and allowances deductible at steps 2 and 3 of the income tax calculation will only be applied to property, savings and dividend income after they have been applied to other sources of income. This will be legislated for in Finance Bill 2025-26 and take effect from 6 April 2027."
OBR - "We have assessed that none of the policy measures in this Budget have a sufficiently material impact to justify adjusting our post-measures potential output forecast."
ie. it's a budget which does nothing new for growth. Managed decline goes on.
There's no obvious way to materially stimulate growth whilst keeping to the fiscal rules. Both the small state way (slashing taxes) and the big state way (borrow to invest) would risk a run on gilts and a potentially ruinous increase in debt servicing costs.
No, cutting taxes and spending simultaneously will stimulate growth over the long term, especially if the cuts are targeted on taxes that reduce growth the most, like business profits and payroll taxes, and the spending savings are on those that disincentivise work, such as our gigantic and ballooning welfare bill.
That's a staggeringly obvious way, overwhelmingly supported by economic theory, international empirical studies and our own experience. And common sense - if you let people who create wealth keep more of their own money, they have greater incentives to create it. Of course our cretinous government is ideologically programmed to do the exact opposite - it loves benefit layabouts and hates business - so our stagnation will continue.
OBR - "We have assessed that none of the policy measures in this Budget have a sufficiently material impact to justify adjusting our post-measures potential output forecast."
ie. it's a budget which does nothing new for growth. Managed decline goes on.
So if the OBR are essentially saying "mission failed" already, then what is the point of this government even carrying on?
I don’t like being drunk so, while I do drink, I am relatively abstemious. However, I realised today that my optimal operating mode is after slightly less than two pints/glasses of wine. That Mitchell and Webb sketch is actually true.
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.
Why was it the right thing to do?
Because children in poverty is a blight on society when effective and not massively expensive measures exist to reduce it. The two child cap was designed to punish families with more than two children, which meant it was punishing the children particularly. Because the cap was so targeted removing it will take the most children out of poverty for the least cost.
The “taking children out of poverty” line is utter BS.
It’s calculated based on relative poverty so moving people from £1 below a threshold to £1 above it takes “the most children out of poverty for the least cost”. It does nothing to address the problem
After bringing back Rush Hour, which franchise might Trump resurrect next? The president’s bizarre insistence that the dead Jackie Chan-Chris Tucker series should return resulted in a shock announcement this week. Maybe there’s more to come https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/nov/26/trump-rush-hour-sequel
OBR - "We have assessed that none of the policy measures in this Budget have a sufficiently material impact to justify adjusting our post-measures potential output forecast."
ie. it's a budget which does nothing new for growth. Managed decline goes on.
So if the OBR are essentially saying "mission failed" already, then what is the point of this government even carrying on?
Aren't they just saying "steady as she goes?"
I note bond yields have dropped in response to the budget, so it does seem some confidence is restored.
What odds can I get on Badenoch leading a minority Conservative government after the next GE with Reform confidence and supply? She is clearly growing into the job. It will suit Farage to influence government policy without having to be fully responsible. Labour’s only hope is to ditch Farage, ease left and gain Green support.
What odds can I get on Badenoch leading a minority Conservative government after the next GE with Reform confidence and supply? She is clearly growing into the job. It will suit Farage to influence government policy without having to be fully responsible. Labour’s only hope is to ditch Farage, ease left and gain Green support.
OBR - "We have assessed that none of the policy measures in this Budget have a sufficiently material impact to justify adjusting our post-measures potential output forecast."
ie. it's a budget which does nothing new for growth. Managed decline goes on.
There's no obvious way to materially stimulate growth whilst keeping to the fiscal rules. Both the small state way (slashing taxes) and the big state way (borrow to invest) would risk a run on gilts and a potentially ruinous increase in debt servicing costs.
There are many non-fiscal interventions that could be used, and Chancellors have in recent years not been shy of announcing regulatory changes that touch on the economy during the budget.
One of the particularly low notes of today's budget speech was the self-congratulation on planning reform, when so little has been achieved. If you properly reformed the planning system you'd go a very long way to improving the economic contribution construction is likely to make over the next several years.
I feel confident that there are a whole host of other reforms that could be made that would be beneficial, and not require a direct financial investment, or forgoing tax revenue, to implement.
They are focusing more on that area (planning and infrastructure) than recent governments. Low bar admittedly. It is important, I agree. Flunking it would be a big disappointment. And yes of course they should in general be doing as much as they can, within the space shaped by the public finances and the gilt markets, to promote sustainable economic growth. But it's quite a small space. This is really my point. Maybe it's an obvious one but I'm not sure it's too widely appreciated. The support for populist parties of left and right suggests that it isn't.
OBR - "We have assessed that none of the policy measures in this Budget have a sufficiently material impact to justify adjusting our post-measures potential output forecast."
ie. it's a budget which does nothing new for growth. Managed decline goes on.
So if the OBR are essentially saying "mission failed" already, then what is the point of this government even carrying on?
Aren't they just saying "steady as she goes?"
I note bond yields have dropped in response to the budget, so it does seem some confidence is restored.
The market really only cares about one thing and that's Reeves not being replaced. They've seen 'the filed' and they're not impressed.
(I was in the gilt market a very long time ago - the longest dated bond that I recall - Index Linked 24s - has now gone.)
Comments
But the fact is he won and then enjoyed it (rather too much in the view of many of us).
If it all goes tits up, then its someone elses problem. Quite probably a problem for the next CoE.
I thought RR did well today. She kicked the can down the road a fair old way.
In hindsight making him a Lord would have saved a lot of grief.
Which garnered the response:
I think he was hooked on the adulation, especially as when you're President you're surrounded by fawners who will only ever tell you what you want to hear.
Also, when you are only every told what you want to hear (and have never grown up in a world of politics where the voters regularly kick you out), you end up believing your own bullshit about everyone loving you.
I read that.
But I can’t parse it. It’s simple words and everything. But the brain say NO.
Under Labour, purdah was murdered.
He gets lots of that, tons of Ride-Or-Die supporters. He has completely refilled his pockets - was verging on broke. Now has grifted billions.
His lapdogs in all three chambers on the hill (Congress, Senate and the Supreme Court) have given him more yes pleases than any president I can think off.
He has won the top job in the world twice.
Sure, it will all come crashing down at some point. But I think he is loving it.
Basically, he's a complete piece of shit. But we know this already, right?
So no approval from you then.
But the words are so… beyond. It’s hard to fit them into a frame of reference to describe the mindset behind them. It’s 12/10 on the Trump Scale.
He seems rather low.
They do not represent 63% of the electorate... yet 63% of Rishi Sunak's Cabinet was privately educated.
"One of the most powerful bankers on Wall Street has expressed some backing for the budget.
JPMorgan chairman and chief executive Jamie Dimon said on Wednesday British finance minister Rachel Reeves‘ focus on measures to foster growth in her budget was the only way to “lift up everyone.”
In rare remarks on the day of a national budget, Dimon said the Chancellor’s financial discipline should be something that markets should welcome, in an emailed statement to Reuters."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2025/nov/26/budget-2025-rachel-reeves-tax-cash-isa-minimum-wage-latest-news-updates#top-of-blog
(Sorry)
ie. it's a budget which does nothing new for growth. Managed decline goes on.
20pc or 40pc will go.in tax and a lot, though not me, will have their winter fuel allowance clawed back.
Terrible budget done to protect her and Starmer.
How much of it will unravel?
Trump would have wanted a personal bag of cash - buy a zillion of his shitcoin.
This is just retail politics.
As opposed to sociopathic.
Nobody on the planet agrees with me but I think Reeves is doing a reasonably workman-like job.
All those are to be separated from taking away benefit from those with 3+ children because they are who they are, and because they are poor. It is a workhouse mentality.
Why on earth didn't she just put the main rate up to 22% and take 2% off NI? But oh no, that wouldn't lengthen the tax code.
How does the threshold work with this? Presumably you will have to pay a the highest applicable rate rather than taking savings interest as the first part of your income.
More tax returns all round...
One of the particularly low notes of today's budget speech was the self-congratulation on planning reform, when so little has been achieved. If you properly reformed the planning system you'd go a very long way to improving the economic contribution construction is likely to make over the next several years.
I feel confident that there are a whole host of other reforms that could be made that would be beneficial, and not require a direct financial investment, or forgoing tax revenue, to implement.
Floor area is much more sensible.
Incredible. Really
It would be hard to think of a system more likely to produce tiny, low quality housing.
"4.117 Ordering of income tax reliefs and allowances – The government is changing income tax rules so that reliefs and allowances deductible at steps 2 and 3 of the income tax calculation will only be applied to property, savings and dividend income after they have been applied to other sources of income. This will be legislated for in Finance Bill 2025-26 and take effect from 6 April 2027."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/inside-the-bbcs-trump-bashing-reith-lecture/
(I see the Telegraph are after him again too)
That's a staggeringly obvious way, overwhelmingly supported by economic theory, international empirical studies and our own experience. And common sense - if you let people who create wealth keep more of their own money, they have greater incentives to create it. Of course our cretinous government is ideologically programmed to do the exact opposite - it loves benefit layabouts and hates business - so our stagnation will continue.
Better: Alanis Morissette: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8o7a3YJLxA
Best: both together: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEM7UG3exDE
I have very fond memories of both artists and once knew all the words to "You Oughta Know". But that was some time ago...
It’s calculated based on relative poverty so moving people from £1 below a threshold to £1 above it takes “the most children out of poverty for the least cost”. It does nothing to address the problem
Really ?
After bringing back Rush Hour, which franchise might Trump resurrect next?
The president’s bizarre insistence that the dead Jackie Chan-Chris Tucker series should return resulted in a shock announcement this week. Maybe there’s more to come
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/nov/26/trump-rush-hour-sequel
I note bond yields have dropped in response to the budget, so it does seem some confidence is restored.
Hiding behind the sofa I suppose...
(I was in the gilt market a very long time ago - the longest dated bond that I recall - Index Linked 24s - has now gone.)