I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
There's a bigger risk in the other direction - DWP reckon approx £25 billion a year in unclaimed benefits. So there is an ulterior motive in UK Government keeping as damned complicated as possible.
I agree that IDS probably has a good legacy on the mechancis of welfare. A reforming government (which we do not have to any extent at all) would roll many more benefits and payments into it. The dream would be a Universal Income Tax to pair with Universal Credit, all on one system, that ensures there are no cliff-edges and everyone gets their correct payment/tax automatically.
It is almost a quasi universal income, or could be made to work as such, but would need to abolition of tax free allowance to fund it.
It would facilitate that in the future but all I'm suggesting is a system where HMRC, DWP speak to each other about household circumstances and it's all calculated together, alongside a much simpler income tax system (rolling CGT, NICs, IT, IHT etc into one tax) and finishing the job on UC - there are still too many payments that sit outside it.
Indeed.
I can't understand why Ms Reeves is even talking about removing IT from the basic state pension when all she needs tgo do is to ask SKS to order DWP to extract digit and implement PAYE on the state pensions (including SSP if not already done - I'm not sure about this), providing annual P60s, and calculating annual income like other human beings do.
They've made some slightly odd statements on state pension interaction with income tax since the budget. It does appear we will end up with a quadruple lock, but they give the impression they've only just realised it could be a problem to solve. There are plenty of untaxed benefits so shouldn't be a major issue for DWP.
Yes
I caught a bit of program my wife was watching, yesterday. A journalist with a seated audience explaining through the budget, rather well.
He’d interviewed Reeves, and was explaining the detail of what she’d said (using clips from the interview), popular misconceptions etc. Actually educative. Anyone know what the show was? Only heard some fragments - was in another room.
Anyway, he showed that the statement about the basic pension not being taxed was really full of caveats about when/where/how.
Isn't that half the bloody problem? That our tax system is an overcomplicated shambles?
If Reeves had decided to do something dramatic about that she would surely at least have been given credit for trying something.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
Suspect that they are looking more at the drivers for welfare rather than who gets it e.g
*Raise minimum wage to reduce the in-work benefits bill *Change the structure of the rental market to reduce the inflationary effects on housing benefit *In the upcoming Employment Rights Act, there is the Fair Work Agency which will be the ICE of the employment market looking to take legal action against those that do not pay minimum wage or who breach Employment Law. This might also extend to gig economy. Every wage is an opportunity to tax, so wages matter. *Immigration. The Boris Wave and importing low wage people with families will be expensive when these low wage/low added value disappear. Changes so that people have to wait longer will push any costs further into the future. *More babies (my favourite) as some may not end up as chavs but may actually become MP's and other worthies.
There will be other approaches but they are all aimed at taking the pressure off the long term costs to the economy as if they don't, there will be a taxpayers' or gilts revolt.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
There's a bigger risk in the other direction - DWP reckon approx £25 billion a year in unclaimed benefits. So there is an ulterior motive in UK Government keeping as damned complicated as possible.
I agree that IDS probably has a good legacy on the mechancis of welfare. A reforming government (which we do not have to any extent at all) would roll many more benefits and payments into it. The dream would be a Universal Income Tax to pair with Universal Credit, all on one system, that ensures there are no cliff-edges and everyone gets their correct payment/tax automatically.
It is almost a quasi universal income, or could be made to work as such, but would need to abolition of tax free allowance to fund it.
It would facilitate that in the future but all I'm suggesting is a system where HMRC, DWP speak to each other about household circumstances and it's all calculated together, alongside a much simpler income tax system (rolling CGT, NICs, IT, IHT etc into one tax) and finishing the job on UC - there are still too many payments that sit outside it.
Indeed.
I can't understand why Ms Reeves is even talking about removing IT from the basic state pension when all she needs tgo do is to ask SKS to order DWP to extract digit and implement PAYE on the state pensions (including SSP if not already done - I'm not sure about this), providing annual P60s, and calculating annual income like other human beings do.
Try politics. To do this throws up an infinity of stories (true in this case) of nice widows living on the state pension or little more who are paying IT while their total income is a tiny fraction of benefits families, untaxed, in the same street.
Sure, but if one doesn't then one gets sob stories of *other* widows on the same income, only not so much SP but occupational/interest, who pay more tax than the aforesaid nice widows. As per discussion yesterday.
They might suffer a collective brain aneurism and do the sensible, obvious thing -
Quadruple lock - the full state pension rate *is* the personal allowance.
But I don’t think they think like that.
Of course I would advocate doing that as a part of rebuilding IT {insert standard PB tax plan here}
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
It depends on your benchmarks, Kirk.
Boris's government was corrupt, so you would expect removing it should fix that matter immediately. Truss's was batshit crazy and incompetent, so again dismissal puts that right straight away. The problems we face with the economy and state of public services are however more long term and are the cumulative result of protracted neglect. The last Chancellor to hand over an economy in decent repair was Ken Clarke and scant reward he got for it. Maybe if voters rewarded success more we'd get better government?
Anyway I think it would be unreasonable to expect a new Government to fix the long term problems in a couple of years. Give me a call in three more and I'll let you know how I thought they got on.
But we all love (or at least respect) Ken Clarke now. I don't understand why subsequent Chancellors aren't interested in legacy. You'll be lucky to get 5 years; use that time to generate 20 years of being a legend, book sales, speeches, QT appearances, generally being smug. If you're tolerable enough you could even get a gig doing travel shows for the BBC.
One of the issues is that our political society is seriously messed up. The old model was "decide what you want to do, then try to win an election so you can do it", but that's been overtaken by "decide what you need to say to win an election, then have a rotten time trying to implement it."
It's not totally malign- we want political parties who pay attention to what the public wants. But at some point, that culture overstepped the healthy line, so that politicians can't be honest with us.
Major and Clarke's fate, a landslide defeat after doing a decent enough job, was a terrible warning for a generation. It's why Sunak and Hunt frantically threw unaffordable tax cuts at us in the runup to 2024... only to go down to their own landslide against an objectively weaker opponent.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
It depends on your benchmarks, Kirk.
Boris's government was corrupt, so you would expect removing it should fix that matter immediately. Truss's was batshit crazy and incompetent, so again dismissal puts that right straight away. The problems we face with the economy and state of public services are however more long term and are the cumulative result of protracted neglect. The last Chancellor to hand over an economy in decent repair was Ken Clarke and scant reward he got for it. Maybe if voters rewarded success more we'd get better government?
Anyway I think it would be unreasonable to expect a new Government to fix the long term problems in a couple of years. Give me a call in three more and I'll let you know how I thought they got on.
But we all love (or at least respect) Ken Clarke now. I don't understand why subsequent Chancellors aren't interested in legacy. You'll be lucky to get 5 years; use that time to generate 20 years of being a legend, book sales, speeches, QT appearances, generally being smug. If you're tolerable enough you could even get a gig doing travel shows for the BBC.
One of the issues is that our political society is seriously messed up. The old model was "decide what you want to do, then try to win an election so you can do it", but that's been overtaken by "decide what you need to say to win an election, then have a rotten time trying to implement it."
It's not totally malign- we want political parties who pay attention to what the public wants. But at some point, that culture overstepped the healthy line, so that politicians can't be honest with us.
Major and Clarke's fate, a landslide defeat after doing a decent enough job, was a terrible warning for a generation. It's why Sunak and Hunt frantically threw unaffordable tax cuts at us in the runup to 2024... only to go down to their own landslide against an objectively weaker opponent.
It's also devastating in local government, a political group that runs a council well/badly is neither rewarded of punished.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
Boris's government was corrupt
That's a bold claim, presented as a statement of fact. I assume you have some evidence of this?
Why are they supposed to be friends? Are you friends with all the people you work with?
I am trying to imagine starting an organisation as a co-founder of someone I didn’t actively like.
Sounds utterly horrible and very likely to descend infighting.
No, wait….
This leads to the common error of appointing people you like, rather than people who are good at their jobs. Surely business should be a cold, calm, rational activity, emotion is for your private life.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
It depends on your benchmarks, Kirk.
Boris's government was corrupt, so you would expect removing it should fix that matter immediately. Truss's was batshit crazy and incompetent, so again dismissal puts that right straight away. The problems we face with the economy and state of public services are however more long term and are the cumulative result of protracted neglect. The last Chancellor to hand over an economy in decent repair was Ken Clarke and scant reward he got for it. Maybe if voters rewarded success more we'd get better government?
Anyway I think it would be unreasonable to expect a new Government to fix the long term problems in a couple of years. Give me a call in three more and I'll let you know how I thought they got on.
But we all love (or at least respect) Ken Clarke now. I don't understand why subsequent Chancellors aren't interested in legacy. You'll be lucky to get 5 years; use that time to generate 20 years of being a legend, book sales, speeches, QT appearances, generally being smug. If you're tolerable enough you could even get a gig doing travel shows for the BBC.
One of the issues is that our political society is seriously messed up. The old model was "decide what you want to do, then try to win an election so you can do it", but that's been overtaken by "decide what you need to say to win an election, then have a rotten time trying to implement it."
It's not totally malign- we want political parties who pay attention to what the public wants. But at some point, that culture overstepped the healthy line, so that politicians can't be honest with us.
Major and Clarke's fate, a landslide defeat after doing a decent enough job, was a terrible warning for a generation. It's why Sunak and Hunt frantically threw unaffordable tax cuts at us in the runup to 2024... only to go down to their own landslide against an objectively weaker opponent.
It's also devastating in local government, a political group that runs a council well/badly is neither rewarded of punished.
Sadly, that's always been the way. When going through Himself's papers after he died, there were a couple of "your defeat was about Westminster, not you" letters from the local MP. Good man management, of course, but also true, even in the 1980s.
Must be much worse now, caught between mandatory spending and capped income. I've even got some sympathy for Reformers who danced in, thinking it would be easy. Just not very much.
Struggling to understand the problem with this one. Maybe I'm too partisan to see.
Is the argument the opposition is making that the economy is actually doing quite well and we didn't need raise taxes to afford additional spending?
The issue is that they lied about the information that was being provided to them. That undermines trust in the system as well as the individuals.
It’s fine to make a political decision to increase welfare spending and you should go out and argue for that. But to lie about the reason undermines the ability of the voters to make a properly informed choice at the next election
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
It depends on your benchmarks, Kirk.
Boris's government was corrupt, so you would expect removing it should fix that matter immediately. Truss's was batshit crazy and incompetent, so again dismissal puts that right straight away. The problems we face with the economy and state of public services are however more long term and are the cumulative result of protracted neglect. The last Chancellor to hand over an economy in decent repair was Ken Clarke and scant reward he got for it. Maybe if voters rewarded success more we'd get better government?
Anyway I think it would be unreasonable to expect a new Government to fix the long term problems in a couple of years. Give me a call in three more and I'll let you know how I thought they got on.
But we all love (or at least respect) Ken Clarke now. I don't understand why subsequent Chancellors aren't interested in legacy. You'll be lucky to get 5 years; use that time to generate 20 years of being a legend, book sales, speeches, QT appearances, generally being smug. If you're tolerable enough you could even get a gig doing travel shows for the BBC.
One of the issues is that our political society is seriously messed up. The old model was "decide what you want to do, then try to win an election so you can do it", but that's been overtaken by "decide what you need to say to win an election, then have a rotten time trying to implement it."
It's not totally malign- we want political parties who pay attention to what the public wants. But at some point, that culture overstepped the healthy line, so that politicians can't be honest with us.
Major and Clarke's fate, a landslide defeat after doing a decent enough job, was a terrible warning for a generation. It's why Sunak and Hunt frantically threw unaffordable tax cuts at us in the runup to 2024... only to go down to their own landslide against an objectively weaker opponent.
The ‘decent enough job’ you describe was on the back of many losing their homes as interest rates skyrocketed to retain Britain's place in the ERM. The so-called ‘golden legacy’ was the complete and total collapse of the Tories' economic policy.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
It depends on your benchmarks, Kirk.
Boris's government was corrupt, so you would expect removing it should fix that matter immediately. Truss's was batshit crazy and incompetent, so again dismissal puts that right straight away. The problems we face with the economy and state of public services are however more long term and are the cumulative result of protracted neglect. The last Chancellor to hand over an economy in decent repair was Ken Clarke and scant reward he got for it. Maybe if voters rewarded success more we'd get better government?
Anyway I think it would be unreasonable to expect a new Government to fix the long term problems in a couple of years. Give me a call in three more and I'll let you know how I thought they got on.
But we all love (or at least respect) Ken Clarke now. I don't understand why subsequent Chancellors aren't interested in legacy. You'll be lucky to get 5 years; use that time to generate 20 years of being a legend, book sales, speeches, QT appearances, generally being smug. If you're tolerable enough you could even get a gig doing travel shows for the BBC.
One of the issues is that our political society is seriously messed up. The old model was "decide what you want to do, then try to win an election so you can do it", but that's been overtaken by "decide what you need to say to win an election, then have a rotten time trying to implement it."
It's not totally malign- we want political parties who pay attention to what the public wants. But at some point, that culture overstepped the healthy line, so that politicians can't be honest with us.
Major and Clarke's fate, a landslide defeat after doing a decent enough job, was a terrible warning for a generation. It's why Sunak and Hunt frantically threw unaffordable tax cuts at us in the runup to 2024... only to go down to their own landslide against an objectively weaker opponent.
I agree your main point but I think in both 97 and last year there was also a general 'time for a change' sentiment after long periods of the Conservatives in office. Or the same but opposite in 2010. That particular aspect of our democracy - that we get tired of the same party in government for too long - is not necessarily unhealthy.
Yes this was primarily a budget to fund the increased welfare spending Labour MPs demanded and to stop Labour voters going Green ie a political budget. It was not a budget required because of falling receipts and productivity though the extra tax on business and wealth creators and tax freezes for workers might lead to that.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
Boris's government was corrupt
That's a bold claim, presented as a statement of fact. I assume you have some evidence of this?
'The Fall of Boris Johnson' Sebastian Payne. I think Decrepiter.John knows of 6 more!
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
It depends on your benchmarks, Kirk.
Boris's government was corrupt, so you would expect removing it should fix that matter immediately. Truss's was batshit crazy and incompetent, so again dismissal puts that right straight away. The problems we face with the economy and state of public services are however more long term and are the cumulative result of protracted neglect. The last Chancellor to hand over an economy in decent repair was Ken Clarke and scant reward he got for it. Maybe if voters rewarded success more we'd get better government?
Anyway I think it would be unreasonable to expect a new Government to fix the long term problems in a couple of years. Give me a call in three more and I'll let you know how I thought they got on.
But we all love (or at least respect) Ken Clarke now. I don't understand why subsequent Chancellors aren't interested in legacy. You'll be lucky to get 5 years; use that time to generate 20 years of being a legend, book sales, speeches, QT appearances, generally being smug. If you're tolerable enough you could even get a gig doing travel shows for the BBC.
One of the issues is that our political society is seriously messed up. The old model was "decide what you want to do, then try to win an election so you can do it", but that's been overtaken by "decide what you need to say to win an election, then have a rotten time trying to implement it."
It's not totally malign- we want political parties who pay attention to what the public wants. But at some point, that culture overstepped the healthy line, so that politicians can't be honest with us.
Major and Clarke's fate, a landslide defeat after doing a decent enough job, was a terrible warning for a generation. It's why Sunak and Hunt frantically threw unaffordable tax cuts at us in the runup to 2024... only to go down to their own landslide against an objectively weaker opponent.
The ‘decent enough job’ you describe was on the back of many losing their homes as interest rates skyrocketed to retain Britain's place in the ERM. The so-called ‘golden legacy’ was the complete and total collapse of the Tories' economic policy.
The defeat was deserved, yes- though I would put the blame on the Lawson boom and the need to douse that. Causes and consequences can be separated by a long time.
The point is more that everyone took the wrong lesson from it. If your government is doomed, use the opportunity to do the right things. Be a Ken, because being a Jeremy won't save you.
I don't see how the fact that she's found us an extra £28 billion down the back of the sofa makes her look bad?
It's the deliberate pretence that she hadn't, in order to justify more tax rises, that is (understandably) annoying people,
A potential killer in the budget is the allegation, hard to deny, that Reeves has index linked both pensions and benefits (and extended benefits to those with +2 children) but the price is that workers have not had their thresholds index linked, and the plan is that this continues for 10 years in all, to pay for the non workers (like me, a pensioner) to be indexed.
That's a very good point, both rhetorically, and as a simple matter of fairness (which is the one enduring political lodestone which pulls across the political divide).
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
It depends on your benchmarks, Kirk.
Boris's government was corrupt, so you would expect removing it should fix that matter immediately. Truss's was batshit crazy and incompetent, so again dismissal puts that right straight away. The problems we face with the economy and state of public services are however more long term and are the cumulative result of protracted neglect. The last Chancellor to hand over an economy in decent repair was Ken Clarke and scant reward he got for it. Maybe if voters rewarded success more we'd get better government?
Anyway I think it would be unreasonable to expect a new Government to fix the long term problems in a couple of years. Give me a call in three more and I'll let you know how I thought they got on.
But we all love (or at least respect) Ken Clarke now. I don't understand why subsequent Chancellors aren't interested in legacy. You'll be lucky to get 5 years; use that time to generate 20 years of being a legend, book sales, speeches, QT appearances, generally being smug. If you're tolerable enough you could even get a gig doing travel shows for the BBC.
One of the issues is that our political society is seriously messed up. The old model was "decide what you want to do, then try to win an election so you can do it", but that's been overtaken by "decide what you need to say to win an election, then have a rotten time trying to implement it."
It's not totally malign- we want political parties who pay attention to what the public wants. But at some point, that culture overstepped the healthy line, so that politicians can't be honest with us.
Major and Clarke's fate, a landslide defeat after doing a decent enough job, was a terrible warning for a generation. It's why Sunak and Hunt frantically threw unaffordable tax cuts at us in the runup to 2024... only to go down to their own landslide against an objectively weaker opponent.
The ‘decent enough job’ you describe was on the back of many losing their homes as interest rates skyrocketed to retain Britain's place in the ERM. The so-called ‘golden legacy’ was the complete and total collapse of the Tories' economic policy.
The Major government left low inflation, low unemployment, a balanced budget and growing economy, the best legacy of any party losing power in tje last fifty years
Struggling to understand the problem with this one. Maybe I'm too partisan to see.
Is the argument the opposition is making that the economy is actually doing quite well and we didn't need raise taxes to afford additional spending?
The issue is that they lied about the information that was being provided to them. That undermines trust in the system as well as the individuals.
It’s fine to make a political decision to increase welfare spending and you should go out and argue for that. But to lie about the reason undermines the ability of the voters to make a properly informed choice at the next election
The forecast is worse than previously. That's not a lie.
Struggling to understand the problem with this one. Maybe I'm too partisan to see.
Is the argument the opposition is making that the economy is actually doing quite well and we didn't need raise taxes to afford additional spending?
The issue is that they lied about the information that was being provided to them. That undermines trust in the system as well as the individuals.
It’s fine to make a political decision to increase welfare spending and you should go out and argue for that. But to lie about the reason undermines the ability of the voters to make a properly informed choice at the next election
Can you undermine something that doesn't exist in the first place?
Why are they supposed to be friends? Are you friends with all the people you work with?
I am trying to imagine starting an organisation as a co-founder of someone I didn’t actively like.
Sounds utterly horrible and very likely to descend infighting.
No, wait….
I can 'like' someone as a colleague without it being necessary for them to be a 'friend'.
Absolutely so. I work with a lot of people that I dont particularly like (or dislike for that matter) they are work colleagues each with their own talents and skills.
Work (or politics) should not be a dinner party. Its about working together on common goals. That said, I am not sure that Sultana and Corbyn have many common goals.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
There's a bigger risk in the other direction - DWP reckon approx £25 billion a year in unclaimed benefits. So there is an ulterior motive in UK Government keeping as damned complicated as possible.
I agree that IDS probably has a good legacy on the mechancis of welfare. A reforming government (which we do not have to any extent at all) would roll many more benefits and payments into it. The dream would be a Universal Income Tax to pair with Universal Credit, all on one system, that ensures there are no cliff-edges and everyone gets their correct payment/tax automatically.
It is almost a quasi universal income, or could be made to work as such, but would need to abolition of tax free allowance to fund it.
It would facilitate that in the future but all I'm suggesting is a system where HMRC, DWP speak to each other about household circumstances and it's all calculated together, alongside a much simpler income tax system (rolling CGT, NICs, IT, IHT etc into one tax) and finishing the job on UC - there are still too many payments that sit outside it.
Indeed.
I can't understand why Ms Reeves is even talking about removing IT from the basic state pension when all she needs tgo do is to ask SKS to order DWP to extract digit and implement PAYE on the state pensions (including SSP if not already done - I'm not sure about this), providing annual P60s, and calculating annual income like other human beings do.
Try politics. To do this throws up an infinity of stories (true in this case) of nice widows living on the state pension or little more who are paying IT while their total income is a tiny fraction of benefits families, untaxed, in the same street.
Sure, but if one doesn't then one gets sob stories of *other* widows on the same income, only not so much SP but occupational/interest, who pay more tax than the aforesaid nice widows. As per discussion yesterday.
All true too. Which happens when two things happen: lots of income for lots of (sometimes unpopular) people is untaxed AND on taxable income tax starts at a level below what widows/orphans/Mail readers/PB posters readers can live on.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
It depends on your benchmarks, Kirk.
Boris's government was corrupt, so you would expect removing it should fix that matter immediately. Truss's was batshit crazy and incompetent, so again dismissal puts that right straight away. The problems we face with the economy and state of public services are however more long term and are the cumulative result of protracted neglect. The last Chancellor to hand over an economy in decent repair was Ken Clarke and scant reward he got for it. Maybe if voters rewarded success more we'd get better government?
Anyway I think it would be unreasonable to expect a new Government to fix the long term problems in a couple of years. Give me a call in three more and I'll let you know how I thought they got on.
But we all love (or at least respect) Ken Clarke now. I don't understand why subsequent Chancellors aren't interested in legacy. You'll be lucky to get 5 years; use that time to generate 20 years of being a legend, book sales, speeches, QT appearances, generally being smug. If you're tolerable enough you could even get a gig doing travel shows for the BBC.
One of the issues is that our political society is seriously messed up. The old model was "decide what you want to do, then try to win an election so you can do it", but that's been overtaken by "decide what you need to say to win an election, then have a rotten time trying to implement it."
It's not totally malign- we want political parties who pay attention to what the public wants. But at some point, that culture overstepped the healthy line, so that politicians can't be honest with us.
Major and Clarke's fate, a landslide defeat after doing a decent enough job, was a terrible warning for a generation. It's why Sunak and Hunt frantically threw unaffordable tax cuts at us in the runup to 2024... only to go down to their own landslide against an objectively weaker opponent.
The ‘decent enough job’ you describe was on the back of many losing their homes as interest rates skyrocketed to retain Britain's place in the ERM. The so-called ‘golden legacy’ was the complete and total collapse of the Tories' economic policy.
The Major government left low inflation, low unemployment, a balanced budget and growing economy, the best legacy of any party losing power in tje last fifty years
Yes, but mostly unintentionally after the collapse of their economic policy.
Yes this was primarily a budget to fund the increased welfare spending Labour MPs demanded and to stop Labour voters going Green ie a political budget. It was not a budget required because of falling receipts and productivity though the extra tax on business and wealth creators and tax freezes for workers might lead to that.
You'll have to explain the productivity/tax bit to me.
Seems a bit odd not to invest in something with a payback. And if tax has an effect then it would have been marginal in the first place. If you are asking for millions in cash to improve productivity there are a lot more issues such as market size, comparative pricing, wage saving element, depreciation rates etc. Tax is way down at the bottom of that list. There are a number of projects I've worked on which are still there decades later and none were based on the short term tax rated because tax rates change. If someone has told you that, it sounds like an excuse to me.
I don't see how the fact that she's found us an extra £28 billion down the back of the sofa makes her look bad?
It's the deliberate pretence that she hadn't, in order to justify more tax rises, that is (understandably) annoying people,
A potential killer in the budget is the allegation, hard to deny, that Reeves has index linked both pensions and benefits (and extended benefits to those with +2 children) but the price is that workers have not had their thresholds index linked, and the plan is that this continues for 10 years in all, to pay for the non workers (like me, a pensioner) to be indexed.
That's a very good point, both rhetorically, and as a simple matter of fairness (which is the one enduring political lodestone which pulls across the political divide).
Yes. I am a boringly comfortable pensioner, but I have family members in the tribe who work all hours, juggle lives, try to remember where the children are and where they left the baby, none on benefits and some beneficiaries of the new extended child care provision (which is good).
They are taxed to the hilt and I am both indexed and lightly taxed compared with them. The budget has made that slightly worse for them. It is a political mistake.
I rarely post about Trump but this, along with his banning of all third world migration, is just nuts.
He seriously thinks 50 year mortgages are a good thing.
Creating effectively renting for life but without the ease of moving tenancies that exist for renters like not having to sell the place or worry about the equity.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
I rarely post about Trump but this, along with his banning of all third world migration, is just nuts.
He seriously thinks 50 year mortgages are a good thing.
Creating effectively renting for life but without the ease of moving tenancies that exist for renters like not having to sell the place or worry about the equity.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
Ah yes, the “it’s hostile media” excuse
I remember when IDS used to sing that song.
I suppose that is why all the left wing people are running away from Labour? Corbynites who read the Daily Mail?
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
It depends on your benchmarks, Kirk.
Boris's government was corrupt, so you would expect removing it should fix that matter immediately. Truss's was batshit crazy and incompetent, so again dismissal puts that right straight away. The problems we face with the economy and state of public services are however more long term and are the cumulative result of protracted neglect. The last Chancellor to hand over an economy in decent repair was Ken Clarke and scant reward he got for it. Maybe if voters rewarded success more we'd get better government?
Anyway I think it would be unreasonable to expect a new Government to fix the long term problems in a couple of years. Give me a call in three more and I'll let you know how I thought they got on.
I think your view and mine are fairly consistent with each other. Perfection can wait, but competence in administering, delivering on promises, legislative sorting of egregious problems and communicating direction of travel cannot be allowed to take for ever otherwise a government is replaced before it can be expected to set its agenda and run the country properly.
Yes this was primarily a budget to fund the increased welfare spending Labour MPs demanded and to stop Labour voters going Green ie a political budget. It was not a budget required because of falling receipts and productivity though the extra tax on business and wealth creators and tax freezes for workers might lead to that.
You'll have to explain the productivity/tax bit to me.
Seems a bit odd not to invest in something with a payback. And if tax has an effect then it would have been marginal in the first place. If you are asking for millions in cash to improve productivity there are a lot more issues such as market size, comparative pricing, wage saving element, depreciation rates etc. Tax is way down at the bottom of that list. There are a number of projects I've worked on which are still there decades later and none were based on the short term tax rated because tax rates change. If someone has told you that, it sounds like an excuse to me.
If you are on the threshold between basic and higher rate tax or higher and additional rate tax why work harder to get a promotion and pay rise when it would all be taken in tax with the tax threshold freezes?
Juan Orlando Hernandez was convicted by a jury of conspiring to traffic 400 tons of cocaine into the United States.
The Justice Department estimated that this represents 4.5 billion doses of cocaine and that he was “at the center of one of the largest and most violent drug-trafficking conspiracies in the world.”
He is responsible for the deaths of countless American citizens, and will now be pardoned by Donald Trump.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
I agree - if only new ways could be found to polish that turd, all would be well.
I'd say what's happened here is Reeves getting overly immersed in her hothouse bubble and trying to be too 'clever'. She wanted to land a message that taxes were going up due to the productivity downgrade (both true and not true) and so keen was she to do this that we got that highly unusual speech from number 11. It's backfired and led instead to more confusion around an already overbriefed process. It's the sort of thing where somebody close to her but less wrapped up in SW1 (her mother maybe) might have said, "Rachel, that's a bit silly. Just give your budget." And this would have been better advice than anything heard in Treasury brainstorming sessions.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
Ah yes, the “it’s hostile media” excuse
I remember when IDS used to sing that song.
I suppose that is why all the left wing people are running away from Labour? Corbynites who read the Daily Mail?
You've misread my post, as is often your wont. There's nothing in there to indicate that I'm using 'hostile media' as an excuse or complaining about it. Just a matter of fact.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
I agree - if only new ways could be found to polish that turd, all would be well.
Indeed. A positive message that benefits and pensions are index linked/will continue to increase while workers tax free allowance is frozen for another three years will surely turn an unappreciative public around.
Along with other polls, it does look as if the combination of schoolracistgate and Russiagate may have peeled a few soft Reformers away from the Farage love-in.
Yes this was primarily a budget to fund the increased welfare spending Labour MPs demanded and to stop Labour voters going Green ie a political budget. It was not a budget required because of falling receipts and productivity though the extra tax on business and wealth creators and tax freezes for workers might lead to that.
You'll have to explain the productivity/tax bit to me.
Seems a bit odd not to invest in something with a payback. And if tax has an effect then it would have been marginal in the first place. If you are asking for millions in cash to improve productivity there are a lot more issues such as market size, comparative pricing, wage saving element, depreciation rates etc. Tax is way down at the bottom of that list. There are a number of projects I've worked on which are still there decades later and none were based on the short term tax rated because tax rates change. If someone has told you that, it sounds like an excuse to me.
If you are on the threshold between basic and higher rate tax or higher and additional rate tax why work harder to get a promotion and pay rise when it would all be taken in tax with the tax threshold freezes?
Erm... Because it won't?
Though a terrifyingly huge proportion of the public don't get that you only pay 40% on the slice above the threshold;
Our question was:
“Suppose that you earn £50,270, the highest amount in the basic rate 20% income tax band. You get a £1 a year pay rise, and are now in the 40% higher rate tax band. How much additional tax do you think you will pay?”
The options we gave were:
“a small amount of extra tax”, or “a substantial amount of extra tax” I think it’s clear that the correct answer is “a small amount”. But 50% of the public doesn’t agree...
“This issue should concern every Australian,” Ruddick said in a statement. “This ban is disproportionate and will trespass either directly or indirectly upon the rights of every Australian.
“This ban is a direct assault on young people’s right to freedom of political communication. But it’s worse than that. Come December 10 all kids will be banned, and all the rest of us will have to prove our age and potentially provide ID just to access social media.”
Under the ban, platforms can accept ID as one form of age check, but it must not be the sole method of identification.
Both Meta and Snap Inc have said they will use ID checks as a fallback option in the event that facial age estimation incorrectly estimates an account to be held by someone under 16. Both companies have said they have methods of determining which accounts are likely to be held by children under 16."
I'm not sure I see the problem. Social media is toxic for young people, especially in their formative teenage years. There is a huge amount of evidence of the developmental harm being near-constantly online does, which social media encourages through its algorithms combined with the normal social pressures of teenagehood.
We ban the purchase of alcohol and smoking to a similar age for a similar reason.
Yes but the point is that a consequence of the ban is that over 16s will have to enter identification documents to social media companies. No way I'd do that.
Given that big business algorithmic social media has similar brain-rotting effects on over 16s, reducing its use across the board might be good for us.
Anyone know how the OSA is settling down?
The major porn websites that have implemented age checks report traffic from the UK has fallen, with Pornhub reporting a fall of 77%. Ofcom thinks that traffic to porn sites generally is down by almost a third. However, these figures are not reliable. They don't take into account the number of people who are now using VPNs to make it appear that they are elsewhere when accessing porn. There has been a 1,800% rise in VPN use, suggesting that is where most of the "missing" porn traffic has gone, particularly from younger users who are more likely to be tech savvy. This led to the Children's Commissioner telling the BBC that access to VPNs is "absolutely a loophole that needs closing". Her office suggested that there need to be age controls on access to VPNs. There have also been questions in the Lords as to why VPNs weren't taken into account, and an amendment has been proposed to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would put prohibit provision of VPN services to children.
The other major change is that websites that have not implemented age controls have seen a significant increase in traffic from the UK. Many of these sites are less moderated and more likely to host extreme and illegal content than the major players who have implemented controls.
Getting away from the facts, my view is that the OSA is yet another case of politicians attempting to control technology without understanding it, along with the attempts to force providers like Apple and WhatsApp to provide back doors into end-to-end encryption. Attempting to put age verification on VPNs will again lead to a never ending cycle of Ofcom chasing non-compliant providers. And there will always be ways around age controls. The only way they are going to stop children accessing porn sites using VPNs would be to ban VPNs completely by building a UK equivalent to the Great Firewall of China (and even that is not fully effective). Doing so would turn the UK into a digital pariah state.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
The £150 off electricity is a good policy. It was always madness to put environmental levies directly onto the type of energy that we want people to be using more of in anticipation of the switch to renewables.
Ideally they would have been transferred to gas and petrol/diesel instead - we'll see if the fuel duty rise actually comes to pass.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
Ah yes, the “it’s hostile media” excuse
I remember when IDS used to sing that song.
I suppose that is why all the left wing people are running away from Labour? Corbynites who read the Daily Mail?
You've misread my post, as is often your wont. There's nothing in there to indicate that I'm using 'hostile media' as an excuse or complaining about it. Just a matter of fact.
You are saying that the government is doing well and needs a new comms team.
The problem isn’t the comms team.
The government is… The Government. They have immense power. They have a huge majority in the House of Commons.
The problem is that it is being run without major direction.
The farcical treatment of the report on nuclear power was an example - the moment that reducing even the most ludicrous costs and delay was suggested… they hid behind the sofa. Because of the objection of something something human rights/international law. Despite the report being written by lawyers.
See also the trans issue - where the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of he existing law. And outright told the government to legislate if they wanted a different outcome…. Crickets.
“When you’re borrowing over £100 billion a year you can annoy the markets like this.”
Perhaps a typo? Cannot?
Yes, well done for spotting my, ahem, deliberate typo.
To be fair, the markets do appear to be quite unfussed about all this. My rough understanding is that a big chunk of the tax rises is going towards more fiscal headroom/reducing the deficit to close to a surplus in 2029-30, which is quite admirable in the circumstances.
Whether that actually comes to pass in the run up to an election is up for debate.
Surely you're not suggesting it's simply a list of unpopular things that can be cashed in for some popularity when the next election is nearer?
Along with other polls, it does look as if the combination of schoolracistgate and Russiagate may have peeled a few soft Reformers away from the Farage love-in.
We will have to see what happens after the budget although the massively unpopular 2 child benefit cap removal was first supported by Reform.
But, yes, both seem to have hurt reform. Rightly so.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
There's a bigger risk in the other direction - DWP reckon approx £25 billion a year in unclaimed benefits. So there is an ulterior motive in UK Government keeping as damned complicated as possible.
I agree that IDS probably has a good legacy on the mechancis of welfare. A reforming government (which we do not have to any extent at all) would roll many more benefits and payments into it. The dream would be a Universal Income Tax to pair with Universal Credit, all on one system, that ensures there are no cliff-edges and everyone gets their correct payment/tax automatically.
It is almost a quasi universal income, or could be made to work as such, but would need to abolition of tax free allowance to fund it.
It would facilitate that in the future but all I'm suggesting is a system where HMRC, DWP speak to each other about household circumstances and it's all calculated together, alongside a much simpler income tax system (rolling CGT, NICs, IT, IHT etc into one tax) and finishing the job on UC - there are still too many payments that sit outside it.
Indeed.
I can't understand why Ms Reeves is even talking about removing IT from the basic state pension when all she needs tgo do is to ask SKS to order DWP to extract digit and implement PAYE on the state pensions (including SSP if not already done - I'm not sure about this), providing annual P60s, and calculating annual income like other human beings do.
They've made some slightly odd statements on state pension interaction with income tax since the budget. It does appear we will end up with a quadruple lock, but they give the impression they've only just realised it could be a problem to solve. There are plenty of untaxed benefits so shouldn't be a major issue for DWP.
Yes
I caught a bit of program my wife was watching, yesterday. A journalist with a seated audience explaining through the budget, rather well.
He’d interviewed Reeves, and was explaining the detail of what she’d said (using clips from the interview), popular misconceptions etc. Actually educative. Anyone know what the show was? Only heard some fragments - was in another room.
Anyway, he showed that the statement about the basic pension not being taxed was really full of caveats about when/where/how.
My state pension gets taxed already so seems more two Keir politics and lies.
I think Rachel Reeves survives this but if there’s evidence that Pippa Crerar of The Guardian alludes to and some of this was to stop a leadership challenge against Starmer then the First and Second Lords of the Treasury are in a lot of trouble.
Were the fibs all told outside Parliament, or did she tell some to the Commons too ?
That would likely be terminal.
A rare event - an upcoming PMQs where we need to stock up on popcorn...
You'll just end up with bad teeth. I read her article and it's puffball nonsense
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
Ah yes, the “it’s hostile media” excuse
I remember when IDS used to sing that song.
I suppose that is why all the left wing people are running away from Labour? Corbynites who read the Daily Mail?
You've misread my post, as is often your wont. There's nothing in there to indicate that I'm using 'hostile media' as an excuse or complaining about it. Just a matter of fact.
You are saying that the government is doing well and needs a new comms team.
The problem isn’t the comms team.
The government is… The Government. They have immense power. They have a huge majority in the House of Commons.
The problem is that it is being run without major direction.
The farcical treatment of the report on nuclear power was an example - the moment that reducing even the most ludicrous costs and delay was suggested… they hid behind the sofa. Because of the objection of something something human rights/international law. Despite the report being written by lawyers.
See also the trans issue - where the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of he existing law. And outright told the government to legislate if they wanted a different outcome…. Crickets.
They are in government, but not in power.
So govt commissions a nuclear report you like, promises to implement findings in full within 2 years and you still aren't happy with them?
I think Rachel Reeves survives this but if there’s evidence that Pippa Crerar of The Guardian alludes to and some of this was to stop a leadership challenge against Starmer then the First and Second Lords of the Treasury are in a lot of trouble.
Were the fibs all told outside Parliament, or did she tell some to the Commons too ?
That would likely be terminal.
A rare event - an upcoming PMQs where we need to stock up on popcorn...
You'll just end up with bad teeth. I read her article and it's puffball nonsense
Yes this was primarily a budget to fund the increased welfare spending Labour MPs demanded and to stop Labour voters going Green ie a political budget. It was not a budget required because of falling receipts and productivity though the extra tax on business and wealth creators and tax freezes for workers might lead to that.
You'll have to explain the productivity/tax bit to me.
Seems a bit odd not to invest in something with a payback. And if tax has an effect then it would have been marginal in the first place. If you are asking for millions in cash to improve productivity there are a lot more issues such as market size, comparative pricing, wage saving element, depreciation rates etc. Tax is way down at the bottom of that list. There are a number of projects I've worked on which are still there decades later and none were based on the short term tax rated because tax rates change. If someone has told you that, it sounds like an excuse to me.
If you are on the threshold between basic and higher rate tax or higher and additional rate tax why work harder to get a promotion and pay rise when it would all be taken in tax with the tax threshold freezes?
Erm... Because it won't?
Though a terrifyingly huge proportion of the public don't get that you only pay 40% on the slice above the threshold;
Our question was:
“Suppose that you earn £50,270, the highest amount in the basic rate 20% income tax band. You get a £1 a year pay rise, and are now in the 40% higher rate tax band. How much additional tax do you think you will pay?”
The options we gave were:
“a small amount of extra tax”, or “a substantial amount of extra tax” I think it’s clear that the correct answer is “a small amount”. But 50% of the public doesn’t agree...
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
Ah yes, the “it’s hostile media” excuse
I remember when IDS used to sing that song.
I suppose that is why all the left wing people are running away from Labour? Corbynites who read the Daily Mail?
You've misread my post, as is often your wont. There's nothing in there to indicate that I'm using 'hostile media' as an excuse or complaining about it. Just a matter of fact.
You are saying that the government is doing well and needs a new comms team.
The problem isn’t the comms team.
The government is… The Government. They have immense power. They have a huge majority in the House of Commons.
The problem is that it is being run without major direction.
The farcical treatment of the report on nuclear power was an example - the moment that reducing even the most ludicrous costs and delay was suggested… they hid behind the sofa. Because of the objection of something something human rights/international law. Despite the report being written by lawyers.
See also the trans issue - where the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of he existing law. And outright told the government to legislate if they wanted a different outcome…. Crickets.
They are in government, but not in power.
So govt commissions a nuclear report you like, promises to implement findings in full within 2 years and you still aren't happy with them?
It’s been kicked into the long grass.
They are reviewing it for x months. Then…
It’s like those promises for the “full implementation of the report from the public enquiry”. By the time it’s Sir Humphried, the folder of actions is empty.
Along with other polls, it does look as if the combination of schoolracistgate and Russiagate may have peeled a few soft Reformers away from the Farage love-in.
We will have to see what happens after the budget although the massively unpopular 2 child benefit cap removal was first supported by Reform.
But, yes, both seem to have hurt reform. Rightly so.
Is it massively unpopular? I appreciate that more people oppose it than support it, but I don't sense the depth of feeling over it compared with winter fuel payment.
Not convinced the upset about it will extend into next week. So far Labour have got lucky because there isn't an obvious issue to focus outrage on. That could change - fuel duty is certainly an option for that.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
I agree - if only new ways could be found to polish that turd, all would be well.
Indeed. A positive message that benefits and pensions are index linked/will continue to increase while workers tax free allowance is frozen for another three years will surely turn an unappreciative public around.
All those slackers will be desperate to get rid of their increased benefits and go work for less and get taxed as well, be a stampede.
"Soon-to-be-axed 7am Manchester-London train will still run – but without passengers Exclusive: Rail regulator pulls Avanti service from timetable from mid-December but it is needed for staff travel"
"Soon-to-be-axed 7am Manchester-London train will still run – but without passengers Exclusive: Rail regulator pulls Avanti service from timetable from mid-December but it is needed for staff travel"
What genius is responsible for this....how can you cut what must be absolute crucial train to link Manchester to London for business for several months.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
Ah yes, the “it’s hostile media” excuse
I remember when IDS used to sing that song.
I suppose that is why all the left wing people are running away from Labour? Corbynites who read the Daily Mail?
You've misread my post, as is often your wont. There's nothing in there to indicate that I'm using 'hostile media' as an excuse or complaining about it. Just a matter of fact.
You are saying that the government is doing well and needs a new comms team.
The problem isn’t the comms team.
The government is… The Government. They have immense power. They have a huge majority in the House of Commons.
The problem is that it is being run without major direction.
The farcical treatment of the report on nuclear power was an example - the moment that reducing even the most ludicrous costs and delay was suggested… they hid behind the sofa. Because of the objection of something something human rights/international law. Despite the report being written by lawyers...
I gave that a like, since in general it's true. With the particular example of the nuclear report (which is the single best and clearest set of recommendations for regulatory reform that a I've come across), it's yet to be seen whether they go for it or not.
Admittedly the signs aren't great (and already bodies like CPRE are stupidly lobbying against it), but they might yet adopt it.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
Ah yes, the “it’s hostile media” excuse
I remember when IDS used to sing that song.
I suppose that is why all the left wing people are running away from Labour? Corbynites who read the Daily Mail?
You've misread my post, as is often your wont. There's nothing in there to indicate that I'm using 'hostile media' as an excuse or complaining about it. Just a matter of fact.
You are saying that the government is doing well and needs a new comms team.
The problem isn’t the comms team.
The government is… The Government. They have immense power. They have a huge majority in the House of Commons.
The problem is that it is being run without major direction.
The farcical treatment of the report on nuclear power was an example - the moment that reducing even the most ludicrous costs and delay was suggested… they hid behind the sofa. Because of the objection of something something human rights/international law. Despite the report being written by lawyers.
See also the trans issue - where the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of he existing law. And outright told the government to legislate if they wanted a different outcome…. Crickets.
They are in government, but not in power.
So govt commissions a nuclear report you like, promises to implement findings in full within 2 years and you still aren't happy with them?
It’s been kicked into the long grass.
They are reviewing it for x months. Then…
It’s like those promises for the “full implementation of the report from the public enquiry”. By the time it’s Sir Humphried, the folder of actions is empty.
The grass isn't particularly long ... yet. Three months.
Sir Humphrey needs a quick knee in the unmentionables.
Along with other polls, it does look as if the combination of schoolracistgate and Russiagate may have peeled a few soft Reformers away from the Farage love-in.
We will have to see what happens after the budget although the massively unpopular 2 child benefit cap removal was first supported by Reform.
But, yes, both seem to have hurt reform. Rightly so.
Is it massively unpopular? I appreciate that more people oppose it than support it, but I don't sense the depth of feeling over it compared with winter fuel payment.
Not convinced the upset about it will extend into next week. So far Labour have got lucky because there isn't an obvious issue to focus outrage on. That could change - fuel duty is certainly an option for that.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
Ah yes, the “it’s hostile media” excuse
I remember when IDS used to sing that song.
I suppose that is why all the left wing people are running away from Labour? Corbynites who read the Daily Mail?
You've misread my post, as is often your wont. There's nothing in there to indicate that I'm using 'hostile media' as an excuse or complaining about it. Just a matter of fact.
You are saying that the government is doing well and needs a new comms team.
The problem isn’t the comms team.
The government is… The Government. They have immense power. They have a huge majority in the House of Commons.
The problem is that it is being run without major direction.
The farcical treatment of the report on nuclear power was an example - the moment that reducing even the most ludicrous costs and delay was suggested… they hid behind the sofa. Because of the objection of something something human rights/international law. Despite the report being written by lawyers.
See also the trans issue - where the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of he existing law. And outright told the government to legislate if they wanted a different outcome…. Crickets.
They are in government, but not in power.
So govt commissions a nuclear report you like, promises to implement findings in full within 2 years and you still aren't happy with them?
It’s been kicked into the long grass.
They are reviewing it for x months. Then…
It’s like those promises for the “full implementation of the report from the public enquiry”. By the time it’s Sir Humphried, the folder of actions is empty.
3 months to review is pretty fast by govt standards. I think Ed M. in particular is keen to drive this forward.
"Soon-to-be-axed 7am Manchester-London train will still run – but without passengers Exclusive: Rail regulator pulls Avanti service from timetable from mid-December but it is needed for staff travel"
What genius is responsible for this....how can you cut what must be absolute crucial train to link Manchester to London for business for several months.
probably the clown that thought taxi's for asylum seekers to the doctor's was a great wheeze , even at up to 600 a pop. Young, veterns , etc would be better getting to France and coming back over in a dinghy, they would be far better off
Along with other polls, it does look as if the combination of schoolracistgate and Russiagate may have peeled a few soft Reformers away from the Farage love-in.
We will have to see what happens after the budget although the massively unpopular 2 child benefit cap removal was first supported by Reform.
But, yes, both seem to have hurt reform. Rightly so.
Is it massively unpopular? I appreciate that more people oppose it than support it, but I don't sense the depth of feeling over it compared with winter fuel payment.
Not convinced the upset about it will extend into next week. So far Labour have got lucky because there isn't an obvious issue to focus outrage on. That could change - fuel duty is certainly an option for that.
Well 60 plus percent oppose it. I stand by what I say and suspect, from your posting history, you like to be contrary for the sake of it.
I cannot see fuel duty being an issue.
The change in rateable value of pubs/bars etc seems to be gaining traction.
Along with other polls, it does look as if the combination of schoolracistgate and Russiagate may have peeled a few soft Reformers away from the Farage love-in.
We will have to see what happens after the budget although the massively unpopular 2 child benefit cap removal was first supported by Reform.
But, yes, both seem to have hurt reform. Rightly so.
Is it massively unpopular? I appreciate that more people oppose it than support it, but I don't sense the depth of feeling over it compared with winter fuel payment.
Not convinced the upset about it will extend into next week. So far Labour have got lucky because there isn't an obvious issue to focus outrage on. That could change - fuel duty is certainly an option for that.
Not an issue in Morningside then, I am shocked
I wish I could give you the local intel on Morningside - I don't have the kind of intergenerational wealth required to buy a flat over there. I think the increased landlord tax will be a bigger issue in that ward.
Incidentally, the highest support for getting rid of the limit is in Scotland.
Yes this was primarily a budget to fund the increased welfare spending Labour MPs demanded and to stop Labour voters going Green ie a political budget. It was not a budget required because of falling receipts and productivity though the extra tax on business and wealth creators and tax freezes for workers might lead to that.
You'll have to explain the productivity/tax bit to me.
Seems a bit odd not to invest in something with a payback. And if tax has an effect then it would have been marginal in the first place. If you are asking for millions in cash to improve productivity there are a lot more issues such as market size, comparative pricing, wage saving element, depreciation rates etc. Tax is way down at the bottom of that list. There are a number of projects I've worked on which are still there decades later and none were based on the short term tax rated because tax rates change. If someone has told you that, it sounds like an excuse to me.
If you are on the threshold between basic and higher rate tax or higher and additional rate tax why work harder to get a promotion and pay rise when it would all be taken in tax with the tax threshold freezes?
The rhyme structure of that limerick sure needs attention. Just saying.
Wrexham AFC has risen meteorically through the English football leagues thanks to the deep pockets of Hollywood movie star owners Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney. Yet the club has also had £18m in help from other, unwitting backers: Welsh taxpayers.
The club has received almost £18m in nonrepayable grants from the Welsh government via the local council, according to UK government state aid disclosures – far in excess of the direct aid listed for any other football club in Britain.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
It depends on your benchmarks, Kirk.
Boris's government was corrupt, so you would expect removing it should fix that matter immediately. Truss's was batshit crazy and incompetent, so again dismissal puts that right straight away. The problems we face with the economy and state of public services are however more long term and are the cumulative result of protracted neglect. The last Chancellor to hand over an economy in decent repair was Ken Clarke and scant reward he got for it. Maybe if voters rewarded success more we'd get better government?
Anyway I think it would be unreasonable to expect a new Government to fix the long term problems in a couple of years. Give me a call in three more and I'll let you know how I thought they got on.
But we all love (or at least respect) Ken Clarke now. I don't understand why subsequent Chancellors aren't interested in legacy. You'll be lucky to get 5 years; use that time to generate 20 years of being a legend, book sales, speeches, QT appearances, generally being smug. If you're tolerable enough you could even get a gig doing travel shows for the BBC.
One of the issues is that our political society is seriously messed up. The old model was "decide what you want to do, then try to win an election so you can do it", but that's been overtaken by "decide what you need to say to win an election, then have a rotten time trying to implement it."
It's not totally malign- we want political parties who pay attention to what the public wants. But at some point, that culture overstepped the healthy line, so that politicians can't be honest with us.
Major and Clarke's fate, a landslide defeat after doing a decent enough job, was a terrible warning for a generation. It's why Sunak and Hunt frantically threw unaffordable tax cuts at us in the runup to 2024... only to go down to their own landslide against an objectively weaker opponent.
It's also devastating in local government, a political group that runs a council well/badly is neither rewarded of punished.
My experience is that whether a council is run well or badly is based on the competence of the council management, not the politicians. We are fortunate to have a well run council, and evidence shows it is well run irrespective of which political parties are in power. Our neighbouring council to the south is a shambles, also irrespective of the political makeup of the council.
Along with other polls, it does look as if the combination of schoolracistgate and Russiagate may have peeled a few soft Reformers away from the Farage love-in.
We will have to see what happens after the budget although the massively unpopular 2 child benefit cap removal was first supported by Reform.
But, yes, both seem to have hurt reform. Rightly so.
Is it massively unpopular? I appreciate that more people oppose it than support it, but I don't sense the depth of feeling over it compared with winter fuel payment.
Not convinced the upset about it will extend into next week. So far Labour have got lucky because there isn't an obvious issue to focus outrage on. That could change - fuel duty is certainly an option for that.
Not an issue in Morningside then, I am shocked
I wish I could give you the local intel on Morningside - I don't have the kind of intergenerational wealth required to buy a flat over there. I think the increased landlord tax will be a bigger issue in that ward.
Incidentally, the highest support for getting rid of the limit is in Scotland.
Also incidentally and perhaps a surprise to Taz (probably cos it was ignored down south, and not his fault), the SNP have been against the two child cap for ages. To the extent that a by election in the last parliament was won by a Slab candidate claiming to fight *against* the 2CC etc.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
Ah yes, the “it’s hostile media” excuse
I remember when IDS used to sing that song.
I suppose that is why all the left wing people are running away from Labour? Corbynites who read the Daily Mail?
You've misread my post, as is often your wont. There's nothing in there to indicate that I'm using 'hostile media' as an excuse or complaining about it. Just a matter of fact.
You are saying that the government is doing well and needs a new comms team.
The problem isn’t the comms team.
The government is… The Government. They have immense power. They have a huge majority in the House of Commons.
The problem is that it is being run without major direction.
The farcical treatment of the report on nuclear power was an example - the moment that reducing even the most ludicrous costs and delay was suggested… they hid behind the sofa. Because of the objection of something something human rights/international law. Despite the report being written by lawyers.
See also the trans issue - where the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of he existing law. And outright told the government to legislate if they wanted a different outcome…. Crickets.
They are in government, but not in power.
So govt commissions a nuclear report you like, promises to implement findings in full within 2 years and you still aren't happy with them?
It’s been kicked into the long grass.
They are reviewing it for x months. Then…
It’s like those promises for the “full implementation of the report from the public enquiry”. By the time it’s Sir Humphried, the folder of actions is empty.
The grass isn't particularly long ... yet. Three months.
Sir Humphrey needs a quick knee in the unmentionables.
Must finish my header on Blobs.
Short version - they are as inevitable as gravity. Learn to live with them.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
They have very poor communications certainly, but a lot of the problems could be fixed by properly adhering to budget purdah. The convention existed for a reason.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
There's a bigger risk in the other direction - DWP reckon approx £25 billion a year in unclaimed benefits. So there is an ulterior motive in UK Government keeping as damned complicated as possible.
I agree that IDS probably has a good legacy on the mechancis of welfare. A reforming government (which we do not have to any extent at all) would roll many more benefits and payments into it. The dream would be a Universal Income Tax to pair with Universal Credit, all on one system, that ensures there are no cliff-edges and everyone gets their correct payment/tax automatically.
It is almost a quasi universal income, or could be made to work as such, but would need to abolition of tax free allowance to fund it.
It would facilitate that in the future but all I'm suggesting is a system where HMRC, DWP speak to each other about household circumstances and it's all calculated together, alongside a much simpler income tax system (rolling CGT, NICs, IT, IHT etc into one tax) and finishing the job on UC - there are still too many payments that sit outside it.
Indeed.
I can't understand why Ms Reeves is even talking about removing IT from the basic state pension when all she needs tgo do is to ask SKS to order DWP to extract digit and implement PAYE on the state pensions (including SSP if not already done - I'm not sure about this), providing annual P60s, and calculating annual income like other human beings do.
They've made some slightly odd statements on state pension interaction with income tax since the budget. It does appear we will end up with a quadruple lock, but they give the impression they've only just realised it could be a problem to solve. There are plenty of untaxed benefits so shouldn't be a major issue for DWP.
Yes
I caught a bit of program my wife was watching, yesterday. A journalist with a seated audience explaining through the budget, rather well.
He’d interviewed Reeves, and was explaining the detail of what she’d said (using clips from the interview), popular misconceptions etc. Actually educative. Anyone know what the show was? Only heard some fragments - was in another room.
Anyway, he showed that the statement about the basic pension not being taxed was really full of caveats about when/where/how.
My state pension gets taxed already so seems more two Keir politics and lies.
So does mine. I wonder if I stopped taking income from my SIPP for a complete tax year, would I then not have to pay tax on my state pension, or would HMRC send me a bill?
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
Boris's government was corrupt
That's a bold claim, presented as a statement of fact. I assume you have some evidence of this?
'The Fall of Boris Johnson' Sebastian Payne. I think Decrepiter.John knows of 6 more!
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
Boris's government was corrupt
That's a bold claim, presented as a statement of fact. I assume you have some evidence of this?
'The Fall of Boris Johnson' Sebastian Payne. I think Decrepiter.John knows of 6 more!
Convictions? Charges? Arrests ?
Not that I am supporting the claim being made, but I think we can all think of people either personally or in public life who were not convicted, charged or arrested with anything who were corrupt.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
True, and all good points. However, government and parliament have a unique job no-one else is allowed to do - to legislate, amend, regulate, issue SIs and quantify.
How long do you give any government, new in office in 2024, before the basics of how such things are 'right now' is not the responsibility of the past, but of the present government and parliament?
I suggest roughly this, assuming no black swans: Within two years it is reasonable to expect everything the state undertakes to be responsible for is run competently and well.
Within 3-4 years the legislative framework under which it wants to work should be in place and running; with the public having a clear idea of the direction of travel for the future.
(So the gangs should be smashed and the small boats stopped pretty soon).
It depends on your benchmarks, Kirk.
Boris's government was corrupt, so you would expect removing it should fix that matter immediately. Truss's was batshit crazy and incompetent, so again dismissal puts that right straight away. The problems we face with the economy and state of public services are however more long term and are the cumulative result of protracted neglect. The last Chancellor to hand over an economy in decent repair was Ken Clarke and scant reward he got for it. Maybe if voters rewarded success more we'd get better government?
Anyway I think it would be unreasonable to expect a new Government to fix the long term problems in a couple of years. Give me a call in three more and I'll let you know how I thought they got on.
I think your view and mine are fairly consistent with each other. Perfection can wait, but competence in administering, delivering on promises, legislative sorting of egregious problems and communicating direction of travel cannot be allowed to take for ever otherwise a government is replaced before it can be expected to set its agenda and run the country properly.
Point taken. I expect we share a disappointment in its administrative incompetence, although I think that's been more on the political side than the actual doing of things. As you suggest however appearances and sorting the urgent problems are important because otherwise even a good government may be blown away before it has time to achieve much.
"Soon-to-be-axed 7am Manchester-London train will still run – but without passengers Exclusive: Rail regulator pulls Avanti service from timetable from mid-December but it is needed for staff travel"
This is what Rachel Reeves said about the OBR and low productivity:
The Office for Budget Responsibility – the UK’s public finance watchdog - will set out the conclusions of their review of the supply side of the UK economy.
I will not pre-empt those conclusions…
…but it is already clear that the productivity performance [political redaction] is weaker than previously thought.
A less productive economy is one that produces less output per hour worked.
That has consequences for working people – for their jobs and for their wages…
…and it has consequences for the public finances too, in lower tax receipts.
Which is not quite as Swinford says. Firstly the OBR did say what Reeves claimed even if the OBR qualified it with other observations that Reeves didn't reveal. Also low British productivity is hardly a secret. Finally, maybe implied by Swinford and explicitly stated by others: the chancellor decides what headroom and taxes to go for according to their risk appetite, not the OBR, As recently as this summer the OBR had a very different picture of the fiscal situation. These reports are points in time. Anyone relying on them as an instruction is making a big mistake.
None of this means Reeves is in the clear, but if you claim someone is lying - they said X and it was actually Y - you want X and Y to be very obvious and precise. Right now they are not.
Along with other polls, it does look as if the combination of schoolracistgate and Russiagate may have peeled a few soft Reformers away from the Farage love-in.
We will have to see what happens after the budget although the massively unpopular 2 child benefit cap removal was first supported by Reform.
But, yes, both seem to have hurt reform. Rightly so.
Is it massively unpopular? I appreciate that more people oppose it than support it, but I don't sense the depth of feeling over it compared with winter fuel payment.
Not convinced the upset about it will extend into next week. So far Labour have got lucky because there isn't an obvious issue to focus outrage on. That could change - fuel duty is certainly an option for that.
Not an issue in Morningside then, I am shocked
I wish I could give you the local intel on Morningside - I don't have the kind of intergenerational wealth required to buy a flat over there. I think the increased landlord tax will be a bigger issue in that ward.
Incidentally, the highest support for getting rid of the limit is in Scotland.
Interesting and indeed the Yougov post budget poll had the highest percentage thinking the Reeves budget was fair also in Scotland, 25% to just 21% UK wide. That suggests Scottish Labour will make some gains from the SNP at Holyrood next year as the Hamilton by election suggested which might be enough for Starmer to survive despite Labour losses to Reform and the Greens in England and to Reform and Plaid in Wales.
Indeed with Reform and Labour gains from the SNP likely a Unionist majority is not impossible at Holyrood for the first time since 2011
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
There's a bigger risk in the other direction - DWP reckon approx £25 billion a year in unclaimed benefits. So there is an ulterior motive in UK Government keeping as damned complicated as possible.
I agree that IDS probably has a good legacy on the mechancis of welfare. A reforming government (which we do not have to any extent at all) would roll many more benefits and payments into it. The dream would be a Universal Income Tax to pair with Universal Credit, all on one system, that ensures there are no cliff-edges and everyone gets their correct payment/tax automatically.
It is almost a quasi universal income, or could be made to work as such, but would need to abolition of tax free allowance to fund it.
It would facilitate that in the future but all I'm suggesting is a system where HMRC, DWP speak to each other about household circumstances and it's all calculated together, alongside a much simpler income tax system (rolling CGT, NICs, IT, IHT etc into one tax) and finishing the job on UC - there are still too many payments that sit outside it.
Indeed.
I can't understand why Ms Reeves is even talking about removing IT from the basic state pension when all she needs tgo do is to ask SKS to order DWP to extract digit and implement PAYE on the state pensions (including SSP if not already done - I'm not sure about this), providing annual P60s, and calculating annual income like other human beings do.
They've made some slightly odd statements on state pension interaction with income tax since the budget. It does appear we will end up with a quadruple lock, but they give the impression they've only just realised it could be a problem to solve. There are plenty of untaxed benefits so shouldn't be a major issue for DWP.
Yes
I caught a bit of program my wife was watching, yesterday. A journalist with a seated audience explaining through the budget, rather well.
He’d interviewed Reeves, and was explaining the detail of what she’d said (using clips from the interview), popular misconceptions etc. Actually educative. Anyone know what the show was? Only heard some fragments - was in another room.
Anyway, he showed that the statement about the basic pension not being taxed was really full of caveats about when/where/how.
My state pension gets taxed already so seems more two Keir politics and lies.
So does mine. I wonder if I stopped taking income from my SIPP for a complete tax year, would I then not have to pay tax on my state pension, or would HMRC send me a bill?
And I pay on my state pension. Fairly sure they that they would send you a bill.
Along with other polls, it does look as if the combination of schoolracistgate and Russiagate may have peeled a few soft Reformers away from the Farage love-in.
We will have to see what happens after the budget although the massively unpopular 2 child benefit cap removal was first supported by Reform.
But, yes, both seem to have hurt reform. Rightly so.
Is it massively unpopular? I appreciate that more people oppose it than support it, but I don't sense the depth of feeling over it compared with winter fuel payment.
Not convinced the upset about it will extend into next week. So far Labour have got lucky because there isn't an obvious issue to focus outrage on. That could change - fuel duty is certainly an option for that.
Not an issue in Morningside then, I am shocked
I wish I could give you the local intel on Morningside - I don't have the kind of intergenerational wealth required to buy a flat over there. I think the increased landlord tax will be a bigger issue in that ward.
Incidentally, the highest support for getting rid of the limit is in Scotland.
Interesting and indeed the Yougov post budget poll had the highest percentage thinking the Reeves budget was fair also in Scotland, 25% to just 21% UK wide. That suggests Scottish Labour will make some gains from the SNP at Holyrood next year as the Hamilton by election suggested which might be enough for Starmer to survive despite Labour losses to Reform and the Greens in England and to Reform and Plaid in Wales.
Indeed with Reform and Labour gains from the SNP likely a Unionist majority is not impossible at Holyrood for the first time since 2011
I don’t see a Labour, Reform, Conservative, Lib Dem coalition being likely, though.
I know I keep banging this drum but welfare spending is perfectly in line with trends around obesity. You can draw a straight line from 2010 to now - COVID just accelerated the process somewhat. The scary thing is that health spending is growing even faster. That map misses out Wales - if you look at where Reform are doing well there, it's also in the spots with the highest rates of long term health issues.
The reason the two-child limit had to go is there was also a projected significant increase in child poverty. It's simply impossible for a Labour government to preside over that.
I suspect the trouble Reeves and Labour could be in over the budget will be not much related to the 'misleading'. Being misleading, when bits of a long narrative are examined, feels like par for the course to a cynical public.
The story which will run and run is of a government whose emphasis looks as if its big priority, at the expense of workers, is those on benefits, with a sub text of a priority of raising taxes to fund higher pay in the public sector, and a sub sub text of cushioning pensioners.
Thresholds + salary sacrifice + IHT on small businesses and farms + employers NI.
The DM and Goodwin can run benefits abuse stories every day. They exist. IMHO they are right to scrap the 2 child cap; but the issue of whether too much money is going in benefits in the wrong direction remains.
The dead hand of benefits (legislation) is the problem. Each benefit is legally paid according to the schedules set down in the various acts of Parliament. There will be bending of the rules in *some* cases which is currently measured at between 3%-4%. Also the benefits are paid after a lot of checking / cross checking / visits to a Tribunal so it's not that easy to get the largesse that the media suggests. The basic issue as has been laid out before is the need for a long term review of the legislation, its effects, and how does the nation provide a safety net for those that need help.
There are also a number of cliff edges within benefits legislation such as with Pension Credit and all the extras that come with it. Triple lock, WFA, and Motability all create these edges which allow people to create wedge issues in the media and politics.
But bear in mind, that the current welfare structure was designed over 20 years ago by someone called Ian Duncan Smith. He made a decent fist of it in that it has characteristics of an insurance scheme, but perhaps he needs to be called back to revisit his efforts and improve it.
There's a bigger risk in the other direction - DWP reckon approx £25 billion a year in unclaimed benefits. So there is an ulterior motive in UK Government keeping as damned complicated as possible.
I agree that IDS probably has a good legacy on the mechancis of welfare. A reforming government (which we do not have to any extent at all) would roll many more benefits and payments into it. The dream would be a Universal Income Tax to pair with Universal Credit, all on one system, that ensures there are no cliff-edges and everyone gets their correct payment/tax automatically.
It is almost a quasi universal income, or could be made to work as such, but would need to abolition of tax free allowance to fund it.
It would facilitate that in the future but all I'm suggesting is a system where HMRC, DWP speak to each other about household circumstances and it's all calculated together, alongside a much simpler income tax system (rolling CGT, NICs, IT, IHT etc into one tax) and finishing the job on UC - there are still too many payments that sit outside it.
Indeed.
I can't understand why Ms Reeves is even talking about removing IT from the basic state pension when all she needs tgo do is to ask SKS to order DWP to extract digit and implement PAYE on the state pensions (including SSP if not already done - I'm not sure about this), providing annual P60s, and calculating annual income like other human beings do.
They've made some slightly odd statements on state pension interaction with income tax since the budget. It does appear we will end up with a quadruple lock, but they give the impression they've only just realised it could be a problem to solve. There are plenty of untaxed benefits so shouldn't be a major issue for DWP.
Yes
I caught a bit of program my wife was watching, yesterday. A journalist with a seated audience explaining through the budget, rather well.
He’d interviewed Reeves, and was explaining the detail of what she’d said (using clips from the interview), popular misconceptions etc. Actually educative. Anyone know what the show was? Only heard some fragments - was in another room.
Anyway, he showed that the statement about the basic pension not being taxed was really full of caveats about when/where/how.
My state pension gets taxed already so seems more two Keir politics and lies.
So does mine. I wonder if I stopped taking income from my SIPP for a complete tax year, would I then not have to pay tax on my state pension, or would HMRC send me a bill?
And I pay on my state pension. Fairly sure they that they would send you a bill.
So am I. However, if I only had a state pension, apparently they wouldn’t send me a bill. I forsee a legal challenge from someone.
Opponents of the government have been very successful in portraying the increases in (some) taxes as being solely to fund feckless scroungers. In reality, quite a lot of extra money is being deployed to fund stuff for the common good, whether it be the NHS/new health centres, investment money for regional mayors, frozen rail fares, investment in apprenticeships/skills training, £150 off energy bills, and many more.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
Ah yes, the “it’s hostile media” excuse
I remember when IDS used to sing that song.
I suppose that is why all the left wing people are running away from Labour? Corbynites who read the Daily Mail?
You've misread my post, as is often your wont. There's nothing in there to indicate that I'm using 'hostile media' as an excuse or complaining about it. Just a matter of fact.
You are saying that the government is doing well and needs a new comms team.
The problem isn’t the comms team.
The government is… The Government. They have immense power. They have a huge majority in the House of Commons.
The problem is that it is being run without major direction.
The farcical treatment of the report on nuclear power was an example - the moment that reducing even the most ludicrous costs and delay was suggested… they hid behind the sofa. Because of the objection of something something human rights/international law. Despite the report being written by lawyers.
See also the trans issue - where the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of he existing law. And outright told the government to legislate if they wanted a different outcome…. Crickets.
They are in government, but not in power.
So govt commissions a nuclear report you like, promises to implement findings in full within 2 years and you still aren't happy with them?
It’s been kicked into the long grass.
They are reviewing it for x months. Then…
It’s like those promises for the “full implementation of the report from the public enquiry”. By the time it’s Sir Humphried, the folder of actions is empty.
The grass isn't particularly long ... yet. Three months.
Sir Humphrey needs a quick knee in the unmentionables.
Must finish my header on Blobs.
Short version - they are as inevitable as gravity. Learn to live with them.
Determined ministers can still do stuff. Not sure we have any on this one.
If they fail on this then I'll abandon any remaining hope they will do anything of positive significance.
"Soon-to-be-axed 7am Manchester-London train will still run – but without passengers Exclusive: Rail regulator pulls Avanti service from timetable from mid-December but it is needed for staff travel"
I imagine that correlates pretty well with poverty. So a poorer => fatter feedback loop is probably a thing. May god have mercy on the North East hospital trusts.
Comments
If Reeves had decided to do something dramatic about that she would surely at least have been given credit for trying something.
*Raise minimum wage to reduce the in-work benefits bill
*Change the structure of the rental market to reduce the inflationary effects on housing benefit
*In the upcoming Employment Rights Act, there is the Fair Work Agency which will be the ICE of the employment market looking to take legal action against those that do not pay minimum wage or who breach Employment Law. This might also extend to gig economy. Every wage is an opportunity to tax, so wages matter.
*Immigration. The Boris Wave and importing low wage people with families will be expensive when these low wage/low added value disappear. Changes so that people have to wait longer will push any costs further into the future.
*More babies (my favourite) as some may not end up as chavs but may actually become MP's and other worthies.
There will be other approaches but they are all aimed at taking the pressure off the long term costs to the economy as if they don't, there will be a taxpayers' or gilts revolt.
Quadruple lock - the full state pension rate *is* the personal allowance.
But I don’t think they think like that.
Of course I would advocate doing that as a part of rebuilding IT {insert standard PB tax plan here}
It's not totally malign- we want political parties who pay attention to what the public wants. But at some point, that culture overstepped the healthy line, so that politicians can't be honest with us.
Major and Clarke's fate, a landslide defeat after doing a decent enough job, was a terrible warning for a generation. It's why Sunak and Hunt frantically threw unaffordable tax cuts at us in the runup to 2024... only to go down to their own landslide against an objectively weaker opponent.
Sounds utterly horrible and very likely to descend infighting.
No, wait….
Must be much worse now, caught between mandatory spending and capped income. I've even got some sympathy for Reformers who danced in, thinking it would be easy. Just not very much.
It’s fine to make a political decision to increase welfare spending and you should go out and argue for that. But to lie about the reason undermines the ability of the voters to make a properly informed choice at the next election
The point is more that everyone took the wrong lesson from it. If your government is doomed, use the opportunity to do the right things. Be a Ken, because being a Jeremy won't save you.
Work (or politics) should not be a dinner party. Its about working together on common goals. That said, I am not sure that Sultana and Corbyn have many common goals.
Seems a bit odd not to invest in something with a payback. And if tax has an effect then it would have been marginal in the first place. If you are asking for millions in cash to improve productivity there are a lot more issues such as market size, comparative pricing, wage saving element, depreciation rates etc. Tax is way down at the bottom of that list. There are a number of projects I've worked on which are still there decades later and none were based on the short term tax rated because tax rates change. If someone has told you that, it sounds like an excuse to me.
The text
"...if there’s evidence that Pippa Crerar of The Guardian alludes to and some of this was to stop a leadership challenge against Starmer..."
should be
"...if there’s evidence that Pippa Crerar of The Guardian alludes to that some of this was to stop a leadership challenge against Starmer..."
or even
"...if there’s evidence (that Pippa Crerar of The Guardian alludes to) that some of this was to stop a leadership challenge against Starmer..."
They are taxed to the hilt and I am both indexed and lightly taxed compared with them. The budget has made that slightly worse for them. It is a political mistake.
The biggest failure of this government is to let a hostile media set the agenda. They are absolutely crap at getting positive messages about what it is doing out to the general public. A new comms team is needed.
Reform have peaked
https://x.com/polliticouk/status/1994704741662953954?s=61
I remember when IDS used to sing that song.
I suppose that is why all the left wing people are running away from Labour? Corbynites who read the Daily Mail?
tax or higher and additional rate
tax why work harder to get a
promotion and pay rise when it
would all be taken in tax with the tax threshold freezes?
The Justice Department estimated that this represents 4.5 billion doses of cocaine and that he was “at the center of one of the largest and most violent drug-trafficking conspiracies in the world.”
He is responsible for the deaths of countless American citizens, and will now be pardoned by Donald Trump.
Don’t tell me Donald Trump is killing people in boats in the Caribbean to stop drug trafficking.
https://x.com/JoaquinCastrotx/status/1994531453749928155
Which, given the fact that this is PB, is a problem...
Though a terrifyingly huge proportion of the public don't get that you only pay 40% on the slice above the threshold;
Our question was:
“Suppose that you earn £50,270, the highest amount in the basic rate 20% income tax band. You get a £1 a year pay rise, and are now in the 40% higher rate tax band. How much additional tax do you think you will pay?”
The options we gave were:
“a small amount of extra tax”, or
“a substantial amount of extra tax”
I think it’s clear that the correct answer is “a small amount”. But 50% of the public doesn’t agree...
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/04/21/public_understanding_income_tax/
The other major change is that websites that have not implemented age controls have seen a significant increase in traffic from the UK. Many of these sites are less moderated and more likely to host extreme and illegal content than the major players who have implemented controls.
Getting away from the facts, my view is that the OSA is yet another case of politicians attempting to control technology without understanding it, along with the attempts to force providers like Apple and WhatsApp to provide back doors into end-to-end encryption. Attempting to put age verification on VPNs will again lead to a never ending cycle of Ofcom chasing non-compliant providers. And there will always be ways around age controls. The only way they are going to stop children accessing porn sites using VPNs would be to ban VPNs completely by building a UK equivalent to the Great Firewall of China (and even that is not fully effective). Doing so would turn the UK into a digital pariah state.
Ideally they would have been transferred to gas and petrol/diesel instead - we'll see if the fuel duty rise actually comes to pass.
The problem isn’t the comms team.
The government is… The Government. They have immense power. They have a huge majority in the House of Commons.
The problem is that it is being run without major direction.
The farcical treatment of the report on nuclear power was an example - the moment that reducing even the most ludicrous costs and delay was suggested… they hid behind the sofa. Because of the objection of something something human rights/international law. Despite the report being written by lawyers.
See also the trans issue - where the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of he existing law. And outright told the government to legislate if they wanted a different outcome…. Crickets.
They are in government, but not in power.
But, yes, both seem to have hurt reform. Rightly so.
Knowing that our most popular party is led by a nasty racist and is now sliding towards the hell of obscurity......
......shouldn't that be worth celebrating whether left right or centre?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce865kpdzz8o
They are reviewing it for x months. Then…
It’s like those promises for the “full implementation of the report from the public enquiry”. By the time it’s Sir Humphried, the folder of actions is empty.
Not convinced the upset about it will extend into next week. So far Labour have got lucky because there isn't an obvious issue to focus outrage on. That could change - fuel duty is certainly an option for that.
Exclusive: Rail regulator pulls Avanti service from timetable from mid-December but it is needed for staff travel"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/nov/29/avanti-axed-7am-manchester-london-train-will-run-without-passengers
With the particular example of the nuclear report (which is the single best and clearest set of recommendations for regulatory reform that a I've come across), it's yet to be seen whether they go for it or not.
Admittedly the signs aren't great (and already bodies like CPRE are stupidly lobbying against it), but they might yet adopt it.
Three months.
Sir Humphrey needs a quick knee in the unmentionables.
I think Ed M. in particular is keen to drive this forward.
Young, veterns , etc would be better getting to France and coming back over in a dinghy, they would be far better off
I cannot see fuel duty being an issue.
The change in rateable value of pubs/bars etc seems to be gaining traction.
Incidentally, the highest support for getting rid of the limit is in Scotland.
The club has received almost £18m in nonrepayable grants from the Welsh government via the local council, according to UK government state aid disclosures – far in excess of the direct aid listed for any other football club in Britain.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/nov/29/wrexham-afc-receives-18m-from-government-despite-hollywood-backing
Short version - they are as inevitable as gravity. Learn to live with them.
Source for the RF paper https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-07/Working paper - A microsimulation model for multimorbidity in England.pdf
So population is older, but smokes less, drinks less, is more active (maybe jobs are less active)?
So what's the reason?
We're fatter!!
One for Andrea Jenkyns' conference karaoke https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7_ZzfmWNI8
The Office for Budget Responsibility – the UK’s public finance watchdog - will set out the conclusions of their review of the supply side of the UK economy.
I will not pre-empt those conclusions…
…but it is already clear that the productivity performance [political redaction] is weaker than previously thought.
A less productive economy is one that produces less output per hour worked.
That has consequences for working people – for their jobs and for their wages…
…and it has consequences for the public finances too, in lower tax receipts.
[More stuff about how low productivity is bad]
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellors-scene-setter-speech-ahead-of-budget-2025
Which is not quite as Swinford says. Firstly the OBR did say what Reeves claimed even if the OBR qualified it with other observations that Reeves didn't reveal. Also low British productivity is hardly a secret. Finally, maybe implied by Swinford and explicitly stated by others: the chancellor decides what headroom and taxes to go for according to their risk appetite, not the OBR, As recently as this summer the OBR had a very different picture of the fiscal situation. These reports are points in time. Anyone relying on them as an instruction is making a big mistake.
None of this means Reeves is in the clear, but if you claim someone is lying - they said X and it was actually Y - you want X and Y to be very obvious and precise. Right now they are not.
Indeed with Reform and Labour gains from the SNP likely a Unionist majority is not impossible at Holyrood for the first time since 2011
The reason the two-child limit had to go is there was also a projected significant increase in child poverty. It's simply impossible for a Labour government to preside over that.
Not sure we have any on this one.
If they fail on this then I'll abandon any remaining hope they will do anything of positive significance.