"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
A country which runs a continuous trade deficit is not under consuming.
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
It's no surprise that most of the well-heeled citizens of PB regard the years of coalition government as a golden age. However, not all share that view. Osborne's exhortation of 'we're all in this together' in regard to austerity was simply not true. Public sector workers, those on benefits and others bore the brunt of repeated freezes or below-inflation rises in their income, not the middle classes or the rich. And it stored up problems for the future, with consequent demands for pay restoration by those negatively affected. Although, to be fair, the rises in the income tax allowance did help a bit.
Yes. I would add that the enormous cuts in capital spending paved the way for 15 years of economic stagnation. It was particularly damaging since borrowing money was so cheap at that time.
On topic, it's a salutary lesson that the Ming Vase strategy is a derisory one.
The Labour vote share collapsed even before the election, denying them a real mandate, and they've been able to command virtually no loyalty from their MPs, members or voters whilst in office as a consequence.
Keir Starmer is a case study in the almost total absence of political leadership.
With hindsight Starmer probably would be better off with a smaller majority but a bigger mandate for change.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
A country which runs a continuous trade deficit is not under consuming.
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
I'm curious as to how the balance of household debt has changed.
I get the impression that there are many people with high levels of household debt and many with zero.
Certainly student debt is much more of a thing than for previous generations and perhaps car finance debt is as well.
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. And our economy is sclerotic. The two are not unconnected.
Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
What you are saying is that we need more spending, and more investment. True. The individual saver is merely enabling the more expert and efficient allocation of money for both spending (you don't want to borrow money to buy a car, but someone else does) and for investment (I don't directly supply the cash for capital investment in factories, being neither clever nor rich enough, but the HSBC does).
On topic, it's a salutary lesson that the Ming Vase strategy is a derisory one.
The Labour vote share collapsed even before the election, denying them a real mandate, and they've been able to command virtually no loyalty from their MPs, members or voters whilst in office as a consequence.
Keir Starmer is a case study in the almost total absence of political leadership.
With hindsight Starmer probably would be better off with a smaller majority but a bigger mandate for change.
Arguably, Theresa May managed to do more post GE2017 with a majority of 4 following the DUP-Conservative S&C agreement
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
And Good Morning from me.
For me, that level of child 'cruelty' provides an excellent reason to not only not vote Conservative, but to actively seek to try to ensure a Conservative candidate is not re-elected.
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
Yes, this has very little support outside Westminster and the progressive fraternity.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Had they made welfare savings with one hand and directed them toward poor families with children on the other, they'd have got away with it. But with welfare spending inexorably rising and Labour having done nothing to deal with the causes, they could well find themselves very exposed.
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
Yes, this has very little support outside Westminster and the progressive fraternity.
It is a question of fairness and certainly seems to be where the majority of the public are
Yougov 11th November 2025
Currently there is a two child limit on the number of children parents can claim child related welfare benefits for. Do you think this limit should be kept, or should be it be abolished?
The problem, of course, is that the Right Wing Media, The Civil Service*, Labour Defectors, Labour Backbenchers and The British People have Failed The Government**.
The obvious solution is to abolish them.
*See Starmer’s comments on The Blob **Back in the 60s, Labour like using the slogan “X has Failed The Nation”
1. The business of governing (public relations, Ministerial good behaviour ((or at least bad behaviour going unreported)), managing the parliamentary timetable, whipping operation/party management, summing up the mood of the nation appropriately when needed etc.) 2. The agenda. Reforms, budgets/taxation, adding regulation, removing regulation, providing public services, creating a thriving economy, improving standards of living, enhancing the public realm, how the constitution evolves.
The first is important - vital actually. Truss scores something like a 1.5/10 on the first, so much as I support her agenda, she never got to implement it because of her lack of mastery over the business of governing.
However, it isn't everything. The coalition scores far lower on agenda, because it was a mushy middle Government that made no attempt to reverse deeply damaging Blairite constitutional innovations, and in some cases brought it its own very misguided ones. You can be moving very efficiently and smoothly to the wrong destination. In many ways, that's worse. Starmer's Government would be all the more destructive if it were capable.
On topic, it's a salutary lesson that the Ming Vase strategy is a derisory one.
The Labour vote share collapsed even before the election, denying them a real mandate, and they've been able to command virtually no loyalty from their MPs, members or voters whilst in office as a consequence.
Keir Starmer is a case study in the almost total absence of political leadership.
With hindsight Starmer probably would be better off with a smaller majority but a bigger mandate for change.
Arguably, Theresa May managed to do more post GE2017 with a majority of 4 following the DUP-Conservative S&C agreement
It’s not about “mandates” either.
Starmer has a huge majority. If he’d used it to do sensible, Labour adjacent things (people here can provide a list), then the Labour Party wouldn’t be vanishing before our eyes.
Instead, he went for continuity managerialism, with every decision or action to be delayed or stopped using legal/process challenges.
And no, this isn’t about suggesting breaking the law. Parliament is there to make or change laws.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
On topic, it's a salutary lesson that the Ming Vase strategy is a derisory one.
The Labour vote share collapsed even before the election, denying them a real mandate, and they've been able to command virtually no loyalty from their MPs, members or voters whilst in office as a consequence.
Keir Starmer is a case study in the almost total absence of political leadership.
I think this conflates "Ming Vase concealing a hidden plan" with "Ming Vase without a plan". The phrase was used of Blair's 1997 campaign, and I think regardless of what you feel about the policies of that government they weren't particularly chaotic, rudderless or unprincipled, and they had plenty of things they'd thought through and then implemented once they got into power.
If you have no particular strong guiding principles, preprepared plan and direction behind your attempt to gain power then that kind of pushes you into "Ming Vase" for your election campaign by default, but your downfall will be the lack of principles, planning and direction, not your electoral strategy.
It is worth remembering that the last government also had, by historic standards, a very large majority. Larger than Blair or Brown in New Labour's final term, larger than Eden and Macmillan in the 1955-59 Parliament, larger than Heath, larger than Wilson except from 1966-68.
That didn't stop factions forming. Johnson's messy resignation and Truss' decision to rely on a narrow clique of supporters were largely to blame, but not solely.
Yes, but that was at the end of a long period in office and followed Johnson's ridiculous personality cult and tossing overboard those who didn't swear fealty earnestly enough. Having internal problems in the first years following a landslide victory is rather astonishing.
It's what happens when you have back benches full of social workers. Running the economy is someone else's responsibility.
Social workers who don’t like making tough decisions.
There is not a social worker born who lasts more than five minutes who isn't able to take tough decisions. By the time pretty much *anything* gets to social services all that is left is a very difficult choice between at least two suboptimal outcomes. The only exception would be a child living temporarily with a close family member for educational reasons.
Isn't this why they are on Labour's back benches, rather than still social workers? The ones who can hack it are still doing it, the ones who can't have found union activity, follow by political party greasy pole climbing are easier.
On the general ignorance of Labour MPs, I currently have one. He posted on Facebook this week:
𝐁𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐔𝐩 🔄
Your priorities are our priorities:
✅ Cutting the cost of living ✅ Cutting NHS waiting lists ✅ Cutting the national debt
The first one is debatable - I mean their budget measures will fuel inflation, make working people pay more tax, and increase the cost of fuel and rents, but I suppose at least he can claim that some of the measures (like moving some of the green levies off electric bills) are attempting to cut the cost of living.
I'd give him the 2nd - they do seem to be trying quite hard to do this (although they are very high mainly because we had a National Covid Service for 2 years, so you'd bally well hope waiting lists started to come down once that had finished).
But to claim the 3rd implies that he has no idea about the difference between debt and deficit, nor has he noticed that Reeves has increased the deficit at every budget, but is pretending that is OK because it's all borrowing for "investment". To cut the national debt would require her to run a surplus, her plans at the moment are at best to only be increasing the debt at the same pace as GDP growth in 5 years time. To claim they are cutting the debt makes him terminally stupid, a liar, or both.
Mind you he is a bloke who put a leaflet through my door a month or so ago, which trumpeted proudly "reinstating winter fuel payments for thousands of pensioners" as one of the six notable achievements of this government, which I thought was an interesting choice of boast.
Excellent analysis..but depressingly would go over the heads of 99% of voters..🧐🥴
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
And Your Party backs @zarahsultana’s preferred option to allow members also to be members of other left wing parties and groups - subject to the agreement of the party executive.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I did like the responses to the story of the lady with a number of children, who was getting substantial support from the state.
Also note that the overall benefit cap hasn’t been modified.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
The answer to the problem of a low birth rate is much bigger than who gets access to benefits or not.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Power cuts.
So we need another bout of Heathite mismanagement to head us away from the demographic cliff?
Three-day week >> rolling power cuts >> increased birth-rate.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Power cuts.
In the late 90s, the one video shop in Malmesbury closed for some months. Reopened under new owners, the next year.
The local doctors noticed that….
So perhaps, if we turn off domestic Internet every evening between 9pm and 7am?
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
What about when she's supporting a Reform - Con coalition?
It's no surprise that most of the well-heeled citizens of PB regard the years of coalition government as a golden age. However, not all share that view. Osborne's exhortation of 'we're all in this together' in regard to austerity was simply not true. Public sector workers, those on benefits and others bore the brunt of repeated freezes or below-inflation rises in their income, not the middle classes or the rich. And it stored up problems for the future, with consequent demands for pay restoration by those negatively affected. Although, to be fair, the rises in the income tax allowance did help a bit.
Yes. I would add that the enormous cuts in capital spending paved the way for 15 years of economic stagnation. It was particularly damaging since borrowing money was so cheap at that time.
That and precipitating Brexit were their biggest mistakes.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Power cuts.
Memories of the 1973 ones as a teenager - not that we got any chance to do our duty by the nation.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
The answer to the problem of a low birth rate is much bigger than who gets access to benefits or not.
Indeed - but if finance is part of the problem ... and it is something the state can do. As opposed to ordering people to chuck the rubber johnnies in the wpb.
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
What about when she's supporting a Reform - Con coalition?
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
What about when she's supporting a Reform - Con coalition?
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
What about when she's supporting a Reform - Con coalition?
Having a smaller majority helps keep MPs in line because disagreements become existential for the government and their jobs. The Ming vase/blank piece of paper strategy delivered a very shallow support base and this is the result. Individual MPs don't know what they signed up for, the public doesn't know what they voted for and the government is unable to corrale it's MPs into voting for controversial issues like welfare reform.
As was mentioned earlier, lifting the 2 child benefit cap would have been ok if it was funded through cutting some other kind of welfare. That is has been funded directly from a tax rise on working people is what's made it so utterly toxic for the government. That the PM is unable to get any kind of welfare reform agenda through his own MPs is a result of the terrible campaign he ran where it became clear he was afraid of his own shadow.
David Gentile reported to prison on Nov. 14 to begin a 7-year sentence for what prosecutors described as a $1.6B scheme that defrauded thousands of victims.
David Gentile reported to prison on Nov. 14 to begin a 7-year sentence for what prosecutors described as a $1.6B scheme that defrauded thousands of victims.
An under-appreciated effect of coalition is that the stakes are higher and the cost greater for the sort of damaging leaking and briefing against colleagues that has afflicted this Labour and the last Tory government, and therefore it happens less often. Because ‘your side’ is in coalition with the other lot, there’s a strong centripetal force within each party, since briefing against your own colleagues risks giving an edge to the other side of the coalition, who are effectively your rivals, as well as to the opposition as your opponents. And while a degree of briefing against the other side of the coalition is inevitable, the risk of destabilising the whole arrangement means that it is done judiciously and tends to focus on the political argument rather than on the type of personal attacks and tittle-tattle that can come back to bite.
There’s also less career incentive to destabilise a minister from the other half of the coalition, since if they get brought down you know they will be replaced from someone from the same party, and not by you or your friends. Which applies right up to the top - no LibDem had any reason to be undermining Cameron’s leadership of the Tories. Such trouble that there was mainly came from a minority within the Tory party who never reconciled themselves to coalition in the first place.
Very good points in favour of PR.
The Conservatives, of course, enthusiastically targeted the seats of their coalition partners in 2015, and the long term plans of the coalition, for better or worse (the latter IMO) all became might have beens.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
A country which runs a continuous trade deficit is not under consuming.
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
Three points here.
1. You make my point for me on government debt. See also Japan (our ghost of Christmas yet to come in so many ways). The less companies and consumers spend, the more government spends and the more debt it racks up. Especially in a country where VAT is a big revenue source.
2. 2008 is both a straw man (spending and borrowing more doesn’t mean spending and borrowing to excess) and only a partial analogue. Despite protestations to the contrary across politics - but generally not by economists - the cause of 2008 was not over-extended British consumers, it was overextended financial institutions exposed to a group of overextended US consumers, triggering a systemic crisis. But banks are now under extended and sweating their assets too much.
3. Our corporate savings are even more woefully high than our household savings. And corporates not spending is an even bigger problem. We have pretty much the lowest business investment rates in the developed world. Then people wonder why productivity doesn’t rise as quickly as in France or the US. The bean counters rule the roost. It’s not necessarily a problem primarily of policy: I think it’s cultural. We are a nation of risk-averse asset sweaters.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Power cuts.
So we need another bout of Heathite mismanagement to head us away from the demographic cliff?
Three-day week >> rolling power cuts >> increased birth-rate.
I don't think that true. In 1975 the birth rate hit a post war low, not equalled until the mid noughties.
Having a smaller majority helps keep MPs in line because disagreements become existential for the government and their jobs. The Ming vase/blank piece of paper strategy delivered a very shallow support base and this is the result. Individual MPs don't know what they signed up for, the public doesn't know what they voted for and the government is unable to corrale it's MPs into voting for controversial issues like welfare reform.
As was mentioned earlier, lifting the 2 child benefit cap would have been ok if it was funded through cutting some other kind of welfare. That is has been funded directly from a tax rise on working people is what's made it so utterly toxic for the government. That the PM is unable to get any kind of welfare reform agenda through his own MPs is a result of the terrible campaign he ran where it became clear he was afraid of his own shadow.
With a smaller majority also a much higher proportion of MPs have ministerial jobs. The backbenchers are less dominant in the parliamentary party.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
A country which runs a continuous trade deficit is not under consuming.
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
Three points here.
1. You make my point for me on government debt. See also Japan (our ghost of Christmas yet to come in so many ways). The less companies and consumers spend, the more government spends and the more debt it racks up. Especially in a country where VAT is a big revenue source.
2. 2008 is both a straw man (spending and borrowing more doesn’t mean spending and borrowing to excess) and only a partial analogue. Despite protestations to the contrary across politics - but generally not by economists - the cause of 2008 was not over-extended British consumers, it was overextended financial institutions exposed to a group of overextended US consumers, triggering a systemic crisis. But banks are now under extended and sweating their assets too much.
3. Our corporate savings are even more woefully high than our household savings. And corporates not spending is an even bigger problem. We have pretty much the lowest business investment rates in the developed world. Then people wonder why productivity doesn’t rise as quickly as in France or the US. The bean counters rule the roost. It’s not necessarily a problem primarily of policy: I think it’s cultural. We are a nation of asset sweaters.
Bring back boom and bust.
A more basic problem is that the conveyer belt of growing, profitable new business is barely a trickle.
The big firms that the government love to cuddle can sustain the system - to an extent.
But for growth and innovation you need new entrants.
Consider the Riddle of Steel
To make green steel is possible. In the Goode Olde Days, someone would have set up a new company, built a new steelworks for their new process.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Of course. But it's the anti benefit side of the argument which most consistently and vociferously argues otherwise.
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
Yes, this has very little support outside Westminster and the progressive fraternity.
It is a question of fairness and certainly seems to be where the majority of the public are
Yougov 11th November 2025
Currently there is a two child limit on the number of children parents can claim child related welfare benefits for. Do you think this limit should be kept, or should be it be abolished?
Should be kept 57%
Should be abolished 28%
Don't know 15%
That's because most people don't have more than two children. What answer do you expect?
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Of course. But it's the anti benefit side of the argument which most consistently and vociferously argues otherwise.
Carnyx is right to note their inconsistency.
And furthermore many, many people in receipt of the relevant benefit are working.
The 1950s model of dad at work and mum at home isn't working any more. (TBF, it never really did for many people.)
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. And our economy is sclerotic. The two are not unconnected.
Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
Suspect that they key bit of the story gets lost in the averages.
There are some businesses and individuals who are sitting on very large piles of cash that they don't really know what to do with. Who, bluntly, should be going out and spending more. Or investing in more interesting ways than (to take a topical example) cash ISAs.
There are others, probably a large majority, who can't even begin to imagine saving a penny.
I don't know how you tweak the economy at a national level to address that problem; Reveesonomics seems to make a bit of sense in that light, but not completely so.
I certainly don't know how you narrate that in the current political climate.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
A country which runs a continuous trade deficit is not under consuming.
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
Three points here.
1. You make my point for me on government debt. See also Japan (our ghost of Christmas yet to come in so many ways). The less companies and consumers spend, the more government spends and the more debt it racks up. Especially in a country where VAT is a big revenue source.
2. 2008 is both a straw man (spending and borrowing more doesn’t mean spending and borrowing to excess) and only a partial analogue. Despite protestations to the contrary across politics - but generally not by economists - the cause of 2008 was not over-extended British consumers, it was overextended financial institutions exposed to a group of overextended US consumers, triggering a systemic crisis. But banks are now under extended and sweating their assets too much.
3. Our corporate savings are even more woefully high than our household savings. And corporates not spending is an even bigger problem. We have pretty much the lowest business investment rates in the developed world. Then people wonder why productivity doesn’t rise as quickly as in France or the US. The bean counters rule the roost. It’s not necessarily a problem primarily of policy: I think it’s cultural. We are a nation of risk-averse asset sweaters.
Bring back boom and bust.
Still in denial about the trade deficit I see.
Yes, we can all borrow more money but much on the spending will be on imported tat and foreign holidays.
Likewise businesses can borrow and spend more but will it bring a positive return on capital ? Its better to have the bean counters ruling the roost than the bullshitters.
All you are advocating is yet more 'spend ourselves rich' bollox.
Well I've seen plenty of individuals and businesses and governments attempt that but very few which have succeeded.
Whereas I've seen plenty of individuals and businesses, but no governments, who have lived within their means, invested carefully and prospered.
But feel free to follow your own advice - get off the internet and head to the high street and spend all you have in the shops and restaurants. Repeat until you've used up your savings and continue with any money you can borrow.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Of course. But it's the anti benefit side of the argument which most consistently and vociferously argues otherwise.
Carnyx is right to note their inconsistency.
And furthermore many, many people in receipt of the relevant benefit are working.
The 1950s model of dad at work and mum at home isn't working any more. (TBF, it never really did for many people.)
And even when they did, it was because the labour of keeping a household clean, clothed and fed was more than it is now. Automation, productivity, that sort of thing.
Having half the adult population living a life of relative leisure was never going to be a stable solution.
I don't think many people are having kids in order to claim state benefits. More generally what we have is a position where people aren't having children because they don't feel they can afford them. That's the mess we're in.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
A country which runs a continuous trade deficit is not under consuming.
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
Three points here.
1. You make my point for me on government debt. See also Japan (our ghost of Christmas yet to come in so many ways). The less companies and consumers spend, the more government spends and the more debt it racks up. Especially in a country where VAT is a big revenue source.
2. 2008 is both a straw man (spending and borrowing more doesn’t mean spending and borrowing to excess) and only a partial analogue. Despite protestations to the contrary across politics - but generally not by economists - the cause of 2008 was not over-extended British consumers, it was overextended financial institutions exposed to a group of overextended US consumers, triggering a systemic crisis. But banks are now under extended and sweating their assets too much.
3. Our corporate savings are even more woefully high than our household savings. And corporates not spending is an even bigger problem. We have pretty much the lowest business investment rates in the developed world. Then people wonder why productivity doesn’t rise as quickly as in France or the US. The bean counters rule the roost. It’s not necessarily a problem primarily of policy: I think it’s cultural. We are a nation of asset sweaters.
Bring back boom and bust.
A more basic problem is that the conveyer belt of growing, profitable new business is barely a trickle.
The big firms that the government love to cuddle can sustain the system - to an extent.
But for growth and innovation you need new entrants.
Consider the Riddle of Steel
To make green steel is possible. In the Goode Olde Days, someone would have set up a new company, built a new steelworks for their new process.
Why doesn’t that happen?
Part of the problem is that there are much bigger governments (China or the U.S.) providing capital for innovation and development in much bigger markets. Who is a new UK steelworks going to sell to ?
Leaving the EU exacerbated that problem.
But you're right that there's a serious death of capital for the development of innovative businesses in the UK.
Network Rail will want it closed; it's policy, and there is no upside for them of keeping it open. I'm always baffled as to how pedestrians get killed on railways; trains do not do unpredictable things.
The zebra crossings and road crossings outside all our houses are more risky, as both the unpredictable pedestrians and the unpredictable traffic create risk. The only one near me in recent years was someone at a place called Kings Mill, who pushed his bike across, without looking, wearing headphones.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
A country which runs a continuous trade deficit is not under consuming.
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
Three points here.
1. You make my point for me on government debt. See also Japan (our ghost of Christmas yet to come in so many ways). The less companies and consumers spend, the more government spends and the more debt it racks up. Especially in a country where VAT is a big revenue source.
2. 2008 is both a straw man (spending and borrowing more doesn’t mean spending and borrowing to excess) and only a partial analogue. Despite protestations to the contrary across politics - but generally not by economists - the cause of 2008 was not over-extended British consumers, it was overextended financial institutions exposed to a group of overextended US consumers, triggering a systemic crisis. But banks are now under extended and sweating their assets too much.
3. Our corporate savings are even more woefully high than our household savings. And corporates not spending is an even bigger problem. We have pretty much the lowest business investment rates in the developed world. Then people wonder why productivity doesn’t rise as quickly as in France or the US. The bean counters rule the roost. It’s not necessarily a problem primarily of policy: I think it’s cultural. We are a nation of risk-averse asset sweaters.
Bring back boom and bust.
Isn't it rather that the more Government spends, the less consumers and companies spend, because the Government has taxed what they would have spent? I don't see the logic working the other way.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
A country which runs a continuous trade deficit is not under consuming.
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
Three points here.
1. You make my point for me on government debt. See also Japan (our ghost of Christmas yet to come in so many ways). The less companies and consumers spend, the more government spends and the more debt it racks up. Especially in a country where VAT is a big revenue source.
2. 2008 is both a straw man (spending and borrowing more doesn’t mean spending and borrowing to excess) and only a partial analogue. Despite protestations to the contrary across politics - but generally not by economists - the cause of 2008 was not over-extended British consumers, it was overextended financial institutions exposed to a group of overextended US consumers, triggering a systemic crisis. But banks are now under extended and sweating their assets too much.
3. Our corporate savings are even more woefully high than our household savings. And corporates not spending is an even bigger problem. We have pretty much the lowest business investment rates in the developed world. Then people wonder why productivity doesn’t rise as quickly as in France or the US. The bean counters rule the roost. It’s not necessarily a problem primarily of policy: I think it’s cultural. We are a nation of asset sweaters.
Bring back boom and bust.
A more basic problem is that the conveyer belt of growing, profitable new business is barely a trickle.
The big firms that the government love to cuddle can sustain the system - to an extent.
But for growth and innovation you need new entrants.
Consider the Riddle of Steel
To make green steel is possible. In the Goode Olde Days, someone would have set up a new company, built a new steelworks for their new process.
Why doesn’t that happen?
Part of the problem is that there are much bigger governments (China or the U.S.) providing capital for innovation and development in much bigger markets. Who is a new UK steelworks going to sell to ?
Leaving the EU exacerbated that problem.
But you're right that there's a serious death of capital for the development of innovative businesses in the UK.
We're in a globalised world economy.
Its easier to be innovative in some other countries.
Its more profitable to be innovative in some other countries.
And its both easier and more profitable to be innovative in some other countries.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
A country which runs a continuous trade deficit is not under consuming.
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
Three points here.
1. You make my point for me on government debt. See also Japan (our ghost of Christmas yet to come in so many ways). The less companies and consumers spend, the more government spends and the more debt it racks up. Especially in a country where VAT is a big revenue source.
2. 2008 is both a straw man (spending and borrowing more doesn’t mean spending and borrowing to excess) and only a partial analogue. Despite protestations to the contrary across politics - but generally not by economists - the cause of 2008 was not over-extended British consumers, it was overextended financial institutions exposed to a group of overextended US consumers, triggering a systemic crisis. But banks are now under extended and sweating their assets too much.
3. Our corporate savings are even more woefully high than our household savings. And corporates not spending is an even bigger problem. We have pretty much the lowest business investment rates in the developed world. Then people wonder why productivity doesn’t rise as quickly as in France or the US. The bean counters rule the roost. It’s not necessarily a problem primarily of policy: I think it’s cultural. We are a nation of asset sweaters.
Bring back boom and bust.
A more basic problem is that the conveyer belt of growing, profitable new business is barely a trickle.
The big firms that the government love to cuddle can sustain the system - to an extent.
But for growth and innovation you need new entrants.
Consider the Riddle of Steel
To make green steel is possible. In the Goode Olde Days, someone would have set up a new company, built a new steelworks for their new process.
Why doesn’t that happen?
Part of the problem is that there are much bigger governments (China or the U.S.) providing capital for innovation and development in much bigger markets. Who is a new UK steelworks going to sell to ?
Leaving the EU exacerbated that problem.
But you're right that there's a serious death of capital for the development of innovative businesses in the UK.
Green virgin steel is a fantasy, that can only work with both astonishingly high subsidies to make the stuff and astonishingly high tariffs on imports to stop the stuff been made much easier and cheaper from being imported.
A low birth rate is a consequence of greater wealth, and greater female choice. It isnt to do with the cost of having children. There isnt any civilised area in the world that has managed to materially reverse the trend. Women when given the choice choose to do something else.
It's no surprise that most of the well-heeled citizens of PB regard the years of coalition government as a golden age. However, not all share that view. Osborne's exhortation of 'we're all in this together' in regard to austerity was simply not true. Public sector workers, those on benefits and others bore the brunt of repeated freezes or below-inflation rises in their income, not the middle classes or the rich. And it stored up problems for the future, with consequent demands for pay restoration by those negatively affected. Although, to be fair, the rises in the income tax allowance did help a bit.
Yet now the Starmer government is increasing tax on those in expensive homes, on landlords, on shareholders, on well off pensioners and savers, on business owners, on farmers and on higher earners on the border of the higher and additional rate income tax thresholds. Mainly to fund increased public spending and especially increased welfare.
Basically Labour in government are now doing big state budgets in revenge for the austerity of the Conservative and LD government of 2010 to 2015
It’s not in revenge. It’s because they believe in more redistribution. That’s how politics works. Different parties offer different options and people vote for who they want,
They are fe**in useless and have no clue , they are killing the magic money tree. next lot will need a big axe to sort it out for sure.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Power cuts.
So we need another bout of Heathite mismanagement to head us away from the demographic cliff?
Three-day week >> rolling power cuts >> increased birth-rate.
Try turning the internet off at the same time, that should be worth something.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
A country which runs a continuous trade deficit is not under consuming.
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
Three points here.
1. You make my point for me on government debt. See also Japan (our ghost of Christmas yet to come in so many ways). The less companies and consumers spend, the more government spends and the more debt it racks up. Especially in a country where VAT is a big revenue source.
2. 2008 is both a straw man (spending and borrowing more doesn’t mean spending and borrowing to excess) and only a partial analogue. Despite protestations to the contrary across politics - but generally not by economists - the cause of 2008 was not over-extended British consumers, it was overextended financial institutions exposed to a group of overextended US consumers, triggering a systemic crisis. But banks are now under extended and sweating their assets too much.
3. Our corporate savings are even more woefully high than our household savings. And corporates not spending is an even bigger problem. We have pretty much the lowest business investment rates in the developed world. Then people wonder why productivity doesn’t rise as quickly as in France or the US. The bean counters rule the roost. It’s not necessarily a problem primarily of policy: I think it’s cultural. We are a nation of risk-averse asset sweaters.
Bring back boom and bust.
Isn't it rather that the more Government spends, the less consumers and companies spend, because the Government has taxed what they would have spent? I don't see the logic working the other way.
Mostly I'd agree, except for the strange times we are in. As someone paid more than they spend, with a cash pile that's bigger than most people can save, smaller than many, but probably excessive in terms of good advice (3 months salary/6 months expenses is the standard, isn't it?)... that cash would undoubtedly do more good for the nation if it were taxed and spent by someone else.
But with responsibilities to myself and my family, it doesn't make sense for me to unilaterally send a cheque to Rachy R saying "but yourself something nice". It only works if everyone in my position does it.
On topic, it's a salutary lesson that the Ming Vase strategy is a derisory one.
The Labour vote share collapsed even before the election, denying them a real mandate, and they've been able to command virtually no loyalty from their MPs, members or voters whilst in office as a consequence.
Keir Starmer is a case study in the almost total absence of political leadership.
I think this conflates "Ming Vase concealing a hidden plan" with "Ming Vase without a plan". The phrase was used of Blair's 1997 campaign, and I think regardless of what you feel about the policies of that government they weren't particularly chaotic, rudderless or unprincipled, and they had plenty of things they'd thought through and then implemented once they got into power.
If you have no particular strong guiding principles, preprepared plan and direction behind your attempt to gain power then that kind of pushes you into "Ming Vase" for your election campaign by default, but your downfall will be the lack of principles, planning and direction, not your electoral strategy.
You can get away with it if you're a strong leader who articulates clear principles and values, and allow people to read between the lines on the policy - even if you're somewhat evasive on the details.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Of course. But it's the anti benefit side of the argument which most consistently and vociferously argues otherwise.
Carnyx is right to note their inconsistency.
And furthermore many, many people in receipt of the relevant benefit are working.
The 1950s model of dad at work and mum at home isn't working any more. (TBF, it never really did for many people.)
As long as you pay people more on benefits than they would get working you will never fix the issue. given free rent , council tax and the myriad other benefits available many are multiple times better off than they would be working, that is crazy. Total benefits should never be more than the minimum wage ( debateable whether that is at right level ) and should be taxable , that would encourage many. Tax allowance is pitiful at £12.75K and drags anyone at all working into tax. These things are not rocket science.
The zebra crossings and road crossings outside all our houses are more risky, as both the unpredictable pedestrians and the unpredictable traffic create risk. The only one near me in recent years was someone at a place called Kings Mill, who pushed his bike across, without looking, wearing headphones.
I'm convinced zebra crossings are the most dangerous places on the road. Given the number of drivers who apparently don’t know what those white strips mean all they do is give pedestrians an illusion of safety.
I don't think many people are having kids in order to claim state benefits. More generally what we have is a position where people aren't having children because they don't feel they can afford them. That's the mess we're in.
Although we had more children in times when that was even more true.
A low birth rate is a consequence of greater wealth, and greater female choice. It isnt to do with the cost of having children. There isnt any civilised area in the world that has managed to materially reverse the trend. Women when given the choice choose to do something else.
I get that, but the trouble is the species then dies out.
A low birth rate is a consequence of greater wealth, and greater female choice. It isnt to do with the cost of having children. There isnt any civilised area in the world that has managed to materially reverse the trend. Women when given the choice choose to do something else.
A low birth rate is a consequence of greater wealth, and greater female choice. It isnt to do with the cost of having children. There isnt any civilised area in the world that has managed to materially reverse the trend. Women when given the choice choose to do something else.
The evidence is that people in the UK are now having fewer children than they want. That doesn't mean a return to pre modern birth rates but with lower housing costs and better economic prospects the fertility rate would be higher than 1.4.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
A country which runs a continuous trade deficit is not under consuming.
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
Three points here.
1. You make my point for me on government debt. See also Japan (our ghost of Christmas yet to come in so many ways). The less companies and consumers spend, the more government spends and the more debt it racks up. Especially in a country where VAT is a big revenue source.
2. 2008 is both a straw man (spending and borrowing more doesn’t mean spending and borrowing to excess) and only a partial analogue. Despite protestations to the contrary across politics - but generally not by economists - the cause of 2008 was not over-extended British consumers, it was overextended financial institutions exposed to a group of overextended US consumers, triggering a systemic crisis. But banks are now under extended and sweating their assets too much.
3. Our corporate savings are even more woefully high than our household savings. And corporates not spending is an even bigger problem. We have pretty much the lowest business investment rates in the developed world. Then people wonder why productivity doesn’t rise as quickly as in France or the US. The bean counters rule the roost. It’s not necessarily a problem primarily of policy: I think it’s cultural. We are a nation of asset sweaters.
Bring back boom and bust.
A more basic problem is that the conveyer belt of growing, profitable new business is barely a trickle.
The big firms that the government love to cuddle can sustain the system - to an extent.
But for growth and innovation you need new entrants.
Consider the Riddle of Steel
To make green steel is possible. In the Goode Olde Days, someone would have set up a new company, built a new steelworks for their new process.
Why doesn’t that happen?
Part of the problem is that there are much bigger governments (China or the U.S.) providing capital for innovation and development in much bigger markets. Who is a new UK steelworks going to sell to ?
Leaving the EU exacerbated that problem.
But you're right that there's a serious death of capital for the development of innovative businesses in the UK.
Green virgin steel is a fantasy, that can only work with both astonishingly high subsidies to make the stuff and astonishingly high tariffs on imports to stop the stuff been made much easier and cheaper from being imported.
Actually the chemistry says no. With cheap power, it might even be cheaper, once developed. Finer control of the chemical reactions would be easier.
The real problem is an aggressive dislike of technologists at the top. Technology is an afterthought that can be bought in as required, in that thinking.
See the civil servants exchanging memos of how good it was, with BritVolt, not to have to deal with those horrible techies.
The attitude at the top of business and government is just the same.
On topic, it's a salutary lesson that the Ming Vase strategy is a derisory one.
The Labour vote share collapsed even before the election, denying them a real mandate, and they've been able to command virtually no loyalty from their MPs, members or voters whilst in office as a consequence.
Keir Starmer is a case study in the almost total absence of political leadership.
I think this conflates "Ming Vase concealing a hidden plan" with "Ming Vase without a plan". The phrase was used of Blair's 1997 campaign, and I think regardless of what you feel about the policies of that government they weren't particularly chaotic, rudderless or unprincipled, and they had plenty of things they'd thought through and then implemented once they got into power.
If you have no particular strong guiding principles, preprepared plan and direction behind your attempt to gain power then that kind of pushes you into "Ming Vase" for your election campaign by default, but your downfall will be the lack of principles, planning and direction, not your electoral strategy.
You can get away with it if you're a strong leader who articulates clear principles and values, and allow people to read between the lines on the policy - even if you're somewhat evasive on the details.
Trouble is that Starmer is none of that.
You can also get away with it if the economy performs well.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Of course. But it's the anti benefit side of the argument which most consistently and vociferously argues otherwise.
Carnyx is right to note their inconsistency.
And furthermore many, many people in receipt of the relevant benefit are working.
The 1950s model of dad at work and mum at home isn't working any more. (TBF, it never really did for many people.)
As long as you pay people more on benefits than they would get working you will never fix the issue. given free rent , council tax and the myriad other benefits available many are multiple times better off than they would be working, that is crazy. Total benefits should never be more than the minimum wage ( debateable whether that is at right level ) and should be taxable , that would encourage many. Tax allowance is pitiful at £12.75K and drags anyone at all working into tax. These things are not rocket science.
I don't think we do.
For example, the benefits cap does not apply to people earning more than ~10k per annum. At least that's the situation in England.
A low birth rate is a consequence of greater wealth, and greater female choice. It isnt to do with the cost of having children. There isnt any civilised area in the world that has managed to materially reverse the trend. Women when given the choice choose to do something else.
The evidence is that people in the UK are now having fewer children than they want. That doesn't mean a return to pre modern birth rates but with lower housing costs and better economic prospects the fertility rate would be higher than 1.4.
That matches with what I’ve seen from personal experience - you can bring up a single child in a 2 bed flat. Even a 3 bed flat - let alone a house - is a big jump in price. Then you have al the other costs. Plus (usually) the mother taking a career hit for each child.
All the childless women I know regret it - and those with 1 nearly always wish they’d had more. And are quite upfront that the cost & space issue was a big factor.
A low birth rate is a consequence of greater wealth, and greater female choice. It isnt to do with the cost of having children. There isnt any civilised area in the world that has managed to materially reverse the trend. Women when given the choice choose to do something else.
This is a large part of it, I think.
The choice is being made by couples, not just women themselves. I know quite a few people in my friend circle who have actively chosen not to have children. Most, if not all of these people are wealthy enough to support them. There is an over assumption that a lot of it is down to cost, but personal choice is playing a much bigger part than ever.
This is especially true amongst degree educated friends, who are in stable jobs* and relationships
A low birth rate is a consequence of greater wealth, and greater female choice. It isnt to do with the cost of having children. There isnt any civilised area in the world that has managed to materially reverse the trend. Women when given the choice choose to do something else.
If the population falls enough then society will go back to the stone age in which women had significantly less choice.
A low birth rate is a consequence of greater wealth, and greater female choice. It isnt to do with the cost of having children. There isnt any civilised area in the world that has managed to materially reverse the trend. Women when given the choice choose to do something else.
The evidence is that people in the UK are now having fewer children than they want. That doesn't mean a return to pre modern birth rates but with lower housing costs and better economic prospects the fertility rate would be higher than 1.4.
That matches with what I’ve seen from personal experience - you can bring up a single child in a 2 bed flat. Even a 3 bed flat - let alone a house - is a big jump in price. Then you have al the other costs. Plus (usually) the mother taking a career hit for each child.
All the childless women I know regret it - and those with 1 nearly always wish they’d had more. And are quite upfront that the cost & space issue was a big factor.
TLDR: It's house prices. We all know it's house prices, we know how to solve house prices, lots of us wail at the tepid moves this government has taken to stop things getting worse.
And Janet and Roy Slimfast, holding onto their house so the grandchildren can visit, wonders why they have no grandchildren.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Britain's savings rate is the highest it’s been for decades. Household and corporate debt are historically very low. Yes, we are saving too much and spending too little.
We have real life stats to show the power of spending on economic growth. Not only UK historical GDP but also country comparisons: the USA at one extreme and Japan at the other.
We do need investment. Massively more of it. Not surplus rainy day saving in low yielding assets. But investment is spending. Every pound you spend on that new extension or your child’s university fees is investment, as is every pound your employer spends on training or automation.
A country which runs a continuous trade deficit is not under consuming.
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
Debt for day to day spending is, of course, not a good idea. What about debt for asset bubbles like housing, second homes and Buy-to-let. Consider what might happen to the belief we are 'wealthy' when there is an asset price crash and someone is left holding the debt.
A low birth rate is a consequence of greater wealth, and greater female choice. It isnt to do with the cost of having children. There isnt any civilised area in the world that has managed to materially reverse the trend. Women when given the choice choose to do something else.
The evidence is that people in the UK are now having fewer children than they want. That doesn't mean a return to pre modern birth rates but with lower housing costs and better economic prospects the fertility rate would be higher than 1.4.
That matches with what I’ve seen from personal experience - you can bring up a single child in a 2 bed flat. Even a 3 bed flat - let alone a house - is a big jump in price. Then you have al the other costs. Plus (usually) the mother taking a career hit for each child.
All the childless women I know regret it - and those with 1 nearly always wish they’d had more. And are quite upfront that the cost & space issue was a big factor.
Just as with housing, this is an issue where you face the fewest barriers if you are in the richest or poorest groups in society. If money is no object OR you get taken care of by the state.
It's always those in the middle who have to make difficult choices and sacrifices, and who generally get the poorest value from life.
It's something I noticed as a child, and it contributed to my personal politics in a big way. My sociology teacher didn't like it when I argued that 'stable poverty' was a somewhat preferable state to 'volatile middle classness'.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Of course. But it's the anti benefit side of the argument which most consistently and vociferously argues otherwise.
Carnyx is right to note their inconsistency.
And furthermore many, many people in receipt of the relevant benefit are working.
The 1950s model of dad at work and mum at home isn't working any more. (TBF, it never really did for many people.)
As long as you pay people more on benefits than they would get working you will never fix the issue. given free rent , council tax and the myriad other benefits available many are multiple times better off than they would be working, that is crazy. Total benefits should never be more than the minimum wage ( debateable whether that is at right level ) and should be taxable , that would encourage many. Tax allowance is pitiful at £12.75K and drags anyone at all working into tax. These things are not rocket science.
I don't think we do.
For example, the benefits cap does not apply to people earning more than ~10k per annum. At least that's the situation in England.
UC should mean that working, or working more, should mean you get more £s.
The problem is, working, especially if you have kids* is a pain in the arse so people elect not to do it. However much you tell people - if you are just making ends meet them every £1 you make can be spent on something nice - they aren't interested.
We have all met people who go part time when their kids are young, and then don't go back to full time when the kids are older. They are choosing to have less money because overall it's a better lifestyle. People make this choice at the lower end of the income scale too.
* it is people who have kids, or who are ill or disabled, who make this choice. The benefit system pays nowhere near enough for a fit & healthy single person or childless couple to live on. Children get more UC than their parents.
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Yeh, I know how it works but thanks anyway 👍
Point being many consumers aren’t skint and choose not to spend.
A low birth rate is a consequence of greater wealth, and greater female choice. It isnt to do with the cost of having children. There isnt any civilised area in the world that has managed to materially reverse the trend. Women when given the choice choose to do something else.
The evidence is that people in the UK are now having fewer children than they want. That doesn't mean a return to pre modern birth rates but with lower housing costs and better economic prospects the fertility rate would be higher than 1.4.
That matches with what I’ve seen from personal experience - you can bring up a single child in a 2 bed flat. Even a 3 bed flat - let alone a house - is a big jump in price. Then you have al the other costs. Plus (usually) the mother taking a career hit for each child.
All the childless women I know regret it - and those with 1 nearly always wish they’d had more. And are quite upfront that the cost & space issue was a big factor.
Housing is the key, and also the most straightforward (not the same thing as easy) to address.
It would take a very determined government, but I reckon with major planning and regulatory reform, and selective compulsory purchase of land for building, you could cut the cost of large scale new builds by a good 30%.
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
And Good Morning from me.
For me, that level of child 'cruelty' provides an excellent reason to not only not vote Conservative, but to actively seek to try to ensure a Conservative candidate is not re-elected.
Why is it “cruelty”? By that logic we should give children unlimited access to the public purse. What we are actually debating is where the line is drawn. Not “cruelty”.
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
And Good Morning from me.
For me, that level of child 'cruelty' provides an excellent reason to not only not vote Conservative, but to actively seek to try to ensure a Conservative candidate is not re-elected.
The word ‘Cruelty’ is doing some heavy lifting there.
Child cruelty. Putting the benefits level back to what it was before the budget. She’s hardly the child catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Power cuts.
In the late 90s, the one video shop in Malmesbury closed for some months. Reopened under new owners, the next year.
The local doctors noticed that….
So perhaps, if we turn off domestic Internet every evening between 9pm and 7am?
Now who will admit to supporting a phones ban for schoolgirls?
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
And Good Morning from me.
For me, that level of child 'cruelty' provides an excellent reason to not only not vote Conservative, but to actively seek to try to ensure a Conservative candidate is not re-elected.
I have too many parties who I don't want to see elected, and not enough I actively want to win. At the present rate I'll have to move to Wales and vote for Plaid.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Power cuts.
In the late 90s, the one video shop in Malmesbury closed for some months. Reopened under new owners, the next year.
The local doctors noticed that….
So perhaps, if we turn off domestic Internet every evening between 9pm and 7am?
Now who will admit to supporting a phones ban for schoolgirls?
Item - the Australian population is much whiter than the emigrants coming in.
So the ban on social media is actually a White(r) Australia policy….
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Of course. But it's the anti benefit side of the argument which most consistently and vociferously argues otherwise.
Carnyx is right to note their inconsistency.
And furthermore many, many people in receipt of the relevant benefit are working.
The 1950s model of dad at work and mum at home isn't working any more. (TBF, it never really did for many people.)
As long as you pay people more on benefits than they would get working you will never fix the issue. given free rent , council tax and the myriad other benefits available many are multiple times better off than they would be working, that is crazy. Total benefits should never be more than the minimum wage ( debateable whether that is at right level ) and should be taxable , that would encourage many. Tax allowance is pitiful at £12.75K and drags anyone at all working into tax. These things are not rocket science.
You’re right, pay people to be idle they will be.
In Durham there is a fuss at the moment, currently a lot of groups qualify for 100% off their council tax, they pay nothing. Reform are, quite rightly in my view, changing this so they will now get a 90% reduction instead although the public consultation favoured 75%. Most councils offer far less of a reduction. Of course the local Labour MP is faking outrage and even asked SKS about it in parliament. However it’s the right thing to do and they need to go faster and further.
Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.
I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.
Power cuts.
In the late 90s, the one video shop in Malmesbury closed for some months. Reopened under new owners, the next year.
The local doctors noticed that….
So perhaps, if we turn off domestic Internet every evening between 9pm and 7am?
OK, but given the existence of Starlink, how do we do that?
"hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty" very Brownian spreadsheet thinking and talking
Though that is money that gets recycled quickly in our economy.
Much of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If consumers are skint then there is no growth.
There’s a large amount of money tied up in savings. Try freeing that up.
Saving money does free it up, unless saved in an old sock in notes and coins. Few would be able to buy a house but for the savings of others. All investment - new buildings, machinery, fleets of vehicles - comes from money not used for some other purpose. The general term for such money is 'savings'.
Yeh, I know how it works but thanks anyway 👍
Point being many consumers aren’t skint and choose not to spend.
Couple of factors there, I reckon.
The easy one is that everyone who can is squirrelling away more rainy day money than is collectively helpful. The feeling that the welfare state will only help in the most grudging sense if things go wrong (means testing, 2 child limit) doesn't help.
The harder one to solve is that the more you have, the harder it is to justify spending more on other stuff. Partly needs shading into wants, but also Sam Vimes's boots. Once you can spend more upfront, it's cheaper over a lifetime. Good for the individual, less good for the economy.
I am old enough not to know what PSHE is but do today's children really need lessons on not stabbing people? And after lunch they have double not-throwing-petrol-bombs presumably.
And the knife thing sounds like performative nonsense, given kitchen knives are freely available in every kitchen. Machetes, I'll grant you.
It's no surprise that most of the well-heeled citizens of PB regard the years of coalition government as a golden age. However, not all share that view. Osborne's exhortation of 'we're all in this together' in regard to austerity was simply not true. Public sector workers, those on benefits and others bore the brunt of repeated freezes or below-inflation rises in their income, not the middle classes or the rich. And it stored up problems for the future, with consequent demands for pay restoration by those negatively affected. Although, to be fair, the rises in the income tax allowance did help a bit.
Yes. I would add that the enormous cuts in capital spending paved the way for 15 years of economic stagnation. It was particularly damaging since borrowing money was so cheap at that time.
That and precipitating Brexit were their biggest mistakes.
Surely the very fact that the population voted to leave indicates that a referendum was the right thing to do.
You can argue about the tactics, timing, messaging, post Brexit execution etc.
But, if nothing else, the vote to leave proves that membership of the EU lacked democratic legitimacy.
I'm sitting outside a pub in Covent Garden with a pint in the sunshine watching people wandering by. Hundreds of them of all ages, colours, sizes. Chatting together, smiling, enjoying themselves. And I'm thinking - what a wonderful world.
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
And Good Morning from me.
For me, that level of child 'cruelty' provides an excellent reason to not only not vote Conservative, but to actively seek to try to ensure a Conservative candidate is not re-elected.
I have too many parties who I don't want to see elected, and not enough I actively want to win. At the present rate I'll have to move to Wales and vote for Plaid.
Last election I wasn’t going to vote but I went Labour in the end as I expected dull competence from SKS and Reeves. However they’ve been utterly. It will be between Labour and Reform here I expect. I expect to not vote in 2029. I’d consider Reform if they were economically literate but they aren’t and Darren Grimes is likely their candidate and I didn’t like his appearance on our local politics show. I like Luke Akehurst but his party are shit, however if they turn it around I’d consider them.
I am old enough not to know what PSHE is but do today's children really need lessons on not stabbing people? And after lunch they have double not-throwing-petrol-bombs presumably.
And the knife thing sounds like performative nonsense, given kitchen knives are freely available in every kitchen. Machetes, I'll grant you.
We educate in crossing roads safely, we educate about sex and relationships to an extent, and many other aspects of life, so I don't see why it should not be in.
I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.
Good morning
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
And Good Morning from me.
For me, that level of child 'cruelty' provides an excellent reason to not only not vote Conservative, but to actively seek to try to ensure a Conservative candidate is not re-elected.
I have too many parties who I don't want to see elected, and not enough I actively want to win. At the present rate I'll have to move to Wales and vote for Plaid.
Plaid are green Labour, and Liberal Democrats are yellow Labour.
David Gentile reported to prison on Nov. 14 to begin a 7-year sentence for what prosecutors described as a $1.6B scheme that defrauded thousands of victims.
Knowing how stupid the people involved are, can we have a plot of spikes in the price of Trump Coin caused by the payoff?
Surely they wouldn’t spike the price?
You’d do an off-market trade to buy Trump Coin directly from his family at an agreed prices.
If anything it would cause a decline in the public price because the purchasers wouldn’t want to hold the stock long term. That said it traded about $160m Friday so liquidity might not be an issue if the going rate is $1-2m for a pardon.
It's no surprise that most of the well-heeled citizens of PB regard the years of coalition government as a golden age. However, not all share that view. Osborne's exhortation of 'we're all in this together' in regard to austerity was simply not true. Public sector workers, those on benefits and others bore the brunt of repeated freezes or below-inflation rises in their income, not the middle classes or the rich. And it stored up problems for the future, with consequent demands for pay restoration by those negatively affected. Although, to be fair, the rises in the income tax allowance did help a bit.
Yes. I would add that the enormous cuts in capital spending paved the way for 15 years of economic stagnation. It was particularly damaging since borrowing money was so cheap at that time.
That and precipitating Brexit were their biggest mistakes.
Surely the very fact that the population voted to leave indicates that a referendum was the right thing to do.
You can argue about the tactics, timing, messaging, post Brexit execution etc.
But, if nothing else, the vote to leave proves that membership of the EU lacked democratic legitimacy.
Does it ?
Or does the consistent polling against it, both before the Brexit campaign, and now in recent years, rather show that a sufficiently mendacious campaign can temporarily persuade a majority of anything ?
The point of democracy isn't that it's infallible, and doesn't make big mistakes; it is that it provides some sort of mechanism to put an end to them, once recognised.
Comments
Falling household debt (does that include student debt BTW ?) has been matched by increased government debt and household debt is still way above the levels of the 1980s and 1990s:
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-kingdom/household-debt--of-nominal-gdp
UK household debt peaked in 2008 - do you remember what happened to the economy that year ? It should be a warning about the dangers of excessive household debt.
I get the impression that there are many people with high levels of household debt and many with zero.
Certainly student debt is much more of a thing than for previous generations and perhaps car finance debt is as well.
Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'
For me, that level of child 'cruelty' provides an excellent reason to not only not vote Conservative, but to actively seek to try to ensure a Conservative candidate is not re-elected.
The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.
Yougov 11th November 2025
Currently there is a two child limit on the number of children parents can claim child related welfare benefits for. Do you think this limit should be kept, or should be it be abolished?
Should be kept 57%
Should be abolished 28%
Don't know 15%
The obvious solution is to abolish them.
*See Starmer’s comments on The Blob
**Back in the 60s, Labour like using the slogan “X has Failed The Nation”
1. The business of governing (public relations, Ministerial good behaviour ((or at least bad behaviour going unreported)), managing the parliamentary timetable, whipping operation/party management, summing up the mood of the nation appropriately when needed etc.)
2. The agenda. Reforms, budgets/taxation, adding regulation, removing regulation, providing public services, creating a thriving economy, improving standards of living, enhancing the public realm, how the constitution evolves.
The first is important - vital actually. Truss scores something like a 1.5/10 on the first, so much as I support her agenda, she never got to implement it because of her lack of mastery over the business of governing.
However, it isn't everything. The coalition scores far lower on agenda, because it was a mushy middle Government that made no attempt to reverse deeply damaging Blairite constitutional innovations, and in some cases brought it its own very misguided ones. You can be moving very efficiently and smoothly to the wrong destination. In many ways, that's worse. Starmer's Government would be all the more destructive if it were capable.
Starmer has a huge majority. If he’d used it to do sensible, Labour adjacent things (people here can provide a list), then the Labour Party wouldn’t be vanishing before our eyes.
Instead, he went for continuity managerialism, with every decision or action to be delayed or stopped using legal/process challenges.
And no, this isn’t about suggesting breaking the law. Parliament is there to make or change laws.
If you have no particular strong guiding principles, preprepared plan and direction behind your attempt to gain power then that kind of pushes you into "Ming Vase" for your election campaign by default, but your downfall will be the lack of principles, planning and direction, not your electoral strategy.
“Service to the State. Glory to the Race.” ?
iain watson
@iainjwatson
And Your Party backs @zarahsultana’s preferred option to allow members also to be members of other left wing parties and groups - subject to the agreement of the party executive.
https://x.com/iainjwatson/status/1995084398559900105
Also note that the overall benefit cap hasn’t been modified.
Three-day week >> rolling power cuts >> increased birth-rate.
The local doctors noticed that….
So perhaps, if we turn off domestic Internet every evening between 9pm and 7am?
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/nigel-farage-calls-lifting-two-child-benefit-cap
As was mentioned earlier, lifting the 2 child benefit cap would have been ok if it was funded through cutting some other kind of welfare. That is has been funded directly from a tax rise on working people is what's made it so utterly toxic for the government. That the PM is unable to get any kind of welfare reform agenda through his own MPs is a result of the terrible campaign he ran where it became clear he was afraid of his own shadow.
Trump commuted Gentile's sentence 12 days later, freeing him from prison.
https://x.com/kenvogel/status/1994962401805177215
The Conservatives, of course, enthusiastically targeted the seats of their coalition partners in 2015, and the long term plans of the coalition, for better or worse (the latter IMO) all became might have beens.
1. You make my point for me on government debt. See also Japan (our ghost of Christmas yet to come in so many ways). The less companies and consumers spend, the more government spends and the more debt it racks up. Especially in a country where VAT is a big revenue source.
2. 2008 is both a straw man (spending and borrowing more doesn’t mean spending and borrowing to excess) and only a partial analogue. Despite protestations to the contrary across politics - but generally not by economists - the cause of 2008 was not over-extended British consumers, it was overextended financial institutions exposed to a group of overextended US consumers, triggering a systemic crisis. But banks are now under extended and sweating their assets too much.
3. Our corporate savings are even more woefully high than our household savings. And corporates not spending is an even bigger problem. We have pretty much the lowest business investment rates in the developed world. Then people wonder why productivity doesn’t rise as quickly as in France or the US. The bean counters rule the roost. It’s not necessarily a problem primarily of policy: I think it’s cultural. We are a nation of risk-averse asset sweaters.
Bring back boom and bust.
The big firms that the government love to cuddle can sustain the system - to an extent.
But for growth and innovation you need new entrants.
Consider the Riddle of Steel
To make green steel is possible. In the Goode Olde Days, someone would have set up a new company, built a new steelworks for their new process.
Why doesn’t that happen?
But it's the anti benefit side of the argument which most consistently and vociferously argues otherwise.
Carnyx is right to note their inconsistency.
What answer do you expect?
The 1950s model of dad at work and mum at home isn't working any more. (TBF, it never really did for many people.)
There are some businesses and individuals who are sitting on very large piles of cash that they don't really know what to do with. Who, bluntly, should be going out and spending more. Or investing in more interesting ways than (to take a topical example) cash ISAs.
There are others, probably a large majority, who can't even begin to imagine saving a penny.
I don't know how you tweak the economy at a national level to address that problem; Reveesonomics seems to make a bit of sense in that light, but not completely so.
I certainly don't know how you narrate that in the current political climate.
Yes, we can all borrow more money but much on the spending will be on imported tat and foreign holidays.
Likewise businesses can borrow and spend more but will it bring a positive return on capital ? Its better to have the bean counters ruling the roost than the bullshitters.
All you are advocating is yet more 'spend ourselves rich' bollox.
Well I've seen plenty of individuals and businesses and governments attempt that but very few which have succeeded.
Whereas I've seen plenty of individuals and businesses, but no governments, who have lived within their means, invested carefully and prospered.
But feel free to follow your own advice - get off the internet and head to the high street and spend all you have in the shops and restaurants. Repeat until you've used up your savings and continue with any money you can borrow.
Having half the adult population living a life of relative leisure was never going to be a stable solution.
Who is a new UK steelworks going to sell to ?
Leaving the EU exacerbated that problem.
But you're right that there's a serious death of capital for the development of innovative businesses in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx23mzvdgjgo
Network Rail will want it closed; it's policy, and there is no upside for them of keeping it open. I'm always baffled as to how pedestrians get killed on railways; trains do not do unpredictable things.
The zebra crossings and road crossings outside all our houses are more risky, as both the unpredictable pedestrians and the unpredictable traffic create risk. The only one near me in recent years was someone at a place called Kings Mill, who pushed his bike across, without looking, wearing headphones.
Its easier to be innovative in some other countries.
Its more profitable to be innovative in some other countries.
And its both easier and more profitable to be innovative in some other countries.
Women when given the choice choose to do something else.
But with responsibilities to myself and my family, it doesn't make sense for me to unilaterally send a cheque to Rachy R saying "but yourself something nice". It only works if everyone in my position does it.
Trouble is that Starmer is none of that.
These things are not rocket science.
The real problem is an aggressive dislike of technologists at the top. Technology is an afterthought that can be bought in as required, in that thinking.
See the civil servants exchanging memos of how good it was, with BritVolt, not to have to deal with those horrible techies.
The attitude at the top of business and government is just the same.
For example, the benefits cap does not apply to people earning more than ~10k per annum. At least that's the situation in England.
All the childless women I know regret it - and those with 1 nearly always wish they’d had more. And are quite upfront that the cost & space issue was a big factor.
This is especially true amongst degree educated friends, who are in stable jobs* and relationships
*long term jobs, not jobs involving horses
And Janet and Roy Slimfast, holding onto their house so the grandchildren can visit, wonders why they have no grandchildren.
AI waves hello.
It's always those in the middle who have to make difficult choices and sacrifices, and who generally get the poorest value from life.
It's something I noticed as a child, and it contributed to my personal politics in a big way. My sociology teacher didn't like it when I argued that 'stable poverty' was a somewhat preferable state to 'volatile middle classness'.
The problem is, working, especially if you have kids* is a pain in the arse so people elect not to do it. However much you tell people - if you are just making ends meet them every £1 you make can be spent on something nice - they aren't interested.
We have all met people who go part time when their kids are young, and then don't go back to full time when the kids are older. They are choosing to have less money because overall it's a better lifestyle. People make this choice at the lower end of the income scale too.
* it is people who have kids, or who are ill or disabled, who make this choice. The benefit system pays nowhere near enough for a fit & healthy single person or childless couple to live on. Children get more UC than their parents.
Point being many consumers aren’t skint and choose not to spend.
It would take a very determined government, but I reckon with major planning and regulatory reform, and selective compulsory purchase of land for building, you could cut the cost of large scale new builds by a good 30%.
Child cruelty. Putting the benefits level back to what it was before the budget. She’s hardly the child catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
"Knife crime roadshows" being held in local sixth form colleges by the police.
https://www.chad.co.uk/news/people/young-people-share-their-voice-at-knife-crime-roadshows-in-mansfield-and-worksop-5419787
Question: should this not be in PSHE in schools?
Five shops in Nottingham caught not doing age checks when selling a knife:
https://westbridgfordwire.com/nottingham-five-city-centre-stores-failed-to-age-check-knife-purchases-in-police-operation/
So the ban on social media is actually a White(r) Australia policy….
In Durham there is a fuss at the moment, currently a lot of groups qualify for 100% off their council tax, they pay nothing. Reform are, quite rightly in my view, changing this so they will now get a 90% reduction instead although the public consultation favoured 75%. Most councils offer far less of a reduction. Of course the local Labour MP is faking outrage and even asked SKS about it in parliament. However it’s the right thing to do and they need to go faster and further.
The easy one is that everyone who can is squirrelling away more rainy day money than is collectively helpful. The feeling that the welfare state will only help in the most grudging sense if things go wrong (means testing, 2 child limit) doesn't help.
The harder one to solve is that the more you have, the harder it is to justify spending more on other stuff. Partly needs shading into wants, but also Sam Vimes's boots. Once you can spend more upfront, it's cheaper over a lifetime. Good for the individual, less good for the economy.
And the knife thing sounds like performative nonsense, given kitchen knives are freely available in every kitchen. Machetes, I'll grant you.
You can argue about the tactics, timing, messaging, post Brexit execution etc.
But, if nothing else, the vote to leave proves that membership of the EU lacked democratic legitimacy.
Hundreds of them of all ages, colours, sizes. Chatting together, smiling, enjoying themselves.
And I'm thinking - what a wonderful world.
The Tories are the best bet for the economy.
You’d do an off-market trade to buy Trump Coin directly from his family at an agreed prices.
If anything it would cause a decline in the public price because the purchasers wouldn’t want to hold the stock long term. That said it traded about $160m Friday so liquidity might not be an issue if the going rate is $1-2m for a pardon.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gv76r5qpvo
Or does the consistent polling against it, both before the Brexit campaign, and now in recent years, rather show that a sufficiently mendacious campaign can temporarily persuade a majority of anything ?
The point of democracy isn't that it's infallible, and doesn't make big mistakes; it is that it provides some sort of mechanism to put an end to them, once recognised.
(Does Israeli law have the clause where if you accept a pardon you convict yourself of the crime, as American law does?)