Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him
I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.
Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.
Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.
This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
Hostage to fortune, I would ask who was advising Keir Starmer, but the revolving door on his spin machine suggests no one is with any authority and also because he has clearly not been in charge the last few years even when he was the main Opposition Leader.... He is the worst Opposition leader and now PM in decades and I am surprised he is not full of splinters from the amount of spinning he has done sitting on the fence rather than having a set agenda or opinion on how to run this country before or after he came to power! When are the Labour party finally going to start panicking despite their majority and remove him, and because while they may have got an historic win under him, they are now facing an equally historic loss if they leave him in place.
Really?
I appreciate that I might feel differently in your shoes, but he's not even the worst PM of the last five years. If anything, he's in a close (but really uninspiring) competition with Sunak for the best in that dismal time.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
I thought you were keen to preserve the state pension? It's one of the 'benefits' run by DWP.
If Starmer suddenly gets black-bagged who is next in line? I guess technically the King choses somebody but is there a plan?
Lammy is Deputy PM
Even though there's not officially such a thing as an acting PM I imagine in practice the Palace would appoint him on the understanding the party decide quickly if they were going to have a full leadership contest.
It's like how we had some absurd takes on how government might function when Boris was ill, when it was all pretty uncontentious, with Raab (i think technically first secretary of state not deputy pm at the time) basically informally deputising with no need to become formally PM, and has Boris died a temporary arrangement could have been made.
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
I totally get the huge media attention about the US special ops military strike on Venezuela and the capture of Maduro and his wife and their journey to the US and the implications for this country and the wider global stage after the actions of Trump and the US. What message does it send to Russia and China being the key points while Trump clearly sees what has being going on in this country and its horrific economic downfall under Maduro's dictatorship as a massive and a serious issue for illegal immigration into the US as well as well as the serious drug problem it has created on the US doorstep. But lets not for get or spare Putin's blushes after his unlawful invasion of Ukraine while the broken and dysfunctional UN continues to prove its no longer fit for purpose!
But I still remain utterly frustrated at the lack of media attention about what is going on right now in Iran which has equal if not far more importance and implications on the global stage right now especially for the future wider stability of the Middle East or not, and also for Western countries and both Russia and China if that awful Regime falls?! And PS, North Korea launching a ballistic missile and the UK/French strikes on ISIS targets in Syria barely even got a mention, talk about a bad day to bury bad news while no one is looking with most of the public in the Western world totally unaware!
Protesters in Iran are dying due to the awful Regime there, and absolute tumble weed in the UK media over the last week, but a Trump sanctioned US military coup in Venezuela and the UK media and the left wake up and have something to say?! I grew up as a lassie here in the UK and its hard to fathom that until 1979 girls in Iran grew up wearing the same clothes I did and attended co-ed Universities and now girls over the last decades there have been dying if they did not behave correctly or cover their hair or the youth in Iran dared to raise up and protest against this awful religious regime!
There is something different about this uprising in Iran, its not only as a result of economic factors, the economy is tanking and there are petrol and water shortages while the Iranian regime has been concentrating on funding its State terrorism in Gaza, Yemen and Lebenon as well as Iraq. With the demographics of the Iran age and population its always been a matter of when rather than if the country will finally raise up against this awful religious inspired regime and finally successfully remove it.
The media’s criminal ignoring of Iran is only matched by their lack of attention towards Buggate at Holyrood. Any updates btw?
On the Northern Ireland WhatAboutery Scale, this gets you 1.5/10
How does that work? I.e. do Rangers supporters tend to score 8-10 on the scale?
Talking about regime change, I've been having a clear out of old papers as you do this time of year and found a Xmas Round Robin from the mid 90's when Russia was in need of technical help. After the bankers, military men, businessmen had visited Moscow, the UK sent the real experts in population control - VAT inspectors. He also visited Kiev to help them.
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
No. 'Spending' isn't an appropriate measure of anything.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
It's not going to happen, no matter what the government. The English people have some similarities to the Russian in that they are cynical and cruel, enjoying both the humiliation of neighbouring countries and a certain flavour of wall-eyed jingoism centered on the GPW/WW2. They are unlike the Russians in that they absolutely won't suffer any material discomfort to indulge it.
It's impossible to assemble an election winning coalition based on an extra 80dn quids worth of cuts and/or tax rises to give to BAE/Babcock/Serco once you get into the details of what that entails.
If the May local elections come out like that, very many voters will be getting a few years to enjoy Reform controlled councils before the next GE comes along, not to mention what might happen in Scotland and Wales. Hopefully voters will look and learn.
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
I’m sure Darren is all for leaving the icky, difficult stuff to the ICJ. Then ignoring it.
Looking at the comparison with Ukraine, the issue is that regardless of international law, opposing Russia would still be the correct and sensible course of action.
I totally get the huge media attention about the US special ops military strike on Venezuela and the capture of Maduro and his wife and their journey to the US and the implications for this country and the wider global stage after the actions of Trump and the US. What message does it send to Russia and China being the key points while Trump clearly sees what has being going on in this country and its horrific economic downfall under Maduro's dictatorship as a massive and a serious issue for illegal immigration into the US as well as well as the serious drug problem it has created on the US doorstep. But lets not for get or spare Putin's blushes after his unlawful invasion of Ukraine while the broken and dysfunctional UN continues to prove its no longer fit for purpose!
But I still remain utterly frustrated at the lack of media attention about what is going on right now in Iran which has equal if not far more importance and implications on the global stage right now especially for the future wider stability of the Middle East or not, and also for Western countries and both Russia and China if that awful Regime falls?! And PS, North Korea launching a ballistic missile and the UK/French strikes on ISIS targets in Syria barely even got a mention, talk about a bad day to bury bad news while no one is looking with most of the public in the Western world totally unaware!
Protesters in Iran are dying due to the awful Regime there, and absolute tumble weed in the UK media over the last week, but a Trump sanctioned US military coup in Venezuela and the UK media and the left wake up and have something to say?! I grew up as a lassie here in the UK and its hard to fathom that until 1979 girls in Iran grew up wearing the same clothes I did and attended co-ed Universities and now girls over the last decades there have been dying if they did not behave correctly or cover their hair or the youth in Iran dared to raise up and protest against this awful religious regime!
There is something different about this uprising in Iran, its not only as a result of economic factors, the economy is tanking and there are petrol and water shortages while the Iranian regime has been concentrating on funding its State terrorism in Gaza, Yemen and Lebenon as well as Iraq. With the demographics of the Iran age and population its always been a matter of when rather than if the country will finally raise up against this awful religious inspired regime and finally successfully remove it.
The media’s criminal ignoring of Iran is only matched by their lack of attention towards Buggate at Holyrood. Any updates btw?
On the Northern Ireland WhatAboutery Scale, this gets you 1.5/10
How does that work? I.e. do Rangers supporters tend to score 8-10 on the scale?
50/50 scoring on quality and breadth of the WhatAbout.
If the May local elections come out like that, very many voters will be getting a few years to enjoy Reform controlled councils before the next GE comes along, not to mention what might happen in Scotland and Wales. Hopefully voters will look and learn.
That's been speculated, but despite some of the stories out of, say, Kent, it would be hard to tank a council so fast that people could really feel it and react against it.
It might concentrate the minds of tactical voters though.
Not warm here, shudder to think about what the Highlands are probably having.
-4 on the top of Werneth Low. Parked up to watch the sunrise. Two police officers had the same idea - though sadly they have just been called off to some emergency - blue lights and sirens incongruous in the peace of the frosty dawn. They have been replaced by three teenagers in a car festooned with Free Palestine stickers, the driver of which is unable to park neatly.
To the North West the full moon sets over Manchester, though the sun will be too bright by the time it reaches the horizon to fully appreciate it. I should have been up here yesterday.
Sir Keir Starmer says that he 'regrets' welcoming Alaa Abd el-Fattah to the UK given his social media comments about killing zionists
'Of course I regret that. Your point that somebody in government should have known is one that should have been made to the appropriate team. It's a failing within the system. It shouldn't have happened. I wasn't very pleased it happened'
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
No. 'Spending' isn't an appropriate measure of anything.
I hope you mean the deeper question about on what the extra defence spending (if actually required) would go and whether the lessons learnt from Ukraine and elsewhere mean we need to comprehensively rethink what our armed forces need to be and what kind of defence systems and structures would be effective in the current age of warfare.
If so, wholeheartedly yes, but I fear people still think of it in terms of more money, more soldiers, more aircraft and more ships and they do cost but are they the defence we need?
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
And lose an election.
Not if a Tory government, Tory voters want to slash welfare and Kemi even floated means testing the triple lock
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
It's not going to happen, no matter what the government. The English people have some similarities to the Russian in that they are cynical and cruel, enjoying both the humiliation of neighbouring countries and a certain flavour of wall-eyed jingoism centered on the GPW/WW2. They are unlike the Russians in that they absolutely won't suffer any material discomfort to indulge it.
It's impossible to assemble an election winning coalition based on an extra 80dn quids worth of cuts and/or tax rises to give to BAE/Babcock/Serco once you get into the details of what that entails.
Do the Russians operate a Great Patriotic War Flight? I follow a guy called Yuri on FB who works for a military museum in Moscow, they certainly seem to fetishise the AFV as part of their mythos.
Sir Keir Starmer says that he 'regrets' welcoming Alaa Abd el-Fattah to the UK given his social media comments about killing zionists
'Of course I regret that. Your point that somebody in government should have known is one that should have been made to the appropriate team. It's a failing within the system. It shouldn't have happened. I wasn't very pleased it happened'
Never crossed my desk....
Starmer as a EPL manager would lose the dressing room pretty rapidly with his approach to man management.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him
I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.
Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.
Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.
This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.
Sir Keir Starmer says that he 'regrets' welcoming Alaa Abd el-Fattah to the UK given his social media comments about killing zionists
'Of course I regret that. Your point that somebody in government should have known is one that should have been made to the appropriate team. It's a failing within the system. It shouldn't have happened. I wasn't very pleased it happened'
‘Of course I regret doing the hoovering in the nude..’
Sir Keir Starmer says that he 'regrets' welcoming Alaa Abd el-Fattah to the UK given his social media comments about killing zionists
'Of course I regret that. Your point that somebody in government should have known is one that should have been made to the appropriate team. It's a failing within the system. It shouldn't have happened. I wasn't very pleased it happened'
That's fascinating little quote. The wording in typical of someone who isn't the Number 1 Boss of a great team. Instead of a public face of 'The Buck Stops Here', responsibility, which in public Starmer should simply take as head of government, is neatly dispersed between 'somebody', 'the system' and that friend of evasion, the passive mood.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
No. 'Spending' isn't an appropriate measure of anything.
I hope you mean the deeper question about on what the extra defence spending (if actually required) would go and whether the lessons learnt from Ukraine and elsewhere mean we need to comprehensively rethink what our armed forces need to be and what kind of defence systems and structures would be effective in the current age of warfare.
If so, wholeheartedly yes, but I fear people still think of it in terms of more money, more soldiers, more aircraft and more ships and they do cost but are they the defence we need?
As I said yesterday it must start with what we want the outcomes to be. Then work out where we are, and what it will cost to get us there. We also need to gut the department and start again - pretty much from scratch.
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
Your post is an example of those arguing for an international free for all.
Like this lame brain. CNN: Venezuela is a sovereign nation. Why is it okay for the US to go in, arrest its leader, control its oil, and take over for a time?
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
It's not going to happen, no matter what the government. The English people have some similarities to the Russian in that they are cynical and cruel, enjoying both the humiliation of neighbouring countries and a certain flavour of wall-eyed jingoism centered on the GPW/WW2. They are unlike the Russians in that they absolutely won't suffer any material discomfort to indulge it.
It's impossible to assemble an election winning coalition based on an extra 80dn quids worth of cuts and/or tax rises to give to BAE/Babcock/Serco once you get into the details of what that entails.
Do the Russians operate a Great Patriotic War Flight? I follow a guy called Yuri on FB who works for a military museum in Moscow, they certainly seem to fetishise the AFV as part of their mythos.
Theres a pretty impressive display at the Artillery Museum in St Petersburg.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
And lose an election.
Not if a Tory government, Tory voters want to slash welfare and Kemi even floated means testing the triple lock
They say they do until it turns out it would affect them/have negative consequences. Bear in mind she needs to double support beyond current Tory voters too.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
And lose an election.
Not if a Tory government, Tory voters want to slash welfare and Kemi even floated means testing the triple lock
Conservative voters do like welfare cuts... right up to the point they affect them. See the calm shrug on the right when WFA was threatened.
Remember also the wisdom of the Lilley. One billion off welfare is a thousand pounds times a million households, mostly poor ones. It may be possible, but it is never easy.
Eighty billion is roughly nine thousand pounds from nine million households. Whether you do it by tax rises or spending cuts, it isn't easy.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
No. 'Spending' isn't an appropriate measure of anything.
I hope you mean the deeper question about on what the extra defence spending (if actually required) would go and whether the lessons learnt from Ukraine and elsewhere mean we need to comprehensively rethink what our armed forces need to be and what kind of defence systems and structures would be effective in the current age of warfare.
If so, wholeheartedly yes, but I fear people still think of it in terms of more money, more soldiers, more aircraft and more ships and they do cost but are they the defence we need?
Yes, our current forces are constructed around different forms of white elephant. The carriers, AJAX, F35 that cannot fly if the septics turn off software support.
We need a total rethink concentrated around defence of our Islands and supporting our allies in Europe.
As we're talking public finances and as Reform are on track for a comfortable majority at the next election, the significant news today is that Farage intends to abolish the OBR. Along with his intention that the government, not the Bank of England, sets interest rates, this is a clear indication that Reform will take the UK down the Argentina route: high deficit, high inflation.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
That's not going to get it to £290 million! Though I assume you meant billion.
The job of the next Government will be to get total expenditure down to 2019 levels - 2008 if they're really good. Their second term, they should be able to get it down to 1997 levels.
Off Topic but has there been any sighting or comment from the Chancellor since the announcement that the IHT Threshold was to be raised to £2.5 M. And what does her farmer hating husband think of it all ?
In the entire history of male Chancellors, has there ever been coverage of what their wives thought about tax measures?
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
No. 'Spending' isn't an appropriate measure of anything.
That's the sort of nonsense which permeates pointless discussions. Of course spending doesn't measure competence - money can be poured into a black hole. Let us take for granted that all stuff should be done competently. But the idea that an economy, our defence capability, how decent our pensions are, can't be measured in part by the spending on them is meaningless.
Stodge is, as so often, 100% asking the right questions.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
It's not going to happen, no matter what the government. The English people have some similarities to the Russian in that they are cynical and cruel, enjoying both the humiliation of neighbouring countries and a certain flavour of wall-eyed jingoism centered on the GPW/WW2. They are unlike the Russians in that they absolutely won't suffer any material discomfort to indulge it.
It's impossible to assemble an election winning coalition based on an extra 80dn quids worth of cuts and/or tax rises to give to BAE/Babcock/Serco once you get into the details of what that entails.
Do the Russians operate a Great Patriotic War Flight? I follow a guy called Yuri on FB who works for a military museum in Moscow, they certainly seem to fetishise the AFV as part of their mythos.
Theres a pretty impressive display at the Artillery Museum in St Petersburg.
Off Topic but has there been any sighting or comment from the Chancellor since the announcement that the IHT Threshold was to be raised to £2.5 M. And what does her farmer hating husband think of it all ?
In the entire history of male Chancellors, has there ever been coverage of what their wives thought about tax measures?
A elegant reply.
The most heavily taxed Chancellor's SWMBO was probably Ms Sunak?
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
And lose an election.
Not if a Tory government, Tory voters want to slash welfare and Kemi even floated means testing the triple lock
Conservative voters do like welfare cuts... right up to the point they affect them. See the calm shrug on the right when WFA was threatened.
Remember also the wisdom of the Lilley. One billion off welfare is a thousand pounds times a million households, mostly poor ones. It may be possible, but it is never easy.
Eighty billion is roughly nine thousand pounds from nine million households. Whether you do it by tax rises or spending cuts, it isn't easy.
That is true. Unfortunately i think some of our problems are so acute that they may actually require a government bold and confident enough to think something will be easy, so they are not paralysed by indecision, caution, and half measures, in order to unlock the kind of action that will see meaningful change.
The problem, of course, is that approach is far riskier and could blow up in our faces as well.
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
Your post is an example of those arguing for an international free for all.
Like this lame brain. CNN: Venezuela is a sovereign nation. Why is it okay for the US to go in, arrest its leader, control its oil, and take over for a time?
In Jones's case he's constrained by the caution/cowardice of the PM over the affair.
Have you read the indictment? It's full of vague assertion * It's laughable that Maduro has anything to answer for under US domestic law. Doesn't mean he won't be convicted of course.
*Basically he's a corrupt guy and associates with gangs who kidnap. Ironic given the circumstances of his capture and who ordered it.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?
Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?
Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.
Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?
What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
Off Topic but has there been any sighting or comment from the Chancellor since the announcement that the IHT Threshold was to be raised to £2.5 M. And what does her farmer hating husband think of it all ?
In the entire history of male Chancellors, has there ever been coverage of what their wives thought about tax measures?
A elegant reply.
The most heavily taxed Chancellor's SWMBO was probably Ms Sunak?
And she got loads of incoming about why is your Dad's firm doing x, y and z.
As we're talking public finances and as Reform are on track for a comfortable majority at the next election, the significant news today is that Farage intends to abolish the OBR. Along with his intention that the government, not the Bank of England, sets interest rates, this is a clear indication that Reform will take the UK down the Argentina route: high deficit, high inflation.
Buy gold, folks.
Has the OBR improved the quality of budgets and succeeded in making us less indebted since its introduction?
Has Bank of England independence improved and stabilised our monetary policy?
These organisations are not only not particularly good at their jobs, they are completely unaccountable.
Sir Keir Starmer says that he 'regrets' welcoming Alaa Abd el-Fattah to the UK given his social media comments about killing zionists
'Of course I regret that. Your point that somebody in government should have known is one that should have been made to the appropriate team. It's a failing within the system. It shouldn't have happened. I wasn't very pleased it happened'
That's fascinating little quote. The wording in typical of someone who isn't the Number 1 Boss of a great team. Instead of a public face of 'The Buck Stops Here', responsibility, which in public Starmer should simply take as head of government, is neatly dispersed between 'somebody', 'the system' and that friend of evasion, the passive mood.
He's competent as an administrator, and basically honest for a politician, but Starmer is no leader. Starmer should never have become PM.
Off Topic but has there been any sighting or comment from the Chancellor since the announcement that the IHT Threshold was to be raised to £2.5 M. And what does her farmer hating husband think of it all ?
In the entire history of male Chancellors, has there ever been coverage of what their wives thought about tax measures?
A elegant reply.
The most heavily taxed Chancellor's SWMBO was probably Ms Sunak?
In the entire history of Male Chancellors has there ever been a Chancellor whose wife was Head Civil Servant in a Government department in which she attempted to destroy the industry which the department was meant to be incharge of ?
I seemed to remember Mumsnet regulars have had a very long running bust up over the trans issue. Many were very very unhappy at the inability of Labour politicians to be clear about what a woman was and single sex spaces / sports.
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
Your post is an example of those arguing for an international free for all.
Like this lame brain. CNN: Venezuela is a sovereign nation. Why is it okay for the US to go in, arrest its leader, control its oil, and take over for a time?
In Jones's case he's constrained by the caution/cowardice of the PM over the affair.
Have you read the indictment? It's full of vague assertion * It's laughable that Maduro has anything to answer for under US domestic law. Doesn't mean he won't be convicted of course.
*Basically he's a corrupt guy and associates with gangs who kidnap. Ironic given the circumstances of his capture and who ordered it.
Given how lower courts unlike the SC are not supine before Trump it could be fascinating what the gameplan here was. Obviously he's going nowhere no matter what, but the military operation was properly planned so what about the next steps?
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
And lose an election.
Not if a Tory government, Tory voters want to slash welfare and Kemi even floated means testing the triple lock
The "means-test the triple lock" thing does not suggest that Badenoch is serious about controlling spending. Quite the opposite, in fact - it would save next to nothing in the short term and is completely incoherent in the long term.
The only thing that is going to save us serious cash is freezing hospital spending in real terms. Everything else is immaterial in comparison. Contrary to the poipular misconception, social security has fallen as a percentage of GDP over the last 15 years.
For Sir Keir Starmer, the moment of maximum peril will come in May. There will have to be an unusually dramatic and rapid recovery for the government to avoid diabolical results in May.
Given there is already a Sinn Féin First Minister in Northern Ireland, all three of the non-English components of the UK could be led by people who want to break it up. Sir Keir’s woes will be compounded by losses in London, which has been a bastion of Labour support for decades. It won’t be much consolation to the Labour leader that this is also likely to be a dreadful night for his Tory counterpart.
He’s a proud man, Keir,” says one Labour figure who recently had an intimate chat with the prime minister. “I don’t think he will accept people saying ‘your time is up’. He can’t see anyone else who would improve our prospects. If that is right, pretenders to the throne will have to be prepared to embark on the bloody business of prising him out. With Labour [compared to the Tories], the process is more public and pregnant with risk for challengers. Every coup attempt [during 2009 and 2010 against Brown] spluttered out because the plotters lacked the coordination, cohesion, courage and sheer ruthlessness required to do the deed against an intransigent incumbent.
I do not rule out an attempt to remove the crown from Sir Keir’s uneasy head. I do caution everyone that it is much easier to chatter about dethroning the prime minister than it is to actually do it.
Sir Keir Starmer says that he 'regrets' welcoming Alaa Abd el-Fattah to the UK given his social media comments about killing zionists
'Of course I regret that. Your point that somebody in government should have known is one that should have been made to the appropriate team. It's a failing within the system. It shouldn't have happened. I wasn't very pleased it happened'
That's fascinating little quote. The wording in typical of someone who isn't the Number 1 Boss of a great team. Instead of a public face of 'The Buck Stops Here', responsibility, which in public Starmer should simply take as head of government, is neatly dispersed between 'somebody', 'the system' and that friend of evasion, the passive mood.
He's competent as an administrator, and basically honest for a politician, but Starmer is no leader. Starmer should never have become PM.
Where is the evidence he is even a competent administrator. Certainly got going well as PM. And the CPS under his watch was a shit show (as it was under his precedessor) and every scandal his defence has been it didn't cross my desk. So was clueless about what was going on in his own organisation is not competent management. And the honest John act is wearing thin too, he has been caught telling porkie plenty of times now.
Sir Keir Starmer says that he 'regrets' welcoming Alaa Abd el-Fattah to the UK given his social media comments about killing zionists
'Of course I regret that. Your point that somebody in government should have known is one that should have been made to the appropriate team. It's a failing within the system. It shouldn't have happened. I wasn't very pleased it happened'
‘Of course I regret doing the hoovering in the nude..’
The more he opens his mouth the more unsuited he seems to be as Prime Minister. Of all the answers he could have given to that question that was the worst.
As we're talking public finances and as Reform are on track for a comfortable majority at the next election, the significant news today is that Farage intends to abolish the OBR. Along with his intention that the government, not the Bank of England, sets interest rates, this is a clear indication that Reform will take the UK down the Argentina route: high deficit, high inflation.
Buy gold, folks.
Disappointingly, this post is complete bollocks and he says he is 'considering' whether the OBR should be scrapped.
For Sir Keir Starmer, the moment of maximum peril will come in May. There will have to be an unusually dramatic and rapid recovery for the government to avoid diabolical results in May.
Given there is already a Sinn Féin First Minister in Northern Ireland, all three of the non-English components of the UK could be led by people who want to break it up. Sir Keir’s woes will be compounded by losses in London, which has been a bastion of Labour support for decades. It won’t be much consolation to the Labour leader that this is also likely to be a dreadful night for his Tory counterpart.
He’s a proud man, Keir,” says one Labour figure who recently had an intimate chat with the prime minister. “I don’t think he will accept people saying ‘your time is up’. He can’t see anyone else who would improve our prospects. If that is right, pretenders to the throne will have to be prepared to embark on the bloody business of prising him out. With Labour [compared to the Tories], the process is more public and pregnant with risk for challengers. Every coup attempt [during 2009 and 2010 against Brown] spluttered out because the plotters lacked the coordination, cohesion, courage and sheer ruthlessness required to do the deed against an intransigent incumbent.
I do not rule out an attempt to remove the crown from Sir Keir’s uneasy head. I do caution everyone that it is much easier to chatter about dethroning the prime minister than it is to actually do it.
Yes, PC/SNP/SF, long term prospects for UK are dispiriting.
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
I’m sure Darren is all for leaving the icky, difficult stuff to the ICJ. Then ignoring it.
Looking at the comparison with Ukraine, the issue is that regardless of international law, opposing Russia would still be the correct and sensible course of action.
And let's be realistic. The reason Europe is supporting Ukraine, as are we, is because its survival is essential to our long term security.
There are many who would support Ukraine anyway, and there are others (like Dura) who argue that we shouldn't bother.
The pragmatic argument is what tips the balance. And the fact that the US cannot now be relied on at all reinforces it.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
That's not going to get it to £290 million! Though I assume you meant billion.
The job of the next Government will be to get total expenditure down to 2019 levels - 2008 if they're really good. Their second term, they should be able to get it down to 1997 levels.
The job of this and the next Government will be to get the economy to a level where these sorts of levels can be afforded, surely.
Sir Keir Starmer says that he 'regrets' welcoming Alaa Abd el-Fattah to the UK given his social media comments about killing zionists
'Of course I regret that. Your point that somebody in government should have known is one that should have been made to the appropriate team. It's a failing within the system. It shouldn't have happened. I wasn't very pleased it happened'
LOL, he’s been known about for more than a decade.
I totally get the huge media attention about the US special ops military strike on Venezuela and the capture of Maduro and his wife and their journey to the US and the implications for this country and the wider global stage after the actions of Trump and the US. What message does it send to Russia and China being the key points while Trump clearly sees what has being going on in this country and its horrific economic downfall under Maduro's dictatorship as a massive and a serious issue for illegal immigration into the US as well as well as the serious drug problem it has created on the US doorstep. But lets not for get or spare Putin's blushes after his unlawful invasion of Ukraine while the broken and dysfunctional UN continues to prove its no longer fit for purpose!
But I still remain utterly frustrated at the lack of media attention about what is going on right now in Iran which has equal if not far more importance and implications on the global stage right now especially for the future wider stability of the Middle East or not, and also for Western countries and both Russia and China if that awful Regime falls?! And PS, North Korea launching a ballistic missile and the UK/French strikes on ISIS targets in Syria barely even got a mention, talk about a bad day to bury bad news while no one is looking with most of the public in the Western world totally unaware!
Protesters in Iran are dying due to the awful Regime there, and absolute tumble weed in the UK media over the last week, but a Trump sanctioned US military coup in Venezuela and the UK media and the left wake up and have something to say?! I grew up as a lassie here in the UK and its hard to fathom that until 1979 girls in Iran grew up wearing the same clothes I did and attended co-ed Universities and now girls over the last decades there have been dying if they did not behave correctly or cover their hair or the youth in Iran dared to raise up and protest against this awful religious regime!
There is something different about this uprising in Iran, its not only as a result of economic factors, the economy is tanking and there are petrol and water shortages while the Iranian regime has been concentrating on funding its State terrorism in Gaza, Yemen and Lebenon as well as Iraq. With the demographics of the Iran age and population its always been a matter of when rather than if the country will finally raise up against this awful religious inspired regime and finally successfully remove it.
The media’s criminal ignoring of Iran is only matched by their lack of attention towards Buggate at Holyrood. Any updates btw?
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
Your post is an example of those arguing for an international free for all.
Like this lame brain. CNN: Venezuela is a sovereign nation. Why is it okay for the US to go in, arrest its leader, control its oil, and take over for a time?
In Jones's case he's constrained by the caution/cowardice of the PM over the affair.
Have you read the indictment? It's full of vague assertion * It's laughable that Maduro has anything to answer for under US domestic law. Doesn't mean he won't be convicted of course.
*Basically he's a corrupt guy and associates with gangs who kidnap. Ironic given the circumstances of his capture and who ordered it.
Setting aside Maduro's particular case, MAGA are now arguing in plain terms that the President can legally invade anywhere he likes, without even notifying Congress let alone getting a declaration of war, if he just gets Pam Bondi to issue an indictment.
Which she's proven happy to do for Trump against even the completely law abiding.
As we're talking public finances and as Reform are on track for a comfortable majority at the next election, the significant news today is that Farage intends to abolish the OBR. Along with his intention that the government, not the Bank of England, sets interest rates, this is a clear indication that Reform will take the UK down the Argentina route: high deficit, high inflation.
Buy gold, folks.
Has the OBR improved the quality of budgets and succeeded in making us less indebted since its introduction?
Has Bank of England independence improved and stabilised our monetary policy?
These organisations are not only not particularly good at their jobs, they are completely unaccountable.
There is research showing that borrowing costs relative to the inflation rate came down after Gordon Brown moved interest rate decisions to the Bank of England. Quite a useful discount as I recall.
You have the example of the Trussterfuck budget when it came to messing with the OBR.
The big issue is credibility. Why would you get rid of these constraints unless your intention is to be unconstrained?
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
No. 'Spending' isn't an appropriate measure of anything.
I hope you mean the deeper question about on what the extra defence spending (if actually required) would go and whether the lessons learnt from Ukraine and elsewhere mean we need to comprehensively rethink what our armed forces need to be and what kind of defence systems and structures would be effective in the current age of warfare.
If so, wholeheartedly yes, but I fear people still think of it in terms of more money, more soldiers, more aircraft and more ships and they do cost but are they the defence we need?
As I said yesterday it must start with what we want the outcomes to be. Then work out where we are, and what it will cost to get us there. We also need to gut the department and start again - pretty much from scratch.
It's a start - the first problem is going to be the mindset. Too many people still think we need to act like a Premier League global superpower whereas we are Championship level at best and League One on a bad day.
I'm no expert - I'm not sure anyone on here really is either - but the first question is probably as you say, "what does an adequate defence profile for the United Kingdom look like?" and that leads on to the question of what we are defending against (the who is less important)? Are we realistically looking at a full scale invasion of the United Kingdom? Are we looking at a carefully planned raid to extract our Prime Minister or Mayor of London or Martin Lewis or some other national leader? Are we looking at cyber attacks on our financial systems - the memory of the Northern Rock incident should be in everyone's mind?
It's all and some of these and each of these scenarios needs to be thought out (I'm sure it has been) and planned (I hope it has been). There's another part of the question which is not what do we need to defend ourselves but what do we need to make everyone (including the UK population) believe we are adequately defended?
It's like levels of crime or the size of the UK Muslim population - there's the reality and there's the perception. How much does the reality cost to achieve against how much does it cost to maintain the perception?
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
sure a fair whack of health is also spent on poor admin/management, suspect a good cull their would free up a lot.
Off Topic but has there been any sighting or comment from the Chancellor since the announcement that the IHT Threshold was to be raised to £2.5 M. And what does her farmer hating husband think of it all ?
In the entire history of male Chancellors, has there ever been coverage of what their wives thought about tax measures?
A elegant reply.
In the entire history of Male Chancellors was there ever a wife of the Chancellor who had such an unbelievable conflict of interest as Reeves's husband ?
In the farming industry, and self-employment generally husband and wife are one unseparable unit. The idea that you do not see Reeves and her husband as the same says more about you than me.
I notice no-one has answered the original question so assume she has not been heard of since Keir Starmer changed the threshold to save his skin when he is challenged in February.
I do wonder if any change to the status as of 4 July 2024 will actually get through the house. Presumably there will be opposition amendments to deal with Farm Livestock and Deadstock valuation, index linking, non-conventional couples etc etc.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
And lose an election.
Not if a Tory government, Tory voters want to slash welfare and Kemi even floated means testing the triple lock
I'm not sure that the Great British Public actually understand the merde the country is in, and how cutting benefits is somehow a solution. It's generational and it's core is the Conservative Party.
And when is everyone going to realise Kemi as cosplay-British in the same way as Evgeny Lebedev is?
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
It's not going to happen, no matter what the government. The English people have some similarities to the Russian in that they are cynical and cruel, enjoying both the humiliation of neighbouring countries and a certain flavour of wall-eyed jingoism centered on the GPW/WW2. They are unlike the Russians in that they absolutely won't suffer any material discomfort to indulge it.
It's impossible to assemble an election winning coalition based on an extra 80dn quids worth of cuts and/or tax rises to give to BAE/Babcock/Serco once you get into the details of what that entails.
And, yet, we've committed to spend 5% of GDP on security by 2035 - 3.5% (core defence) and 1.5% (resilience and security) - and have already increased defence spending, by fits and spurts, from 1.95% of GDP to 2.3% of GDP.
We can absolutely get to the target, but it requires trimming £11bn+ from welfare (abolishing WFA, two child limit restoration on UC, and PIP reform gets you all of that) and linking pensions to average earnings/basic double-lock from 2035 another £12bn+. A penny on income tax for national security raises another £7bn.
So that's £30bn extra annually for Defence right there, which gets you to £113bn of Defence spending without any real material privation, and essentially allows the UK to hit 3.5% of GDP on time on target.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
And lose an election.
Not if a Tory government, Tory voters want to slash welfare and Kemi even floated means testing the triple lock
The "means-test the triple lock" thing does not suggest that Badenoch is serious about controlling spending. Quite the opposite, in fact - it would save next to nothing in the short term and is completely incoherent in the long term.
The only thing that is going to save us serious cash is freezing hospital spending in real terms. Everything else is immaterial in comparison. Contrary to the poipular misconception, social security has fallen as a percentage of GDP over the last 15 years.
It doesn't matter what Kemi "floats". My Boxing Day shit floated, was about as appealing as Kemi and has just as much chance of leading the tories into the next GE as she does.
The sallow dregs of the tory part have been reduced to an OAP pressure group. They are not going to go into the next election making noises about threatening the the Trippy Lockz.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?
Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?
Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.
Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?
What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
£2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.
Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
No. 'Spending' isn't an appropriate measure of anything.
I hope you mean the deeper question about on what the extra defence spending (if actually required) would go and whether the lessons learnt from Ukraine and elsewhere mean we need to comprehensively rethink what our armed forces need to be and what kind of defence systems and structures would be effective in the current age of warfare.
If so, wholeheartedly yes, but I fear people still think of it in terms of more money, more soldiers, more aircraft and more ships and they do cost but are they the defence we need?
As I said yesterday it must start with what we want the outcomes to be. Then work out where we are, and what it will cost to get us there. We also need to gut the department and start again - pretty much from scratch.
It's a start - the first problem is going to be the mindset. Too many people still think we need to act like a Premier League global superpower whereas we are Championship level at best and League One on a bad day.
I'm no expert - I'm not sure anyone on here really is either - but the first question is probably as you say, "what does an adequate defence profile for the United Kingdom look like?" and that leads on to the question of what we are defending against (the who is less important)? Are we realistically looking at a full scale invasion of the United Kingdom? Are we looking at a carefully planned raid to extract our Prime Minister or Mayor of London or Martin Lewis or some other national leader? Are we looking at cyber attacks on our financial systems - the memory of the Northern Rock incident should be in everyone's mind?
It's all and some of these and each of these scenarios needs to be thought out (I'm sure it has been) and planned (I hope it has been). There's another part of the question which is not what do we need to defend ourselves but what do we need to make everyone (including the UK population) believe we are adequately defended?
It's like levels of crime or the size of the UK Muslim population - there's the reality and there's the perception. How much does the reality cost to achieve against how much does it cost to maintain the perception?
There was (quite outrageously in my opinion) a military excercise of combined militaries simulating an invasion of the UK a few years ago. We need to be able to repel a conventional invasion, as well as combat other threats. We also need missile defence. And a working independent nuclear capability.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
And lose an election.
Not if a Tory government, Tory voters want to slash welfare and Kemi even floated means testing the triple lock
Conservative voters do like welfare cuts... right up to the point they affect them. See the calm shrug on the right when WFA was threatened.
Remember also the wisdom of the Lilley. One billion off welfare is a thousand pounds times a million households, mostly poor ones. It may be possible, but it is never easy.
Eighty billion is roughly nine thousand pounds from nine million households. Whether you do it by tax rises or spending cuts, it isn't easy.
That's the price of remaining a free nation, and not a subjugated one.
We are living in an age of blood and iron, not a utopia where our values go unchallenged.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
And lose an election.
Not if a Tory government, Tory voters want to slash welfare and Kemi even floated means testing the triple lock
The "means-test the triple lock" thing does not suggest that Badenoch is serious about controlling spending. Quite the opposite, in fact - it would save next to nothing in the short term and is completely incoherent in the long term.
The only thing that is going to save us serious cash is freezing hospital spending in real terms. Everything else is immaterial in comparison. Contrary to the poipular misconception, social security has fallen as a percentage of GDP over the last 15 years.
It doesn't matter what Kemi "floats". My Boxing Day shit floated, was about as appealing as Kemi and has just as much chance of leading the tories into the next GE as she does.
The sallow dregs of the tory part have been reduced to an OAP pressure group. They are not going to go into the next election making noises about threatening the the Trippy Lockz.
I have my doubts too but you are no authority on the subject: you said Sunak had called an early election because he knew there were two Statty Funezs coming up later that year, which showed you up as just a troll.
This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him
I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.
Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.
Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.
This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.
Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.
Off Topic but has there been any sighting or comment from the Chancellor since the announcement that the IHT Threshold was to be raised to £2.5 M. And what does her farmer hating husband think of it all ?
In the entire history of male Chancellors, has there ever been coverage of what their wives thought about tax measures?
A elegant reply.
In the entire history of Male Chancellors was there ever a wife of the Chancellor who had such an unbelievable conflict of interest as Reeves's husband ?
In the farming industry, and self-employment generally husband and wife are one unseparable unit. The idea that you do not see Reeves and her husband as the same says more about you than me.
I notice no-one has answered the original question so assume she has not been heard of since Keir Starmer changed the threshold to save his skin when he is challenged in February.
I do wonder if any change to the status as of 4 July 2024 will actually get through the house. Presumably there will be opposition amendments to deal with Farm Livestock and Deadstock valuation, index linking, non-conventional couples etc etc.
Paranoid or what?
Although true for many in farming the idea that 'self employment generally husband and wife are one unseparable(sp) unit' is poppycock. Although often husbands and wives set up in business together it is also very common not to be the case. In fact everyone I know (including myself) who set up a business did not do it with their spouses involvement whatsoever.
This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him
I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.
Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.
Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.
This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.
Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.
As to who will lead Labour into the election...
Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.
Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.
The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?
Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?
Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.
Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?
What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
£2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.
Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
That's nice rhetoric but in-work poverty increased significantly under the Conservatives, despite a strong record on employment, and is significantly higher than our counterparts elsewhere.
So no, child poverty is not solved by getting people into work. You have to pay them properly too - the kind of wage that allows them to support a family, not make us a cheap cup of coffee.
For Sir Keir Starmer, the moment of maximum peril will come in May. There will have to be an unusually dramatic and rapid recovery for the government to avoid diabolical results in May.
Given there is already a Sinn Féin First Minister in Northern Ireland, all three of the non-English components of the UK could be led by people who want to break it up. Sir Keir’s woes will be compounded by losses in London, which has been a bastion of Labour support for decades. It won’t be much consolation to the Labour leader that this is also likely to be a dreadful night for his Tory counterpart.
He’s a proud man, Keir,” says one Labour figure who recently had an intimate chat with the prime minister. “I don’t think he will accept people saying ‘your time is up’. He can’t see anyone else who would improve our prospects. If that is right, pretenders to the throne will have to be prepared to embark on the bloody business of prising him out. With Labour [compared to the Tories], the process is more public and pregnant with risk for challengers. Every coup attempt [during 2009 and 2010 against Brown] spluttered out because the plotters lacked the coordination, cohesion, courage and sheer ruthlessness required to do the deed against an intransigent incumbent.
I do not rule out an attempt to remove the crown from Sir Keir’s uneasy head. I do caution everyone that it is much easier to chatter about dethroning the prime minister than it is to actually do it.
Yes, PC/SNP/SF, long term prospects for UK are dispiriting.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.
If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
Well they would restore the two child benefit cap for starters Labour have abandoned and reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.
I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).
Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?
Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.
If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?
Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?
Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.
Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?
What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
£2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.
Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
Can't say they did much to achieve it, can one? Also if the breadwinner(s) know that they've got some stability and security at home, it helps. Further, I suggest that zero hours contracts for those at the bottom mean that there has to be some form of social security for their children.
This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him
I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.
Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.
Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.
This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.
Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.
As to who will lead Labour into the election...
Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.
Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.
The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.
My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
I have to plead with some relatives to persist because they are frustrated by a) the difficulty seeing anyone and b) the hostility they will receive when they dare to try to see someone.
I know those working in health are facing some really tough challenges but damn, the stereotype of the overly aggressive gatekeeper is real.
Comments
https://x.com/adamemedia/status/2007631871493189968?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.
Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.
Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.
This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
NEW: Our MRP for @thetimes finds Reform continue to dominate the electoral map with no other party hitting 3 digits
➡️ REF UK 381 (+376)
🌹 LAB 85 (−326)
🌳 CON 70 (−51)
🟡 SNP 40 (+31)
🔶 LD 35 (−37)
💚 GRN 9 (+5)
🟩 PC 5 (+1)
Change w 2024
https://x.com/luketryl/status/2007619646212714504?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/2007736072487522404
I appreciate that I might feel differently in your shoes, but he's not even the worst PM of the last five years. If anything, he's in a close (but really uninspiring) competition with Sunak for the best in that dismal time.
It's like how we had some absurd takes on how government might function when Boris was ill, when it was all pretty uncontentious, with Raab (i think technically first secretary of state not deputy pm at the time) basically informally deputising with no need to become formally PM, and has Boris died a temporary arrangement could have been made.
Then ignoring it.
Just kidding, with numbers as they are the models break down, even if they add the magic words MRP.
It's impossible to assemble an election winning coalition based on an extra 80dn quids worth of cuts and/or tax rises to give to BAE/Babcock/Serco once you get into the details of what that entails.
It might concentrate the minds of tactical voters though.
It was a response to a direct question about what he thought of the raid.
Sir Keir Starmer says that he 'regrets' welcoming Alaa Abd el-Fattah to the UK given his social media comments about killing zionists
'Of course I regret that. Your point that somebody in government should have known is one that should have been made to the appropriate team. It's a failing within the system. It shouldn't have happened. I wasn't very pleased it happened'
If so, wholeheartedly yes, but I fear people still think of it in terms of more money, more soldiers, more aircraft and more ships and they do cost but are they the defence we need?
I follow a guy called Yuri on FB who works for a military museum in Moscow, they certainly seem to fetishise the AFV as part of their mythos.
Starmer as a EPL manager would lose the dressing room pretty rapidly with his approach to man management.
https://www.edrith.co.uk/p/2026-forecasting-contest
Like this lame brain.
CNN: Venezuela is a sovereign nation. Why is it okay for the US to go in, arrest its leader, control its oil, and take over for a time?
REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ: It's okay because that leader happened to be under indictment here in the US
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2007560644019532252
In Jones's case he's constrained by the caution/cowardice of the PM over the affair.
https://safarway.com/en/property/military-historical-museum-of-artillery
I had a gander when there for the World Cup. Strangely few visitors compared to the Hermitage, but no accounting for taste.
Remember also the wisdom of the Lilley. One billion off welfare is a thousand pounds times a million households, mostly poor ones. It may be possible, but it is never easy.
Eighty billion is roughly nine thousand pounds from nine million households. Whether you do it by tax rises or spending cuts, it isn't easy.
We need a total rethink concentrated around defence of our Islands and supporting our allies in Europe.
The graffito on it, Спасибо деду за победу, is actually a Brexit reference.
Buy gold, folks.
The job of the next Government will be to get total expenditure down to 2019 levels - 2008 if they're really good. Their second term, they should be able to get it down to 1997 levels.
Stodge is, as so often, 100% asking the right questions.
The problem, of course, is that approach is far riskier and could blow up in our faces as well.
*Basically he's a corrupt guy and associates with gangs who kidnap. Ironic given the circumstances of his capture and who ordered it.
Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?
Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.
Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?
What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
https://www.thetimes.com/article/dbd39087-465c-4587-9eaa-292606ffb775?shareToken=6a51f39cb3d8dcf88f1e4d7ed3e3cde4
Has Bank of England independence improved and stabilised our monetary policy?
These organisations are not only not particularly good at their jobs, they are completely unaccountable.
The only thing that is going to save us serious cash is freezing hospital spending in real terms. Everything else is immaterial in comparison. Contrary to the poipular misconception, social security has fallen as a percentage of GDP over the last 15 years.
For Sir Keir Starmer, the moment of maximum peril will come in May. There will have to be an unusually dramatic and rapid recovery for the government to avoid diabolical results in May.
Given there is already a Sinn Féin First Minister in Northern Ireland, all three of the non-English components of the UK could be led by people who want to break it up. Sir Keir’s woes will be compounded by losses in London, which has been a bastion of Labour support for decades. It won’t be much consolation to the Labour leader that this is also likely to be a dreadful night for his Tory counterpart.
He’s a proud man, Keir,” says one Labour figure who recently had an intimate chat with the prime minister. “I don’t think he will accept people saying ‘your time is up’. He can’t see anyone else who would improve our prospects. If that is right, pretenders to the throne will have to be prepared to embark on the bloody business of prising him out. With Labour [compared to the Tories], the process is more public and pregnant with risk for challengers. Every coup attempt [during 2009 and 2010 against Brown] spluttered out because the plotters lacked the coordination, cohesion, courage and sheer ruthlessness required to do the deed against an intransigent incumbent.
I do not rule out an attempt to remove the crown from Sir Keir’s uneasy head. I do caution everyone that it is much easier to chatter about dethroning the prime minister than it is to actually do it.
The reason Europe is supporting Ukraine, as are we, is because its survival is essential to our long term security.
There are many who would support Ukraine anyway, and there are others (like Dura) who argue that we shouldn't bother.
The pragmatic argument is what tips the balance. And the fact that the US cannot now be relied on at all reinforces it.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/2007730698958827991
I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.
Feb 2015: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/egyptian-human-rights-activist-hits-back-after-peace-prize-nomination-withdrawn
Which she's proven happy to do for Trump against even the completely law abiding.
You have the example of the Trussterfuck budget when it came to messing with the OBR.
The big issue is credibility. Why would you get rid of these constraints unless your intention is to be unconstrained?
I'm no expert - I'm not sure anyone on here really is either - but the first question is probably as you say, "what does an adequate defence profile for the United Kingdom look like?" and that leads on to the question of what we are defending against (the who is less important)? Are we realistically looking at a full scale invasion of the United Kingdom? Are we looking at a carefully planned raid to extract our Prime Minister or Mayor of London or Martin Lewis or some other national leader? Are we looking at cyber attacks on our financial systems - the memory of the Northern Rock incident should be in everyone's mind?
It's all and some of these and each of these scenarios needs to be thought out (I'm sure it has been) and planned (I hope it has been). There's another part of the question which is not what do we need to defend ourselves but what do we need to make everyone (including the UK population) believe we are adequately defended?
It's like levels of crime or the size of the UK Muslim population - there's the reality and there's the perception. How much does the reality cost to achieve against how much does it cost to maintain the perception?
Lib Dems down. Other Parties (Greens) down.
In the farming industry, and self-employment generally husband and wife are one unseparable unit. The idea that you do not see Reeves and her husband as the same says more about you than me.
I notice no-one has answered the original question so assume she has not been heard of since Keir Starmer changed the threshold to save his skin when he is challenged in February.
I do wonder if any change to the status as of 4 July 2024 will actually get through the house. Presumably there will be opposition amendments to deal with Farm Livestock and Deadstock valuation, index linking, non-conventional couples etc etc.
And when is everyone going to realise Kemi as cosplay-British in the same way as Evgeny Lebedev is?
We can absolutely get to the target, but it requires trimming £11bn+ from welfare (abolishing WFA, two child limit restoration on UC, and PIP reform gets you all of that) and linking pensions to average earnings/basic double-lock from 2035 another £12bn+. A penny on income tax for national security raises another £7bn.
So that's £30bn extra annually for Defence right there, which gets you to £113bn of Defence spending without any real material privation, and essentially allows the UK to hit 3.5% of GDP on time on target.
The sallow dregs of the tory part have been reduced to an OAP pressure group. They are not going to go into the next election making noises about threatening the the Trippy Lockz.
Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
We are living in an age of blood and iron, not a utopia where our values go unchallenged.
As to who will lead Labour into the election...
Although true for many in farming the idea that 'self employment generally husband and wife are one unseparable(sp) unit' is poppycock. Although often husbands and wives set up in business together it is also very common not to be the case. In fact everyone I know (including myself) who set up a business did not do it with their spouses involvement whatsoever.
Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.
The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html
My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
So no, child poverty is not solved by getting people into work. You have to pay them properly too - the kind of wage that allows them to support a family, not make us a cheap cup of coffee.
NEW THREAD
Further, I suggest that zero hours contracts for those at the bottom mean that there has to be some form of social security for their children.
I know those working in health are facing some really tough challenges but damn, the stereotype of the overly aggressive gatekeeper is real.