@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
The Russian government has stopped publishing data on the balance of the treasury accounts. They stopped publishing this data on the same day as they announced that bond sales were suspended. As of July 16th Russia had 4.147 trillion roubles (about £39bn) in the treasury accounts, down from about 9 trillion at the start of the year. The Russian government deficit in the first half of 2026 was about 5.73 trillion roubles. They can't fund that through new bond sales now, so they have to find the money from elsewhere.
They’ve two options left at this point, one is printing rubles and the other is selling debt in Yuan to the Chinese.
Russians are raiding the ATMs to get cash out of banks, fearing a repeat of the ‘90s where millions lost savings. Dollars on the black market are selling for double or more than the official rate.
Stock market in Moscow was at a several-year low yesterday too, below the spike down at the start of the war.
Darren Jones goes in two-footed. Burnham needs to call an election to put a stop to that.
Burnham should have kept Darren Jones within the tent. I think it was probably the biggest mistake of his first day.
Burnham can ignore Darren Jones easily.
Burnham's big mistake was keeping Mahood in Home because of what to do about her immigration policies. I don't personally like her policies but I am making a business of government point here.
If you agree with what Mahood is trying to do, and I assume Burnham broadly is in favour, you don't want Mahood to be leading on it because she is toxic and has made the policies toxic with your most important stakeholders. You want someone else these stakeholders will give time of day to to lead the initiative.
If on the other hand you want to change the policies, Mahood won't do that meaningfully. She is massively invested in them
Is Mahmood toxic ? I think she's done a decent job tbf.
She hasn't got the immigration policies through, she has caused the biggest rebellion of the Starmer government, and pushed or kept a reasonably large contingent of potential Labour supporters into the Greens. By keeping her on, Burnham more or less guarantees this will continue, which he could have avoided by putting someone else in her place.
This is a separate business of government point from the policies, which apart from being illiberal have negative consequences on the economy, government revenue, education and welfare provision, all of which areas Burnham has ambitious plans for.
The TLDR from Freedman's latest, on the Labour transition:
- the number ten operation (both north and south) is going to be more heavyweight within the political set up and the relative influence of number eleven lesser;
- he reckons keeping McFadden at DWP plus moving Cooke to head the policy unit means the Milburn welfare review might be wide-ranging
- having got nowhere on affordable housing, the new focus is likely to shift to social housing
- he suggests the Miliband and Streeting appointments are poor fits and likely arose from needing to solve issues within the reshuffle
- the big questions remain around how and how much money they will be able to raise, and the wider economic environment
Our latest voting intention poll, conducted shortly before the change in PM, shows a close race, with Labour and the Tories each within the margin of error of Reform UK for the first time in more than a year
Early on there was a suggestion that Labour wanted to be up against Reform because they had more baggage. I was sceptical about that because you can’t blame Reform for the mess of the last 10 years (and no, Brexit it isn’t a factor as Labour could have reversed that and haven’t).
So, do Labour need to ease off? No good destroying Reform before the election unless you’re super confident of beating the Tories.
Indeed.
I’ve seen plenty of polling which shows Labour win the next election if Farage is Reform leader/Reform first ot second in the polls thanks to massive levels of tactical voting.
(Heck even Starmer was going to win with some polls).
That tactical voting isn’t quite so strong if the Tories are first/second in the polls to Labour.
So the timing of the election comes down to
Labour has a small lead or close to Reform Farage is damaged but not out Tories are lagging behind
A May 2027 election looks possible then and may even do Labour good locally
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
And, we'd heard this argument for decades before. Britain at the centre of Europe. More influence. Less centralism. Opening it up to our services etc. And it never happened.
What did happen is endless ever closer union, including repacking the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty and then ramming it through regardless.
We were right to leave, and I'm delighted we're out.
A small yet significant announcement. The overture to an autumn budget.
Compare and contrast with Starmer/Reeves first announcement being to cut the WFA...
Indeed; as a spending matter it's in the roundings, and not doing the ID card scheme is clearly an avoided cost to balance it off, in the short term at least. The more pertinent point is that Darren Jones, previously a mild mannered, competent and loyal minister, is clearly very p***ed off.
Loyal to the old government, which makes him dangerous. He may be overdoing it, but if I had been sacked from the cabinet to make space for Louise Haigh, I think I would be an unhappy bunny.
BTW, anyone done a map of the constituencies of the old and new cabinet? My impression is that the Granadaland mafia thing is real, but I'm not sure and some evidence would be good.
R4 this morning said, as I recall, four from London and the South East, seven from the NW, four from Yorkshire, others spread around the country. Aside from Labour now being very London-lite, it didn't sound too bad.
Stolen from twitter, hat tip Lewis Goodall
Regional breakdown of full cabinet
North West: 7 Yorkshire: 4 North East: 2 West Mids: 2 London: 2 East Mids: 1 Wales: 2 South: 2 Scotland: 1
West Mids breakdown: Wolverhampton 2 Rest of West Midlands 0
Looking forward to similar results against the Baggies, Birmingham and Stoke next season.
Darren Jones goes in two-footed. Burnham needs to call an election to put a stop to that.
Burnham should have kept Darren Jones within the tent. I think it was probably the biggest mistake of his first day.
Burnham can ignore Darren Jones easily.
Burnham's big mistake was keeping Mahood in Home because of what to do about her immigration policies. I don't personally like her policies but I am making a business of government point here.
If you agree with what Mahood is trying to do, and I assume Burnham broadly is in favour, you don't want Mahood to be leading on it because she is toxic and has made the policies toxic with your most important stakeholders. You want someone else these stakeholders will give time of day to to lead the initiative.
If on the other hand you want to change the policies, Mahood won't do that meaningfully. She is massively invested in them
Is Mahmood toxic ? I think she's done a decent job tbf.
She's "toxic" because to the batshit Left she's dared to try and control immigration, rather than open up the borders even more.
The Russian government has stopped publishing data on the balance of the treasury accounts. They stopped publishing this data on the same day as they announced that bond sales were suspended. As of July 16th Russia had 4.147 trillion roubles (about £39bn) in the treasury accounts, down from about 9 trillion at the start of the year. The Russian government deficit in the first half of 2026 was about 5.73 trillion roubles. They can't fund that through new bond sales now, so they have to find the money from elsewhere.
They’ve two options left at this point, one is printing rubles and the other is selling debt in Yuan to the Chinese.
Russians are raiding the ATMs to get cash out of banks, fearing a repeat of the ‘90s where millions lost savings. Dollars on the black market are selling for double or more than the official rate.
Stock market in Moscow was at a several-year low yesterday too, below the spike down at the start of the war.
Some of the fringe members of the Duma have advocated for seizing bank deposits. All the ingredients are there for a bank run.
I'm not sure about the Chinese buying Russian debt, even if denominated in Yuan. A Russian debt default seems pretty likely, and more likely with every day the war continues. If the Chinese were to provide money I think they might want something more substantial in return than a promise of repayment.
We're two months away from the Russian Parliamentary elections. I'd guess that a lot will happen after the election.
Delurking for a quick post on the Burnham appointment:
As others have said, these sorts of announcements re the VAT and the drilling show he has the political instincts that Starmer lacked. It might be a bit muddled with the figures, but the size of the costings is outweighed by the political goodwill he can generate from such a move.
His cabinet, too, is generally pretty sound with a few exceptions (Powell at Education being the obvious one - Rayner and Haigh also don’t contribute to the “fresh new broom” narrative, but all needed to be rewarded for political reasons).
There are, however, several clouds on the horizon:
1) the cull of the Starmer loyalists (which, considering most of them were failures, is not a great loss) will however generate a significant amount of ill feeling. This can be seen with Darren Jones’ intervention this morning. Figures like Reeves, Jones, Lammy, Reed, Phillipson (remaining in cabinet but with a severe demotion) are unlikely to want this to be the end of their political careers.
2) the immediate feel-good vibes are not going to survive the country’s fundamentally challenging fiscal and economic outlook. Money needs to be found for defence, care, the new levelling up agenda - and that in essence requires cuts elsewhere, borrowing, or tax rises.
3) the lack of mandate is going to continue to be a millstone, particularly if Burnham majors on this idea of radical change.
My thoughts remain the same as before Burnham took over. If he really wants to lead a transformative government and wants the time to really institute some of the stuff he is talking about, the only way forward is a new mandate.
If these initial moves provide a decent enough bounce, the smart move is a general election in the spring, which also plausibly vanquishes the Starmer-loyalist problem if he gets his own mandate. I don’t think Burnham will have a better time. I think if he holds on til 28-29, his chances of getting another term are materially diminished.
Ultimately, Burnham knows that a) he's secure until the GE; Labour won't follow the Tories down the path of junking another leader, b) he starts with a lot of goodwill from his backbenchers and the wider political environment, and c) ultimately the success or failure of his agenda is what will matter.
Hence upsetting the Starmerites is the lesser cost, compared to not having a cabinet bought into his programme. And they won't do themselves any favours inside the party if they're seen to rock the boat during its honeymoon voyage.
As I've said before, I do now think the '2029 or later' bet for the year of next GE, at odds-on, is a screaming lay on BFE.
A lot hangs on whether Farage and Reform can recover from recent wobbles or continue to suffer sinking credibility, reputation and polling.
Even if Clacton send Farage back to Westminster, a low turnout and a substantial Binface (et al) vote would damage his credibility somewhat. And that won't help Reform. Especially if he loses his temper either during the campaign or at the count. (With the Count?)
A small yet significant announcement. The overture to an autumn budget.
Compare and contrast with Starmer/Reeves first announcement being to cut the WFA...
Indeed; as a spending matter it's in the roundings, and not doing the ID card scheme is clearly an avoided cost to balance it off, in the short term at least. The more pertinent point is that Darren Jones, previously a mild mannered, competent and loyal minister, is clearly very p***ed off.
Loyal to the old government, which makes him dangerous. He may be overdoing it, but if I had been sacked from the cabinet to make space for Louise Haigh, I think I would be an unhappy bunny.
BTW, anyone done a map of the constituencies of the old and new cabinet? My impression is that the Granadaland mafia thing is real, but I'm not sure and some evidence would be good.
R4 this morning said, as I recall, four from London and the South East, seven from the NW, four from Yorkshire, others spread around the country. Aside from Labour now being very London-lite, it didn't sound too bad.
I'm moving from London to Somerset in September, and plan to become a south west nationalist. I'm already offended by this government's make-up. Bet they will put up tax on cider and destroy my acquired identity.
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
And, we'd heard this argument for decades before. Britain at the centre of Europe. More influence. Less centralism. Opening it up to our services etc. And it never happened.
What did happen is endless ever closer union, including repacking the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty and then ramming it through regardless.
We were right to leave, and I'm delighted we're out.
It never happened for the same reason that Britain continues to suffer from the same problems with its governance that it has suffered for many decades - the politicians haven't been up to the job, and have prioritised short-term expedients over a long-term plan and the determination to see that plan through.
The Russian government has stopped publishing data on the balance of the treasury accounts. They stopped publishing this data on the same day as they announced that bond sales were suspended. As of July 16th Russia had 4.147 trillion roubles (about £39bn) in the treasury accounts, down from about 9 trillion at the start of the year. The Russian government deficit in the first half of 2026 was about 5.73 trillion roubles. They can't fund that through new bond sales now, so they have to find the money from elsewhere.
They’ve two options left at this point, one is printing rubles and the other is selling debt in Yuan to the Chinese.
Russians are raiding the ATMs to get cash out of banks, fearing a repeat of the ‘90s where millions lost savings. Dollars on the black market are selling for double or more than the official rate.
Stock market in Moscow was at a several-year low yesterday too, below the spike down at the start of the war.
Some of the fringe members of the Duma have advocated for seizing bank deposits. All the ingredients are there for a bank run.
I'm not sure about the Chinese buying Russian debt, even if denominated in Yuan. A Russian debt default seems pretty likely, and more likely with every day the war continues. If the Chinese were to provide money I think they might want something more substantial in return than a promise of repayment.
We're two months away from the Russian Parliamentary elections. I'd guess that a lot will happen after the election.
Water from Lake Baikal and resources/a dominating presence in the east (currently Russian, formerly Chinese under the Qing) territory, maybe?
It is “highly unusual” for a Russian warship to conduct a live-fire exercise close to the UK coast, a defence source says. This raises the very real possibility that the timing of a decision by the Russian frigate, Neustrashimy, to test fire its weapons 40 nautical miles off the coast of Plymouth on the day Andy Burnham was sworn in as PM on Monday was no coincidence…
The Russian government has stopped publishing data on the balance of the treasury accounts. They stopped publishing this data on the same day as they announced that bond sales were suspended. As of July 16th Russia had 4.147 trillion roubles (about £39bn) in the treasury accounts, down from about 9 trillion at the start of the year. The Russian government deficit in the first half of 2026 was about 5.73 trillion roubles. They can't fund that through new bond sales now, so they have to find the money from elsewhere.
They’ve two options left at this point, one is printing rubles and the other is selling debt in Yuan to the Chinese.
Russians are raiding the ATMs to get cash out of banks, fearing a repeat of the ‘90s where millions lost savings. Dollars on the black market are selling for double or more than the official rate.
Stock market in Moscow was at a several-year low yesterday too, below the spike down at the start of the war.
Some of the fringe members of the Duma have advocated for seizing bank deposits. All the ingredients are there for a bank run.
I'm not sure about the Chinese buying Russian debt, even if denominated in Yuan. A Russian debt default seems pretty likely, and more likely with every day the war continues. If the Chinese were to provide money I think they might want something more substantial in return than a promise of repayment.
We're two months away from the Russian Parliamentary elections. I'd guess that a lot will happen after the election.
Water from Lake Baikal and resources/a dominating presence in the east (currently Russian, formerly Chinese under the Qing) territory, maybe?
I was thinking nuclear technology, Arctic access, hydrocarbons ownership.
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
And, we'd heard this argument for decades before. Britain at the centre of Europe. More influence. Less centralism. Opening it up to our services etc. And it never happened.
What did happen is endless ever closer union, including repacking the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty and then ramming it through regardless.
We were right to leave, and I'm delighted we're out.
It never happened for the same reason that Britain continues to suffer from the same problems with its governance that it has suffered for many decades - the politicians haven't been up to the job, and have prioritised short-term expedients over a long-term plan and the determination to see that plan through.
And, yet, HMG has just removed the VAT concerned.
Your Stockholm syndrome and victim-blaming is something you should see someone about.
Leaving aside the funding of a VAT cut, I think the politics are dicey for two reasons. First, bills will probably rise from today's point even with the VAT cut. Reducing the increase in the cost of living doesn't work. We've tried this: it's expensive and ineffective. (1/2)
Second, cost of living isn't in your control so you shouldn't stake your credibility on it. What might happen with Iran...? This is a classic 'people are upset so we must say we will do something'. But if you can't solve it, don't make it your platform!
Our latest voting intention poll, conducted shortly before the change in PM, shows a close race, with Labour and the Tories each within the margin of error of Reform UK for the first time in more than a year
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
And, we'd heard this argument for decades before. Britain at the centre of Europe. More influence. Less centralism. Opening it up to our services etc. And it never happened.
What did happen is endless ever closer union, including repacking the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty and then ramming it through regardless.
We were right to leave, and I'm delighted we're out.
It never happened for the same reason that Britain continues to suffer from the same problems with its governance that it has suffered for many decades - the politicians haven't been up to the job, and have prioritised short-term expedients over a long-term plan and the determination to see that plan through.
And, yet, HMG has just removed the VAT concerned.
Your Stockholm syndrome and victim-blaming is something you should see someone about.
HMG has removed the VAT on electricity for six months. Yes. Exactly the sort of short-term expedient pursued by British politicians for decades.
Edit: I'd have hoped that we could disagree without you insinuating I have mental health issues in relation to the subject of disagreement. It's a really unpleasant thing to say.
One of the concerns about Burnham is that he will be better at politics but worse at government that what went before.
We went through this in 2022, didn't we? Cutting prices this way gives most of the benefit to people who need it least and attenuates the "someone needs to be using less" signal that needs to operate during a supply crunch.
But I'm sure it will be popular.
Electricity as a proportion of fuel costs is much higher for poorer households than richer ones. Any cut to VAT is going to shovel more cash to large consumers, but this is not the worst example, evdn after taking into account EVs.
Selebian is right though - standing charges should be abolished ASAP if you really want to help poor households.
I don't think standing charges will be abolished - because standing costs are a thing that exists.
We used to have "no standing charge" tariffs - self-builders or renovators who had cut their energy use by 50-80% loved the, - and they did not survive when economic circumstances became more astringent.
In the UK we have had out of line prices compared to peer countries in Electricity being very expensive vs Gas (this is retail), with relatively far cheaper gas. There were steps made to rebalance that over the recent period, but there's more to come I think.
Never really understood this argument. All businesses have standing costs to some degree, but these costs are usually rolled into per unit prices. There isn’t an entrance charge to pubs or supermarkets.
A one-off connection fee makes sense. And they already exist.
The problem with rolling the network costs into the unit price is that with increasing volumes of domestic solar quite a large number of people are effectively freeloading by barely drawing any electricity from the grid, apart from at times of peak winter demand.
My parents are probably typical of this. They have a big solar array and battery, plus a fairly efficient house, and therefore import zero electricity ten months of the year. When do they import? When it's freezing cold, dark and has been for days - and usually that's right when the UK electricity demand is at its peak.
The system costs are mainly determined by the peak load, not the average load, so having people who import ~100kwh a year but only at times of peak demand is insanely expensive relative to their usage - the real cost of their usage could well be in the order of £10/kwh.
A standing charge is the only sane way to price this sort of usage. Dumping the costs of supplying electricity to people like my parents onto the unit prices of others not so fortunate as to be in the same situation seems chronically unfair.
That’s a fair criticism. Could be partly solved by fully variable tariffs for people with low energy use (which they are likely on anyway).
But as far as I’m concerned the cost is already dumped on the poor. The standing charge is often the majority of the cost for people on low incomes - so it needs to be reformed in some way at least.
The 'poor'* have access to social tariffs which are another subsidy loaded onto standing charges or unit costs. If you change it then there is an argument of double bubble. Or there is the complexity of reducing the social tariff to compensate i.e the poor paying a greater increase in unit costs compared to non-poor. This stuff is complex given the interrelationship between costs, direct subsidies and indirect subsidies.
So it will be smoke and mirrors to generate a positive headline.
* Has a definition in the Benefits legislation depending on the benefit
Are there any social tariffs for electricity and gas? I am not aware of any.
The water companies have Assist schemes but they are mainly for those in debt. BT have a social tariff for telecoms (Home Essentials) though they keep that pretty quiet ;-)
They do exist, as you say. The Telegraph was fluffing its outrage about one last week, implying with its headline that it applied to many times as people as was actually the case.
Whilst we continue to have other subsidies that are for far wealthier people, eg on childcare for people making up to £100k per annum, I don't see a problem.
I said I don't think they do exist. I'd be really interested if they do, for some of the clients I advise.
Sorry - I misread your question. And I suspect you have more complete information than I do.
Adjacently, one thing that *did* surprise me recently was that A2A heat pumps are within the Government's boiler upgrade scheme, with grants of up to £2500.
Those offer scope for longer term savings, and potentially also against gas as the prices change, and as systems are less complex than ASHP.
However it is via MCS-Approved suppliers, and the devil is always in the detail.
Delurking for a quick post on the Burnham appointment:
As others have said, these sorts of announcements re the VAT and the drilling show he has the political instincts that Starmer lacked. It might be a bit muddled with the figures, but the size of the costings is outweighed by the political goodwill he can generate from such a move.
His cabinet, too, is generally pretty sound with a few exceptions (Powell at Education being the obvious one - Rayner and Haigh also don’t contribute to the “fresh new broom” narrative, but all needed to be rewarded for political reasons).
There are, however, several clouds on the horizon:
1) the cull of the Starmer loyalists (which, considering most of them were failures, is not a great loss) will however generate a significant amount of ill feeling. This can be seen with Darren Jones’ intervention this morning. Figures like Reeves, Jones, Lammy, Reed, Phillipson (remaining in cabinet but with a severe demotion) are unlikely to want this to be the end of their political careers.
2) the immediate feel-good vibes are not going to survive the country’s fundamentally challenging fiscal and economic outlook. Money needs to be found for defence, care, the new levelling up agenda - and that in essence requires cuts elsewhere, borrowing, or tax rises.
3) the lack of mandate is going to continue to be a millstone, particularly if Burnham majors on this idea of radical change.
My thoughts remain the same as before Burnham took over. If he really wants to lead a transformative government and wants the time to really institute some of the stuff he is talking about, the only way forward is a new mandate.
If these initial moves provide a decent enough bounce, the smart move is a general election in the spring, which also plausibly vanquishes the Starmer-loyalist problem if he gets his own mandate. I don’t think Burnham will have a better time. I think if he holds on til 28-29, his chances of getting another term are materially diminished.
Ultimately, Burnham knows that a) he's secure until the GE; Labour won't follow the Tories down the path of junking another leader, b) he starts with a lot of goodwill from his backbenchers and the wider political environment, and c) ultimately the success or failure of his agenda is what will matter.
Hence upsetting the Starmerites is the lesser cost, compared to not having a cabinet bought into his programme. And they won't do themselves any favours inside the party if they're seen to rock the boat during its honeymoon voyage.
As I've said before, I do now think the '2029 or later' bet for the year of next GE, at odds-on, is a screaming lay on BFE.
A lot hangs on whether Farage and Reform can recover from recent wobbles or continue to suffer sinking credibility, reputation and polling.
Even if Clacton send Farage back to Westminster, a low turnout and a substantial Binface (et al) vote would damage his credibility somewhat. And that won't help Reform. Especially if he loses his temper either during the campaign or at the count. (With the Count?)
I wonder if it's possible for the Government to delay the standards committee report until its possible for Burnham to have a general election (which is likely to be 2027 unless there is a very early budget).
An election where Farage can't say anything without answering questions about his dodgy money would be less than ideal for them...
The long term plan is to shift everyone to electric - this is another small step to encourage people to do so.
How does a 6 month policy do that ?
It's 6 months as that is all that needs to be done to get you to the next budget - at which point you can explain where the money is coming from long term as binning the ID card project is a very one off cost saving.
As I predicted on here yesterday when someone asked who is in charge while they drive to the Palace:
Russian warship carries out rare live-fire exercise 45 miles off UK coast
A Russian warship conducted a rare live-fire exercise in the Channel 45 miles south of Plymouth on Monday, the day Andy Burnham was appointed as prime minister.
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
And, we'd heard this argument for decades before. Britain at the centre of Europe. More influence. Less centralism. Opening it up to our services etc. And it never happened.
What did happen is endless ever closer union, including repacking the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty and then ramming it through regardless.
We were right to leave, and I'm delighted we're out.
It never happened for the same reason that Britain continues to suffer from the same problems with its governance that it has suffered for many decades - the politicians haven't been up to the job, and have prioritised short-term expedients over a long-term plan and the determination to see that plan through.
And, yet, HMG has just removed the VAT concerned.
Your Stockholm syndrome and victim-blaming is something you should see someone about.
HMG has removed the VAT on electricity for six months. Yes. Exactly the sort of short-term expedient pursued by British politicians for decades.
Edit: I'd have hoped that we could disagree without you insinuating I have mental health issues in relation to the subject of disagreement. It's a really unpleasant thing to say.
It's deserved for your tedious last wordism and reflexive Eurofederalism, which I hold in contempt.
Leaving aside the funding of a VAT cut, I think the politics are dicey for two reasons. First, bills will probably rise from today's point even with the VAT cut. Reducing the increase in the cost of living doesn't work. We've tried this: it's expensive and ineffective. (1/2)
Second, cost of living isn't in your control so you shouldn't stake your credibility on it. What might happen with Iran...? This is a classic 'people are upset so we must say we will do something'. But if you can't solve it, don't make it your platform!
I agree with her on the first point, but not the second. If you distill what bothers the electorate the most into a single thing, it's cost of living, and has been at least since COVID and probably before that. Governments of all stripes have completely ignored the issue thus encouraging a pissed-off electorate towards populist charlatans such as Farage.
Just because it's difficult doesn't mean governments get to choose what the population care about!
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
And, we'd heard this argument for decades before. Britain at the centre of Europe. More influence. Less centralism. Opening it up to our services etc. And it never happened.
What did happen is endless ever closer union, including repacking the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty and then ramming it through regardless.
We were right to leave, and I'm delighted we're out.
It never happened for the same reason that Britain continues to suffer from the same problems with its governance that it has suffered for many decades - the politicians haven't been up to the job, and have prioritised short-term expedients over a long-term plan and the determination to see that plan through.
And, yet, HMG has just removed the VAT concerned.
Your Stockholm syndrome and victim-blaming is something you should see someone about.
HMG has removed the VAT on electricity for six months. Yes. Exactly the sort of short-term expedient pursued by British politicians for decades.
Edit: I'd have hoped that we could disagree without you insinuating I have mental health issues in relation to the subject of disagreement. It's a really unpleasant thing to say.
But do you not think it right that the elected Government should be able to remove VAT on energy bills if they want to even if you don't personally agree they should do so?
This is something they were legally forbidden from doing whilst we were inside the EU.
Darren Jones goes in two-footed. Burnham needs to call an election to put a stop to that.
Burnham should have kept Darren Jones within the tent. I think it was probably the biggest mistake of his first day.
Burnham can ignore Darren Jones easily.
Burnham's big mistake was keeping Mahood in Home because of what to do about her immigration policies. I don't personally like her policies but I am making a business of government point here.
If you agree with what Mahood is trying to do, and I assume Burnham broadly is in favour, you don't want Mahood to be leading on it because she is toxic and has made the policies toxic with your most important stakeholders. You want someone else these stakeholders will give time of day to to lead the initiative.
If on the other hand you want to change the policies, Mahood won't do that meaningfully. She is massively invested in them
PB is a good read this morning. I don't have especially strong or informed views with regard to standing charges on electricity bills, but it's interesting to read some good arguments about the pros and cons from those who do. Thanks guys!
It's diametric messaging from that of Starmer's WFA removal. Forty five quid over a year will not make one jot of difference to even the poorest of church mice. The message it sends however is massive.
I am disappointed that Darren Jones, who I have the utmost respect for doesn't understand that.
Darren Jones goes in two-footed. Burnham needs to call an election to put a stop to that.
Burnham should have kept Darren Jones within the tent. I think it was probably the biggest mistake of his first day.
Burnham can ignore Darren Jones easily.
Burnham's big mistake was keeping Mahood in Home because of what to do about her immigration policies. I don't personally like her policies but I am making a business of government point here.
If you agree with what Mahood is trying to do, and I assume Burnham broadly is in favour, you don't want Mahood to be leading on it because she is toxic and has made the policies toxic with your most important stakeholders. You want someone else these stakeholders will give time of day to to lead the initiative.
If on the other hand you want to change the policies, Mahood won't do that meaningfully. She is massively invested in them
The Russian government has stopped publishing data on the balance of the treasury accounts. They stopped publishing this data on the same day as they announced that bond sales were suspended. As of July 16th Russia had 4.147 trillion roubles (about £39bn) in the treasury accounts, down from about 9 trillion at the start of the year. The Russian government deficit in the first half of 2026 was about 5.73 trillion roubles. They can't fund that through new bond sales now, so they have to find the money from elsewhere.
I'm struggling to understand why the Ruble hasn't crashed against the dollar.
Our latest voting intention poll, conducted shortly before the change in PM, shows a close race, with Labour and the Tories each within the margin of error of Reform UK for the first time in more than a year
One of the concerns about Burnham is that he will be better at politics but worse at government that what went before.
We went through this in 2022, didn't we? Cutting prices this way gives most of the benefit to people who need it least and attenuates the "someone needs to be using less" signal that needs to operate during a supply crunch.
But I'm sure it will be popular.
The main difference with 2022 is that it's much more modest in scope, and it's a limited sum of money. In 2022 Truss wrote a blank cheque to spend whatever it took to keep energy prices below a cap.
He's also removed a commitment to spend £1.8bn with a commitment to spend £850m - reducing the future national debt by £950m.
Only a few thousand more such announcements and the national debt will be eliminated!
It still looks a bit like unfunded spending dressed up.
It is - but the British budget is stuffed to the gunwales with unfunded spending and imaginary future tax rises to make the numbers add up. Untangling all of that is a big job and not the work of one day, but Burnham has managed to take a step of nearly £1bn in the right direction.
Well, we'll see. The announcement is really just a stunt isn't it? Just a way to be seen to be doing something early on. The real test will be what Healey manages to put together in the budget. I'm not sure he's ever shown much sign of being tough on spending in the past, and he's very likely to let Streeting have some more money. So it'll be a squeeze to say the least.
(I do think that Streeting might be quite a good choice for Defence. He may be able to improve procurement etc, although with everyone targeting the headline spend vs GDP that's not going to be much help)
Burnham has basically dropped an unpopular £1.8bn unfunded spending commitment and replaced it with a popular £950m unfunded spending commitment.
So yes, the decision itself is funded, and the amount of unfunded spending commitments remaining have also dropped. Shouldn't spook the markets at all.
It's not a "stunt", it will have a real if modest impact on the cost of living. And since the poorer half of households pay a higher proportion of their incomes on electricity than do the less poor half, it is also well targeted. It is also consistent with climate change goals. And it will reduce headline CPI from October.
I think this measure will cut through, unlike Starmer's measures on the cost of living which were a bit of a damp squib.
So in summary, cost of living political bangs plus net zero benefits for zero net bucks.
Darren Jones goes in two-footed. Burnham needs to call an election to put a stop to that.
Burnham should have kept Darren Jones within the tent. I think it was probably the biggest mistake of his first day.
Burnham can ignore Darren Jones easily.
Burnham's big mistake was keeping Mahood in Home because of what to do about her immigration policies. I don't personally like her policies but I am making a business of government point here.
If you agree with what Mahood is trying to do, and I assume Burnham broadly is in favour, you don't want Mahood to be leading on it because she is toxic and has made the policies toxic with your most important stakeholders. You want someone else these stakeholders will give time of day to to lead the initiative.
If on the other hand you want to change the policies, Mahood won't do that meaningfully. She is massively invested in them
Mahmood not Mahmood.
A Delphic utterance.
We could talk about the famous BR Class 55s instead?
All well and good removing VAT from domestic electricity bills and I am sure it will be welcomed by voters but it will have to be paid for. Which likely means another tax rise elsewhere
Long term yes
Short term it’s a rounding error justified by a very large figure attached to ID cards that were also hated and that Burnham also scrapped
As @Wulfrun_Phil points out Andy has the political nuance that SKS and co utterly lacked
Yes but then Burnham has been in politics most of his adult life and had more time to learn the skills of being an effective politician. Starmer only came into politics in his 50s after a lengthy and successful career in the law and having already been made KC. Burnham is also naturally more charismatic and empathetic than Starmer although also probably less intelligent
In TTRPG terms, I'd suspect Burnham would have better wisdom and (definitely) charisma scores than Starmer, but perhaps less intelligence (which does tend to be a dump stat).
Yeah. You only need Intelligence if you want to be a mage, and given this isn't a magical world, you can basically ignore it. Besides, who doesn't love those low intelligence playthroughs where all the dialogue is changed to fit?
Darren Jones goes in two-footed. Burnham needs to call an election to put a stop to that.
Burnham should have kept Darren Jones within the tent. I think it was probably the biggest mistake of his first day.
Burnham can ignore Darren Jones easily.
Burnham's big mistake was keeping Mahood in Home because of what to do about her immigration policies. I don't personally like her policies but I am making a business of government point here.
If you agree with what Mahood is trying to do, and I assume Burnham broadly is in favour, you don't want Mahood to be leading on it because she is toxic and has made the policies toxic with your most important stakeholders. You want someone else these stakeholders will give time of day to to lead the initiative.
If on the other hand you want to change the policies, Mahood won't do that meaningfully. She is massively invested in them
Older voters in Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District admit to being tricked by AI-generated ads falsely depicting Thomas Massie in a “throuple” with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, with the ads influencing their vote, per exit poll. https://x.com/Patrickwebb/status/2079346823630672030
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
And, we'd heard this argument for decades before. Britain at the centre of Europe. More influence. Less centralism. Opening it up to our services etc. And it never happened.
What did happen is endless ever closer union, including repacking the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty and then ramming it through regardless.
We were right to leave, and I'm delighted we're out.
It never happened for the same reason that Britain continues to suffer from the same problems with its governance that it has suffered for many decades - the politicians haven't been up to the job, and have prioritised short-term expedients over a long-term plan and the determination to see that plan through.
And, yet, HMG has just removed the VAT concerned.
Your Stockholm syndrome and victim-blaming is something you should see someone about.
HMG has removed the VAT on electricity for six months. Yes. Exactly the sort of short-term expedient pursued by British politicians for decades.
Edit: I'd have hoped that we could disagree without you insinuating I have mental health issues in relation to the subject of disagreement. It's a really unpleasant thing to say.
But do you not think it right that the elected Government should be able to remove VAT on energy bills if they want to even if you don't personally agree they should do so?
This is something they were legally forbidden from doing whilst we were inside the EU.
My point is that if there is a rule at the EU level then that rule can be rewritten at the EU level.
Whether there are advantages to setting VAT rules at the EU level, or not, is a very different question that I haven't thought about.
But when British politicians said many times in the past that, "we cannot do this because it is an EU rule," what they were really saying is that, "we are not willing to expend the effort to get this changed at the EU so that we can do this." It was a choice.
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
Democracy should be about changing things at a level you are voting at. Which is for our demos national elections, since the EP ones are a joke.
If it needs international agreement then no it can't be done on a democratic level. Even if every voter in this country votes for change, that is insufficient.
Delurking for a quick post on the Burnham appointment:
As others have said, these sorts of announcements re the VAT and the drilling show he has the political instincts that Starmer lacked. It might be a bit muddled with the figures, but the size of the costings is outweighed by the political goodwill he can generate from such a move.
His cabinet, too, is generally pretty sound with a few exceptions (Powell at Education being the obvious one - Rayner and Haigh also don’t contribute to the “fresh new broom” narrative, but all needed to be rewarded for political reasons).
There are, however, several clouds on the horizon:
1) the cull of the Starmer loyalists (which, considering most of them were failures, is not a great loss) will however generate a significant amount of ill feeling. This can be seen with Darren Jones’ intervention this morning. Figures like Reeves, Jones, Lammy, Reed, Phillipson (remaining in cabinet but with a severe demotion) are unlikely to want this to be the end of their political careers.
2) the immediate feel-good vibes are not going to survive the country’s fundamentally challenging fiscal and economic outlook. Money needs to be found for defence, care, the new levelling up agenda - and that in essence requires cuts elsewhere, borrowing, or tax rises.
3) the lack of mandate is going to continue to be a millstone, particularly if Burnham majors on this idea of radical change.
My thoughts remain the same as before Burnham took over. If he really wants to lead a transformative government and wants the time to really institute some of the stuff he is talking about, the only way forward is a new mandate.
If these initial moves provide a decent enough bounce, the smart move is a general election in the spring, which also plausibly vanquishes the Starmer-loyalist problem if he gets his own mandate. I don’t think Burnham will have a better time. I think if he holds on til 28-29, his chances of getting another term are materially diminished.
I don't see the election mandate to be a problem. I don't believe Badenoch is demanding that Burnham goes to the country. It is just the potential candidate for the clown show by election in Clacton that is kicking up a fuss.
The Russian government has stopped publishing data on the balance of the treasury accounts. They stopped publishing this data on the same day as they announced that bond sales were suspended. As of July 16th Russia had 4.147 trillion roubles (about £39bn) in the treasury accounts, down from about 9 trillion at the start of the year. The Russian government deficit in the first half of 2026 was about 5.73 trillion roubles. They can't fund that through new bond sales now, so they have to find the money from elsewhere.
I'm struggling to understand why the Ruble hasn't crashed against the dollar.
I think the answer is that Russia is still receiving lots of dollars in exchange for its oil exports, but sanctions mean that it's harder for it to spend those dollars on imports.
Darren Jones goes in two-footed. Burnham needs to call an election to put a stop to that.
Burnham should have kept Darren Jones within the tent. I think it was probably the biggest mistake of his first day.
Burnham can ignore Darren Jones easily.
Burnham's big mistake was keeping Mahood in Home because of what to do about her immigration policies. I don't personally like her policies but I am making a business of government point here.
If you agree with what Mahood is trying to do, and I assume Burnham broadly is in favour, you don't want Mahood to be leading on it because she is toxic and has made the policies toxic with your most important stakeholders. You want someone else these stakeholders will give time of day to to lead the initiative.
If on the other hand you want to change the policies, Mahood won't do that meaningfully. She is massively invested in them
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
And, we'd heard this argument for decades before. Britain at the centre of Europe. More influence. Less centralism. Opening it up to our services etc. And it never happened.
What did happen is endless ever closer union, including repacking the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty and then ramming it through regardless.
We were right to leave, and I'm delighted we're out.
It never happened for the same reason that Britain continues to suffer from the same problems with its governance that it has suffered for many decades - the politicians haven't been up to the job, and have prioritised short-term expedients over a long-term plan and the determination to see that plan through.
And, yet, HMG has just removed the VAT concerned.
Your Stockholm syndrome and victim-blaming is something you should see someone about.
HMG has removed the VAT on electricity for six months. Yes. Exactly the sort of short-term expedient pursued by British politicians for decades.
Edit: I'd have hoped that we could disagree without you insinuating I have mental health issues in relation to the subject of disagreement. It's a really unpleasant thing to say.
But do you not think it right that the elected Government should be able to remove VAT on energy bills if they want to even if you don't personally agree they should do so?
This is something they were legally forbidden from doing whilst we were inside the EU.
My point is that if there is a rule at the EU level then that rule can be rewritten at the EU level.
Whether there are advantages to setting VAT rules at the EU level, or not, is a very different question that I haven't thought about.
But when British politicians said many times in the past that, "we cannot do this because it is an EU rule," what they were really saying is that, "we are not willing to expend the effort to get this changed at the EU so that we can do this." It was a choice.
Well, no, they were right: they couldn't change it without 14 other countries agreeing.
They could expend all that effort and still fail, as Cameron did when he tried to block Junker or open the bloc up further to British services exports.
Taking Defence spending to 3.5% of GDP would cost £24bn/year, a Personal Allowance increase of 10% would cost £11bn/year. To be fully funded would require Osborne-era welfare reforms, AND flat rate pension tax relief, AND replacing the triple lock with CPI indexation in order to not eat into headroom/ bust the existing fiscal rules. This is why most investors are assuming these changes wont happen....
Darren Jones goes in two-footed. Burnham needs to call an election to put a stop to that.
Burnham should have kept Darren Jones within the tent. I think it was probably the biggest mistake of his first day.
Burnham can ignore Darren Jones easily.
Burnham's big mistake was keeping Mahood in Home because of what to do about her immigration policies. I don't personally like her policies but I am making a business of government point here.
If you agree with what Mahood is trying to do, and I assume Burnham broadly is in favour, you don't want Mahood to be leading on it because she is toxic and has made the policies toxic with your most important stakeholders. You want someone else these stakeholders will give time of day to to lead the initiative.
If on the other hand you want to change the policies, Mahood won't do that meaningfully. She is massively invested in them
Our latest voting intention poll, conducted shortly before the change in PM, shows a close race, with Labour and the Tories each within the margin of error of Reform UK for the first time in more than a year
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
And, we'd heard this argument for decades before. Britain at the centre of Europe. More influence. Less centralism. Opening it up to our services etc. And it never happened.
What did happen is endless ever closer union, including repacking the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty and then ramming it through regardless.
We were right to leave, and I'm delighted we're out.
It never happened for the same reason that Britain continues to suffer from the same problems with its governance that it has suffered for many decades - the politicians haven't been up to the job, and have prioritised short-term expedients over a long-term plan and the determination to see that plan through.
And, yet, HMG has just removed the VAT concerned.
Your Stockholm syndrome and victim-blaming is something you should see someone about.
HMG has removed the VAT on electricity for six months. Yes. Exactly the sort of short-term expedient pursued by British politicians for decades.
Edit: I'd have hoped that we could disagree without you insinuating I have mental health issues in relation to the subject of disagreement. It's a really unpleasant thing to say.
But do you not think it right that the elected Government should be able to remove VAT on energy bills if they want to even if you don't personally agree they should do so?
This is something they were legally forbidden from doing whilst we were inside the EU.
My point is that if there is a rule at the EU level then that rule can be rewritten at the EU level.
Whether there are advantages to setting VAT rules at the EU level, or not, is a very different question that I haven't thought about.
But when British politicians said many times in the past that, "we cannot do this because it is an EU rule," what they were really saying is that, "we are not willing to expend the effort to get this changed at the EU so that we can do this." It was a choice.
No it was not. A choice is a decision you can make.
If its happening at the EU level that is not a decision that UK politicians, or their voters, can make so not a UK choice.
If you want a country called Europe with European politicians making the choices enacted at European elections then that is democratic, but make the case for that. Don't pretend it was still a national choice though when it was not.
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
Democracy should be about changing things at a level you are voting at. Which is for our demos national elections, since the EP ones are a joke.
If it needs international agreement then no it can't be done on a democratic level. Even if every voter in this country votes for change, that is insufficient.
There's no automaticity about voting for change in a democracy, unless you have a very particular set-up with specific referedums. Part of the essence of a democracy is that it is a peaceful way of managing competing interests and the resulting conflict. This means that minorities are often able to block or frustrate change to a degree, depending on how strongly they feel about it, and how strong the support for change is.
I don't see anything fundamentally different or undemocratic about operating that process at an EU level, a UK level, or a county level.
Our latest voting intention poll, conducted shortly before the change in PM, shows a close race, with Labour and the Tories each within the margin of error of Reform UK for the first time in more than a year
Broken, sleazy, broken Reform, Greens, and LibDems on the slide!
Reform, Greens and LibDems need new leaders.
How about we move them all round one? Find out whether the voters/poll responders are actually paying any attention.
Not sure whether Greens or LDs would be more horrified by Farage, nor whether Davey or Polanski would cause more Reform voters to choke on their cornflakes.
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
Democracy should be about changing things at a level you are voting at. Which is for our demos national elections, since the EP ones are a joke.
If it needs international agreement then no it can't be done on a democratic level. Even if every voter in this country votes for change, that is insufficient.
There's no automaticity about voting for change in a democracy, unless you have a very particular set-up with specific referedums. Part of the essence of a democracy is that it is a peaceful way of managing competing interests and the resulting conflict. This means that minorities are often able to block or frustrate change to a degree, depending on how strongly they feel about it, and how strong the support for change is.
I don't see anything fundamentally different or undemocratic about operating that process at an EU level, a UK level, or a county level.
There is a massive fundamental difference, if you have things set up at a national level they are self-evidently not under local politicians control.
If you have things set up at an EU level, they are equally not under UK politicians control.
You are pretending they are to make it less awkward by suggesting the politicians can "persuade" other countries politicians to change their views, that's not democracy, that's international relations.
There is nothing undemocratic about having a country called Europe determining things at a European level shaped by European elections. The problem is pretending that it is still in national levels and there is no country called Europe but passing the control away from the politicians we elect and to someone else.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
One of the concerns about Burnham is that he will be better at politics but worse at government that what went before.
We went through this in 2022, didn't we? Cutting prices this way gives most of the benefit to people who need it least and attenuates the "someone needs to be using less" signal that needs to operate during a supply crunch.
But I'm sure it will be popular.
Electricity as a proportion of fuel costs is much higher for poorer households than richer ones. Any cut to VAT is going to shovel more cash to large consumers, but this is not the worst example, evdn after taking into account EVs.
Selebian is right though - standing charges should be abolished ASAP if you really want to help poor households.
I don't think standing charges will be abolished - because standing costs are a thing that exists.
We used to have "no standing charge" tariffs - self-builders or renovators who had cut their energy use by 50-80% loved the, - and they did not survive when economic circumstances became more astringent.
In the UK we have had out of line prices compared to peer countries in Electricity being very expensive vs Gas (this is retail), with relatively far cheaper gas. There were steps made to rebalance that over the recent period, but there's more to come I think.
Never really understood this argument. All businesses have standing costs to some degree, but these costs are usually rolled into per unit prices. There isn’t an entrance charge to pubs or supermarkets.
A one-off connection fee makes sense. And they already exist.
The problem with rolling the network costs into the unit price is that with increasing volumes of domestic solar quite a large number of people are effectively freeloading by barely drawing any electricity from the grid, apart from at times of peak winter demand.
My parents are probably typical of this. They have a big solar array and battery, plus a fairly efficient house, and therefore import zero electricity ten months of the year. When do they import? When it's freezing cold, dark and has been for days - and usually that's right when the UK electricity demand is at its peak.
The system costs are mainly determined by the peak load, not the average load, so having people who import ~100kwh a year but only at times of peak demand is insanely expensive relative to their usage - the real cost of their usage could well be in the order of £10/kwh.
A standing charge is the only sane way to price this sort of usage. Dumping the costs of supplying electricity to people like my parents onto the unit prices of others not so fortunate as to be in the same situation seems chronically unfair.
That’s a fair criticism. Could be partly solved by fully variable tariffs for people with low energy use (which they are likely on anyway).
But as far as I’m concerned the cost is already dumped on the poor. The standing charge is often the majority of the cost for people on low incomes - so it needs to be reformed in some way at least.
The 'poor'* have access to social tariffs which are another subsidy loaded onto standing charges or unit costs. If you change it then there is an argument of double bubble. Or there is the complexity of reducing the social tariff to compensate i.e the poor paying a greater increase in unit costs compared to non-poor. This stuff is complex given the interrelationship between costs, direct subsidies and indirect subsidies.
So it will be smoke and mirrors to generate a positive headline.
* Has a definition in the Benefits legislation depending on the benefit
Are there any social tariffs for electricity and gas? I am not aware of any.
The water companies have Assist schemes but they are mainly for those in debt. BT have a social tariff for telecoms (Home Essentials) though they keep that pretty quiet ;-)
They do exist, as you say. The Telegraph was fluffing its outrage about one last week, implying with its headline that it applied to many times as people as was actually the case.
Whilst we continue to have other subsidies that are for far wealthier people, eg on childcare for people making up to £100k per annum, I don't see a problem.
I said I don't think they do exist. I'd be really interested if they do, for some of the clients I advise.
Sorry - I misread your question. And I suspect you have more complete information than I do.
Adjacently, one thing that *did* surprise me recently was that A2A heat pumps are within the Government's boiler upgrade scheme, with grants of up to £2500.
Those offer scope for longer term savings, and potentially also against gas as the prices change, and as systems are less complex than ASHP.
However it is via MCS-Approved suppliers, and the devil is always in the detail.
One of the other easy wins for the government is binning off MCS from everything, given they are a bunch of parasites who make renewable installs more expensive without actually restraining any of the activities of the cowboy installers. Making it possible for things like DIY Solar installs using second hand gear to be eligible for the SEG export tariffs would be a big win that costs litterally nothing.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
No, it is good governance.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is bad governance.
We all have a myriad of ways we can prove our identity without needing an authoritarian identity card. There is no problem that needs fixing.
How are they going to ever be in a position to put the VAT back on electricity?
It will be like the fuel duty increases that never happen, rolled on a year at every budget, but left in for the following year to meet the "fiscal rules" .
One of the concerns about Burnham is that he will be better at politics but worse at government that what went before.
We went through this in 2022, didn't we? Cutting prices this way gives most of the benefit to people who need it least and attenuates the "someone needs to be using less" signal that needs to operate during a supply crunch.
But I'm sure it will be popular.
Electricity as a proportion of fuel costs is much higher for poorer households than richer ones. Any cut to VAT is going to shovel more cash to large consumers, but this is not the worst example, evdn after taking into account EVs.
Selebian is right though - standing charges should be abolished ASAP if you really want to help poor households.
I don't think standing charges will be abolished - because standing costs are a thing that exists.
We used to have "no standing charge" tariffs - self-builders or renovators who had cut their energy use by 50-80% loved the, - and they did not survive when economic circumstances became more astringent.
In the UK we have had out of line prices compared to peer countries in Electricity being very expensive vs Gas (this is retail), with relatively far cheaper gas. There were steps made to rebalance that over the recent period, but there's more to come I think.
Never really understood this argument. All businesses have standing costs to some degree, but these costs are usually rolled into per unit prices. There isn’t an entrance charge to pubs or supermarkets.
A one-off connection fee makes sense. And they already exist.
The problem with rolling the network costs into the unit price is that with increasing volumes of domestic solar quite a large number of people are effectively freeloading by barely drawing any electricity from the grid, apart from at times of peak winter demand.
My parents are probably typical of this. They have a big solar array and battery, plus a fairly efficient house, and therefore import zero electricity ten months of the year. When do they import? When it's freezing cold, dark and has been for days - and usually that's right when the UK electricity demand is at its peak.
The system costs are mainly determined by the peak load, not the average load, so having people who import ~100kwh a year but only at times of peak demand is insanely expensive relative to their usage - the real cost of their usage could well be in the order of £10/kwh.
A standing charge is the only sane way to price this sort of usage. Dumping the costs of supplying electricity to people like my parents onto the unit prices of others not so fortunate as to be in the same situation seems chronically unfair.
That’s a fair criticism. Could be partly solved by fully variable tariffs for people with low energy use (which they are likely on anyway).
But as far as I’m concerned the cost is already dumped on the poor. The standing charge is often the majority of the cost for people on low incomes - so it needs to be reformed in some way at least.
The 'poor'* have access to social tariffs which are another subsidy loaded onto standing charges or unit costs. If you change it then there is an argument of double bubble. Or there is the complexity of reducing the social tariff to compensate i.e the poor paying a greater increase in unit costs compared to non-poor. This stuff is complex given the interrelationship between costs, direct subsidies and indirect subsidies.
So it will be smoke and mirrors to generate a positive headline.
* Has a definition in the Benefits legislation depending on the benefit
Are there any social tariffs for electricity and gas? I am not aware of any.
The water companies have Assist schemes but they are mainly for those in debt. BT have a social tariff for telecoms (Home Essentials) though they keep that pretty quiet ;-)
They do exist, as you say. The Telegraph was fluffing its outrage about one last week, implying with its headline that it applied to many times as people as was actually the case.
Whilst we continue to have other subsidies that are for far wealthier people, eg on childcare for people making up to £100k per annum, I don't see a problem.
I said I don't think they do exist. I'd be really interested if they do, for some of the clients I advise.
Sorry - I misread your question. And I suspect you have more complete information than I do.
Adjacently, one thing that *did* surprise me recently was that A2A heat pumps are within the Government's boiler upgrade scheme, with grants of up to £2500.
Those offer scope for longer term savings, and potentially also against gas as the prices change, and as systems are less complex than ASHP.
However it is via MCS-Approved suppliers, and the devil is always in the detail.
One of the other easy wins for the government is binning off MCS from everything, given they are a bunch of parasites who make renewable installs more expensive without actually restraining any of the activities of the cowboy installers. Making it possible for things like DIY Solar installs using second hand gear to be eligible for the SEG export tariffs would be a big win that costs litterally nothing.
How do you handle the safety aspects on DIY installs connected to the grid?
(Is there a path parallel to balcony solar, here?)
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The Russian government has stopped publishing data on the balance of the treasury accounts. They stopped publishing this data on the same day as they announced that bond sales were suspended. As of July 16th Russia had 4.147 trillion roubles (about £39bn) in the treasury accounts, down from about 9 trillion at the start of the year. The Russian government deficit in the first half of 2026 was about 5.73 trillion roubles. They can't fund that through new bond sales now, so they have to find the money from elsewhere.
I'm struggling to understand why the Ruble hasn't crashed against the dollar.
Because there’s no dollars to buy with rubles, at least not officially.
The ruble is now effectively a closed currency, with transactions negotiated individually.
When I was in Instanbul a couple of years ago, there was a 100% spread between buy and sell prices on rubles at the exchange kiosks. You want to buy rubles, you’ll get the official 75 or 80 to the dollar, but if you’re selling them you’ll get $1 for 200.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
How are they going to ever be in a position to put the VAT back on electricity?
It will be like the fuel duty increases that never happen, rolled on a year at every budget, but left in for the following year to meet the "fiscal rules" .
That's a thought - are there many expensive "temporary" measures left over from COVID that need ending?
Delurking for a quick post on the Burnham appointment:
As others have said, these sorts of announcements re the VAT and the drilling show he has the political instincts that Starmer lacked. It might be a bit muddled with the figures, but the size of the costings is outweighed by the political goodwill he can generate from such a move.
His cabinet, too, is generally pretty sound with a few exceptions (Powell at Education being the obvious one - Rayner and Haigh also don’t contribute to the “fresh new broom” narrative, but all needed to be rewarded for political reasons).
There are, however, several clouds on the horizon:
1) the cull of the Starmer loyalists (which, considering most of them were failures, is not a great loss) will however generate a significant amount of ill feeling. This can be seen with Darren Jones’ intervention this morning. Figures like Reeves, Jones, Lammy, Reed, Phillipson (remaining in cabinet but with a severe demotion) are unlikely to want this to be the end of their political careers.
2) the immediate feel-good vibes are not going to survive the country’s fundamentally challenging fiscal and economic outlook. Money needs to be found for defence, care, the new levelling up agenda - and that in essence requires cuts elsewhere, borrowing, or tax rises.
3) the lack of mandate is going to continue to be a millstone, particularly if Burnham majors on this idea of radical change.
My thoughts remain the same as before Burnham took over. If he really wants to lead a transformative government and wants the time to really institute some of the stuff he is talking about, the only way forward is a new mandate.
If these initial moves provide a decent enough bounce, the smart move is a general election in the spring, which also plausibly vanquishes the Starmer-loyalist problem if he gets his own mandate. I don’t think Burnham will have a better time. I think if he holds on til 28-29, his chances of getting another term are materially diminished.
I don't see the election mandate to be a problem. I don't believe Badenoch is demanding that Burnham goes to the country. It is just the potential candidate for the clown show by election in Clacton that is kicking up a fuss.
Of course Badenoch is not demanding Burnham goes to the country. She's not completely stupid.
A small yet significant announcement. The overture to an autumn budget.
Compare and contrast with Starmer/Reeves first announcement being to cut the WFA...
Indeed; as a spending matter it's in the roundings, and not doing the ID card scheme is clearly an avoided cost to balance it off, in the short term at least. The more pertinent point is that Darren Jones, previously a mild mannered, competent and loyal minister, is clearly very p***ed off.
Loyal to the old government, which makes him dangerous. He may be overdoing it, but if I had been sacked from the cabinet to make space for Louise Haigh, I think I would be an unhappy bunny.
BTW, anyone done a map of the constituencies of the old and new cabinet? My impression is that the Granadaland mafia thing is real, but I'm not sure and some evidence would be good.
R4 this morning said, as I recall, four from London and the South East, seven from the NW, four from Yorkshire, others spread around the country. Aside from Labour now being very London-lite, it didn't sound too bad.
I'm moving from London to Somerset in September, and plan to become a south west nationalist. I'm already offended by this government's make-up. Bet they will put up tax on cider and destroy my acquired identity.
If you want cider Herefordshire is the best place in the U.K. for that.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
No, it is good governance.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is bad governance.
We all have a myriad of ways we can prove our identity without needing an authoritarian identity card. There is no problem that needs fixing.
I was sort of looking forward to being banged up at some indeterminate date in the future for not signing up for one of these cards.....
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
How are they going to ever be in a position to put the VAT back on electricity?
It will be like the fuel duty increases that never happen, rolled on a year at every budget, but left in for the following year to meet the "fiscal rules" .
That's a thought - are there many expensive "temporary" measures left over from COVID that need ending?
How much could that save?
Burnham seems to be planning to partially reverse the ending of the temporary business rates cut that ended recently. Politically it's very difficult to end these sorts of temporary measures.
I wouldn't think it would be an easy source of revenue and, because of the way the budget is structured, ending them actually raises you no money, because the budget is already assuming that they will be ended (in order to meet the fiscal rules). So ending them is all pain, and no gain. It doesn't create a pot of money to spend on anything else.
One of the concerns about Burnham is that he will be better at politics but worse at government that what went before.
We went through this in 2022, didn't we? Cutting prices this way gives most of the benefit to people who need it least and attenuates the "someone needs to be using less" signal that needs to operate during a supply crunch.
But I'm sure it will be popular.
Electricity as a proportion of fuel costs is much higher for poorer households than richer ones. Any cut to VAT is going to shovel more cash to large consumers, but this is not the worst example, evdn after taking into account EVs.
Selebian is right though - standing charges should be abolished ASAP if you really want to help poor households.
I don't think standing charges will be abolished - because standing costs are a thing that exists.
We used to have "no standing charge" tariffs - self-builders or renovators who had cut their energy use by 50-80% loved the, - and they did not survive when economic circumstances became more astringent.
In the UK we have had out of line prices compared to peer countries in Electricity being very expensive vs Gas (this is retail), with relatively far cheaper gas. There were steps made to rebalance that over the recent period, but there's more to come I think.
Never really understood this argument. All businesses have standing costs to some degree, but these costs are usually rolled into per unit prices. There isn’t an entrance charge to pubs or supermarkets.
A one-off connection fee makes sense. And they already exist.
The problem with rolling the network costs into the unit price is that with increasing volumes of domestic solar quite a large number of people are effectively freeloading by barely drawing any electricity from the grid, apart from at times of peak winter demand.
My parents are probably typical of this. They have a big solar array and battery, plus a fairly efficient house, and therefore import zero electricity ten months of the year. When do they import? When it's freezing cold, dark and has been for days - and usually that's right when the UK electricity demand is at its peak.
The system costs are mainly determined by the peak load, not the average load, so having people who import ~100kwh a year but only at times of peak demand is insanely expensive relative to their usage - the real cost of their usage could well be in the order of £10/kwh.
A standing charge is the only sane way to price this sort of usage. Dumping the costs of supplying electricity to people like my parents onto the unit prices of others not so fortunate as to be in the same situation seems chronically unfair.
That’s a fair criticism. Could be partly solved by fully variable tariffs for people with low energy use (which they are likely on anyway).
But as far as I’m concerned the cost is already dumped on the poor. The standing charge is often the majority of the cost for people on low incomes - so it needs to be reformed in some way at least.
The 'poor'* have access to social tariffs which are another subsidy loaded onto standing charges or unit costs. If you change it then there is an argument of double bubble. Or there is the complexity of reducing the social tariff to compensate i.e the poor paying a greater increase in unit costs compared to non-poor. This stuff is complex given the interrelationship between costs, direct subsidies and indirect subsidies.
So it will be smoke and mirrors to generate a positive headline.
* Has a definition in the Benefits legislation depending on the benefit
Are there any social tariffs for electricity and gas? I am not aware of any.
The water companies have Assist schemes but they are mainly for those in debt. BT have a social tariff for telecoms (Home Essentials) though they keep that pretty quiet ;-)
They do exist, as you say. The Telegraph was fluffing its outrage about one last week, implying with its headline that it applied to many times as people as was actually the case.
Whilst we continue to have other subsidies that are for far wealthier people, eg on childcare for people making up to £100k per annum, I don't see a problem.
I said I don't think they do exist. I'd be really interested if they do, for some of the clients I advise.
Sorry - I misread your question. And I suspect you have more complete information than I do.
Adjacently, one thing that *did* surprise me recently was that A2A heat pumps are within the Government's boiler upgrade scheme, with grants of up to £2500.
Those offer scope for longer term savings, and potentially also against gas as the prices change, and as systems are less complex than ASHP.
However it is via MCS-Approved suppliers, and the devil is always in the detail.
One of the other easy wins for the government is binning off MCS from everything, given they are a bunch of parasites who make renewable installs more expensive without actually restraining any of the activities of the cowboy installers. Making it possible for things like DIY Solar installs using second hand gear to be eligible for the SEG export tariffs would be a big win that costs litterally nothing.
How do you handle the safety aspects on DIY installs connected to the grid?
(Is there a path parallel to balcony solar, here?)
The same as now - the electrical side needs sign off from a suitably qualified sparkie.
You can DIY Solar installs now, you can export to the grid with it now.
What you can't do (with one complicated exception) is get paid for the exported electricity, as all the SEG suppliers insist on a MCS certificate.
It's particularly egregious that MCS installers are only allowed to use brand new gear, as these days there is quite a lot of cheap secondhand stuff about, but you can't even pay an MCS installer to put it in and gets an MCS certificate.
The Russian government has stopped publishing data on the balance of the treasury accounts. They stopped publishing this data on the same day as they announced that bond sales were suspended. As of July 16th Russia had 4.147 trillion roubles (about £39bn) in the treasury accounts, down from about 9 trillion at the start of the year. The Russian government deficit in the first half of 2026 was about 5.73 trillion roubles. They can't fund that through new bond sales now, so they have to find the money from elsewhere.
I'm struggling to understand why the Ruble hasn't crashed against the dollar.
Because there’s no dollars to buy with rubles, at least not officially.
The ruble is now effectively a closed currency, with transactions negotiated individually.
The main way to move value out of the ruble now is via stablecoins like EURC or USDT, this is how Russian companies and individuals pay for stuff from abroad without having to give a shit about being cut off from SWIFT. Vast amounts of ruble to ruble transactions are done with the weird Kyrgyzstani stablecoin A7A5 which can be used to buy other currencies on the weird Kyrgyzstani exchange Grinex. That and a Chinese credit card is how I get money into and out of Russia when needed.
All this shit is impossible for the Russians or those wishing to sanction them to regulate.
Absolutely. It shows that he has the political instincts that Starmer lacked.
So he funds the 5% cost of tax on electricity by cancelling digital id cost that isn't in any budget. He is an idiot.
Even if the ID cards cost was in next year's budget, it's largely one-off setup costs. Whereas VAT-free leccy is going to be ongoing in practice, if not in theory. (Go on- when is the time ever going to be right to reverse this?)
Thinking that you can use one-off savings to fund ongoing commitments was bad when Lawson and Sunak did it, it's bad when Burnham does it. Great politics, bad government which is one of the reasons we are where we are.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
I think it's a great idea but I doubt our capability to deliver it. We don't seem to be good at big projects. There's also our aversion to the so called 'papers please' society and a fear of being surveilled/tracked 24/7 by the government and/or other snooping bad actors.
I find a lot of this opposition to be based on ignorance and paranoia but it's genuinely felt. Then add in the fact that money is short and there are many other ways to spend it that are easier sells and likely to deliver more short term political benefit. All in all this was probably quite an easy call to make.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
I think it's a great idea but I doubt our capability to deliver it. We don't seem to be good at big projects. There's also our aversion to the so called 'papers please' society and a fear of being surveilled/tracked 24/7 by the government and/or other snooping bad actors.
I find a lot of this opposition to be based on ignorance and paranoia but it's genuinely felt. Then add in the fact that money is short and there are many other ways to spend it that are easier sells and likely to deliver more short term political benefit. All in all this was probably quite an easy call to make.
The biggest bit of ignorance is the fact everything people complain about ID cards allowing already occurs...
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
You need primary ID which is basically a passport or driving licence. Provisional licences should be accepted (Government does) but I am told some banks etc don't. Voter ID for some reason isn't accepted. You also need proof of address which basically means you need to have your name on the council tax or a utility bill, and sometimes it has to be a paper one. Mobile phone bills aren't accepted. It's a real mess. There is a real need for some sort of primary ID.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
You need primary ID which is basically a passport or driving licence. Provisional licences should be accepted (Government does) but I am told some banks etc don't. Voter ID for some reason isn't accepted. You also need proof of address which basically means you need to have your name on the council tax or a utility bill, and sometimes it has to be a paper one. Mobile phone bills aren't accepted. It's a real mess. There is a real need for some sort of primary ID.
A driving licence isn't proof of right to work - a British passport is.
And people are lazy especially when multiple candidates can all do the work..
Is there a job more futile than the reporter who is currently BELLOWING questions at cabinet ministers on the way into Number Ten? Mate, they're not going to stop for a chat with you because you're screaming at them.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
You need primary ID which is basically a passport or driving licence. Provisional licences should be accepted (Government does) but I am told some banks etc don't. Voter ID for some reason isn't accepted. You also need proof of address which basically means you need to have your name on the council tax or a utility bill, and sometimes it has to be a paper one. Mobile phone bills aren't accepted. It's a real mess. There is a real need for some sort of primary ID.
We have multiple forms of primary ID already, no need for a universal new one.
If you wish to make it easier to get primary ID for those who lack it, then tackle that. Lower costs on that if needed, or spend money on making it it free, don't make a new authoritarian universal piece nonsense for everyone.
For political nerds (many on here): I've just checked the list of the 380 Labour MPs who nominated Burnham for leader. That leaves a mere 23 who didn't. Although I can't find an accurate list of the 23, most of them are the far lefties. However, Shabana Mahmood is one of the 23. Oversight, or anti-Burnham? Who knows.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
You need primary ID which is basically a passport or driving licence. Provisional licences should be accepted (Government does) but I am told some banks etc don't. Voter ID for some reason isn't accepted. You also need proof of address which basically means you need to have your name on the council tax or a utility bill, and sometimes it has to be a paper one. Mobile phone bills aren't accepted. It's a real mess. There is a real need for some sort of primary ID.
We have multiple forms of primary ID already, no need for a universal new one.
If you wish to make it easier to get primary ID for those who lack it, then tackle that. Lower costs on that if needed, or spend money on making it it free, don't make a new authoritarian universal piece nonsense for everyone.
So what Id can be used via a phone to confirm that the person is both who they claim to be and has the right to work in the UK?
And remember the fine for screwing up is £60,000 so I'm not taking any risks and I've outsourced the work to a firm that can
1) confirm that the person showing me the passport is the person on the passport 2) confirm the passport is valid 3) the passport confirms that the person in 1 is able to work in the UK.
The easiest recruitment paths are
1) UK citizen with UK passport 2) foreigner with right to work in the UK (of whatever mechanism) 3) anyone else..
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
Comments
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
Russians are raiding the ATMs to get cash out of banks, fearing a repeat of the ‘90s where millions lost savings. Dollars on the black market are selling for double or more than the official rate.
Stock market in Moscow was at a several-year low yesterday too, below the spike down at the start of the war.
This is a separate business of government point from the policies, which apart from being illiberal have negative consequences on the economy, government revenue, education and welfare provision, all of which areas Burnham has ambitious plans for.
- the number ten operation (both north and south) is going to be more heavyweight within the political set up and the relative influence of number eleven lesser;
- he reckons keeping McFadden at DWP plus moving Cooke to head the policy unit means the Milburn welfare review might be wide-ranging
- having got nowhere on affordable housing, the new focus is likely to shift to social housing
- he suggests the Miliband and Streeting appointments are poor fits and likely arose from needing to solve issues within the reshuffle
- the big questions remain around how and how much money they will be able to raise, and the wider economic environment
Labour has a small lead or close to Reform
Farage is damaged but not out
Tories are lagging behind
A May 2027 election looks possible then and may even do Labour good locally
What did happen is endless ever closer union, including repacking the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty and then ramming it through regardless.
We were right to leave, and I'm delighted we're out.
Wolverhampton 2
Rest of West Midlands 0
Looking forward to similar results against the Baggies, Birmingham and Stoke next season.
I'm not sure about the Chinese buying Russian debt, even if denominated in Yuan. A Russian debt default seems pretty likely, and more likely with every day the war continues. If the Chinese were to provide money I think they might want something more substantial in return than a promise of repayment.
We're two months away from the Russian Parliamentary elections. I'd guess that a lot will happen after the election.
Especially if he loses his temper either during the campaign or at the count. (With the Count?)
@haynesdeborah
It is “highly unusual” for a Russian warship to conduct a live-fire exercise close to the UK coast, a defence source says.
This raises the very real possibility that the timing of a decision by the Russian frigate, Neustrashimy, to test fire its weapons 40 nautical miles off the coast of Plymouth on the day Andy Burnham was sworn in as PM on Monday was no coincidence…
https://x.com/haynesdeborah/status/2079473843580645865
No shit, Sherlock.
What about Gas?
Your Stockholm syndrome and victim-blaming is something you should see someone about.
@racheljanetwolf
Leaving aside the funding of a VAT cut, I think the politics are dicey for two reasons. First, bills will probably rise from today's point even with the VAT cut. Reducing the increase in the cost of living doesn't work. We've tried this: it's expensive and ineffective. (1/2)
Rachel Wolf
@racheljanetwolf
Second, cost of living isn't in your control so you shouldn't stake your credibility on it. What might happen with Iran...?
This is a classic 'people are upset so we must say we will do something'. But if you can't solve it, don't make it your platform!
https://x.com/racheljanetwolf/status/2079488341871919493
Edit: I'd have hoped that we could disagree without you insinuating I have mental health issues in relation to the subject of disagreement. It's a really unpleasant thing to say.
Adjacently, one thing that *did* surprise me recently was that A2A heat pumps are within the Government's boiler upgrade scheme, with grants of up to £2500.
Those offer scope for longer term savings, and potentially also against gas as the prices change, and as systems are less complex than ASHP.
However it is via MCS-Approved suppliers, and the devil is always in the detail.
An election where Farage can't say anything without answering questions about his dodgy money would be less than ideal for them...
It is a gimmick that most people will not notice when it comes to paying their bill
Counter-manded by Burnham once in No. 10.
Just because it's difficult doesn't mean governments get to choose what the population care about!
This is something they were legally forbidden from doing whilst we were inside the EU.
I am disappointed that Darren Jones, who I have the utmost respect for doesn't understand that.
So yes, the decision itself is funded, and the amount of unfunded spending commitments remaining have also dropped. Shouldn't spook the markets at all.
It's not a "stunt", it will have a real if modest impact on the cost of living. And since the poorer half of households pay a higher proportion of their incomes on electricity than do the less poor half, it is also well targeted. It is also consistent with climate change goals. And it will reduce headline CPI from October.
I think this measure will cut through, unlike Starmer's measures on the cost of living which were a bit of a damp squib.
So in summary, cost of living political bangs plus net zero benefits for zero net bucks.
A Deltic utterance.
Besides, who doesn't love those low intelligence playthroughs where all the dialogue is changed to fit?
https://x.com/Patrickwebb/status/2079346823630672030
Whether there are advantages to setting VAT rules at the EU level, or not, is a very different question that I haven't thought about.
But when British politicians said many times in the past that, "we cannot do this because it is an EU rule," what they were really saying is that, "we are not willing to expend the effort to get this changed at the EU so that we can do this." It was a choice.
If it needs international agreement then no it can't be done on a democratic level. Even if every voter in this country votes for change, that is insufficient.
It's such bullshit.
They could expend all that effort and still fail, as Cameron did when he tried to block Junker or open the bloc up further to British services exports.
*with the exception of EV owners. But we like them too.
@Frencheconomics
Taking Defence spending to 3.5% of GDP would cost £24bn/year, a Personal Allowance increase of 10% would cost £11bn/year. To be fully funded would require Osborne-era welfare reforms, AND flat rate pension tax relief, AND replacing the triple lock with CPI indexation in order to not eat into headroom/ bust the existing fiscal rules. This is why most investors are assuming these changes wont happen....
https://x.com/Frencheconomics/status/2079503899438846061
This is where Starmer was so inept. He lost every news cycle.
If its happening at the EU level that is not a decision that UK politicians, or their voters, can make so not a UK choice.
If you want a country called Europe with European politicians making the choices enacted at European elections then that is democratic, but make the case for that. Don't pretend it was still a national choice though when it was not.
I don't see anything fundamentally different or undemocratic about operating that process at an EU level, a UK level, or a county level.
He is an idiot.
Not sure whether Greens or LDs would be more horrified by Farage, nor whether Davey or Polanski would cause more Reform voters to choke on their cornflakes.
If you have things set up at an EU level, they are equally not under UK politicians control.
You are pretending they are to make it less awkward by suggesting the politicians can "persuade" other countries politicians to change their views, that's not democracy, that's international relations.
There is nothing undemocratic about having a country called Europe determining things at a European level shaped by European elections. The problem is pretending that it is still in national levels and there is no country called Europe but passing the control away from the politicians we elect and to someone else.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is bad governance.
We all have a myriad of ways we can prove our identity without needing an authoritarian identity card. There is no problem that needs fixing.
(Is there a path parallel to balcony solar, here?)
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The ruble is now effectively a closed currency, with transactions negotiated individually.
When I was in Instanbul a couple of years ago, there was a 100% spread between buy and sell prices on rubles at the exchange kiosks. You want to buy rubles, you’ll get the official 75 or 80 to the dollar, but if you’re selling them you’ll get $1 for 200.
How much could that save?
I wouldn't think it would be an easy source of revenue and, because of the way the budget is structured, ending them actually raises you no money, because the budget is already assuming that they will be ended (in order to meet the fiscal rules). So ending them is all pain, and no gain. It doesn't create a pot of money to spend on anything else.
You can DIY Solar installs now, you can export to the grid with it now.
What you can't do (with one complicated exception) is get paid for the exported electricity, as all the SEG suppliers insist on a MCS certificate.
It's particularly egregious that MCS installers are only allowed to use brand new gear, as these days there is quite a lot of cheap secondhand stuff about, but you can't even pay an MCS installer to put it in and gets an MCS certificate.
All this shit is impossible for the Russians or those wishing to sanction them to regulate.
Thinking that you can use one-off savings to fund ongoing commitments was bad when Lawson and Sunak did it, it's bad when Burnham does it. Great politics, bad government which is one of the reasons we are where we are.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
I find a lot of this opposition to be based on ignorance and paranoia but it's genuinely felt. Then add in the fact that money is short and there are many other ways to spend it that are easier sells and likely to deliver more short term political benefit. All in all this was probably quite an easy call to make.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
And people are lazy especially when multiple candidates can all do the work..
Anyway, on that cheery note, I am off. Play nicely, everyone.
If you wish to make it easier to get primary ID for those who lack it, then tackle that. Lower costs on that if needed, or spend money on making it it free, don't make a new authoritarian universal piece nonsense for everyone.
And remember the fine for screwing up is £60,000 so I'm not taking any risks and I've outsourced the work to a firm that can
1) confirm that the person showing me the passport is the person on the passport
2) confirm the passport is valid
3) the passport confirms that the person in 1 is able to work in the UK.
The easiest recruitment paths are
1) UK citizen with UK passport
2) foreigner with right to work in the UK (of whatever mechanism)
3) anyone else..
I have spotted a branch of Gail’s, a branch of Waitrose and a bloke in socks and sandals. Can't get more LibDemmy than that.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...