UK Politics

[Bonefishblues]

Except doesn't capture the suppressive effect of employer's NI increases on wages.

What should we factor in?

OBR estimate was 76% of the increase ends up passed on/felt by employees.

What's that in % terms at the employee end?

[Stevek76]

Depends on your salary I guess, also business size as they changed another limit at the same time that allows small businesses more leeway.

Another sign of labour's futile timidity of the media, they know the impact of employer's NI is more abstract and doesn't naturally fit into journalist's simplistic budget calculators.

To be clear, I think a general increase in tax was expected and is necessary, I'd just rather they'd have done a proper job binning off the existing insane* setup and setting out a fresh income tax.



*Why's NI charged per paycheck, not annually? Why does NI even exist as a separate thing when it's basically just branding? Why are so many benefits/allowances means tested resulting in some completely bonkers and actively harmful marginal tax rates for certain combinations of personal circumstances and salary (tax lawyer Dan Neidle has been highlighting how daft some of this ends up being for a while)

[Jdsk]

"Ofcom fines GB News £100,000":
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-o ... ent=gbnews

Breaking the rules on impartiality. Challenged by application for judicial review.

Jonathan

[Tangled Metal]

I do wonder what affect the high majority gained with the low percentage who actually voted for them? Didn't they beat the 97 landslide but had a drastically lower percentage of the total vote? Could this idea along with the low favourability ratings on them and Starmer in particular meant that they have to treat their term as on a full war footing with an eye to not losing too many votes?

I have no idea but I do think it is too simplistic to simply say too timid with the huge majority. They might be able to last 5 years with what they have but MPs like to keep their jobs. I do not see a large majority saving a Starmer government if there are too many things that go against the ideals of the labour party as a whole or lose support in the public.

[Stevek76]

That is quite possibly their thinking but I still think they're leading themselves astray if that is what they're focused on. If you look at past polling, few governments ever really retain/gain voters in that sense over a full term and the vote share a year has little bearing on the vote at the next GE ('events' etc). Trying to retain voters now at the cost of the longer term condition of public services and creating pain for yourselves retaining a basket case of a tax system is a folly. The point about the huge majority is that they fundamentally have near absolute control over parliament for the next few years. How reflective of the voters that is doesn't really matter.

Not to mention that if you look at present polls, they've already lost loads anyway. Also I get the impression that the small scale stuff can sully reputation far longer than simply putting a penny or two on income tax. The latter tends to get lost to being relatively abstract, fusses over winter fuel allowances and bus fare caps meanwhile just look mean and spiteful whilst saving very little money. E.g. the topic of thatcher the milk snatcher still gets raised now, do any of the fundamental tax rate changes made under a tenure?

It's not like the right wing press have been mollified with the smoke and mirrors efforts, they never would be even if the budget was actually economically right wing. And now we have headlines a day later from the mainstream TV channels about 'Reeves admits budget may impact working people's pay rises' and that's like to drag on into the weekend, which seems worse to me than simply having fuss on budget day but simply briefing it down with blunt honesty about need to fund public services.

[toontra]

...which seems worse to me than simply having fuss on budget day but simply briefing it down with blunt honesty about need to fund public services.

When has "blunt honesty" ever been part of any political party's playbook? Even statements/policies dressed up as "blunt honesty" are usually a cover for something rather different.

[pete75]

Of course it'll last the full term, massive majority

Unfortunately, it isn’t possible to completely discount the possibility of “events” of various kinds, ranging from a massive own-goal leading to a split of the Parliamentary Labour Party, to some form of agitated mass civil unrest, which “has to be dealt with by the army (possibly the US Army) taking control to restore stability”. We live in very unstable times, sadly.

My doom-scenario for today is a Trump-led USA administration, using roughly the same techniques as Russia uses, to foment unrest, and to build a body of support, a subset of the population who will ask to be “liberated” from a democratically elected government, then being invited to come and restore stability by some collection of billionaires, idiot politicians, and duped populace. I think I’ve got the makings of a dystopian novel. You can imagine who they’d bring over to become King!

That, of course, is Farage's wet dream. You're not him are you?

[Stevek76]

When has "blunt honesty" ever been part of any political party's playbook? Even statements/policies dressed up as "blunt honesty" are usually a cover for something rather different.

Well quite. Perhaps they should try it! Can't think it's going to do much harm looking at labour's current polling numbers.

[Nearholmer]

One thing I keep wondering is why they don’t simply issue a national budget summary, on paper, to every registered elector.

Not something mind-bogglingly complex, but a summary of the heads of income and expenditure, maybe broken down to no more than about twenty heads in each case, maybe as two pie charts, plus a graphic showing national debt projections with ‘central’ , ‘worst’ and ‘best’ ( briefly stating assumptions and criteria in footnotes).

Our local unitary authority does something like this, and although I’m sure 90%+ go in the bin unread, it does treat people like adults, and probably has some tiny positive outcome in terms of getting people to understand what their money goes on ….. seeing the cost of the NHS and pensions, for instance, ought to help get the debate in those areas on a better track.

[Jdsk]

One thing I keep wondering is why they don’t simply issue a national budget summary, on paper, to every registered elector.

Not something mind-bogglingly complex, but a summary of the heads of income and expenditure, maybe broken down to no more than about twenty heads in each case, maybe as two pie charts, plus a graphic showing national debt projections with ‘central’ , ‘worst’ and ‘best’ ( briefly stating assumptions and criteria in footnotes).

Our local unitary authority does something like this, and although I’m sure 90%+ go in the bin unread, it does treat people like adults, and probably has some tiny positive outcome in terms of getting people to understand what their money goes on ….. seeing the cost of the NHS and pensions, for instance, ought to help get the debate in those areas on a better track.

Totally agree with the principle.

Central government forced this on local government!

But I'd start with simply the factual bits rather than the projections.

And of course if we unified the tax and benefits systems there could be much more personalisation in the report.

Jonathan

[cycle tramp]

I do wonder what affect the high majority gained with the low percentage who actually voted for them? Didn't they beat the 97 landslide but had a drastically lower percentage of the total vote? Could this idea along with the low favourability ratings on them and Starmer in particular meant that they have to treat their term as on a full war footing with an eye to not losing too many votes?

I have no idea but I do think it is too simplistic to simply say too timid with the huge majority. They might be able to last 5 years with what they have but MPs like to keep their jobs. I do not see a large majority saving a Starmer government if there are too many things that go against the ideals of the labour party as a whole or lose support in the public.

I'm agreeing with Tangled Metal here. Labour currently have a large majority, but their current behaviour means that it may not be maintained as various regional elections take place. For any party to be truely effective, it normally helps if the majority of the local councillors are of the sanme view point as central government.

[Tangled Metal]

My POV on honesty in politics is that it should be legislated for. Basically any official or unofficial release by a politician can be fact checked and checked for misleading wording or other ways they mislead. In a kind of ASA style asssessment with teeth and consequences including a ban from any political position if it is serious.

I think we can not leave the politicians and their party people to be honest so we need something independent to enforce honesty. It would be fun to see MPs so afraid of consequences that they become the most honest people in the country!!!

"Ms Reeves, have you gone back on your pledges?" asks a member of the audience on QT. To which she replies "Yes I have!". At which point tv news political journalists realise that anyone can do their job now with a simple question in a public arena. QT might be a fun programme seeing MPs squirming. Pure fantasy I know but I still like the idea. Kind of like the film about everyone waking up unavble to lie and one guy could. He ended up kind of powerful as as result of being able to lie!!

[pwa]

I like that dream, but what we actually have is closer to the opposite. Being honest and candid is a weakness that will be exploited by the other side.

To illustrate that, look at the run-up to the last General Election. For a couple of years leading up to it economic analysts had been telling anyone who would listen that at successive budgets Tory Chancellors were papering over the cracks and leaving an economic shortfall for whichever administration came along after. Then, to get elected, the Tories had to pretend this wasn't the case, and Labour had to deny they were going to fix it by increasing taxation. Both knew the public were not going to vote for a bitter pill. Honesty would have been fatal for either side.

[UpWrong]

So the Tories have their 4th female leader and one of African heritage. They certainly tick the diversity box. Meanwhile, Labour continue with a white, cosmopolitan North Londoner. Let the culture wars begin

[pwa]

So the Tories have their 4th female leader and one of African heritage. They certainly tick the diversity box. Meanwhile, Labour continue with a white, cosmopolitan North Londoner. Let the culture wars begin

It is very odd. The lefties appear to be the more conservative in choice of leader.