New Labour government - legislative agenda
- Thread starter Kid_Eternity
- Start date
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
TBF, they'll will also be eating into the £9bn reserve budget.
And, I guarantee there'll be some tax increases come Oct.
Elpenor
Dancing as fast as I can
At least where I work, the government accepting the independent pay body recommendations isn’t quite the same as the pay award being officially signed off as there would still need to be formal agreement between the body of employers and the union(s) but it’s a good step closer to being agreed.
(FAO of anyone who may be unsure this is an example of a post with content)
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Unison is about to go to ballot for strike over the Tory pay offer in Local Authorities. Anyone heard anything about a new offer there?
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
My thoughts on Reeves Statement:
1. Efficiency savings, means testing the winter fuel allowance, selling off buildings, cancelling new hospitals etc are all political choices. They are choices that a Tory chancellor could also easily have made.
2. The pay awards for the public sector are good (even if cuts will be made to part fund them) but a) do not make up for what those workers have lost over the past two years from corporate price gouging and inflation and over the last 40 years from the assault on the working class.
3. The idea that the forthcoming Budget cuts and tax rises are a) as a result of a black hole that Labour has only just discovered and b) inevitable is both a lie and a sign that Labour is already under the control of Treasury orthodoxy. Spending cuts and more taxes on the working class are, again, political choices that a Tory Chancellor could also easily have made.
4. Reeves continues to peddle the same lie as Osborne and successive Tory Chancellors that managing the economy is the same as managing a household budget. This is just bollocks.
5. The media continue to overlook the reality that Reeves 'growth plan' is built on sand. No public investment, no serious national industrial strategy, no serious insourcing or nationalisation plan = no sustainable economic growth.
6. Reeves could avoid 1 and 3 and increase 2 and do much much more by simply taxing unearned income at the same rate as earned income is taxed, or she could have chosen to make a start by taxing obscene wealth. For example, this modest proposal could raise £10bn:
Wealth taxes could raise £10bn to help plug Tory budget hole, say economists
The unthinking posting of Labour spin on this site is starting to grate….if some posters think Labour’s economic plan makes sense say why and we can debate it.
1. Efficiency savings, means testing the winter fuel allowance, selling off buildings, cancelling new hospitals etc are all political choices. They are choices that a Tory chancellor could also easily have made.
2. The pay awards for the public sector are good (even if cuts will be made to part fund them) but a) do not make up for what those workers have lost over the past two years from corporate price gouging and inflation and over the last 40 years from the assault on the working class.
3. The idea that the forthcoming Budget cuts and tax rises are a) as a result of a black hole that Labour has only just discovered and b) inevitable is both a lie and a sign that Labour is already under the control of Treasury orthodoxy. Spending cuts and more taxes on the working class are, again, political choices that a Tory Chancellor could also easily have made.
4. Reeves continues to peddle the same lie as Osborne and successive Tory Chancellors that managing the economy is the same as managing a household budget. This is just bollocks.
5. The media continue to overlook the reality that Reeves 'growth plan' is built on sand. No public investment, no serious national industrial strategy, no serious insourcing or nationalisation plan = no sustainable economic growth.
6. Reeves could avoid 1 and 3 and increase 2 and do much much more by simply taxing unearned income at the same rate as earned income is taxed, or she could have chosen to make a start by taxing obscene wealth. For example, this modest proposal could raise £10bn:
Wealth taxes could raise £10bn to help plug Tory budget hole, say economists
The unthinking posting of Labour spin on this site is starting to grate….if some posters think Labour’s economic plan makes sense say why and we can debate it.
Last edited:
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
And, you don't think that's going to happen come the Oct budget?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Treasury control is unnecessary in order to explain that. I think it was baked into ideology thats been on display during the entire Starmer Labour era.
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
Reeves has plainly said they will target the welfare system. Given that fraud is low we know what that means.
Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
Why do you believe (3a) that Labour is lying about the Tories concealing the impact of costed commitments? Do you know more about it than the IFS or the Resolution Foundation?
elbows
Well-Known Member
I dont know if the media is capable of sensible discussion about growth anymore. Perhaps in part because the entire concept of meaningful growth in the partially deindustrialised developed world, during a century of tricky energy transition, has gone a bit weird. Other basic economic concepts, that used to be central to the mainstream news and political narrative when I was growing up, such as balance of trade, have also been relegated to the margins in ways I have yet to get my head around properly.
At this stage of the new government I'm not really surprised that some people might be temporarily satisfied by the obvious differences between this government and the tory one, on certain rhetorical fronts (but not others) and when it comes to things like public sector pay agreements. All the same it is still sad to see a lack of wailing about the horrific language of cuts that was on clear display today. I suppose I shall largely wait till October to see exactly which tax rises the government go for before making predictions about the response, the perceptions, the extent to which people will hold their nose or be able to continue to look on the bright side. So far, as expected, there is no radical departure from the establishment economic rhetoric, but until I see the tax rise details, I cannot really predict whether this government are going to prove themselves somewhat skilful at giving the impression of pulling off a very difficult balancing act (within artificially imposed constraints that I will never support). So far they've done exactly as we were led to believe they would, which has little in common with how I would like things to be done, which is why I could not bring myself to vote for them. I'm not surprised that people arent losing their shit, because the expectations management set this scene long ago, limiting the shock and horror that was ever likely to be expressed at this stage.
Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
That’s a matter for the budget.
Elpenor
Dancing as fast as I can
The seriously daft thing is cancelling the infrastructure projects. These will have already incurred costs to this point, will incur further cancellation costs, and then in the future yet more costs when the projects no doubt get recommissioned.
I haven’t worked at the Bank of England, admittedly, but understood infrastructure investment was generally seen as a positive thing for the economy.
But Reeves seems to be of the school of thought that governments don’t provide things if they don’t have to and that probably includes reopening much needed railway lines
I haven’t worked at the Bank of England, admittedly, but understood infrastructure investment was generally seen as a positive thing for the economy.
But Reeves seems to be of the school of thought that governments don’t provide things if they don’t have to and that probably includes reopening much needed railway lines
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Tyres it depends. Weight is a factor but the way you drive is a bigger factor. If you're trying to maximise range you're likely to be at the lower end of emissions.
The RAC did a good Fact Check on this.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
I’m not interested- in the slightest - about the spin and media bollocks about how much of the ‘black hole’ was known before the election and how much has been discovered. The lie is that spending cuts and tax rises are inevitable. They are not. They are a political choice.
elbows
Well-Known Member
We dont get most of the tax details till October. Mostly all we got on that front today was confirmation of VAT on private school fees, and the now familiar rhetoric about which forms of taxation would not rise later this year. Im sure there will be plenty of leaks and floating of tax ideas in the press in the months ahead, after that management class have had their summer holidays.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
If you’re not interested in it, why post that it is a lie?
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
I didn’t.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
That's what you get when the boss used to work for the bank of england
elbows
Well-Known Member
Also:
The Tax Treatment of Carried Interest – Call for Evidence
The government has published a call for evidence, inviting views from stakeholders on its plans to reform the tax treatment of carried interest.
and
Changes to the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy
This document sets out the changes announced today to the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy (EPL) in line with the government’s manifesto commitments.
PR1Berske
Alligator in chains by the park gates.
Sorry for the late reply, I was in the departure lounge of Belfast airport and now I'm stuck at Liverpool Lime Street where it appears all trains are cancelled.
So with time to think about responding to a few things.
1. I know that the forum rules are what they are re:Twitter posts. I find that there are often plenty of responses to just posting them without comment because often they're enough, on their own, to inform or update. I've altered my posts recently to ensure they include a screenshot or quote rather than just the embedded Tweet to aid with access. In future I'll include some comment or response for context.
2. Twitter is a cesspit but it's also, still and undeniably, the goto place for news, responses to news, commentary on news, and reactions from all sides on ongoing events. It's far too late to detach a thread based messageboard from Twitter. It's still how the beating heart of news is commentated on. Posting links here, with or without commentary, is just one way to inform, update, or provide context on fast moving events
3. You chided me for posting from the Guardian newsfeed. I did that to provide update and context on an ongoing event. Not everybody looks at the Guardian all day. It's just one way I engage in threads. Often I don't have an opinion, I just have an interest in looking for updates and commentary and cross posting it here where it might be of interest or use.
4. Other users with a Twitter reputation, if I can put it like that, can answer for themselves. I'm not posting memes all day. I'm not posting random things with little context to the matter at hand. I'm trying to provide something constructive and relevant.
5. There won't be much discussion on a discussion board if we all agree with one another. Or if we just type variations on the same theme. I'm not as 'of the left' as many on here so of course I'm less likely to want to post my full opinions in case it doesn't come across as I had intended. I've witnessed the responses from users who find posts even remotely "centrist". Of course I'm wary of being brought up for not holding views in keeping with the general thrust of the forum.
6. That said, it'd be chicken of me to avoid typing what I feel about today's announcements. I'm not surprised that these steps have had to be made outside the larger and more extensive Budget Day. The Tories were scorching the earth prior to the election defeat and it appears that they deliberately left traps for Labour to fall into. I'm no Tory (I'm far too gay, proud of the right to protest and supportive of the EU for that). They mishandled the economy for ideological reasons and should be called out for it. Labour won on the grounds of not being chaos. They have to balance the books. They have to exist within the financial rules of our general society, they're not the party of 'tax high, spend all " because we don't live in isolation from the consequences. I hope that investment in railways does happen, because infrastructure spending can't just be building homes. I hope hospital rebuilding happens because I'm NHS, so I know my workplace is mostly rat's piss and sticky tape. I hope public sector pay is resolved, affordable for both sides. Here's to the grown ups being in charge.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Nicely put.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Is it?
Is placing 2 million pensioners into fuel poverty nicely put?
Is leaving the income of the richest pensioners - and the rich generally - untouched nicely put?
Is inverting Keynes "we can only do what we can afford" and pretending the UK economy is essentially the same as managing a household budget nicely put?
You must be very proud of your 'friends in the Government'....
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
That's a pretty good analysis. My only quibble would be that many (but not all) EVs have OEM tyres that are quite a bit harder in composition than your average. This is to maximise headline range, as harder tyres have lower rolling resistance. And emit fewer particulates. But there is a tradeoff in grip. This is why you're seeing tyre wear fairly equivalent, not because the weights are close enough, as the RAC suggests.
We drive little enough that the tyres tend to crack and perish before the tread wears thin!
We do about 3500mi a year and a decent set will last 25-30k on the tread, but they will start to crack in 6 years.
PR1Berske
Alligator in chains by the park gates.
The cuts to winter fuel allowances are for those not on pension credit or means tested benefits. Like free TV licenses there are many pensioners who don't benefit because they're fairly well off.
The Tories left the country in debt and debts need repaying.
Similar threads
