Westminster Politics 2024-2029

I don't agree. If she can unlock that sort of money, it needs to go on infrastructure investment, which will generate growth, rather than on current spending, which won't.
The saving from the means-testing of WFA is 2.8% of the £50bn reportedly being unlocked. Getting the good-will back is worth that.
 
Example 376 of just how bad nu nu labour is at politics.

Listen guys, those defending this are really holding back. Alan here shows you how its done, just go balls out crazy.

 
Yeah, 'we shouldn't listen to experts' always goes well.

The worst thing that can happen is we lose some mega rich tax dodgers for a while, let me cry into my cereal over that. If anybody is seriously suggesting it's not worth trying they're either biased or weak.
 
Meanwhile France is preparing new wealth taxes which could mean even more wealthy French come to the UK. I suppose they will spend money here but on the other hand they could feck off again when ever they feel like it, so I don't know if it would be a good thing or not. Good for us I mean, I doubt it would be good for France.

I am in favour of raising taxes by the way, but only where the Treasury guys say it would not be counter-productive.

Really? Didn't they learn from the solidarity tax and the 75% top rate?
 
The saving from the means-testing of WFA is 2.8% of the £50bn reportedly being unlocked. Getting the good-will back is worth that.

You don't even need to drop the policy just severely amend it so it impacts far less pensioners or it's tiered.

It feels like politically they don't want to U-turn in their first policy but I reckon a small adjustment to show they're listening would actually be good optics.

Personally I don't think the two should be conflated. The debt figure is rather ideological there's plenty of different ways it can be totalled and a lot of it discounted as true debt when you look at it in detail. The treasury and politicians know this, policy should never be dictated by that figure. That doesn't change the public spending budget though which whilst political it's at least a real value and one which has economic impacts.
 
Example 376 of just how bad nu nu labour is at politics.

Listen guys, those defending this are really holding back. Alan here shows you how its done, just go balls out crazy.



I'll bite on this, knowing that @Pexbo is ready to pounce on me (love you really!)...

But! The uptick in people applying for Pension Credit has surged since this anouncement. This means that thousands, if not tens / hundreds of thousands will now get PC that they didn't know they were eligible for. If it wasn't for the outrage caused by this, these people might not have applied.

So he's technically right, although it's a warped view of the logic.
 
What! She can do this! But the black hole! The house hold budget!



I’m sure most of it will be given to private sector while poor pensioners and people on benefits both get the blame and get targeted by the state.


We are one of the few countries that includes QE losses in our calculations.

Changing it brings other risks but with lowish inflation it shouldn't be a big problem.

IF they did that, it needs to go on investment. No tax breaks, public sector freebies or any other giveaways. Currently their budget plans come from the religious school of economics i.e pray for growth. The nonsense over the £22b has been uncovered and it's time for them to stop politicking and do some real work.


The biggest positive thing Reeves could do is climb down from her naive and stupid declaration that national insurance wont rise.
 
We are one of the few countries that includes QE losses in our calculations.

Changing it brings other risks but with lowish inflation it shouldn't be a big problem.

IF they did that, it needs to go on investment. No tax breaks, public sector freebies or any other giveaways. Currently their budget plans come from the religious school of economics i.e pray for growth. The nonsense over the £22b has been uncovered and it's time for them to stop politicking and do some real work.


The biggest positive thing Reeves could do is climb down from her naive and stupid declaration that national insurance wont rise.
It doesn't scream confidence in their messaging that they first went with "we have no money so here come cuts" and then pivoted to "actually we found a load of cash by using a different calculator"
 
We are one of the few countries that includes QE losses in our calculations.

Changing it brings other risks but with lowish inflation it shouldn't be a big problem.

IF they did that, it needs to go on investment. No tax breaks, public sector freebies or any other giveaways. Currently their budget plans come from the religious school of economics i.e pray for growth. The nonsense over the £22b has been uncovered and it's time for them to stop politicking and do some real work.


The biggest positive thing Reeves could do is climb down from her naive and stupid declaration that national insurance wont rise.

Not often I agree with you but this is the first place the treasury should look for savings. It's one of those policies that everyone knows is absurd there's backing for it to change to tiered interest rates and yet silence. I don't think much of the BOE assets should be considered a debt to the treasury at all but that's a different matter.

It's too complicated and perhaps boring for the media to make a big public story so the tens of billions wasted a year is just ignored. It's money that could be used to make a big difference to the economy, namely the green transition.
 
I'll bite on this, knowing that @Pexbo is ready to pounce on me (love you really!)...

But! The uptick in people applying for Pension Credit has surged since this anouncement. This means that thousands, if not tens / hundreds of thousands will now get PC that they didn't know they were eligible for. If it wasn't for the outrage caused by this, these people might not have applied.

So he's technically right, although it's a warped view of the logic.

Great.
So what will they do now? Because the entire reason for stopping winter fuel payments was supposedly to save money.

If its not saving money, and if everyone is actually claiming even more as a result, as you claim, then they will need to save it somewhere else, right?

Or maybe just not bother with any of it?
 
Reminds me V for Vendetta a bit.
GYbOXVFbMAAfdjE


 
The saving from the means-testing of WFA is 2.8% of the £50bn reportedly being unlocked. Getting the good-will back is worth that.
I would be happy if they can find a way to reset the threshold so poor pensioners are properly protected, but that's as far as I'd go. That 2.8% is £1.4bn, or the equivalent of 1p on the basic rate of tax.

I think the govt has to be very disciplined about how they message how they going to borrow more. It HAS to be to fund growth generating investment, ie the creation of new income generating assets for the state. It can't be to plug
spending gaps, that just seems like asking for trouble from the markets.
 
Last edited:
Not often I agree with you but this is the first place the treasury should look for savings. It's one of those policies that everyone knows is absurd there's backing for it to change to tiered interest rates and yet silence. I don't think much of the BOE assets should be considered a debt to the treasury at all but that's a different matter.

It's too complicated and perhaps boring for the media to make a big public story so the tens of billions wasted a year is just ignored. It's money that could be used to make a big difference to the economy, namely the green transition.

The Economist reckons they've got about £30b to play with already and £50b if they change the debt calculation.

Changing the calculation is easy. Writing off the debt the country owes itself is a different matter since there is a network of banks and investors in between who lend to the boe because of those interest payments.

I think I'd be kind to suggest Reeves doesn't want to go down that road.
 
I would be happy if they can find a way to reset the threshold so poor pensioners are properly protected, but that's as far as I'd go. That 2.8% is £1.4bn, or the equivalent of 1p on the basic rate of tax.

I think the govt has to be very disciplined about how they message how they going to borrow more. It HAS to be to fund growth generating investment, ie the creation of new income generating assets for the state. It can't be to plug
spending gaps, that just seems like asking for trouble from the markets.

That's a fair point.
 
You are extremely naive.

I think the people that are extremely naive are the idiots who think influence is bought through registered donations. We live in Britain though so the stupidity of the general population is to be expected.



Complete non story. We spend thousands of hours a year on recon missions in the region. Take this from me, our war recon missions do not have transponders.
 
The messaging on this WFA is maddening.

1 in 3 pensioners are asset millionaires. They have money. They don’t need a winter fuel allowance. Release some equity from your homes ffs. The Tories fecked you.

23% of the UK is aged 60 or over. This problem will only get worse.

We can’t just keep throwing blanket payments to that cohort group. If you have money, work it out.

On the flip side, not acknowledging the huge % of pensioners in genuine poverty, by increasing the Winter Fuel payment for this entire parliament, with some adult messaging around it having a sunset clause… insane.

It’s all so boringly average.
 
Such a stupid country

Just pointing out they also caused £10,000 worth of damage to the frame, let's not forget that bit. The judge also said, "Section 63 of the sentencing code requires me, in assessing the seriousness of your offending, to consider not only the harm your offence caused, but also the harm it might foreseeably have caused" ie the damage that might have occurred if the soup had got in under the frame. The painting is worth around £100million.

Not saying I agree with the sentence, but that's why it was what it was.
 
I meant in the context of some free clothes, Arsenal tickets etc, not millions pounds of donations obviously which is what we and the media has been discussing, not blatant corruption.
He's only been PM for 2 months, he hasn't had time yet to build up millions of pounds worth of donations from rich people/companies looking for influence with the ruling party.

Probably won't have a chance now with all this scrutiny. I bet he's seething
 
I’m sure any senior politician is looking forward to £50k a night for an after dinner speech.
I don’t begrudge that personally I think people in senior positions should be paid a commensurate salary for leading the country.
Should be easily £1m for a prime minister, might stop them from trying to top themselves up with other freebies.
 
He's only been PM for 2 months, he hasn't had time yet to build up millions of pounds worth of donations from rich people/companies looking for influence with the ruling party.

Probably won't have a chance now with all this scrutiny. I bet he's seething

He's become PM so he's set for life. I don't think he needs a few quid while he's in power the money comes after.

The blatant open corruption happens at minister level the people you won't know the names of. They'll do the backroom deals and have a stash somewhere.

Registered donations aren't even the tip of the iceberg so not even considered corruption. They're a tiny snowflake.