Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hammond’s budget: the tabloids react

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited October 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hammond’s budget: the tabloids react

My guess is that the Tories will not be too unhappy about the coverage of the budget. Mostly the papers are positive or neutral and he has managed to avoid horrors of the past like George Osborne’s pasty tax.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Not too much criticism yet of the 40p threshold going up - perhaps because many of the journos are beneficiaries...

    If £46k per year puts you in the top 14% of earners, then that sounds like being of limited electoral benefit. However, those earning that sort of money are likely to vote. I also reckon they might be more likely to live in marginals in London and Southern England.

    It seems strange to think that the battle ground is richer people, but that's what happened in 2017. Counter-intuitively, I reckon these people are quite attracted to Jeremy Corbyn.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Second again!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Give it seven days.

    Heck, Brown's most infamous Budget (10p tax) took a whole year before it unravelled in chaos and a big rise in borrowing.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    tlg86 said:

    Not too much criticism yet of the 40p threshold going up - perhaps because many of the journos are beneficiaries...

    If £46k per year puts you in the top 14% of earners, then that sounds like being of limited electoral benefit. However, those earning that sort of money are likely to vote. I also reckon they might be more likely to live in marginals in London and Southern England.

    It seems strange to think that the battle ground is richer people, but that's what happened in 2017. Counter-intuitively, I reckon these people are quite attracted to Jeremy Corbyn.

    Labour are quite clearly asleep on the job.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    The Sun headline is rather a hostage to fortune! It always takes a couple of days to sort through the fine print...

    That said, I have always rated Hammond.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    ydoethur said:

    Give it seven days.

    Heck, Brown's most infamous Budget (10p tax) took a whole year before it unravelled in chaos and a big rise in borrowing.

    But presentationally wasn't it cutting the basic rate that unravelled very quickly as a gimmick as the implications of removing the 10p band sank in?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    edited October 2018
    Foxy said:

    The Sun headline is rather a hostage to fortune! It always takes a couple of days to sort through the fine print...

    That said, I have always rated Hammond.

    Yes the same here.
    He reminds me of Alistair Darling and John Reid in Blair's cabinets.

    You could always rely on them.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Foxy said:

    The Sun headline is rather a hostage to fortune! It always takes a couple of days to sort through the fine print...

    That said, I have always rated Hammond.

    It's not difficult. Take off the change people were entitled to anyway because of inflation (the normal annual uprating of personal allowances). Sort out the one-off from the ongoing changes. Then look at the benefit people are left with.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    FPT:
    IanB2 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    IanB2 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    So the figures I should have put are:
    50k, 1500/year council tax, 2 young kids + 1 adult to support = 71% of income distribution
    50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids + 1 adult to support = 88% of income distribution
    50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids, single = 96% of income distribution.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

    That's a bit meaningless without considering housing costs. There is an ocean between someone paying a huge mortgage (or, worse, London rent) and someone who owns their home outright.
    Must admit I didn't even consider there were people who owned their own home outright without a mortgage! Yes, I think you're right overall - housing costs change the picture hugely.
    Yet there are more of them than people within mortgages!
    That is a very good point. Among my extended family, we have four houses. But I am the only one who has a mortgage. Ironically I live in the cheapest area and it's the smallest house as well!

    I was pondering in light of Yorkcity's comments whether the real economic risk to the Tories would be a savage spike in interest rates, which is not only long overdue but will soon become necessary to get savings rates up. But do they actually get many people with substantial mortgages to vote for them anyway now?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    ydoethur said:

    Give it seven days.

    Heck, Brown's most infamous Budget (10p tax) took a whole year before it unravelled in chaos and a big rise in borrowing.

    But presentationally wasn't it cutting the basic rate that unravelled very quickly as a gimmick as the implications of removing the 10p band sank in?
    Can't remember off-hand that the optics unravelled quickly. What I do remember is that it took a year, and a change in government (ironically, him succeeding Blair) before he did anything about it.

    Osborne at least had the grace to u-turn rapidly.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited October 2018
    Yorkcity said:

    Foxy said:

    The Sun headline is rather a hostage to fortune! It always takes a couple of days to sort through the fine print...

    That said, I have always rated Hammond.

    Yes the same here.
    He reminds me of Alistair Darling and John Reid in Blair's cabinets.

    You could always rely on them.
    Darling was a good Chancellor. He was extremely unfortunate in the situation he found himself in. Not only did he have to deal with the GFC very soon after appointment, but a PM who couldn't admit having made an error and who was determined to continue as Chancellor himself -this despite the fact that by all accounts Darling's political instincts were much shrewder than his.

    I don't think history will judge Darling necessarily kindly, but it will I think be kinder to him than to Brown or Lamont.

    (And his memoirs are brilliant. I especially enjoyed the moment when he said Fred the Shred should have accepted £350k pension, as 'most people could have struggled by on that.')
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Give it seven days.

    Heck, Brown's most infamous Budget (10p tax) took a whole year before it unravelled in chaos and a big rise in borrowing.

    But presentationally wasn't it cutting the basic rate that unravelled very quickly as a gimmick as the implications of removing the 10p band sank in?
    Can't remember off-hand that the optics unravelled quickly. What I do remember is that it took a year, and a change in government (ironically, him succeeding Blair) before he did anything about it.

    Osborne at least had the grace to u-turn rapidly.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6472999.stm

    You can see the optics collapse between the headline and the second paragraph.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Give it seven days.

    Heck, Brown's most infamous Budget (10p tax) took a whole year before it unravelled in chaos and a big rise in borrowing.

    But presentationally wasn't it cutting the basic rate that unravelled very quickly as a gimmick as the implications of removing the 10p band sank in?
    Can't remember off-hand that the optics unravelled quickly. What I do remember is that it took a year, and a change in government (ironically, him succeeding Blair) before he did anything about it.

    Osborne at least had the grace to u-turn rapidly.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6472999.stm

    You can see the optics collapse between the headline and the second paragraph.
    OK, so very fast. Makes you wonder why he took a year and the threat of a backbench rebellion on his next budget to actually do anything about it.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,282
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Not too much criticism yet of the 40p threshold going up - perhaps because many of the journos are beneficiaries...

    If £46k per year puts you in the top 14% of earners, then that sounds like being of limited electoral benefit. However, those earning that sort of money are likely to vote. I also reckon they might be more likely to live in marginals in London and Southern England.

    It seems strange to think that the battle ground is richer people, but that's what happened in 2017. Counter-intuitively, I reckon these people are quite attracted to Jeremy Corbyn.

    Labour are quite clearly asleep on the job.
    Yup. Journalists only cover what's in front of them - because that's the job. Commentators can jump on a hobbyhorse, but the Corbyn WhatsApp crew appear to be to busy indulging their own fantasy 1930s to notice. In 2012, the shift from 50% to 45% got a tonne of coverage - because Labour hammered it again and again, and Milliband themed his response on it. So it got covered.Journalists are doing their job. The opposition isn't.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    MJW said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Not too much criticism yet of the 40p threshold going up - perhaps because many of the journos are beneficiaries...

    If £46k per year puts you in the top 14% of earners, then that sounds like being of limited electoral benefit. However, those earning that sort of money are likely to vote. I also reckon they might be more likely to live in marginals in London and Southern England.

    It seems strange to think that the battle ground is richer people, but that's what happened in 2017. Counter-intuitively, I reckon these people are quite attracted to Jeremy Corbyn.

    Labour are quite clearly asleep on the job.
    Yup. Journalists only cover what's in front of them - because that's the job. Commentators can jump on a hobbyhorse, but the Corbyn WhatsApp crew appear to be to busy indulging their own fantasy 1930s to notice. In 2012, the shift from 50% to 45% got a tonne of coverage - because Labour hammered it again and again, and Milliband themed his response on it. So it got covered.Journalists are doing their job. The opposition isn't.
    The main reason is their alternative budget isn't credible.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    tlg86 said:

    Not too much criticism yet of the 40p threshold going up - perhaps because many of the journos are beneficiaries...

    If £46k per year puts you in the top 14% of earners, then that sounds like being of limited electoral benefit. However, those earning that sort of money are likely to vote. I also reckon they might be more likely to live in marginals in London and Southern England.

    It seems strange to think that the battle ground is richer people, but that's what happened in 2017. Counter-intuitively, I reckon these people are quite attracted to Jeremy Corbyn.

    The only seat in the West Midlands that Labour gained in 2017 was the very middle-class Warwick and Leamington, (also the only district to vote Remain).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    I know there's been commentary here on sweeteners ahead of a potential General Election. Heard from someone (not an insider, I hasten to add) that he reckoned it might be sweeteners ahead of a second referendum.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    ydoethur said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Foxy said:

    The Sun headline is rather a hostage to fortune! It always takes a couple of days to sort through the fine print...

    That said, I have always rated Hammond.

    Yes the same here.
    He reminds me of Alistair Darling and John Reid in Blair's cabinets.

    You could always rely on them.
    Darling was a good Chancellor. He was extremely unfortunate in the situation he found himself in. Not only did he have to deal with the GFC very soon after appointment, but a PM who couldn't admit having made an error and who was determined to continue as Chancellor himself -this despite the fact that by all accounts Darling's political instincts were much shrewder than his.

    I don't think history will judge Darling necessarily kindly, but it will I think be kinder to him than to Brown or Lamont.

    (And his memoirs are brilliant. I especially enjoyed the moment when he said Fred the Shred should have accepted £350k pension, as 'most people could have struggled by on that.')
    Your last sentence made me laugh , thank you.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    John Mc is on R4 now and appears to be majoring on lack of collective pay bargaining.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084

    Good morning, everyone.

    I know there's been commentary here on sweeteners ahead of a potential General Election. Heard from someone (not an insider, I hasten to add) that he reckoned it might be sweeteners ahead of a second referendum.

    As if any of the Tories actually knows what is going to happen next?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    IanB2 said:

    John Mc is on R4 now and appears to be majoring on lack of collective pay bargaining.

    Oh FFS. You would have thought UC, tax cuts for high earners and more money for potholes than schools were free hits for anyone vaguely intelligent (which he is).

    Labour are just an embarrassment at the moment.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Typical tax and spend Labour.

    An unexpected rise in the UK tax burden — now on course to hit its highest level since 1986-87
    https://www.ft.com/content/a5569cca-db7c-11e8-8f50-cbae5495d92b
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    John Mc is on R4 now and appears to be majoring on lack of collective pay bargaining.

    Oh FFS. You would have thought UC, tax cuts for high earners and more money for potholes than schools were free hits for anyone vaguely intelligent (which he is).

    Labour are just an embarrassment at the moment.
    His simple message is that under Labour wages will be higher, spending will be higher and investment will be higher.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    John Mc is on R4 now and appears to be majoring on lack of collective pay bargaining.

    Oh FFS. You would have thought UC, tax cuts for high earners and more money for potholes than schools were free hits for anyone vaguely intelligent (which he is).

    Labour are just an embarrassment at the moment.
    His simple message is that under Labour wages will be higher, spending will be higher and investment will be higher.
    At least two of which are not true.

    'For every problem there is a solution that is simple, easily understood and wrong:' H L Mencken.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Problem with Hammond for PM bets is that he doesn’t have any supporters outside of the Hammond household.

    Any fule can give money away - very little innovation in this budget - just tinkering.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited October 2018

    Typical tax and spend Labour.

    An unexpected rise in the UK tax burden — now on course to hit its highest level since 1986-87
    https://www.ft.com/content/a5569cca-db7c-11e8-8f50-cbae5495d92b
    John Rentoul has compared Hammond to Macdonnell:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-budget-reply-austerity-labour-a8606556.html

    (Edited for embarrassing Freudian slip on Rentoul's name.)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Listened to Corbyn's budget reply - it seemed preprepared, and prescripted. Essentially no matter what Hammond had said I believe it would have been the same speech.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    ydoethur said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Foxy said:

    The Sun headline is rather a hostage to fortune! It always takes a couple of days to sort through the fine print...

    That said, I have always rated Hammond.

    Yes the same here.
    He reminds me of Alistair Darling and John Reid in Blair's cabinets.

    You could always rely on them.
    Darling was a good Chancellor. He was extremely unfortunate in the situation he found himself in. Not only did he have to deal with the GFC very soon after appointment, but a PM who couldn't admit having made an error and who was determined to continue as Chancellor himself -this despite the fact that by all accounts Darling's political instincts were much shrewder than his.

    I don't think history will judge Darling necessarily kindly, but it will I think be kinder to him than to Brown or Lamont.

    (And his memoirs are brilliant. I especially enjoyed the moment when he said Fred the Shred should have accepted £350k pension, as 'most people could have struggled by on that.')
    Brown was a far better chancellor than Darling. However, you will recall over the last few years I've been excoriating Brown for PFIs. After yesterday, when he axed PFIs, perhaps Philip Hammond can be outed as a pb reader. What is his forum name? Not Plato, surely? Anyway, I am now expecting pb Tory support of PFIs to melt away like the October snow.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Pulpstar said:

    Listened to Corbyn's budget reply - it seemed preprepared, and prescripted. Essentially no matter what Hammond had said I believe it would have been the same speech.

    That only makes it worse then that it was rambling, incoherent and frequently inaccurate.

    I suppose the shouty delivery was just Jeremy being Jeremy.

    Not saying it's an easy gig to respond to the budget because it clearly isn't, but my Year 12s could have done a better job than that at unpicking an opponent's comments.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Pulpstar said:

    Listened to Corbyn's budget reply - it seemed preprepared, and prescripted. Essentially no matter what Hammond had said I believe it would have been the same speech.

    Yes -- standard LOTO stuff -- a pre-prepared speech with only the odd reference to the actual budget shoehorned in from the notes you will have seen being passed to Corbyn yesterday.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Listened to Corbyn's budget reply - it seemed preprepared, and prescripted. Essentially no matter what Hammond had said I believe it would have been the same speech.

    That only makes it worse then that it was rambling, incoherent and frequently inaccurate.

    I suppose the shouty delivery was just Jeremy being Jeremy.

    Not saying it's an easy gig to respond to the budget because it clearly isn't, but my Year 12s could have done a better job than that at unpicking an opponent's comments.
    Well, they appear to have a good teacher.

    Not sure about Corbyn’s team
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    ydoethur said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Foxy said:

    The Sun headline is rather a hostage to fortune! It always takes a couple of days to sort through the fine print...

    That said, I have always rated Hammond.

    Yes the same here.
    He reminds me of Alistair Darling and John Reid in Blair's cabinets.

    You could always rely on them.
    Darling was a good Chancellor. He was extremely unfortunate in the situation he found himself in. Not only did he have to deal with the GFC very soon after appointment, but a PM who couldn't admit having made an error and who was determined to continue as Chancellor himself -this despite the fact that by all accounts Darling's political instincts were much shrewder than his.

    I don't think history will judge Darling necessarily kindly, but it will I think be kinder to him than to Brown or Lamont.

    (And his memoirs are brilliant. I especially enjoyed the moment when he said Fred the Shred should have accepted £350k pension, as 'most people could have struggled by on that.')
    Brown was a far better chancellor than Darling. However, you will recall over the last few years I've been excoriating Brown for PFIs. After yesterday, when he axed PFIs, perhaps Philip Hammond can be outed as a pb reader. What is his forum name? Not Plato, surely? Anyway, I am now expecting pb Tory support of PFIs to melt away like the October snow.
    Tory support for PFI was as a means to fund infrastructure projects and push the risk onto private bodies. It isn’t a bad thing in itself. Only as good as the deal struck. Some deals have been dreadful, especially around hospital management.

    As a means to spunk around lots of spending on schools and hospitals that you don’t need to account for in the public finances whatever the cost, less so.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    ydoethur said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Foxy said:

    The Sun headline is rather a hostage to fortune! It always takes a couple of days to sort through the fine print...

    That said, I have always rated Hammond.

    Yes the same here.
    He reminds me of Alistair Darling and John Reid in Blair's cabinets.

    You could always rely on them.
    Darling was a good Chancellor. He was extremely unfortunate in the situation he found himself in. Not only did he have to deal with the GFC very soon after appointment, but a PM who couldn't admit having made an error and who was determined to continue as Chancellor himself -this despite the fact that by all accounts Darling's political instincts were much shrewder than his.

    I don't think history will judge Darling necessarily kindly, but it will I think be kinder to him than to Brown or Lamont.

    (And his memoirs are brilliant. I especially enjoyed the moment when he said Fred the Shred should have accepted £350k pension, as 'most people could have struggled by on that.')
    Brown was a far better chancellor than Darling. However, you will recall over the last few years I've been excoriating Brown for PFIs. After yesterday, when he axed PFIs, perhaps Philip Hammond can be outed as a pb reader. What is his forum name? Not Plato, surely? Anyway, I am now expecting pb Tory support of PFIs to melt away like the October snow.
    Our snow last Saturday never even had a chance to melt. Which is a good metaphor for my own views on PFI. Total and utter disaster and its final abolition is many years overdue.

    But it's worth remembering in its first incarnation it was a Tory idea.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Corbyn's responses are crafted so that they can be easily repackaged into smaller bundles of nonsense and delivered by social media to tattooed scum who've rotted their brains with Fortnite and Subutex. It's probably a winning strategy.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Listened to Corbyn's budget reply - it seemed preprepared, and prescripted. Essentially no matter what Hammond had said I believe it would have been the same speech.

    That only makes it worse then that it was rambling, incoherent and frequently inaccurate.

    I suppose the shouty delivery was just Jeremy being Jeremy.

    Not saying it's an easy gig to respond to the budget because it clearly isn't, but my Year 12s could have done a better job than that at unpicking an opponent's comments.
    No, the shouty delivery was because Corbyn was trying to make himself heard over the barracking from the Tory benches. It is an elementary error because the microphone will pick up Corbyn even if he cannot be heard more than a few yards away, so the trick is to speak normally for television and radio and ignore the House.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited October 2018

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Listened to Corbyn's budget reply - it seemed preprepared, and prescripted. Essentially no matter what Hammond had said I believe it would have been the same speech.

    That only makes it worse then that it was rambling, incoherent and frequently inaccurate.

    I suppose the shouty delivery was just Jeremy being Jeremy.

    Not saying it's an easy gig to respond to the budget because it clearly isn't, but my Year 12s could have done a better job than that at unpicking an opponent's comments.
    No, the shouty delivery was because Corbyn was trying to make himself heard over the barracking from the Tory benches. It is an elementary error because the microphone will pick up Corbyn even if he cannot be heard more than a few yards away, so the trick is to speak normally for television and radio and ignore the House.
    Didn't seem to bother Hammond, who came in for some really nasty heckling from Labour, far worse than what Corbyn had to deal with.

    Mind you, that was his fault for all those comments about Labour that he made. Very political.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    The most positive thing I can think of to say about the budget is that, with the deficit forecast to increase next year, at least the Treasury have prepared a bit of stimulus to help us through the trauma of Brexit. At least someone in government still has a grip on reality.

    At least I assume that's the reasoning and it's not a reckless bung to the electorate in preparation for an emergency election.

    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury claimed on R4 yesterday afternoon that we were starting to pay down the National Debt, but there's no surplus on the budget forecasts as far as they go. Sadly the BBC presenter wasn't able to challenge. You would think that after ten years of deficit political economy we would all have a good grasp on this.

    This is why a person like Trump is able to prosper in a modern Western democracy. Our standards are so low that we are incapable of establishing basic facts to form the foundation of reality-based debate. The public should know that the government proposes to continue to borrow money, and increase the size of the national debt, for the next five years, but no-one will tell them.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Typical tax and spend Labour.

    An unexpected rise in the UK tax burden — now on course to hit its highest level since 1986-87
    https://www.ft.com/content/a5569cca-db7c-11e8-8f50-cbae5495d92b

    Hmm. It’s almost as if a government is now trying to fund services out of taxes, not taxes and borrowing.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: Ricciardo's retirement down to the clutch, which is entirely a Red Bull part. Explains why they have so many DNFs, but not why it affects the Aussie more than the Dutchman (although Verstappen did have some problems in practice).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Scott_P said:
    Ummm - one third plus one fifth adds up to more than 52%.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Toiletgate: a former aide to George Osborne was on the radio yesterday (not sure who (Rupert?) or which station -- it was a short cab ride) saying that Chancellors like these gimmicky measures that allow them to make jokes during what can otherwise be a long, turgid speech, and suggested that Osborne's Magna Carta allowance was in part motivated by allowing him to have a crack at Ed Miliband.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Scott_P said:
    This is why May is right to kick the can until people start to see some of the consequences of no deal (or at least the preparation for it) with their own eyes. Too many people simply won't believe it otherwise.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    it's always a going to be hard to respond to a Budget speech that is giving money away, but Jezza didn't really bother trying. A general rant about evil Tories. At least he didn't try the inane comment about the debt getting higher under the Tories because they don't spend enough.

    As a non-economist, I always liken the deficit to forward motion and the debt as distance travelled for an ocean liner. You have to slow down before you can stop and reverse track. Simplistic, but beyond the wit of some Labour politicians.

    Economics isn't really a scientific discipline, but the spending more to reduce your debt theme is nonsense to most people. It's nice to spend lots to make people better off, but that's different to investment with a guaranteed return. Life is what it is.

    I'd probably go back to voting LD if they lived up to their Democratic tag. You can vote yes or no, but if you vote no, we'll keep re-running it until you do what we say.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Has anyone found this years pasty tax yet?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited October 2018
    Jonathan said:

    Has anyone found this years [sic] pasty tax yet?

    You'd need to be hot stuff to find it this fast.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    edited October 2018
    notme said:

    ydoethur said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Foxy said:

    The Sun headline is rather a hostage to fortune! It always takes a couple of days to sort through the fine print...

    That said, I have always rated Hammond.

    Yes the same here.
    He reminds me of Alistair Darling and John Reid in Blair's cabinets.

    You could always rely on them.
    Darling was a good Chancellor. He was extremely unfortunate in the situation he found himself in. Not only did he have to deal with the GFC very soon after appointment, but a PM who couldn't admit having made an error and who was determined to continue as Chancellor himself -this despite the fact that by all accounts Darling's political instincts were much shrewder than his.

    I don't think history will judge Darling necessarily kindly, but it will I think be kinder to him than to Brown or Lamont.

    (And his memoirs are brilliant. I especially enjoyed the moment when he said Fred the Shred should have accepted £350k pension, as 'most people could have struggled by on that.')
    Brown was a far better chancellor than Darling. However, you will recall over the last few years I've been excoriating Brown for PFIs. After yesterday, when he axed PFIs, perhaps Philip Hammond can be outed as a pb reader. What is his forum name? Not Plato, surely? Anyway, I am now expecting pb Tory support of PFIs to melt away like the October snow.
    Tory support for PFI was as a means to fund infrastructure projects and push the risk onto private bodies. It isn’t a bad thing in itself. Only as good as the deal struck. Some deals have been dreadful, especially around hospital management.

    As a means to spunk around lots of spending on schools and hospitals that you don’t need to account for in the public finances whatever the cost, less so.
    I am afraid the idea and the consequences cannot be separated so easily. The idea was flawed because the risk was always likely to drop back into the public sector eventually, in part because the private sector is more experienced at playing the contracting game. And because without offloading the risk the public sector is simply left with the extra costs of commercial borrowing and the private sector profit margin. And because it further encouraged spending now and repaying later, by taking the borrowing off book as far as public debt is concerned.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Jonathan said:

    Has anyone found this years pasty tax yet?

    I think its somewhere within Mcdonnell's ludicrous alternative budget.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    notme said:

    Typical tax and spend Labour.

    An unexpected rise in the UK tax burden — now on course to hit its highest level since 1986-87
    https://www.ft.com/content/a5569cca-db7c-11e8-8f50-cbae5495d92b

    Hmm. It’s almost as if a government is now trying to fund services out of taxes, not taxes and borrowing.
    Why is tax burden going up if the giveaways are bigger than the bits and pieces of new taxation?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Scott_P said:
    This is why May is right to kick the can until people start to see some of the consequences of no deal (or at least the preparation for it) with their own eyes. Too many people simply won't believe it otherwise.
    Surely no deal will leave Britain a trillion pounds better off. Isn't that the Conservative ERG position?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    CD13 said:

    I'd probably go back to voting LD if they lived up to their Democratic tag. You can vote yes or no, but if you vote no, we'll keep re-running it until you do what we say.

    https://goo.gl/images/FKHvYP
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Jonathan said:

    Has anyone found this years pasty tax yet?

    I think its somewhere within Mcdonnell's ludicrous alternative budget.
    I suspect it might be in the one-off for schools.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Is this the pasty tax:

    "Teachers and parents have reacted with anger to an announcement in the Budget that schools are to receive a one-off payment of £400m for "little extras"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46028757
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Scott_P said:
    This poll is entirely consistent (after suitably reallocating those that don’t yet accept there would be a downside) with all the other polls that show that roughly 30% of the population would watch the world burn so long as it secured Brexit. Large numbers of Leavers are stark staring bonkers.
  • Jonathan said:

    Has anyone found this years pasty tax yet?

    Not quite one of those but I've realised that the National Insurance Upper Earnings Limit increases in line with the £46,350 to £50,000 so as you pay less income tax, you now pay 10% more national insurance (12% not 2%) on that money.

    So if you are working you have that offset against you unless of course you are a pensioner on this level of income and so don't pay NI!
  • Is this the pasty tax:

    "Teachers and parents have reacted with anger to an announcement in the Budget that schools are to receive a one-off payment of £400m for "little extras"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46028757

    I know when I logged onto social media afterwards, I noticed that teachers were very angry at use of the term "little extras".
  • Jonathan said:

    Has anyone found this years pasty tax yet?

    Not quite one of those but I've realised that the National Insurance Upper Earnings Limit increases in line with the £46,350 to £50,000 so as you pay less income tax, you now pay 10% more national insurance (12% not 2%) on that money.

    So if you are working you have that offset against you unless of course you are a pensioner on this level of income and so don't pay NI!
    Edit - or are a company director paying yourself in dividends not so much salary... this is a win for those people too
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Is this the pasty tax:

    "Teachers and parents have reacted with anger to an announcement in the Budget that schools are to receive a one-off payment of £400m for "little extras"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46028757

    I know when I logged onto social media afterwards, I noticed that teachers were very angry at use of the term "little extras".
    I’m sure, like Zsa Zsa Gabor, they won’t hate him enough to give him back his diamonds.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    Is this the pasty tax:

    "Teachers and parents have reacted with anger to an announcement in the Budget that schools are to receive a one-off payment of £400m for "little extras"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46028757

    The problem is it's almost impossible to see a meaningful use for that money. It can't go to staff salaries or extra staff, because it's a one-off. It can't go into purchasing new resources, because they've mostly been purchased. It might go into capital maintenance, but 18 months ago the backlog for that was clocked at £6.7 billion and I doubt if it's fallen since although a number of schools have, of course. 400 million is probably less than 5% of the money needed.

    So what are we actually meant to spend it on?

    I can't help but feel it's better to give nothing than too little. That way you don't have to deal with an expectations gap as well.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Hammond is a steady pair of hands and had a good budget yesterday but it is difficult to see him enthusing enough Tory voters, especially Leavers and Tories who have moved to UKIP post Chequers, to beat Corbyn at the next general election
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2018
    ydoethur said:

    Is this the pasty tax:

    "Teachers and parents have reacted with anger to an announcement in the Budget that schools are to receive a one-off payment of £400m for "little extras"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46028757

    The problem is it's almost impossible to see a meaningful use for that money. It can't go to staff salaries or extra staff, because it's a one-off. It can't go into purchasing new resources, because they've mostly been purchased. It might go into capital maintenance, but 18 months ago the backlog for that was clocked at £6.7 billion and I doubt if it's fallen since although a number of schools have, of course. 400 million is probably less than 5% of the money needed.

    So what are we actually meant to spend it on?

    I can't help but feel it's better to give nothing than too little. That way you don't have to deal with an expectations gap as well.
    As well as anger at the use of the term "little extras", teachers seemed also to be comparing to the amount given to potholes. I think it made it doubly worse in their eyes, education is worth less than potholes were the cries.

    Nothing extra would have more likely to have got them less upset.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Maybe it was because he delivered it later in the day, but it felt like very little reaction to the budget outside stock responses. Maybe it will all kick off today. Then again even the other b word has been more low energy, even the political anoraks are just tired.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Playing the calculator on the BBC site suggests that the Cole’s will be a little better off, per month. However, where does that leave our grandson, who is teaching in a disadvantaged primary school which seems to be making financial cuts on a termly basis? I’m not sure the pothole money will reach down as far as our relatively minor road, either!
  • I notice that consumer spending in France was 1.5% lower in September than it was a year ago:

    https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/3639195

    By comparison in the UK it was 3% higher.

    Now imagine that these numbers were reversed with consumer spending up 3% in France and down 1.5% in the UK.

    Would the consequent apocalyptic reporting be blaming Brexit or austerity or both ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    The budget had far too many gimmicks for me. There were at least 4 announcements of £10m. On the back of a fag packet I worked out that £10m is just under 7 minutes of government spending in the year. Utterly trivial. Much bigger sums barely got a mention.

    There were also too many fires needing put out where public services are facing a real crisis. The extra money for schools is not enough to make a difference and very much a one off, not built into the budget for later years. The pot hole payments covers approximately 1/20th of the backlog. The additional money for Social Care will not stop Councils facing a financial crisis. The £1bn extra for defence in these circumstances seemed slightly eccentric and must surely have been to buy some votes for something.

    This is not to say for a moment that the budget should have been some Corbynite bonanza. It simply reflects the fact that the calls upon the public budget are more than the government can hope to meet, especially after the massive allocation towards Health. In light of that the tax cuts were something of a surprise even if they were counterbalanced by increases elsewhere.

    The reality to me is that we have a Tory government committed to spending all of the proceeds of growth rather than sharing them. Deficit reduction is no longer a priority, let alone reducing government debt. Any tax cuts are counterbalanced by increases plus just a little bit more. We are committed to real terms increases in public spending of 1.4% a year and we can add annual goodies from the Chancellor on top of that. I can't help feeling the likes of Ed Miliband would have been pretty comfortable with such an approach, even if Labour have moved further left since then.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    Is this the pasty tax:

    "Teachers and parents have reacted with anger to an announcement in the Budget that schools are to receive a one-off payment of £400m for "little extras"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46028757

    I know when I logged onto social media afterwards, I noticed that teachers were very angry at use of the term "little extras".
    I’m sure, like Zsa Zsa Gabor, they won’t hate him enough to give him back his diamonds.
    The TES, who are a pretty reliable barometer of views, are very unhappy:

    https://www.tes.com/news/budget-2018-ps400m-help-schools-buy-little-extras (Requires registration or a Google account).

    (That said Lucy 'in the real world' Powell has a nerve to accuse anyone else of being patronising.)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Pulpstar, surely 'prepared and scripted'?

    Mr. Rentool, if they're angry, I would like to advert that I am willing to accept the £400m for little extras, and will express nothing but delight and gratitude.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Is this the pasty tax:

    "Teachers and parents have reacted with anger to an announcement in the Budget that schools are to receive a one-off payment of £400m for "little extras"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46028757

    Given the pasty tax was something blown out of all proportion, is that what you want?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    ydoethur said:

    Is this the pasty tax:

    "Teachers and parents have reacted with anger to an announcement in the Budget that schools are to receive a one-off payment of £400m for "little extras"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46028757

    The problem is it's almost impossible to see a meaningful use for that money. It can't go to staff salaries or extra staff, because it's a one-off. It can't go into purchasing new resources, because they've mostly been purchased. It might go into capital maintenance, but 18 months ago the backlog for that was clocked at £6.7 billion and I doubt if it's fallen since although a number of schools have, of course. 400 million is probably less than 5% of the money needed.

    So what are we actually meant to spend it on?

    I can't help but feel it's better to give nothing than too little. That way you don't have to deal with an expectations gap as well.
    As well as anger at the use of the term "little extras", teachers seemed also to be comparing to the amount given to potholes. I think it made it doubly worse in their eyes, education is worth less than potholes were the cries.

    Nothing extra would have more likely to have got them less upset.
    Wasn't Thornberry the first to make the potholes comparison?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    kle4 said:

    Is this the pasty tax:

    "Teachers and parents have reacted with anger to an announcement in the Budget that schools are to receive a one-off payment of £400m for "little extras"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46028757

    Given the pasty tax was something blown out of all proportion, is that what you want?
    It definitely warmed up politics though, which had been going a bit stale.
  • kle4 said:

    Is this the pasty tax:

    "Teachers and parents have reacted with anger to an announcement in the Budget that schools are to receive a one-off payment of £400m for "little extras"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46028757

    Given the pasty tax was something blown out of all proportion, is that what you want?
    Ed Miliband is still recovering from the trauma of having to go to Greggs...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:
    Ummm - one third plus one fifth adds up to more than 52%.
    It’s 53% @ydoethur

    Aren’t you being a little harsh?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Pulpstar said:

    Listened to Corbyn's budget reply - it seemed preprepared, and prescripted. Essentially no matter what Hammond had said I believe it would have been the same speech.

    Isnt that essentially always the case? So long as they cut out any directly wrong parts where they guessed incorrectly, or keep it vague, they're set.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: Ladbrokes have the 2019 Drivers' market up (but not the Constructors', slightly oddly).

    Bit tricky. I wonder if Leclerc (whose 8.5 is notably longer than the 6.5 available in the specials) and Gasly (26) might be value each way, fifth the odds, top 3.

    Hmm. Mercedes will likely have an overt number one status for Hamilton. Ferrari might be in more of a pickle. Vettel's made some mistakes this year (the team has too, to be fair), and Leclerc's fast and clearly has a potentially long and successful future ahead of him.

    At Red Bull, Gasly will do very well to hold onto Verstappen's coat tails. But Verstappen is 4.5 against 26 for Gasly. To rephrase, Verstappen is almost the same odds win the title as Gasly is to be top 3.

    Plenty of time, so I'm leaving this for now. But next time I log in with an eye to betting, I'll see how the odds look with boost.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited October 2018
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:
    Ummm - one third plus one fifth adds up to more than 52%.
    It’s 53% @ydoethur

    Aren’t you being a little harsh?
    Strictly speaking it's 53.3r%.

    That is, when last I checked, more than 52%.

    Why doesn't he use the percentages?

    (If you think I'm being harsh, try getting a 1.3% error passed your auditors.)
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr L,

    "Deficit reduction is no longer a priority,"

    Labour did well with last time with a spend, spend, spend manifesto. Very well, considering they had Old Bonehead in charge.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,445
    edited October 2018
    Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.

    The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:
    Ummm - one third plus one fifth adds up to more than 52%.
    It’s 53% @ydoethur

    Aren’t you being a little harsh?
    Strictly speaking it's 53.3r%.

    That is, when last I checked, more than 52%.

    Why doesn't he use the percentages?

    (If you think I'm being harsh, try getting a 1.3% error passed your auditors.)
    "Close enough for government work"
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.

    The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.

    Someone earning over £50k has a 'crisis'? Yeah, right.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.

    The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.

    Voters back prioritising spending more now over continuing to balance the books by 52% to 12%.

    After 8 years of austerity Hammond could not ignore that message


    https://mobile.twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1057175953506480128
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    Serious question for PB'ers:

    Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).

    I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Mr. Pulpstar, surely 'prepared and scripted'?

    Mr. Rentool, if they're angry, I would like to advert that I am willing to accept the £400m for little extras, and will express nothing but delight and gratitude.

    To be blunt teachers are often very angry anyway, and so it depends on whether patents, and then adults generally, share the anger. Ydoeteur has detailed some issues with it, but given it is still giving money it might not be as easy to stir up wider anger about it, rightly or not. Not impossible, but harder.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    Jonathan said:

    Has anyone found this years pasty tax yet?

    Not quite one of those but I've realised that the National Insurance Upper Earnings Limit increases in line with the £46,350 to £50,000 so as you pay less income tax, you now pay 10% more national insurance (12% not 2%) on that money.

    So if you are working you have that offset against you unless of course you are a pensioner on this level of income and so don't pay NI!
    That's me. I really don't need the extra £860 a year I'll get from next April but plenty of people struggling with Universal Credit and using foodbanks certainly could make good use of it. I'll see which charity could make best use of my windfall. Probably Salvation Army. The irony is that I'll get 40% of it back as gift aid so that's another £344 I can give away.

    It really is the wrong priority to favour wealthy pensioners unless you are preparing for a GE.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    HYUFD said:

    Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.

    The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.

    Voters back prioritising spending more now over continuing to balance the books by 52% to 12%.

    After 8 years of austerity Hammond could not ignore that message


    https://mobile.twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1057175953506480128
    It was probably inevitable. People dont care about it enough. But it does still make the Tories look incompetent to those that do and it will constrict some of their available attack lines.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Tax giveaway is a smart move from Hammond. Should empower him to get his preferred form of soft Brexit through. The only game in town. Meanwhile, he’s helping me pay off my garden landscaping. Thanks Phil!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    kyf_100 said:

    Serious question for PB'ers:

    Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).

    I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?

    Serious answer: The higher you raise the income tax threshold, the greater the number who are already below it and see no benefit whatsoever. And these are the poorest. Meanwhile the better off continue to benefit.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    kyf_100 said:

    Serious question for PB'ers:

    Would it have been possible for Hammond to have drastically raised the personal allowance (14k? 15k?) instead of raising the higher rate to 50k? Thus taking a huge swathe of the poorest paid out of paying tax entirely while still giving eveyone a tax cut (after all, people on 50k get their first 14k free, too).

    I know there is an argument that everybody should contribute to society, but it's always struck me as a good thing to take the poorest in society out of tax to reduce the politics of envy - demonstrating how rich people literally take on the lion's share of the tax burden?

    They may not pay income tax but they still pay VAT so they still contribute to society.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Barnesian, you can always write a cheque to the Treasury.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    kle4 said:


    To be blunt teachers are often very angry anyway

    They are a bit like farmers; in a state of perpetual crisis.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.

    The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.

    Someone earning over £50k has a 'crisis'? Yeah, right.
    I don't know why you scoff at that. Plenty of people on 50k can have crises. As someone on 30k and yet currently the highest earner in my family, 50k I've always regarded as comfortable but not necessarily without worry.
  • kle4 said:

    Mr. Pulpstar, surely 'prepared and scripted'?

    Mr. Rentool, if they're angry, I would like to advert that I am willing to accept the £400m for little extras, and will express nothing but delight and gratitude.

    To be blunt teachers are often very angry anyway, and so it depends on whether patents, and then adults generally, share the anger. Ydoeteur has detailed some issues with it, but given it is still giving money it might not be as easy to stir up wider anger about it, rightly or not. Not impossible, but harder.
    What annoys me most about my job is having to spend most of the students first year getting rid of bad habits from school. What the hell are they actually teaching them?
  • kle4 said:

    Is this the pasty tax:

    "Teachers and parents have reacted with anger to an announcement in the Budget that schools are to receive a one-off payment of £400m for "little extras"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46028757

    Given the pasty tax was something blown out of all proportion, is that what you want?
    The pasty tax was peak-Coalition politics. Something minor blown into a farrago and then dropped the moment Ed M tasted a steak slice.

    No wonder they went with falsely accusing Tories of being paedophiles by the fourth year of opposition.
  • Also - can you add the Star front page to the list. I need a laugh.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    Mr. Barnesian, you can always write a cheque to the Treasury.

    Nope. As I said, I don't agree with the COE's priorities. Now if McDonnell was in charge ....
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,445
    HYUFD said:

    Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.

    The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.

    Voters back prioritising spending more now over continuing to balance the books by 52% to 12%.

    After 8 years of austerity Hammond could not ignore that message


    https://mobile.twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1057175953506480128
    What austerity ? Gov spending has risen inexorably since 2010. There was a time when Tory Gov’s would have sought to make public spending value for money for tax payers rather than just throw money at problems. Sadly no longer. There was a time Tory Giv’s would have worried about, and addressed, productivity and underinvestment to boost economic performance. Sadly no longer. There was a time Tory’s would have sought to lead public opinion on spending rather than pander to it. Sadly no longer.

    Hammond abdicated responsibility in this budget rather than assumed it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    As I wait in my seat before takeoff (no not the moon, Zurich) I will leave PB with a thought - the Times Comment page is completely taken up by three articles from three commentators on different aspects of racism and discrimination.

    All three are Jewish. Go figure.

    Wiedersehen.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Given the polls for the Tories have been absurdly high, it would be funny if the budget is very well received but they drop in the polls
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hammond has given up balancing the budget and shirked the hard task of reforming public services to cut out the waste, mismanagement and inefficiency. Instead he has pandered to higher spending demands with dribs and drabs but no worthwhile amounts and continued with incentives to housebuilding which will drive up prices rather than address over valuation. It’s a Labour lite budget in most respects. The only worthwhile measure was the increase in the long overdue increase in the higher tax threshold to £50k which will at least begin to address the standard of living crisis.

    The Tories have got a death wish sticking with May but replacing her with Hammond would make it even worse.

    Voters back prioritising spending more now over continuing to balance the books by 52% to 12%.

    After 8 years of austerity Hammond could not ignore that message


    https://mobile.twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1057175953506480128
    It was probably inevitable. People dont care about it enough. But it does still make the Tories look incompetent to those that do and it will constrict some of their available attack lines.
    Hammond has not ended austerity, as he confirmed this morning non NHS departments would effectively see a spending freeze at most. It was more an easing of austerity than an ending of it aimed at middle income swing voters working in the private sector who use public services.

    If you are a public sector worker or on benefits and strongly anti austerity you are likely to have voted Labour in 2015 and 2017 anyway
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Barnesian, if McDonnell were in charge he'd write you a cheque so you knew how much your wage you were permitted by the benevolence of the Party to retain.
This discussion has been closed.