Burnham

[Stevo 666]

I believe they understand the reality that welfare spending is becoming increasingly unaffordable based on the rules applied to it and that this has to be changed but they are balancing that with the strong likelihood of splits and ructions in the party so close to Burnham taking over.
They are possibly planning the best tactics and time to start to bring down welfare spending, working to get as many MPs on board before the next election.
The current tactic of giving out small gifts is just part of that buying time.

I think some in the Labour party realise that the size of the welfare bill is an issue, given that it now costs more than income tax brings in and is set to rise - but many rank and file Labour MP's just don't get it, hence the quote from Pat McFadden: “Every meeting I have is: 'Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?' They're asking the wrong questions.”

I don't hold up much hope for any reductions from the Welfare (Labour) Party; you just need to look at what happened when Starmer and Reeves proposed some very modest reductions.

As reported in the press recently:-
"Mr Healey had initially appeared to suggest that Labour would reduce the benefits bill before the next national vote.

In an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Healey was asked whether there would be cuts in welfare before the next election. He said: “There will be a reduction in the benefits bill – we’ll do that in a Labour way, and we will do that because it is simply not good for Britain or progressive to have a bigger and bigger benefits bill.”

But in a Channel 4 News interview later on Thursday, he conceded that: “It’s not correct to say that we’re going to bring this welfare bill down in this parliament because we’ve not set a timetable for that.”

The annual cost of benefits is forecast to top £430bn in 2031-32."

I guess that when Healey talks about reducing the benefits bill and says they will 'do that in a Labour way' means that welfare reductions will be negative

 

[Ian H]

Income tax is about a quarter of total tax revenue. There's no point in making an arbitrary link between that and benefits.

 

[First Aspect]

Yeah I'd agree with the rank and file issues. It feels like a lot of them haven't understood that they will be out of work in a couple of years, and are behaving as though they are at the start of a decade in power.

I said at the time that Starmer flunked it by caving in - albeit as time goes on the more it appears that the way he and Reeves did things was more pressure washer than toothbrush.

 

[secretsqirrel]

I think some in the Labour party realise that the size of the welfare bill is an issue, given that it now costs more than income tax brings in and is set to rise - but many rank and file Labour MP's just don't get it, hence the quote from Pat McFadden: “Every meeting I have is: 'Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?' They're asking the wrong questions.”

I don't hold up much hope for any reductions from the Welfare (Labour) Party; you just need to look at what happened when Starmer and Reeves proposed some very modest reductions.

As reported in the press recently:-
"Mr Healey had initially appeared to suggest that Labour would reduce the benefits bill before the next national vote.

In an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Healey was asked whether there would be cuts in welfare before the next election. He said: “There will be a reduction in the benefits bill – we’ll do that in a Labour way, and we will do that because it is simply not good for Britain or progressive to have a bigger and bigger benefits bill.”

But in a Channel 4 News interview later on Thursday, he conceded that: “It’s not correct to say that we’re going to bring this welfare bill down in this parliament because we’ve not set a timetable for that.”

The annual cost of benefits is forecast to top £430bn in 2031-32."

I guess that when Healey talks about reducing the benefits bill and says they will 'do that in a Labour way' means that welfare reductions will be negative

The Tories had an opportunity to vote for Reeves Welfare Bill and in doing so cause great embarrassment for the government. But decided to vote against, so not serious are they about cutting welfare but rather just get in the way.

 

[Psamathe]

Personally I thought a bad budget with unintended concequences that will hit those who Labour really wouldn't want to hit.

But looking for some positives, who'd have thought it would be so easy to "end 40 years of neoliberalism", so little needed to end such (apparently) a massive disaster and we are told, in need of change and ... such minor changes to implement his commitments.

And with all the massive challenges facing the UK economy who'd have thought how minor the changes needed to resolve those challenges. And we all thought it would be difficult and have massive impacts where seems ... not.

 

[Pblakeney]

Personally I thought a bad budget with unintended concequences that will hit those who Labour really wouldn't want to hit.

But looking for some positives, who'd have thought it would be so easy to "end 40 years of neoliberalism", so little needed to end such (apparently) a massive disaster and we are told, in need of change and ... such minor changes to implement his commitments.

And with all the massive challenges facing the UK economy who'd have thought how minor the changes needed to resolve those challenges. And we all thought it would be difficult and have massive impacts where seems ... not.

The sarcasm is strong in this one. 😉

 

[Stevo 666]

Income tax is about a quarter of total tax revenue. There's no point in making an arbitrary link between that and benefits.

It gives an idea of the scale of the benefits bill. Whether you look at ti in absolute terms or as a percentage of governemnt revenues, it is big.

 

[Stevo 666]

The Tories had an opportunity to vote for Reeves Welfare Bill and in doing so cause great embarrassment for the government. But decided to vote against, so not serious are they about cutting welfare but rather just get in the way.

Labour are the party in power so what are they going to do about it?

 

[Pross]

On the BBC live feed of the budget. Maybe you didn't like it because you don't like her, but that's just too bad. As it was such a nothing budget on the big issues as I mentioned above, it wasn't difficult for her.

So did you think it was a great budget? And if so, why?

Have to disagree on the first point. The budget gave her nothing to work with and she didn't do any laying in to anyone.

It was a nothing budget really, probably aimed mainly at avoiding upsetting the financial markets and showing that they aren't planning on going into Truss mode and doing anything stupid and also because they've tied their own hands with all the taxes they aren'tgoing to raise. Possibly also an admission that there's little a Government can do to stimulate growth. Things aren't helped by the huge amounts of debt interest. I have no idea how any of this can be fixed as there's little sign worldwide of economic growth, increasing personal taxation isn't going to help but we certainly aren't in a position to cut taxes either so the only real option is where you allocate the money that is available.

 

[Psamathe]

Not a major aspect to the budget but to me another lack of thought?

If it's justified to end fixed charges for gas and put all costs on use (ie end the standing charges) then does the same argument not apply to electricity, water, etc.? Why are "Standing Charges" wrong for gas but right for other utilities?

I can see the reasons behind standing charges (eg the infrastructure costs to supplya unit of whatever is the same within domestic use ranges irrespective of amount used). My water bills are 70% standing charges only 30% from volume used.

 

[Dorset Boy]

The removal of the standing charge just means the cost per unit consumed will rise - that's exactly what happens when you compare tariffs with and without a standing charge for electricity.

They say they're concerned about the NEETS, but failed to unwind Reeves's utter stupidity of halving the employer NI threshold and increasing the employer NI rate. that change has made is massively unattractive to employ young people. So why not give a much larger Eer NI threshold to those under 25, and then taper to say age 30?

 

[Pross]

Not a major aspect to the budget but to me another lack of thought?

If it's justified to end fixed charges for gas and put all costs on use (ie end the standing charges) then does the same argument not apply to electricity, water, etc.? Why are "Standing Charges" wrong for gas but right for other utilities?

I can see the reasons behind standing charges (eg the infrastructure costs to supplya unit of whatever is the same within domestic use ranges irrespective of amount used). My water bills are 70% standing charges only 30% from volume used.

Yeah, I think it is another symbolic, people pleasing change. Very few will benefit from it (maybe people with second homes who aren't really the target) but again I suspect it is something people don't always understand and see it as a charge for something they don't use.