*it's up for discussion why the SNP tables this: I.e. because they believe in it or because they wanted to embarrass the government, knowing that some Labour MPs would want to vote for their ammendment... FWIW (absolutely nothing), my money's on both.
There's another point of view; on this issue a government comprising Reeves, Cooper and Kendall (picked purely because of their roles), need constant pressure in order to do the right things because of their past very vocal pronouncements about being 'tough on benefits'.
The background is that there are already further cuts to various services baked in under current (rolled over) plans from the previous governments which the new government has accepted under their rubric of 'fiscal rules', pressure is needed now to stop and reverse these - something that the folk @Arethosemyfeet refers to appear to have missed.
I seem to recall that a few weeks ago those of us on the left were being told that we should get Labour elected then push them to the left once they were in office. Seems like that's not allowed either.
Give it time...early days yet.
Yes, and then before you know it's 'well there are X years to the next election, of course they need to tack right'.
I may be missing something, but the aim of helping relieve child poverty - with removing the benefit cap being one of the ways to do that - has surely not been ruled out?
That said, I'd certainly be happier if it were done far more quickly than seems to be envisaged.
You haven't.
It has not been ruled out at all.
It is essentially a budgetary measure.
Labour has said it will do a proper budget in the autumn.
The government doesn't want to fiddle with financial issues before then. (With the exception of the legislation for VAT on school fees).
So it's obvious that the 2 child cap would not be in this King's Speech.
The SNP tabled an Ammendment on the KS debate to make a point.*
There was no way the government was going to accept that ammendment.
That's it. That's what happened. Expect the cap to go in first budget.
AFZ
*it's up for discussion why the SNP tables this: I.e. because they believe in it or because they wanted to embarrass the government, knowing that some Labour MPs would want to vote for their ammendment... FWIW (absolutely nothing), my money's on both.
Unfortunately waiting for the budget doesn’t put food in mouths of kids who need it. If you can speed up the process why wouldn’t you? Starmer is effectively putting policy over hungry kids. There are things that are more important than sticking to policy. Also if it is intended to happen why remove the whip from the seven MPs?
I get the party discipline arguments. That taken into account. Starmer’s draconian measures are going to mask any good things. Good policies are irrelevant if you are going to be hard on a tiny amount MPs who don’t agree with you. Your policy may be excellent but pushing through no matter what is never good.
I'd think in general a party leader could allow more latitude for honest principled disagreement on some random mid-term bill than on the King's Speech.
Also if it is intended to happen why remove the whip from the seven MPs?
That's a pure party discipline issue. They voted for an opposition amendment to the King's Speech. They get spanked for it. The whip will be restored in due time, and everyone will move on.
Also if it is intended to happen why remove the whip from the seven MPs?
That's a pure party discipline issue. They voted for an opposition amendment to the King's Speech. They get spanked for it. The whip will be restored in due time, and everyone will move on.
Maybe but there appear to be plenty of people upset about it. It plays into the opposition’s hands. It gives the right wing newspapers fuel. I think it is bigger than people realise. Anyway time to move on in this discussion I guess.
Also if it is intended to happen why remove the whip from the seven MPs?
That's a pure party discipline issue. They voted for an opposition amendment to the King's Speech. They get spanked for it. The whip will be restored in due time, and everyone will move on.
Also if it is intended to happen why remove the whip from the seven MPs?
That's a pure party discipline issue. They voted for an opposition amendment to the King's Speech. They get spanked for it. The whip will be restored in due time, and everyone will move on.
Really? A question; the longest serving MPs currently entered Parliament in 1983. Can you list the MPs that have been suspended from their party grouping because they broke the whip since then?
Also if it is intended to happen why remove the whip from the seven MPs?
That's a pure party discipline issue. They voted for an opposition amendment to the King's Speech. They get spanked for it. The whip will be restored in due time, and everyone will move on.
Really? A question; the longest serving MPs currently entered Parliament in 1983. Can you list the MPs that have been suspended from their party grouping because they broke the whip since then?
Can you list those who voted against the government in a King's Speech debate?
Also if it is intended to happen why remove the whip from the seven MPs?
That's a pure party discipline issue. They voted for an opposition amendment to the King's Speech. They get spanked for it. The whip will be restored in due time, and everyone will move on.
Really? A question; the longest serving MPs currently entered Parliament in 1983. Can you list the MPs that have been suspended from their party grouping because they broke the whip since then?
Can you list those who voted against the government in a King's Speech debate?
Also if it is intended to happen why remove the whip from the seven MPs?
That's a pure party discipline issue. They voted for an opposition amendment to the King's Speech. They get spanked for it. The whip will be restored in due time, and everyone will move on.
Really? A question; the longest serving MPs currently entered Parliament in 1983. Can you list the MPs that have been suspended from their party grouping because they broke the whip since then?
Can you list those who voted against the government in a King's Speech debate?
If it will certainly fail there is possibly even less point in doing it. More sensible would be to at least wait five minutes and bring in a private member’s bill.
Is voting for an amendment (especially one that will almost certainly fail) the same as voting against the motion itself?
I think in general yes.
Certainly there are some amendments which delete the whole of the text of the motion and replace it with a logically opposite statement. To vote for such an amendment is clearly logically equivalent to voting against the original motion.
An amendment to make minor tweaks? There's more of a discussion to be had about that. I think I might distinguish between an amendment that clarifies intent with one that contradicts part of the original motion.
If it will certainly fail there is possibly even less point in doing it. More sensible would be to at least wait five minutes and bring in a private member’s bill.
A private member's bill (assuming you get a high ballot slot) is even more likely to fail than an opposition amendment.
Also if it is intended to happen why remove the whip from the seven MPs?
That's a pure party discipline issue. They voted for an opposition amendment to the King's Speech. They get spanked for it. The whip will be restored in due time, and everyone will move on.
Really? A question; the longest serving MPs currently entered Parliament in 1983. Can you list the MPs that have been suspended from their party grouping because they broke the whip since then?
Can you list those who voted against the government in a King's Speech debate?
As @Arethosemyfeet provided a partial answer to your question, I'll answer my own:
21 Conservatives in 2019, suspended for voting against the government on Brexit (which the then government described as a confidence issue), only 11 were readmitted.
Tobias Elwood in 2022, suspended for three months for missing a confidence vote.
Anne Marie Morris, suspended for four months for voting for an Opposition Day motion in 2022.
And that's it. To find further examples you have to go back to the late 60s (Harold Wilson suspended 24 for 2 months)
If it will certainly fail there is possibly even less point in doing it. More sensible would be to at least wait five minutes and bring in a private member’s bill.
A private member's bill (assuming you get a high ballot slot) is even more likely to fail than an opposition amendment.
Yes but if both will fail, it’s less politically toxic than voting to amend the crown speech. And leaves the door open for your own party to pick it back up when appropriate political moves has taken place (e.g. treasury audit followed by tax rises on that basis.). Whilst at the same time allows you do the signalling if thing.
Also if it is intended to happen why remove the whip from the seven MPs?
That's a pure party discipline issue. They voted for an opposition amendment to the King's Speech. They get spanked for it. The whip will be restored in due time, and everyone will move on.
Really? A question; the longest serving MPs currently entered Parliament in 1983. Can you list the MPs that have been suspended from their party grouping because they broke the whip since then?
Can you list those who voted against the government in a King's Speech debate?
As @Arethosemyfeet provided a partial answer to your question, I'll answer my own:
21 Conservatives in 2019, suspended for voting against the government on Brexit (which the then government described as a confidence issue), only 11 were readmitted.
Tobias Elwood in 2022, suspended for three months for missing a confidence vote.
Anne Marie Morris, suspended for four months for voting for an Opposition Day motion in 2022.
And that's it. To find further examples you have to go back to the late 60s (Harold Wilson suspended 24 for 2 months)
Also if it is intended to happen why remove the whip from the seven MPs?
That's a pure party discipline issue. They voted for an opposition amendment to the King's Speech. They get spanked for it. The whip will be restored in due time, and everyone will move on.
Really? A question; the longest serving MPs currently entered Parliament in 1983. Can you list the MPs that have been suspended from their party grouping because they broke the whip since then?
Can you list those who voted against the government in a King's Speech debate?
As @Arethosemyfeet provided a partial answer to your question, I'll answer my own:
21 Conservatives in 2019, suspended for voting against the government on Brexit (which the then government described as a confidence issue), only 11 were readmitted.
Tobias Elwood in 2022, suspended for three months for missing a confidence vote.
Anne Marie Morris, suspended for four months for voting for an Opposition Day motion in 2022.
And that's it. To find further examples you have to go back to the late 60s (Harold Wilson suspended 24 for 2 months)
I remain of the view that this is mostly a non-story.
I think this ignores the nature of Labour Party factions, I credit you with knowing they exist, so can only assume this is wishful thinking.
Really? What do you think is going to happen?
I think it risks neutralising debate within Parliament, because the line being set is that to disagree with the Leadership is in itself incompatible with being a member of the party.
Most of the public have no idea this is happening.
Of course they don't, outside the so called 'hard left' the media generally doesn't cover factions within the Labour Party (although there are a few citation needed moments, and the headline is clickbait, Patrick Maguire's comment piece does at least hint at them https://archive.is/k56No )
On another note, Labour have been trailing for a few days now that they've 'found' a 20bn 'hole' in the public finances.
Apart from this being untrue - as a number of economists have noted, this figure is available on a spreadsheet freely downloadable from the OBR website - it is no sense a 'black hole'.
On another note, Labour have been trailing for a few days now that they've 'found' a 20bn 'hole' in the public finances.
Apart from this being untrue - as a number of economists have noted, this figure is available on a spreadsheet freely downloadable from the OBR website - it is no sense a 'black hole'.
Quite. Rachel Reeves is hoping that the tax hikes she planned years ago can be pushed through with barely a murmur and/or labelled Those wicked Tories made me do it. Will the electorate buy it? Probably. The best hope for pointing out the blatant lie is Farage and his merry men 🤣
On another note, Labour have been trailing for a few days now that they've 'found' a 20bn 'hole' in the public finances.
Apart from this being untrue - as a number of economists have noted, this figure is available on a spreadsheet freely downloadable from the OBR website - it is no sense a 'black hole'.
Quite. Rachel Reeves is hoping that the tax hikes she planned years ago can be pushed through with barely a murmur and/or labelled Those wicked Tories made me do it. Will the electorate buy it? Probably. The best hope for pointing out the blatant lie is Farage and his merry men 🤣
I mean "the tories made me do it" bit is true - the lie was before the election that it wasn't going to be necessary. Anyone paying attention heard various commentators and learned organisations pointing this out, and we all know Starmer's form on lying about his plans at elections and then claiming circumstances have changed when it comes to it.
It is noteworthy that the Tories and their acolytes are screaming "it's all a lie" on the basis that Labour must have already known about the ~£20bn problem not that no such problem exists.
One may argue that Labour could be more honest but not from the moral high ground if that's the argument.
Moreover, let's see what Reeves actually says.
My worry is that putting off capital spending is generally the wrong approach but I am basing that on what I think she's going to say... let's wait and see what she actually says.
Yes, enjoying the ‘Tory high ground’ position which equates to ‘but you knew we were lying about public finances’!
Of course, if you want to promote housebuilding and large environmental energy infrastructure projects, there may not be enough construction capacity in the sector for the cancelled projects anyway - so it might also make sense from that point of view…
Yes, enjoying the ‘Tory high ground’ position which equates to ‘but you knew we were lying about public finances’!
Of course, if you want to promote housebuilding and large environmental energy infrastructure projects, there may not be enough construction capacity in the sector for the cancelled projects anyway - so it might also make sense from that point of view…
Good point. Partly this comes from making a big and necessary move on public sector pay. Can't argue with that. Let's see what we she says.
Ongoing reports of Rachel Reeves' statement, with at least one piece of good news - it seems that agreement has been reached with the junior doctors regarding their pay claim...
My worry is that putting off capital spending is generally the wrong approach but I am basing that on what I think she's going to say... let's wait and see what she actually says.
I'm betting on a case of Treasury brain, with a few small sweeteners which will be used as fig leaves.
Of course, if you want to promote housebuilding and large environmental energy infrastructure projects, there may not be enough construction capacity in the sector for the cancelled projects anyway - so it might also make sense from that point of view…
The skills lacking for Labour's housebuilding target aren't the same as those required for the large-scale infrastructure projects - by-and-large domestic plumbers and sparkies don't build motorways, erect wind turbines, or sort out connections to the National Grid.
VAT on school fees: they've over-estimated what they can raise by at least £500 million. Even if they got the full £1.5 billion it would still only amount to half a teacher per school which won't solve the problem of an extra 28,000 pupils in already over-full schools. Nor will it answer the question of what to do about the thousands of SEND pupils which mainstream schools aren't equipped to deal with. Meanwhile those under 5s using the paid-for nursery provision that has reently kicked in face their fees being raised by 20% too because the vast majority are in private provision.
Meanwhile those under 5s using the paid-for nursery provision that has reently kicked in face their fees being raised by 20% too because the vast majority are in private provision.
I'm not sure it would apply to nurseries, but nurseries are already too expensive, so it would be Armageddon if it did. I speak as someone with two children under 5 at nursery. Even with the free hours, that's currently over £3k a month outside termtime, and north of £2.5k per month during term.
I'm not sure why both of us bother to continue to work, frankly.
Also, I'm sure there are cheaper nurseries somewhere in Britain, but not in very rural areas there aren't. If we need nursery, we need to be able to pay that.
but nurseries are already too expensive, so it would be Armageddon if it did. I speak as someone with two children under 5 at nursery. Even with the free hours, that's currently over £3k a month outside termtime, and north of £2.5k per month during term.
I'm not sure why both of us bother to continue to work, frankly.
Nurseries are expensive because they are very labor intensive. For little ones, you need a lot of adults.
but nurseries are already too expensive, so it would be Armageddon if it did. I speak as someone with two children under 5 at nursery. Even with the free hours, that's currently over £3k a month outside termtime, and north of £2.5k per month during term.
I'm not sure why both of us bother to continue to work, frankly.
Nurseries are expensive because they are very labor intensive. For little ones, you need a lot of adults.
I understand all that, but frankly we'd be financially better off now if my wife or I (one of us) left our job and just looked after our own children.
Also, I'm sure there are cheaper nurseries somewhere in Britain, but not in very rural areas there aren't. If we need nursery, we need to be able to pay that.
One of my Godchildren has an 8 month old in a nursery in Sussex. With no grandparents nearby and both parents commuting they use full-time (8-6) 5 days a week: what they are paying works out to £17,000 per year for one child. Why are they using private? Because there is a shortage of places - they only got the place they have now by booking it before the child was born. Oh, and it's not a rural area.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves says winter fuel payments will now be restricted to those on pension credits or other means-tested benefits
She says the Labour government has inherited a projected overspend of £22bn from the Conservatives
The projected overspend on the asylum system, including the Rwanda plan that Labour has now scrapped, was more than £6.4bn for this year alone, she says
She has also cancelled some road and rail projects - including the tunnel under Stonehenge
Reeves also confirmed the government has made a 22% two-year pay offer to junior doctors. Teachers and NHS workers will also get a 5.5% rise
Shadow chancellor Jeremy Hunt says Reeves is "shameless" in paving the way for tax rises - and October's Budget will be a "biggest betrayal in history by a new chancellor"
From the BBC News website.
I need to go look at the details but this looks reasonably sound. Especially fixing junior doctors' pay dispute along with good pay awards across the public sector*
Hunt is talking bollocks, as usual.
AFZ
*this will be pro-growth in simplistic macro terms.
The winter fuel payment cut is a hard blow. The income you need to get pension credit is very low and such a strict means test will hit people very hard, especially with the short notice. There are obviously some wealthy pensioners who won't feel it (but they could just be taxed) but a lot of pensioners on modest incomes will be caught out.
The winter fuel payment cut is a hard blow. The income you need to get pension credit is very low and such a strict means test will hit people very hard, especially with the short notice. There are obviously some wealthy pensioners who won't feel it (but they could just be taxed) but a lot of pensioners on modest incomes will be caught out.
That's an important point. Have you seen proper analysis of this anywhere? I am definitely in favour of the winter fuel payment. I definitely think very well-off pensioners should pay their fair share, which they currently do not. As you say, direct taxation would probably be preferrable.
Is there a problem middle? How many are affected and how badly? These are the key questions.
The winter fuel payment cut is a hard blow. The income you need to get pension credit is very low and such a strict means test will hit people very hard, especially with the short notice. There are obviously some wealthy pensioners who won't feel it (but they could just be taxed) but a lot of pensioners on modest incomes will be caught out.
That's an important point. Have you seen proper analysis of this anywhere? I am definitely in favour of the winter fuel payment. I definitely think very well-off pensioners should pay their fair share, which they currently do not. As you say, direct taxation would probably be preferrable.
Is there a problem middle? How many are affected and how badly? These are the key questions.
AFZ
Not seen analysis, but a single pensioner will lose the allowance if their income is above £218.15 (if they don't have a mortgage or rent to pay; if they do it's more complicated). That's not a vast sum to cover all other bills.
AIUI, the winter fuel payment will only be given to those on pension credit, and certain other benefits. This is an extract from Rachel Reeves' statement, as reported in the Guardian:
...today I am making the difficult decision that those not in receipt of pension credit or certain other means-tested benefits will no longer receive the winter fuel payment from this year onwards.
The government will continue to provide winter fuel payments worth £200 to households receiving pension credit or £300 to households in receipt of pension credit with someone over the age of 80.
This will affect me, as I am one of those not receiving any pension credit, or other benefits. It would be instructive to know how many people will continue to receive the payment, though.
The winter fuel payment cut is a hard blow. The income you need to get pension credit is very low and such a strict means test will hit people very hard, especially with the short notice. There are obviously some wealthy pensioners who won't feel it (but they could just be taxed) but a lot of pensioners on modest incomes will be caught out.
That's an important point. Have you seen proper analysis of this anywhere? I am definitely in favour of the winter fuel payment. I definitely think very well-off pensioners should pay their fair share, which they currently do not. As you say, direct taxation would probably be preferrable.
Or better; it should have been rolled into the state pension (as well as collecting back in taxes from the richer pensioners). In general benefits for poor people become poor benefits.
The bigger issues than the winter-fuel allowance change are the cuts to the operating budgets of government departments and the various infrastructure project cancellations.
I know some with object just because it's the Guardian but it's a well credential, academic economist writing so a) somebody who actually knows what he's talking about and b) most papers will just publish ignorant propaganda from right wing hacks.
I remain cautious. Reeves needs to be brave and do the right thing. The fiscal rules she constructed are defensive (against the usual nonsense thrown at Labour about the economy) and they could be her undoing...
Just one thing to emphasise. Some critics are complaining about the public sector pay rises but Reeves knows not funding them would be a lot more expensive.
Comments
There's another point of view; on this issue a government comprising Reeves, Cooper and Kendall (picked purely because of their roles), need constant pressure in order to do the right things because of their past very vocal pronouncements about being 'tough on benefits'.
The background is that there are already further cuts to various services baked in under current (rolled over) plans from the previous governments which the new government has accepted under their rubric of 'fiscal rules', pressure is needed now to stop and reverse these - something that the folk @Arethosemyfeet refers to appear to have missed.
Yes, and then before you know it's 'well there are X years to the next election, of course they need to tack right'.
Unfortunately waiting for the budget doesn’t put food in mouths of kids who need it. If you can speed up the process why wouldn’t you? Starmer is effectively putting policy over hungry kids. There are things that are more important than sticking to policy. Also if it is intended to happen why remove the whip from the seven MPs?
I'd think in general a party leader could allow more latitude for honest principled disagreement on some random mid-term bill than on the King's Speech.
That's a pure party discipline issue. They voted for an opposition amendment to the King's Speech. They get spanked for it. The whip will be restored in due time, and everyone will move on.
Really? A question; the longest serving MPs currently entered Parliament in 1983. Can you list the MPs that have been suspended from their party grouping because they broke the whip since then?
Can you list those who voted against the government in a King's Speech debate?
AFZ
If you include Queen's speeches it's quite a long list:
https://theconversation.com/cameron-in-crisis-as-tories-glass-jaw-exposed-again-by-huge-commons-rebellion-13884
I couldn't quite bring myself to be pedantic about King's vs Queen's speeches. Although I must admit I was tempted...
I think we can agree about them being the same.
I had completely forgotten about the Cameron one in 2010. I knew about Labour '04.
The point remains though that whilst it is not a confidence vote and nor does it have much actual significance, it's not an ordinary vote either.
I remain of the view that this is mostly a non-story.
I think in general yes.
Certainly there are some amendments which delete the whole of the text of the motion and replace it with a logically opposite statement. To vote for such an amendment is clearly logically equivalent to voting against the original motion.
An amendment to make minor tweaks? There's more of a discussion to be had about that. I think I might distinguish between an amendment that clarifies intent with one that contradicts part of the original motion.
A private member's bill (assuming you get a high ballot slot) is even more likely to fail than an opposition amendment.
As @Arethosemyfeet provided a partial answer to your question, I'll answer my own:
21 Conservatives in 2019, suspended for voting against the government on Brexit (which the then government described as a confidence issue), only 11 were readmitted.
Tobias Elwood in 2022, suspended for three months for missing a confidence vote.
Anne Marie Morris, suspended for four months for voting for an Opposition Day motion in 2022.
And that's it. To find further examples you have to go back to the late 60s (Harold Wilson suspended 24 for 2 months)
I think this ignores the nature of Labour Party factions, I credit you with knowing they exist, so can only assume this is wishful thinking.
Yes but if both will fail, it’s less politically toxic than voting to amend the crown speech. And leaves the door open for your own party to pick it back up when appropriate political moves has taken place (e.g. treasury audit followed by tax rises on that basis.). Whilst at the same time allows you do the signalling if thing.
Really? What do you think is going to happen?
Most of the public have no idea this is happening.
I think it risks neutralising debate within Parliament, because the line being set is that to disagree with the Leadership is in itself incompatible with being a member of the party.
Of course they don't, outside the so called 'hard left' the media generally doesn't cover factions within the Labour Party (although there are a few citation needed moments, and the headline is clickbait, Patrick Maguire's comment piece does at least hint at them https://archive.is/k56No )
Apart from this being untrue - as a number of economists have noted, this figure is available on a spreadsheet freely downloadable from the OBR website - it is no sense a 'black hole'.
https://progressiveeconomyforum.com/publications/the-dangerous-fiction-of-the-fiscal-black-hole/
It's a political decision. Withholding the whip from Corbyn was gesture politics as part of Starmer's "lAbOuR hAs ChAnGeD" performance piece.
Quite. Rachel Reeves is hoping that the tax hikes she planned years ago can be pushed through with barely a murmur and/or labelled Those wicked Tories made me do it. Will the electorate buy it? Probably. The best hope for pointing out the blatant lie is Farage and his merry men 🤣
They are publishing the audit after all.
I mean "the tories made me do it" bit is true - the lie was before the election that it wasn't going to be necessary. Anyone paying attention heard various commentators and learned organisations pointing this out, and we all know Starmer's form on lying about his plans at elections and then claiming circumstances have changed when it comes to it.
It is noteworthy that the Tories and their acolytes are screaming "it's all a lie" on the basis that Labour must have already known about the ~£20bn problem not that no such problem exists.
One may argue that Labour could be more honest but not from the moral high ground if that's the argument.
Moreover, let's see what Reeves actually says.
My worry is that putting off capital spending is generally the wrong approach but I am basing that on what I think she's going to say... let's wait and see what she actually says.
AFZ
Of course, if you want to promote housebuilding and large environmental energy infrastructure projects, there may not be enough construction capacity in the sector for the cancelled projects anyway - so it might also make sense from that point of view…
Good point. Partly this comes from making a big and necessary move on public sector pay. Can't argue with that. Let's see what we she says.
I'm betting on a case of Treasury brain, with a few small sweeteners which will be used as fig leaves.
The skills lacking for Labour's housebuilding target aren't the same as those required for the large-scale infrastructure projects - by-and-large domestic plumbers and sparkies don't build motorways, erect wind turbines, or sort out connections to the National Grid.
VAT on school fees: they've over-estimated what they can raise by at least £500 million. Even if they got the full £1.5 billion it would still only amount to half a teacher per school which won't solve the problem of an extra 28,000 pupils in already over-full schools. Nor will it answer the question of what to do about the thousands of SEND pupils which mainstream schools aren't equipped to deal with. Meanwhile those under 5s using the paid-for nursery provision that has reently kicked in face their fees being raised by 20% too because the vast majority are in private provision.
I'm not sure it would apply to nurseries, but nurseries are already too expensive, so it would be Armageddon if it did. I speak as someone with two children under 5 at nursery. Even with the free hours, that's currently over £3k a month outside termtime, and north of £2.5k per month during term.
I'm not sure why both of us bother to continue to work, frankly.
Nurseries are expensive because they are very labor intensive. For little ones, you need a lot of adults.
I understand all that, but frankly we'd be financially better off now if my wife or I (one of us) left our job and just looked after our own children.
One of my Godchildren has an 8 month old in a nursery in Sussex. With no grandparents nearby and both parents commuting they use full-time (8-6) 5 days a week: what they are paying works out to £17,000 per year for one child. Why are they using private? Because there is a shortage of places - they only got the place they have now by booking it before the child was born. Oh, and it's not a rural area.
From the BBC News website.
I need to go look at the details but this looks reasonably sound. Especially fixing junior doctors' pay dispute along with good pay awards across the public sector*
Hunt is talking bollocks, as usual.
AFZ
*this will be pro-growth in simplistic macro terms.
Their argument is they knew about some, but not all problems and their scale.
I suspect this is only partially true - there’s definitely a fair amount of political spin going on.
The mind boggles!
That's an important point. Have you seen proper analysis of this anywhere? I am definitely in favour of the winter fuel payment. I definitely think very well-off pensioners should pay their fair share, which they currently do not. As you say, direct taxation would probably be preferrable.
Is there a problem middle? How many are affected and how badly? These are the key questions.
AFZ
Not seen analysis, but a single pensioner will lose the allowance if their income is above £218.15 (if they don't have a mortgage or rent to pay; if they do it's more complicated). That's not a vast sum to cover all other bills.
...today I am making the difficult decision that those not in receipt of pension credit or certain other means-tested benefits will no longer receive the winter fuel payment from this year onwards.
The government will continue to provide winter fuel payments worth £200 to households receiving pension credit or £300 to households in receipt of pension credit with someone over the age of 80.
This will affect me, as I am one of those not receiving any pension credit, or other benefits. It would be instructive to know how many people will continue to receive the payment, though.
Or better; it should have been rolled into the state pension (as well as collecting back in taxes from the richer pensioners). In general benefits for poor people become poor benefits.
Implementation? Tax all income at some rate; make all benefits universal.
Always pays to work.
Far too simple of course; await outrage.
https://www.atkwanti.co.uk/verse/tax.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/29/rachel-reeves-political-manoeuvre-fisical-hole-austerity
I know some with object just because it's the Guardian but it's a well credential, academic economist writing so a) somebody who actually knows what he's talking about and b) most papers will just publish ignorant propaganda from right wing hacks.
I remain cautious. Reeves needs to be brave and do the right thing. The fiscal rules she constructed are defensive (against the usual nonsense thrown at Labour about the economy) and they could be her undoing...
Just one thing to emphasise. Some critics are complaining about the public sector pay rises but Reeves knows not funding them would be a lot more expensive.
AFZ