Autumn Budget

ElBurroSinNombre said:
I notice that a few of the measures are pushed back to 2025.
Handing a shit sandwich to the next administration.
Click to expand...
more likely that they can be reversed before it can actually kick in, If Sunak can get through twelve months, he will get elected probably with a landslide and then break all the so called "social democracy and caring conservatism" and get back to proper libertarianist policies.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
more likely that they can be reversed before it can actually kick in, If Sunak can get through twelve months, he will get elected probably with a landslide and then break all the so called "social democracy and caring conservatism" and get back to proper libertarianist policies.
Click to expand...
Governments that become unpopular and who hold out for their full term have a tendancy to lose elections.
 
We have paid for the state pension through years and years of NI contributions, I'm not against rises but only when when the state can afford it. This looks cynical because pensioners are more likely to vote Conservative whereas (for instance) nurses are not.

Costero Poderoso said:
more likely that they can be reversed before it can actually kick in, If Sunak can get through twelve months, he will get elected probably with a landslide and then break all the so called "social democracy and caring conservatism" and get back to proper libertarianist policies.
Click to expand...

I can't see Sunak winning an election from here. I noticed also today when Hunt was interviewed that the cap on care costs also starts in 2025. He is trying to create a financial straight jacket for the next chancellor.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Governments that become unpopular and who hold out for their full term have a tendancy to lose elections.
Click to expand...
if you look at General elections in the UK, about 20% are died inthe wool Labour supporters maybe a bit less, and another 5% who would normally vote labour as long as there isnt someone like Corbyn in charge. There is a solid 20% maybe a bit more who are solidly conservative and probably another 5-10% who will almost always vote Tory, they are more likely to vote Lib dems if theye are seriously disillusioned with teh Tory party. 30% of the eligible voters generally do not vote, usually moderates who see no option for a vote, or those who really have no interest because all politics is bullshit. That leaves 15-20% swing voters mostly I think voting on single issues, which might range from pensions, immigration, property prices whatever, and has a very short term outlook. This isn't my opinion its something that comes from the London school of economics, and it applies to varying degrees across almost all developed economies.

if you can create a set of polices that will appeal to slightly more than half the swing voters you end up with a significant majority in the UK. I think that is exactly what Sunak is doing.

Starmer is just as boring as Sunak, but he doesnt have the reigns of power and if Sunak moves any policy towards moderate labour policies than it simply disarms Starmer, he will give enough to appeal short term to the swing voters.

From what ive seen the budget has a little bit of something for most without really giving anything at all.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
if you look at General elections in the UK, about 20% are died inthe wool Labour supporters maybe a bit less, and another 5% who would normally vote labour as long as there isnt someone like Corbyn in charge. There is a solid 20% maybe a bit more who are solidly conservative and probably another 5-10% who will almost always vote Tory, they are more likely to vote Lib dems if theye are seriously disillusioned with teh Tory party. 30% of the eligible voters generally do not vote, usually moderates who see no option for a vote, or those who really have no interest because all politics is bullshit. That leaves 15-20% swing voters mostly I think voting on single issues, which might range from pensions, immigration, property prices whatever, and has a very short term outlook. This isn't my opinion its something that comes from the London school of economics, and it applies to varying degrees across almost all developed economies.

if you can create a set of polices that will appeal to slightly more than half the swing voters you end up with a significant majority in the UK. I think that is exactly what Sunak is doing.

Starmer is just as boring as Sunak, but he doesnt have the reigns of power and if Sunak moves any policy towards moderate labour policies than it simply disarms Starmer, he will give enough to appeal short term to the swing voters.

From what ive seen the budget has a little bit of something for most without really giving anything at all.
Click to expand...
As I've said before on here, never forget the Clinton maxim..."it's the economy, stupid."

This time, it's going to be a tough one.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
As I've said before on here, never forget the Clinton maxim..."it's the economy, stupid."

This time, it's going to be a tough one.
Click to expand...
Never really found a great deal of credence in that Clinton quote, at best its how the economy is spun to the various sections of the electorate. so few people fundamentally understand how economies work, including most economists, i can barely scratch the surface of the complexities of modern economics and over the last ten years ive been reading too much to be healthy.

In order to stay in power he has to keep the tory party big wigs and the RW media onside, by keeping the media on side he keeps the party big wigs on side. its a game of perceptions, if the Daily heil see property prices and interest rates stabilising they can report positivity, the Torygraph if they can spin a few pro business or pro city stories, hes going to be lauded.

We can only see what happens. It worries me because Sunak has the kind of ideologies to really do damage to the majority of working Brits, and enough pragmatism to understand how to get past the first post.

i really hope you are right i just cant see labour under starmer being credible and hitting sunak where it might hurt
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Never really found a great deal of credence in that Clinton quote, at best its how the economy is spun to the various sections of the electorate. so few people fundamentally understand how economies work, including most economists, i can barely scratch the surface of the complexities of modern economics and over the last ten years ive been reading too much to be healthy.

In order to stay in power he has to keep the tory party big wigs and the RW media onside, by keeping the media on side he keeps the party big wigs on side. its a game of perceptions, if the Daily heil see property prices and interest rates stabilising they can report positivity, the Torygraph if they can spin a few pro business or pro city stories, hes going to be lauded.

We can only see what happens. It worries me because Sunak has the kind of ideologies to really do damage to the majority of working Brits, and enough pragmatism to understand how to get past the first post.

i really hope you are right i just cant see labour under starmer being credible and hitting sunak where it might hurt
Click to expand...
You are not in the UK.
This government has all of the hall-marks of a dying government - it's a lot like the last days of Major. Many back benchers are resigned to losing their seats or being in opposition in two years time. This gives them license to be undisciplined and rebellious. Scandal after scandal keeps turning up, this time usually about personal behaviour judged by the standards of 2022. In the background is the impact of the Brexit that so many Conservattives supported that is starting to become more visible - 4% of GDP is a lot of money and we really need it now. The economy cannot be fixed until a government faces the reality of the damage being caused by isolating ourselves as we have. There is also the ticking timebomb of Covid fraud and Covid contract awards that will no doubt be scrutinised in detail at some future point. It's all bad news on bad news. The tax burden is now higher than at any point since WW2 and there is an air of crisis in almost all public services. This is after a 12 year run at being the government.
Therefore IMO there is no way that Sunak can pull back a 25% Labour lead in two years whilst implementing tax rises and in the midst of a recession. One thing that Sunak said during his leadership campaign with Truss was 'If Conservatives are not for sound money then what are we for?'. Well, they have shown that they are not for sound money and have blown a £30 billion hole in the budget as a result that we are all going to be paying for. Any pretence of economic credibility has gone and along with it any chance of winning the next election. So it will be Starmer who may be a more radical PM than many currently think. Reeves made a very good speech yesterday and looks like she would be a credible and steady chancellor. Knowing all this, Hunt has front-loaded many of the changes in the budget to take effect in 2025 in order to stifle a future government with the hope of winning again in 2029 / 2030 IMO.
 
Last edited:
Costero Poderoso said:
Never really found a great deal of credence in that Clinton quote, at best its how the economy is spun to the various sections of the electorate. so few people fundamentally understand how economies work, including most economists, i can barely scratch the surface of the complexities of modern economics and over the last ten years ive been reading too much to be healthy.

In order to stay in power he has to keep the tory party big wigs and the RW media onside, by keeping the media on side he keeps the party big wigs on side. its a game of perceptions, if the Daily heil see property prices and interest rates stabilising they can report positivity, the Torygraph if they can spin a few pro business or pro city stories, hes going to be lauded.

We can only see what happens. It worries me because Sunak has the kind of ideologies to really do damage to the majority of working Brits, and enough pragmatism to understand how to get past the first post.

i really hope you are right i just cant see labour under starmer being credible and hitting sunak where it might hurt
Click to expand...
The point of Clinton's statement was (and remains) the fact that whilst people can debate the nuances of this policy or that policy, once the economy bites in a personal way - the pound in your pocket- then the electorate starts to turn on the Government. That has always been true and once the recession starts to bite, I can't see anyway back for the Tories.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
You are not in the UK.
This government has all of the hall-marks of a dying government - it's a lot like the last days of Major. Many back benchers are resigned to losing their seats or being in opposition in two years time. This gives them license to be undisciplined and rebellious. Scandal after scandal keeps turning up, this time usually about personal behaviour judged by the standards of 2022. In the background is the impact of the Brexit that so many Conservattives supported that is starting to become more visible - 4% of GDP is a lot of money and we really need it now. The economy cannot be fixed until a government faces the reality of the damage being caused by isolating ourselves as we have. There is also the ticking timebomb of Covid fraud and Covid contract awards that will no doubt be scrutinised in detail at some future point. It's all bad news on bad news. The tax burden is now higher than at any point since WW2 and there is an air of crisis in almost all public services. This is after a 12 year run at being the government.
Therefore IMO there is no way that Sunak can pull back a 25% Labour lead in two years whilst implementing tax rises and in the midst of a recession. One thing that Sunak said during his leadership campaign with Truss was 'If Conservatives are not for sound money then what are we for?'. Well, they have shown that they are not for sound money and have blown a £30 billion hole in the budget as a result that we are all going to be paying for. Any pretence of economic credibility has gone and along with it any chance of winning the next election. So it will be Starmer who may be a more radical PM than many currently think. Reeves made a very good speech yesterday and looks like she would be a credible and steady chancellor. Knowing all this, Hunt has front-loaded many of the changes in the budget to take effect in 2025 in order to stifle a future government with the hope of winning again in 2029 / 2030 IMO.
Click to expand...
Im not in the uk, but i pay a lot of attention certainly more attention than i do to spanish politics, because i am occasionally paid to pay attention to what goes on in the UK. I still have family in the UK as well.

I think you are right in almost everything you say, but you cannot dismiss the general tendencies of voting patterns, Polls are not a good indicator, but Sunak has already pulled back four or so points, as he goes on being more pragmatic and hitting key issues at least perceptionally i think he will get the waverers back, and a few short term bribes will get the floaters.

There is still a good 10-15% of the UK population who think that Brexit still was and is a good idea, that problems caused by Brexit are still the fault of the EU, you've worn yourself out explaining to individuals on this very forum. When you have that level of intransience, and the hard left has its own intransience then the focus for policy comes to the ones who can be changed 42-44% of the vote will get a significant majority in parliament

You might be right about the current group stifling a labour government in the next parliameent, in the hope of coming back in 2029, i just cant see it. If that was to happen then Sunak would be out after the loss at the next GE, and I get the impression he wants to be there for the long haul and has the strategic intelligence to do that. His core ideologies align with the worst of the Tories, if they were to give up a GE to regroup its a very risky strategy.

I've worked with politicians and hi level government people and they are rarely particularly smart and often not very strategic, that mostly comes from their backroom staff - the smarts and the strategies.

Even if they are providing a short stop to hinder a labour government now with a view to re-grouping, even a surprise win at the next GE wouldnt hinder them, as we have seen that the tory party can flip flop policies at a whim. Your seeming suggestion is that a non tory government would be a single term administration, and probably not capable of extending beyond that which kind of points to my long term thinking that the Labour or the lib dems or the greens in their current guise couldnt form a stable governement to challenge an overriding tendency towards conservativism in the UK.

I hope im wrong.

Ill add something, i think its a dying party rather than a dying government, which is another reason i think Sunak might re-invent it, and take it down routes where the old school thatcherites or big company libertarians sit. A lot of the real morons of the Tory party might be moved along for a more ideologically focused group.
 
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that said:
The point of Clinton's statement was (and remains) the fact that whilst people can debate the nuances of this policy or that policy, once the economy bites in a personal way - the pound in your pocket- then the electorate starts to turn on the Government. That has always been true and once the recession starts to bite, I can't see anyway back for the Tories.
Click to expand...
I get it, but Cameron was re-elected with a large majority with just 37% of the vote when the economy was still in dire straits, but enough people had their personal economic situations improved or saw personal benefit on the horizon to vote Tory. Its not the economy that they need to fix they simply need to fix the short term personal household impact to enough people to get the votes. The two things are very different. Its a bit pedantic on my part but its the reason i dont hold with teh clinton remark.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Even if they are providing a short stop to hinder a labour government now with a view to re-grouping, even a surprise win at the next GE wouldnt hinder them, as we have seen that the tory party can flip flop policies at a whim. Your seeming suggestion is that a non tory government would be a single term administration, and probably not capable of extending beyond that which kind of points to my long term thinking that the Labour or the lib dems or the greens in their current guise couldnt form a stable governement to challenge an overriding tendency towards conservativism in the UK.
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting that this is the current Conservative strategy, not about whether a future non-Conservative government can survive more than one term. That is up to them and perhaps, more importantly, events.
I do think that after a heavy election defeat (which looks likely) there would be the inevitable outbreak of in-fighting and blood letting within the Conservative Party. This is already happening now but in opposition it would probably be worse. I expect that the centre one nation group would try to reassert itself as the dominant strain of Conservatism. I have a feeling that more one nation types will survive as their seats tend to be in the Conservative heartlands giving them more leverage in the parliamentary party. The Reform Party may even become home for the ERG tendency as, if they have any sense the party will try to move back to a more central position based on economic pragmatism. The same position that has bought them years of forming governments.
 
I really do hope that Labour and the Lib Dems cooperate over installing Proportional Representation if in power after the next GE. That would keep extreme RW Toryism out of power forever.

However, if Labour wins handsomely I doubt they will appreciate the long-term wisdom of PR which could mean coalition for ever more rather than pure Labour policy. But this country really cannot afford any more events of disruptive, mad, extremist, Tory economic chaos.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
I get it, but Cameron was re-elected with a large majority with just 37% of the vote when the economy was still in dire straits, but enough people had their personal economic situations improved or saw personal benefit on the horizon to vote Tory. Its not the economy that they need to fix they simply need to fix the short term personal household impact to enough people to get the votes. The two things are very different. Its a bit pedantic on my part but its the reason i dont hold with teh clinton remark.
Click to expand...
Cameron wasn't elected into Government in 2010. After 13 years of labour Government and a very recent banking crash enough voters voted Labour to keep them in office if the Lib Dems had chosen that path. Make no mistake, the Tories weren't chosen then - the Lib Dems handed power to them. Similarly, in 2015 they only polled 24% of the electorate, coming out with a 12 seat majority that barely shouts confidence from the British public. In 2017 they even lost that majority to Jeremy Corbyn. The Conservatives only managed a large Parliamentary for the first time in 32 years, in 2019. And then, that was all about getting Brexit done and the Corbyn fear factor.
 
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that said:
Cameron wasn't elected into Government in 2010. After 13 years of labour Government and a very recent banking crash enough voters voted Labour to keep them in office if the Lib Dems had chosen that path. Make no mistake, the Tories weren't chosen then - the Lib Dems handed power to them. Similarly, in 2015 they only polled 24% of the electorate, coming out with a 12 seat majority that barely shouts confidence from the British public. In 2017 they even lost that majority to Jeremy Corbyn. The Conservatives only managed a large Parliamentary for the first time in 37 years, in 2019. And then, that was all about getting Brexit done and the Corbyn fear factor.
Click to expand...
2015 Im talking about and its not an argument over whether the Tories are any good, they are not. but i think there is the evidence to suggest that the Tories have a built in advantage, because of the publics general conservatism and the indoctrination of the press over the last forty years. They get a complete majority in the house of commons with a quarter of the electorate voting for them. 35% did not vote, significantly higher than any of the parties. The same applies to brexit. i agree it shows that the public do not have confidence in the tories or the political system. The process itself is a problem, in that the Tories, really only have to appeal to tories to get power. i think there are more never labour voters than there are never tory.

also proportional representation doesnt fix the underlying problem, spain is going through a process of either being hard left or hard right and it has proportional representation, Vox the equivalent of the BNP have significant seats in the house due to PR.

Like a I keep saying i hope im wrong.
 
the publics general conservatism and the indoctrination of the press over the last forty years.

add to that the loss of large tracts of manufacturing industry, mining and dockland labour, together with the global post-banking crisis turn to nationalism, including the rise in fortunes of the SNP and your point is reasonable.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
I get it, but Cameron was re-elected with a large majority with just 37% of the vote when the economy was still in dire straits, but enough people had their personal economic situations improved or saw personal benefit on the horizon to vote Tory. Its not the economy that they need to fix they simply need to fix the short term personal household impact to enough people to get the votes. The two things are very different. Its a bit pedantic on my part but its the reason i dont hold with teh clinton remark.
Click to expand...
Now there is the Starmer “ who is he ?” syndrome. He is almost as anonymous to the general public as that grinning Lib Dem buffoon Ed Whatisname Ravey.🤡
 
Costero Poderoso said:
if you look at General elections in the UK, about 20% are died inthe wool Labour supporters maybe a bit less, and another 5% who would normally vote labour as long as there isnt someone like Corbyn in charge. There is a solid 20% maybe a bit more who are solidly conservative and probably another 5-10% who will almost always vote Tory, they are more likely to vote Lib dems if theye are seriously disillusioned with teh Tory party. 30% of the eligible voters generally do not vote, usually moderates who see no option for a vote, or those who really have no interest because all politics is bullshit. That leaves 15-20% swing voters mostly I think voting on single issues, which might range from pensions, immigration, property prices whatever, and has a very short term outlook. This isn't my opinion its something that comes from the London school of economics, and it applies to varying degrees across almost all developed economies.

if you can create a set of polices that will appeal to slightly more than half the swing voters you end up with a significant majority in the UK. I think that is exactly what Sunak is doing.

Starmer is just as boring as Sunak, but he doesnt have the reigns of power and if Sunak moves any policy towards moderate labour policies than it simply disarms Starmer, he will give enough to appeal short term to the swing voters.

From what ive seen the budget has a little bit of something for most without really giving anything at all.
Click to expand...
Labour historically did well in Scotland, but have lost all those potential seats. That makes any election a lot tighter
 
seasideone said:
You miss the point.

They did sign up to a scheme that would give them a pension - but the amount was never guaranteed.

If they don’t need as much - why should the state pay more?
Click to expand...
So who says what you need and how could that possibly be policed? If you paid in you are entitled. Not to receive it is breach of a contract made when you started working. Too late now when you are unable to adjust your income for any shortfall.
 
This is exactly what I meant and it seems that the IFS have understood. It's a deliberate strategy;

www.reuters.com

UK's Hunt delays "properly tough" budget decisions: IFS

British finance minister Jeremy Hunt appears to have delayed the "properly tough" decisions needed to balance the public finances, possibly in the hope of an economic upturn that will reduce the need for a painful squeeze, a think-tank said.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

Either there is an economic upturn and some measures can be cancelled or he hands the next chancellor a shit sandwich.
 
seasideone said:
I’ll make it simple for you and repeat it again…

If you are a lazy shirker who can work and chooses not to - why should the state pay for you forever??
Click to expand...
Plenty like that, I know several, one in particular, stays in bed all day watching movies, claims he has a bad back, but when he feels like it, which is rare, he does cash in hand labouring jobs.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
We have paid for the state pension through years and years of NI contributions, I'm not against rises but only when when the state can afford it. This looks cynical because pensioners are more likely to vote Conservative whereas (for instance) nurses are not.



I can't see Sunak winning an election from here. I noticed also today when Hunt was interviewed that the cap on care costs also starts in 2025. He is trying to create a financial straight jacket for the next chancellor.
Click to expand...
There are millions of poor pensioners in this country you clown.Are you a human being or just a political spam bot?
 
Well I’m, not a shirker, 80 years old and I start a full time job in January, possibly earlier subject to vetting checks
 
Last edited:
seasideone said:
There is more bs in you reply than I can believe.

Yes we need a welfare state to protect the people who need it - not those who dont’t.

If you are a lazy shirker who can work and chooses not to - why should the state pay for you forever??
Click to expand...
A very small cohort. Do you really want to base a nation's social policy on that? Or perhaps you really do have an insecurity about these things.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
A very small cohort. Do you really want to base a nation's social policy on that? Or perhaps you really do have an insecurity about these things.
Click to expand...
Just answer the question….

If you are a lazy shirker who can work and chooses not to - why should the state pay for you forever??
 
seasideone said:
Just answer the question….

If you are a lazy shirker who can work and chooses not to - why should the state pay for you forever??
Click to expand...
Eh up. It's that same old programme on again luv. You know, the one where 'ee can't face the truth bein' told. What? No it's the same old lad as last time. You'd think 'eed of learned by now.
 
It’s the government’s job to prosecute people committing benefit fraud. It’s also the government’s job to protect its citizens.

There are people who genuinely need benefit payments and these increases will help them to keep the heating on.

When you’re complaining about benefits and focussing on shirkers you’re ignoring the plight of a lot of people who need state aid. Criticising the act of helping people in need by focussing on benefit criminals is wankerish at best.
 
The country is moving fast towards digital only, banks are closing because businesses don't pay cash in the same way, and customers are
banking online. Already large companies are moving to cash only such as Starbucks, and some hotel chains are cash-only. Eventually,
cash will disappear altogether, and although people will be able to exchange their services with each other in reality that is not really practical.

It will result in a big increase in tax collection not only for the building industry, cleaning, gardening, and childcare which will be cash in hand. But
the sex industry and the drug trade pay little or no income tax. It will also have a huge impact on tax collection in the catering industry where there are a lot of workers being employed with cash in hand and in the nail bars and hairdressers that are often cash only.

As for the budget, the biggest problem for me is that the lower threshold for income tax has not been increased in line with inflation. It doesn't reward people to get off benefits and work, I think it is unfair to those people that are really struggling at the moment.
 
TheRealKingKenny said:
It’s the government’s job to prosecute people committing benefit fraud. It’s also the government’s job to protect its citizens.

There are people who genuinely need benefit payments and these increases will help them to keep the heating on.

When you’re complaining about benefits and focussing on shirkers you’re ignoring the plight of a lot of people who need state aid. Criticising the act of helping people in need by focussing on benefit criminals is wankerish at best.
Click to expand...
Spot on summary.
 
Its absolutely criminal how this country has descended into this. I've had people on here tell me to leave if I don't like it, I doubt they'll be so bullish these days. We've had 12 years of Tory rule, austerity that has stripped us to the bone and now tax rises. 12 years and somehow posters on here have a pop at labour. Brexit was brought to us by Tories, an extreme version at that. Idiots.
 
seasideone said:
Just answer the question….

If you are a lazy shirker who can work and chooses not to - why should the state pay for you forever??
Click to expand...

I think most people on this site, including me to some extent, will have a lot of sympathy with your point on this.
Most people on benefits however are either alteady in employment or disabled.
Amongst the others I am sure there are plenty of shirkers and as we know Jeremy Hunt announced fresh money and measures to try and encourage them back into employment. Good. He might get a few, but probably not anywhere near enough to justify the money he has promised to spend.
There are also valid reasons why employers do not want to recruit in this sector of the population.
Try and punish them through the benefits system though and you will only massively increase poverty and homelessness, and child poverty in particular. Is that what we really want to achieve? Creating the next generation of ‘shirkers’? That really is a viscous circle.
The Conservative voters I know seem totally obsessed by this issue, but I think these people do far, far less damage to our economy and our society than tax evaders and large corporations that manage to bypass our tax system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top