UK Government Thread

Of course, if you want to pursue the line that benefits claimants shouldn't live in expensive towns and balanced communities don't matter, then presumably you'd also be in favour of stopping Housing Benefit in those same markets?

You can do beter than provocative putting-words-in-people's-mouths whatabouterry, politecameraaction. 🙂

No I wouldn't stop benefits in those areas. Many people on benefits work and contribute to those areas and wouldn't be able to without benefits. In fact didn't mention housing benefits at all but as you have... I was talking about tax.

You used the word "upkeep" which I put in quotes because it has a specific meaning - cost of maintaining, in this case what it costs to keep pensioners alive - their pensions and benefits.

Your net-takers link completely ignores the value added to society by the poorest 20% through their work which appears in products and services they make/provide and the profits of the companies that employ them. Goods, services and profits that will be taxed - this contribution to tax isn't included in the ONS analysis.

On a personal level what is the tax value to my country of being one of the people that enabled a company to prosper in an market against strong international competition rather than get shut down? More than the people involved will ever receive in benefits even if they live to be a thousand - even the poorest of those involved.

A junkie single-parent-mother's son who was raised in care went on to become a unicorn billionaire contributing significantly to the county's wealth- I think regarding that mother as a taker would be a tad unfair.

We're all in this together with the vast majority contributing positively one way or another

Binners........ where are you?!?!?

It's been two days since you said :

"I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve seen what it is they’re actually proposing"

You had so much to say on Monday but since then absolutely nothing! The suspense is killing me, so come on, what's your judgement?

Or are you still busy trying to work out how to blame Jeremy Corbyn?

Probably trying to find an image of Corbyn on a donkey holding a Life of Brian poster.

Posted by: Edukator

↑

Of course, if you want to pursue the line that benefits claimants shouldn't live in expensive towns and balanced communities don't matter, then presumably you'd also be in favour of stopping Housing Benefit in those same markets?

Your net-takers link completely ignores the value added to society by the poorest 20% through their work which appears in products and services they make/provide and the profits of the companies that employ them.

yes, it does, because it's looking at whether households are net beneficiaries of the state or net contributors to the state. Also, the weather forecast doesn't tell you the football scores.

You're off on some moral intangible value point because you're obfuscating that some households get out more in benefits than they do in tax. Of course they do. That's the whole point of a welfare state. If everybody contributed more than they received, benefits would be redundant.

Or are you still busy trying to work out how to blame Jeremy Corbyn?

Toynbee is reduced to exhortations about keeping the faith, so maybe Binners is trying to find someone new to do his thinking.

yes, it does, because it's looking at whether households are net beneficiaries of the state or net contributors to the state. Also, the weather forecast doesn't tell you the football scores.

Running deficits for more or less 50 years tells you everyone is a net beneficiary of the state.  Unless you want to opt out of using schools, roads, amenities, health, policing and infrastructure etc or perhaps live in Dubai?

yes, it does, because it's looking at whether households are net beneficiaries of the state or net contributors to the state. Also, the weather forecast doesn't tell you the football scores.

Running deficits for more or less 50 years tells you everyone is a net beneficiary of the state.  Unless you want to opt out of using schools, roads, amenities, health, policing and infrastructure etc or perhaps live in Dubai?

Labour have lost Supertanskiii - just James O'Brien, Ian Dunt, Otto English and there will be no client 'journalists' left for them. (Maybe our Polly will still be sipping from Starmer's glass.)

Best do whatever every other Centrist does in times like this just talk about how awful everything is in America currently.

Labour have lost Supertanskiii - just James O'Brien, Ian Dunt, Otto English and there will be no client 'journalists' left for them. (Maybe our Polly will still be sipping from Starmer's glass.)

Best do whatever every other Centrist does in times like this just talk about how awful everything is in America currently.

last time I noticed Dunt seemed pretty down in the dunts about everything starmer is doing.

James O'Brien

I used to like to listen to JoB but recenty he's taken to dissing Sangita Myska, talking of antisemitic conspiracy theories, so I don't bother to click on him any more.

Posted by: drj

↑

James O'Brien

I used to like to listen to JoB but recenty he's taken to dissing Sangita Myska, talking of antisemitic conspiracy theories, so I don't bother to click on him any more.

He started again with that crap last week, saying the commotion/talk regarding her very sudden dismissal after her combative interview with Avi Hyman, Israeli spokesperson was leading to antisemitic slurs and it was all her fault for not publicly stating why she left LBC. He also made a sly/weasly comment regarding viewing figures and hinted this was why, but this is utter bollocks as the listening/viewing figures for her show were on a continuing rise since her first sat LBC show.

The fact she has an NDA/SLAPP against her on talking about her dismissal seems to have flew right over his rapidly balding head, I pointed exactly this out to him on twitter and I think he/lbc banned me

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/19/reeves-to-reveal-biggest-uk-spending-cuts-since-austerity-in-spring-statement

One MP said: “Increasingly I’m trying to figure out what we’re doing that the Tories wouldn’t be if they were in power.”

Since the usual suspects on here seem to have gone very quiet I'm going to take a punt and say that the answer to that question is Starmer's government are delivering Tory policies but with much greater competence.

The grownups are back in charge and showing how it should be done.

Eventually this will catch up with them - it's preposterous thinking on every level. The idea of sensibles and grown-ups has always delivered egg on the face.

Torsten Bell has ended up in a whole load embarrassing hypocrisy too. Imagine a progressive 'economist' trying hard to back peddle now he's an MP.

https://twitter.com/owenjonesjourno/status/1902392789003911220?t=KVXdqlwcdPPWDECXuAYDig&s=19

I'm guess with the spring statement that Labour are looking to try and come in under the Libs when polling. 😉

No it won't catch up with them. All the main players in this saga will have lucrative post politics careers after their political careers inevitably end in failure.

Look at what happened to Nick Clegg after he enthusiastically embraced austerity whilst he was Deputy Prime Minister, the consequences of which the country is still paying.

Edit : I guess it would be fair to say that the LibDems are still paying the price for Clegg's decision to embrace Tory policies, so it would be reasonable to assume that the Labour Party will also for a long time likely pay the price for Starmer's decision to embrace Tory policies.

The big difference between Clegg and Starmer is that Clegg was a junior partner in a coalition which he chose to join ( those ministerial limousines are hard to resist) in contrast Starmer is a prime minister with a huge thumping great majority and so has even less excuse.

James O'Brien

He's clearly a decent broadcaster with LBC's biggest audience. But he's everything wrong with the way Centrists offer up solutions. He's operating in such a narrow band of progressivism that neatly tucks within the bounds of an 'acceptable' version of Conservatism that there can never really be actual solutions.

Get to close with ideas and solutions and you're shut down. O'Brien literally is - "if Starmer does it then it's a clever plan." no matter the plan. As NoJusticeMTG says "Red team good - blue team bad."

He is the worst client journalist I can think of.

Although, Alex Andreou takes the award for absolute mard arse of a faux-left commentator. Not once as he criticised Starmer. Totally confused about how the government spends money and slaps a ban on you the minute you challenge him. 

Such a big baby.

I've no idea what these people stand for and like Dunty - nine times out of ten they're terrible judges of character.

No it won't catch up with them. All the main players in this saga will have lucrative post politics careers after their political careers inevitably end in failure.

Look at what happened to Nick Clegg after he enthusiastically embraced austerity whilst he was Deputy Prime Minister, the consequences of which the country is still paying

In the polls?

No it won't catch up with them. All the main players in this saga will have lucrative post politics careers after their political careers inevitably end in failure.

Look at what happened to Nick Clegg after he enthusiastically embraced austerity whilst he was Deputy Prime Minister, the consequences of which the country is still paying

In the polls? /  at the elections?

Oh yeah Cleggy and is lovely well positioned Meta job he had.

Yes in the polls, see my edit. It will likely catch up with the Labour Party, but not those responsible.

The grownups are back in charge and showing how it should be done.

Serious govt for serious people. Anyone who wants anything different is an immature sixth-former. I'm sure binners is looking forward to canvassing at the local elections so he can explain to the proles of Bury and Ramsbottom how they should get on board and be serious too instead of making childish demands for accessible GP appointments, functioning A&E deptartments and a welfare system which doesn't dump hundreds of thousands of disabled people into poverty.

If I were an ex-tory MP I'd be very jealous right now, Starmer and Reeves are doing all the stuff they dreamt about without having to worry about the opposition or losing their jobs. 

With all shenanigans caused by Trump Starmer had started to close the gap with Reform but now the latest poll, in which the fieldwork was done yesterday when everyone was talking about the Starmer-Reeves attack on the disabled, has Reform a clear 5 point lead over Labour.

Not that Reform are the answer obviously but clearly the Labour Party isn't either. Reform's position has remained static whist support for the LibDems and the Greens has increased 

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1jfpsnm/findoutnowuk_find_out_now_voting_intention_reform/?rdt=44262

And Reform are currently gaining significant support in Scotland despite TJ's insistence (based on the hard-to-believe claim that there aren't many racists in Scotland) that Scotland is Reform free.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25019735.new-poll-shows-reform-will-gain-highest-support-scotland/

I assume that Reform is getting the same kind of social media algorithm support as the RN in France and AfD in Germany. I can't use Whatsapp, Facebook, Google or any other feed as despite my left-wing browsing and reading habits I get to scroll though reams of fake news, conspiracy nonsense, right-wing shite, hateful shite etc. All the virtual places young people hang out are controlled by and fed with with stuff that makes the Conservatives look pinko and woke.

Marion Maréchal currently heads my Whatsapp suggestions. I can live without facebook and Google but Whatsapp is the only phone and message system I use that isn't spammed into uselessness by fraudsters, rip off merchants, fachos... so I use it.

I have said a few times in the past months in the Trump thread, that it is essential that western governments pass legislation to prevent the big money interests that are operating to finance politics, lobbying and the propaganda platforms to just totally control everything from repeating the American takeover across Europe as well.

The far right populists have absolutely no problem suppressing free speech as we can also now see quite drastically in the US, so our governments should not be afraid of their fake arguments about protecting their propaganda.

IMO the continued failure to do so is an indication that they are already in the pockets of the oligarchs.

I can't see any significant difference between the current situation and how things have always been. The Labour Party always swings to the right when it moves from opposition to government. 

If there is a difference it is that the starting point this time was more right-wing than previously, so we have ended with the most right-wing "Labour" government in UK history.

And the reason for such a right-wing starting point imo is twofold. Firstly the Tories have moved the centre substantially to the right over many years. And secondly the Labour Party is now firmly in the hands of people without any sort of ideological commitment to anything. The Labour Party now exists basically to fulfill the career needs of self-serving professionals. 

It won't be the first time that a movement founded by the working-classes to serve their needs was hijacked and its aims abandoned. Just look at the last 100 years of history.

Since the usual suspects on here seem to have gone very quiet

Driven away by the hectoring style. Still dropping in to read occasionally, but can no longer be bothered to try and engage.

I’ve made comments. But they were lost like rain drops in a sea of repeat posts. What’s the point? Why interrupt the repetitive ranting?

Still dropping in to read occasionally, but can no longer be bothered to try and engage.

I was thinking about you a couple of days ago Jon when there was all that talk about Labour cuts in disability benefits and increasing criticism from the Labour benches concerning the Starmer-Reeves austerity drive.

Whatever happened to all those exciting developments which you claimed on this thread were in the pipeline and you had inside knowledge about but unfortunately you couldn't divulge? 

You suggested that we should trust you, be patient, and soon enough we hear about these important projects. 

How much longer do we have to wait? The longer we wait the more austerity we seem to get. Can you at least gives us a clue?

I’ve made comments. But they were lost like rain drops in a sea of repeat posts. What’s the point? Why interrupt the repetitive ranting

Doesn't mean to say your comments aren't being read. 

As for ranting - just a product of terrible choices / lack of hope from HMG.

Posted by: kelvin

↑

What’s the point? Why interrupt the repetitive ranting?

Yes but enough about binners.

Its odd how after years of repetitive ranting from the self declared grown ups on the Corbyn, trump and tory threads there is suddenly a dislike of ranting

---

Its odd how after years of repetitive ranting from the self declared grown ups on the Corbyn, trump and tory threads there is suddenly a dislike of ranting

You are not alone with your observation. They like to dish plenty out but run away and hide when they've been shown to be wrong.

Posted by: rone

↑

yes, it does, because it's looking at whether households are net beneficiaries of the state or net contributors to the state. Also, the weather forecast doesn't tell you the football scores.

Running deficits for more or less 50 years tells you everyone is a net beneficiary of the state.  Unless you want to opt out of using schools, roads, amenities, health, policing and infrastructure etc or perhaps live in Dubai?

Emiratis are MASSIVE net beneficiaries of the state. Interestingly, I saw a suggestion that Pavel Durov, one of the founders of Telegram, has Emirati citizenship. It's the first time I'd heard of a non-Arab foreigner getting it (maybe a couple of ancient ****stani businessmen that had been born there...?). They were reluctant enough to give it to resident Arab spouses of Emiratis traditionally...

I wonder what it was that made Emirati authorities think that Durov could contribute to the success and security of the country? Certainly not money, they have enough of that. 🤔🤔🤔

Ironic swear filter appearance there!

Posted by: politecameraaction

↑

Emiratis are MASSIVE net beneficiaries of the state

Its a weird mix, like many of the petroleum states, of locals looked after by the state and then the minimal taxation on the immigrants living there as well who, so long as they arent the manual workers, can have a rather nice lifestyle.

Was curious about who could get citizenship there and apparently it was changed somewhat in 2021 to allow those who  "contribute to our development journey" with no strict rules but simply having the royals/officials nominate them and then the cabinet decide.

So I guess there will be a few others but very very few.

Quick google suggests some random cases such as a Brit who was ceo of emirates air and is still associated with it and a couple of similar businessmen closely linked to the country.

Its odd how after years of repetitive ranting from the self declared grown ups on the Corbyn, trump and tory threads there is suddenly a dislike of ranting

Oh they still like ranting, binners was in full swing on Monday. Ironically what appears to have shut him up completely isn't the lefties on here but Starmer. 

Trying to defend the indefensible is hard enough but this week Starmer-Reeves placed the bar so high that it wasn't even worth the effort.

But hey, let's blame the lefties on here if the Starmer-Reeves double act can't be defended.

This week even what must be the least corbynite couple in the Labour Party, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, couldn't stomach the latest Starmer-Reeves austerity cuts. You don't have to be very left-wing to oppose what and Starmer-Reeves are doing, just not a Tory.

https://www.techuk.org/resource/inform-techuk-policy-thinking-spending-review-2025.html#:~:text=The%20Government%20has%20outlined%20they,will%20conclude%20in%20June%202025.

Any context to that link? Looks like a techno optimist think tank talking about policy recommendations to the treasury? The classic techno optimist trope of tech to unlock growth seems to be in there. I'm not really sure what we're supposed to be reading into it/them?

Hi binners 👋

This handy new feature on the forum means that I can see you looking at this thread 😉

Context - I was asked when we are going to hear about the spending review, albeit not in those exact terms.

Short answer - was going to be April, now June. There may be some announcements earlier than June but I'm not going to give any details of things I may be privy to. Free choice whether you accept that or not, I've not hidden who I work for or the areas we work in.

Why that link? - it explains the CSR process in easily followed terms. I don't really agree with the 'Techno Optimist think tank' - it's (one of) the UK Digital /Tech Industries Trade Associations. Which is the area I work in (STEM) hence came high up in my google search for a link. I don't necessarily agree with all their opinions and of course they will be lobbying for the industries/members they represent to get an appropriate share of the SR pie, that's what Trade Associations do. 

But there are many other links saying the same thing about where we are in the SR process, for example

https://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/analysis-and-publications/detail/government-spending-review-announcement/

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1737466162543500900/uk-chancellor-to-reveal-government-departmental-spending-plans-in-june.aspx

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/what-is-a-spending-review

Hope that makes sense.

etc.

That’s great and good to see investment in an area where presumably the tories would not have invested?   
however, it is completely meaningless to all the people in the country who need more help and support from a country with high inequality.  Labour seem to be doing very little in that area.   

I said I wasn't engaging and then something like this happens.

https://news.sky.com/story/heathrow-airport-closed-flights-cancelled-london-fire-travel-latest-13332924

Fire at an electricity substation. Airport closed for the day, 16,000 homes and businesses without power. Call to arms for those that rely on electricity for medical care (I'm thinking like home dialysis, COPD support equipment, etc.) to be in touch so they can be restored asap. 

The national grid relies on the time signal to function. It's not fallen over yet but also relies on co-operation with other nations for resilience, and in the changing geopolitical world can you guarantee that for ever? And infrastructure like that isn't just bought in, or built overnight if it turns out we need it. Have a read about RETSI.

Just one example, but how do you prioritise investment into that against other things? Foreign aid? Welfare? The Arts? The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens, etc. These aren't academic research programmes, this is CNI.

Go ahead and sneer at 'tough choices' and one at least is going to say that we should just print money and do both. But until we have the whole picture about what the spending plan is and why it's been prioritised in that way, I find it impossible to either defend or condemn out of hand no matter how bad or unpopular these pre-decisions appear to be. 

So for now at least I'll stay away from the goading of the 'centrists' and the pervading everything is shit, tories in different clothes narrative on here. 

Carry on.

it is completely meaningless to all the people in the country who need more help and support from a country with high inequality.

The point is that it isn't. It might feel meaningless to them, but where's any balanced discussion in the press, etc., looking with balance at the big picture. It's just brushed away in the same way as the 'where's all the great plans you can't tell us about?' comments like last night.

That’s great and good to see investment in an area where presumably the tories would not have invested?

I can't hand on heart say they weren't / wouldn't have also invested in it. But I can say that it was increasingly obvious that the tories had plans that didn't add up, hence why a proper Comprehensive Spending Review is vital.

(Rone will be here shortly to say it isn't, obviously)

My water rates up today £130 a year (mine starts from april)

My business leccy jumped from £175 to £264 (monthly payment mess plus rise and catch up over winter.)

My home energy jumped from £224 to 269

And my council tax up - not sure how much - probably £150ish.

Interest rates stayed the same too (4.5%)

Next week we get the spring statement and more crackers economics plus the NI hike etc.

I'm one of the lucky ones too - even though my business is crawling along. Lucky to have a partner that mucks in.

The whole system is about preservation of wealth for a few people and the public have no real choice but to lap it up and accept it as the way it is.

Labour have missed all this sort of stuff - basic stuff that impacts people's lives hugely, and the dumb robots look like they're still trying to create an environment of fiscal insanity.

Well what goes around comes around. If I was Starmer I'd have been thinking about the impact of this with forthcoming elections in the face of all the nonsense about fiscal rules / savings and 22bn black-hole (my god he repeats that a lot at PMQs.)

I can't hand on heart say they weren't / wouldn't have also invested in it. But I can say that it was increasingly obvious that the tories had plans that didn't add up, hence why a proper Comprehensive Spending Review is vital.

(Rone will be here shortly to say it isn't, obviously)

That's what a debate is yeah? I also spotted right from the start Labour were going to go down this path.

You can't get away from a bigger deficit to make the investments. Do all the comprehensive spending reviews you like it doesn't increase money into the economy if the Chancellor invents rules about what they can and can't spend.

Jonv - there is all the evidence you need. When do you give up on years of believing shrinking the state leads to anything other than poor outcomes. That would included GDP too.

Surely you can see it rolling out in front of you?

We absolutely have to get away from the idea that the government saves . The is no mechanism in the system for saving. Sure there are spreadsheets and budgets - but they assume the government is a household.  In other words as we know self-imposed fiscal limits. Botched up over a 5 year rule - I mean WTF? If that's not ideological then what is.

tories had plans that didn't add up, 

Becuase they don't add up - they simply don't.  If they did add up then there would be no investment from a given budget to enter the economy. It's entirely normal. Do you think Labour just thought of something amazing?

We can have a discussion about what money should be spent on and the real limits (inflation - resources) but chasing a balanced budget defies logic unless you don't want government money in the economy and the economy to grow.

Blew - out of date now but just shows how rare and irrelevent is to run a surplus.

The issue is what has the money been spent on - for the Tories they actually carried on spening like buggers but no on the thinks that a count.

Labour have missed all this sort of stuff - basic stuff that impacts people's lives hugely, and the dumb robots look like they're still trying to create an environment of fiscal insanity.

With an increasing hint of cruelty, not much different to the lot we've just got rid of. 

The attacks on PIP and UC are leaving a bitter taste, probably with core Labour voters. I'm starting to feel like Starmer's government is going to be a one termer, crippled by adhering to some made up fiscal rules and trying to keep squarely in an overton window drawn by Nigel Farage... 

Also - sorry it expired. It's looking like the government is about to issue 305bn in gilts - that tells you they will run a bigger deficit in the next financial year.

I'm not quite sure how this pans out but it does tell you 22bn was a pointless noise that failed to gain any traction - if the deficit is about to be enlarged. In other words Labour are just creating an even bigger black-hole. Fiscal rules may just drip away with creative accounting.

Which is fine by me - it's not big enough but hey they're shit scared of the markets which will just lap up the extra bonds.

The issue is what has the money been spent on - for the Tories they actually carried on spening like buggers but no on the thinks that a count.

Not sure what I put there. I was trying to articulate the Tories still enlarged the debt - but money simple didn't go on the right things. 

"Govt as a household budget" is the toxic legacy of Thatcher and it's done untold damage to the country in the subsequent decades.

(I assume she didn't invent the concept but she certainly popularised it.)

With an increasing hint of cruelty, not much different to the lot we've just got rid of. 

 

The attacks on PIP and UC are leaving a bitter taste, probably with core Labour voters. I'm starting to feel like Starmer's government is going to be a one termer, crippled by adhering to some made up fiscal rules and trying to keep squarely in an overton window drawn by Nigel Farage... 

That's pretty much where I am.

And Labour are squarely in Farage's Overton Window. We have a supposedly Labour government punching down on some of the most vulnerable people in society to save £5bn in 5 years time, but also arguing that there is no economic case to rejoin the EU. When the increased GDP from doing so would easily cover this £5bn and a lot of bringing defence spending up to 2.5%.

Game, set and match Farage.

Posted by: theotherjonv

↑

 I was asked when we are going to hear about the spending review, albeit not in those exact terms.

Short answer - was going to be April, now June. There may be some announcements earlier than June but I'm not going to give any details of things I may be privy to. 

What you were asked is when are we going to hear about these exciting and important government investment projects which you hinted about last August. Your answer is now June, almost a full year later.

There are obviously two problems with that. Firstly why is the government so secretive about this planned investment? It is not normal for governments to be secretive about what they hope to achieve, especially when they believe that it should be celebrated. In fact the complete opposite is usually true - they like to proudly advertise their expected targets, they do it all the time.

And the second point is that your belief that we should not be critical of the current government because you know stuff that you can't share with anyone is obviously not reasonable.

On Monday there were two or three Starmer supporters on this thread claiming that it was totally unacceptable to trust a Guardian article which accurately detailed what was about to be announced by the government the following day.

So you will forgive me if I am a tad sceptical about trusting the word of a Starmer supporter on a MTB forum who insists that I shouldn't criticise Starmer because he is doing a great job but I need to wait almost a year to fully understand what a great job he is doing. 🙃

And Labour are squarely in Farage's Overton Window. We have a supposedly Labour government punching down on some of the most vulnerable people in society to save £5bn in 5 years time, but also arguing that there is no economic case to rejoin the EU. When the increased GDP from doing so would easily cover this £5bn and a lot of bringing defence spending up to 2.5%.

I'm not above admitting that I was quite wrong about this Labour government, like lots of people I thought they'd be better than the last lot, and would learn a few lessons even, but I am struggling to identify the silver linings here. 

Perhaps I was naive (probably), but it's all feeling very Tory right now, deepening poverty gaps, lots of growth talk, hammering the poor and rolling on through increasing calls for a wealth tax (from their own back benches)... 

Ed Milliband has just been on bigging up GB energy and renewables (including carbon bloody capture) wonder when 'the project' will turn it's attention on that area of policy. 

Rayner's seemingly been benched, Reeves can apparently do no wrong, Streeting increasingly sounds like a bit of a git whenever they wheel him out. And they're doing quiet briefings to press chums... It's like the days of Boris but with less catchy slogans... 

Posted by: thecaptain

↑

"Govt as a household budget" is the toxic legacy of Thatcher and it's done untold damage to the country in the subsequent decades.

(I assume she didn't invent the concept but she certainly popularised it.)

She popularised it because as the UK's first ever female Prime Minister her gimmick was to portray herself as a sensible housewife who went shopping within her means.