Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

[jazzer]

"some people just really really don’t like having a Labour government"

For heavens sake just look at the utter mess they have made in the first four months in office, suggest you re-read Rockets post which sums up everything wrong with Starmagedons approach to running and making decisions in Govt. But you'll just shrug it off as you have already done saying Corbyn and the three stooges of Starmer, Rayner and Reeves are your saviour. Look at the detrimental effect its had on UK plc. Almost wants to make me pack up and leave the UK. 

[Sephiroth]

Jazzer - I’m sorry mate but I can’t engage with you because you seem a bit lost.  Have never liked Corbyn and have fallen out with mates because of how hostile I was towards him 

the country hasn’t fallen apart in 4 months since or because Labour took over 

 

the country has been banjaxed since 2008 because of global financial crisis and then years of austerity, Brexit and multiple loony Tory leaders in space of about 6 months.  
 

infrastructure and services have crumbled to nothing.  Look at satisfaction ratings for nhs in 2010 compared to now as an example

any govt taking over will not be able to turn this around possibly in a whole term 

some rich people (and lost people) will scream very very loudly 

but country needs fixing - and despite me disagreeing with several aspects of Labour in power (and I agree with some of rockets points) there is some semblance of a path back to stability   

no alternative party offers anything close to credibility at time of writing 

 

 

[Rockets]

51 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

I’d  be interested in the source of that 

BBC and the IFS

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e12j4gz0o

From BBC Verify:

 

Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank said Reeves "may be overegging the £22bn black hole".

What about the rest of the £22bn?

The government published a breakdown, external of how it had got from the Treasury's £9.5bn shortfall in February to the £22bn "black hole".

It said that there was another £7bn between February and the actual Budget in March, as departments found out about new spending pressures and the government spent more on the NHS and the Household Support Fund

There was a final £5.6bn between then and late July, which includes almost a month when Labour was in power.

That was largely caused by increases in public sector pay.

It was the Labour government that accepted the recommendations of the Pay Review Bodies (PRBs), but they said that the previous government should have budgeted for more than a 2% increase in public sector pay.

Prof Stephen Millard from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research think tank told BBC Verify: "The 'political' question is whether you would count this as part of the fiscal black hole or not. If you do, then you get to the £22bn figure; if not, then you’re left with around £12.5bn to £13.5bn."

54 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

Very hard to escape the notion that behind all of the “promises, fairness, anti farmer” rhetoric some people just really really don’t like having a Labour government 

It isn't this at all. When you run on an agenda of change and cleaning up politics and you put all of the eggs of despair in a basket at the door of the previous government you better hope you have a long honeymoon period to give you time to deliver the change you have promised. Look at the NHS, before the election it was all...it's broken because of 14 years of Tory incompetence and the implication was that Labour could fix is quickly. Then Wes Streeting (who is one of the smarter political cabinet members and is clearly able to play the long game) started talking about the need to change the NHS before the election - he talked about privatising parts of it (much to the annoyance of the left). He was being pragmatic because the only magic wand that is going to fix the NHS is massive reform - it's broken and has been for decades and throwing money at it has just papered over the cracks. Now Labour talk about the NHS needing 10 years of healing for there to be real difference and people are saying....what.....

Words in opposition are easy; actions in government are a lot harder and I fear that given the structural issues caused by Covid, the energy crisis, the war in Ukraine (and now maybe a massive US/China trade war if Trump isn't bluffing) that we are heading to constant one-term governments. I don't think there was a government (and correct me if I am wrong) that survived Covid and in a lot of countries since Covid they have had regular government change (I think what is playing out in the US with them voting Trump in is reflective of the challenges all countries face).

Labour massively over-egged the 14 years of hurt (who could blame them) but it is going to make things a lot tougher for them as they have set the expectation that changing government cures all the ills and as we have seen in the first 90 days of their tenure that is very much not the case.

31 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

no alternative party offers anything close to credibility at time of writing 

Completely agree but the big risk if Farage. If Labour don't deliver what they promised or hit "working people" then the populists win - it's happening everywhere. Dangerous, dangerous times ahead and Labour have to get it right - for all our sakes - no matter what party we support.

P.S. Lammy is also one of the better Labour front-bench folks - he just is suffering from Labour's inability to think far enough ahead to realise that some posts might come back to haunt you...but in his defence did anyone really think Americans would be daft enough to vote him in again....;-)

[Sephiroth]

Doesn’t seem that simple

 

according to fullfact that’s a net figure

 

”

The £21.9 billion was a net figure. Gross additional pressures totalling £35.3 billion were identified by the Treasury, and approximately £13.4 billion of these pressures were then offset by a combination of reserve funds and other allowances.

The additional pressures identified were as follows:

• 2024-25 public sector pay awards (£9.4bn) ”

 

I don’t think Labour have set expectation that changing government cures all the ills. In fact some people on here criticise them for saying exactly opposite “vote for us we’re not them but nothing will change because global issues”

 

I think they are too cautious across many areas. They could have been more explicit before election but such is the countries media and electorate that if they were we would now be stuck with sunak/badenoch/someone else with the 14 years of baggage of their government and infighting 

the broad strokes of this government are essentially along right lines 

also loving ckarkson today

“

Clarkson: Your claim that I bought a farm to avoid taxes is false and irresponsible. 

BBC: It’s your own claim. 

Clarkson: What’s that got to do with anything?”

and by loving I mean “loathing as much as I ever have”

 

 

[malumbu]

In deed, doesn't matter if he is a talented presenter he is, in my view, an rrrrrrsss.  Interestingly Farage was pronounced with a hard g.  But he affected the continental soft g.  Similar to the UK and US pronunciations of garage.  I've worked with people who were at school with him

[Sephiroth]

A tax change that affects a tiny portion of farmers livelihoods and income - mass protest and wild accusations on forums like this 

 

Brexit which impacted farmers income and uk food security far far far more ? Crickets. Absolutely nothing. “Price worth paying mate “

 

Don’t  be fooled about what this is about - it’s isn’t IHT.  

[Rockets]

Farmers groups say 35% of farms will be affected while the Treasury reckons its 27% - neither figure is a tiny portion.

The problem is farming is often asset rich but cash poor meaning that those who inherit farms and have to pay the tax will likely need to sell land to pay for it and could well further impact the cash poor nature and productivity of that farm.

I would have thought those who align on the left would be welcoming farmers protesting on the streets against a government making their lives more difficult. Good on them. Makes a change from tube and rail strikes at least!

I was shocked to read that the average weekly earnings for agricultural workers was significantly lower than the national average. 

Clearly Labour doesn't consider these working people.

[Sephiroth]

That % of “affected” doesn’t mean they are all in deep trouble.  It means this will touch on them in some small way mostly - apart from the biggest farms 

it’s like high rate tax earners taking to the street when Osborne dragged child/benefit claimants into self assessment.  A mild pain 

the more I read, the more obviously confected it is. Still - just as with farage and his banking “woes”, a social media campaign is no barrier to the gullible 

what percentage of farms affected by Brexit and to what degree compared go IHT?  Or does that not matter? Thats different money is it? 

[Rockets]

But do you not understand how tough farming is, especially post-Brexit when some of the subsidies were lost and costs have increased massively yet the prices farmers can charge has not?

On the BBC News tonight they said pig farming costs had gone up 54% since 2019, cow farming costs up 44% and cereal costs up 43%.

The NFU said that the margins are on average 0.5% return on capital.

Land and buildings are assets that don't make money until you sell them...it's what you do with them that makes money and farms are struggling to make money and so many farms are generational family businesses so never realise the assets (one farmers on the news said his farm had been in the family since 1822) but will have to to pay tax for continuing the family business.

On another news item tonight there was a short piece saying the government has said that 50,000 more pensioners will be forced into relative poverty (60% of the average income) due to the Winter Fuel Allowance removal which will rise to 100,000 more by 2027.

James Murray from the Treasury was rolled out on Newsnight to try and defend that and couldn't. You can't give doctors 20%+ and push more pensioners into poverty as a result. 

The problem for Labour is the court of public opinion will judge them and right now the jury is out after a series of own-goals, really poor communication and ill-thought-out idealogical policies.

And don't ever annoy the farmers.....;-)

 

[malumbu]

Why on earth is there so much interest, and negativity, after a 100 days of a Labour government when we had 1000s of days of dreadful government before this with hardly a chat on this Website?  What is it that is suddenly so much greater interest?

Here's part of a list of what they have done in a 100 days - it's from a Labour MP so obviously there is some bias, and mainly new Bills so yet to deliver/put into law.  This reminds me of the US election where the popular view was that Biden had achieved nothing, rather than leading the recovery after Covid, a fairer tax system, housing, supporting workers, dealing with community unrest following high profile racist incidents,  So if we think Starmer is ineffective and Labour incompetent then we are all going to believe it?

I do feel sick after seeing Clarkson on Newsnight, playing to the gallery.  Surely Trump must have a high profile role for him on the environment and climate change

 

[ianr]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Here's part of a list of what they have done in a 100 days 

https://www.facebook.com/labourparty/posts/when-your-family-and-friends-ask-you-what-labour-has-achieved-so-far-send-them-t/1090481149116565/ 
 

5 hours ago, malumbu said:

Interestingly Farage was pronounced with a hard g.  But he affected the continental soft g. 

Do you mean going from rhyming with Message to rhyming with Massage?  Or was it really a hard g to start with, rhyming, say,  with Farague/Faraig or Fararg?

Edited yesterday at 02:42 by ianr

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 hours ago, jazzer said:

You don't half spout some nonsense. It's not a tax dodge. They inherited it, do you grasp the concept of what that means?  

Because land has been exempt from inheritance tax wealthy individuals (like Clarkson and Dyson) have used it as a tax avoidance measure. Clarkson is on the record stating that he bought land for precisely this purpose. It is people like him who farmers should be angry with, if anyone, because they have exploited a loophole, which is now being (partially) closed.

Yes, I do grasp the concept of inheritance - it's were one is given money, or valuable assets by chance of birth (having done nothing to earn it). As money you have earned, is taxed, it seems odd that money you have not, shouldn't be. I assume you don't disapprove of income tax? Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should?

16 hours ago, jazzer said:

So when you inherit a property or business of some wealth, you'll happily give HMRC 40% of what its worth above the threshold, Why should ANYONE have to pay inheritance tax

Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled.

Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part of it that is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate. 

Edited yesterday at 09:33 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

10 hours ago, malumbu said:

Why on earth is there so much interest, and negativity, after a 100 days of a Labour government when we had 1000s of days of dreadful government before this with hardly a chat on this Website?  What is it that is suddenly so much greater interest?

Because they have been awful - scoring own-goal after own-goal. You cannot be an apologist for their diabolical first 100 days on the basis that the previous lot were worse - in the same way the whole of the 14 years of Tory rule was tarred with the brush of despair about their very worst behaviour in the latter years Labour run the risk of their government being tarred with the same brush on the basis of their first 100 days.

It has probably been some of the worst 100 days of any new government and Starmer's approval ratings aren't as low as they are without reason.

You know they are in trouble when MPs start posting the good bits from their first 100 days - it's a sure sign they know they have a problem. And when this government have a problem the frontbenchers disappear from media interviews and they roll-out the likes of Pat McFadden to provide some air cover.

Yesterday it was farmers. Today it is the pensioners being pushed into poverty by Winter Fuel payments. It's a perceptual disaster and has been since day 1 - they have to get a grip on it else this leadership team is doomed.

50 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled.

You highlight the very problem here. Farmers are not being gifted money. They are being gifted assets. Assets that they don't realise as they continue to work those assets to provide food for the country.

Most inheritance is cash or an asset (a house) that people sell to generate cash. Passing a farm to younger family members is very different.

On the news they interviewed a farmer whose family had owned the farm since 1822 and he broke down in tears when he spoke about his 13 year old son who was working in the farm to continue it - no doubt in the realisation that his son would be hit by a tax bill when he took it over. Given farmers are not cash rich then the decision would likely be that they would need to sell some of the land that generations had worked hard to build to fund the tax bill - and so many farms are on a knife's edge that it might be enough to send them over the edge.

 

There are many valid reasons why the government are doing what they are doing but those reasons are not cutting through and they are losing control of the narrative. That is a massive issue for them.

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Rockets

[jazzer]

And the latest shocker, Inflation this morning was 2.3% up from 1.7& the previous month, a 0.6% increase in a month, that is dreadful. So Robber Reeves plan is already working (NOT). Inflation has begun to increase and will continue to do so, I predict the next set of unemployment figures will show a rise. Neither of these things can be blamed on the last Govt, it's down to the inept budget and impact it is having already.

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

You highlight the very problem here. Farmers are not being gifted money. They are being gifted assets. Assets that they don't realise as they continue to work those assets to provide food for the country.

Farmers aren't being gifted anything; Their heirs are being gifted millions of pound worth of income generating assets by chance of birth (in most cases). An estate that they have done nothing to earn. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part which is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate

So to repeat my previous question... Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay any tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should pay tax?

Edited 20 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[alice]

So here’s my thinking farmers produce food, we all want food, we want food security and fair prices. So farmers with up to £3 million to pass on don’t pay inheritance tax. Sounds pretty good
Let’s take landlords they provide homes,  we all want homes, security and fair rents.  The small landlord <£3m will be paying 40% inheritance tax. 
Providers of  Food and Shelter should be considered equivalent  

 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So to repeat my previous question... Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay any tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should pay tax?

Because it's only a windfall if they sell it - until that time it is an asset - and in this case a working asset but, as far a the government is concerned a taxable asset. The farm is the tool that they use to earn a living - a living that they will be taxed on in the same way a nurse is - it's just to do their job they are now expected to pay extra tax for the privilege - just because the farm was passed to them. Or are you advocating nurses pay tax on the tools they are provided to do their job too? 😉 

Now, if they sell the farm then yes, they should pay inheritance tax in the same way people who are left items of value from relatives are because they have realised the value and taken the asset as cash. 

Our farming industry is built upon family business - generations of farmers from the same families working the land and this is an ideological attack and, like so many of Labour's policies, is aimed at a few rich farmers/farm owners (insert pensioners on Fuel Duty), but creates collateral damage for a whole load of other farmers who aren't rich (insert 50,000 pensioners now struggling in relative poverty due to Winter Fuel) and will have to sell land to fund it because, well, they are farmers who don't earn much at all doing a very tough job - the average wage of someone in agriculture is, according to the BBC around £500 a week and the national average is £671.

Do you see the point now and why so many farmers are upset about this? It's another tax the many to get to the few. Maybe farmers should wear Donkey jackets rather than Barbour's and the government may look on them a little more favourably....

Some good background from the BBC on why farmers are fighting so hard. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo

Edited 19 hours ago by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

33 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Because it's only a windfall if they sell it - until that time it is an asset - and in this case a working asset but, as far a the government is concerned a taxable asset. The farm is the tool that they use to earn a living - a living that they will be taxed on in the same way a nurse is - it's just to do their job they are now expected to pay extra tax for the privilege - just because the farm was passed to them. Or are you advocating nurses pay tax on the tools they are provided to do their job too? 😉 

It's an estate that they have been gifted. They may choose to earn a living from it, or to sell all, or part of it. In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax (as is the case for people like Clarkson, Dyson and other individuals with significant land holdings) and has little to do with farming at all. The idea that if I give you land worth £3m + tomorrow Rocks, it's not an massive windfall, but simply a necessary tool that you need to earn a living is silly.

It's no different from someone inheriting any other estate where they would usually be required to pay 40% tax and settle up immediately. 

If you're opposed to any tax on those inheriting multi-million pound estates - I would be interested in who you would like to place a greater tax burden upon? Or do you simply think we should watch public services collapse even further.

Edited 18 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

18 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax (as is the case for people like Clarkson, Dyson and other people with significant land holdings) and has little to do with farming at all. 

This is why the NFU are so unhappy that Clarkson is involved as it distracts from the issues for real farmers.

Your assumption that all land is purchased as a tax dodge is a wide sweeping dog whistle generalisation and, I suspect, a long way from the truth but something to government would love for people to think.

Again, read this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo

 

 

 

 

 

[malumbu]

You have been asked who should stump up Rockets rather than farmers (obviously most are stumping up due to tax thresholds being frozen).  It seems like you champion every group that is unhappy with action from a Labour government or a Labour local authority.  It would be great to know how revenue would be better raised, beyond your support to part privatisation of the NHS.  Or are you small state when the government should cut everything and people should stand up for themselves.  Of course that would include cutting all winter fuel payments.

Clarkson similarly didn't answer that question yesterday playing to the audience and making the usual lazy stereotypical comments, woke BBC, useless civil servants.  It was like I saw Johnson making it a pantomime rather than responding to fair questions. Not that I am labelling you as either of course 😊

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Your assumption that all land is purchased as a tax dodge is a wide sweeping dog whistle generalisation

And of course not anything I’ve said or suggested anywhere.

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax

?????

[Earl Aelfheah]

How is that meant to be me saying:

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

all land is purchased as a tax dodge

?

Read it again.

I honestly can’t work out if you’re actually a parody account. You sound more and more like ‘Colin from Portsmouth’ every day

Are you going to answer the question about who you would like to place a greater tax burden on, before those poor individuals inheriting multimillion pound estates? 

Edited 15 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

You're certainly a creature of habit Earl I will give you that!

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

You have been asked who should stump up Rockets rather than farmers (obviously most are stumping up due to tax thresholds being frozen). 

Well I am not chancellor but clearly if I doctored my CV then I could be one day...!! (Too soon.....sorry I could not resist...;-)) 

But, for example, I probably wouldn't have given junior doctors a 22% pay rise and then claimed that as part of the 22bn black hole "inherited" by this government and then told farmers and pensioners to suck it up because of said 22bn black hole...but, to be fair, farmers and pensioners didn't help the election campaign did they so I presume they weren't owed their payday?! 😉

 

 

[Sephiroth]

 I probably wouldn't have given junior doctors a 22% pay rise and then claimed that as part of the 22bn black hole "inherited" by this government

again - that isn’t really true - there is a gross 30+ billion “black hole” but even accounting for the 8ish billion for pay rise (which isnt even talking about the damage the strike was doing or how deserved the rise was ) still leaves 22 billion 

and  not a million miles away from the extra billions pledged by reeves to farmers in the budget )