Oh Rachel....

[Sephiroth]

You would think by now people would be more media savvy

but no “it’s lead story on bbc!” Like that means anything in 2025

in what sane world would a teams be entitled to 36k for a petty oversight like this.  Absolute binfire of a reaction 

[Dulwichway]

Pop her in jail for a few weeks education! you couldn't make it up! 😂hypocritical Labour are a laughing stock the world over! 

[malumbu]

Well thanks for enriching the conversation.  Would you chuck Fah - rage in too for his tax avoidance on his property?

 

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

Hardly a non-story @malumbu still one of the lead stories on the BBC.....you clearly don't understand when to serve humble pie! 😉 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgk40l8jm7o

 

 

 

I expect it was lead story on Jeremy Vine too.  Doesn't make it a story, just a bit more of BBC tabloid style sensationalism.  There are numerous real news stories in the UK and across the world.  And now, apt for Halloween, you have summoned up the ghost of Louisa.

So for the third time, will you now eat humble pie?

[vladi]

9 hours ago, malumbu said:

Well thanks for enriching the conversation.  Would you chuck Fah - rage in too for his tax avoidance on his property?

I don't support Farage but let's clear any misunderstanding ; tax avoidance is not a crime whilst tax evasion is.

[Rockets]

9 hours ago, malumbu said:

I expect it was lead story on Jeremy Vine too.  Doesn't make it a story, just a bit more of BBC tabloid style sensationalism.

You've gone a bit Alan Patridge again....

9 hours ago, malumbu said:

So for the third time, will you now eat humble pie?

Why on earth would I need to eat humble pie, I really can't fathom what your point is?

[Jenijenjen]

Oh Rockets ...

[vladi]

Looks like Rachael is getting close to the toaster again! The media is out to  get her after they got duped.

[Jenijenjen]

Well, they would wouldn't they.

Of course Kemi, members of the shadow cabinet and other political leaders in opposition are stirring it. 

The Times quotes ministers accusing Rachel of misleading them but are not named and who knows, if they're real, what their agenda is.

The OBR is supporting her

Rage bait is the word of the year and the right wing press have played their part in that.

[HeadNun]

Wasn't it the OBR who leaked that they'd told her the public finances weren't in such dire straits? 

It's all very weird, was she just afraid of being upfront with the public? 

[Sephiroth]

the speed at which critics of labour have switched last week from "the economy is toast because of Reeves!" to "the economy is doing well and it's Reeve's fault!"

I don't think it was a great budget and it was tinkering and won't deliver many of the things the country needs - but it wasn't the disaster some people on here have been predicting for months either and they hysterical reaction from the likes of Dan Hodges and cronies is embarrassing 

[Rockets]

41 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

but it wasn't the disaster some people on here have been predicting for months either and they hysterical reaction from the likes of Dan Hodges and cronies is embarrassing 

To be fair was it not the government leaks that were setting much of the tone for what was expected? I think this is the crux of the problem that this government are abysmal when it comes to communication - and absolute omni-shambles in fact. just look at the nonsense ahead of the budget and then the inside attacks on Wes Streeting. It all gives the impression they aren't properly in control of things and makes Keir and his cabinet look weak and then, post budget the suggestions Rachel Reeves was less than transparent with the public and it all looks even more of a mess.

All at a time when this government is deeply, deeply unpopular - the own goals keep continuing.

 

[Sephiroth]

No the leaks came after the apocalyptic of some on here - the whole leak/non leak and obr problem aren’t great - but ultimately a wash and not that relevant.  
 

journalists should be analysing what the budget did and didn’t do but as per everything since 2016 is just personal psychodrama and college-boy sniggering 

[Jenijenjen]

2 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

ournalists should be analysing what the budget did and didn’t do but as per everything since 2016 is just personal psychodrama and college-boy sniggering 

and as has been pointed out on another thread, the 'news' has become a matter of (subjective) opinion rather than fact.

[HeadNun]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

To be fair was it not the government leaks that were setting much of the tone for what was expected? I think this is the crux of the problem that this government are abysmal when it comes to communication - and absolute omni-shambles in fact. just look at the nonsense ahead of the budget and then the inside attacks on Wes Streeting. It all gives the impression they aren't properly in control of things and makes Keir and his cabinet look weak and then, post budget the suggestions Rachel Reeves was less than transparent with the public and it all looks even more of a mess.

All at a time when this government is deeply, deeply unpopular - the own goals keep continuing.

 

Yes, I agree with this, it's been very odd indeed. Why did they fly so many kites and brief for so long before the budget? And why was she set on raising income tax, even tho the OBR had upgraded the forecast? And why the speech (which apparently caused gilts to fall), and then the retraction? And then why the business about mansplaining and misogyny in the Treasury? It's been totally baffling, esp when you consider that, in the end, the budget was quite unremarkable. 

But I do see that, if Reeves had revealed that the forecast wasn't so bad, but that she wanted to keep enough headroom anyway, it would have gone down like a bag of sick with the media. She was damned either way. 

All this briefing and flip-flopping has just slowed the markets and probably spurred people on to move savings and pensions, hold off on selling their house / buying etc. 

[CPR Dave]

Is the budget unremarkable?

I would say slapping huge tax increases on businesses and working people to give 30 billion away to people on benefits is worthy of remark.

[Angelina]

So there isn't a hole, we don't need to pay so much tax. Let's backtrack. Encourage growth, reduce waste.

What a mess.

[CPR Dave]

We do need to pay the tax though because the Labour front bench can't control the back benches.

So they have to bribe them with tax and spend policies to preserve their own skin.

[Angelina]

overtaxing people, while taxing businesses, while increasing welfare but not increasing growth is NOT a solution.

 

[Sephiroth]

2 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

Is the budget unremarkable?

I would say slapping huge tax increases on businesses and working people to give 30 billion away to people on benefits is worthy of remark.

That isn’t what the budget did 

if it did the markets would have reacted very differently 

but if you believe that’s what the budget did then nothing I or anyone else can say here will persuade you otherwise.  

[Angelina]

29 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

That isn’t what the budget did 

if it did the markets would have reacted very differently 

but if you believe that’s what the budget did then nothing I or anyone else can say here will persuade you otherwise.  

That’s exactly what the budget did. You do realise the impact of tax band freezes? That’s precisely how she’s raised taxes. And tax on property income and dividends; but less of a money spinner

[Sephiroth]

I’m not denying taxes were raised 

im saying they weren’t raised just to give it all away on “benefits”

and I backed that up by saying if they did the markets would have reacted very differently 

[CPR Dave]

The markets only react if they think there is risk.

The fact that runaway inflation has caused enough of an increase in tax receipts to cover spending with a surplus means there is no increased risk.  The new tax rises can therefore be spent wholly on benefits without any increase in borrowing, again minimising risk to existing treasury bond lenders.

[HeadNun]

Earl Aff-whatever-your-name-is (I'm dyslexic), you do realise that your 'liking' my earlier most, means that you indirectly agree with Rockets on something. Did hell just freeze over? 

[malumbu]

Not sure how you define overtaxing, I expect most of the population would like to pay less tax. 

One of the panel on Kuensseberg, not the young influencer, nor the unreconstructed old man (the opposite of 'new man') Piers Morgan), was fairly knowledgeable and explained that measures to improve growth such as an improved deal with the EU and trade agreements, are done elsewhere.

 

[Angelina]

It’s literal. 
There are levels of earners. Those who don’t work and get benefits, those who work and get benefits, those who work but don’t get benefits.

now, it’s an assumption that the last group are all wealthy, but that’s not the case. People in this last group are most exposed.. private rent, higher tax brackets, cost of living increases, yet they pay the most tax, and get no help. 
 

So many questions: why are workers needing to be subsidised? Should companies pay more? Should there be private rent caps? 
Why are people better off not working at all, or only working low hours to ensure they get benefits top ups? 
How do you think people respond to this?  
 

Do you realise that a number of companies are focussing on buying property? The banks, the supermarkets! Yet the government is squeezing individuals out of this equation. What do you think this will look like in the future? When foreign companies own the majority of UK property?