[Boiler]

Amber Rudd took a bullet for Theresa May. I think Kendall can take one for Starmer/ Reeves.

Reeves/ Starmer are relatively trusted by the markets. There’d be a cost in either of them going.

£24bn Wealth Tax is, as someone BTL said, going to become Labour’s equivalent of Brexit at this rate. Something supposedly simple that our European partners are swerving that can be wheeled out to answer any difficult question of competing priorities.

Perhaps Kendall can be put into another role. Culture or house of commons.

Something back room, please.

[Abernathy]

I'm really not at all sure that all this "It's all Morgan McSweeney's fault" is either accurate or fair.

McSweeney's role is the PM's chief of staff. It is at best questionable how much day-to-day direct influence he has over the political Strategy pursued by Starmer and Reeves. If there is a McSweeney-related problem, it may be that he is having difficulty switching off his campaign director mindset - that which delivered the landslide Labour majority - and concentrating on the role and strategy of Starmer as PM.

For instance, it is becoming more and more apparent that the "cast-iron" general election pledge never to raise income tax, National Insurance, or VAT in this parliament was probably un-necessary. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and of course we were faced with Sunak falsely claiming that Labour would immediately raise everybody's tax by £2,000, but arguably the scale of the Labour majority that was achieved demonstrates that Labour was always going to win and win well. Simply asserting that Labour's firm aspiration was to avoid such tax rises but acknowledging that no government can rule that out for 5 years would have got the job done and would not have left Rachel Reeves as completely hamstrung as she is now.

As it is, I think the time is approaching when Labour should bite the bullet of increasing income tax - probably for higher rate tax payers, with the explanation that in a much-changed global macro-economic circumstances, the government has no alternative. Political wisdom conventionally says that is electoral suicide, but I think it could be pulled off successfully.

[Boiler]

I'm very much of the opinion that Labour's victory was much more down to people wanting shot of the increasingly inept Tories. The fact that Reform <fx: spits> came second in so many places is rather telling.

If there's any time to raise income tax, it's now: acknowledging that it has long become a suicide pill for any government to even talk about it, it's a sacred cow that needs slaughtering I'm afraid. As has often been said - "if we want nice things, they have to be paid for".

[The Weeping Angel]

I'm really not at all sure that all this "It's all Morgan McSweeney's fault" is either accurate or fair.

McSweeney's role is the PM's chief of staff. It is at best questionable how much day-to-day direct influence he has over the political Strategy pursued by Starmer and Reeves. If there is a McSweeney-related problem, it may be that he is having difficulty switching off his campaign director mindset - that which delivered the landslide Labour majority - and concentrating on the role and strategy of Starmer as PM.

For instance, it is becoming more and more apparent that the "cast-iron" general election pledge never to raise income tax, National Insurance, or VAT in this parliament was probably un-necessary. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and of course we were faced with Sunak falsely claiming that Labour would immediately raise everybody's tax by £2,000, but arguably the scale of the Labour majority that was achieved demonstrates that Labour was always going to win and win well. Simply asserting that Labour's firm aspiration was to avoid such tax rises but acknowledging that no government can rule that out for 5 years would have got the job done and would not have left Rachel Reeves as completely hamstrung as she is now.

As it is, I think the time is approaching when Labour should bite the bullet of increasing income tax - probably for higher rate tax payers, with the explanation that in a much-changed global macro-economic circumstances, the government has no alternative. Political wisdom conventionally says that is electoral suicide, but I think it could be pulled off successfully.

I don't think McSweeneys cut out to be chief of staff.

[Tubby Isaacs]

As it is, I think the time is approaching when Labour should bite the bullet of increasing income tax - probably for higher rate tax payers

That doesn't raise very much at all- see Gordon Brown and Scotland now. People can work less, retire earlier, delay paying themselves till they get another government that'll cut the rate.

What top rate tax increases can do is give a sense of "we're all in this together", as you put up standard rate taxes. Those will be seriously unpopular and everyone will say it's the cost of failing to reform welfare. There was perhaps a chance for a Trump Tax (or as you'd probably call it for diplomatic reasons, a Putin Tax) in the Spending Review but that's gone.

I think for the purpose of OBR projections they just freeze rates for longer, while looking for reforms in the mean time, including to PIP. The number of new claimants are hard to square with underlying health.

[The Weeping Angel]

Something's up with Reeves.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Sounds like the OBR are going to reduce their projection of productivity growth.

Hopefully she doesn't resign, because I don't think I can take the inevitable "Labour needs a bolder Chancellor" articles.

[Oboogie]

Rachel Reeves is visibly crying on the front bench, tears running down her cheeks.
She may have hay fever.
She may have just had some terrible personal news.
Or there may be another explanation.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Sounds like she's going to have to resign, assuming it's not something we don't know about.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

[Oboogie]

Right, so it's just a coincidence. They happen.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I noticed this post in another place. Not from a particularly rabid poster, but I think it typifies the problems Labour has in trying to fix anything,

This country spends £29 billion a year subsidising low pay with child and working tax credits. We spend £26 billion a year on housing benefit - partly subsiding greedy landlords.

The real welfare reform would be tackling greedy corporations and landlords who love their state handouts.

The minimum wage is one of the highest in the world already. Are all those people really working for "greedy corporations"? Are perhaps quite a lot of them working in low skilled an low margin work, in poor parts of the country? If you put wages and rents in terms of morals, we reach rather strange conclusions. London has the most moral employers and the least moral landlords, whereas South Wales has the least moral employers and most moral landlords.

There's also been an expansion of workers rights- isn't this a "real welfare reform"? It takes time.

House Benefit doesn't pay anything like the market rate in the big majority of the country. Landlords could probably kick the HB tenants out and make more money. There's a fair bit of investment into social and affordable housing, which again is a "real welfare reform", you'd think. If you don't want to pay much housing benefit, you end up with even more of the poor moving to Stoke.

But it's all, "do this now, some group I don't like pays for it all". This sort of moaning quickly slides into "no tax rises for me" and helps Reform's type of politics.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Right, so it's just a coincidence. They happen.

It might well be- but you think the markets are going to believe it? If they don't that's extra costs for borrowing.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Rayner had some ideas about raising more taxes, analysed here by Dan Neidle.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/05/23/ang ... -assessed/

He thinks some of the ideas were bad, but the good ones probably raise about £1.5bn a year. I think these are likely to happen. That barely covers the U-turn on the WFA, but handy.

[Boiler]

Rachel Reeves is visibly crying on the front bench, tears running down her cheeks.
She may have hay fever.
She may have just had some terrible personal news.
Or there may be another explanation.

The cunt farm that is the Mail has zoomed-in video of her crying. At least the Guardian only has a still but its BTL contingent are still laying into her...

Meanwhile...

"Kemi Badenoch’s spokesman said “personal matter doesn’t really clear it up” and “you normally tell people what the personal matter is”.

Words fail me. Well, they don't, but the word I had in mind is not to be used lightly.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ed Davey's been prominent, I see, as a sort of conscience of the ordinary man. Here are their surprisingly ropy tax plans from the last election.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/06/10/202 ... festo/#cgt

I don't think this factored in the PIP rises that are now predicted. So where's Ed getting the money for his extra spending from?

[Tubby Isaacs]

There's apparently quite a constituency now for Lib Dem-Greens as an alternative government. I couldn't see this working at all.

I wonder if Davey will get a harder time at the next election. Sure, he can add a decent sum on from joining the Single Market, but there are still going to be some obvious holes.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Badenoch's a moron.

Just say "we're happy to take her word for it, but there are still grave economic problems".

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is a good idea.

Twelve of England’s regional mayors have signed up to an unprecedented plan to create a “national active travel network”, focusing initially on helping children to walk, cycle or scoot to school safely.

But why do I get the feeling the plan won't involve Burnham and co raising any money for it locally?

[Crabcakes]

The level of character assassination she would get from the Fourth Estate would be of Biblical proportions though - I'll leave you to think what they'll come up with for her, but it wouldn't be pretty and it'd be portrayed as an ooh scary massive lurch leftwards.

While true, I would also suggest the following:

1. A Labour leader will take shit regardless. Too much shit can even lead to a sympathy backlash.
2. I can’t think of many potential leaders witty and gritty enough to give as good as they get without coming over like one of Corbyn’s tetchy anti-press hissy fits
3. A sassy down to earth northern woman would be drastically different to Farage and whoever is in charge of the Tories by then. I genuinely think parts of the fourth estate and some of the less reconstructed members of parliament will have absolutely no clue how to handle this - or will handle it like an 1970s Bernard Manning mother-in-law routine
4. And finally - and I’m not sure I can stress this enough - if the next Labour leader is another straight white guy over 40 they are going to be in serious trouble in terms of having any credibility around equality