[Abernathy]

As always, you never really know. The test of this sort of stuff is plausibility. And it's very plausible backbenchers wouldn't fancy being on the hook for it.

And I can give you one name- Lucy Powell, because she said so. And she got elected Deputy Leader as a voice for backbenchers.

Well, yes. Probably so, especially since Powell is no longer in the cabinet, so not bound by the principle of collective responsibility. But other ministers are, so TWA’s confident assertion can only be based on Chinese whispers.

[kreuzberger]

Please be specific - how many and who? Or was that just media fluff?

The BBC was, this morning, desperate to shine their light of journalistic rigour on outrage which - er - didn't really exist, save a few barely audible grumbles.

At least is distracted them from reading out bits of the daily-fucking-mail, claiming that Rach is sleeping with Kim Jong-un (or something).

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Please be specific - how many and who? Or was that just media fluff?

I don't have a specific list of names Malcolm. But it shouldn't come as a surprise that some were wary about breaking a key pledge.

If we don't know who they are we don't know their reliability or whatever agenda they may be pursuing, so this report is worthless at best. Why is this so hard to understand?

[The Weeping Angel]

As Tubbs pointed out Lucy Powell objected.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

One person.

One is a point, two are a line, three is a trend...


And I suspect she has an agenda - replace Starmer with Burnham.

[The Weeping Angel]

She is the deputy leader.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

She is the deputy leader.

Unless my reason is leaving me she is still one person. Or is maths now dismissed in your world?

[The Weeping Angel]

It's not implausible that backbenchers and some ministers were wary about breaking a manifesto pledge. Given the likely backlash it would have caused. Powell wouldn't have said what she said in a vacuum.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Powell is the newly elected Deputy Leader who ran on representing backbenchers. Would seem a bit odd to immediately spout something that she hadn’t heard any backbenchers say.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Reeves can’t win. Would have been more progressive to increase the threshold and increase the rate, as many have pointed out. But equally one big problem our tax system has is that while the tax system is already progressive but the base is too narrow- as pointed out by lots of the same people. I’ve seen literally one person, BTL on The Guardian, pointing out that freezing the threshold makes the base broader, and in that respect it’s a good thing.

And giving in to backbenchers, or whatever, is surely no shame if it produces good policy. I don’t get why it’s being presented like that, which is a Badenoch line. It’s not like she called and lost a referendum on EU membership or anything.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Well, yes. Probably so, especially since Powell is no longer in the cabinet, so not bound by the principle of collective responsibility. But other ministers are, so TWA’s confident assertion can only be based on Chinese whispers.

It wasn't a particularly confident assertion he made really, and it was a fairly logical inference from the stance of Powell alone.

And anyway, does it matter when we do it on this board? I'd say it doesn't. The frustration with this stuff for me is when stuff like this actually leads the news. As lots of stuff about the budget that turned out to be rubbish did- which if it ever existed at all was most likely as an option modeled on a spreadsheet among other options. Of course, sometimes it's the government leaking, so we shouldn't be too pious. But the media feels increasingly out of control. Reeves is now copping it for misleading the media about the black hole, which they all told us was definitely there and growing massively.

For some reason I keep coming back to James Ball, who is good overall, and from whom I often learn things, but I think he's a a good example of where we are. He was (properly confidently) telling us a while ago that Reeves' fiscal headroom was all gone. She's put up taxes by £26bn and got £22bn of headroom. She had about £10bn headroom in the last budget. So did that headroom go and come back?

[The Weeping Angel]

Also, her Uncle has attacked the budget.



I don't recall George Osborne's relatives being questioned about his budgets.

[kreuzberger]

This Murdoch-financed slop has no place on this site, surely, unless we create a thread entitled "Murdoch-financed slop".

[Abernathy]

it was a fairly logical inference from the stance of Powell alone.

Really? Fairly logical? To assert that cabinet ministers bound by collective responsibility are espousing the same views privately on an aspect of policy as a woman (albeit the elected deputy party leader) doing so publicly who is bound by no such thing?

Doesn’t seem logical to me. More of a leap of faith, or a baseless speculation.

No doubt there may have been some ministers uneasy at the pragmatic compromise that was arrived at, but no more than that. I’d suggest that a majority of ministers would have been comfortably on board with it.

[The Weeping Angel]

I imagine cabinet ministers say all sorts of things in private that they don't say in public. I don't see why you and Malcolm are acting so affronted at what I said.

[mattomac]

Also, her Uncle has attacked the budget.



I don't recall George Osborne's relatives being questioned about his budgets.

If Rachel according to these tabloid wonks was a nobody at the Bank of England then her Uncle is?

[mattomac]

Congratulations, everyone! Starmer survives another week, and it’s only cost us £26bn
Marina Hyde

I know this is political sketch stuff, but satire is supposed to come from some sort of principle. What's the principle here? That raising tax to do nice things like decarbonization and poverty relief is bad? And that Starmer's about to resign?

This is Westminster Village satire.

Us? Its costing me on 30k a year nothing. Maybe 92p on a pint if I drank one a week (I don't). Maybe that's the problem here, the media speaking for "us" are actually speaking for themselves.

It's probably why the BBC news struggled to find voxpop's that were really angry about it, perhaps they should have sort Air BnB particpants, farmers and Rachel Reeves Uncle.

All year we've heard of her having to do something drastic like raise Income tax, what she has done is balanced it on those with the broadest shoulders, a pledge Labour have always stated. 22bn headroom is positive and generally there is a lot in that budget I would praise.

A government needed a budget that seemed fair with all the issues it faces and it did, going big because the media would moan anyhow is no reason to do so, they aren't doing this for the media. They are trying,as a Labour government should, to help the poorest while creating room to go big.

Swing big here and you'd soon be out of the league.

Also this pissed on their chips even further - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn0g0xnr7klt

[Andy McDandy]

My uncle Vernon was a pig ignorant twat who couldn't get over the fact his sister (my mum) got the fuck out of rural Wales and made something of herself.

I met him at my grandfather's funeral. He tried to cut mum out of discussion about his estate. Ignoring the fact that my grandfather had appointed my mum as executor. Because she knew about that stuff. And wasn't a fucking thug lorry driver from Llareggub.

On that basis, Uncle Reeves can fuck off.