User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#99600
Yeah, old Zack, doing the hard yards on tax and spend.

What happened to "Dodgy Reeves trying to weasel her way out of removing the two child cap in full"?

Which we might of course still get. But perhaps we'd be better if everyone waited. I can't remember budgets in the old days being like this.
By davidjay
#99627
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Mon Nov 10, 2025 8:47 pm Yeah, old Zack, doing the hard yards on tax and spend.

What happened to "Dodgy Reeves trying to weasel her way out of removing the two child cap in full"?

Which we might of course still get. But perhaps we'd be better if everyone waited. I can't remember budgets in the old days being like this.
Chancellors used to resign if so much as a sniff of a rumour got out.
Oboogie, Boiler liked this
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#99637
The Speaker tells the Government off for that every year, but there's nothing he can do about it. The Government gets it in the neck on everything and understandably wants to get its message out.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#99642
Some bad employment figures. Hopefully his will work itself out but the Government have made big changes. Martin Wolf wrote a column this week suggesting that Labour had chucked out some of the New Labour stuff that worked eg on the labour market. (As an aside, he fell for all the Gove education stuff, which I suppose isn't surprising seeing his daughter was so involved in it, but a bit depressing all the same).

I guess we'll see.
The Weeping Angel liked this
User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#99643
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Tue Nov 11, 2025 10:30 am Some bad employment figures. Hopefully his will work itself out but the Government have made big changes. Martin Wolf wrote a column this week suggesting that Labour had chucked out some of the New Labour stuff that worked eg on the labour market. (As an aside, he fell for all the Gove education stuff, which I suppose isn't surprising seeing his daughter was so involved in it, but a bit depressing all the same).

I guess we'll see.
I saw Stephen Bush bigging that up on Bluesky.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#99644
The Martin Wolf column? I see that Wolf thinks there should have been much more social house building, which makes sense as an anti-poverty measure instead and I expect he strongly supports tax credits, alongside his Brown-Sunak labour market.

Virtually nobody sticks up for this system, because it seems to go against "common sense". Why not raise the minimum wage a lot, so less tax credits, and you're not subsidizing terrible employers paying poverty wages? The trouble with seeing it wages in terms of good and bad employers is that wages depend a lot on how much money is in the local economy. Same problem as seeing rents in terms of predatory and non-predatory landlords. It's surely implausible that London has the best employers and the worst landlords, and eg Neath has the worst employers and the best landlords, seeing that we'll be talking about some of the same people in each place.

I think it's good that the limits of the Brown-Sunak labour market are being acknowledged by the government, because they were shit for lots of people at the sharp end. But it is possible that New Labour's approach was based on what they thought worked best for employment and wages together, rather than just being a moral failure. I hope the employment figures improve.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#99661
Spot the outright lie here. Plus the very questionable assertion that someone thought "hey, let's put this Enoch Powell echo in, that'll work".

The idea that racists require permission from the government is obvious bollocks too. Does he think it would all go away if the government did exactly what he wants?

User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#99662
Spot the outright lie here. Plus the very questionable assertion that someone thought "hey, let's put this Enoch Powell echo in, that'll work".

The idea that racists require permission from the government is obvious bollocks too. Does he think it would all go away if the government did exactly what he wants?

The Weeping Angel liked this
By mattomac
#99666
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Tue Nov 11, 2025 11:17 am The Martin Wolf column? I see that Wolf thinks there should have been much more social house building, which makes sense as an anti-poverty measure instead and I expect he strongly supports tax credits, alongside his Brown-Sunak labour market.

Virtually nobody sticks up for this system, because it seems to go against "common sense". Why not raise the minimum wage a lot, so less tax credits, and you're not subsidizing terrible employers paying poverty wages? The trouble with seeing it wages in terms of good and bad employers is that wages depend a lot on how much money is in the local economy. Same problem as seeing rents in terms of predatory and non-predatory landlords. It's surely implausible that London has the best employers and the worst landlords, and eg Neath has the worst employers and the best landlords, seeing that we'll be talking about some of the same people in each place.

I think it's good that the limits of the Brown-Sunak labour market are being acknowledged by the government, because they were shit for lots of people at the sharp end. But it is possible that New Labour's approach was based on what they thought worked best for employment and wages together, rather than just being a moral failure. I hope the employment figures improve.
They've spent the past year moaning about the last modest rise in the Minimum wage.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#99669
If it's not that, they're moaning about the cost of tax credits to top up these lower wages. See also "we need infrastructure but don't put up our taxes".

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out though. Maybe the employers' NI rise (which again has a "common sense' justification, especially at low wage levels) was too much.
mattomac liked this
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#99687
Oh god. Please no.
McFadden says decision not to pay compensation of up to £10.5bn to Waspi women being reconsidered
This figure is bullshit, cooked up by an obscure functionary.
User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#99702
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Tue Nov 11, 2025 1:51 pm Spot the outright lie here. Plus the very questionable assertion that someone thought "hey, let's put this Enoch Powell echo in, that'll work".

The idea that racists require permission from the government is obvious bollocks too. Does he think it would all go away if the government did exactly what he wants?

https://bsky.app/profile/paulbernal.bsk ... eb7dymtc2w
I find it odd, people on Bluesky complain that Starmer won't call out racism and when he does, they slam him for being a racist.
Oboogie liked this
By mattomac
#99707
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Tue Nov 11, 2025 5:37 pm Oh god. Please no.
McFadden says decision not to pay compensation of up to £10.5bn to Waspi women being reconsidered
This figure is bullshit, cooked up by an obscure functionary.
Imagine raising taxes to pay for that?
User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#99713
Kowtowing to Trump latest.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/11/poli ... sharing-us
The United Kingdom is no longer sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in US military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

The UK’s decision marks a significant break from its closest ally and intelligence sharing partner and underscores the growing skepticism over the legality of the US military’s campaign around Latin America.

For years, the UK, which controls a number of territories in the Caribbean where it bases intelligence assets, has helped the US locate vessels suspected of carrying drugs so that the US Coast Guard could interdict them, the sources said. That meant the ships would be stopped, boarded, its crew detained, and drugs seized.

The intelligence was typically sent to Joint Interagency Task Force South, a task force stationed in Florida that includes representatives from a number of partner nations and works to reduce the illicit drug trade.
By Oboogie
#99715
That's because Starmer hates borders and doesn't think the US should defend theirs either!

(I think that was Robert Jenrick's comment, but it could have been Farage or Robinson).
  • 1
  • 205
  • 206
  • 207
  • 208
  • 209

To be fair it is a bit confusing at times. Neve[…]

Labour Government 2024 - ?

That's because Starmer hates borders and does[…]

Keir Starmer

Someone's having a breakdown. https://bsky.a[…]

The BBC

Other media outlets can be as gleeful as they li[…]