Forum Topic

Reeves first budget

First well done Ms Reeves on presenting her budget she was clear and as our first female Chancellor it made me very proud of this country.  Well done Sunak on his response hopefully we haven’t seen the last of our first Asian Former PM.I didn’t agree with much of the excessive borrowing that will be passed down to our children’s children but what has infuriated me is the loss of IHT for family farms.  It will hit all apart from small holdings.  Where does Labour think we get our food from.  This is such a mistake as if energy is so precious surely food production is above it.  What do people think will happen with the farm land - it will be developed and sold off so no food production.There is also an illusion that employers live in a separate world.  In fact they will have to reduce staff, reduce pay rises or put up prices.  It is a tax on all of us.

Robert Wheeler ● 57d75 Comments

I totally disagree with the charge of inheritance tax on family owned farms worth above £1m.  They produce our food and we do rely on them doing so, it is a true need!I suspect, and this is me being cynical, that they believe farms will be sold and the government can build houses on that land....  I did say cynical!

Ivonne Holliday ● 50d

Reeves has tin ears and will not back down, but I hope the following tragic story will haunt her and Starmer for a very long time. Son of farmer who 'took his own life' says PM has 'blood on his hands'https://mol.im/a/14044319

Sue Hammond ● 50d

To get back to this country, Rachel Reeve’s decision to charge inheritance tax at 20% on family owned farms worth more than £1 million is both unfair and damaging. It is unfair because many farms which are valued at over £1 million actually produce a modest income for the farmers themselves. So the heirs will not have the money to pay death duties in excess of £200k and will be forced to sell. I don’t think any tax should be so severe as to force people to lose their homes and their livelihood. It is damaging because it will erode domestic food production, increasing reliance on more expensive food from overseas.There is clearly a case for exempting family owned farms from inheritance tax. But will Labour, obsessed with attacking ‘privilege’, actually listen?

Steven Rose ● 50d

"This sounds a bit socialist, Mr Robinson."Is it? Or is it just elementary maths?We can not afford to throw people on the crap heap like Thatcher and successive Thatcherite governments did.Of course the Labour & Conservative will deny that they did this but they did.Both parties have done untold damage to British workers & British working culture.

Ed Robinson ● 54d

@ Michael I.  You stated “ There are people on waiting list or being kicked out of hospitals who are dying, or suffering unnecessarily, so changes need to be made expeditiously.”  You can’t honestly expect anything rapid in an organisation like the NHS where the Government are only carrying out a consultation and do not have a clear plan. At what point are Labour going to realise that Reeves Increases in NI costs will impact its public services.  Any business must have a strategy with clear defined outcomes please point me to one in the NHS.  Your FD example had a very clear strategy for organic growth and acquisition.  Efficient and well controlled operations generate the retained earnings to underpin the business.  This Labour budget is very different it is tax and borrow without any clear defined outcomes which puts us all in peril and debt.It is pointless to witter on about 14 years of Conservative cuts to public services if you have spent 14 years in opposition and can’t hit the ground running in a clear defined direction.

Robert Wheeler ● 54d

As regards the  'value for money tsar', David Goldstone, it seems that he will be barred from scrutinizing the finances of HS2, which has seen one of the largest overspends among public infrastructure projects, because he sits on the Board of, yes, HS2. If you made this up, no one would believe you.

Steven Rose ● 54d

John. That's not entirely accurate. I did at one time work with a Finance Director who retained earnings so there were reserves to grow the company as opportunities became available. I would joke with the IT Director and FD that it was my IT infrastructure budget for ensuring capacity for new acquisitions. Ok, I didn't get it all but I used to get a significant slice based an a "guesstimate" of what capacity might be required over the coming year to support growth. But there were no clearly defined plans as acquisition opportunities had to be grasped as and when they became available. I guess that was risk taking, and maybe the NHS is different. But it wouldn't be unreasonable to set a pot of money aside - in the same way as my FD did with retained earnings - while a review takes place and the money is quickly available to fix the mess from the previous 14 years once a plan has been established. There are people on waiting list or being kicked out of hospitals who are dying, or suffering unnecessarily, so changes need to be made expeditiously. Of course my FD did have to justify to auditors at the end of the financial year that it had been in shareholders' interest to retain their funds and they'd be spent wisely in the growth of assets and corresponding increase in revenue and profits. 

Michael Ixer ● 54d

'And as regards the NHS, whrre is the plan to ensure that the money raised will result in better outcomes for the patients ?'The NHS budget was £182 billion in 22/23 and will be £192 billion in 24/25.In the private sector no funds would be given unless their use was clearly defined and a quantitative measurable performance and delivery plan were produced.Has anyone seen such a thing regarding the NHS ?

John Hawkes ● 54d

'That's what you get when you elect a bunch of chippy ideologues with no experience of running a business'.And also believes in its heart of hearts that the vast majority of economic and social policies should be defined and delivered by the state.

John Hawkes ● 54d

Unfortunately Labour has no practical policies for creating a prosperous society. It is a party based on the dogma that state enterprise, which exists to promote the common good  is more virtuous than private enterprise, which is motivated by greed. Rachel Reeve's budget, which  taxes private employers on order to pour billions into an unreformed NHS, amply demonstrates this creed. But little thought has gone into the effect of the rise  NI on the employees of these enterprises in terms of lower wages and job losses. And as regards the NHS, whrre is the plan to ensure that the money raised will result in better outcomes for the patients?

Steven Rose ● 54d

This sounds a bit socialist, Mr Robinson.

David Ainsworth ● 54d

It seems the government wants to tax those that work more, rather than having more people working and paying taxes.Employment taxes are the opposite of what we should be going. Work will be less inclusive and competition for vacancies more fierce. We want employers to take more chances with the long term unemployed, the graduate that struggling to find their first job older candidates and those with disabilities.Employers will also be mindful that this may be just the first of many future increases of employment tax.

Ed Robinson ● 54d

Another major cock-up is that hundreds of GP practices and care homes could be forced to close because of the budget. This could also “fatally undermine” NHS waiting lists according to The Times.Was any of this budget thought through for real people not some political dogma.  They need to rapidly stop the virtual signalling and align themselves with the whole of the country, because that is who they are responsible for.

Robert Wheeler ● 54d

That's what you get when you elect a bunch of chippy ideologues with no experience of running a business.

Steven Rose ● 55d

The National Insurance hike could cost the charity sector £1.4bn a year NCVO warns.  (Source NCVO).  Whatever you donate to any charity is going to be eroded by sheer Government incompetence.Well done Rachel, farmers, education and now charities.

Robert Wheeler ● 55d

The Chancellor has appointed David Goldstone to head up a new Civil Service department called the Office for Value for Money (OfVM).https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1lgpejq85poHis salary will be £950 for an average of one day a week's work.This results in an annual salary of about £50,000 per annum or £250,000 were he to work full time.He has a chequered CV being involved in the construction of HS2, the 2012 Olympics infra structure and the restoration of the HoC all of which are or went way over budget.Who will be checking if he is 'value for money' ?As Yosser Hughes might have said - "Gizza job. I can do that".

John Hawkes ● 55d

"But she must have a cold heart."She has. She keeps it in the fridge. But whose is it?

David Ainsworth ● 55d

I'm really sick of seeing Rachel Reeves smiling face on everything. But she must have a cold heart.

Barbara Stevens ● 55d

When a pint of draught beer retails at up to £7 a pint theres hardly made celebration on this daft concession. It will be swallowed up by the imposed increase in minimum wage, business rates and employers nat insurance. So the increase in a pint might just be 9p.

Andy Pike ● 55d

All those people rushing out panicking to buy booze must feel a bit silly now that Reeves has knocked a penny off draught beer!Oops sorry thought it was 1924 for a moment, carry on panicking!

Ed Robinson ● 56d

"Current NI contributions go into a pot.."But it doesn't have to be this way.Just because we have been doing things wrong for so many years does not mean we should continue to do so.They along with employers contributions could go into a secured wealth retirement fund.Unfortunately Parliamentary Sovereignty and other quirks of the UK means such a change is unlikely and can be unchanged anytime the blue/red Tories change their government.No surprise that the overseas fund is actually being used by the UK for inland costs of those seeking asylum.We need to look at best practice internationally. The days of the UK being best practice are almost a century ago!

Ed Robinson ● 56d

But they are gonna bust the gangs, just like Khan did in London....oh no wait that didnt work either.

Andy Pike ● 56d

Sue, I guess that the daily expenditure on migration adds up to £6 billion per year. I don't know how this figure is made up but at least £2 billion comes from the £8 million per day which it costs to house migrants in hotels. Anyway there is no point in quibbling over the numbers. We can all agree that it's a lot of money. And Labour have no plan to deal with the problem.

Steven Rose ● 56d

I copied this from a Government paper relating to the budget and was published in August. I assumed it was per day because it don't seem high enough for a year considering how many have come here, but maybe it is.🤷🏻‍♀️'One of the largest pressures was for costs relating to asylum and illegal migration, with an estimated £6.4 billion of pressures on day-to-day spending in 2024–25.'29 Aug 2024

Sue Hammond ● 56d

"£6.4 billion a DAY" So multiply by 365 and:-That would be two trillion three hundred and thirty-six billion per year, apparently."on housing refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants."

David Ainsworth ● 56d

"Probably a substantial chunk of tax-payers' hard earned money to the Home Office that currently spends £6.4 billion a DAY on housing refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.""£6.4 billion a DAY"A source for this, please, Ms Hammond.

David Ainsworth ● 56d

Now that the budget dust is settling the markets are taking an adverse view.  (Source today’s FT).  Commentators seem to be united in the view that this is not a budget for growth and clearly will damage jobs.Cartoons are going around showing Reeves as a pumpkin to rival Truss as a lettuce.  Hopefully this is not a nightmare on Downing Street it was all choices.

Robert Wheeler ● 56d

How many are using our NHS that haven't paid for it.

Barbara Stevens ● 56d

'Whatever the Chancellor decides to spend the money on e.g. paying the train drivers up to £70k pa.'Probably a substantial chunk of tax-payers' hard earned money to the Home Office that currently spends £6.4 billion a DAY on housing refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. These people are all entitled to free NHS medical and dental care, and depending on their status £49.18 pw spending money.  Not a word was said about these immigration expenditures, so is there an open 'cheque book' for the Home Office?  Labour's pre-election pledge to 'stop the boats by smashing the criminal gangs' seems to have been dropped, not surprising really since over 30,000 boats have already arrived this year, and they are just the ones we know about. The number of boats this year has already eclipsed the entire total for 2023. Uncontrolled immigration is costing the country hundreds of £billions each year and obviously must be considered when planning the Budget so why aren't we told what the figures are?

Sue Hammond ● 56d

One may have to pay CGT on other assets; from on-line government cgt guidance:"Possessions you may need to pay tax on include:jewellery
paintings
antiques
coins and stamps
sets of things, eg matching vases or chessmen"Properties that are your primary residence and cars that aren't a business asset are excluded from CGT (I'm not sure about car collections).I think it would be a brave government that introduced CGT on properties that are primary residences; didn't Mr Johnson give up his US citizenship to avoid US CGT when he sold his primary residence?

Michael Ixer ● 56d

and yawn to 'i paid my taxes', totally agree but house prices have skyrocketed since you bought in the 70's and you  did nothing to deserve it, lets have some of some of that unearned income back!I assume you are advocating for a capital gains tax on the sale of a person's home.Perhaps not unreasonable; it could also apply to other goods that appreciate due to supply and demand.From the tone of your comment, you are probably too young or cannot afford to buy your own home.For many of us buying a house in the '70s and '80s was not that easy however.To gain a mortgage one needed perhaps to save with that Building Society, then place a with them a deposit representing a not insignificant proportion of the house sale price.Mortgages were rationed.It was only when the market for mortgages expanded with banks and other institutions offering them quite liberally that demand for home ownership began to exceed supply with consequential rises in prices.Plus the fact that house building did not keep up with this demand; a problem the Labour Government has promised to reverse.And a house is the most reliable and concrete (sic) asset one can own and a good potential source of revenue.Even more so now as increased immigration necessitates increased dwellings - owned or rented.

John Hawkes ● 56d

'You've been living it large for 15 years with your triple lock, suck it up buttercup'.I doubt that when you grow up (sorry reach the age when you qualify) you will turn down your entitlement !

John Hawkes ● 56d

'Since I retired I have been taxed on my pensions so who/what is that money being taken for'?'Whatever the Chancellor decides to spend the money on e.g. paying the train drivers up to £70k pa'.And to pay Unemployment Benefit to some 2.3 million people aged 25-64 who claim they are too sick to work.The number claiming to have 'mental health issues' I cannot find.No wonder the NHS claims to need more money !Re the increase in NHS funding I wonder if the Chancellor and Health Secretary have told this institution to define how the money will be spent and what measurements will be in place to assess its effectiveness.A good private sector approach.

John Hawkes ● 56d

Yes Ivonne, I saw the clip about women and how they were meant to treat their husbands. I only stopped working for 18 months when I had my son. I also got divorced. Lucky to have a mum nearby. Also the lovely little Lacy Road nursery back in the day, my son loved it there. Also St. Mary's Primary School. But I will never feel guilty as I worked for years and I deserve my Pension. Like a lot on here I was a worker, if I got bored I would do another job in the evening for a while as well.

Barbara Stevens ● 56d

David, yes, the billionaires scuttling off abroad probably developed the AI products. I hear Charlie Mullins, of Pimlico Plumbers, has left the UK for Spain and Dubai. I'm surprised someone would want to spend time in Dubai given the disparaging comments about middle eastern states made by some on other threads ...

Michael Ixer ● 56d

Many pensioners volunteer to assist charities; are they therefore "working people" as well?

Michael Ixer ● 56d

Hello Barbara,I think that is a double-edged sword.  Yes, many women did not pay full contributions because they were working at home, keeping a home, and that did not qualify to pay contributions.  My mother hated this!  She had to give up two careers for her family....Many had to rely on husbands because that is how society was organized.  Did you ever see that paper clip of the 40s or 50s that said women had to ensure their husbands were happy, to keep the home very clean and tidy for him, give a final dusting of the home before he arrived from work, to make sure the children were dressed nicely, behaved nicely and made no noise when he arrived, that supper always had to be ready on time and it had to be a meal he would enjoy, that she never ever had to discuss her problems with her husband as they were nothing on comparisson to his?After that, the 60s arrived and changed loads of things. But do you remember the realities of the 80s and 90s, when women were going out to work to pay for the mortgage and child care?  And how heartless these women were considered to be for not looking after the home and children?

Ivonne Holliday ● 56d

So am I Sue.

Barbara Stevens ● 56d

Whatever the Chancellor decides to spend the money on e.g. paying the train drivers up to £70k pa.

Steven Rose ● 56d

Agreed

Jane Carter ● 56d

Current NI contributions go into a pot which pays for the pensions of those who are now retired as well as financing other state expenditure. So effectively, but not literally, the working population through their contributions are financing the pensions of the previous generation. When these current workers retire, what they receive will depend on what they have contributed, but the actual money to finance their pensions will come, not from them, but from their children’s generation.

Steven Rose ● 56d

Since I retired I have been taxed on my pensions so who/what is that money being taken for?

Sue Hammond ● 56d

Hello Michael Brigo,You are being particularly difficult this morning, if not disagreable.You may be aware that the State Pension was introduced in 1909.  In 1942 the Beveridge Report – Social Insurance and Allied Services – proposed a universal state pension to provide a safety net against poverty in old age. Subsequently, The National Insurance Act 1946 introduced the Basic State Pension, with effect from 1948. It was funded by National Insurance contributions paid by all workers, although initially married women were excluded. The State Pension Age was 60 years for women and 65 years for men. https://www.charles-stanley.co.uk/insights/commentary/history-of-the-state-pension#:~:text=Subsequently%2C%20The%20National%20Insurance%20Act,and%2065%20years%20for%20men.As you see, pensioners are not spongers as you say.  That is how the system was set up in 1948 (before I was born) and continuous till today.  So, my parents paid for my grand parents pension, my contributions paid for may parents pensions, etc.  So, house prices skyrocketed in the 70s and there were serious recessions since the 1980s and many people were in negative equity - just child's play in your view.  So, people who bought properties in the 70s did nothing to deserve the increases in value?  Do you think mortgages were always cheap?  Do you have visions of people who bought properties in the 70s just sat back and scratched their tums till now?  Or are you implying that all the "paper income" (meaning you got nothing unless you sold the property) should be given to you who did nothing since the 70s and, in your view, deserve such a windfall for nothing?  Offensive?  Learn to get as good as you give!

Ivonne Holliday ● 56d

"perhaps that's why immigration is needed if AI and other robotics and automation doesn’t provide the answer the wealth generation?"But what is the point in generating wealth if most of the wealthy billionaires scuttle off abroad to avoid paying taxes?

David Ainsworth ● 56d

You yourself stated that’ The money that people pay in National Insurance contributions is actually used to pay for the state pensions of those who have already retired’.

Jane Carter ● 56d

Isn’t that how government finance works, the current generation pays for the debts the past ones? We only finished paying for the bank loan that compensated slave owners for the abolishment of slavery in 2015. As someone from the Windrush generation noted, they didn’t realise their taxes were paying for compensating slave owners before the last government tried to deport their relatives! Perhaps better to spend on fixing the NHS, prisons, transport infrastructure, clean energy, etc than compensating slave owners?A bigger problem could be the falling birth rate if their are insufficient numbers of the new generation to pay for pensions and debt; perhaps that's why immigration is needed if AI and other robotics and automation doesn’t provide the answer the wealth generation?

Michael Ixer ● 56d

Robert is right when he says that the money from NI contributions isn’t especially allocated to finance current state pensions. Nevertheless it goes into a pot which finances all state expenditure, including pension payments to those who are now retired. But to return to the Budget, Rachel Reeves’ justification for breaking election pledges is the ‘£22 billion black hole’ she discovered on taking office, confirmed, she said, by the OBR. It now appears that the OBR only claim that there was a shortfall of £9 billion. So the rest of the £22 billion is money which Labour has chosen to spend in contradiction to Keir Starmer’s assurance before the election that Labour would not be a tax and spend government.Nevertheless the claim that the Conservatives concealed £9 billion of spending commitments from the OBR before the April Budget is a serious charge. I have no idea whether this accusation is true or not. Jeremy Hunt has denied it.  But I would make two observations. One is that if concealment took place it could not just be Jeremy Hunt who was responsible. It is not as if Jeremy Hunt had secret papers locked in his desk. Government doesn’t work like that. There must have been a conspiracy involving Treasury officials hiding information from the OBR. Is this possible? It is also surprising that the OBR did not invite Jeremy Hunt to respond to the claims of concealment, or even show him a draft of what they were going to say, before publishing their report. That is surely contrary to normal practice and seems very unfair.

Steven Rose ● 56d

Also after hearing from relations, a lot of women never paid full contributions. Then wondered why they never got a full pension and had to rely on their husbands.

Barbara Stevens ● 56d

And their children will therefore pay for theirs. It's a cyclical thing. More worrying is the spiralling cost of the NHS and interest on the national debt ( increasing after yesterday) . The interest will be double the cost of pensions according to forecasts.No sign of any  effeciency savings in the £22 billion given to the NHS.no sig  of any efficiency savings in the public sector and railway pay awards.

Andy Pike ● 56d

I never said this wasn’t the case. My point was that as NI contributions pay for the pensions of their parents’ generation not their children’s, then Emma and Michael are correct in that they are paying for ours.

Jane Carter ● 56d

Also, years ago I worked office in the week and hospital at the weekend. So the harder you worked I got double taxed on my weekend job. That isn't right.

Barbara Stevens ● 56d

Incorrect Jane.  Our Government finance system does not allocate income from a source to relevant expenditure eg cash raised from motorists is not all spent on the roads.Ultimately we need growth to pay for jobs and public services and this budget does neither.

Robert Wheeler ● 56d

Well, Private Pensions offer a part of your Pension when you retire say £15000. But don't take it you get more on your Pension. The same with the Government Pension offer say £7000, don't take it.  You can also defer your Pension if you wish for a couple of years and keep working. You get more when you do take your Pension. Also if a woman got divorced, or wasn't married long you can claim a bit off your ex husbands pension. for the years you were married. Also check, all the Companies you worked for actually paid what they were meant too.

Barbara Stevens ● 56d

The money that people pay in National Insurance contributions is actually used to pay for the state pensions of those who have already retiredExactly - so Emma  and Michael Brigo are correct whilst Sue and Robert seem to ‘ have misunderstood the system’.

Jane Carter ● 56d

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19Jqft8CYL/?mibextid=UalRPS

Sue Hammond ● 56d

During their working lives those now in receipt of a pension paid through their contributions for the pensions of their parents’ generation. Every generation pays to maintain the previous one in their old age. To say that there is no money left shows little understanding of the problem. It is not that current pensioners have used up all the money. It is that future generations of pensioners will be too numerous because of medical advances to make the system affordable.

Steven Rose ● 56d

UK pensions are not at all generous when compared to other European countries.It is a failure of UK governments that there is no state pension pot. Governments that both young and old voted for!https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00290/SN00290.pdf

Ed Robinson ● 56d

@ MB“Generous pension” could you live on £221.20 per week.  Get a grip man.

Robert Wheeler ● 56d

"So Sue and Ed are surely right when they suggest that the current working population may find when they retire that there is no longer a state pension, or not one they can live on, so they need to start saving now for their old age."Exactly my point. The current oldies get to live off the generous pensions paid for by us youngsters but there will be nothing left when we retire.and yawn to 'i paid my taxes', totally agree but house prices have skyrocketed since you bought in the 70's and you  did nothing to deserve it, lets have some of some of that unearned income back!

Michael Brigo ● 56d

The money that people pay in National Insurance contributions is actually used to pay for the state pensions of those who have already retired. But with a rapidly ageing population these contributions may soon be insufficient to sustain millions of pensioners living for twenty or thirty years beyond retirement age. So Sue and Ed are surely right when they suggest that the current working population may find when they retire that there is no longer a state pension, or not one they can live on, so they need to start saving now for their old age.

Steven Rose ● 56d

"Labour lied".Both Mr Pike and myself (to name but one improbable pairing) were warning about Starmer's truthfulness problem for quite a time. It should be no surprise.To quote myself from 18 months ago:-"Keir Starmer: "The Labour Party has always been a broad church, and I want it to be a broad church. That's one of our very great strengths"Also Keir Starmer:-"If you don't like the changes that we've made, I say the door is open and you can leave," says Keir Starmer---------------------------------[Starmer 2020] said after becoming leader: “I want to pay tribute to Jeremy Corbyn, who led our party through some really difficult times, who energised our movement and who’s a friend as well as a colleague.”Also Keir Starmer (2023):-"Pressed about whether Mr Corbyn was ever a friend, Sir Keir said: “No, not in the sense that we went to visit each other or anything like that. I worked with him as a colleague.“As I say, I haven’t spoken to him now for two-and-a-half years.”"------------------------------"“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”"Mind you, Starmer is a paragon, compared to the returning Trump.

David Ainsworth ● 56d

Taxes not just income tax goes to pay for public services and public sector pensions.I think it is increasing likely that a vast majority of workers who are not going to retire in the next couple of years will never see the state pension. It is for these people basically a government run Ponzi scheme.Norway has a Sovereign Wealth fund but the UK fettered it's assets away over the last 45 years.

Ed Robinson ● 56d

Yes incorrect.  The individual has to make National Insurance contributions for a sufficient number of years and enough each year to qualify for the full pension of £221.20 per week.  If you haven’t worked enough years or made enough contributions in those years you will get even less from the state pension.Income tax from working people goes to pay for public services and public sector pensions.

Robert Wheeler ● 56d

Pretty certain it’s that the current working population pay taxes to pay the current state pension and not a future one, or have I got this wrong?

Emma Blackwell ● 57d

The extraordinary thing is that many of those who support the withdrawal of WFA  actually think of themselves as left wing.

Steven Rose ● 57d

@ MBSo Reeves has borrowed all this money and still not found any for the Winter Fuel Payments.  Says it all really about this Government.

Robert Wheeler ● 57d

@MBThe pathetic envy from Gen X is becoming a tedious cult mantra.🥱These jealous scroats need to amalgamate their single brain cells and try to understand that MY generation paid our taxes for 40+ years to pay for THEIR future state pension. Hopefully it will have been phased out when their time comes so you had all better start saving now, buttercup.

Sue Hammond ● 57d

The current full pension is £221.20 per week. Would you like to live on that?

Steven Rose ● 57d

"But SFA to pensioners!"You've been living it large for 15 years with your triple lock, suck it up buttercup.

Michael Brigo ● 57d

P.S. Forgot to say I thought Sunak was excellent!👍

Sue Hammond ● 57d

I was totally underwhelmed by Reeves and her high-taxation/high borrowing budget which does very little to help most of the 'working people' that Labour have been banging on about for 3 months, despite not knowing who that ambiguous group are. Hiking up employers' NIC's will be absorbed by large companies because they will pass the costs on to their customers i.e. us the customers, especially by service providers.  Conversely it will be the final nail in the coffin for many SME businesses who will also have to bear the burdens of Rayner's Employment Rights Bill. I have listened to many small business owners who have called LBC in the last few days and many said the increases to workers' rights has gone too far and the measures will not be sustainable and may even force them to close, and certainly not to expand. More shed-loads of money for the NHS to squander on inefficient working practices, overpriced procurement contracts and overpaid management - layer upon layer of so called Managers and having spent most of 2023 as an inpatient in two large very modern hospitals I witnessed this all the time. So what has Robotic Reeves given back to the 'working people'? A penny off a pint of beer, hurrah if that's your thing. But SFA to pensioners!

Sue Hammond ● 57d

Labour lied they said no increases for working people and Starmer and Reeves were both asked about tax increases before the election.  They have been totally disingenuous at best.  Public services need reform not more money thrown at it.In my opinion it is not a budget for growth as the OBRs own figures now show.  More consolations, reviews and very little action l think is what we will see on the ground.  Labour have just made our young people grab their laptops and work from another country with lower taxes.

Robert Wheeler ● 57d

I don’t think it’s as bad as I was expecting.  But am I correct that they will be throwing more money at the NHS, as I object to this.  They need to be telling us how the money is being spent at the moment, as I think some of it is wasted. I agree with Robert’s comment about IHT and farms.

Martine Guy ● 57d

You are very generous to Rachel Reeves, Robert, more generous, I fear, than she deserves. I am not in the least impressed by the fact that she is the first female Chancellor, a fact which she tediously chose to repeat at the beginning of her long speech. I don’t think Rishi Sunak ever mentioned that he was the first Asian to become Prime Minister when he was first appointed.  A mark of an emancipated society is that individuals can be appointed to high offices of state without need of mentioning their gender or heritage.I particularly disliked the way in which Rachel Reeves spent much of her speech attacking the Tories, failing to give any credit at all to her predecessors for helping the country to recover from the pandemic. This was clearly an attempt on her part to deflect criticism from the fact that she has broken Labour’s election pledges not to increase National Insurance or to vere from strict fiscal rules on borrowing, breaches of faith which she sought to blame on the ‘black hole’ left by the Tories.  She also undermined the political independence of the OBR by by claiming they were on her side in criticising the Tories, a move rightly denounced by Rishi Sunak in his excellent demolition of her speech.It was a  mega tax and spend  budget. Unfortunately increased taxation inhibits growth. And spending on public services is all very well providing the money is wisely spent. But the way doctors and train drivers were awarded inflationary pay settlements without being tied to increased productivity gives little confidence that Labour will make good use of all the money the Budget has raised. Furthermore the Budget depends on a number of hopeful, some would say fantasy. forecasts, such as the pledge to save £6 billion through measures to stop tax avoidance and evasion. Every government promises to clamp down on this but none has succeeded.

Steven Rose ● 57d

Unfortunately since Gordon Brown any congratulations is premature IMO as you have to wait for the small print. The devil is always in the detail.You won't get the speaker moaning about what's hidden either.

Ed Robinson ● 57d