Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Not the first incident since his appointment where it looks unsure if Mandelson understands the role of a diplomat. He didn't gob off beyond his remit as an EU commissioner.

The diligent Euro Commissioner (and indeed Business Secretary) is a long time ago. What's he done since then? Like Cameron, I only hear about him when he's on the make.

I get that he's probably good at insinuating himself with Trump, but professional diplomats know how to do that too. Get one of them in.

All distraction from another good policy announced, on sick pay for the poorest workers.

People talk about the "something for nothing" society, but the other day, somebody turned it round and said maybe the problem is the "nothing for something" element. You pay NI (I know it's just a tax really, but it's not how people understand it) or indeed income tax, then you lose your job or get sick and you only get the bare minimum back. Occasionally, somebody talks about contributory welfare but it always falls down because it's too expensive. Maybe this is the way to go on it.

For those who don't know what Mandelson has said, here's the Guardian's report.

"Peter Mandelson has been rebuffed for saying Volodymyr Zelenskyy should be more supportive of US peace efforts and that Ukraine should unilaterally call a ceasefire, with a UK defence minister saying this was “not government policy”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... y-minister

Good. He's beyond his remit. Good the government have slapped him down quickly.

Yes. What he has said is emphatically not what an ambassador should be pronouncing on.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:17 pm All distraction from another good policy announced, on sick pay for the poorest workers.

People talk about the "something for nothing" society, but the other day, somebody turned it round and said maybe the problem is the "nothing for something" element. You pay NI (I know it's just a tax really, but it's not how people understand it) or indeed income tax, then you lose your job or get sick and you only get the bare minimum back. Occasionally, somebody talks about contributory welfare but it always falls down because it's too expensive. Maybe this is the way to go on it.

Another good policy announced today was a ban on leaseholders.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgezyz31jlo

New leasehold flats in England and Wales are set to be banned under the latest government plans to reform home ownership.

Under the current leasehold system, third-party landlords known as freeholders own the building and a leaseholder buys the right to occupy a flat within it for a fixed time period.

The government says it wants to move to a system of home ownership that is more in line with the rest of the world, known as commonhold, where homeowners own a share of and have control over buildings they live in.

Freeholders say leasehold is the "most effective way of managing large complex apartment buildings".

The government has yet to set out specific plans for the conversion of current leasehold properties to commonhold, but says it is "determined" to make this easier.

A white paper published on Monday, external stated the sale of new leasehold flats would be banned and commonhold "reinvigorated" with a new legal framework.

A draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill - including the detail of how the new system would work - will be published later this year, the government has said.

I like Jessica Elgot, but she's basically saying "if you read the Guardian" here. Who seem to frame everything good Labour does as some sort of cowardly climbdown,

Gaby Hinsliff was complaining that Labour weren't promoting the bill in the right way.

Oh shit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1lpjqg2mp5o

The chancellor has earmarked several billion pounds in draft spending cuts to welfare and other government departments ahead of the Spring Statement.

The Treasury will put the proposed cuts to the government's official forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), on Wednesday amid expectations the chancellor's financial buffer has been wiped out.

Sources said "the world has changed" since Rachel Reeves's Budget last October, when the OBR indicated she had £9.9bn available to spend against her self-imposed borrowing rules.

The OBR's forecast is likely to see that disappear because of global factors such as trade tariffs, as well as higher inflation and borrowing costs in the UK.

The Treasury will on Wednesday inform the OBR of its "major measures" -essentially changes to tax and spending in order to meet the chancellor's self-imposed rules on borrowing money.

Yeah, bad. The world has changed, do some tax rises, or let the fiscal rule slip a bit.

They can make savings to social security in the longer term- Kendall actually has some reasonable ideas.

Do you think they'll raise taxes? Look at the reaction to IHT for Farmer Palmer and co.

Might be a few more things they can do. Betting got off reasonably lightly before, maybe a bit more. The trouble with things like that is the opposition parties say "they've raised 50 taxes", even if they're all pretty minor. I think would be better to break the income tax promise- the world has changed.

Are there any assets left for those who don't have any to buy?
If you don't have IHT, they'll eventually be nothing for the 99 percent to aspire to own.

Hopefully. Although this doesn't look promising.

https://labourlist.org/2025/03/windfall ... ants-2030/

What really annoys me is that arseholes like Ell Folan he of Stats for Lefies fame will say this is austerity and Labour are laying the ground for Reform in between being terrified he'll be conscripted by Starmer.

"Austerity" to lots of people means something they like being cut, or even not rising by as much as they want. It ought to refer to the overall fiscal position.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 8:19 pm Might be a few more things they can do. Betting got off reasonably lightly before, maybe a bit more. The trouble with things like that is the opposition parties say "they've raised 50 taxes", even if they're all pretty minor. I think would be better to break the income tax promise- the world has changed.

When I went to work for the govmunt the first thing I learned was the phrase 'that was then, this is now'...

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 9:06 pm "Austerity" to lots of people means something they like being cut, or even not rising by as much as they want. It ought to refer to the overall fiscal position.

You'd have thought with all the extra spending they'd done it would count for something.

We're getting near the tipping point where those in the higher tax bands (includes me over the last couple of years) are going to be obliged to put their hands in their pockets. But this will only be possible if accompanied by a (largely symbolic in terms of revenue raised) super tax on the very rich.

Think it's hard to argue that the 40p rate is undertaxed, certainly at the bottom end. What you've got to do really is change the basic rate or personal allowance in some way. Combine with something on highest earners too, as you say.