Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Why the rest of the country carried on with absurd deregulation after it was done away with in London is unclear. Whether a private or municipal firm run a regulated network is of less importance.

The Government (and successors) made them carry on with it Be interesting to see how many takers there are for better joined up services without extra subsidy. I've been a bit down on this, but I wonder now if cities could do a lot better than now and get into (not exactly a virtuous circle) a situation where an extra £x on council tax for buses is seen as a good deal by enough voters. Somebody like Andy Burnham, with profile and strong political marketing skills, could do very well.

…Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

Last time I saw Tim Walker, he was doing "truth" like this.

It was pointed out to him that Rupert Murdoch isn't a non dom, isn't British and doesn't like in Britain, but no interest in correcting.

Word for word, I make that 94.4% correct. That'll do for me.

Some tax revenue out there for Labour if they work hard.

Dan Neidle
‪@danneidle.bsky.social‬
The National Audit Office has just slammed HMRC for failing to get on top of small business evasion. We've estimated that this failure is costing the UK £15bn/year.

https://bsky.app/profile/danneidle.bsky ... pz3b7rjh2l

Been a big rise in the last few years (apparently starting with the pandemic, but stabilising at this new high level. The corresponding figures for large and mid-sized businesses have come down. Hard to see this as anything other than previous government taking its eyes off the ball.

Per Dan Neidle, HMRC did well on the tax gap overall till 2017. I recall Milliband and Balls in 2015 making rather a lot of getting more tax with more investment in HMRC, and they got very little traction. Wonder if that post 2017 deterioration would have continued if they'd won? One possibility Neidle mentions is that Brexit took a lot of important staff away from bread and butter stuff like this. So I reckon Labour probably would have done a fair bit better.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 8:03 pm Some tax revenue out there for Labour if they work hard.

Dan Neidle
‪@danneidle.bsky.social‬
The National Audit Office has just slammed HMRC for failing to get on top of small business evasion. We've estimated that this failure is costing the UK £15bn/year.

https://bsky.app/profile/danneidle.bsky ... pz3b7rjh2l

Been a big rise in the last few years (apparently starting with the pandemic, but stabilising at this new high level. The corresponding figures for large and mid-sized businesses have come down. Hard to see this as anything other than previous government taking its eyes off the ball.

The cost of staff salaries following recruitment of a specialised HMRC team to combat small business tax evasion would be a dot compared to the money they'd bring in so you'd hope Starmer will consider it.

AFTER ROBBING PENSIONERS, NOW LABOUR COMES AFTER SMALL BUSINESS, THE BACKBONE OF THE ECONOMY

It's quite an expansive definition of small business (turnover up to £10m, up to 20 employees) so we're talking about lots of bosses with kids at private school, who can well afford a proper bookkeeper and accountant.

But yeah, that is exactly what they would say.

Starmer suggests plan to impose cap on adult social care costs has not been shelved for good
Q: When will you introduce the cap on adult social care costs (shelved by Rachel Reeves in her statement in July)?

Starmer says the last government promised this, but Labour had to delay the plans because they were “undeliverable” within the time frame proposed by the Tories. The government is reviewing it. But he says this will be included in the 10-year plan. “But it’s got to be done properly,” he says.

This is the Dilnot Plan, as I understand it. Don't know it inside out, but it seems to be generally well regarded. Cost I've seen is £1bn a year. I think it would have been a good thing to do it more quickly than sounds like is the intention.

You could basically go here is your WFA cut now supporting social care cap.

To me that’s probably how it should have been delivered as instantly you are protecting the most vulnerable.

I think what they're doing here with the "black hole" is create a sense of a crisis that they don't want to go to waste, if that makes sense. This may not be a bad thing if it's used to bring in some sensible tax rises and relaitvely progressive cuts (as I see the WFA cut), plus shift the fiscal rule which is too tight. (There are other responses to it that I don't want to see).

I suppose if you immediately cut the WFA and do the care cap, then that political justification for the other tightening isn't there. No crisis for you not to let go to waste, so to speak.

Is there a £22bn black hole? Certainly, and much more that than that. But is it one that the incoming government didn't know about? Not really.

Yup, there was an additional shock which may have been unforeseen but I do think they hamstrung themselves a bit on the promise of freezing corporation tax.

As they could have waved it to get some more investment.

Sunak whacked up the headline rate of corporation tax, so wouldn't necessarily expect that to go higher. Some reliefs could go (which would increase the amount of Corporation Tax but not affect the headline rate). That's what most chancellors do, but it would likely be projected as some sort of new outrage.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 10:36 am AFTER ROBBING PENSIONERS, NOW LABOUR COMES AFTER SMALL BUSINESS, THE BACKBONE OF THE ECONOMY

Earning a few quid while claiming benefits - criminal scum, lock them up.

Fiddling your tax - we all do it, no harm done.

It's getting increasingly difficult for Labour's client journalists to defend this government. The latest scandal involves Starmer, his wife, and fellow cabinet ministers accepting freebies. Why? They rightly criticised the Conservatives in opposition for doing it, now they've been caught out in the media for doing exactly the same thing in power. Barely three months into government, there is a huge perception by both a majority of the public and political commentators, that those in charge of the Labour administration seem completely clueless about how to govern the country. Starmer has not only destroyed the Labour party, but he is also on track to destroying the country.

a huge perception by both a majority of the public and political commentators

Are these findings based on extensive field work from the University of I Reckon?

Such a huge perception that Labour would still win a big majority in an election tmrw.

Politicians have always accepted gifts and have been required to declare them. I can't remember anybody in Labour saying they wouldn't. They haven't been "caught out in the media", they declared the gifts. Or rather didn't then corrected the omission unprompted in the latest case. Amateurish admin, but not a scandal.

There's a certain symbolism with the clothes, I grant you, that's probably worth stopping in government because it sounds cheap. But the US President and First Lady get a federally funded clothing budget, and I'd guess that's not uncommon. Mrs Macron is loaned outfits by French high fashion companies. So it isn't a normal job as regards clothing, and that's recognised as such worldwide.

But "accepts VIP tickets" is a load of bollocks. It's good that the PM can unwind at football or a concert, and it's impossible to do it anywhere but the VIP area. I think it was Crabcakes who told a story of Jacqui Smith going to a concert, sitting in regular seats, and then security telling her they would have to turf a load of regular punters out.

"Lord Ali Downing Street pass" was also bollocks. He's a member of the House of Lords. As was "Starmer stuffs civil service with cronies". Owen Jones's own link pointed out that this was very common for governments for short term posts. All manner of people, some famous, have been drafted in as champions or promoters of various things the government wants publicised for a while, and they can do a great deal of good. Nobody in the past as far as I know has complained that eg Jamie Oliver be replaced by a regular civil servant.

Here's one month of PM Theresa May- it's the first thing that came up in my search. Can't she pay for her own handbags? (etc)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... sv/preview