[satnav]

Sky News have also been posting lots of negative stories about how the markets have reacted to the budget. One headline read 'Halloween Nightmare for Reeves' I'm guessing the headline was cobbled together weeks ago when journalists realised the budget was just before Halloween. They then ran with the headline even though the figures didn't fit their narrative.

[Andy McDandy]

Viz several years ago ran an article titled "Ronan the Barbarian" about a sub-editor desperate for the Boyzone lead singer to do something vaguely crazy or aggressive. Or just to wear a leather jacket.

[Youngian]

Won't someone think of the BTLers

[Bones McCoy]

We've heard a lot form the Budget's losers.

But it's good times for nano-violin makers.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Funny to think of all these modest progressive taxes that Brown and Milliband didn't bother with. I wonder if they'd have been better doing this than the 50p income tax rate. Headline tax rates don't tell you everything but they can certainly create an unhelpful impression to investors, hence Reeves has resisted raising income tax and corporation tax.

Sturgeon and Yousaf raised the top rate to 47p in Scotland, but not to 50p, and it doesn't seem to have done too much damage, though it didn't raise very much money (the 42p rate v 40p in England is much more of an earner, and I'd guess not very popular with people who pay it or get near it). Perhaps 47p would work in England where there are more top rate payers.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see that there was a tax rise on private equity, but not as much as it could have been. I think the extra tax is something like £300m a year, instead of £565m. Depending on your point of view, Reeves has either raised useful extra money of some rich people or given in to the no doubt formidable lobbying.

I think I'm more impressed than unimpressed on balance, and I'd hope that the amount can go at least a bit higher in future years. If this fairly substantial rise doesn't hit investment, you can always add a bit more.

[The Weeping Angel]

We've also got Reeves is going to cause loads of hospices to close down because of a rise in NI contributions and the minimum wage.

[Tubby Isaacs]

And apparently the same for GPs. Sure, it hasn't shifted the budget towards them, but I think that's too much to expect of a "stop everything falling over"budget. Care is more of a concern, and I would think money will end up coming out of the NHS budget, like before, albeit with a bit more spare.

[satnav]

I read the Sunday Times today which seemed to be jammed packed with utter bollox about the budget.

Jeremy Clarkson clearly has an issue with having a female chancellor. He wrote an article slagging her off and accusing her of being a Bolshevik with plenty of nonsense about the budget killing off the farming industry and then in the last paragraph concludes that measure in the budget will probably bring down the value of farming land so farmers will have nothing to worry about with capital gain tax.

There was another article about VAT on private school fees. The story was about a single mum who has two autistic children who are currently educated at a private school with the local authority picking up the tab. He complaint seems to be that the new system is unfair because she would like to send her daughter to the same school but she won't be able to afford to if VAT is added to the fees. She is launching a legal challenge using equality legislation claiming that the VAT rise impacts more on women because they get paid less than men. I really can't see that the case has got legs but their are clearly some Tory lawyers willing to give it ago.

This all seems a bit ironic given all the nonsense the Tories and the right wing media spouted about 'Lefty lawyers'.

[Tubby Isaacs]

There's also a case where Unite are challenging the restriction of the WFA. I've no idea what the grounds are- the combination of the triple lock rise and the WFA restriction doesn't seem to me like it crosses any sort of moral line, while the working age benefit cuts do.

Doubtless if this challenge succeeds, Unite's lawyers won't be bad lefties.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Won't someone think of the BTLers

I'm amazed that chap didn't see any political risk there. You could hardly get a more attractive tax to raise. Why would you pile in on four places before the budget?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Economic heavyweight, Kwasi Kwarteng, has been very visible on the budget. He thinks it's "Marxist". As opposed to, you know, trying to deliver about what he promised with the difference of raising some of the tax necessary to pay for it.

[Crabcakes]

I think Kwarteng’s cheerleaders have confused heavyweight with deadweight

[Tubby Isaacs]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -economics

Spectacular nonsense from David Egerton here. A very redistributive budget, with lots of extra borrowing is reheated Toryism, apparently.

Today, our aim should not be growth, but rather more equality

Fantastic. You first. Why should business invest? What about stuff like my old friends who export high value legal services? Good for growth, less so for inequality, So we should aim for more of them or not?

For example, more equality means better health and less health spending.

Health spending is broadly speaking the result of a success- people living longer because they're healthier. I've heard of the lump of labour fallacy, this is the lump of healthiness fallacy. People don't think "fuck it, I'm 85, good innings, not going to use doctors or hospitals! save the money!" Health spending needs prevention and treatment, same as it ever was.

We need state investment, but we need to stop corporate losers lobbying governments to invest in carbon capture and storage, HS2 and overpriced nuclear power.

What's his solution to polluting industrial processes? Or rail capacity on the busiest mainlines? Or electricity baseload? From somebody who mentions decarbonization a lot, he must have them, right?

We should stop thinking of business as being all about entrepreneurship and “wealth creation”, given that many are neither entrepreneurial nor creating shared wealth.

What's the policy here? Changing words? Is entrepreneurship good or bad? Back to my old friends againe. They'd not describe themselves as entrepreneurs, far from it. So bad, right? Or good? I can't keep up.

If we want a more equal, more effective, more efficient and happier Britain, we can have it – even with no growth or lower GDP. But we need to want it, and to have a party that is committed to achieving this and fighting those who stand in its way. Most importantly, any form of national renewal needs new thinking, not doubling down on the failed nostrums of the last 40 years.

Getting poorer is a brilliant electoral strategy, why can't governments see this?

"New thinking" though.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Another cracker here.

Why else would it choose to raise employers’ national insurance contributions, which is an indirect tax on working people and wages, unlike VAT or income tax?

Income tax isn't a tax on wages, right.

[Andy McDandy]

If we want a more equal, more effective, more efficient and happier Britain, we can have it – even with no growth or lower GDP. But we need to want it, and to have a party that is committed to achieving this and fighting those who stand in its way. Most importantly, any form of national renewal needs new thinking, not doubling down on the failed nostrums of the last 40 years.

And I want to shag Cara Deleveingne with Victoria Smurfit lined up for afters. Ain't going to happen though.

Two small problems with his vision - no bugger will vote for it, and people don't want "happy". They want "happier than".

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'd bet a good amount of money that falling incomes wouldn't make people very happy. He can volunteer for a pay cut if he thinks incomes don't matter.