5 ms·

The fact that they were elected as a 'change' government and have barely done anything that really faces up to the scale of the challenge the country faces? If

The fact that they were elected as a 'change' government and have barely done anything that really faces up to the scale of the challenge the country faces? If you're below the age of about 55, then the budget did absolutely nothing for you except put taxes up, and not even to improve services. I appreciate things time but so far the government have enormously walked back their planning reform proposals, which was one of their few pro-growth policies, and haven't really made any dent in anything else substantive. It's been pretty clear since even before the election that they didn't really have a plan, and they got a fairly light scrutiny through the campaign because the Tories were so appalling. Then since they got in they're just scrambling around looking fairly incompetent and the dearth of talent on the cabinet has been pretty plain to see as well. Largely I want Labour to succeed but they're not making it easy to like them.

louthy 10mo ago
I don’t disagree with any of that, but the vitriol doesn’t match the disappointment imho. Especially as they’ve done pretty well in other areas. I realise “it’s the economy, stupid”, but still it feels like outsized outrage.
- mytailorisrich 10mo ago
  The public do not see or agree that they have done well in any areas, hence their appallingly low popularity. And that was before this budget announcement. It does not take a crystal ball to understand that the British media, which are vitriolic on a good day, will have an absolute free-for-all. It's nothing new.
- qcnguy 10mo ago
  Starmer was already the most unpopular PM on record before the budget, and Labour's voting intention is the lowest it's ever been. It's just a really, really unpopular government so of course it gets a lot of attacks.
  - dfawcus 10mo ago
    Well even at the GE, his party was less popular than the previous offer by Corbyn. Labour only really got in because of the collapse of the Tory vote. 2019 GE Votes Labour: 10,269,051 22% R 32% T Tory: 13,966,454 29% R 44% T LibDem: 3,696,419 8% R 12% T 2024 GE Votes Labour: 9,708,716 20% R 34% T Tory: 6,828,925 14% R 24% T LibDem: 3,519,143 7% R 12% T Also % Registered, % Turnout So that he got even more unpopular seemed a given, unless he managed to be competent and actually improve things for the people who elected his party.
exasperaited 10mo ago
> The fact that they were elected as a 'change' government and have barely done anything that really faces up to the scale of the challenge the country faces? They have done a lot. But they haven't even stopped the runaway train yet. And the fundamental mistake they have made is not explaining to people clearly enough, during the election campaign, that it would take the first three years just to stop it. Then you have the absolutely shameful, racist, nihilistic, fact-free intervention of five MPs that the media thinks will run the country in future so they are getting ten times the airtime of anyone else.
- physicsguy 10mo ago
  > They have done a lot. I really don’t agree. Look at the first year of 1997 Labour: * Good Friday agreement signed and referendum * Introduction of Minimum Wage * Human Rights act introduced and passed * Scottish and Welsh devolution set out, Parliament voted on it, referendums passed * Bank of England independence A government coming into a mess of a country on a platform of change cannot just fiddle around with minor things, which is what many of the changes they have done, though positive, are. And at the same time, they’ve also wasted so much political capital on some really stupid things that it’s hard to see where they can go from here.
  - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
    Yes and I'd argue that this is because they have not been elected on merit but because the people rejected the Tories. I believe that Corbyn got more votes than Starmer! They have neither talents nor a plan. So far it seems that Starmer has picked policies to make him survive and he knows that this means placating power bases in the Labour party, not generally good policies for the country. Opinion polls are scathing.
  - squidbeak 10mo ago
    This is an unfair comparison. The economy Blair inherited was very different, thanks to Ken Clark's preoccupation with eliminating the 'Public Sector Borrowing Requirement'. The pressure on public finances we see now, in part because of privatization under Blair, wasn't there in 1997.
graemep 10mo ago
I largely agree, expect I think my expectations were lower than yours to start with. The ruling class all think alike regardless of party. They have pushed ahead with the Tories Online Safety Act. Legislation I have looked at or that affect things I know about such as the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act is terrible. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors. For example, if you assume the justification for the "mansion tax" is that people who own higher value properties should be taxed more, why does someone with a £50m house not pay more than someone with a £5m house? Its designed to hit the moderately wealthy but not the really rich.
- teamonkey 10mo ago
  Although I agree it should be proportional to value, a £5M property puts you in the top 1% of property prices in the country. Even within London, it’s also within the top 1% of all but the most expensive boroughs. The average home property sale in the UK is less than £275,000. A tax on a £5M home is not a tax on the moderately wealthy, it’s a tax on the wealthy.
- toyg 10mo ago
  No, it's designed to maximize what they can raise without pissing off too many voters. Even as it is, it's going to raise barely half a billion pounds, which is relatively insignificant in a budget worth hundreds of billions; but it's something, and something they (think they) can sell to their core electorate as a bit of token redistribution, when in reality it's just a cash-raising exercise. If they'd targeted the really rich harder, it would have looked more consistent but would have probably raised even less (because, when a tax starts being significant, the really rich have the means to find ways to avoid it). As it is, it looks insignificant enough that the really wealthy will just pay it and move on.
  - graemep 10mo ago
    > because, when a tax starts being significant, the really rich have the means to find ways to avoid it Taxes on property are something they cannot avoid though. One of the reasons the rich are able to find means to avoid taxes has always been government reluctance to stop them. There are many deliberate tax breaks for the rich - think of how long it took to get rid of non-dom status, so I really do not think the government has ever tried very hard to stop avoidance by the rich.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
teamonkey 10mo ago
They have done a lot of sensible, boring things that are objectively positive but are going largely going unnoticed (plus of course a few massive footguns that make the headlines). I keep recommending r/GoodNewsUK on Reddit. It’s often just a lot of press releases and government announcements, but there seem to be a continual stream of them, and it’s hard to hear about them by any other source.
- hdgvhicv 10mo ago
  It’s telling the outrage over the stamp duty cockup of Rayner (which had it been sold a couple of weeks later wouldn’t have been a problem), and near silence of the stamp duty evasion of Farage. Farage’s mate - the leader of Reform Wales, was literally thrown in jail for 10 Years after he admitted she was a Russian agent. Barely anything in the media about it. Due to the way FPTP works though it’s likely Farage will get a majority in 29 off less than 30% of the vote.
hdgvhicv 10mo ago
It put up my taxes a little with the NI removal of pension contributions. It put my employers tax up a ton though. The freezing of threshold just continued Tory policy. While I’m annoyed the extra money has been given to those who don’t work, and marginal rates advice 60% still exist, I just see this as lost opportunity. They could have increased income tax and reduced NI, thus raising tax on non working people. But truth is all governments are beholden to the elderly for the next 20 years. However the attacks on reeves have been vitriolic since the start and there’s a significant amount of misogyny in them.

louthy 10mo ago

I don’t disagree with any of that, but the vitriol doesn’t match the disappointment imho. Especially as they’ve done pretty well in other areas. I realise “it’s the economy, stupid”, but still it feels like outsized outrage.

mytailorisrich 10mo ago
The public do not see or agree that they have done well in any areas, hence their appallingly low popularity. And that was before this budget announcement. It does not take a crystal ball to understand that the British media, which are vitriolic on a good day, will have an absolute free-for-all. It's nothing new.
qcnguy 10mo ago
Starmer was already the most unpopular PM on record before the budget, and Labour's voting intention is the lowest it's ever been. It's just a really, really unpopular government so of course it gets a lot of attacks.
- dfawcus 10mo ago
  Well even at the GE, his party was less popular than the previous offer by Corbyn. Labour only really got in because of the collapse of the Tory vote. 2019 GE Votes Labour: 10,269,051 22% R 32% T Tory: 13,966,454 29% R 44% T LibDem: 3,696,419 8% R 12% T 2024 GE Votes Labour: 9,708,716 20% R 34% T Tory: 6,828,925 14% R 24% T LibDem: 3,519,143 7% R 12% T Also % Registered, % Turnout So that he got even more unpopular seemed a given, unless he managed to be competent and actually improve things for the people who elected his party.

exasperaited 10mo ago

> The fact that they were elected as a 'change' government and have barely done anything that really faces up to the scale of the challenge the country faces? They have done a lot. But they haven't even stopped the runaway train yet. And the fundamental mistake they have made is not explaining to people clearly enough, during the election campaign, that it would take the first three years just to stop it. Then you have the absolutely shameful, racist, nihilistic, fact-free intervention of five MPs that the media thinks will run the country in future so they are getting ten times the airtime of anyone else.

physicsguy 10mo ago
> They have done a lot. I really don’t agree. Look at the first year of 1997 Labour: * Good Friday agreement signed and referendum * Introduction of Minimum Wage * Human Rights act introduced and passed * Scottish and Welsh devolution set out, Parliament voted on it, referendums passed * Bank of England independence A government coming into a mess of a country on a platform of change cannot just fiddle around with minor things, which is what many of the changes they have done, though positive, are. And at the same time, they’ve also wasted so much political capital on some really stupid things that it’s hard to see where they can go from here.
- mytailorisrich 10mo ago
  Yes and I'd argue that this is because they have not been elected on merit but because the people rejected the Tories. I believe that Corbyn got more votes than Starmer! They have neither talents nor a plan. So far it seems that Starmer has picked policies to make him survive and he knows that this means placating power bases in the Labour party, not generally good policies for the country. Opinion polls are scathing.
- squidbeak 10mo ago
  This is an unfair comparison. The economy Blair inherited was very different, thanks to Ken Clark's preoccupation with eliminating the 'Public Sector Borrowing Requirement'. The pressure on public finances we see now, in part because of privatization under Blair, wasn't there in 1997.

graemep 10mo ago

I largely agree, expect I think my expectations were lower than yours to start with. The ruling class all think alike regardless of party. They have pushed ahead with the Tories Online Safety Act. Legislation I have looked at or that affect things I know about such as the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act is terrible. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors. For example, if you assume the justification for the "mansion tax" is that people who own higher value properties should be taxed more, why does someone with a £50m house not pay more than someone with a £5m house? Its designed to hit the moderately wealthy but not the really rich.

teamonkey 10mo ago
Although I agree it should be proportional to value, a £5M property puts you in the top 1% of property prices in the country. Even within London, it’s also within the top 1% of all but the most expensive boroughs. The average home property sale in the UK is less than £275,000. A tax on a £5M home is not a tax on the moderately wealthy, it’s a tax on the wealthy.
toyg 10mo ago
No, it's designed to maximize what they can raise without pissing off too many voters. Even as it is, it's going to raise barely half a billion pounds, which is relatively insignificant in a budget worth hundreds of billions; but it's something, and something they (think they) can sell to their core electorate as a bit of token redistribution, when in reality it's just a cash-raising exercise. If they'd targeted the really rich harder, it would have looked more consistent but would have probably raised even less (because, when a tax starts being significant, the really rich have the means to find ways to avoid it). As it is, it looks insignificant enough that the really wealthy will just pay it and move on.
- graemep 10mo ago
  > because, when a tax starts being significant, the really rich have the means to find ways to avoid it Taxes on property are something they cannot avoid though. One of the reasons the rich are able to find means to avoid taxes has always been government reluctance to stop them. There are many deliberate tax breaks for the rich - think of how long it took to get rid of non-dom status, so I really do not think the government has ever tried very hard to stop avoidance by the rich.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

teamonkey 10mo ago

They have done a lot of sensible, boring things that are objectively positive but are going largely going unnoticed (plus of course a few massive footguns that make the headlines). I keep recommending r/GoodNewsUK on Reddit. It’s often just a lot of press releases and government announcements, but there seem to be a continual stream of them, and it’s hard to hear about them by any other source.

hdgvhicv 10mo ago
It’s telling the outrage over the stamp duty cockup of Rayner (which had it been sold a couple of weeks later wouldn’t have been a problem), and near silence of the stamp duty evasion of Farage. Farage’s mate - the leader of Reform Wales, was literally thrown in jail for 10 Years after he admitted she was a Russian agent. Barely anything in the media about it. Due to the way FPTP works though it’s likely Farage will get a majority in 29 off less than 30% of the vote.

hdgvhicv 10mo ago

It put up my taxes a little with the NI removal of pension contributions. It put my employers tax up a ton though. The freezing of threshold just continued Tory policy. While I’m annoyed the extra money has been given to those who don’t work, and marginal rates advice 60% still exist, I just see this as lost opportunity. They could have increased income tax and reduced NI, thus raising tax on non working people. But truth is all governments are beholden to the elderly for the next 20 years. However the attacks on reeves have been vitriolic since the start and there’s a significant amount of misogyny in them.